Threatening Hand Guns

[Tywyll]

In standard d20, only melee weapons threaten an area. This makes sense as slow and often meant for targets further away. But in modern it makes less sense.

I just ran a combat in which characters were involved in a firefight at extremely close range (under 30 feet... closer to around 15). Now, something bothered me as characters would safely move during their rounds, regardless of the fact that in the real world, they would have been shot at while dashing between bits of cover. This got me thinking.

Maybe handguns should have a threatened area. I would think around 30 feet. Long arms, which are more difficult to bring to bear at close range and easier to knock aside in melee, would not benefit from this. Only one handed firearms (pistols, maybe a few smgs).

As anyone tried something like this? If so, what were the results? Obviously, this would make guns even more deadly. Is it too unbalancing?

 

[DanMcS]

The reason you get an attack of opportunity is if someone drops their guard. If two combatants are at sword's-length from each other, their blades are up and they're keeping an eye on each other. If one decides to drink a potion, he's at least momentarily distracted, and the other guy can try to get him with the sword.

Bows don't threaten an area like this. Why? Because you're never really more or less guarded versus being shot. It doesn't matter whether you're en garde, have your sword sheathed, or are napping, if you're 30 feet out then nothing you do can really forestall the archer from releasing his arrow. Thus, archers are typically firing as fast as they can in every situation.

The same applies to guns. It may seem less "realistic" to us, because we "know" that someone can squeeze the trigger faster than they can nock, draw, and loose, but d20 modern conveniently provides rules for pulling that trigger faster, in the form of rapid shot, double-tap, burst and auto-fire.

So no, I don't think missile weapons should threaten.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

That would make handguns far to powerful IMO.

And remember that the rounds are an abstract system: on the game table it looks like the character walks and only then the enemy shoots. But in truth it all happens simultaneously. Of course, you cannot do everything simultaneously in d20M.

 

[takyris]

If you wanted to shoot at someone while they were moving (waiting for them to run close to you, and so on), you should have readied an action to do so. Otherwise, you're so busy firing off your shot from last round, dropping to your knees, making sure your friends aren't dead, and dodging the wrench some bad guy threw at your head, that you don't have time for extra actions.

Make the flavor-text to suit the rules.

My players were livid at the thought that they could miss a bad guy while trying to shoot him while sitting next to him in a vehicle -- until I described the bad guy as grabbing their arm as they fired, so that the shot blew out a window and the bad guy slammed the hero's hand against the steering wheel. They'd seen stuff like that in the movies, and it made perfect sense to them once I'd described it correctly.

 

[Felon]

Well, Tywyll, everyone's doing a masterful job of trying to dance around the point don't you think?

The same applies to guns. It may seem less "realistic" to us, because we "know" that someone can squeeze the trigger faster than they can nock, draw, and loose, but d20 modern conveniently provides rules for pulling that trigger faster, in the form of rapid shot, double-tap, burst and auto-fire.

Hmm. By that logic a melee weapon shouldn't threaten because there's a Two-Weapon Fighting Feat. One really has nothing to do with the other.

And remember that the rounds are an abstract system: on the game table it looks like the character walks and only then the enemy shoots. But in truth it all happens simultaneously. Of course, you cannot do everything simultaneously in d20M.

Again, this just dances around the point at hand rather than addressing it--namely that pistol can snap off a shot with at least as much speed and ease that a knife can be thrust.

If you wanted to shoot at someone while they were moving (waiting for them to run close to you, and so on), you should have readied an action to do so.

Well, yes, according to the current rules, sure, but then again Ty's suggesting that the current rules don't reflect that a pistol is as easy to use in close quarters as a melee weapon. In D20M, you can see an opponent charging from 60 feet away and you won't even get a chance to ready that action to pull the trigger before he tackles you or runs right past you (for another 60 feet no less). Colorful descriptions or no, it's not unreasonable to suggest that's damaging to suspension of disbelief and just kinda lame.

Ty, you express perfectly good reasons for thinking that handguns should threaten, and nobody really seems to have a good reason why they shouldn't (though that doesn't stop them from disagreeable). So, simply put, try it out. It'll certainly give pistols an edge over larger firearms in close quarters, which seems to be reflected in fiction (e.g. in Star Trek TNG and its predecessors, phaser rifles are routinely handed out to characters if the script calls for them to be disarmed).

But at the same time, bear in mind the impact it will have on your campaign. For instance, you'll have to give the Gunslinger a new 1st-level ability, and characters won't be so eager to attempt disarms or grapples against gun-wielding characters--which, of course, may be be EXACTLY what you desire, but it discourages players from investing in professions like Martial Artist. Everyone will use guns.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I did give a Reason why you shouldn't let handguns threaten anything:

It makes handguns far too powerful. Realism is nice in the real world, but a game should be balanced out, even if it breaks realism.

Make handguns threaten and noone will even remotely consider using melee weapons. While you can get your Str bonus to damage with those, handguns give you superior range AND make you threaten everyone in your line of sight. And with handguns you can get additional damage, too, with double tap or burst fire (plus, you can be weak and suffer no ill effect, since ranged weapons ignore str penalties as well as str bonuses).

Then consider the significance of your idea: You would be able to get "free attacks" whenever someone moves in your line of sight. You would also get an AoO whenever someone shoots any ranged weapon near you (for they provoke AoO's). Add Combat Reflexes to the equation, and handguns are way too powerul. Plus, your shooting would provoke another AoO, and you'd have far more AoO's than normal attacks in any given round.

But go ahead and try it, but don't start a campaign with that rule, for it will break apart faster than you can say "What have I done?" Use a one-shot game where it won't be that tragic if people throw away their sheets after the 2nd encounter (tops).

 

[takyris]

Um, I thought I did give reasons why it wouldn't work. But since apparently I didn't:

1) In real life, you can choose to run from one patch of cover to another while the bad guy fires somewhere else. The round system reflects that. AoOs with handguns would make handguns able to fire anytime, anywhere, with no need for the time taken to aim or focus -- which is what the 6-second round is normally for.

2) As a martial artist, I would so much rather be in close combat with a gun wielder than a knife wielder. Ask any pragmatic martial artist and they will say the same. Yes, a gun wielder who is fifteen feet away and has you flat-footed has you at his mercy -- but a gun wielder in the middle of a chaotic combat who is five feet away from me is nowhere NEAR as dangerous as a knife wielder in the same situation. A knife can cut me along a lot of different edges, while a gun's danger zone consists of one line. This is worth a different thread in an of itself -- if you think I'm full of it, we can take it elsewhere.

3) Ranged weapons and melee weapons are different, not just in the game, but in real life. Taking a swing at someone next to you does not take a ton of thought -- if someone drops their guard to do something (like move through a square you threaten) it's relatively easy to lash out at them. But ranged weapons require more thought in terms of aiming and focusing, and for the AoO concept to work, you would have to say that your character is able to devote the same attention to everywhere around him as a melee character devotes to the five feet around him. I'm fine with the idea of threatening 8 squares around me, but I am extremely skeptical about the idea of a basic character having the ability to threaten 60 squares (about how many you'd threaten if you ruled that a character could take ranged AoOs at 20' or less). That's far too much territory for anyone to keep track of while ALSO taking proactive actions of their own.

I'm not utterly against the idea of ranged AoOs -- I recall that some prestige classes in D&D made them possible, and I'd be fine with an advanced class or prestige class that did the same here, or a feat that made it possible. But it should not be a low-level feat -- anyone who can keep track of 60 squares at once ought to be darn powerful and ought to have spent a lot to get to that point -- high level in the advanced class, or a feat with a high BAB pre-req, along with Combat Reflexes and ranks in Concentration or something.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Good points, takyris.

There is a feat in UMF d20 which allows to threaten with guns: Suppressive Fire. But it only allows this on a single Square (or a 10'x10' area if you use automatic fire) which is more than 30 ft away and uses up extra bullets. It will allow you to threaten (note that even the PrC in D&D doesn't allow to threaten anything within range, only within 10' IIRC) with your ranged weapon, but won't turn you in to a C&D-like Turret.

 

[Felon]

Make handguns threaten and noone will even remotely consider using melee weapons.

Yes, I noted that myself. Of course, "too powerful" is a relative term. If his campaign pays a nod to the undeniable--not to mention woefully-unbalancing--fact that in the real world swords have sort of slipped in popularity over the last few years in favor of guns, it may be perfectly for firearms to be the clear-cut weapon of choice. OTOH, it is certainly not appropriate for a campaign inspired by the films of Jackie Chan or Stephen Segal.

In real life, you can choose to run from one patch of cover to another while the bad guy fires somewhere else. The round system reflects that. AoOs with handguns would make handguns able to fire anytime, anywhere, with no need for the time taken to aim or focus -- which is what the 6-second round is normally for.

Just to be clear, I don't think it's a good idea for guns to threaten every square in line of sight. That's a mite excessive. Five feet would be fine. Maybe let Gunslingers threaten add another five as their 1st-level ability.

As a martial artist, I would so much rather be in close combat with a gun wielder than a knife wielder. Ask any pragmatic martial artist and they will say the same.

No, quite a few of them would think you've watched too many episodes of Walker Texas Ranger. Face someone with a gun pointing at your torso, with that hole at the end looking bigger than life itself, and you'll realize--quite pragmatically--how you are just a finger-squeeze away from mortal injury.

Yes, a gun wielder who is fifteen feet away and has you flat-footed has you at his mercy -- but a gun wielder in the middle of a chaotic combat who is five feet away from me is nowhere NEAR as dangerous as a knife wielder in the same situation. A knife can cut me along a lot of different edges, while a gun's danger zone consists of one line.

Nowhere NEAR, huh? Ah, the ever-distinctive over-technical combat pseudo-analysis of the "pragmatic" martial artist who's maybe 19 and thinks he's got it all boiled down to a fine science with trajectories and what-not. Your proclivity for speaking in terms of extremes and absolutes in this matter is telling in and of itself.

Sure, a totally inept (non-proficient) gunman may use his weapon clumsily in a "chaotic combat" (real combats are usually over in seconds, which is really too quickly to be qualified as either chaotic or orderly). He'll either snap a shot off and drop you or you'll attack his gun arm and eliminate the weapon from the fight.

But a cold-blooded shooter? Chances are he won't conveniently extend his arm out toward you to have that little double-handed slap disarm maneuver pulled on him. He'll keep that gun down and close to him and drill you, and believe me that bullet's "limited danger zone" will seem a lot more dangerous as it rips through your guts.

This is worth a different thread in an of itself -- if you think I'm full of it, we can take it elsewhere.

Actually, it's not worth a thread. You're reducing the fairly straightforward art of close-quarters combat to an overly-elaborate, choreographed, pseudo-science in an effort to rationalize an extremely bad move as a sensible tactic. The truth is, you don't need to talk to an experienced martial artist to know what the proper working theory is in this scenario. Hate to take an ascerbic tone with you, but I'm genuinely concerned that you might try this in life, young man. Please don't. You will find that there is no deep strategy at work and will likely either die or be gravely injured within a couple of seconds.

3) Ranged weapons and melee weapons are different, not just in the game, but in real life. Taking a swing at someone next to you does not take a ton of thought -- if someone drops their guard to do something (like move through a square you threaten) it's relatively easy to lash out at them. But ranged weapons require more thought in terms of aiming and focusing

No, a .38 special is not harder to lash out with than a rapier. Simple point-and-click inteface. Doesn't get much simpler than that really. POP! You're down.

I'm not utterly against the idea of ranged AoOs -- I recall that some prestige classes in D&D made them possible, and I'd be fine with an advanced class or prestige class that did the same here, or a feat that made it possible. But it should not be a low-level feat -- anyone who can keep track of 60 squares at once ought to be darn powerful and ought to have spent a lot to get to that point -- high level in the advanced class, or a feat with a high BAB pre-req, along with Combat Reflexes and ranks in Concentration or something.

For the most part I'm in agreement here. Reality probably should give way enough in this case to require some feats to be expended. I think a five-foot threat radius should be simple enough to come by. In contrast, AoO's out to 60 feet would be disastrous regardless of any qualifications.

 

[Max]

Originally posted by KaeYoss
It makes handguns far too powerful. Realism is nice in the real world, but a game should be balanced out, even if it breaks realism.

Just to reinforce this point, Sidewinder (a d20 western game) does have a special ability that allows guns to threaten an area. It is only available to the Gunslinger prestige class, and is a 10th level abilty for the PrC. With pre-req's you would have to be at least 17th level to get this ability.

That is how powerful allowing guns to threaten is (at least in the mind of one game designer). Giving it to everyone is going to make your games very bloody.

Consdider this: say you have two groups in a gunfight, 3 on each side, and they are shooting at each other 20 feet apart. If all the guns threaten out to a range of 30' then you are safer if you don't move. Think about that. Standing still is your best option, because if you move you will draw AOO's from EVERY shooter on the other side. Seems to me you should be harder to hit if you're moving, not easier.

Max

PS Sidewinder is being updated to use D20 Modern as a base, so it will be interesting to see how the wild west rules change as a result. d20 Modern hadn't come out when they originally produced Sidewinder.