Threatening Hand Guns
- Thread starter Tywyll
- Start date
Well, personally, I'm done with this thread. Felon, you're condescending and rude, and you top it off by trying to claim the moral high ground and get past all the "silliness" that you yourself started. I call 'em like I see 'em, too, and if I see somebody acting like a pompous windbag, I will indeed take up the conversation. For you to decide NOW that you were just doing harmless sparring while we were being jerks is extremely convenient for you. Maybe you're clinically incapable of understanding your own rudeness. Maybe you're one of those naturally abrasive people who doesn't understand why everyone overreacts to what they intend to be lighthearted verbal banter. Regardless, I'm judging you by what I read, and you read like a condescending jerk.
All that speaks to my opinion of you personally, or at least of what I've seen of you on this thread. As far as the actual TOPIC is concerned, I think that the change would make handguns more powerful than they are in real life. When I first said something to this effect, you said that I'd seen too many martial arts movies. When I posted my thoughts on the matter, based on my training (none of which involves kicking the gun out of their hands or any other late-night action movie garbage like that), you said that you disagreed, but didn't really provide a ton of thinking for that opinion. For the person who thought I was basing my opinion purely on cinematic entertainment, you haven't provided any information yourself about why you think that a rules change is in order -- beyond cinematic evidence of how guns would blow my guts all over the place if I tried any of the silly moves you assumed I'd be using. Thanks, by the way -- multiple remarks about how I'd get blown away or gutted or punched full of holes was a cute little bit of imagistic intimidation, and I really appreciated it. Thanks for making it personal. If you had any actual evidence beyond the Clint Eastwood movies that are the opposite side of the coin to the stupid martial arts movies where the gun is just a prop that gets kicked out of the dude's hand (sigh), I'd love to hear it.
Hey, I'll even start -- how about the stastical fact that the gun most likely to shoot a police officer is his own gun? Admittedly, police officers have a difficult situation, in that there are very few circumstances where they're allowed to open fire. This results in a lot of times when the officer is holding a gun on somebody saying, "Do this, or I will be forced to open fire." And yet, despite their training, there are times when some whacked-out criminal is able to lunge in, catching the officer off-guard and moving into a situation where they're struggling over the gun -- which then goes off, sometimes hitting the officer himself. At the same time, there are other occasions when the officer was not holding someone at gunpoint -- when it was a firefight, and the person just lunged at the cop, got into an ugly struggle, and got away with the gun.
I'm not saying that such a situation should cause the rules to change -- should make guns any more vulnerable or less dangerous or anything. What I AM saying is that it seems like your interpretation is an attempt to change the rules in order to make more pleasant flavor text. You assume that unless two people are grappling by d20 rules, they are not touching each other, whereas I assume that if I'm unarmed and my opponent has a gun and I'm adjacent to him, any flavor text about what's going on that round HAS to involve me whacking at his gun hand to avoid me being shot at point-blank range. Only someone with a ton of gun training (ie, a Gunslinger) should be able to shoot me in the middle of that situation without me getting some chance to knock the gun aside as he fires (ie, my attack of opportunity, which I only get if I'm armed or trained in Combat Martial Arts).
All that speaks to my opinion of you personally, or at least of what I've seen of you on this thread. As far as the actual TOPIC is concerned, I think that the change would make handguns more powerful than they are in real life. When I first said something to this effect, you said that I'd seen too many martial arts movies. When I posted my thoughts on the matter, based on my training (none of which involves kicking the gun out of their hands or any other late-night action movie garbage like that), you said that you disagreed, but didn't really provide a ton of thinking for that opinion. For the person who thought I was basing my opinion purely on cinematic entertainment, you haven't provided any information yourself about why you think that a rules change is in order -- beyond cinematic evidence of how guns would blow my guts all over the place if I tried any of the silly moves you assumed I'd be using. Thanks, by the way -- multiple remarks about how I'd get blown away or gutted or punched full of holes was a cute little bit of imagistic intimidation, and I really appreciated it. Thanks for making it personal. If you had any actual evidence beyond the Clint Eastwood movies that are the opposite side of the coin to the stupid martial arts movies where the gun is just a prop that gets kicked out of the dude's hand (sigh), I'd love to hear it.
Hey, I'll even start -- how about the stastical fact that the gun most likely to shoot a police officer is his own gun? Admittedly, police officers have a difficult situation, in that there are very few circumstances where they're allowed to open fire. This results in a lot of times when the officer is holding a gun on somebody saying, "Do this, or I will be forced to open fire." And yet, despite their training, there are times when some whacked-out criminal is able to lunge in, catching the officer off-guard and moving into a situation where they're struggling over the gun -- which then goes off, sometimes hitting the officer himself. At the same time, there are other occasions when the officer was not holding someone at gunpoint -- when it was a firefight, and the person just lunged at the cop, got into an ugly struggle, and got away with the gun.
I'm not saying that such a situation should cause the rules to change -- should make guns any more vulnerable or less dangerous or anything. What I AM saying is that it seems like your interpretation is an attempt to change the rules in order to make more pleasant flavor text. You assume that unless two people are grappling by d20 rules, they are not touching each other, whereas I assume that if I'm unarmed and my opponent has a gun and I'm adjacent to him, any flavor text about what's going on that round HAS to involve me whacking at his gun hand to avoid me being shot at point-blank range. Only someone with a ton of gun training (ie, a Gunslinger) should be able to shoot me in the middle of that situation without me getting some chance to knock the gun aside as he fires (ie, my attack of opportunity, which I only get if I'm armed or trained in Combat Martial Arts).
ThoughtBubble
First Post
Here's my question. Say someone within my handgun's threatened range takes a shot with a handgun, do I get an AOO, which could provoke an AOO?
KaeYoss said:
Cool.
Fair enough, although mind you that's easily more offensive than I said to Tak. But not to worry, I can suck it up
takyris said:
I'm not concerned with moral high ground. I found it quite aggrivating that you guys were pretty dismissive of the initial suggestion, and I thought you in particular dismissed a reasonable point of view with an attitude that could be labeled condescending in and of itself. I reacted to that, and have explained where I was coming from at least a couple of times, and figured we'd eventually get past any initial confrontations, but suit yourself.
I never called you jerks; I have no hostility towards you. I said the indignation was a major overreaction. As far as I can tell, the most insulting thing I said had to do with you being a young martial artist with an excess of confidence in your knowledge of how easy it is to handle an armed opponent.
I'm sorry to hear that, Tak. I thought we were going to hug and make up and be pals forever.
More powerful than in real life? Cinematic evidence? See, from where I'm sitting we've gone over the rainbow. Guns blow guts all over the place in the real world in the exact situations I brought up. I'm saying that a guy with a gun can turn that weapon on an attacker with the same defensive alacrity as a melee weapon. That's it and that's all. What exactly do you need to have explained here?
Seriously, this is almost not funny anymore.
I just know this is where the head of the Lollipop Guild shows up and tells me I'm not merely condescending, but truly most sincerely condescending....
Get over it already...please! Stop having your feelings hurt and quit personalizing everything....it's driving me nuts.
I can't seem to explain to you that handguns are easy to use, and their wielders are dangerous to jostle. I'm not sure what sort of mountain of evidence you mean here, but I am growing more certain that this is not going to be an enjoyable spirited discussion much longer. It might just get acrimonious.
OK, so...done with the thread or not?
Look, I'm saying that it in some campaigns it should be possible for a d20M character to be able to defend himself from attacks that would be able to provoke using a handgun, and requiring every character to become isn't the most ideal way for those campaigns. A feat's probably the best way to handle that, compromising between realism and playability. Of course, even then the character can get caught off-guard or can blow his attack of opportunity.
Granted, it will make guns more dangerous and make it less possible for an unarmed opponent to engage the gunman. If the GM finds that acceptable, then let him give it a try.
There is nothing unreasonable about any of that. And there's nothing to take personally.
Last edited:
Felon said:More powerful than in real life? Cinematic evidence? See, from where I'm sitting we've gone over the rainbow. Guns blow guts all over the place in the real world in the exact situations I brought up. I'm saying that a guy with a gun can turn that weapon on an attacker with the same defensive alacrity as a melee weapon. That's it and that's all. What exactly do you need to have explained here?
Seriously, this is almost not funny anymore.
But see, you haven't actually submitted any evidence of how guns blow guts all over the world. I understand that you take this as a given. I take it as a given that a gun in close quarters is less useful than a knife, and when I was challenged on that, I provided evidence. I haven't heard you provide evidence on how a gun is so easy to use in close combat that it should be able to fire as an Attack of Opportunity, when no other ranged weapon can do so.
If you still disagree with me about guns and their utility in close combat, that's fine -- but my understanding from criminal statistics was that most handgun deaths were caused from shots of between ten and twenty-five feet away. The shots that were so close as to leave close-range gunshot residue on the victim were fairly rare, either due to execution-style deaths or surprise shots. Take away execution-style and surprise shots, and there aren't a ton of instances. I'm not saying that guns are useless in close quarters by any stretch, but I don't think it's as easy and viable as you're making it sound -- which is easy and viable enough to use in an AoO.
Again, that was my understanding. If you've got evidence to the contrary, fire away. Mine could be outdated.
On another argument, weighted throwing knives, darts, and grenades are pretty easy to throw -- the latter requires no training or proficiencies whatsoever, and requires very little muscle -- but you can't do those things as attacks of opportunity. It's restricted to melee actions. If I were a player in a campaign where a DM made that house rule about handguns, I'd be taking Lightning Reflexes, one level in Fast Hero for Evasion, and pestering the DM to let me drop a grenade five feet away as an Attack of Opportunity. Or better yet, I'd get those thermite puppies, or whichever ones it is that do a ton of damage and have a 5-foot burst radius, so I wouldn't even be in the area of effect.
I'm over it, although I'd suggest that a slight behavioral change on your part would result in you being driven nuts less often.
I've got no problem with "dangerous to jostle" (and easy to use is fine with me, too). Heck, in a realistic campaign, I'd be all over making people take checks every time something happened to them. Fall off a balconey while holding your gun? Roll to see if it goes off.
I just don't agree with you that "easy to use" means that it gets to be useable as an AoO. In terms of reality, I doubt that an average Joe is going to have the reaction ability that you give him. I DO believe that a trained veteran could do what you suggest in reality (that is, fire a gun at a target 5' away as an AoO) , but in d20 terms, that trained person has burned a feat or two on it and has a decent BAB.
I'd also want to make sure that the shooter still provoked an AoO from taking that shot (barring Gunslinger close-shooting ability), because that would balance things nicely. Actually, if that rule remains in place and we're clear about it, then I think we're both happy:
1) Shooter is adjacent to Opponent1. Opponent1 tries to run past Shooter. Shooter takes close-quarters AoO shot. Opponent1 has no melee weapon or combat martial art skill, and cannot take an AoO. He likely gets shot.
2) Shooter is adjacent to Opponent2. Opp2 tries to run past Shooter, who takes a close-quarters AoO shot. Opp2 has a melee weapon (or Combat Martial Arts), and can therefore take an AoO on the Shooter as Shooter starts firing. If Opp2 has the brains God gave an eggplant, he attempts to disarm Shooter before that shot goes off -- or if Opp2 is a chainsaw wielder or high-level martial artist, he can make that melee attack something to worry about. In that case, the Shooter might not WANT to fire recklessly in close quarters, because his opponent has either the training or the equipment to make that a bad idea.
So, while I would still disagree with you on whether it should be an automatic ability or not, I don't see AoO-shots as game-breaking.
As a compromise, how would you feel about lumping it as an ability under "Advanced Firearms Proficiency"? You can autofire without the -4, and you can take single-shot AoOs with a handgun.
That way I'm happy because it's not quite so trivial and easy to get there, but it's part of a feat that a lot of people take already (if only to get to Burst Fire down the road).
Heh.
Sounds good to me. And, provided that a close-fire shot still provokes an AoO under ordinary circumstances, I see it as a pump-up, but not a gamebreaker in most circumstances,
Holy mackeral, I came for the fight and a conversation broke out!
ThoughtBubble
First Post
Felon said:
Which still leaves us with plenty of interestingly broken situations. Let's take a gunman with this optional feat and combat reflexes (the combination of the two is what causes me some dislike). Now, we stick him in the middle of a bunch of mooks with guns. The mooks are standing around him in a circle, guns drawn. The gunman allready made his move this turn, doing something else (say falling). The mooks open fire, first one from behind, then the one on the side, then the one across from him, then the one in front, then the one who remains. In this same time, the gunman has gotten to shoot 5 times. If the gunaman has a decent clip size and double tap, or a heavy gun, he may have just killed 5 guys in one round because they shot at him. Sure, that's pretty damn neat, and cool in a cinematic sort of way. On the other hand, if one of them hadn't shot at the gunman, one of the mooks would have not been shot. IMO, standing around doing nothing should not entail not getting shot.
So we can argue that the guy wasn't just standing still, he was ducking and weaving and being a difficult target. But wouldn't that imply that the gunman still could have taken the shot at him, but was just more likely to miss? If the gunman could have taken the shot, why didn't he?
I never allow AOOs to be taken with limited charge items. AOOs fall into the grey area of combat consisting of a whole bunch of actions that you're not aware of. When limited charges, in this case ammo, need to be checked, it becomes harder to go with the idea that you're constantly attacking, and the attack roll just shows if you got a successful hit sometime this round. You'd need to know the number of shots expended. AOOs just get further into this muck. Maybe you get an extra chance at a successful swing because instead of darting and weaving, he was running away. So the wild swing you made had a better chance to connect. But would you have made that same swing if he wasn't running away? If you look at AOOs in that fashion, it's hard to judge how many bullets get expended.
As far as the 5 foot "Only on Bull Rush, trip, and disarm attempts," I figure that works for any of the situations you mentioned earlier like the S.W.A.T setting, when you don't want gunmen getting disarmed as often. I can see pulling the trigger refelxively as some guy swats at my hand. And it would be an interesting way of differentiating between handguns and larger arms. And if one is feeling conservative about it, limit it to one AOO per round. I'd say, make point blank shot a prerequisite though. I mean, it's all about shooting stuff that 's right there in your face anyway.
As far as Tywyll's original concerns, no I havn't tried it, I think it would be an interesting setup, but ultimately suffering from a few potential headaches. If you do try it, let me know how it goes. I think, in that situation, I'd hold an action till someone shot at me, use my AOO, then fire again.
Out of curiosity, since I just had my first gun shooting expierence sunday, has anyone else here done some shooting?
Last edited:
Brad Hindman
First Post
Max said:
As one of the fellows working on Sidewinder: Recoiled, I can give you the inside scoop that the ranged threat ability of the Gunslinger is disappearing. It wasn't so much that the ability was too powerful for a 17th level character. The real issue was that a group of gunslingers tended to start these nasty AoO chains. It was just messy.
"I ready an action to shoot anyone who comes out from behind their cover."
or
"I delay my turn till my opponent and I go simultaneously. If he comes out from cover, I lay into him."
I don't really see why things that can be worked out with applications of normal tactics require feats to accomplish, or entirely new rule systems plotted out. If you want to make someone especially good at hitting people behind tables, introduce them to the concept of tactical (not melee -2 to ac) flanking. Ever see someone try to get cover behind a desk in relation to someone to their 6 o' clock while another person is also firing at them from a 3 o' clock position? It's very very sorry for the guy trying for cover.
or
"I delay my turn till my opponent and I go simultaneously. If he comes out from cover, I lay into him."
I don't really see why things that can be worked out with applications of normal tactics require feats to accomplish, or entirely new rule systems plotted out. If you want to make someone especially good at hitting people behind tables, introduce them to the concept of tactical (not melee -2 to ac) flanking. Ever see someone try to get cover behind a desk in relation to someone to their 6 o' clock while another person is also firing at them from a 3 o' clock position? It's very very sorry for the guy trying for cover.
Similar Threads
