With all these guns .. Where are the bullets?

[takyris]

And, for a price of $0, you can get the Urban Arcana SRD, which has additional ammunition forms in it, including flechettes and armor-piercing rounds and such.

 

[tensen]

Can you email me that list? Or is it a pay product?

If it's a pay product, can I pay you in drinks at Gen Con?

I was assuming it was on the Blackhammer website, but I couldn't find a direct link.
http://www.ambient.ca/cpunk/

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm a bit leery of all these ammunition types. In game terms, they usually do the same thing anyway (they do more damage, or they penetrate better, or maybe both, and the only in-game difference is you call one "Hydra-Shok" and the other one "hollowpoint")

It's great for realism, but in terms of game balance (real-life isn't balanced ) I think it's a bad thing. I see no reason why I wouldn't always try to get explosive ammo for guns. If you have the explosive ammo, you're simply better (as long as you're not trying to be stealthy). IMC explosive ammo only does +1 damage. I just don't want equipment to start to overshadow character abilities. (To put it another way, don't buy better bullets. Take Double Tap or something like that instead.)

 

[HellHound]

ok... No one flame me over this list, ok?

(I'm looking at you, Dana!)

This list of munitions was written by me a long time ago for CyberPunk 2020... a lot of it relies on misinformation, bad science and a lot of bullcrap.

But you can read it here:

http://www.ambient.ca/cpunk/ammo.html

 

[HellHound]

My issue with Rich's ammunition article is that if you were to drop a clip of incendiary ammo in a crowd (say, eject the magazine with a few rounds still in it), you will be looking at a bunch of people with mortal injuries from the ensuing explosion.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I see no reason why I wouldn't always try to get explosive ammo for guns. If you have the explosive ammo, you're simply better (as long as you're not trying to be stealthy).

Explosive ammo is generally only worthwhile in larger caliber ammunition (i.e. not your pistol and rifle ammunition). The trade-offs are too great. You would be better off using a grenade launcher! Of course, you might be concerned with collateral damage.

Also, expense is a big factor. Rifle ammuntion runs (.30-06", .308", 7.62 x 39mm) around $7.50 per round. (DC 11 for 20 rounds.)

Also, I believe that small caliber explosive ammunition is banned for use in warfare by the 1907 Hague Convention. So if your character is a solider on a battlefield this would be a no-no -- only FMJ ammo.

 

[Krieg]

Rifle ammuntion runs (.30-06", .308", 7.62 x 39mm) around $7.50 per round. (DC 11 for 20 rounds.)

Are you specifically referring to explosive ammunition here?

If you aren't then your numbers are WAY off. Typical .308 (7.62x51) ammo runs much closer to 75 cents a round.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Are you specifically referring to explosive ammunition here?

If you aren't then your numbers are WAY off. Typical .308 (7.62x51) ammo runs much closer to 75 cents a round.

Obviously.

Any type of expanding (or frangible, exploding etc etc) ammunition merely bumps the damage up that of the next caliber (which varies from supplement to supplement).

Any type of AP ammo gives a non-magical +2 to hit vs anything with a natural/armor bonus, but drops the damage to that of the next lowest caliber.

It seems to me you should at least impose a penalty to the to hit roll if the target is wearing armor when firing Glaser ammunition.

I would prefer to see a negation of 2 points of armor bonus when firing AP ammo than adding +2 to hit against armored targets.

 

[Krieg]

Obviously.

Hey, you never can tell!

It seems to me you should at least impose a penalty to the to hit roll if the target is wearing armor when firing Glaser ammunition.

I would prefer to see a negation of 2 points of armor bonus when firing AP ammo than adding +2 to hit against armored targets.

Both valid points.

Imposing a penalty to attack in addition to the higher damage starts back along the path of increased complexity. Not that it's a bad a thing, mind you; just that it is a move away from being as simple as possible (which was the point of the original post).

Negating armor rather than adding a bonus to hit is the same thing in the end. It just depends on how you handle armor in your campaign.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Hey, you never can tell!



Both valid points.

Imposing a penalty to attack in addition to the higher damage starts back along the path of increased complexity. Not that it's a bad a thing, mind you; just that it is a move away from being as simple as possible (which was the point of the original post).

Negating armor rather than adding a bonus to hit is the same thing in the end. It just depends on how you handle armor in your campaign.

1)

2) I understand the desire for simplicity, but if you don't have some sort of penalty why wouldn't I always load Glazer ammo and get the extra damage bump ? Frangible ammo runs $15 for a box of 50 (DC 4)? That is essentially the same as normal ammo in d20 terms.

3) It is not quite the same. If the target on has 1 point of armor, then the negation method only reduces the defense by 1. However, if you add +2 to the attack, then you net an overall +1 beyond the negation method.