Problems with firearms?

[slingbld]

So, your combat rules are in with your weapon books?

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Yep. Basics are in Volume 1, anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapon rules are in the special edition, revised grenade rules are in volume 5, and the complete set of new rules will be released shortly in the 2003-2004 compendium.

 

[HarryFlashman]

Dana, are your books going to be published in a non-pdf format?
Will they be published in an omnibus edition?

Are the books divided by genres (is Book I Small arms? Book II Machine Rifles? ect?) or time periods (black powder, etc) or just however you felt like finishing a particular book?

For the rest of you I have to recommend Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty rules yet again. If you are lookign for a greater nod towards realism ( penetration, burst and autofire) then Mr Hood has it. Unfortunately you will have to get his rules from someone who already has them as his sites are down and he no longer offers the rules for D20.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Dana, are your books going to be published in a non-pdf format?
Will they be published in an omnibus edition?

Are the books divided by genres (is Book I Small arms? Book II Machine Rifles? ect?) or time periods (black powder, etc) or just however you felt like finishing a particular book?

For the rest of you I have to recommend Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty rules yet again. If you are lookign for a greater nod towards realism ( penetration, burst and autofire) then Mr Hood has it. Unfortunately you will have to get his rules from someone who already has them as his sites are down and he no longer offers the rules for D20.

The compendium will be an annual paper-based publication, collecting the year's PDFs, with any revisions to material in previous compendiums being released in a separate yearbook.

Each PDF volume is themed. Vol.1 tried focusing in material not published in other books, Special Edition focused on weapons used in both wars with Iraq, Vol. 2 was older experimental weapons, concealable/spy weapons, and some WW2 stuff, Vol. 3 was experimental weapons of the US Army's Future Combat Systems program, Vol. 4 was the earliest gerenation of modern longarms used by the European armies, Vol. 5 is grenades, and the upcoming Vol. 6 is German small arms of WW2.

Incidentally, as far as recommending Ken Hood's material... it isn't online anymore. It was to be used in one of the earlier incarnations of Weapons Locker (when the book was going to be published by other companies under another name), and went offline at that time.

 

[HarryFlashman]

Thankyou for the info. I am glad that you are actually publishing the books. I hate getting PDFs as I do not have a laptop nor a laser printer
(ink jets make printing a long , laborious, and cost prohibitive project).

I had heard that Ken hood'sstuff was going to be publishedand that's why it was off of the net. Might it still be published?
In any case its stilla wonderful rules set with a new martial arts Rule set (skills-n-feats) a new psionics rule set (skills-n-feats) new firearms rules set (that I dearly love) and a new hit points and combat rules set ( Grim-n-Girtty, which I also dearly love for low magic campaigns).

Luckily all of the above , except the hitpoints and combat rules, were printed in the FORBIDDEN KINGDOMS book by Otherworld Press.

 

[Quasqueton]

I've wanted to get d20 Modern. But the more I look into the rules, the less I'm impressed -- mainly because of the firearms rules.

I mean, burst fire gives you -4 attack, but does double damage? Burst/auto fire was "invented" to make hitting a target more likely.

And as others have mentioned above, the autofire rule makes it look like machine gunners always fire at the ground around the targets' feet. Shouldn't the autofire mechanic be more like a line effect in D&D?

But a different view I have than others, regarding effective ranges, is that a weapon's official, real-world "effective range" is based on firing from a locked platform and observing the deviation of the hit to the aim. But in combat, effective range has more to do with the shooter being able to put the aim on the target. For instance, pistols are short range weapons mostly because it is difficult for a shooter to put the aim on the target -- one hand, short barrel, and light weight. A rifle has better range in the hands of a real person (as opposed to a set platform) because it is held in two hands, usually up to the shoulder, with a long barrel and more weight. This makes aiming easier for a shooter.

I mean, even if the "effective range" of a rifle, on paper is over 1,000 yards, a typical (even trained) shooter is not going to regularly hit the target at that range in a combat situation. Hell, even to hit at just 100 feet, a shooter must come to a complete stop, pause to aim, and squeeze off a shot.

Effective range in a combat situation (which the rules should be trying to cover) is more an issue of the shooter putting the aim on target, than the firearm's deviation from aim to hit. Ranges in a combat situation should be quite a bit shorter than the effective ranges measured in a lab.

Quasqueton

 

[AscentStudios]

My main problem is that guns do too much damage.

Cuts into the heroic aspect of the game for me.

2D6 > 2D8 damage from a handgun is quite enough to kill a first level character. With massive damage no-one is safe (from crits at least)

I'd prefer a system where handguns were more comparable to Shortswords rather than greatswords.

i.e. a similar suspesion of disbelief applied to guns that melee weapons get?

But that's just me. I will find that system some day!

You, my friend, should get Spycraft's Modern Arms Guide. Damage is much more in line with DnD melee weapon damage, rather than nullifying it entirely. Do you think 1 bullet does less damage/causes less trauma to a target than 4 feet of cold steel shoved through his gullet? Spycraft is all about maintaining the heroic feel of the game - but the one thing that's missing if you are a d20m player is the crit multipliers, but a simple x2 should fix that.

Granted, I am biased, but the fact is the damage scale is lower than almost all d20M gun books.

Good luck!

 

[Henry]

I've wanted to get d20 Modern. But the more I look into the rules, the less I'm impressed -- mainly because of the firearms rules.

I mean, burst fire gives you -4 attack, but does double damage? Burst/auto fire was "invented" to make hitting a target more likely.

And as others have mentioned above, the autofire rule makes it look like machine gunners always fire at the ground around the targets' feet. Shouldn't the autofire mechanic be more like a line effect in D&D?

To be more specific, both were conceived because they were tried to make gunfire more accurate -- but burst fire is the only thing that actually lives up to the claim.

Basic autofire in Modern works as half line-effect, and half-area effect. Think about this: you have to hit AC 10 to use it, (AC 10 with -4 penalty for most people trying it), and cover is a real issue. Firing into a crowd of people is likely GOING to hit someone instead of reaching its intended target. Only then is the reflex save applied. So, under normal autofire, I'm going to have to hit a square that's effectively AC 14, and if any targets are between me and the square, then the provide cover to the square I'm aiming for. If I miss, but hit the cover... Innocent bystanders go bye-bye.

The burst fire rules I'm with ya all the way, because in a weapon like the M16A2, it's fixed to burst only, and should improve the chance to hit, but only for listed damage, not increased damage. This is the way they handle it in Spycraft, and in practice it works very well. They give a tradeoff of 3 bullets in exchange for a +1 to hit and listed damage if you do. (Alternately, there's a rule there for a more narrow burst, for increased damage but at a penalty to hit - representing trying to hold the gun on target more so as to hit with more than one, as opposed to the "cover fire" aspect of bursts.)

 

[Quasqueton]

What is the reasoning behind not rolling an attack for each bullet of a burst? (Something like -2 for each extra bullet, cumulative -- first bullet at normal attack, second at -2, third at -4, 5th at -8.) Is the only problem the rolling of so many dice? If so, I don't think that is much of a problem -- players love rolling attack dice.

Is there a game balance reason for not tracking each bullet? If I wanted to house rule this, I'd like to know the reasoning for the core rule first.

Quasqueton

 

[ledded]

What is the reasoning behind not rolling an attack for each bullet of a burst? (Something like -2 for each extra bullet, cumulative -- first bullet at normal attack, second at -2, third at -4, 5th at -8.) Is the only problem the rolling of so many dice? If so, I don't think that is much of a problem -- players love rolling attack dice.

Is there a game balance reason for not tracking each bullet? If I wanted to house rule this, I'd like to know the reasoning for the core rule first.

Quasqueton

There was a bullet points or some-such article that addressed this in detail, but it all comes down to this:

Essentially, they took the average damage between firing 2 quick shots (double tap) or several as a burst at a to-hit penalty for each successive 'shot' or bullet, and figured that it would make combat run faster to do it with a single attack increasing damage but with a penalty to hit for the one attack. The article quotes all the math which I wont take the time to do here, but that is the jist of it, they just wanted to make sure that it ran smooth and fast while still giving some benefit to tossing around extra lead.