Shadowrun using DnD5 [OOC]

[Binder Fred]

@tglassy: Then you're just gaming the system. The system itself is trying to be as close a representation of real life logic and physics as it can, while still remaining playable. One of the basic assumption of turn-based combat systems is that *everybody* is doing all they can not to get hit *all the time*. In "reality", if you were watching a turn-based-simulated combat, you would see combatants moving all the time - feinting, jabbing, dodging, taking cover, moving for position, etc, etc. Our one attack roll per turn represents either the sum result of all that (i.e. cumulative RL effects of multiple attacks/wounds/fatigue/strain), or that one occasion where you see (or have successfully created) an opening/opportunity in the other guy's defenses. Nobody, either you or your opponent, is really standing around doing nothing for 6 seconds and then pulling their trigger/swinging their sword once.

Saying "I should get a bonus shooting at close range because we're in a turn-based system that has the whole world frozen while I take my move and action" makes no sense to me. But again, YMMV.
[MENTION=6801242]GreenKarl[/MENTION]: The mossberg shotgun is pistol gripped, not meant to be shot as a pistol as I understand it (except maybe by trolls?). See here to see what happens when you try to shoot a sawed-off, pistol-gripped shotgun one-handed. Or here for a more serious example of pistol-grips vs normal stock.

Now I might be wrong on this as I'm imagining the SR mossberg like: this. i.e. definitively, no-question a two-handed firearm there.

In general though, the rule above - whether warranted by reality or not - does heavily skew things in favor of guns vs melee weapon in melee. Is that what you wanted for the system?

 

[Shayuri]

I know gun-fu, okay? It's fine.

Though in seriousness, I do think it makes sense for firearm use against an armed melee combatant to have some kind of penalty attached. Perhaps with a combat feat that removes that penalty to represent specialized training in the use of firearms in close quarters.

 

[tglassy]

Have you ever brought a knife to a gun fight? A pistol is superior in every way to even a sword. You come at me with a sword, all I have to do is back away and keep shooting until you're down. Oh wait, I'm only allows to shoot one bullet every six seconds, and then I have to wait until you have a turn to come back at me. Oh, and my moving backwards is going to give you an opportunity attack. Because you're right, people aren't holding still when they're in a real fight, and moving away from someone's reach doesn't actually give you an opportunity attack. That is pure gameplay right there and has no basis in real life. If I'm in mortal combat with one guy, I'm not going to go "hold on, your friend is running past me, and I want to get my opportunity attack." So for "compensating for how hard it is to shoot someone while trying not to be hit", it's not that hard. It is, in fact, so ridiculously easy to dodge someone with a knife that it's not even funny. The only thing you need is room to maneuver. So if I have a gun, and you have a knife, and we have room to move, you die, I life, the end. And the only reason a sword is different is because it has a little more reach.

In every "Real Life" situation, anyone even remotely trained with a pistol can shoot someone center mass five feet away without even having to be looking at them, much less be aiming. And if I shoot you center mass, you are going down. Period. Maybe if you're charging me, or already in the middle of your attack, then you might be able to swing your sword or stab me. But if you're attacking me, not only am I looking right at you, but I'm moving away from your knife at the same speed you are moving towards me, and I will still be able to shoot you five or six times in that six second period. in fact, a child who has never held a gun before can shoot out five or six rounds in six seconds because with most of these guns all you need to do is keep squeezing the trigger. Swords and knives take training. If you didn't have that training in the old days, you died if you came upon someone who did. Guns take a trigger finger. An untrained gunman can kill a trained gunman when they are within five feet. It's not about training, then, it's about who gets a shot off first.

God didn't make men equal. Mr. Colt did.

Not to mention the fact that if I am only five feet away from you, and especially if I get the drop on you, I will likely be aiming for your head (thank you halo). One shot, you're hit points are negative your maximum health regardless that you were at full health and had a thousand temporary hit points. Your brains are flying out the back of your skull.

So if you want to get "as close a representation of real life logic and physics as it can", then let me fire five or six shots from my pistol per round, untrained, and let my robot hold down the trigger. An AK47 can fire up to 600 rounds a minute. That's 10 rounds per second. So, in that six second period, it should be able to fire 60 rounds. I don't care if there's a -2 penalty to attack per consecutive shot, in 60 rounds, he should be able to get a crit or 10 and hit regardless. But no, we just say "oh, that's spray and pray, so they make a sex save and take 3d6 damage on a fail." What? 60 rounds! and if you're within 5 feet ALL SIXTY ROUNDS HIT YOU. Period.

This is why they don't do guns in D&D, because having to make them on par with melee is just freaking ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to make firearms on par with melee fighting for fun's sake. I'm just saying that having rules like "firearms have disadvantage in melee, because it's realistic" is ridiculous, because the closer someone is, the easier it is to hit them, and the more damage the guns do. And if should NOT take "a little training" to make that the case, because if anything, it is an innate quality firearms have. It is EASIER for an UNTRAINED person to hit you from five feet away than it is for them to hit you from ten feet away.

 

[Shayuri]

...and okay then. I'm fine with that too.

You clearly have strong feelings about this, and I do not.

Happily, I've managed to avoid both gunfights AND knifefights, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Binder Fred]

tglassy: Are you maybe basing your opinions on shooting a gun on fixed targets at a shooting range, under relaxed and uncluttered conditions? Studies and first-hand accounts tend to show that battle stress, combined with erratic movement (you *and* your target), the other guy trying to actively kill you/prevent you from killing him makes a *huge* difference.

Go look up why 5 (trained) police officers can shoot all their ammo at one guy and somehow all miss at <10m range (or, say, "NYPD Officers Fire 84 Shots At Suspect, Miss 83 Times"), why it takes 10,000 bullets per confirmed kill/serious wound in modern warfare (figures vary wildly on that one, but that's on the low end), why soldiers train to shoot pistol and riffle with both eyes open (even though it's more accurate to shoot with one), or why SOP in military and police force is 2-3-round, controlled-burst body shots, not full auto or head shots? (Or, say, why bayonnettes are a good idea in trench-warfare, and still net wins on occasion, even today (and against gun-wielding opponents too!) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet))...

Not saying you're not at a huge advantage with gun vs sword. I am saying you are at (a lot, IMHO) lesser advantage when you are at ranges where you have to prevent the other guy from wounding you, and that *that* entirely offsets the greater ease of shooting a target at 10 vs <10 feet.

Whether you should always be able to successfully remain outside of said ranges is another topic entirely (although I would point out that IRL you can spring or run forward faster than you can back-away-while-firing (tripping on some unseen object would be... bad), and that running while shooting is, you guessed it, distracting. We *are* talking about cluttered, indoor combat here; it's sort of expected that somebody, somewhere will achieve hand-to-hand ranges and work to maintain them).

Do also remember that Fluffy and Diggs are up in the IC?

 

[GreenKarl]

Yea simulating real life in a game is never a good idea It's more about balance I think and for me I wanted to simulate the idea that firearms very deadly and pistols were useful in close combat. GURPS fixes this with Bulk but there isn't anything like that in a lot of other game system. I might still give a penalty for using light firearms in melee depending on how this play test goes

 

[GreenKarl]

[MENTION=6855204]tglassy[/MENTION] looks like we are just waiting on Diggs and Fluffy... just as an FYI friendly reminder

 

[Binder Fred]

Been meaning to get familiar with GURPS... but it hasn't happened yet

What's the Bulk mechanics, GK, and how does it help balance things?

 

[GreenKarl]

Bulk is the penalty you attack rolls when you take a "Move an Attack" maneuver (one of the basic maneuver of the game system) and also apply the same penalty when you are in melee combat. So heavier weapons give bigger penalties. A laser pistol has a low bulk (-1 or -2 if I remember) while Bows and Assault Rifles are much higher (-6 to -7, +)

 

[Binder Fred]

Now that you mention it, AD&D did something similar where you added your weapon speed to your ini (spells had a speed too)... Good times.

5E's trying to be a bit more streamlined though, for good or bad