NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2546718" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>BINGO! We agree.Unfortunately, as seen by glass' statement, some people believe otherwise.of course, they might be reading the rules and drawing from that, where AF does increase the chance of a miss against your "first target" or even your only target.Well, sure. Absolutely. unless its a mounted weapon, by a few rounds into the fire, you are now just spraying unaimed lead. Now, in some circumstances, spraying unaimed lead isn't a bad idea, but its certainly not on a per bullet accuracy thing, a great move. (this may change slightly for mounted guns but thats a different animal.)exactly. no arguemt there from me. AF vs single targets at best gives you as goo or slighlt better  better chance of scoring a hit at all and gives you a chance of getting 1-2 extra hits give or take.again, we agree. thats why in my rules for AF from my spycraft game, AF doubles range penalties. In general, i have no argument with this statement.IRL there are plenty of bad things that make autofire not a good overall option such as wasting/burning ammo ridiculously fast for little net gain and the danger to other objects and people down range of the fire from the slew of missing bullets among others. If these were reflected in the rules (make large volumes of ammo harder to carry by actually having it count as weight and make the stray fire a serious risk) and if the increasing difficulty of targetting scale for extra hits went Up for each hit (say one extra hit if you beat the needed to hit by 5, another extra hit if you beat it by 15, another if you beat it by 30) so that seeking the extra hits gets harder and harder, you could get a manageable autofire even considering game balance without needing the silly "increased chance of miss."As an Aside...BTW, and i have read several games recently so this might have been spycraft but it was I think feng shui, i also like the notion of adjusting the "level for extra hits" by the SIZE of the target. Say the base count is " a hit for roll exceeded by 5", if the target LARGE make that by 4, if its huge make it by 3, up to if its collossal make it by 1, and the flip side of rasing the bar based on smaller sizes. Again, i think thats feng sghui but am not sure.As another aside...Now, in the nature of fairness, i have revised my initial opinions. I saw so  much good stuff written about the campaign qualities, variable npcs and dramatic conflicts that i decided to give it a buy in spite of the gun rules. "logically," i said to myself  "since i have already house ruled those problems, it won't be hard to just do the same for 2e, so lets not allow the lack of improvement on guns to stop me from looting the other good stuff."So, i gotta say, i am glad i bought it in spite of the gun rules. The qualities are nice.The variable npc design is something that i felt D20, especially the heavier d20 systems, has needed for a while. Adding tons of chargen complexity for PCs is tolerable to some degree and desirable but it slams the GM if he uses those same rules. This is similar to how i have been doing npcs.and the dramatic conflict system is wonderful and IMO the best part of the book. As some background, i have been running a stargate game for almost two years and three of the four players went with a variation on doctor. So i retooled the game to be a medical emergency response team and dubbed it Stargate 911. What i have struggled with was making "medical challenges" into more than "just roll your medicine skill" or "roll your first aid skill"  so that the players had to make "meaningful choices" in their character's main focus.The DCon system gives me that sort of a procedure to make "things other than combat" a detailed ongoing process with meaningful choices. I don't recall there being a medical one per se, but one could certainly be devised.of course, this is made bittersweet by the lack of support they have said the DCon system is going to get, with their decision to not have more DCons being something they plan to include regularly or almost any at all in future products. I think the comment was something like one more in products this year anbd none outlined/planned in products for 2006 at all.sigh.[/QUOTE]

Verification