Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Denaes" data-source="post: 2507703" data-attributes="member: 33738">I won't support that statement other to say that I'm sure people who specialize in X feat in real life will have different takes on what it's like in the "real world". I could do so with the computer skills/feats. Heck, even some feats arn't realistic at all and make no pretense to be so. I also never made any such statement about pre-reqs in my 12 yr old anecdote. I made a statement saying that I did it untrained. Maybe not well, but I got a few lucky shots in. Meaning that it can be attempted without specialized training. That happens to also coincide with how I like feats. Brain surgery would need specialized training. running while shooting would just be really hard unless you're specially trained. You could attempt it, though.No I didn't miss that part. There are many ways to shoot a gun and all can be attempted without training. Sure they may be harder, but you can try them. shooting from a car window, running and shooting, firing bursts, sprays (multiple targets), pulling the trigger quickly on semi-automatic weapons, etc. Now what I did say was that my GM ruled that since there was a feat for them, we couldn't attempt them without the feat. I also said I wasn't sure if that was the GMs own ruling or the rules of the game. I never said it was. I don't think it should be. What I did say was that it makes for a more cinematic game to loose most of the pre-reqs on feats and someone was going over the realism and balance factors. I think most of the balance factors are artificial because at level 1 or level 3 or level 5, fighting with two weapons will still be just as powerful. More so at the later levels because you'll have higher bonuses to hit with each gun.The problem was that I wasn't minmaxing or metagaming. I rolled up a character and tried to take the feats I would need. Then realized that because I was dexterous and charasmatic and smart, I didn't have enough willpower to take those feats. That was a seperate complaint about many feats requiring above average abilityscore bonuses in a game where you're encouraged to make for your ability score weaknesses by taking levels in the ability score class and through feats. Only those pre-reqs exasperated the situation and made it so you couldn't take the feats to be good in those areas unless you were already good. Therefore you couldn't round out your character properly and you have to metagame to plan out your stats to get the feats for the kinda character you want. Why not? If a player wants to attempt it, I would allow it. Make someone spend some action dice to even attempt it (yes, I'm really digging spycraft 2.0), then take hefty penalties. If they have feats that might assist, penalties might be reduced. I'd also take a look at the pre-reqs for it in True20 and that would factor in a bit more. It may not even be as effective.I'm more of a cinematic GM than a rules lawyery GM. If something can be conceivably done without training in that particular campaign, then I'm cool with it. Brain surgery? No. Making armor or taking apart weapons without training? Nope. A Wizard doing some sort of "Wirlwind Attack"? I don't think it's likely. A Warrior? Much more likely.Some people would have you buy a feat to do anything special. Some people would let you do it, but with penalities (or not as good). I'm of the later philosophy. Thats why I'm talking about not liking the way d20 Modern does the feats. Thats the whole point. I don't agree with it. It is, it's modeled after action movies, about players being cinematic heroes to some degree - depending on which campaign qualities are chosen and what sort of game you're going for.</blockquote>

Verification