VP/WP for d20 M?

[ledded]

Not to dig into the can of worms you opened, but I'm not sure what your point here is. How is it less likely? Heck, I've swung a big sword and fired a gun, and without training, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. The fact that I didn't understand how to best use the sight, coupled with my tendency to pull the trigger rather than "squeezing the gun", with a healthy dose of flinching in anticipation of the gun going off, meant that my shots were absolutely pathetic. On the other hand, with the greatsword, all you have to do is swing. Anyone who has swung a baseball bat can swing a greatsword, and while it'll probably be less powerful and accurate than somebody who has trained, I think it has at least as strong a case as your average handgun.

Your untrained (BAB +0) guy with a Dex11 and Str8 is going to be attacking at -5 with the greatsword and doing 2d6-1 on a hit, or 4d6-2 in the unlikely event of a crit. He's attacking at -4 with the handgun and doing 2d6 on a hit, or 4d6 on a crit. So yeah, right there, the gun is a better weapon

This guy's chance of getting a massive chest wound on an opponent is about the same as his chance of lopping off somebody's arm, which is to say: negligible. Neither of those cases is even a simple crit -- it's a very high-rolling crit (say, 20 or above on 4d6) that takes an opponent immediately into the far negatives, most likely killing them outright. Remember that a crit with a greatsword that takes somebody to -5 is by no means an automatic kill, and your flavor text certainly makes it sound as though you think of it as such. This would imply that you are using improper flavor text, and then making rules assumptions based on said improper flavor text.

In any event, my personal opinion, as always, is that d20 Modern did a pretty great job of balancing weapons, and that any change you make (eg, adding a die to damage) should be made across the board. The average handgun is as dangerous as a greatsword, and can be used from a distance, and is also not all that great in the hands of an amateur, unless the amateur gets his victim to surrender based solely on the presence of the gun (as happens in real life -- ). And I think that that's both fairly realistic and good.

Well, not to get to long about it here, but the physics behind it and the probabilities involved do make a good case for it. If you take a true 'average' modern day person and hand them a pistol or a greatsword, *IMO* chances are they are more likely to hurt themself with the sword than anyone else, while even without training they have a good chance of hurting someone with the gun. Sure, I'm a great rifle shot but horrible with pistols, but I still have a pretty good chance of hitting someone within 10 or 15 feet, and it has nothing to do with how well I shoot or how strong, nervous, tired, etc I am whether the bullet does damage or not; but my point is not whether you hit or not but how well you can hit with a sword or a bullet. With a sword (and many melee weapons) there are just many more variables concerned with how much damage you can do even if you hit someone with it... the angle of your cut, speed/strength behind the swing, you current mental/physical condition etc. I've seen experienced students who have extremely powerful swings exhibit bad form performing tameshigiri (test cutting in japanese swordsmanship) and barely cut anything. A bullet is fairly consistent, though; there are less controllable variables on your part that determine how much energy you are going to transfer to the target *if you hit*. Sure, you have flesh wounds, etc but that bullet does move a lot faster than the end of a sword; IMO there is more chance of greater energy being transferred to the target (not always of course, but on average). The fact is man, there is a *lot* more to using a sword than simply swinging it. I can assure you of this, though I'm pretty sure without going into a long diatribe I wont convince you because pop culture and movies tell us all different. Saying you can swing a greatsword as good as an old german Landschneckt because you can swing a baseball bat is like saying you think you would probably make a great spec ops sniper because you can hit a guy with a spitball out of a straw in gym class without him seeing you. You talk about how jerky and hesitant with a gun you are? Most people swinging a sword, even a practice one, are the same way before they get experience (I certainly was). In contact training working with junior students they have almost invariably hesitate, get nervous, etc and deliver insufficient blows with the wrong part of the edge even though in training drills they exhibited good form. And their life wasnt even in danger, it was training with wooden weapons. They get over it soon enough, but that comes with experience and training. Take a guy with a greatsword and add in a few feats (training) and some strength (conditioning) and he can do a lot more damage in the game on average than a guy with a .38, even if you bump the die up. But the same guy is going to make a big hole in you if he hits you with the .44, training or not, tired or not, strong or not; the training just makes it much more likely. What I'm talking about is not how easy you get hit, but how likely the hit is to cause serious damage on *average* in an *average* modern world.

All that being said, I think they did a great job balancing weapons in modern, and we've thought about adding a die to melee weapons to make them more dangerous, but guns, IMO, on average are just simply more dangerous because of how easy they can cause serious wounds, not because they *do* cause more serious wounds. Anyone who thinks a sword cut is not as lethal needs to take a look at studies on the battle of Wisby. But there is a *lot* more skill to *effectively* using a sword, particularly one that size, than you think. Sure, you can swing it like a bat, but it aint round, and the flat just doesnt hurt as much. If you want it to be like a B-movie, where everyone just automatically is an expert with a weapon that takes years to master, than that's ok; dont use the system and use what comes with it, or just add a die to everything. But in reality, with all due respect, it's just not as easy as you think to hurt someone seriously with a stick, sword, axe, whatever as it is a gun.

I dont know where you got the idea that I thought that a crit with a greatsword is an automatic kill; my point was that it would more than likely be a pretty bad wound (even having your arm lopped off isnt necessarily fatal... ask that 13 year old surfer who got hers bitten off by a shark about it) but even so historically speaking you can survive it. My 'flavor text' was merely an example, not an indication of how it always is, but an extreme example meant to quickly illustrate the too-long points I've tried to make here . If you would like a lot more detailed idea of examples of sword effectivess and ineffectiveness, I have a lot of historical and modern documentation on swords (and other melee weapons) and their use I'd be happy to send you off list (just email me).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I believe Charley Ryans Ultramodern Firearms contains (besides a lot of contemporary weapons) rules for a switch to VP/WP.

It is also a good buy if you want to have some additional weapons for your game (and especially want to know who uses which weapon). It might contain some errors (as the gun-expert our group says), but most of them won`t bother someone without deep knowledge.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[takyris]

Ledded: Thanks for the reply. I think that clears things up for me. I believe that I misread your post. Fundamentally, it seems like you and I both agree that the weapon damage is about where it ought to be, and that if you bump up one form of damage (like melee), you should probably bump up the other (guns) as well.

As for the guns vs. swords thing for me personally, I'm probably biased toward the melee weapons because I think of them as easier -- but then, that's 'cause I played sports as a kid and do (weapon-enabled) martial arts as an adult, whereas I can count on one hand the number of times I've shot a gun (not counting the Disneyland laser-thingie, at which I rocked).

 

[ledded]

Ledded: Thanks for the reply. I think that clears things up for me. I believe that I misread your post. Fundamentally, it seems like you and I both agree that the weapon damage is about where it ought to be, and that if you bump up one form of damage (like melee), you should probably bump up the other (guns) as well.

Yeah, they did as good a job as they could on weapon damage balancing, though the system does not take into effect things like penetration, etc (which probably would make it more complicated than necessary). I like the extra die on guns with the VP/WP system, it just gives that extra taste of realism for us (and reinforces the deadliness of firearms); anyone else use what you will, your mileage may vary. A lot of that is mainly because you can take feats and bump your strength to get more out of melee weapons, making them do pretty darn good 'average' damage.

As for the guns vs. swords thing for me personally, I'm probably biased toward the melee weapons because I think of them as easier -- but then, that's 'cause I played sports as a kid and do (weapon-enabled) martial arts as an adult, whereas I can count on one hand the number of times I've shot a gun (not counting the Disneyland laser-thingie, at which I rocked).

Well, to be honest, I'm a little biased towards melee weapons too, but the physics of energy transfer still makes me lean towards guns as being more dangerous on average. I never was a good pistol shot at all, but I was on rifle team ROTC in High School and was pretty good. However, I practiced olympic style fencing (epee, foil, saber) for about 7 years, japanese swordsmanship (shinkendo) for about the same amount (including kumite-contact drills and tameshigiri-'live' sword test cutting), did some rapier/broadsword/greatsword study with a small group and a smattering of other martial arts weapons in symposiums, clinics, and short classes until kids came along and I no longer have the free time for it all. IMO, a japanese sword in the hand of an experienced person is a frighteningly fast and devastating thing to behold. An epee, the equivalent of an 18th/19th century smallsword (not a rapier, but what D&D thinks is a rapier) is an incredibly quick and deadly weapon in the hands of a practitioner, though I never was very good at epee and stuck mostly to saber fencing (I liked to hack on things). There are several people I know (myself *not* included) who could get their weapon up and on someone at very close range most likely before the guy could get that pistol out of his pocket and aim (unless he's one of those quick-draw fellas). However, it takes a long time to get that kind of speed/economy of movement and experience.

 

[takyris]

One question, Ledded: Your basis for upping the damage die on firearms is that you can up your damage on melee weapons pretty easily, but it's harder to do so on ranged weapons? I haven't had a ton of trouble doing so, at least, not in my opinion.

Point Blank Shot: +1 to damage, IIRC
Double-Tap: -2, +1die
Burst Fire: -4, +2dice (these two serve as Power Attack for firearms, IMO)
Soldier levels: Up to +4 specialization bonus to damage (just like for melee)

I suppose it's unfortunate that there's no "Melee smash for Guns" option, but I don't see that as nerfing guns as much as using Melee Smash to make the Strong Hero attractive and give players SOME reason to use melee weapons. I wouldn't add a "melee smash for guns" option, because I don't see that so much as realism as "make guns more powerful than they already are".

As it is, melee weapons are better than guns only if you've got the guy backed into a corner and have spent some feats to get a bunch of bonus damage, but in just about every other case, the guy with the gun wins. He's less stat-reliant, needs less training, he benefits from cover without penalizing his own attacks, and if he DOES have feats, he can easily take out an opponent with one lucky (not even critical) hit (high-rolling double-tap to overcome MDT, for instance). (At least the first two of those were your points, I believe.) If you have a situation where mobility is an option, the ranged guy will almost always beat a melee guy of comparable point buy and level. Which is, again, as it should be. The melee guy should only win if he can get in close and keep his opponent there.

In sum, since I wandered: Tacky's thoughts on Melee versus Ranged in d20M

1) Right now, a normal handgun is as dangerous as a claymore
2) Right now, guns are better than melee weapons for feat-by-feat expenditure
3) Right now, both guns and melee weapons offer enough feats and class talents for a focused user to deliver bunches and bunches of damage
4) This is generally a good thing, in Tacky's opinion, and the balance of simplicity, relative power, realism, and cinematic enjoyment is currently appropriate
5) Ergo, changing of one element shouldn't happen without changing of another unless you're deliberately aiming to shift that balance (ie, if you want a martial artist game where guns are laughably useless, or if you want a blammo game when even a highly trained and focused melee guy stands no chance against a first-level dude with a Derringer) -- these are both legitimate games, but it should be up-front which kind you see yourself as playing
6) Side-note: Players and GMs need to alter their flavor text, since most people say "Hit points mean dodging? But you can't DODGE bullets. You should get automatically killed by a shot from a gun." Make use of people moving, diving to the ground and rolling, firing quickly while moving themselves, and the fact that people are not five feet wide, so they ARE moving around a lot, even if they're not changing squares while doing so.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

Skipping about 10 posts (sorry if this has already been posted), but one thing that I think is useful for crits with VP/WP systems is the following conversion:

2x becomes "apply damage directly to WP"
3x becomes "apply damage directly to WP, plus same damage hits VP"
4x becomes "apply damage directly to WP, plus twice damage hits VP"

Thus, as the character is worn down, it becomes more and more likely that the full amount will hit WP.

 

[Ranger REG]

Do you think we want to remember THAT list of conversions?

Uh, not me.

Maybe just upping the damage to reflect the deadly nature of the weapon is appropriate, as is widening the threat range.

 

[shadowlight]

Skipping about 10 posts (sorry if this has already been posted), but one thing that I think is useful for crits with VP/WP systems is the following conversion:

2x becomes "apply damage directly to WP"
3x becomes "apply damage directly to WP, plus same damage hits VP"
4x becomes "apply damage directly to WP, plus twice damage hits VP"

Thus, as the character is worn down, it becomes more and more likely that the full amount will hit WP.

Yikes! Sounds deadly. I like it though

 

[ledded]

One question, Ledded: Your basis for upping the damage die on firearms is that you can up your damage on melee weapons pretty easily, but it's harder to do so on ranged weapons? I haven't had a ton of trouble doing so, at least, not in my opinion.

(EDIT: I first replied without reading down through what you were saying, sorry.)

Oh, you mean by firing more bullets, etc. Yes, automatic weapons however are a lot more dangerous than they are modelled in the game... in reality a burst from an assault rifle is going to tear up your day pretty darn fast if it hits you, and pretty easily from an exerienced marksman. But in our game there aren't a lot of automatic assault rifles laying around because we play a sort of 'citizen X-files' type game and overuse of illegal guns will cause our PC's a lot of trouble. The best gun in our game of 6th level guys is my 10 gauge semiautomatic shotgun, and it's range is crap, but it's legal to have if I dont get stupid with it. And I'm the party gun nut ;^).

Point Blank Shot: +1 to damage, IIRC
Double-Tap: -2, +1die
Burst Fire: -4, +2dice (these two serve as Power Attack for firearms, IMO)
Soldier levels: Up to +4 specialization bonus to damage (just like for melee)

I suppose it's unfortunate that there's no "Melee smash for Guns" option, but I don't see that as nerfing guns as much as using Melee Smash to make the Strong Hero attractive and give players SOME reason to use melee weapons. I wouldn't add a "melee smash for guns" option, because I don't see that so much as realism as "make guns more powerful than they already are".

I think that a "melee smash for guns" would be a very bad idea, because of the ability to focus on weapon specialization and automatic weapons for burst and double-tap, plus there is really no basis for it in my opinion... how do you train someone to hit *harder* with bullets? You can train for accuracy, but that increases your ability to apply the same bullet to a more delicate place. Also, remember my point that a guy around 10th level (strong 6, soldier 4) with a +3 from melee smash, 18 str for a +6 (two handed), Weapon specialization +2, and power attack on average say +4 (to balance out a -4 from burst) is hitting with a 2d6 +15 with a greatsword. A similar guy with an assault rifle doing 3d10 (die added for VP/WP) will burst for 5d10 + 3 (2 for weapon spec, 1 for point blank). Sure, the damage potential for the guy with the burst is much higher, but the average damage for the guy with the greatsword is much greater... on average the guy with the sword is going to do more damage irregardless of die rolls. It's partially the ability to raise the average damage, ergo, the amount of damage you can do *most* of the time that kept us from raising the die on melee weapons.

As it is, melee weapons are better than guns only if you've got the guy backed into a corner and have spent some feats to get a bunch of bonus damage, but in just about every other case, the guy with the gun wins. He's less stat-reliant, needs less training, he benefits from cover without penalizing his own attacks, and if he DOES have feats, he can easily take out an opponent with one lucky (not even critical) hit (high-rolling double-tap to overcome MDT, for instance). (At least the first two of those were your points, I believe.) If you have a situation where mobility is an option, the ranged guy will almost always beat a melee guy of comparable point buy and level. Which is, again, as it should be. The melee guy should only win if he can get in close and keep his opponent there.

I agree totally, actually a little more so. I am fairly experienced with a couple melee weapons, and if I assume I wouldnt just curl up in a ball and cry in a real life and death situation (who knows for sure unless you've been there) I would probably never, ever try to take on a guy with a pistol with me holding a sword unless he was *very* close to me, not currently pointing it at me, and I had absolutely no way to escape. And I'll also give you that at higher levels, with burst fire from larger calibers, this system does have some definite issues if you are in a super-soldier/spec-ops kind of game (particularly with crits... who could survive 5d10+3 WP damage if someone rolls well?), but as I said before we are a bit more role-play, so it probably wont be a problem for us. However, a crit from a greatsword with a +15 to damage is going to mess up *anyone's* day if not send most people into negative WP land, which at that level of training to me is appropriate.

In sum, since I wandered: Tacky's thoughts on Melee versus Ranged in d20M

1) Right now, a normal handgun is as dangerous as a claymore
2) Right now, guns are better than melee weapons for feat-by-feat expenditure
3) Right now, both guns and melee weapons offer enough feats and class talents for a focused user to deliver bunches and bunches of damage
4) This is generally a good thing, in Tacky's opinion, and the balance of simplicity, relative power, realism, and cinematic enjoyment is currently appropriate
5) Ergo, changing of one element shouldn't happen without changing of another unless you're deliberately aiming to shift that balance (ie, if you want a martial artist game where guns are laughably useless, or if you want a blammo game when even a highly trained and focused melee guy stands no chance against a first-level dude with a Derringer) -- these are both legitimate games, but it should be up-front which kind you see yourself as playing
6) Side-note: Players and GMs need to alter their flavor text, since most people say "Hit points mean dodging? But you can't DODGE bullets. You should get automatically killed by a shot from a gun." Make use of people moving, diving to the ground and rolling, firing quickly while moving themselves, and the fact that people are not five feet wide, so they ARE moving around a lot, even if they're not changing squares while doing so.

1) I agree on the basis of damage potential; an average wound with the pistol (flesh wound, shot through the arm not hitting an artery, etc) is less serious than a hard whack with a greatsword by someone good with one, but on average the greatsword is going to give you a serious wound. Remember that at higher levels, even with our VP/WP, the greatsword is much more damaging than a .38 (above example, 2d6 +15 vs. 3d6 +3) and will do MUCH more damage on average; higher caliber guns even up that score a good bit though. So I do agree except that by saying that the greatsword does more damage more often, while the pistol has more damage *potential* (lucky shot through the heart is not much different than lucky shot that glances off a rib... just different die rolls, whereas an experienced sword guy is going to be pounding you pretty hard every time).
2) I agree, with the same things I said above about average vs. potential damage.
3) Yup, though it is a bit harder/stricter, IMO, to go the melee/unarmed route... you really have to train for it.
4) I agree totally, but realize that our game is a little less John Woo than most modern games; our PC's are more normal people who, while the fight a lot, arent necessarily fighters as much as regular folks thrust into that role (even at 6th level, my guy is the 'gun guy', and he doesnt even have burst fire, and if he ran around town with an assault rifle he would get arrested more likely than not). For this reason, our VP/WP rules work well to keep us in check when the bullets start flying. Your mileage may vary folks.
5) Well said, however I dont believe that adding a single die to guns alters it very much considering the "buffer" you get in wound points (and the availability of ways to increase WP and body armor giving decent DR). We like it a little more dangerous, with guns staying pretty scary throughout our players career. We never want our guys to laugh off the .38 because we know that it couldnt possibly kill us. Sure, at 6th level, someone would be hard pressed to drop my guy with a .38 even with a double tap, but it *could* happen on a very lucky shot.
6) Again, very well said there Tacky. One reason I like the VP/WP system too:

<Mooks shoots, hitting the character for VP damage>
GM: The shot hits the edge of the concrete wall you are taking cover behind mere inches from your head as you frantically duck, twisting your knee, spraying you with fragments of sharp concrete.

<Mooks shoots, hitting the character for WP damage>
GM: As you lean out around the corner for a look, something strikes you hard in the shoulder taking some of the wind out of you; luckily your vest apparently absorbed some of the impact, however it must have caught the seam because you see some blood. You think you may be ok, but there are going to be some stitches and possibly a cracked bone or two.

(or, if you fail the save to stay conscious after taking WP damage)

GM: As you lean out around the corner for a look, something strikes you hard in the shoulder... you feel bones snap under the pressure and hot pain surge up into your head before the world closes in, and you find yourself wondering how they got such a pretty paintjob on the ceiling when it's so far up there just before things go black.

Sure, you can do this with hit points just as easy, but we like it. Also, if you fail the save on taking WP damage (and you didnt go negative) you arent dying yet, just knocked out for a bit. Inconvenient, but not always a ticket to the meatwagon.

All in all, I guess I agree with most of what you stated above, but favor guns a bit over melee because of their potential for damage, which in the VP/WP system we make a little bit more realistic *to us* for a grittier, more scary feel. Very good thoughts.

 

[ledded]

Skipping about 10 posts (sorry if this has already been posted), but one thing that I think is useful for crits with VP/WP systems is the following conversion:

2x becomes "apply damage directly to WP"
3x becomes "apply damage directly to WP, plus same damage hits VP"
4x becomes "apply damage directly to WP, plus twice damage hits VP"

Thus, as the character is worn down, it becomes more and more likely that the full amount will hit WP.

Hmmm... sound interesting. Maybe the same thing could apply to burst/double-tap weapons at higher levels on a crit; the extra die or two goes to VP not WP. That may help with the apparent weakness the WP/VP has at higher levels for the "insta-kill" crits (5d10 burst fire to WP is pretty much unsurvivable to the vast majority of PC's at any level if the mook rolls good, which may be realistic but isnt very fun ).

If you dont mind keeping up with it, it's not a problem, but could get annoying for groups that like it really simple and streamlined. Our group probably wouldnt mind, we have several house rules in modern (from D&D) that we use for crits and such. Example: if you roll a 19 (potential crit) and then roll a 19 or 20 to confirm (another potential crit), you are allowed to roll to confirm the second one. If it confirms, in D&D you get an extra 1x multiplier. In modern, you dont multiply, but the crit has some disabling effect on you based on the body part that it hits (roll d100 and pray).

But like I said in other posts, we like it deadly.