Threatening Hand Guns

[Kae'Yoss]

Yes, I noted that myself. Of course, "too powerful" is a relative term.

No, it's an absolute term. "More powerful" would be relative. Too powerful is to powerful is to powerful.

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,

As I said: reality is really nice as long as it doesn't get in the way of game balance.

Then there's that little matter that running around with a sword will mark you as a madman. Running around with a gun will mark you as a criminal (at the most).

Pistols are powerful enough as they are, even without threatening an area.

And this is no popularity contest, it's a game.

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.

Yea, firearms. Funny we're talking only about sidearms, though. About handguns. Firearms include rifles, SMG's shotguns, and machine guns. Which would get the shaft if you made pistols, MP's and revolvers threaten an area (especially if it really were 30 ft or something).


Also, Pistols in melee versus 15' away: I'd also prefer to have that enemy right in front of me. He might not hold out his arm, but I could still try to grap that gun and point it away from me. I cannot do that if I'm almost 5 Meters away from the gunner. And if I tried the same move with a guy holding those unpopular swords, I'd lose some fingers.

 

[takyris]

...in the real world swords have sort of slipped in popularity over the last few years in favor of guns...

Not much room for argument there, except that I'd argue that the main reason for guns replacing swords would be the facts that they're easier to carry surreptitiously, they work from a distance, and their attacks are much more difficult for someone to dodge. d20 Modern has already accounted for those factors by having them be Small or Medium-Sized, giving them range increments, and having them do more damage than most melee weapons. If a longsword slashes across your throat, it kills you just as easily as a gunshot -- but because a gunshot is somewhat harder to parry or reactively dodge, they have guns do a bunch more damage.

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.

Ah. That's somewhat different than what I saw argued. Well, guns already do threaten those five feet as pistol whips, but I still disagree with you about letting them shoot as AoOs from five feet. I'd be fine with it as a feat or a class ability, but I don't think people should get it for free. I understand that it does not take much time to pull a trigger, but look at it this way:

Below, you say that I'm full of it, and that guns are well-nigh impossible to defend against. If that's true, and I'm so squat-outta-luck, then, assuming that no action I take this round is going to result in me being behind cover, why does it matter whether I'm quaffing a potion (which would provoke an AoO) or taking no action at all that round (which wouldn't)? I mean, it sort of makes sense with someone next to you with a sword -- if you're taking no action, you can still weave and duck and keep yourself defended, but if you stop to drink a potion while some guy with a cleaver is right next to you, your butt deserves to be cleaved in twain. With our magnificent gun, though, it's so easy to shoot and so hard to defend against by your logic that, really, the only way to adequately reflect it would be to have the gun-user get a free attack on each person on their turn, because it takes so little time and is so hard to defend against. Except that the round system is sort of designed to abstract all of that into a turn-based system and then let the DM insert the appropriate flavor text to have it make sense.

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.

I don't see how that exactly relates to the issue at hand, to be honest. I mean, yay, you're being condescending and dismissive, and bully for you, but you could say the same thing about someone with a knife at your throat, and all it would boil down to is, "weapons can kill you", which we all sorta know. For guns, it can be extrapolated to "weapons can kill you at a distance", which, again, we all sorta know.

I didn't say that guns were harmless. I didn't say that guns didn't kill people. I said, "In close combat, I'd rather be facing a gun than a knife." If he's twenty feet away from me, sure, I'd rather it be a knife then.

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.

As I said earlier, I was trying to make the point short and sweet without taking over the thread. You're speaking in the same extremes and absolutes that I am, and you're making inaccurate personal attacks on me while doing so. Do you always try to justify your points by being condescending?

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.

Wait -- the gunman gets to aim carefully and drill me while I stand there flat-footed? Wow, that DOES prove that guns are completely unbeatable in close combat. That's the kind of logic that the idiot martial artists use when saying, "Oh yeah, but I don't have to LOAD MY FISTS or TAKE OFF THE SAFETY ON MY AXE KICK, so I can just kill you before you even get your gun ready!!!" In both cases, a one-sided argument is being used to make a sweeping generalization.

If you're talking about a gun expert that is good enough to train a weapon me in close combat while I'm doing something on my turn and take a free shot, it sounds kinda like you're talking about a Gunslinger with gun-feats -- not a common mook.

"Believe me"? Have you been shot in the torso, or have you just watched a lot of Clint Eastwood movies? I don't see you dragging out your own experience here.

If we're talking about reality rather than d20, then let's talk about reality. In reality, if a gun hits you in a vital area, you die -- and if a knife hits you in that same area, you also die. Forget hit points and all that.

At a distance, the gun wins, easy. No contest.

Against a flat-footed opponent at close range, both weapons work pretty well. The gun-user has a second to aim a good shot, and the knife-user can make a fast stab to the throat, and both fights are effectively over unless you've got a bad guy so pepped up on drugs or adrenaline that he's gonna fight until he's dead.

(For the record, there is no defense against someone shooting you. That's the first thing they teach us. There are things we can do when someone is THREATENING to shoot us -- a wide range of things, depending on our relevant body positions and where the gun is. But if someone is actually shooting at you, all you can really do is try to protect your vital areas, minimize the target you present, and decide real fast whether you're going to charge, dive behind something, or run for your life. Yeah, I'd love it if every bad guy put the gun right against my chest, fully extending his arm as he did, and THEN demanded my wallet, and then got distracted by a coughing fit or a Brittney Spears poster on the far wall. But a good school trains for situations other than that one.)

If both sides are already struggling, though -- say the martial artist had a better reaction time and moved in to try close strikes and see if he can get rid of that weapon -- then the knife user has a few advantages when compared to the gun user. To reiterate -- any attack to a lethal area by either the gun guy or the knife guy ends the fight. The difference is that the knife guy is more likely to deliver small incidental wounds to the unarmed guy while the two of them struggle over the weapon. And while a small knife wound isn't likely to kill you, it IS likely to make you flinch and reflexively pull back -- and that flinch gives the knife guy the opening to finish you off. Those are the wounds that can turn the fight around, either ragged tears from the knife's tip or slashes from the blade that are more painful than life-threatening, but which cause an instinctive flinch reaction that can lead to you getting gutted a moment later.

Beyond that, you've got the fact that a gunshot wound to a nonvital area is less likely to disable you than a knife wound to that same area -- knife wounds are by far less lethal than gunshot wounds, but they do a lot of unpleasant damage going in and then out, tearing along an area while cutting into it. Gunshot wounds are, I agree, more likely to kill you, but if were talking about an incidental minor injury to a non-vital area, the gunshot wound, on average, is easier to ignore until after the fight.

To reiterate: I'd rather not go against either, because there's a good chance that I'd die, either way. But once I AM in close, assuming I have an opportunity to get there, the gun is less likely to give me a painful incidental injury that throws off my concentration and lets the wielder finish me off.

That's the slightly longer version of me saying "I'd rather go against the gun." It's real possible that I could die either way, and I certainly wouldn't do it unless I believed that something more than my wallet or car keys was at stake -- but in a situation where I CAN get into a struggle with the person, the gun is a bit easier for me to deal with. In a situation where the bad guy is ten feet away from me and not negligently holding his weapon extended, of course I'd prefer to be facing a knife. I apologize for being less than clear and giving the impression that I'd rather have someone standing clear of me with a gun than a knife.

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.

Again with the condescending assumptions and the rudeness. Please stop. You don't know me, and getting all grandfatherly with someone who might well be older than you are is somewhat impolite.

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.

I agree with just about everything you say here. I certainly wouldn't object to something that a third-level character could take to give him AoO-shooting in a five-foot square -- although he should still provoke an AoO from doing the shooting. If he's a Gunslinger with Close Quarters Shooting or whatever it is, AND he takes that feat, then he's a lot more powerful -- but he's also spending feats getting good at something that isn't the main purpose of a firearm -- doing damage at a distance. So that's probably fine.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ah. That's somewhat different than what I saw argued. Well, guns already do threaten those five feet as pistol whips,

Not really: If you hold the gun normally, it's only a melee weapon. To get the pistol whip, you have to hold it differently. If you use the "pistol mode", you don't threaten at all.




But the rest of your post is good. I don't like Felon's know-all tone either.

 

[Spatula]

Do you always try to justify your points by being condescending?

From his past activity on these boards that I've seen, yes, he does.

 

[Spatula]

Not really: If you hold the gun normally, it's only a melee weapon. To get the pistol whip, you have to hold it differently. If you use the "pistol mode", you don't threaten at all.

I agree, but Charles Ryan has indicated otherwise, on the WOTC Modern board I think.

 

[Felon]

No, it's an absolute term. "More powerful" would be relative. Too powerful is to powerful is to powerful.

Nope, it's only an absolute if you can demonstrate that it's always true. It would have to screw-up somewhere around 100% of campaigns that it was used in. Since all this really amounts to is making guns threaten like melee weapons already do, we're not talking anything that's a big whoop.

As I said: reality is really nice as long as it doesn't get in the way of game balance.

I agree, but there's no mandate that a gun absolutely has to be balanced against a melee attack. If there was, d20 Modern would certainly fail to be viable for many types of campaigns in a modern setting. There's nothing wrong with a campaign where guns rule and slugfests are few and far between. I've played in plenty (GURPS, Cyberpunk) and they were about as playable as d20M is (albeit not as flexible).

Pistols are powerful enough as they are, even without threatening an area. And this is no popularity contest, it's a game.

It's a game that a GM can tailor to fit a variety of settings, some of which depict a higher level of realism than others.

Yea, firearms. Funny we're talking only about sidearms, though. About handguns. Firearms include rifles, SMG's shotguns, and machine guns.

Well, not to get bogged down in what has the earmarks of off-tangent semantics, but I consulted Merriam-Websters, and it says a firearm is "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder -- usually used of small arms ". Perhaps you may feel that's a layman's definition, but laymen's terms suffice for the topic of this thread.

Which would get the shaft if you made pistols, MP's and revolvers threaten an area (especially if it really were 30 ft or something).

Not IMO. Handguns have concealability going for them, but take it on the chin in terms of damage, range, and capacity. Giving them an AoO would be one way to wed realism with balance.

Also, Pistols in melee versus 15' away: I'd also prefer to have that enemy right in front of me. He might not hold out his arm, but I could still try to grap that gun and point it away from me.

Makes sense.

I cannot do that if I'm almost 5 Meters away from the gunner. And if I tried the same move with a guy holding those unpopular swords, I'd lose some fingers.

You might, and if you tried it against a gunman, you might get shot. Thus, they'd both get their AoO's if you don't have the right feat.

Ah. That's somewhat different than what I saw argued. Well, guns already do threaten those five feet as pistol whips, but I still disagree with you about letting them shoot as AoOs from five feet. I'd be fine with it as a feat or a class ability, but I don't think people should get it for free.

Sounds like my disconnect point with you and Kae is that you fellows speak as if D20M should have some fixed, non-scalable interpretation of what's balanced versus what's too powerful. Seems to me that leaves little room for house rules. I see D20M as it was described by its creators, as being appropriate for every sort of modern campaign, everything from one based on Buffy tVS to one based on Diehard to one based on a Jack Ryan novel. I can certainly see the point of optional rules that give guns a major edge in some campaigns and not others.

I understand that it does not take much time to pull a trigger, but look at it this way: Below, you say that I'm full of it, and that guns are well-nigh impossible to defend against.

Well, I'd say they are pretty much either pointed at you or they're not, and you're either wearing ballistic armor or you're not, but their indefensibility is not really my point. It's that it's pretty easy to snap off a shot defensively, and thus most folks who would attempt to disarm or bull rush someone with a pistol is most definitely risking getting shot. In D20M, that's not true. If my character is menacing you with a gun, you just reach right over and snatch it from me, or for dramatic effect you can kick it out of my hand like Walker. Any schmoe can do that; no Improved Disarm required (I sure hope poor Walker didn't waste a feat on that!).

Yes, you could argue that it happens this way: you try to disarm me and if you fail, then on my next action I can shoot you. But then again, you could say that just as well if I had a knife. That's more of an indictment against the whole AoO system (and there are plenty of valid arguements for tossing that out as well).

....With our magnificent gun, though, it's so easy to shoot and so hard to defend against by your logic that, really, the only way to adequately reflect it would be to have the gun-user get a free attack on each person on their turn, because it takes so little time and is so hard to defend against. Except that the round system is sort of designed to abstract all of that into a turn-based system and then let the DM insert the appropriate flavor text to have it make sense.

Well, I like this arguement better than the previous one, but when you close your arguement by bringing up flavor text, that's where my point comes in. There is no single appropriate "flavor" for all campaigns. It is not flavorful for a character in a Thomas Wolfe adventure for everyone to be slapping guns out each other's hands left and right. It is more appropriate for a setting with James Bond-style action though.

I didn't say that guns were harmless. I didn't say that guns didn't kill people. I said, "In close combat, I'd rather be facing a gun than a knife." If he's twenty feet away from me, sure, I'd rather it be a knife then.

You said that someone with a gun is "nowhere NEAR" as dangerous as someone with a knife at a range of five feet, and that "any pragmatic martial artist" would agree with you. That extreme statement struck me as more than a little ludicrous. Waaay out there in fact. We're talking reality now, not games; if you have to choose, take the guy with the knife. Seirously.

As I said earlier, I was trying to make the point short and sweet without taking over the thread. You're speaking in the same extremes and absolutes that I am, and you're making inaccurate personal attacks on me while doing so. Do you always try to justify your points by being condescending?

I found the initial replies that Tywyll received of his initial post to be somewhat condescending and utterly dismissive, and that irked me. It always irks me how quickly people will line up to reject out of hand any statement, no matter how reasonable, that there could be something deficient with the rules as writ.

So yeah, that along with what strikes me as wildly outlandish statement about a knife being more dangerous than a gun in close quartters (or any situation where the gun has bullets in it).

Wait -- the gunman gets to aim carefully and drill me while I stand there flat-footed? Wow, that DOES prove that guns are completely unbeatable in close combat. That's the kind of logic that the idiot martial artists use when saying, "Oh yeah, but I don't have to LOAD MY FISTS or TAKE OFF THE SAFETY ON MY AXE KICK, so I can just kill you before you even get your gun ready!!!" In both cases, a one-sided argument is being used to make a sweeping generalization.

Lol, Takyris, a guy with a gun against an unarmed man IS one-sided. And you misread; you're not standing there flat-footed while he slowly aims. You're thinking about doing something when before you know it, POP! There's a hole in you, dear Liza.

If you're talking about a gun expert that is good enough to train a weapon me in close combat while I'm doing something on my turn and take a free shot, it sounds kinda like you're talking about a Gunslinger with gun-feats -- not a common mook.

Not an expert, just someone who doesn't get rattled. Maybe someone with a feat, or maybe just proficiency with the gun he's using.

"Believe me"? Have you been shot in the torso, or have you just watched a lot of Clint Eastwood movies? I don't see you dragging out your own experience here.

That's because empirical evidence has no meaning to others who don't know you from Adam. If I were to explain to you that I have had a gun or two pointed at me, and how little time there is to do anything fancy, would you, Kae, or anyone suddenly have a higher opinion of what I say? Nope, you'd just assume that the inaction was just me, and likely some of you would assume that I was just full of it. And hey, those are not unreasonably skeptic assumptions.

(For the record, there is no defense against someone shooting you. That's the first thing they teach us. There are things we can do when someone is THREATENING to shoot us -- a wide range of things, depending on our relevant body positions and where the gun is. But if someone is actually shooting at you, all you can really do is try to protect your vital areas, minimize the target you present, and decide real fast whether you're going to charge, dive behind something, or run for your life. Yeah, I'd love it if every bad guy put the gun right against my chest, fully extending his arm as he did, and THEN demanded my wallet, and then got distracted by a coughing fit or a Brittney Spears poster on the far wall. But a good school trains for situations other than that one.)

Now that's the voice of reason talking.

If both sides are already struggling, though -- say the martial artist had a better reaction time and moved in to try close strikes and see if he can get rid of that weapon -- then the knife user has a few advantages when compared to the gun user....either ragged tears from the knife's tip or slashes from the blade that are more painful than life-threatening, but which cause an instinctive flinch reaction that can lead to you getting gutted a moment later.

The close-range gunshot makes you react without thinking too though...it doesn't even have to touch you to make you back off.

But these remarks, and the ones you made in your initial reply, sound like we're talking about grappling. If you attempt to grapple someone with a handgun, I think it's reasonable to argue he should get to snap off an AoO just like the guy with the knife would. I think--speaking realistically--he would fire on you before infighting ensued (as opposed to having to wait until his next action after you've already initiated the grapple).

To reiterate: I'd rather not go against either, because there's a good chance that I'd die, either way. But once I AM in close, assuming I have an opportunity to get there, the gun is less likely to give me a painful incidental injury that throws off my concentration and lets the wielder finish me off.

All I can say here is "suit yourself" I suppose, and I hope you never really have to make that choice.

Again with the condescending assumptions and the rudeness. Please stop. You don't know me, and getting all grandfatherly with someone who might well be older than you are is somewhat impolite.

You sounded like you were in need of a reality check, so I took the piss, as I am wont to do whenever someone speaks as if their experience in the dojo or the SCA or the fencing hall or the firing range renders their opinions indisputable (the "any pragmatic martial artist would say the same thing" line was the real pisser I think). That happens all-too-often on this board, and little else manages to gripe my arse as severlely. I did not intend to be hostile, but your analysis had that familiar air of authority and I had a feeling that speaking to you any differently would have resulted in me being on the receiving of condescension.

And I wasn't being "grandfatherly", I was being avuncular. That's uncle-ly.

From his past activity on these boards that I've seen, yes, he does.

Heeeeey, who was talking to you, kid? Wait for someone to pull your string! THWACK!!!

Whoops, there I go again...

Seriously, how's a guy supposed to act when he's the sole voice of reason in the joint? Believe me, it's a burden.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I agree, but Charles Ryan has indicated otherwise, on the WOTC Modern board I think.

He did? Hm... I'd swear that they clarified that somewhere, in bullet point or notes from the bunker, I think

Nope, it's only an absolute if you can demonstrate that it's always true. It would have to screw-up somewhere around 100% of campaigns that it was used in. Since all this really amounts to is making guns threaten like melee weapons already do, we're not talking anything that's a big whoop.

Hee hee hee.

Anyway, this is a big advantage, and it would really screw up gameplay with all those AoO's around.

I agree, but there's no mandate that a gun absolutely has to be balanced against a melee attack.

Did I say absolutely? I'm pretty sure I didn't. And noone else, either. There will always be some biases. But that doesn't mean we can screw balance altogether.

It's a game that a GM can tailor to fit a variety of settings, some of which depict a higher level of realism than others.

This isn't about realism, either (especially not about "realism" that is proved by conjuring up biased examples).

Well, not to get bogged down in what has the earmarks of off-tangent semantics, but I consulted Merriam-Websters, and it says a firearm is "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder -- usually used of small arms ". Perhaps you may feel that's a layman's definition, but laymen's terms suffice for the topic of this thread.

This isn't about semantics. Handguns and Longarms make a huge difference. While the handguns have 3d8 (or maybe 4d6) damage tops (even with special attacks), longarms go as far as 4d12! (and we haven't had no damage bonuses from feats and the like yet). Just conisder a heavy machinegun guy with combat reflexes and burst fire.....

Not IMO. Handguns have concealability going for them, but take it on the chin in terms of damage, range, and capacity. Giving them an AoO would be one way to wed realism with balance.

Well, that's cause they're smaller weapons. They're supposed to be weaker. But therefore you can use two at the same time. But letting them threaten will give them to much.

You might, and if you tried it against a gunman, you might get shot. Thus, they'd both get their AoO's if you don't have the right feat.

The point is that I can actually grab that gun, but I won't grab that sword (I might try, but the loss of my fingers will prevent me from doing it).

I found the initial replies that Tywyll received of his initial post to be somewhat condescending

You thought we were condescending?

You sounded like you were in need of a reality check, so I took the piss, as I am wont to do whenever someone speaks as if their experience in the dojo or the SCA or the fencing hall or the firing range renders their opinions indisputable (the "any pragmatic martial artist would say the same thing" line was the real pisser I think). That happens all-too-often on this board, and little else manages to gripe my arse as severlely. I did not intend to be hostile, but your analysis had that familiar air of authority and I had a feeling that speaking to you any differently would have resulted in me being on the receiving of condescension.

So you're saying "Do unto others before they do unto you, even if you're not sure if the're even going to"? Lashing out at someone because you think that they might do so if you don't first?

And I wasn't being "grandfatherly", I was being avuncular. That's uncle-ly.

Heeeeey, who was talking to you, kid? Wait for someone to pull your string! THWACK!!!

Whoops, there I go again...

Seriously, how's a guy supposed to act when he's the sole voice of reason in the joint? Believe me, it's a burden.

Here you go again.

 

[Felon]

Provoking Attacks of Obtusemess

Anyway, this is a big advantage, and it would really screw up gameplay with all those AoO's around.

As you said yourself, he can try it out and see how well it works--although IMO your premontions of apocalypse are overstated. My own prediction is that the impact would likely be that characters are more inclined to stay at a healthier distance in a gunfight.

Did I say absolutely? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Well, you did specifically refute my statement that "too powerful" was a relative term, insisting it was "an absolute".

The reason you supplied was "Make handguns threaten and noone will even remotely consider using melee weapons".

So your primary support for stating that a house rule allowing guns to threaten is absolutely too powerful has been the assertion that melee should be a balanced, viable alternative. In a campaign that emphasizes realism, it is perfectly reasonable for the norm to be quite the contrary, with knives and fists patently overshadowed by bullets. In that case, such a house rule would be acceptable.

There will always be some biases. But that doesn't mean we can screw balance altogether.

There has been very little support as of yet to demonstrate that balance would be screwed by allowing guns to threaten. The harshest consequence so far is that melee falls to the wayside, and many an RPG has been playable (and hence "unscrewed") with an uneven ratio of slugfests to slugthrowers.

This isn't about realism, either (especially not about "realism" that is proved by conjuring up biased examples).

Notions of realism has been integral this thread's been about since Tywyll started it.

I'm not sure what you mean about bias. Since I am engaging in a debate, I logically use examples that support my position. That seems like something any sane person would do.

The point is that I can actually grab that gun, but I won't grab that sword (I might try, but the loss of my fingers will prevent me from doing it).

What exactly do you mean by "I can actually grab that gun but I won't grab that sword"? Are you indicating that it's safer to grab than a sword because it has no sharp edges? Grabbing a gun is dangerous too. It can go off and do more than sever a digit or two.

Or are you suggesting that a man wielding gun, with his guard up and ready to fire on opponents, is somehow incapable of firing that gun defensively to prevent someone from snatching it out of his hand, or rush him? If only that were true; armed robbery would be a much rarer crime.

It occurs to me that close quarters gunfights in D20M currently have the potential to be highly amusing, playing out something like a violent game of hot potato.

So you're saying "Do unto others before they do unto you, even if you're not sure if the're even going to"? Lashing out at someone because you think that they might do so if you don't first?

Weeeeeeeell, that's a pretty melodramatic interpretation.

A more accurate one would be thus: "I adjust my tone appropriately when I'm dealing with someone who seems to be adopting an air of authority, so as to establish that high self-esteem alone will not allow them to advance their arguement unchallenged."

Here you go again.

I chastised myself afterwards, I assure you. Such hubris is criminal.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re: Provoking Attacks of Obtusemess

As you said yourself, he can try it out and see how well it works--although IMO your premontions of apocalypse are overstated. My own prediction is that the impact would likely be that characters are more inclined to stay at a healthier distance in a gunfight.

Only one way to find out.

To get it straight again: what distance would you let them threaten? If it were more than 5 or 10 feet, distance would rapidly lose any meaning, since you'd get that AoO anyway.

Well, you did specifically refute my statement that "too powerful" was a relative term, insisting it was "an absolute".

Yes, I said that it was too powerful, and this too powerful was absolute. I didn't say that melee and ranged weapons should be absolutely balanced. It's OK if one or the other is stronger, but the threatening thing would tip the balance to much.

The reason you supplied was "Make handguns threaten and noone will even remotely consider using melee weapons".

I do think so. Except for coolness factor, noone would use melee weapons, since ranged would be so much more powerful: More damage even withouth high strength (indeed, no strength required), striking at distance and then even AoO'ing at distance.

So your primary support for stating that a house rule allowing guns to threaten is absolutely too powerful has been the assertion that melee should be a balanced, viable alternative. In a campaign that emphasizes realism, it is perfectly reasonable for the norm to be quite the contrary, with knives and fists patently overshadowed by bullets. In that case, such a house rule would be acceptable.

Bullets already overshadow fists and knives: 2d4 (at the very least) till 2d8 is more powerful than 1d4. While the fists and the knives can get Str bonuses, the bullets can get the benefit of double tap or even burst fire (with MP's) which offsets that again (and with akimbo wielding, you get double damage, without anything like only half str bonus for the off-hand).

Adding threatening guns will make all melee weapons (not only bare hands and knives) totally useless (while they were just inferior before).

If you don't extend the benefit of threatening to longarms, they will get an inferior choice as well (while they really should be better) with wielding handguns and mp's akimbo. If you do extend it, they will be even more devastating than handguns, and you can as well delete melee weapons.

There has been very little support as of yet to demonstrate that balance would be screwed by allowing guns to threaten. The harshest consequence so far is that melee falls to the wayside, and many an RPG has been playable (and hence "unscrewed") with an uneven ratio of slugfests to slugthrowers.

The second consequence is that with everyone threatening everyone (and provoking AoO's with every attack - even the own AoO's), you will get far more AoO's than regular attacks (especially since that will make Combat Reflexes a must-have feat), which is just not right.

Weeeeeeeell, that's a pretty melodramatic interpretation.

A more accurate one would be thus: "I adjust my tone appropriately when I'm dealing with someone who seems to be adopting an air of authority, so as to establish that high self-esteem alone will not allow them to advance their arguement unchallenged."

You insult people before they insult you, and don't even have proof that you insult them, you only think so. That is no excuse at all, and a bad justification.

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: Provoking Attacks of Obtusemess

To get it straight again: what distance would you let them threaten? If it were more than 5 or 10 feet, distance would rapidly lose any meaning, since you'd get that AoO anyway.

Speaking for myself, I just want to allow guns to be used for defensive AoO's, like thos provoked by starting a disarm, grapple, or bull rush. 5ft. can suffice for that. I suppose the Gunslinger can extend that out to 10ft as his first-level ability.

I do think so. Except for coolness factor, noone would use melee weapons, since ranged would be so much more powerful: More damage even withouth high strength (indeed, no strength required), striking at distance and then even AoO'ing at distance.

OK, I've already pointed this out several times now, but in many settings it is reasonable for melee to be an extremely undesirable choice. If you were running a WWII or S.W.A.T. or the aforementioned Thomas Wolfe campaign, for instance, it would be wildly inappropriate to have a character that eschewed guns for martial arts. In those campaigns, an unarmed character would not even think of confronting an opponent with a firearm if he had a choice.

Adding threatening guns will make all melee weapons (not only bare hands and knives) totally useless (while they were just inferior before).

Yes. Right on. You'd have to be either totally desperate or out of your mind to use melee in a gunfight. You've got it. Exactimundo. That can be perfectly acceptable for some campaigns. See above.

If you don't extend the benefit of threatening to longarms, they will get an inferior choice as well (while they really should be better) with wielding handguns and mp's akimbo. If you do extend it, they will be even more devastating than handguns, and you can as well delete melee weapons.

They'll still have the superior damage, range, and bullet capacity, so they'll hardly be hedged-out by allowing handguns to threaten a 5ft radius. Handguns will simply have an edge in those situations.

The second consequence is that with everyone threatening everyone (and provoking AoO's with every attack - even the own AoO's), you will get far more AoO's than regular attacks (especially since that will make Combat Reflexes a must-have feat), which is just not right.

We've already visited this territory as well. Everyone will not be threatening everyone. Everyone will just not stand face-to-face with each other during a gun battle. They'll do the sane thing at try to use distance and cover to their advantage.

You insult people before they insult you, and don't even have proof that you insult them, you only think so. That is no excuse at all, and a bad justification.

Lol...and the award for best actor in a messageboard melodrama goes to....

This is just a wild, ridiculous, overreaction. Yes, if a guy says something foolish I'll call him on it. If he comes across like a clueless kid, then that's how I'll respond to him (and no, dastard that I am, I won't go hire a private investigator to research his background first). If he quacks, I'll trust my instincts and call him a duck. Now, if I'd said something deeply cruel and hurtful--something genuinely inflammatory and abusive, not just a little verbal sparring--then you'd have some grounds for this over-the-top ourtrage on Tak's behalf. But it's just not there.

If you genuinely want to keep this discussion fresh, then let's cut the indignant routine, and stick to the topic. All of this niggling and harping over points I've already addressed is unproductive as hell, Kae.