size attack modifiers

[ogre]

Should the size penalty to attack apply when you fire a 'small' weapon from a big vehicle? Now, I can see the penalty if you're using a Gargantuan cannon on a Medium opponent, but should the penalty apply if you're firing a light machinegun from a Colossal mecha on a Medium opponent? Wouldn't the size of the weapon vs. the size of the target be a more valid comparison?
For instance, you wouldn't fire the main gun of a tank against a soldier, as it would be reasonably realistic that you would miss, so you would shoot your light caliber gun instead.
Does d20 Modern address this? Should I?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Should the size penalty to attack apply when you fire a 'small' weapon from a big vehicle?

No. For starters, the vehicle might not be moving You don't take penalties for firing a handgun from behind a pillar, so why penalties for firing from behind a car's door? There are penalties for moving vehicles though, but not based on vehicle size. (Mounted weapons could, arguably, take a penalty.)

Now, I can see the penalty if you're using a Gargantuan cannon on a Medium opponent, but should the penalty apply if you're firing a light machinegun from a Colossal mecha on a Medium opponent?

Mecha use different rules (more similar to characters) so they suffer the penalty; same for spacecraft. Not that it's a big deal, since machine guns use autofire. (I guess you'd take the penalty for Burst Fire, though.) Note that mecha really shouldn't fight characters due to scaling and balance issues, no matter how balanced the d20 Future rules may "claim" to be.

Wouldn't the size of the weapon vs. the size of the target be a more valid comparison?
For instance, you wouldn't fire the main gun of a tank against a soldier, as it would be reasonably realistic that you would miss, so you would shoot your light caliber gun instead.
Does d20 Modern address this? Should I?

I'm going to avoid rules changes for the moment, and show you how I think it should be done.

1) You can't use the firing computer on a human target. They don't bounce radar the same way as an enemy tank. Thus, no bonus to shooting at humans.

2) A tank carries about 40 shells. Firing one at a human being is literally a waste of ammo. (Soviet tanks, and I guess that means Russian tanks and any country that still uses them, have anti-personnel shells, which would be an area-of-effect attack that do less damage.) It doesn't help that most GMs have never been involved in tank warfare and so make mistakes that real-life tank operators wouldn't make. See point #5.

3) Tanks carry machine guns; (ex-)Soviet tanks carry up to three. The machine gun should be used against human beings. Machine guns wouldn't suffer any size penalty. (If they did, then so would the big gun, so other than running out of ammo, there would be no reason not to use the big gun.)

4) Unfortunately, there's nothing in the rules preventing characters from using RPGs and other clearly unsuitable weapons against human beings other than common sense. (RPGs only carry one rocket at a time, take time to reload, although only six seconds in game rules, and the ammo is heavy/not easily portable.) In real life, you'd only use RPGs if there's a large number of soldiers hiding in a room somewhere, which is one reason why soldiers generally only stick close to one other soldier. See point #5.

5) Why are you using vehicle-scale opponents against human-scaled opponents? Any time I see rules questions about "World War II tanks" and the like, or using anti-tank weaponry, etc, this is usually the root of the question. PCs shouldn't ever fight tanks, not unless it's a single tank "boss encounter". If the GM makes the mistake of giving PCs the equipment needed to blow up a tank (eg anti-tank mines), even for this one encounter, the PCs can do something clever, blow up the tank and keep the mines for less suitable purposes.

 

[ogre]

Thanks for the response (psi)
Here's some more info, as to 'why'. I'm desinging a PA game, the possibility of humans fighting tanks and other large things is very real. It's not based in our modern era. The world is full of mutants (giants, beasts etc), robots, powered armor, mecha and grav tanks. Akin to Rifts. oooh am I allowed to type that? ;-) So, the possibility is there. Plus, the situation I was imagining.
A mecha/tank has a gunner who uses the smaller mounted weapons to fire on medium size targets. Why should the gunner take the -8 penalty to hit?
So, I was thinking of something where the size of the weapon vs. the size of the opponent determines the modifier, not the size of the vehicle.
Your points
#1 Good point.
#2 Makes sense in a modern game, but see above.
#3 This is really why I'm asking. Is it only Mecha that have the size penalty to hit? I assumed it applied to tanks/jets etc. too.
#4 True, this makes perfect sense in a modern setting, but now that I've layed out the setting better, I'm sure you can see my point.
#5 Yup, I would agree in a modern game, but not this setting.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Thanks for the response (psi)
Here's some more info, as to 'why'. I'm desinging a PA game, the possibility of humans fighting tanks and other large things is very real. It's not based in our modern era. The world is full of mutants (giants, beasts etc), robots, powered armor, mecha and grav tanks. Akin to Rifts. oooh am I allowed to type that? ;-) So, the possibility is there. Plus, the situation I was imagining.

A mecha/tank has a gunner who uses the smaller mounted weapons to fire on medium size targets. Why should the gunner take the -8 penalty to hit?
So, I was thinking of something where the size of the weapon vs. the size of the opponent determines the modifier, not the size of the vehicle.

Okay, you could do that; you are allowed to change the rules to suit your setting/campaign.

The rule you suggest makes sense, but IMO you would need to ensure that people aren't just firing the biggest shells they can get at ordinary humans. PA campaigns tend to have limited resources; giving a typical tank 2-10 shells should ensure that shells aren't wasted right off the bat. (Unlike in Modern, PCs would have a hard time buying tanks shells. Well, okay, buying tank shells even in Modern should be next to impossible ) You could use such a rule alongside the different penalties-to-hit rule.

Your points
#1 Good point.
#2 Makes sense in a modern game, but see above.
#3 This is really why I'm asking. Is it only Mecha that have the size penalty to hit? I assumed it applied to tanks/jets etc. too.

Only mecha and spaceships have size mods for combat purposes by RAW. You could change the rules for your campaign though.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

1) You can't use the firing computer on a human target. They don't bounce radar the same way as an enemy tank. Thus, no bonus to shooting at humans.

It doesn't work like that a ballistic computer isn't going to fail to hit a particular sort of target just because it seems to be overbalanced. You can fire the main gun at a person or a low flying aircraft. Main guns, coaxials, and most of the newer remote turrets are stabilized in two axis which make it much easier to hit targets of all types even on the move. And the ballistic computers aren't going to have a fit and refuse to work on one particular target type.

2) A tank carries about 40 shells. Firing one at a human being is literally a waste of ammo. (Soviet tanks, and I guess that means Russian tanks and any country that still uses them, have anti-personnel shells, which would be an area-of-effect attack that do less damage.) It doesn't help that most GMs have never been involved in tank warfare and so make mistakes that real-life tank operators wouldn't make. See point #5.

Every nation on earth makes AP rounds for their armor. Personally I still miss the old 105 flechette round, they've made 120 cannister but never reintroduced flechette. But you're partially right, firing the main gun at a single soldier is a waste unless he's carrying an anti-armor weapon in which case you shoot him with whatever bears as fast as possible. AP rounds are for firing at groups of people. A single 105 flechette round could wipe out an entire platoon if they were bunched up. AP shells aren't less powerful they're just designed to take out lots of little targets as opposed to a big one. Fire a cannister round into a squad assaulting the berm and the result is basically splattered and torn unidentified bits.

3) Tanks carry machine guns; (ex-)Soviet tanks carry up to three. The machine gun should be used against human beings. Machine guns wouldn't suffer any size penalty. (If they did, then so would the big gun, so other than running out of ammo, there would be no reason not to use the big gun.)

Yep you're mostly on the right track though. A single person is a job for the commander's MG, or the loader's MG, or the coaxial. But no matter how many you have you'll always wish you had more of them.

4) Unfortunately, there's nothing in the rules preventing characters from using RPGs and other clearly unsuitable weapons against human beings other than common sense. (RPGs only carry one rocket at a time, take time to reload, although only six seconds in game rules, and the ammo is heavy/not easily portable.) In real life, you'd only use RPGs if there's a large number of soldiers hiding in a room somewhere, which is one reason why soldiers generally only stick close to one other soldier. See point #5.

There is no such thing as overkill. Man portable anti-armor weapons exist so don't handicap the armor by making it unable to use its full capacity.

5) Why are you using vehicle-scale opponents against human-scaled opponents? Any time I see rules questions about "World War II tanks" and the like, or using anti-tank weaponry, etc, this is usually the root of the question. PCs shouldn't ever fight tanks, not unless it's a single tank "boss encounter". If the GM makes the mistake of giving PCs the equipment needed to blow up a tank (eg anti-tank mines), even for this one encounter, the PCs can do something clever, blow up the tank and keep the mines for less suitable purposes.

Scale, please, fighting a tank isn't any different than fighting a dragon. In fact the dragon is far LARGER than a tank and flies.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It doesn't work like that a ballistic computer isn't going to fail to hit a particular sort of target just because it seems to be overbalanced. You can fire the main gun at a person or a low flying aircraft. Main guns, coaxials, and most of the newer remote turrets are stabilized in two axis which make it much easier to hit targets of all types even on the move. And the ballistic computers aren't going to have a fit and refuse to work on one particular target type.

What I want to know is how does the ballistic computer track a human target? I'm not suggesting it'll have a fit, I'm suggesting humans don't reflect radio waves effectively.

AP rounds are for firing at groups of people. A single 105 flechette round could wipe out an entire platoon if they were bunched up. AP shells aren't less powerful they're just designed to take out lots of little targets as opposed to a big one.

The typical human being has fewer hit points than the typical tank, so I don't think it makes sense for the weapon to do as much damage. (It's spreading the force over an area anyway, the total hit point damage could easily be higher, even if the typical victim is "only" taking 5d6 or 10d6 damage.) Also, if you have a tank that can fire anti-personnel shells that do 20d6 damage (same as the armor-piercing shells) you run into scaling problems.

There is no such thing as overkill. Man portable anti-armor weapons exist so don't handicap the armor by making it unable to use its full capacity.

Resources are limited. If you "overkill" someone with a rocket, you're going to be unable to blow up a more reasonable target with the rocket you no longer have. Also rockets are heavy. You just can't easily man-pack a large number of them, especially in rough terrain where vehicles can't go.

Scale, please, fighting a tank isn't any different than fighting a dragon. In fact the dragon is far LARGER than a tank and flies.

I disagree with this. For starters, dragons don't exist. But more to the point, a dragon moves and fights more like a human being than, say, a vehicle. A vehicle can't even spin on a dime without some kind of crazy Drive check (which is probably too easy; I don't care how good a Drive check you have, you cannot drive a vehicle at high speed indoors). A human being who isn't specifically carrying anti-armor weapons is going to have a hell of time taking out a tank, but any reasonably equipped adventuring party will have the equipment needed to take on a dragon. (You only need ranged weapons and/or spells, but obviously things like levels, scouting, tactics etc help too!)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

What I want to know is how does the ballistic computer track a human target? I'm not suggesting it'll have a fit, I'm suggesting humans don't reflect radio waves effectively.

Ballistic computers don't track a target at all they compute the ballistic trajectory of a projectile based on data telling them the position and orientation of the main gun. environmental conditions(temperature/wind/etc) from the sensor on the end of the main gun, and the laser range finder. You point it at the target, you laze the distance, computer calcs the path of the shell, you fire. The gunner tracks the target the ballistic computer just takes his direction and creates an aimpoint to show where the shell will land.

The typical human being has fewer hit points than the typical tank, so I don't think it makes sense for the weapon to do as much damage. (It's spreading the force over an area anyway, the total hit point damage could easily be higher, even if the typical victim is "only" taking 5d6 or 10d6 damage.) Also, if you have a tank that can fire anti-personnel shells that do 20d6 damage (same as the armor-piercing shells) you run into scaling problems.

Here's where the difference lies you're thinking gamist I am simply remembering that the last time I fired a cannister round it was into a concrete building through the wall. Flechettes don't have that sort of penetration but people tend not to realize the sheer power behind a main gun round. Ranges for tanks use HILLS to backstop the targets for a reason. Really to handle damage from a main gun you'd need something like Palladium's mega-damage system. HESH rounds from the old Sheridans would put a hole through a foot and a half of reinforced concrete large enough for two infantrymen to walk through side by side without ducking. A 120mm main gun like on Abrams now should do something like 30d8 to 35d8, and that does create a massive scale problem which is exactly the point a tank is a heinous target for unprepared infantry and damned difficult for prepared infantry as long as you don't let them close or slow down too much.

Resources are limited. If you "overkill" someone with a rocket, you're going to be unable to blow up a more reasonable target with the rocket you no longer have. Also rockets are heavy. You just can't easily man-pack a large number of them, especially in rough terrain where vehicles can't go.

The point I was trying to make and apparently got completely sidestepped was that this is NOT about a person against a person, this is about person vs tank or similar armored fighting vehicle. The tank should not be handicapped versus the person because a person who intends to crack armor is going to have an anti-armor weapon if they don't they should be at a massive disadvantage its supposed to be that way.

I disagree with this. For starters, dragons don't exist. But more to the point, a dragon moves and fights more like a human being than, say, a vehicle. A vehicle can't even spin on a dime without some kind of crazy Drive check (which is probably too easy; I don't care how good a Drive check you have, you cannot drive a vehicle at high speed indoors). A human being who isn't specifically carrying anti-armor weapons is going to have a hell of time taking out a tank, but any reasonably equipped adventuring party will have the equipment needed to take on a dragon. (You only need ranged weapons and/or spells, but obviously things like levels, scouting, tactics etc help too!)

Let's go through it one point at a time, A dragon is a massive creature which needs a significant amount of room to fight in well. Second a tracked vehicle can do precisely that, turn a full circle within its own length at low speeds, stop from thirty miles per hour in just under three hull lengths. No a vehicle can't be driven at high speed indoors but this is largely a strawman as vehicles aren't USED indoors, it's an attempt to draw things off into a meaningless sidespur. Third, would you expect an adventuring party given mundane leather armor and clubs to defeat a dragon? Anti-armor weapons are directly comparable to the magical weapons an adventuring party carries, they are powerful instruments of destruction that can penetrate the damage resistance and high hit points of a dragon just as an anti-armor missile can punch through armor plate and wreck a tank's internal systems. Just as adventurers with non-magical clubs and no significant magical artillery are the dragon's next meal infantry without anti-armor weapons are future track grease both require extraordinary efforts and means to survive.

 

[ogre]

The question is about man vs. tank, but not about the validity of it. I'm looking for opinions on the d20 modern size modifier rules. Should the size modifier penalty apply when you use a "size appropriate" weapon against a smaller opponent, rather than the main gun. In other words, should everyone (pilot, gunner etc.) take the size modifier penalty to hit regardless of what weapon they are using, or should the modifier be based more on the weapon's size?

Should the size penalty to attack apply when you fire a 'small' weapon from a big vehicle? Now, I can see the penalty if you're using a Gargantuan cannon on a Medium opponent, but should the penalty apply if you're firing a light machinegun from a Colossal mecha on a Medium opponent? Wouldn't the size of the weapon vs. the size of the target be a more valid comparison?

Again, this is a world akin to Rifts or a super hero setting, where mutants or men in powered armor can and will face big mecha and tanks in single combat.

 

[Aussiegamer]

I changed the mod system to be the size of the weapon sets the size mod, not the size of the thing using it.

 

[ogre]

Ahhh Aussie, that's great. I was pondering that too (obviously). So I assume it works pretty well?
I was thinking relating weapon object size to target size, as a Large weapon is a Medium object there'd be no penalty and it's the maximum size for a human. A Huge gun is a Large object, so the -1 size modifier penalty would apply, and so on. I think I'd do away with the size penalty for mecha, except for melee attacks. Ranged attacks would depend as above.