Problems with firearms?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

My question is, if you want your characters to not rely on hit points, why do the characters have enough hit points to suck up MG fire in the first place? If you want to play "Full Metal Jacket" the RPG, then your characters should be low level and, thus, totally vulnerable.

"Low level" brings in a great many things. It limits skills, making tasks more random in outcome, as well as limiting the scope of character abilities. it limits saves, it limits accuracies in attacks.

In other words, sure, keeping everyone at levels 1-3 would drastically adjust the lethality of attacks, but it would ALSO drastically alter every other aspect of the character as well.

Thats what i call a sloppy scope solution. It sixes a relatively narrow problem but at the same time changes/alters/affects a ton of other stuff.

Its much much simpler, and much tighter in terms of consequences, to just make an alteration that directly and distinctly and discreetly affects only the problem area. (In this case, how much threat attacks are.)

Look at Tom Hanks in SPR. He runs across a beach in full view of German MG42s, he steps out in front of one to draw fire, he charges another MG with grenades, stands out in the open in front of a German HT and attacks a T-34 with a pistol. Are these "realistic" behaviors?

Note: He died.

A player may be thinking, "hey, that MG only does 2d10 points of damage and I have 40 hps left. I guess I'll charge that MG bunker with a grenade." However, the -character- is probably thinking, "That MG is holding up the entire invasion and killing lots of good men. I need to take it out NOW. I'll charge that MG bunker with a grenade." Just because a player is not concerned with the lethality of a particular weapon, doesn't mean the characters isn't concerened. He just has confidence in his ability (or, more likely, luck). Today is not my day to die.

Which is quite heroic if the character's impression is right and the threat of death is their and actually likely. Its not heroic at all if the real result is that it wont kill him or even seriously hurt him barring a sequence of bad rolls in a row. At that point, its just minmaxing and playing the odds.

On the other hand, if the character is at risk, options like throwing smoke, having others cause a distraction to draw fire, and (in player terms) burning action dice/action points/hero points would seem apropos.

Once a character hits 6th level or so, he is no longer operating under the laws of nature.

So if the sixth level soldier wants to fly and pass through walls, thats OK? Teleporting to the bunker and dropping the grenade in would be mighty heroic. How about that?

When attempting to come up with realistic behaving weapon, you must concern yourself with normal people who have less than 15 hps. Saying that a 20th level character with 100 hps can survive up a LAW hit, therefore a LAW must do 110 points of damage is totally missing the point.

Why? Its a nice theory. It might even be a fairly accurate description of "the way the rules are written" but why does this have to be so? Why is it a universal truth?

Why does being very good at computers HAVE to also come with "can jump off tall building and soak the hit points"? Why does being a damn good shot also have to come with "and the LAW round itched a little but a little ointment and i am fine"?

IMG, the difference in threat does not go down heavily with level. My character will not, at 15th level, be able to just take a hit and laugh it off from weapons that are threats now at level 5. They will be a little tougher, not much. They will of course by 15th have higher BDB, higher BAB, higher skills, more feats and be a lot more capable of avoiding the threats... but when the hit is a hit, they will be only a little less hurting than they were at 5th.

So, instead of them taking the bullets, they will be more likely to spot the ambush, to get the drop on the guy, be harder to get hit due to better combat maneuvering, be more apt to score the hits at longer ranges, etc etc etc... all the hallmarks of seasoned warriors/adventurers in action films dealing with grunts.

For whatever reason, so far, my guys seem to like that style of "showing superiority of the PCs" to the "Mongo can just take more hits and keep going" style of showing it.

So, while it sounds nice and all, i do not accept that by even low levels like 5th or so the characters are madated into superhuman defy laws of physics levels, especially when it comes to taking damage.

YMMV

 

[VirgilCaine]

So if the sixth level soldier wants to fly and pass through walls, thats OK? Teleporting to the bunker and dropping the grenade in would be mighty heroic. How about that?

He meant that above 5th level, characters are so tough as to be very unrealistic.

 

[danzig138]

That's actually wrong, a lethal attack has to exceed the Massive Damage Threshold in order to trigger the saving throw.

Unless you're a creature; then it applies if the damage is equal to or greater than your Constitution. Page 224; Wonder if one of them is a typo? My players would like to know if they get that extra point or not.

 

[Spatula]

Unless you're a creature; then it applies if the damage is equal to or greater than your Constitution. Page 224; Wonder if one of them is a typo? My players would like to know if they get that extra point or not.

Huh, look at that. Never noticed that before.

 

[Aaron2]

"Low level" brings in a great many things. It limits skills, making tasks more random in outcome, as well as limiting the scope of character abilities. it limits saves, it limits accuracies in attacks.

Is a +4 skill trying for a DC 20 any more random than a +14 skill trying for a DC 30?

In other words, sure, keeping everyone at levels 1-3 would drastically adjust the lethality of attacks, but it would ALSO drastically alter every other aspect of the character as well.

Thats what i call a sloppy scope solution. It sixes a relatively narrow problem but at the same time changes/alters/affects a ton of other stuff.

Its much much simpler, and much tighter in terms of consequences, to just make an alteration that directly and distinctly and discreetly affects only the problem area. (In this case, how much threat attacks are.)

There is one problem ... If weapon damage makes weapons lethal for 10th level characters, they still won't be for 20th level character. There will always be a point with which you have to draw the line. It seems to me that with the base rules, that line is drawn around 6th level (where you can start to ignore some threats). That line may not be to everyone's liking, but where it is isn't a question of realism but more a question of play style. A combat system balanced for 2nd level may be totally realistic at second level but not when the average flunky is 8th.

Note: He died.

Only after all the above activities. He didn't die from some random bullet in the first scene. That's what the wear down of hps represents a gradual rather than sudden death; one that can, somewhat, be forseen.

Which is quite heroic if the character's impression is right and the threat of death is their and actually likely. Its not heroic at all if the real result is that it wont kill him or even seriously hurt him barring a sequence of bad rolls in a row. At that point, its just minmaxing and playing the odds.

On the other hand, if the character is at risk, options like throwing smoke, having others cause a distraction to draw fire, and (in player terms) burning action dice/action points/hero points would seem apropos.

Players will always avoid damage if neccessary simply because they never know what is coming up next. Our hero may charge the MG nest, take 35 points of damage and be ok but will his remaining 5 hps be enough to tackle the 88s later on?

Why? Its a nice theory. It might even be a fairly accurate description of "the way the rules are written" but why does this have to be so? Why is it a universal truth?

Yes, primarily because you don't want a player who has been building up a character for over a year to lose him to some random flunky because you've been playing for 5 hours, its late and he forgot to look under the car where said flunky was hiding.

Why does being very good at computers HAVE to also come with "can jump off tall building and soak the hit points"? Why does being a damn good shot also have to come with "and the LAW round itched a little but a little ointment and i am fine"?

This is a good question. However, do you want your computer geek Marshall to be able to crack any computer within 15 seconds while your field ops, Sydney and Vaughn, die before they can make it to the computer room? The max rank attempts to balance combat and non-combat abilities and can be adjusted without major changes to the rest of the rules. Also, making characters roll for first level hps and lowering character's abilities scores can each affect the balance between combat and non-combat. One problem I have with d20 Modern is it pretty much assumes that 3rd level is the base level for character yet the combat system is still balanced for first level characters.

So, instead of them taking the bullets, they will be more likely to spot the ambush, to get the drop on the guy, be harder to get hit due to better combat maneuvering, be more apt to score the hits at longer ranges, etc etc etc... all the hallmarks of seasoned warriors/adventurers in action films dealing with grunts.

All this can still be done when weapon damage is in the 1d10-2d12 range.


Aaron

 

[IllusionaryLunch]

On a related note: As you can tell, I already have a workable d20 combat system that seems to me preferable to that in WotC's d20 modern.

However I'd like to run some modern-setting d20 soon, probably a realistic modern-warfare type game, and I'm not sure what character generation rules to use. Possibilities include:

d20 Modern - "Fast Heroes" etc - Possiblty too cinematic & well, Buffyesque?

Travellerd20 - "Army" "Marines" etc careers - gritty, maybe not sufficiently designed for modern-day? Uses a Stamina & Wound Points system that would mess with m y firearm damages.

Call of Cthulu d20 - hmm. PCs are very generic and rather weak.

Do my own - would need to create new 'modern' character classs. Hmm.

Any thoughts? Good alternatives?

The answer to so many of these problems seems to be fairly easy for me - play Spycraft. The action can go easily from war film grittiness to action hero insanity.

The weapons in the Modern Arms Guide are well written and descriptive (although it does need an index) and damage is realistic and balanced.

And don't get me started on the chase rules which, in all honesty, blows anything else that I have read out of the water.

Then there are imaginatively written classes that allow you to make nigh on any sort of character that you want (and that's just the Pointman!), and feats that you look at and say "I want one of everything".

There's power armour rules, psions and mystic powers (and a new book full of them due out soon!)

But we're talking about wat's wrong with firearms here, aren't we. Well, just take a look at how the Spycraft stuff works - the MAGex, for example. On top of this there are rules from all sorts of actions from crawling and kneeling through to aiming and bracing. There's even actions and a few pages of text related to using cameras!

Now, if i were using, for instance, spycraft's system (stargate specifically) where ammo has no weight and its a cinch for even a moderate level character to walk around with 1000 rounds of ammo or more and feel no encumbrance limitations, I might be needing a different mechanic.

Or, and tell me if I'm just talking through my hat here, you could just give them a weight. Just y'know, pull a number out of the air and say "20 bullets weigh X lbs". It's not difficult, or require much in the way of imagination.

 

[Aaron2]

The answer to so many of these problems seems to be fairly easy for me - play Spycraft. The action can go easily from war film grittiness to action hero insanity.

I'm not fond of the way Spycraft handles autofire. The Burst Ability and the Strafe ability do similar things (either a bonus to hit or a penalty to hit with bonus damage) but use entirely different mechanics. I can't ignore the bullet counting nonsense of the Strafe attack. I don't like that method in Champions either.

For grins, I made a chart of how the various d20 rules handle autofire.

http://jtjaguar.home.texas.net/Autofire.html

And don't get me started on the chase rules which, in all honesty, blows anything else that I have read out of the water.

I don't remember... Are the chase rules in the main rulebook or the Wheelman book?


Aaron

 

[IllusionaryLunch]

I don't remember... Are the chase rules in the main rulebook or the Wheelman book?

In main book, updated with more options in Soldier/Wheelman.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Is a +4 skill trying for a DC 20 any more random than a +14 skill trying for a DC 30?

No, but what praytell does this have to do with what i said?

Are you suggesting that at 14th levels the dcs will automatically have risen to keep the die roll as random?

Thats not how it works in my games.

At higher levels tasks which earlier were dicey, challenging and risky are, if you worked at it, now no problem. Spotting the rookies sitting in ambush is now an easily made check. hiding yourself to ambush a patrol is not that hard anymore. The cell lock in a typical cell is no longer a pipe dream to pick. Stopping the bleeding of your comrade is a cinch, as opposed to an "ohmygodwillisavehimintime?" Vlimbing down the wall quietly will be more or les a cake walk.

In addition to those old things now easy, there will be things you will now consider trying that you would not before.

isn't that how your games work?

There is one problem ... If weapon damage makes weapons lethal for 10th level characters, they still won't be for 20th level character. There will always be a point with which you have to draw the line. It seems to me that with the base rules, that line is drawn around 6th level (where you can start to ignore some threats). That line may not be to everyone's liking, but where it is isn't a question of realism but more a question of play style. A combat system balanced for 2nd level may be totally realistic at second level but not when the average flunky is 8th.

certainly, a system can be designed to be "ok" at second and "not OK" at 10th.

it just doesn't have to be. Thats what i am saying.

Only after all the above activities. He didn't die from some random bullet in the first scene. That's what the wear down of hps represents a gradual rather than sudden death; one that can, somewhat, be forseen.

lethal threats does not, in spite of all the propoganda to the contrary, lead one inevitably to random bullets killing your heroes in the first scene.

The sooner you take that straw man and ditch him, the sooner you will understand what i am saying.

Players will always avoid damage if neccessary simply because they never know what is coming up next. Our hero may charge the MG nest, take 35 points of damage and be ok but will his remaining 5 hps be enough to tackle the 88s later on?

Ok, hogwash.

not to put too fine a point on it, but any statement that starts with "players will always" starts with a level of nonsense as to be nothing more than laughable.

if in thw world you game in players always do things... thats good. have a nice day.

Yes, primarily because you don't want a player who has been building up a character for over a year to lose him to some random flunky because you've been playing for 5 hours, its late and he forgot to look under the car where said flunky was hiding.

Again, lethal threat, lethal potential does not equate to or mandate random or indiscriminate killing off of PCs.

This is a good question. However, do you want your computer geek Marshall to be able to crack any computer within 15 seconds while your field ops, Sydney and Vaughn, die before they can make it to the computer room?

Nope, nor do i have to assume sydney and vaugh need to defy physics and become superhuman in order to avoid this.

The max rank attempts to balance combat and non-combat abilities and can be adjusted without major changes to the rest of the rules.

max ranks is one little piece. if i wanted to try this low levels only to solve the hit points, i not only would need to change skill caps but also skills per level and feats and all the rest.

really, look, if you want to go this route of changing everything else to fic damage without changing damage... thats cool.

me, i am a rather simple guy and when i see a problem in the damage system, my first buttdumb redneck self looks at fixing the damage system with changes to it, and not changes to everything but it.

All this can still be done when weapon damage is in the 1d10-2d12 range.

Thas a nice claim.

So was the whole WMD in iraq thingy.

 

[swrushing]

Or, and tell me if I'm just talking through my hat here, you could just give them a weight. Just y'know, pull a number out of the air and say "20 bullets weigh X lbs". It's not difficult, or require much in the way of imagination.

Obviously, and i did. i started with the p90 sites specs.

But the question is not "can I?" but "why couldn't they?"

lets ask this another way... their encumbrance system expects me to track for encumbrance purposes gear including things like bottle of purification tablets for 1/2 lb but deliberately chooses to make the 1000 rounds of ammo weightless.

What in the world is the reasoning or rationale for this decision?

The question goes to the assessment of the system. What other decisions were made with similar reasoning?

Anyway, onto more serious notes, the ammo issue really having no real wieght... pun...sorry...

I too find the stargate autofire rules too contrived and rather unacceptable.

Dont get me wrong... the d20 core rules presented in stargate are IMO the best i have seen. The wp/vp system is woefully inconsistent IMo but that was not really unexpected, they would never choose to stray far from their spucraft engine.

Their source books so far for stargate are top drawer.