Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terramotus" data-source="post: 5053221" data-attributes="member: 7220">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<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Granting 3 attacks with no penalties to 2nd level characters is insanity.  No low level character should ever have that power.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>In favor of Skill Bonus<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>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.</blockquote>

Verification