Underpowered Guns in d20 Modern (rant, long)

[S'mon]

tjoenslo wrote:
>>The problem is that D&D (and D20 in general) is balanced to provide characters who can withstand a few solid hits at 3rd to 5th level. <<

A few solid hits from 9mm parabellum (eg from an Uzi SMG) is one thing, a few solid hits from .50 HMG is quite another - this is where d20Modern departs from even cinematic plausibility. The stopping power of the .50 is at least 8 times that of the 9mmP; if damage averages 7 from 2d6 from the 9mm it should average 56 from the .50! To allow for non-lethal glancing hits 2d6x8 might be better and quicker than 8d6. Of course MDTs and VP/WP systems muddy the waters - my old Cyberpunk/D&D game worked fine with regular hit points, no massive damage checks, and realistic weapons damage - 9mm softnose doing 1d6, .45 ACP (eg Colt .45) 1d6+1, 5.56N rifle (Eg M16) doing 2d6, 7.56N (eg FN-FAL) doing 3d6+1, .50 HMG doing 8d6... I think 30mm autocannon as seen on the Apache did 30d6/hit.
This approach makes high-level heroes tough to kill with small-calibre handguns, but still respecting of anti-vehicular weaponry!

 

[S'mon]

The M2HB is a lot more powerful in real life, putting out way more bullets, etc etc. The knight would die. Then again, if you make weapons overpowered, PCs and NPCs gravitate towards such weapons. The game would no longer be about characters, but who has the biggest weapons.

Yeah, but nobody in any game is going to be carrying around an M2HB as a personal weapon (unless PCs are wearing Power Armour or the GM is a milksop)! Certainly with realistic damage, the tendency is to gravitate to the biggest practical man-portable weapon; in the modern day that'd be a 7.56mm assault rifle like the FN-FAL. Frankly, those _are_ the most effective infantry weapons - far moreso than light 5.56N rifles like the M16 or British L85/SA80. They have better range & far better stopping power. Real-life downsides are:

1.The big bullets mean you carry less ammo;

2.The big & high velocity bullets have big recoil, making autofire impractical (the British SLR version of the FN-FAL had autofire removed entirely), it takes a fairly strong firer to fire accurately & rapidly even on single-shot, and the rate of fire will certainly be lower than with 5.56N.

3. Hits are often immediately fatal (about 25% fatality as opposed to about 5% for 1 hit from a 5.56N, rising to around 50% depending on lack of medical treatment etc) - this high fatality rate is regarded as a _bad thing_ by western militaries because supposedly if you wound an enemy his friends will break off fighting to tend to him. This may be true in the West, IMO it's a dubious argument in most combat arenas. High fatality rate also means that if your troops fire into demonstrators you get many more corpses (14 on Bloody Sunday 7.56 rifles, 4 at Kent State 5.56 rifles). So light rifles are better for 'peacekeeping' operations where you wish to avoid enemy-civilian casualties.

All that said, a big strong capable guy with a fully loaded 7.56N-firing rifle is much more dangerous than a big strong guy with a 5.56N-firing rifle, and with a realistic RPG combat system it's natural big strong PCs will want such weapons. If small weedy PCs also prefer them, the system isn't reflecting the drawbacks of the weapon. Likewise a cinematic system that makes it practical to fire an M60 from the hip will see a lot of PCs toting M60s... hopefully _no_ system lets you do this with an M2HB, though.

 

[S'mon]

One advantage of using realistic damage (say 2d6x4 for .50) is that you can then give armour realistic damage reduction (DR) and it all works out - say a flak vest gives DR 4, so on a lucky glancing hit (roll 2x4= 8 dmg) the wearer takes only 4 hp damage & survives. But for AC/deflection based armour you have to let the heavy gun ignore armour; certainly full plate shouldn't grant more than +1 AC vs a .50.

 

[Aaron2]

Of course MDTs and VP/WP systems muddy the waters - my old Cyberpunk/D&D game worked fine with regular hit points, no massive damage checks, and realistic weapons damage - 9mm softnose doing 1d6, .45 ACP (eg Colt .45) 1d6+1, 5.56N rifle (Eg M16) doing 2d6, 7.56N (eg FN-FAL) doing 3d6+1, .50 HMG doing 8d6... I think 30mm autocannon as seen on the Apache did 30d6/hit.

One thing to consider is that an M1 Abrams only has a hardness of 20 (which I think is too low). You don't want .50 rounds taking out MBTs.*

Also, with your typical civilian only having 4-8 hit points, 2d12 is already lethal.


Aaron


*at 8d6, it will take an average of 8 rounds to kill a M1.

 

[Aaron2]

One advantage of using realistic damage (say 2d6x4 for .50) is that you can then give armour realistic damage reduction (DR) and it all works out - say a flak vest gives DR 4, so on a lucky glancing hit (roll 2x4= 8 dmg) the wearer takes only 4 hp damage & survives. But for AC/deflection based armour you have to let the heavy gun ignore armour; certainly full plate shouldn't grant more than +1 AC vs a .50.

You have a problem either way. Archaic plate armor might not stop a bullet that does 1d6 but it will stop a bayonet that does 1d6. In either case you need some sort of penetration value. Plus, armor as DR has a problem with coverage. For example, if you set the DR for a flak vest at 4, you become immune to daggers even though the vest only covers a portion of you body.


Aaron

 

[S'mon]

One thing to consider is that an M1 Abrams only has a hardness of 20 (which I think is too low). You don't want .50 rounds taking out MBTs.*

Also, with your typical civilian only having 4-8 hit points, 2d12 is already lethal.
*at 8d6, it will take an average of 8 rounds to kill a M1.

Yeah, in my Cyberpunk/D&D game an Abrams' M1A2's sloped frontal armour had DR of, I believe, 1200 - 300 times as good as a flak vest. You're not getting through that with a .50.

Personally I think the whole d20Modern approach sucks, it reflects neither gritty nor cinematic reality. I prefer to start with a realistic system and let exceptional PC abilities (like having 100+ hit points) make it 'heroic', rather than create an inherently unrealistic system made all the moreso by PC abilities.

 

[S'mon]

One thing to consider is that an M1 Abrams only has a hardness of 20 (which I think is too low). You don't want .50 rounds taking out MBTs.*

Also, with your typical civilian only having 4-8 hit points, 2d12 is already lethal.

"Your typical civilian" is the guy you expect to fall over and pass out after being hit in the thigh by a 9mm round (ie, most of us). While real tough-guy types can keep fighting after taking multiple hits from 9mm, .38 Special et al; IMO **.50 HMG** rounds should not be bouncing off 6th level heroes leaving only minor abrasions! I'm willing to accept that a 'hit' on a high-level character might be a scratch, but the "oh, it really missed but damage represents fatigue" argument leaves me cold. In the d20M RAW, .50 rounds are not effective against a mid-level warrior; the original poster's point. That offends against even cinematic realism IMO.

 

[S'mon]

>>Archaic plate armor might not stop a bullet that does 1d6 but it will stop a bayonet that does 1d6. In either case you need some sort of penetration value. Plus, armor as DR has a problem with coverage. For example, if you set the DR for a flak vest at 4, you become immune to daggers even though the vest only covers a portion of you body. <<

Penetration value - yeah, I agree, or at any rate you need different rules for archaic & modern armour, they function on different principles.

Coverage - yup, agree fully. I give armour a Cover AC rating (Conan game does a similar thing w Finesee attacks), eg vest +4 Cover AC; if you beat that then the hit is to an unarmoured area & ignores DR, if you get between Touch & Cover AC then hit struck armour & DR applies.

 

[Krieg]

Then a related question: Would a flak jacket help you at all in that situation?

To put it bluntly....No.

FWIW most "flak" jackets were designed to protect against shrapnel caused by artillery. The PASGT armor that was the standard US issue until recently was incapable of stopping small arms fire at combat ranges.

 

[Kelleris]

Yeah, in my Cyberpunk/D&D game an Abrams' M1A2's sloped frontal armour had DR of, I believe, 1200 - 300 times as good as a flak vest. You're not getting through that with a .50.

Doesn't that seem a bit high? I mean, you aren't getting through that with anything. It seems to me that conjuring a meteor swarm ought to deal at least as much damage to a tank as a modern missile would - not enough to destroy or disable an Abrams, probably, but enough to scratch the paint at least.

For that matter, I would think that a +5 adamantine vorpal blade in the hands of a superhumanly strong high-level fighter would be able to carve up an Abrams given a fairly reasonable amount of time, say a minute or so. Er, assuming no interference. :\