Modern20 and multiple attacks (Help Charles Rice!)

[Terramotus]

I'm hoping for an offical answer on this question from Mr. Charles Rice, since I know he frequents these boards.

I'm running a Modern20 game (with Interface Zero and a homebrew psionics system), and I have a question about how the Firearms skill mitigates the penalties for using multiple attacks.

I have a player who's playing a 2nd level character with 20 dex, a profession that grants +2 ranks to the Firearms skill, has max normal ranks, and the Specialist and Teamwork feats, which grant a respective +6 to Firearms (in his case), and a +2 to all skill checks when working with his team. This grants him, in total, a +20 modifier to Firearms skill checks. Not bad at all for a 2nd level character. He also has the Burst Fire perk.

Here's the problem. The chart on page 38 lists "Firearms Skill" as the stat that mitigates penalties for multiple attacks. His contention is that the gets to use his entire bonus for determining placement on the chart, meaning that with an M16, he can fire his 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attack with no penalties, and a -5 and -10 for the 4th and 5th attacks, respectively.

I contend that, just like every nearly other chart in the Skills chapter, it refers to ranks, not total skill bonus, and that "skill" is not normal terminology in OGL games, that it's either "ranks" or "skill bonus". I figured that it was just an oversight in the book in not labeling it as ranks. Thus, his attack modifiers would be -0, -3, -8, -13, -19.

We have pored over the chapter and can find no references in the actual text anywhere in the book that settles the issue to both of our satisfaction.

Let me sum up the arguments...

In favor of Ranks

• Granting 3 attacks with no penalties to 2nd level characters is insanity. No low level character should ever have that power.
• All of the charts in the chapter except for Firearms, Weapons, and Unarmed use ranks. Those three are very similar and were likely copied from the same source, duplicating the mistake.
• The chart uses the same numerical scaling as all of the other charts that use ranks, including topping out at 23, which would be when a 20th level character would reach that point (without occupations).
• Specialization would be too good if it applied towards multiple attack penalty mitigation. No character should EVER not take it for Firearms. That's way out of whack for a single feat.

In favor of Skill Bonus

• Within the Firearms (and Weapons and Unarmed) section, there are two charts. One lists Ranks, the other lists Skill, and it would say Ranks. With no contradiction in the text, the RAW is that it uses skill bonus.
• Specialization represents a true focus on a skill, and thus it is appropriate for a low level character to achieve such a high level of proficiency. In other words, level is not representative of expertise.

Most importantly, I would ask as a GM, if it does, in fact use the full skill bonus, why was this route chosen? In other words, why should I not just use GM fiat to have multiple attacks use Ranks, if I am proven wrong as to the original intent?

In practice, running this as skill bonus has lead to a single player finishing off entire fights before any of the other team gets to go. I can't even effectively fight back, since building NPCs the same way will result in a TPK the first time the party loses initiative. Adding more enemies would also result in a TPK.

Thanks.

 

[Vigilance]

You are correct, it is ranks and not bonus, and this applies for every use of the Firearms skill (burst fire, double tap, called shot).

However, his profession "phantom" ranks will help him out, so he should have 7 ranks at 2nd level.

One thing I tried really hard to do in Modern20 was balance the usefulness of spraying the air with bullets, against one, well-aimed shot. For this character, he's going to be reasonably accurate with the first two shots, and then go downhill quickly.

If limited ammo is a concern, double tap might be a better fit until the character rises in level a bit.

One of the reason for feats like Guru and Specialist is that skill checks are less important in Modern20 than most OGL games, so if you've built a character around something that requires a skill check, you can invest in being really good at that check.

I'd let the player dump the specialist feat, if he took it for Burst Fire, which it seems he did, because he will probably never need to make a skill check for that.

 

[Terramotus]

Thanks for the response! That helps immensely.

While you're here, we came up with a few more questions this morning about Injuries...

On page 104, the DC for the save against damage seems rather... intense. Particularly since the attacker is always going to have a high roll, since he hit by at least 5.

According to the book, "The DC of this saving throw is the attack roll of the attack that inflicted the injury +10." This seems to provide a situation that the save is only going to be made by the victim on a natural 20, and most often a situation where limbs are being blown off all over the place, since even matching your attacker's attack roll (which probably means rolling a 17-19) means you'll be taking an extensive injury due to the +10, and doing any worse than that (which is likely), will lead to far worse.

We were thinking that maybe the +10 was a typo, as it seems to make a lot more sense, while still being extremely dangerous without that.

Also, from the way we were reading the rules, there doesn't seem to be any provision for mitigating injuries due to armor. For example, a heavily armored character might take 5 points of damage, mitigate it all with armor, taking no damage, but still be subject to an injury roll that could lead to serious injuries. That seems a bit off. Is there something in the rules we were missing?

We were considering applying the armor DR value as a bonus to the save against the injury.

 

[Vigilance]

A couple things to keep in mind: first, injuries are supposed to hurt, which is why they're an optional rule. They're there specifically for folks who want to make combat a lot dicier.

Second, no, there's no typo in the description, the save is very tough. Two things to consider:

First, Defense scales with level, just like saving throws. So sure, you might need a a very high save, but the attacker is going to need a very high attack roll to force that save.

Second, it's not a "save or die" type save. If you fail a save by 5 or less, you're still going to be combat-effective, at least after you get a little first aid. If you fail by -6 or more, than you're seriously hurt and likely due for a tough time the rest of the adventure.

Again, this is completely by design. If you're using those tables, you want your firefights to resemble Black Hawk Down, where guys get shot and GO DOWN. If they're lucky, they just get half their foot blown off and limp around for the rest of their lives, if not, you're the guy on the table with a clamp on his femoral artery.

If you want a where a single lucky shot can't mess characters up, then you should keep the damage modifier from Hit Location, but ignore injuries. They're there for gritty games.

Armor mitigates damage, but not injuries. It's assumed that an injury is a serious blow that has hit a weak spot in your armor, or blown through it.

If an attack inflicted no damage, I'd rule it couldn't inflict an injury either, but given the damage inflicted by guns, that's never been an issue in an actual firefight.

As for the numbers, it's not quite as bad as you make out. It's bad, don't get me wrong. These rules are for those who want dangerous, nasty firefights, but let's look at this scenario:

10th level Powerhouse, vs. 10th level Speedfreak. This makes the math easier, cause BAB and Defense bonus are both +10.

This means the Powerhouse needs a modified 25 to inflict an injury against his opponent's 20 Defense.

The Speedfreak thus needs a modified 25 to only suffer a mild injury, meaning he needs to roll a 20.

However, he only needs a 15 or higher to survive the hit with a serious injury. This is the same 15 or higher his opponent needed to inflict an injury.

But yes, injuries are serious business, by design. They're meant to make Modern20 less of an action game and a much more gritty, earthy experience.

 

[Terramotus]

As for the numbers, it's not quite as bad as you make out. It's bad, don't get me wrong. These rules are for those who want dangerous, nasty firefights, but let's look at this scenario:

10th level Powerhouse, vs. 10th level Speedfreak. This makes the math easier, cause BAB and Defense bonus are both +10.

This means the Powerhouse needs a modified 25 to inflict an injury against his opponent's 20 Defense.

The Speedfreak thus needs a modified 25 to only suffer a mild injury, meaning he needs to roll a 20.

However, he only needs a 15 or higher to survive the hit with a serious injury. This is the same 15 or higher his opponent needed to inflict an injury.

Ahhh... I misunderstood things. I was thinking that the DC was the total attack roll - dice + modifiers + 10, meaning that the DC would be a 35, and that if the Speedfreak failed to roll a 20 (granting automatic success), he would then automatically fail the roll by 16, putting him automatically at an intensive injury. It seemed like the lower levels of injury were impossible to ever achieve.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the maximum the DC could ever be is 30 - a natural 20 + 10, and thus as characters level up and their Fort saves increase, they'll be harder to seriously injure. Is that correct?

Thanks so much for the responses!