Underpowered Guns in d20 Modern (rant, long)

[Sebastian Ashputtle]

That's an alternative we are considering also. The problem is we'd have to scrap everything we already did for d20, which we put a lot of work into. Also, we got a lot of players here too lazy to learn GURPS rules....
But I am also a strong "D&D for fantasy/GURPS for modern supporter". When we get our hands on the new 4th edition (of GURPS) we are going to re-evaluate our decision, also based on what we saw of d20 Future.

I was very disappointed with d20 Future. I mean, there was nothing wrong with it, but it was just...disappointing. It was far too short for what it was trying to cover, but I think that reflects WotC's attitude towards d20 Modern...the red-headed stepchild.

The escalating power levels of d20 are perfect for D&D...but I've finally become disillusioned with d20 Modern.

Now where the hell is GURPS 4e????

 

[Krieg]

Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!

By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.

I am glad that my life and the lives of the other veterans on this board is a source of amusement for you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!

By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.

Maybe its because many countries still force their men (and sometimes women) into the military service?
Even I was in the military (Luftwaffe, Bundeswehr) for 10 months. Sure, I could have rejected and do civil services for 11 months, but I was to lazy to file the required complaint against it and search for an appropriate job to fulfill the civil service. So, I, as a peace-loving, completely inagressive person have received a little combat training - not combat experience, though.

For the described scenario:
The soldier isn`t forced to use burst fire, is he? He can simply fire single shots (even if this might waste 9 rounds of ammo each shot, if the weapon doesn`t feature burstfire or single shot mode), making it a lot easier to hit the knight.

 

[Festy_Dog]

Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!

By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.

I am glad that my life and the lives of the other veterans on this board is a source of amusement for you.

I have to go with Krieg on this one, that statement was just harsh. This thread, having subject matter comparing the effect of real-world firearms as opposed to the effect of the same weapons in a game would naturally attract those with personal experience in the matter. Just as you would expect a doctor or nurse to post opinions based off personal experience to a query on the rate of natural healing in a game, you can expect those with experience in firearms to post to a thread querying the realism of firearms within a ruleset. You can hardly get an accurate cross-section of the types of user that visit the ENWorld forums by taking a sample from the posts within a thread with content that relates to a specific area of knowledge. The fact that you see more people with military experience posting in this thread (and in my personal opinion there haven't been enough to consider the number unrealistic) simply means that in this instance they believed their opinion would help shed some light on the matter.

 

[Tetsubo]

I am glad that my life and the lives of the other veterans on this board is a source of amusement for you.

Well, I for one don't consider it a laughing matter. I never served myself but many of my family members have (Grandfather, Father, Aunt, Uncle, three cousins and a Great Uncle). One even had a Destroyer Escort named after him.

 

[swrushing]

In the examples given, you can look at several different ways to fix it.

So far, i have not liked any of the models for how hit point systems handled guns. Whether its d20 modern with the regular hit points and MDS or stargate wiuth its regular hit points renamed vitality pts and con damage with saves, the wall-o-hit-pts has not managed to create the sense-o-risk.

In one of our D20 modern runs, we actually realized that, when a guy was swarmed by skeletal hands, we would be better off hosing him down with autofire, cuz he could take the 2d6 while the hands could not. We didn't because we could not bring ourselves to suspend disbelief.

The key is the lack of any effect other than accounting damage from the majority of hits. The wall-o-hit points means most of the time you can take a hit and still get to do stuff just fine, with only exceptionally having something get in your way. This means players and Gms are willing to "trade hit points for results". The knight is willing to trade a chunk of hit points for "crossing the field" based on thinking he will be in good enough shape to get the win once he is there.

IMO, its the design trying to keep fighting to "two conditions: up or down, fine or dead" that is the problem. This makes it a fairly risky prospect to make "any hit dangerous" because you might just kill characters too quikly.

The solution i found was to (among other things) get rid of the "will trade hit points for events" by making it likely that one result from getting shot was, due to shock, not getting to complete your actions. Imagine if the result of that first barrage was not only to eat some hit points off the knight but to also cost him an action, so he is stuck out in the open NOT CLOSING.

What I immediately adopted for my stargate game was a modified damage save system which has tweaked as time went on to be even slightly worse than the initial.

A short summary...

An M16 hit provides a DC 29 save to be made. A P90 SMG or Fn-57 pistol has a DC of 27. These do not assume any feats, crits or special circumstances.

A typical level 6 character has damage save bonus within say +6 to +9, assumes light tactical armor. A lvl 15 character has saves of between +8 to 13.

Save made = -2 unfavorable circumstance modifier for 1 round (being shot is distracting) This applies to all other results as well.
Save failed by 1-4 = lose next half action
save failed by 5-8 = dazed for 1 round (aka lose next whole action)
save failed by 9-12 = stunned for 1 round (-2 ufc lasts as "lingering damage")
save failed by 13-17 = scene kill (half action loss as "lingering damage")
save failed by 17 or more = mission kill (life threatening, dazed as "LD")

Scene kill means out for scene, either unconscious or incapacitated.
mission kill means out for long time.

lingering damage is the condition you remain in after the immediate effects until medically treated and you heal up, taking days or weeks barring "unusual circumstances. Its easily figured as it is whatever damage level is 3 higher on the chart.

Damage save scales slowly, about +1/3 levels for combat guys and +1/5 levels otherwise.

So a lvl 6 character with say a +8 expects from an M16...
roll 17-20 = lose half action
roll 13-16 = lose whole action
roll 9-15 = stunned for 1 round
roll 5-8 - out for scene
roll 4- out for mission.

So, he expects that its 80% likely a hit keeps him stopped, not advancing, hung out for the next shot.

This cuts down a lot on the "will do something expecting risky hit points to pull me thru" stuff like charging the machine gun nest. It makes "getting to cover" vital.

Now, using action points, a character can delay the effects or reroll bad rolls and so forth, so, once in a while, in a dramatic moment, a hero can probably make the rush across the field (but even with these points its not even close to being automatic), but a "typical guy" NPC (without action pts) cannot.

In practice, players respond very strongly to events that will cost their character actions, treat them very seriously, with respect.

 

[Aaron2]

In one of our D20 modern runs, we actually realized that, when a guy was swarmed by skeletal hands, we would be better off hosing him down with autofire, cuz he could take the 2d6 while the hands could not. We didn't because we could not bring ourselves to suspend disbelief.

I have to say, I've never run a game with both skeletal hands and automatic weapons.

Now, using action points, a character can delay the effects or reroll bad rolls and so forth, so, once in a while, in a dramatic moment, a hero can probably make the rush across the field (but even with these points its not even close to being automatic), but a "typical guy" NPC (without action pts) cannot.

I don't see the difference between burning hit points to keep going and burning action points to do the same. A typical NPC won't have the hit points to survive a 2d10 rifle round anyway.

However, I do like the idea of damage cause momentary losses of actions. I mean, they character is going to have to check to see if the hit he felt was bad or if it was just his canteen. I'm thinking that any hit that does 10 points of damage causes a loss of one move action while any hit that does 20 points or more (most likely also a critical hit) causes the loss of the entire next action.


Aaron

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I have to say, I've never run a game with both skeletal hands and automatic weapons.

Urban arcana... magic and guns all in one setting.

I don't see the difference between burning hit points to keep going and burning action points to do the same. A typical NPC won't have the hit points to survive a 2d10 rifle round anyway.

A typical NPC, as in a typical person in the world, sure, most of them will be fairly low level, at best first. But the typical adversary or character of interest (as opposed to say the master villains) will often be above first-second level and will be able to survive a 2d10 rifle shot.

The main differences between hit points as a buffer and hero pts as a buffer are that hero points have other useful things they can do (which makes spending them for this a trade off while the only thing hit points do is soak damage), hero pts are limited to the PCs and exceptional adversaries and they do not limit the level of the character. In order to keep an adversary from having enough Hp to soak a rifle round, you also have to keep their level down which means no high skill ranks, no accurate shooting etc. You have to retard or limit the entire character to keep the hit points low enough the easy damage rifles do.

However, I do like the idea of damage cause momentary losses of actions. I mean, they character is going to have to check to see if the hit he felt was bad or if it was just his canteen. I'm thinking that any hit that does 10 points of damage causes a loss of one move action while any hit that does 20 points or more (most likely also a critical hit) causes the loss of the entire next action.

Whether or not you keep hit points as the core or drop it, We do agree that adding a loss of actions sort of effect to getting hurt would help avoid some of the hit point silliness.

I would probably use half MDT and MDT as my benchmarks in that type of system, to allow some variety between characters.

 

[Aaron2]

The main differences between hit points as a buffer and hero pts as a buffer are that hero points have other useful things they can do (which makes spending them for this a trade off while the only thing hit points do is soak damage), hero pts are limited to the PCs and exceptional adversaries and they do not limit the level of the character. In order to keep an adversary from having enough Hp to soak a rifle round, you also have to keep their level down which means no high skill ranks, no accurate shooting etc. You have to retard or limit the entire character to keep the hit points low enough the easy damage rifles do.

I've never felt the need to make a character that was good but also not survivable (a super-mook). However, I don't play d20 Modern so a to-hit bonus of +4 is pretty scary without the Defense bonus (which I feel are waaaay too high). That being said, I can see why you would want to do so, therefore, I cede the point.


Aaron

 

[swrushing]

I've never felt the need to make a character that was good but also not survivable (a super-mook). Aaron

I do it all the time. Whether its computer geek or scientist geek or even history geek, i find i get lots of use from guys who are "top men" in their field but who wont reasonably expect to be able to shrug off a pistol round much less a rifle round with little concern.

As an anecdote, one of the oddball things i encountered was the write up of an aged scientist who had spent 50+ years marooned on a planet studying an acnient library all alone in stargate sg-1 rpg. In the show, we see this guy as aged, stick thin, shuffling geek guy and in the RPG write up, given the levels he needed to get to be "top science guy" skill ranks/points, he ended up with over-adequate combat stats and hit points so he could take out the moderately experienced and in his prime marine Kowalski (6th level soldier) in hand to hand without breaking a sweat.

I had already moved from their hit points system to damage save at that point, and so it just reinforced my happiness in that decision when i saw how their hit point system did this.