Problems with firearms?

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm not a huge "realism" nut. Usually, the people who come to my table complaining about realism are just those seduced by "The Myth of the Gun".

As a game-master, I appreciate the streamlined nature of D20 Modern and gunplay/combat. I'm also a big fan of the Wealth system, for just that reason.

Even if combat plays a big part in the game, I think it's still secondary ... the story is what I try to highlight, and when people need to pour over rules trying to eek the best possible whatever out of anything, it slows down my game.

I hate when my game slows down.

YMWV, of course, but I like that these rules smack down the people who come to the table wanting to make Super Machine Gun And Sniper With Explosives Guy ... I've got one of those guys. He wouldn't listen, even though I told him three times that A) My game didn't focus on combat and B) the rules as written meant he wasn't going to get alot of mileage out of trying to twink out with a Barret and home-made TNT and toting around a machine-gun.

His character is currently totally crippled when it comes to doing anything that doesn't involve trying to blow stuff up or shoot it. And yet, in the end, he only has 2-3 more options in a combat situation than the other characters in the group, all of whom focused on skills and role-playing oriented abilities.

Combat is lethal ... with the MDT saves and average damage of weapons, characters can and will get killed. Hamstringing yourself for a Barret Light 50 only gets you 2 more average damage over the guy that took PFAP and a Beretta. It doesn't mean that things like that aren't viable, it just means that there's no point, outside of a military game, to cripple other abilities FOR those abilities. I'm sure he'll do more damage than anybody else in the game, and can snipe and whatnot, but in the end, just as many mooks will go down from the 2d6 damage from the Beretta carried by the psychic P.I.. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet is a bullet.


--fje

 

[ledded]

<snip>The real advantage is not in the amount of damaged caused but rather in the ability to cause it a great range.
Now: You throw in automatic weapons & the modern firearm will always be more leathal in that for every slash or stab of a sword, you can fire multiple rounds, with higher rates of fire proving even more leathal (mini-guns anyone??)

Stepping of the soapbox now.

Dont forget as an advantage not only range, rate of fire, but ease of use. Using a modern firearm at least with rudimentary ability at close range is not terribly difficult if you have at least a little familiarity (you can turn off the safety and pull the trigger). Using a longsword effectively is actually harder than what most folks believe; it's not just a baseball bat with an edge on it. There is also the ability to parry with a variety of objects, or flat out run away from it. Not so with bullets. So while the wounds are quite comparable as far as overall seriousness, your chances of being seriously wounded by a handgun are probably a good bit higher than some untrained modern-day freak with a longsword.

 

[slingbld]

Dont forget as an advantage not only range, rate of fire, but ease of use. Using a modern firearm at least with rudimentary ability at close range is not terribly difficult if you have at least a little familiarity (you can turn off the safety and pull the trigger). Using a longsword effectively is actually harder than what most folks believe; it's not just a baseball bat with an edge on it. There is also the ability to parry with a variety of objects, or flat out run away from it. Not so with bullets. So while the wounds are quite comparable as far as overall seriousness, your chances of being seriously wounded by a handgun are probably a good bit higher than some untrained modern-day freak with a longsword.

I agree whole heartedly. My wee little soap box session was in response to Ranger REG's mention that he felt a gun or bullet in and of itself does more damage than a sword. I just wanted to point out that a single stab or slash of a sword could arguably be just as if not more effective as a single gunshot. The power of a gun is not in it's indevidual rounds, but rather in it's ability to deliver multiple rounds in a far shorter period of time & at a much greater range.

But if you take a single gunshot wound & compare it with a single thrust from a longsword & the end result will be remarkably the same in terms of damage to the body. One by shock & displacement & the other by old fashioned tearing of enough tissue to equal the same result.

But AYE! I do agree with you that given the choice, a 9mm Gloch with a 13 round clip or a nicely honed lingsword, I'll grab for the gun every time...

 

[ledded]

Well, I still think that you are much more likely to get a serious wound from a firearm round than a longsword, on average, for the reasons I listed above. Sure, a solid body hit from a longsword is going to do a lot of tissue damage, heck even more than some bullets, but your chances of delivering that are much less than the bullet's. There are too many ways to realistically avoid the longsword or make a mistake/miscalculation that could turn an otherwise fatal wound with it to a minor scratch (just making the strike at the wrong angle with your swing can turn an evisceration into a nasty scratch with a bruise), which is governed by quite a few variables like wielder's strength, speed, training, precision, etc.

If you want some good examples, however, of longsword and medieval weaponary damage, find some good sources for the digs done at the Battle of Wisby; I have a periodical with an article done by a researcher of that site and wounds against unarmored opponents like skulls caved in 4 inches or more, missing jawbones, and arms missing at the shoulder abound.

So *on average* I think that a bullet will do more damage, but not because of the actual physics involving tissue displacement, etc, but more because it's more likely that a hit will score a serious wound, and you are more likely to be able (on average) to get off more shots with a semi-automatic with a little better accuracy than a sword wielder with his sword (this is not *always* true, but on average I think it is... there's just not that many expert swordsmen running around in modern times).

As far as actual tissue damage for a well-placed strike, well, having your arm lopped off or your head turned into a canoe vs. taking a .22 short to the shoulder has an obvious difference

 

[swrushing]

FWIW, the autofire rules i use in my game are...

Autofire has double the normal range penalties, -4 per bracket instead of -2.

For hosing down a single target, mark off 10 rounds ammo and make a to-hit roll at +3.

if you miss, masrk off another 10 rounds and add+3 more to the original to-hit roll. See if you hit. if not, mark off 10 more, add +3 more, etc. Continue until you hit or are out of ammo. (Envision this as walking the shots to the target.)

Once you score a hit, roll damage, apply it, see the result.

Then if the target is still standing and you want to continue, mark off 10 more rounds and apply another set of damage.

If you still want to hose him more, mark off 10 more rounds and apply another set of damage... see what happens and...

etc etc etc.

Whenever he falls and/or you stop firing, roll 1d10 for wasted rounds that were fired as you figured out it was time to stop.

This emulates the hose him down until he drops or you run out of ammo.
It uses a lot of ammo for pretty direct benefits. You will get a hit unless you run out of ammo.

A feat reduces the shots per stage from 10 to 8 and reduces the wasted shot roll to 1d6 instead of 1d10.


So far it has worked well.

 

[Krieg]

Oh, a machine gun is actually artillery (indirect fire)? Well, that explains it.

Quasqueton

Serious answer:

It depends upon how it is employed. It is generally recomended to emplace a MG from a defilade position. That means that there is some blocking object between the gunner & the enemy. The defilade protects the gunner from direct enemy fire, but requires the use of an observor to direct the fire. In this case the MG acts as an indirect fire weapon.

With a MG you are essentially looking at two types of fire (in relation to the terrain), "grazing fire" & "plunging fire". Grazing fire is basically when the rounds are traveling parallel to the ground in relation to the target. Plunging fire is when the rounds are impacting directly within the target area. Plunging fire typically occurs when the weapon & the target are at different elevations, or at extreme ranges.

FWIW the beaten zone of the M60E3 was 2 mils...1 mil = 1" per 100 meters. Thus the cone of fire from the M60E3 would be 2" across at 100 meters & 10" across at 500 meters.

 

[Ranger REG]

I agree whole heartedly. My wee little soap box session was in response to Ranger REG's mention that he felt a gun or bullet in and of itself does more damage than a sword. I just wanted to point out that a single stab or slash of a sword could arguably be just as if not more effective as a single gunshot. The power of a gun is not in it's indevidual rounds, but rather in it's ability to deliver multiple rounds in a far shorter period of time & at a much greater range.

But if you take a single gunshot wound & compare it with a single thrust from a longsword & the end result will be remarkably the same in terms of damage to the body. One by shock & displacement & the other by old fashioned tearing of enough tissue to equal the same result.

But AYE! I do agree with you that given the choice, a 9mm Gloch with a 13 round clip or a nicely honed lingsword, I'll grab for the gun every time...

Okay, okay. I concede.

 

[Ranger REG]

FWIW, the autofire rules i use in my game are...

Autofire has double the normal range penalties, -4 per bracket instead of -2.

For hosing down a single target, mark off 10 rounds ammo and make a to-hit roll at +3.

if you miss, masrk off another 10 rounds and add+3 more to the original to-hit roll. See if you hit. if not, mark off 10 more, add +3 more, etc. Continue until you hit or are out of ammo. (Envision this as walking the shots to the target.)

Once you score a hit, roll damage, apply it, see the result.

Then if the target is still standing and you want to continue, mark off 10 more rounds and apply another set of damage.

If you still want to hose him more, mark off 10 more rounds and apply another set of damage... see what happens and...

etc etc etc.

Well, that's, uh ... interesting. Tell me, what's the longest time you spent resolving that one autofire attack? Or does the 10-ammo limit takes up one of the attacks you can do?

 

[S'mon]

Point on bullets - very few bullets 'break apart' on impact - AFAIK softnosed hollow points normally don't, they just 'spread' a bit, which causes somewhat more tissue damage. Bullets designed to actually shatter on impact, dum-dum rounds, are fairly rare as well as being outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Modern ones use viscous gels that are designed to have the bullet fly apart after entering the body. They do huge damage to soft tissue but are ineffective vs armour. The shrapnel effect you can get from high-velocity FMJ rounds is caused by the bullet striking and shattering bone, sending shards of bone through the body. The bullet itself remains intact.

What bullets do do, and what helps cause those big exit wounds, is _tumble_. In tests it's been shown that all bullets, even .50s, will tumble when striking a body, or even just dense brush. Bullets do most of their tissue damage due to this tumble effect, while rotated and travelling 'sideways-on' to their path. This is actually the main reason rifle bullets are so much more damaging than handgun rounds; although kinetic shot effects are a factor, the human body aside from the skull is soft and pretty shock-resistant. Lucky we don't have armoured carapaces or shock effects would be much worse! Thus, big exit wounds are caused by bullets tumbling, and dragging large amounts of tissue out the back of the target when they exit the body. The bullet itself may be deformed somewhat - though an FMJ round striking only soft tissue won't be - but is almost certainly intact.

 

[S'mon]

d6 system autofire

If using T-2000 d6-system autofire, I recommend breaking it up into bursts of 10 rounds (T-2000 uses 5-round bursts), with every 10 rounds or fraction thereof having a Recoil* score. A character should be able to fire at least 3 bursts in a single combat round, but you might like to say these can must all be at the sam target area unless the firer has Iterative attacks (BAB 6+).
Add up the Recoil of all bursts fired in a round, and compare this figure to STR. If it exceeds STR, (Tootal Recoil - STR) gives the number of rounds in each burst that automatically miss the primary target, spraying wildly.

EG: firer has STR 12 and empties an Uzi of its 30-round clip in 3 10-round bursts, the Uzi has a burst recoil of 5, so total recoil is 15. 15-12 is 3, so 3 rounds per 10 automatically miss, leaving 21 with a chance to hit the primary target. Each '6' rolled is then a hit.

If the target has cover, some bullets will hit it. Eg 50% cover means 1/2 the bullets automatically miss, so remove half the dice. Combined with recoil effects the number of dice rolled can soon fall to quite manageable numbers.

In my experience, sensible use of cover is the key to survival - I remember in my Cyberpunk game, the PC's AV6 minigun was pinning down a squad of Arasaka security troops. The troopers had 75% cover and even though the minigun had a huge rate of fire (AIR it used a rule that 1d6 was rolled per 5 bullets fired, with a 'hit' result being 1d3 actual hits), as long as they stayed hunkered down they took few hits. I they'd gotten up and charged they'd have been mown down in short order.

*"Recoil" here is used losely to mean "tendency of gun to go off-centre" which can be due to the muzzle kicking up & right or whatever, as most guns do. Very few guns' recoil is actually enough to push the firer back, though a shotgun-wielding friend of mine reports some bruising.