Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Alternate firearm skill rules

Posted by: Riley37 Jan 21 2008, 01:39 AM

It seems silly to me that a person cannot use Longarms skill to fire single shots from an assault rifle, nor Pistol skill to fire single shots from a machine pistol; also a bit silly that one can be very skilled with assault rifle and no clue how to fire a sport rifle, or vice versa. (Once you know how to use sights, that knowlege applies to pretty much any weapon fired over open sights, eh?) Here's a stab at an alternate system. I'm open to thoughts on game balance, and interested in hearing from people who have experience learning to fire various weapons.

Handgun: this is the skill of firing a weapon with a pistol-style grip with arm at full extension. This is the primary skill for firing pistols and machine pistols. It is the only skill with which one can use the two-gun (split dicepool) action. It is possible to fire other weapons holding them only by the pistol-style grip, including most shotguns and assault rifles, but rarely practical; the STR Min rules represent this much better than rules in which only autofire weapons have recoil. Modifiers for a stock do not apply when using this skill.

Hip fire: this is the skill of firing a weapon from the hip. This is the primary skill for firing SMGs and assault rifles. Most shotguns and carbines can be hip-fired. Most pistols and similar weapons are too short for use with this skill, as are some sawed-off shotguns. Modifiers for a shockpad do not apply when using this skill, though a stock is usually required for bracing the weapon against one's hip. Visual magification (and telescopic sights) cannot be used when hip-firing.

Shoulder fire: this is the skill of firing a weapon in a traditional stock-against-shoulder grip. This is the primary skill for firing most longarms eg sport rifles, sniper rifles and shotguns. It is also a valid way to fire assault rifles and carbines, and pistols, machine pistols and SMGs when using an extendable stock. It requires a more fixed position, so Reaction rolls to avoid attacks are halved when shoulder-firing. It is the only skill usable while firing from a prone position, and the only way to benefit from a bipod.

Any of these skills can take a specialization of either Autofire or Single-Shot.

I haven't yet touched on Heavy Weapons. I'm not at all persuaded that the skill of firing an underbarrel grenade launcher, a Striker rocket and a tripod-mounted machine gun are the same skill.

Posted by: Earlydawn Jan 21 2008, 01:51 AM

I like the idea of having multiple "stances" for firearms, but I wouldn't really think they're two different skills, per se. Hip fire and shoulder fire need different statistical advantages, too.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2008, 01:56 AM

I think the best idea for this I have heard is to rearange the weapons categories for the Firearms Group into Small Arms, Long Arms, and Heavy Weapons.

The only really problematic weapon for some people might be the submachine gun. All others pretty much fit logically into one of those categories.

Posted by: Gort Jan 21 2008, 02:04 AM

I thought anything man-portable was small arms.

QUOTE

Small arms are defined as smaller infantry weapons, such as firearms that an individual soldier can carry. It is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, shotguns, carbines, assault rifles, rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine-guns, general-purpose machine-guns, medium machine-guns, and hand grenades. However, it can also include heavy machine-guns, as well as smaller mortars, recoilless rifles and some rocket launchers, depending on the context. Large mortars, howitzers, cannons, vehicles, and larger pieces of equipment are not considered small arms.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2008, 02:14 AM

Yeah yeah. That's just playing semantics. I am sure most people can figure out that small arms in this instance means pistols and the like. Feel free to suggest another name if you like. As I said, (or at least implied) in my last post, the idea was not not mine (as in I didn't give the categories their names), and I was just reposting it here as something that, in my opinion, was worth consideration, given the subject of the thread.

Should I edit the post to say ... Little Guns, Medium Guns, and Big Guns?

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 21 2008, 02:55 AM

I use the system Fortune's talking about, 'cept I called it sidearms, small arms and heavy/special weapons... I think we even discussed it before, actually, and I'm pretty sure it's my idea he's talking about.

Anyway, the whole thing has a few effects that I like:

1. People can only use at most 2 weapons at any one given time and they still have to pay the nuyen to own the weapons in the first place, so it doesn't really end up being overpowered, it just gives people the opportunity to bring the right tool for the right job more often, which is something I actively try to encourage in my gameworld. Enticing people to take the whole group means I'm more likely to see flechette loaded sport rifles when the group's hunting paracritters in the NAN territories, SMGs when they're storming a gang hideout, holdouts in the middle of a night club brawl and Aztechnology Strikers when they're paid to blow up a wealthy exec's fancy new mega yacht or private jet. I think this does good things for immersion.

2. Believe it or not, it ends up resulting in smaller dicepools over all, for the most part, since people can no longer just bump Automatics up to 6 and depend on Machine pistols and palming for concealability. While this does tend to force them to spend points on more than a single firearm skill in general, they can't complain too much because each skill is arguably better off than it was before and the whole group encompasses damn near everything.

*Disclaimer: I don't think the current RAW list is broken or anything crazy like that, I just always intended this as the most benign houserule possible. It's really a flavor thing, and if you're running a street level campaign I can definitely see why you wouldn't really want to encourage a houserule that treats the ability to use Panther Cannons as just another run of the mill skill.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 21 2008, 02:51 PM

If you are going for a more "real-life" approach, a good way to divide up the skills is thus:

Handguns: Use this skill when firing pistols, machine pistols, and SMGs that are fired like pistols.

Assault Weapons: Use this skill when firing assault rifles, carbines, shotguns, and SMGs fired from the shoulder. Also, if you are using a sport/sniper rifle and firing with iron sights, or without any magnifying optics.

Riflery: Use this skill when firing carbines, assault rifles, sport rifles, and sniper rifles when using a magnifying optic and at further than short range.

As for machineguns...I believe it should be a separate skill. Mechanically, it has some similarity to using assault weapons, but the principles behind getting the most bang for your buck are totally different. And "Heavy Weapons" is a poor name. "Machineguns" is probably better.

Posted by: Buster Jan 21 2008, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

I love this, I'm putting this into my houserules.

A couple of followup questions: How would you classify panther cannons? Could you put grenade launchers, RPGs, and portable missile launchers into one category (maybe called "Heavy Weapons" or "Man-Portable Launchers")?

Posted by: Karaden Jan 21 2008, 03:39 PM

Perhaps something like 'non-automatic heavy weapons' since GLs RLs and PCs all share the fact that they are overly large and only fire one shot at a time (As opposed to burst or full auto) I always thought it was funny that the same skill that governs machine guns also governs rocket launcers, but oh well.

Posted by: GentlemanLoser Jan 21 2008, 03:54 PM

Another idea would be to utilise Skill groups.

Have something like a reverse speciality for skill groups.

Someone with points in Pistols (the Firearms group), would also be able to use the other skills in that group, with thier Pistol skill and an appropriate minus (I donno, -2/-3?).

Posted by: Sponge Jan 21 2008, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (Riley37)

Hip fire: this is the skill of firing a weapon from the hip. [...] Most pistols and similar weapons are too short for use with this skill

If you quick-draw a pistol/revolver and fire it, it might be a "hip fire" (Western-style). (Disclaimer: I know nothing about firearms.)

QUOTE (GentlemanLoser)

That basically ends up making Skill Groups even cheaper than they already are. Besides, you can already use the other skills in the group, at Agility -1.

DS

Posted by: kzt Jan 21 2008, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

As for machineguns...I believe it should be a separate skill. Mechanically, it has some similarity to using assault weapons, but the principles behind getting the most bang for your buck are totally different. And "Heavy Weapons" is a poor name. "Machineguns" is probably better.

They are, in the real world. In SR not so much.

In RL, MMGs and HMGs are typically used as area fire weapons, particularly HMGs. Your target is "That red house", "the west end of the second floor", or a vehicle. They also have effective ranges of more than a KM because of that. An automatic grenade launch like a Mk19 seems to be used just like these. They don't just hit one guy, they are used to shoot the crap out of a chunk of something and target anyone there.

With some marked exceptions, MMGs and HMGs are almost always fired from a bipod, tripod or vehicle mount. (Yeah, I know a SEAL who talked about how he used to use a cut down M60 fired from the hip to play with coke cans at 25 yards - and I believe him - but that's not a typical use.)

SAWs and other similar LMGs are commonly used as more deadly versions of assault rifles, though they also have area fire capabilites.

In addition the critical thing that MGs do that SR leaves out is enfilading fire. This is vaguely covered by the suppression rules, but those mechanics kind of suck.

Using a grenade launcher is different skill, at least the m203 type. I've fired them and getting it in the general location of the target isn't hard, but reliably putting a round through a window at 150 meters requires some skill. It's trajectory and sights are different than a high-velocity weapon like a Mk19.

Missile launchers are used differently from rocket launchers, but being effective with modern types doesn't require a huge amount of skill from what I've seen. But they are as different as an assault rifle and an MMG.

The same skill should be used for using MG, GLs etc from vehicles, if you are firing them personally. If you are running them through some sort of targeting program I don't see how your skill in shooting them will really help.

Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 21 2008, 06:57 PM

I would catagorize weapon skills by the way the weapon is used.

Pistol - Unbraced, 1-2 handed firing. Includes pistols, machine pistols, and SMGs fired without using shoulder stocks.

Rifle - fired with 3-point support (shoulder, 2 hands). Includes everything from stocked machine pistols to LMGs on bipods.

From this general base, you include familiarity and specialized training.

Familiarity is the way a firearm feels. A SMG and an assault rifle are used essentially the same way, (stock to shoulder, look down the sights, squeeze trigger) but have a different feel to them. I believe an expert shot with a SMG would start out so-so on an assault rifle, but would improve very quickly. This is because he is not learning new skills, but learning how to apply existing skills to a new weapon. Perhaps start at half skill for an unfamiliar weapon, and add a die per day of training with the new weapon.

Specialized training acts like weapon skill, but is based on the situation, not the weapon. For example, a sniper may have Rifle 3/marksman 2. This would mean in general circumstances the shooter throws 3 dice, but gets an extra 2 when he is prone (or otherwise supported) and shooting at a distant target. Another soldier might have Rifle 3/CQB 2. Here he gets 3 dice in general circumstances, and an extra 2 when he chases a flashbang into a room and shoots everyone inside.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 21 2008, 07:39 PM

QUOTE (Fortune)

Little Guns, Medium Guns, and Big Guns

...I like that classification, nice & straightforward.

Posted by: HellHound Jan 21 2008, 08:31 PM

Not a fan of combining Pistols and Machine Pistols into one category, because those are very different skills from a shooting perspective.

The reality is that autoweapons and non-autoweapons are pretty different firing skills - I'm a pretty good shot, but I've handled a machine pistol once and it was a disaster.

I would consider splitting them up as follows

Handguns - single shot
Machine Pistols & Subguns
Assault Rifles & Rifles
Heavy

Posted by: Shrike30 Jan 21 2008, 08:47 PM

I wouldn't bother splitting them up at all. Let people use Pistols to fire a MP on semi if they want, let them use Long Arms to fire an AR on semi if they want. SMG's could really go either way... I'd probably go with Long Arms for a stocked SMG and Pistols for a non-stocked.

I'm quite good with semiautomatic AR-15 and FAL type rifles. I've got exactly zero training with automatic rifles of the exact same type, and were I handed one in a dangerous situation, I can't imagine moving the selector past the semiautomatic position... why make a gun you know how to use shoot differently?

One of the big things to note with Shadowrun, though, is that what most of us are used to thinking of in terms of what's easy to get (semiauto) and what's not (automatic... want to talk paperwork to try and own one legally, at least in the parts of the US where you still can?). My impression of 2073 is that if you can get through the paperwork to buy a Fichetti, there's just a couple of extra forms to fill out if you wanted a 227-X instead.

Posted by: Fortinbras Jan 21 2008, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (kzt)

In RL, MMGs and HMGs are typically used as area fire weapons, particularly HMGs. Your target is "That red house", "the west end of the second floor", or a vehicle.

Incidentally, has anyone ever been at the helm of a machine gun. You feel invincible! It's just this awesome sense of "I can kill everyone I see! I can kill that guy, and that guy and that guy and they can't even get close! HA HA HA!!!"

I think splitting up the firearms into different categories seems like two sides of the same coin. It's just trading one set of rules for another and further complicating your system.
If the current firearms skills really stick in the craw of your group, then it seems as good a variant as any, but it just seems like more effort than is necessary and will require further clarification and further variants when you want to do some fancy shooting down the road.
The current rules aren't that unbalanced, and make more sense in some situations, so I wouldn't give yourself more math to do than you have to.

Posted by: Buster Jan 21 2008, 10:39 PM

I agree with Hellhound that semiauto handguns should be kept seperate from machine pistols and submachine guns. I've fired my 9mm glock for a couple years and was pretty comfortable with it, but when I tried my friend's tiny little 9mm Uzi thing it scared the crap out of me. It didn't look powerful at all, in fact it looked a lot like the pictures of machine pistols in the SR book, but I definitely had to fire it from my shoulder, there's no way I'd be able to fire it freehanded. Maybe if I spent more time with it or fired a .22 version, I would get used to the kick, but from that brief experience, it seemed like a whole different animal to me. Maybe the game needs Strength mins for weapons?

Several people mentioned grouping machine pistols, submachine guns, and assault rifles together into one group, and that makes sense to me. I've never fired an assault rifle, but I'm told they are very much like a submachine gun (in fact they were essentially designed to be long-barreled, rifle-stock submachine guns). Since the professionals are saying they should be grouped together, I'll go with that.

It seems to me that computer assisted weapons like missiles and computer controlled vehicle mounted weapons (including small arms and machine guns) should be able to be fired with no skill. The computer brain of the weapon system seems to be the controlling factor there.

It sounds like we need a weapons group called "Launchers" that includes grenade launchers, rocket propelled grenade launchers, and MP cannons like the panther. But it still sounds to me that machine guns need to be kept separate from those weapons.

I've never fired a machine gun, but from the posts here it seems like bipod/tripod weapons are fired in a very similar way to bolted-down vehicle swivel-mounted weapons. Should there be a weapon group called "Gunnery" that includes bipod-fired machine guns and any bolted-down weapon? For example, using Gunnery skill you can fire machine guns and sniper rifles from a prone position using a bipod. Using Gunnery, you can also fire any small arms weapon, including submachine guns and assault rifles if those weapons are mounted on a bipod or are vehicle mounted. What do the professional warfighters in the forum say?

So to summarize, this is what I'm thinking of house ruling (and maybe this is overly complicated):

Individual Skills:

Handguns: any semiauto, single-handed weapon (inc. semiauto-switched machine pistols and semiauto-switched single-handed submachine guns). (essentially the same as the current Pistols skill)
Assault Weapons: any two-hand (or 3 point) fired weapon including fully automatic switched machine pistols, submachine guns, and assault rifles. Also includes shotguns and rifles fired without a scope.
Riflery: any semiauto or single shot long arm that is shot using a scope such as rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles fired using a scope.
Launchers: any grenade launcher, rocket propelled grenade launcher, or MP cannon (such as a Panther).
Gunnery: any machine gun or small arm fired from a bipod, tripod, or fixed/vehicle mount.
Computer Controlled Weapons: no skill needed to fire missiles and other computer controlled weapons. The drone brain's skill is used to determine hit success.

Skill Groups:

Small Arms Group: includes Handguns, Assault Rifles, and Riflery.
Heavy Weapons Group: includes Launchers and Gunnery weapons.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 21 2008, 11:23 PM

I am in no way a fan of breaking up the Firearms skills even more. In my opinion, theere should be one less overall skill, not three more.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 22 2008, 01:18 AM

Currently, learning how to use all smallarms well (3 skills) is more difficult than learning to be a doctor (first aid and medicine).

----------

The problem with allowing skill group defaulting is that you no longer need the skill group itself:

If you allow defaulting at -2, then you can pay 24 cp for one skill at 6, and effectively get the skill group at 4. Defaulting at -3 still means that the skill level at 6 is cheaper than the whole group at 3, and defaulting at -4 is sort pointless.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 22 2008, 01:57 AM

As you can tell from my earlier post, I'm in the same boat with Fortune and Crusher Bob here. I don't give two shits about the reality of training with firearms, I care about characters and what their role in the group is and how I as a GM can facilitate and balance how they go about their particular area of expertise. "I shoot good" is already an inherently narrow niche; the firearm and close combat skills are all fairly redundant relative to the other skills they share an umbrella with since they all are used to kill things and Shadowrun isn't terribly granular. This often leads players to the rather reasonable conclusion that they should just grab one skill from each skill (90% of the time it's Pistols or Automatics and Blades or Unarmed; there always seems to be one unloved black sheep in these sad trifectas), a pinch of Palming and call it a day, which I think sucks rather badly. The reasoning behind my "side arms", "small arms" and "heavy weapons" division had a bit to do with reality but more than anything it came about from one simple thought exercise revolving around one question: "How can I simultaneously encourage people to use a wide array of weapons and discourage always taking 6 Automatics skills while still preventing weapon specialists from being incredibly narrow point sinks?"

Posted by: kzt Jan 22 2008, 02:44 AM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob @ Jan 21 2008, 06:18 PM)

Currently, learning how to use all smallarms well (3 skills) is more difficult than learning to be a doctor (first aid and medicine).

One of the issues in designing a game is balancing costs of things like clever, easy skills and really damn hard but rarely used skills. SR does this, but in a kind of squirrelly manner.

Even ignoring Frank's accurate point that the skill costs are insane, SR doesn't weigh the relative difficulty of learning a skill or the relative value of a skill in a typical game in the cost of the skill. What they do is make particularly useful skills more expensive by breaking them up so that you "need" many similar skills to fill a role as they see it.

I'm not really impressed with this as an approach, as it has all the issues that have been mentioned. But that's what they are doing.

Posted by: Buster Jan 22 2008, 03:46 AM

I'm guessing that a lot of the reason they split up the skills is for flavor reasons. Killing people = lots of fun. Fixing people = not so much. Therefore weapons skills are tweaked to the nth degree, but doctor skills are just rolled up into a couple of skills. Realistically Data Search should have been rolled into the Computer skill, but they want the game to emphasize that particular aspect of computer use therefore it's made a separate skill. I'm just guessing here on the creator's philosophy, maybe it was just sloppy game design...

Posted by: HellHound Jan 22 2008, 04:35 AM

QUOTE (kzt)

SR doesn't weigh the relative difficulty of learning a skill or the relative value of a skill in a typical game in the cost of the skill. What they do is make particularly useful skills more expensive by breaking them up so that you "need" many similar skills to fill a role as they see it.

Yup. That's exactly what it is. As someone who's written games and is currently writing a near future RPG, game balance is far more important than realism.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 22 2008, 03:26 PM

QUOTE (HellHound)

QUOTE (kzt @ Jan 21 2008, 09:44 PM)

Yup. That's exactly what it is. As someone who's written games and is currently writing a near future RPG, game balance is far more important than realism.

Well, in my mind, balance already exists in real life. The problem is making a rules system granular enough to reflect those inherent balances, but not so granular that it requires a 1000 page rulebook with double-column pages and 6 point font.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. A Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum can drop a moose at 600 meters. Against human targets, it's FAR nastier than anything coming out of handgun, SMG, or Assault Rifle. It's got much more range, and is more accurate than any of those weapons I listed. However, IRL, it's heavy, long and near impossible to shoot accurately if you don't have a means to support it. And forget being able to clear a house with it.

In the SR4 ruleset, the power, damage, and range of such a weapon is fairly accurately represented, but the short comings of trying to use it in close quarters are NOT represented at all. So you have silly shit like Street Samurai being inside an office building and clearing rooms with a Ranger Arms SM3.

Again, RL already has balance built in...the trick is making your system granular enough to reflect that balance. In a lot of places, SR(pick your edition) doesn't.

My goal with house rules is implement a system that makes certain choices optimal ONLY in specific situations. Sometimes a pistol is the ideal choice for a certain type of encounter. Sometimes a shotgun is better. Sometimes an Assault Rifle is the best choice, and other times a Sniper Rifle will be ideal. But no one firearm should be best in all situations. And a game that 1 uber-gun or uber-sword or uber-whatever needs all kinds of wonky additional rules to generate balance.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 22 2008, 03:46 PM

....WR, good points & this also applies (if not more) to melee. This is why the Short One (#102) has her Fists (Killing Hands w/Elemental Strike), Survival knives, and her Katana. Not every fight will be out in the open or a big warehouse.

This is also why I feel why the Dodge skill is still useful, for if in tight quarters (such as a lift or crowded room with a lot of obstacles) Gymnastics ain't going to do you much good.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 22 2008, 03:53 PM

KK, I'm guessing you are replying to me since I didn't find any posts by Wounded Ronin in this thread.

Man, one of us is going to have to change our name to stop the confusion.

Back on topic...KK, you are dead on. To me, part of the fun in table-top RPGs is trying to gather enough intel to anticipate which tools will serve you best in any given situation. A rule system should give value to almost all choices, depending upon the circumstances, and one choice shouldn't be universally better than another.

Posted by: The Jopp Jan 22 2008, 04:01 PM

A simple solution to simulate the efficiency of a given weapon at different ranges how about a dicepool modifier?

The regular range modifier is (if i remember) 0/-1/-2/-3. Perhaps a modifier per weapon type should add or retract from this.

A shoulder fired weapon like a regular sports rifle/sniper rifle should perhaps get a -1 at short range and a +1 to long range. The problem is also that "short" range of said weapons can be rather long range. Pistols for example are easier to wield in close confinements and should perhaps gain a +1 at short and a -1 at long range. SMG's could have a binus at short/medium but more severe modifiers due to being innacurate at longer range.

Perhaps something like this?
Pistols: Short:+2 / Extreme: -2
SMG: Short:+1 / Extreme: -1
Assault Rifles: Short: -1 / Medium: +1
Rifles: Short: -2 / Extreme: +2
Shotguns: Short: +2 / Extreme: -2

Situational modifiers
Attacker fighting in cramped quarters: -1
Attacker using cumbersome weapon: -1

For example, a phanter cannon is large, loud, long and weights a ton (not literally) and weilding it might not be so easy.

Using the phanter cannon inside a cramped area (albeit giving cover) will make it troublesome moving about and aiming the weapon.

The above modifiers would then add to the regular range modifiers so a pistol shooting at extreme range would have a -4 instead of 3 and a bonus of +1D6 at short range.

This would most likely make people choose a weapon that suits the situation instead of lugging around the heaviest weapon they can find, and make smaller weapons a bit more favourable over heavy guns.

Posted by: kzt Jan 22 2008, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

In the SR4 ruleset, the power, damage, and range of such a weapon is fairly accurately represented, but the short comings of trying to use it in close quarters are NOT represented at all.

I'd argue that this is not true at all.

SR greatly increases the lethality of pistols and greatly reduces the lethality of rifles and shotguns. People routinely survive being hit multiple times by pistol bullets. To quote an instructor "Pistols are a poor excuse for a weapon, but they are extremely convenient." Even small caliber rifles are extremely lethal in the hands of a mediocre shot. For example, the "DC Sniper" terror attacks shot 14 people with a single .223 rifle round to center of mass. 10 died.

Not only that, but pistols are just as good as rifles in penetrating armor in SR.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 22 2008, 04:47 PM

QUOTE (kzt)

QUOTE (TheOneRonin @ Jan 22 2008, 08:26 AM)

In the SR4 ruleset, the power, damage, and range of such a weapon is fairly accurately represented, but the short comings of trying to use it in close quarters are NOT represented at all.

D'oh, good catch, KZT. I've been playing with house rules for SR damage codes since 2nd Ed, so I often times forget how whacked the canon damage codes are. I suppose it's true that SR rules don't even represent high-powered rifles very well. Ah well, that's why there are house rules.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 22 2008, 05:20 PM

My experience indicates that giving situational modifiers for guns doesn't really modify what guns people take into battle simply because you'd have to penalize pretty heavily before branching out into more than one firearm skill and dragging a second gun around is worth the points. Skills are damned expensive and once you can shoot someone well enough to get the job done in most situations there's little reason to take on another skill since you're not really gaining anything that lets you serve an appreciably different function. On the bright side, once you lower the cost of knowing how to use multiple firearms, a lot of people end up bringing appropriate weapons to the table just on sheer principle. Most people want to do what makes the most sense, it's just that sometimes games seem to punish them for it.

Posted by: The Jopp Jan 22 2008, 06:54 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

"simply because you'd have to penalize pretty heavily before branching out into more than one firearm skill and dragging a second gun around is worth the points. Skills are damned expensive"

Take into account that a "proffessional" in SR4 has a skill rating of 3 in his chosen field. Shadowrunners might be exceptional but they do rank as pro's within their field and above (most of the time).

This means that a pro would have a skill group or skill at rating 3-4. If you want to go into the field of the masters in the trade you go to 5+ in skill.

A pro can have 6BP in a skill by going 1/3 being a pro with a specific kind of weaponry.

Most non-gunbunnies might have this. Shadowrunners might have 3/5 or 4/6 and very VERY few have above this value, at least as starting characters.

So with that said some skills and skill groups are rather cheap, one just have to remember what skill level might be reasonable for the kind of game one is playing.

Posted by: kzt Jan 22 2008, 07:42 PM

The whole skill table in the book is bad joke. You should buy one point of skill (so you are not defaulting) and buy up the attribute instead until you run out of points for attributes. Only then should you even think of buying more skills.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 22 2008, 08:00 PM

No offense, but I think the skill table is pretty irrelevant. The li'l fluff chart giving you an idea of what skills ratings are common doesn't mean crap because the RAW rarely supports it on a systemic level and most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't address the fact that knowing multiple firearm skills is usually a ticket straight to redundancy. Thanks to the way burst fire modes operate automatics and heavy weapons like LMGs and Assault rifles offer far more damage potential than long arms at short ranges through narrow bursts and offer comparable accuracy at long range thanks to wide bursts up until 800 and 550 meters respectively, so sniper rifles really only come into their own at extreme ranges LMGs can't even attempt (and even then they've got competition from HMGs and Panther Cannons). So again, knowing the full group offers some mild advantages in some scenarios, but that doesn't change the fact that it really is rather expensive as well as redundant since each skill just kills people in a slightly different manner in lieu of real diversity. Again, the only real effect I've seen from lowering the cost of firearms and the close combat groups in my games is that I see people bringing a wider variety of (but still roughly equivalent) tools into play more often. Certainly there isn't any more dice or overpowered characters being brought into play; if anything the dice pools end up being smaller as Samurai have less incentive to just go ahead and scoop up 6 automatics. I'm personally fine with all the weapons performing similarly since shadowrun is a goofy setting that learned everything it knows about firearms from John Woo and Chuck Norris films, but in exchange I don't think players should have to keep paying points for knowing the same song in a slightly different arrangement, and lowering the costs seems to be the quickest way towards gaining the appearance of diversity, which frankly, is all I'm really interested in.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jan 23 2008, 08:17 AM

QUOTE (kzt @ Jan 22 2008, 12:42 PM)

The optional rule capping max successes at Skill x 2 goes a long, long way towards discouraging that kind of thing.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 23 2008, 04:57 PM

Alternatively you can just ignore the stupid table that indicates that trained professionals with three skill can only buy a single success. I really don't understand why people hold the table so sancrosanct. How useful a dicepool of six is varies pretty widely from task to task in the shadowrun world. Equipment modifiers and varying thresholds and the like can go a fair bit towards equalizing things at certain ranges but in exchange they often trivialize easier tasks. At the end of the day you're a lot better off trying to figure out how many dice PCs and NPCs need to be to consistently perform the tasks you plan on them doing rather than consulting the silly table.

Posted by: Mercer Jan 23 2008, 07:20 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

...it doesn't address the fact that knowing multiple firearm skills is usually a ticket straight to redundancy.

I think this is pretty true, except that:

You don't always get to plan what you bring. Typically, game-theory-wise the specialist is better off than the generalist because the former has more dice with fewer stuff. If you always have the stuff you're specialized in, being a specialist is always better. The only benefit the generalist has is if, some of the time, the characters are forced to make due with whatever they can find.

By way of example, if you're a maxed-out sammie with Automatics 8 and Blades 8, and you're trying to escape after being captured with nothing but a Colt America L36 and a baseball bat you took off a guard, you're an Agility -1 sammie. But if you were the B-String Sammie with the Firearms 4 and the Close-Combat 4, in this case you'd be showing Maxie up.

Granted, being a Generalist generally isn't worth it. It really depends on how much you plan to not have the stuff you plan to always have. (And if I was just going to take one Close Combat skill, it'd be Unarmed, since if they take away what I need for Unarmed, they're pretty much taking away what I need to use Blades and Clubs.)

When I made my first sammie, I took Firearms 4 and Close Combat 3 because, well, it was my first character and you make a lot of rookie mistakes with a first character. But one of the things I enjoyed was the character's versatility, the ability to pick the best weapon for the job, to pick up anything as the job wore on, and at the end toss the gear and know I'd be just as good with anything else I picked up.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 24 2008, 06:12 AM

Yeah, I agree with the gist of what you're saying in theory, but the darn 10 bps is just too much of a sticking point for me. I think it's rather notable that there's a few other skill groups out there that contain 4 skills yet Firearms only contains 3. For example, at least with the Stealth group you get some demonstrably different skills; you get to sneak around, pick pocket, palm hold outs, shake pursuers and even impersonate body language, so each skill can broaden your role in appreciable ways; you can't just grab impersonation and say "Well, it's just as good as Palming 3/4s of the time". Compare that to Firearms, which only covers three skills that fill roughly the same role and doesn't even really offer comprehensive mastery of all things boomstick, and I think it's fairly reasonable to throw the guy in my group playing an armorer/weapon specialist PC who lovingly packs his own shells (he thinks caseless lacks "soul") a bone.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 24 2008, 08:52 AM

A quick fix might be adding the heavy weapons skill to the firearms group, since you need heavy weapons to use machine guns, grenade launchers, and similar small arms.

Posted by: Fuchs Jan 24 2008, 10:35 AM

During military service, we rarely shot our assault rifles at full auto. We trained in aimed semi-automatic fire mostly, some rapid aimed semi-automatic fire, double-taps and the three-round-burst mode. Firing the HMG (M2 .50 BMG) was done in short bursts, our sarge went ballistic when one fired a quarter to half of one belt (105 rounds in one belt I think) in one burst once.

Granted, I was in mechanised artillery, not infantry.

Posted by: Cardul Jan 24 2008, 11:04 AM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

Compare that to Firearms, which only covers three skills that fill roughly the same role and doesn't even really offer comprehensive mastery of all things boomstick, and I think it's fairly reasonable to throw the guy in my group playing an armorer/weapon specialist PC who lovingly packs his own shells (he thinks caseless lacks "soul") a bone.

Um..Boomstick? As in Shotguns? I thought those were covered under Longarms and Pistols(for the Roomsweeper)?

I think that, given the generalization: Pistols is light,heavy pistols, machine pistols firing in SA, long arms is hunting rifles, sniper rifles,shotguns, and assault rifles firing in SA and automatics is machine pistols, SMGs, and assault rifles firing in full automatic(I think BF is whichever is better?)

To me, 10 BP for the group seems about right, as it is alot of different skills, really.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 24 2008, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (Cardul @ Jan 24 2008, 10:04 PM)

Um..Boomstick? As in Shotguns? I thought those were covered under Longarms and Pistols(for the Roomsweeper)?

Whipstitch is using the term 'all things boomstick' as a metaphor for 'every conceivable firearms-related thing'.

Posted by: Cardul Jan 24 2008, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

QUOTE (Cardul @ Jan 24 2008, 10:04 PM)

Um..Boomstick? As in Shotguns? I thought those were covered under Longarms and Pistols(for the Roomsweeper)?

Whipstitch is using the term 'all things boomstick' as a metaphor for 'every conceivable firearms-related thing'.

Bah! I wish they had a cyber-arm chainsaw in Augmentation..you need that plus a shotgun too PROPERLY be able to kill Shedim and say "This is my BOOMSTICK!"

Posted by: Ryu Jan 24 2008, 01:20 PM

But they have!

Common Modular Cyberware Plug-In in combination with a Monofilament-Chainsaw.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 24 2008, 01:44 PM

And yes, before anyone bitches, I know it is not technically a 'metaphor'. I just couldn't think of better wording at the time.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 24 2008, 02:00 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make earlier about SR4 needing house rules to reflect the differences in utility across small arms. The reason why a character can get by in SR4 with Pistols 6 (Semiautos +2) and no other firearms skill is because the rules are crap. IRL that guy would be fucked if he ran into anyone in decent body armor (just ask the cops that were involved in the North Hollywood Shootout some years ago). If someone was shooting at him from 100 yards away, he would be fucked. If he had to engage many targets, he would be fucked.

Sadly, SR rules don't hardly reflect any of that.

Posted by: Mercer Jan 24 2008, 04:38 PM

If he was being engaged from 100 meters away, wouldn't he still be fucked?

Granted, in the urban sprawl of SR, where more fights take place in gas station bathrooms than wide open spaces, this is less of an issue, but its one of the main reason my sammie owns a sport rifle. (I would agree that range in SR should probably be a little bit more punishing. Personally, I would go with -6 at Extreme Range, with Vision Mag reducing that by its rating, so the best you can have is -3 dice. But that's not the meeting we're having right now.)

Instead of changing the skills, I'd be more inclined to change how the weapons apply to them. For an Assault Rifle, fired in BF or FA it'd be the Automatics skill, fired in SA it'd be Longarms. Machine Pistols fired in SA are Light Pistols, fired in BF or FA, their Automatics. But I haven't really thought about this for very long, so it might just cause more problems. (Also, I apologize if anyone has already mentioned this, but I joined late.)

Posted by: Critias Jan 24 2008, 04:52 PM

That's how an old CP:2020 supplement (Hardwired, based on the novel of the same name) did it.

You had Long Guns (rifles, assault rifles, and shotguns fired in semi-auto or slower), Pistols (anything one handed, pretty much, fired semi-auto or slower), and Automatics (anything fired in burst or full auto). Voila. That was it.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 24 2008, 04:53 PM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

But then don't forget launch weapons such as AT4s and 40mm grenade launchers. Those probably need a seperate skill...should grenade launchers even be seperate from rocket or missile launchers?

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 24 2008, 07:35 PM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob @ Jan 24 2008, 03:52 AM)

A quick fix might be adding the heavy weapons skill to the firearms group, since you need heavy weapons to use machine guns, grenade launchers, and similar small arms.

Yeah, that's what I essentially do with my houserule mentioned earlier, I just combine longarms into automatics while I'm at it and move machines pistols to the pistols skill to make three categories. Not because I care about realism, per se, I just felt like divvying up weapons into three categories: Concealable firearms, practical firearms and weapons that are powerful but take up the back seat of the Eurocar. There's pros and cons to that method compared to leaving the skills alone and expanding the group, but it amounts to largely the same result.

Basically, the way I see it is that I have two real options if I want to see diversity in the game:
1. The ideal solution for OneRonin and many others: Creating the varied rules system that reflects pertinent differences between firearms and still plays fast. I doubt I could pull off such a coup; many have attempted it, and few have come back with the goods. I have games to run and I'm not really that terribly interested in a simulationist approach to Shadowrun anyway.

2. Make the Firearm skill group more comprehensive. I choose this option because it doesn't require much fiddling around with things and has the only effect I care about: Players still pay for the privelege of being able to pick up any gun and shoot well but weapon specialists don't get hosed so bad anymore for what often just amounts to roleplaying fluff. I have more players dragging around the odd shotgun into battle now and I can just assume my NPCs are proficient with whatever weapon I deign to give them anyway, so at least there's a more substantial veneer of variety. Much like with the 3rd Edition Martial Arts clusterfu- ahem, I'm sorry, rules, I just got tired of charging real points for faux variety after a while.

Posted by: Asheron Jan 24 2008, 08:19 PM

Wouldn't pistols have been replaced by PDWs by the time SR rolls around? The fact that everyone wears armor would make standard pistols pretty much outdated, so I'd imagine that most sammies would carry PDWs than pistols.

Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 24 2008, 09:35 PM

I am not convinced that enough people would be routinely wearing body armor in 2070 to drive full caliber pistols off the market.

Sure, _more_ people would be wearing body armor, but I don't think even 50% would.

RL PDWs are really unimpressive _unless_ your opponent is armored. Then they are only mostly unimpressive. They just don't have the velocity for the cool effects rifles of similar caliber have.

A 5.56mm, 4 gram bullet at nearly 1km a sec is in a whole different universe of hurt as a 5.7mm, 2 gram bullet at roughly 720m/s.

Today's PDWs still won't penetrate the plates of military body armor...

Given trends in today's firearms, if anything vanishes in 2070, it will be the SMG. Nearly every niche the SMG used to fill is now better served by a short barrel assault rifle.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 24 2008, 09:38 PM

QUOTE (Asheron)

I would doubt very seriously that "everyone" wears body armor, despite what SR fluff might say to the contrary. Today, modern Class IIIA body armor will stop just about any hand-gun threats up to and beyond a .44 magnum, and still police don't always wear vests 100% of the time.

Security professionals MIGHT wear body armor on duty, and Combat Arms Military personnel will probably wear armor as well, but you just won't see it that often.

And "PDWs" aren't the only small arms capable of firing 5.7x28mm or 4.6x30mm ammunition. FN has a pistol called the "Five-SeveN" that fires the same cartridge as the P90.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 24 2008, 10:20 PM

I too think it's rather unlikely that everyone's going to be armored all the time. Even the weakest attack from a pistol is at least 5P damage code (4DV+1 Net hit), so your standard of the rack comes-in-any-style Armored Clothing isn't going to prevent a gunshot from dealing physical unless you're a troll or they're using flechettes. This makes me think that Armored Clothing will be most commonly worn by rich execs for whom the cost of using a few Sci-Fi armored materials is a tiny portion of the overall cost of their fancy ass garment. I'm sure most normal people would simply try to avoid rough neighborhoods like the plague instead.

That said, I'm not sure it matters that much; Security Guards are probably required to wear the light weight flexi-wrap armored vests (which can "stop" light pistols but not a Predator) by corporate policies at least when responding, and midranked and higher gangers in an established outfit like the Ancients likely wear Armored Jackets and Lined Coats as a macho status symbol as well as for practical reasons, so even if there's a relatively small percentage of people wearing armor all the time, it's quite likely that the people you get in shoot outs with will be a part of that group. It's also a good thing to remember that drones are unaffected by stun too; a Nissan Doberman may very well laugh off a shot from your light pistol if you don't score very many hits and a Steel Lynx can shrug off quite a few different weapons unless you're a good shot or have at least an Ex-Ex loaded heavy pistol.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 24 2008, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (TheOneRonin)

FN has a pistol called the "Five-SeveN" that fires the same cartridge as the P90.

Heard pretty much nothing but good things about this pistol. Anyone have personal experience?

Posted by: kzt Jan 25 2008, 12:17 AM

The ballistic profile looks like a .22 LR hollow point.... It's lucky it has a large magazine, because you'll need it.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 25 2008, 12:52 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

QUOTE (TheOneRonin @ Jan 25 2008, 08:38 AM)

FN has a pistol called the "Five-SeveN" that fires the same cartridge as the P90.

Heard pretty much nothing but good things about this pistol. Anyone have personal experience?

Frosty NSO liked the one he head. Alas, we can no longer ask him about it.

Posted by: Asheron Jan 25 2008, 04:22 AM

Why wouldn't armor be more common than not? According to the fluff, the Sixth World is really dangerous, what with gangs armed with grenade launchers and animals that can spit fire, and armor is incredibly advanced. You can wear a t-shirt made of kevlar, and a jacket that is pretty good at stopping bullets.

As for the PDW rounds, I was thinking more of the high velocity shells ala Ghost in the Shell.

Posted by: Fortune Jan 25 2008, 07:24 AM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)

Frosty NSO liked the one he head. Alas, we can no longer ask him about it.

I know he hasn't been around for a while. Did anything happen to him?

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jan 25 2008, 07:37 AM

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jan 25 2008, 03:24 PM)

QUOTE (Crusher Bob @ Jan 25 2008, 11:52 AM)

Frosty NSO liked the one he head. Alas, we can no longer ask him about it.

I know he hasn't been around for a while. Did anything happen to him?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13562

Posted by: Fortune Jan 25 2008, 07:49 AM

Fuck! I didn't know!

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 25 2008, 02:18 PM

QUOTE (Asheron)

Alas, Shadowrun's body armor fluff/rules just goes to show that the developers know even less about body armor than the know about firearms.

An advaced "kevlar t-shirt" MIGHT prevent the bullet from actually breaking skin, but the blunt force trauma would be like getting hit by a truck. Oh, and it wouldn't help you one bit if your assailant had a knife.

I really enjoyed GiTS, but the "High Velocity Ammo" crap was just that...crap. Here's what I'm talking about:

Nominal handgun projectile velocity hovers somewhere around 1100 fps...with a range from 850 fps to about 1300 for big automatics (faster for heavy revolver carts). Something like a 10mm Auto is about a 180gr bullet leaving a 4" barrel at 1200 fps. The recoil is really stinking sharp on that round as it is. But you would need to almost double it's muzzle velocity to get it into the range of rifle ballistics. Basically you end up trying to fire the equivalent of a 7.62x51mm (.308) cartridge from a handgun frame. Back in the Korean war, the Army was issuing the M-14, a .308 caliber rifle, to it's soldiers. The universal complaint was that it was totally uncontrollable in automatic fire. A pistol or small SMG weapon would be useless if firing something like that. Not to mention that if your weapon is built to fire cartridges with certain ballistics, firing double velocity cartridges will seriously fuck-up if not irreparably damage your firearm.

The PDW cartridges I was speaking of (FN 5.7mm and HK 4.6mm) represent one method of trying to achieve rifle-caliber ballistics from a handgun-sized cartridge. Their bullets are fast (2000+ fps), but small and light. They punch neatly through soft body armor, and have relatively light recoil, but really don't do much tissue damage.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 25 2008, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (Asheron)

You can wear a t-shirt made of kevlar, and a jacket that is pretty good at stopping bullets.

And if the average person put on said armored clothing and an armored jacket, they would fall to the ground, unable to get up, completely paralyzed by the crushing weight of their armor, and no amount of super strength would help them get up.

Oh, am I ranting again? The armor encumbrance/layering rules bother me. For the record, I use Bod+Str instead of Bodx2 when calculating armor penalties, but that's just taking the problem from worse to bad.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 25 2008, 08:11 PM

Yeah, you are ranting again. The armor rules work fine as long as people don't start bellyaching about wanting layered armor for some dumb ass reason. And for what it's worth, it doesn't say anything about people ever being paralyzed by armor, since that's a mechanic that's only mentioned in reference to debilitating spells and toxins; it just reduces your agility and reaction scores. A low body character can do the vast majority of daily tasks just fine in a full suit of body armor, they'll just stumble around like morons when trying to do anything remotely out of the ordinary and super strong characters can actually climb, sprint and lift just fine in the stuff. I'd actually rather drop the strength attribute from the game entirely than try to rework the armor rules.

Posted by: Riley37 Jan 25 2008, 08:23 PM

Wow, thread topic shift... perhaps we should just have an always-open SR4 Gun Rules Thread.

Anyways, the rule that layered armor doesn't add at all does seem silly to me. Yes, I don't want munchkin PCs claiming 14B for Armor Jacket over Armor Vest. But I also don't see a bullet going through a lined coat and then an armored vest, quite as quickly as a bullet going through a lined coat and then bare skin. If the combination is super unwieldy and restricts movement, then that's the better rule. That covers situations in which a character might really want to pile on armor and not care about mobility... for example, if their role in a situation is bait.

Of course, game designers have to write rules for two very different kind of players: those that have a video game approach, and those who have some real world experience and want to apply common sense to what characters can do easily, can't do at all, and can do with luck and skill.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 25 2008, 08:35 PM

I wouldn't pull the real world experience and common sense card; it comes across as freakishly arrogant. Shadowrun is a game played at a table with a bunch of dice and some notepads; abstraction is an inescapable reality of roleplaying games and whether someone leans more towards a simulationist style of play or not is largely independent of common sense or personal experiences.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 25 2008, 09:06 PM

Whip makes a good point. I think what most people are looking for (at least in my case) when they pull the Real World™ and Common Sense™ cards is rulesets that give the player many, many choices, with none being optimal in any given circumstances.

For me, over the last 10+ years, it's been a struggle of trying to bend/modify game rules to reflect Real Life™ because that's what I THOUGHT I wanted. Thanks to the discussions on these boards and my personal growth and maturing as a gamer, I've learned that's not exactly what I was looking for.

I've learned that the important thing is not "are damage codes scaled properly based on the terminal ballistics of each cardridge fired by said weapon systems" but "how do I want the rules to influence each player's decision in terms of what guns they bring along.

If I want my players to largely rely on handguns as their primary weapons, I can implement house rules to make them just slightly less powerful than rifles (or use SR4 RAW), and maybe do a few other things that makes pistols more appealing. If I want Pistols<SMGs<Shotguns<Assault Rifles, I just have to tweak the stats to make it so. It doesn't really matter if 6P is WAY off for what actual damage a 5.56mm M855 round fired from a 16" barrel does in Real Life™, as long as it properly represents what I want it to mean in terms of how it relates to the damage codes of other weapons.

I think most people get lost in their reasoning by thinking that bringing the game closer to Real Life™ is their goal, when really their actual goal is something else, but they think making the rules more "realistic" will get them there.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 25 2008, 09:24 PM

It's all about balancing cognitive dissonance and suspension of disbelief with speed and reliability, really. My goal is to make the rules do their job as quickly as possible with as few people as possible thinking "Hey... this doesn't look quite right." That can be tangentially related to personal experience, of course, since someone who knows about guns is more likely to notice when things with the gun rules go awry, but even then, I'm still more interested in easy to use rules that work quickly for the majority of people in my group than whether John M. Browning would think I'm rather misrepresenting the M1911.

Posted by: Riley37 Jan 26 2008, 12:52 AM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

I wouldn't pull the real world experience and common sense card; it comes across as freakishly arrogant.

I'm shooting for a mundane level of arrogance.

Cf. the current Panther Cannon thread: I prefer a game in which only characters with higher than 3 STR use the Panther Cannon... actually, I prefer a game in which the Panther Cannon doesn't exist, but a heaver version of PJSS does.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 26 2008, 03:36 AM

I think the ol' Panther essentially amounts to a legacy weapon these days. Frankly, I can't get myself too worked up about it though; it's a tremendously expensive one trick pony of a weapon and there's no way around the single shot limit or the fact that you're basically setting 45¥ on fire every time you use it (although that's not so bad once you consider how much a full burst of Ex-Ex from an Ares Alpha costs...). It's not good for much of anything but taking out hardened armor from a distance, really, and the complete and utter lack of concealability is a bummer. Then again, I don't worry much about carrying capacities in my game, and my players know better than to try abusing that, nor do I have issues with my sci-fi/fantasy characters wielding comic book weapons. I think the next time my group rolls new characters I'll just do away with strength entirely.