Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 1056441" data-attributes="member: 8158">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. 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).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. 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.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.Makes sense.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.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.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).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.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.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).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.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. 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.Now that's the voice of reason talking.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).All I can say here is "suit yourself" I suppose, and I hope you never really have to make that choice.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.Heeeeey, who was talking to you, kid? Wait for someone to pull your string! THWACK!!! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> Whoops, there I go again... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification