Burst Fire House Rule, Removing Narrow and Wide Options

[Yerameyahu]

So, I've been kicking this around for a day, and I knew the best place to get feedback was you jerks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I've always been a little unsatisfied with having to choose between Narrow and Wide Bursts. It's all-or-nothing, it can be overkill (either too much Dodge penalty, or too much +DV), and neither directly helps you make extreme shots (i.e., spraying at a distant target).

The proto-'solution' I've been considering is to simply add the Burst bonus straight to the attacker's DP. This addresses the problem of 'wasted' bonus and the hit-them-or-hurt-them dilemma. It also means that you can make difficult shots by virtue of throwing more lead. I had originally considered just allowing the player to split their Burst bonus between -Dodge and +DV, but that seemed like it would bog down the game more, and encourage metagaming.

I know this is a very old, obvious idea, and you're all smart enough to recognize the obvious implications of this. I ran some simulations with DP/3 for expected hits, and this performs *very* similarly to Wide bursts. You would expect this, because it's basically Wide bursts without the 'cap' at 0 defense. (I can toss up the spreadsheets, if anyone cares, for which I used some of the Sample Grunts). This isn't necessarily a success, though, because it's not intended to nerf Narrow bursts. See Variants and Tweaks, below.

Some Problems:
1. Huge problems with Edge use
2. Never glitch again
3. Beating armor with autofire
4. Much harder to get a clean miss from dodging. I'm not sure what to do about that one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
5. (Please suggest, that's why I'm posting the thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Thanks.)

6. [Heath Robinson] pointed out that, with *zero* RC, the basic version of this rule doesn't do anything. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
7. [rumanchu] mentioned that Edge/Long Shot rules already exist for 'million-to-one' shots.
8. It occurred to me that this also makes Dodge glitches much less likely; is that a problem for anyone?

I think problems 1, 2, and 3 can simply be negated by rolling the BF bonus dice separately; does that complicate things more than removing Narrow/Wide bursts simplifies them?

Variants and Tweaks:
1. Increase the BF bonus to (N) instead of (N-1); short bursts would be +3, long bursts +6, etc. (This doesn't seem necessary, just a passing thought.)
2. Increase DV by 1 per 3 rounds fired (short +1, long +2, full +3).
** [The numbers for this variant (#2) look pretty good, falling nicely between Wide and Narrow bursts in the RAW simulation. This is the version I'm most liking.]
3. (Combine 1 and 2: Burst bonus is N, and DV bonus is N/3; almost certainly too deadly, for no good reason.)
4. [Flaconer] suggests DP+N/2, DV+N/2, as a weaker solution for burst fire. (I'm concerned that it's much weaker than Wide, but it limits Narrow well.)

In conclusion, I'm going to give it a little playtesting. I like the simplicity of it, and I don't think it obviously unbalances combat. I'm asking you guys for your expert skills at telling me why I'm wrong and it *does* obviously unbalance everything. Thanks.

[Heath Robinson]

So, unmodified guns basically only increase how many nuyens you spend when you choose to fire longer bursts?

BF mode: +2 DP, -2 Recoil
Long burst: +5 DP, -5 Recoil
Full burst: +9 DP, -9 Recoil

(And since your RC works like a bonus, which way you fire your gun is determined by the amount of RC you have.)

[rumanchu]

The only things that I might suggest, since it seems that the goal is to allow the shooter to make a roll where penalties might otherwise reduce their DP to 0 are:

a) make it something that the shooter can spend an Edge point to do; whatever case you're talking about sounds to me generally like something that falls into the "it's a one-in-a-million-shot, but I just might get it!" category that Edge is perfect to represent

and/or

b) limit the DV of the shot to the base damage for the weapon; again, since it's an otherwise nigh-impossible shot, getting *any* damage out of it seems fair enough...and it helps to alleviate any Edge-related wonkiness that might interact with Hardened Armor

EDIT: didn't even consider the RC implications

[Yerameyahu]

I feel like that's how it works already, Heath. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's a good point, though: some people don't have RC (although RC is pretty plentiful, and I use the STR>RC optional rule). That's one reason I'm leaning toward Variant 2, which incorporates a little of Narrow bursts. In that variant, your tradeoff is DV for accuracy (as we're used to), with RC factored in as normal (again, just like we're used to).

Currently, Wide bursts work on the principle that you either have RC, or your DP is bigger than the other guy's Reaction (or even Reaction + Dodge). You trade your 'extra' DP for theirs. I don't think shifting the -Dodge to a +Attack ruins that, but you're right that it does remove that 'extra' trading.

rumanchu, you're right that Long Shot rules already cover that situation. I wasn't specifically looking at Long Shots with this, though. It's not so much for one-in-a-million shots, but simply the 'common sense' reality of 'more bullets means at least a few should hit'. I think this could be useful in situations where your DP isn't 0, but it's not very *good* either. In that case, you spend more bullets (as Heath says, nuyens) to better your odds a tad.

[Heath Robinson]

I feel like that's how it works already, Heath. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) That's a good point, though: some people don't have RC (although RC is pretty plentiful, and I use the STR>RC optional rule). That's one reason I'm leaning toward Variant 2, which incorporates a little of Narrow bursts. In that variant, your tradeoff is DV for accuracy (as we're used to), with RC factored in as normal (again, just like we're used to).

Currently, Wide bursts work on the principle that you either have RC, or your DP is bigger than the other guy's Reaction (or even Reaction + Dodge). You trade your 'extra' DP for theirs. I don't think shifting the -Dodge to a +Attack ruins that, but you're right that it does remove that 'extra' trading.

Variant 2 does makes autofire more lucrative, but I think the effect of the overall system is a lot of complexity for little variation in the game outcome at this point. You're subtracting from the size of a modifier (to get the bonus to your DP), which is something nobody should have to do in a modern game. You might as well just say that RC gives you a bonus to your attack rolls no matter how many bullets you fire and give the DV modifier from extra rounds on the schedule you suggested. It'd be almost the same, except some fights won't have everyone blazing away on full auto like a James Bond mook and the players spend less time doing mental maths.

[Yerameyahu]

You really think it's more complex that Narrow/Wide? :/ Alas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Can you explain what you mean about 'modern game'?

I feel like you're really overstating the lack of RC, though. Everyone should have at least 2 (free short bursts), and most will have 5 (2 free short bursts). I see what you're saying about 'assume full auto and make RC a simple bonus', but that's into the realm of board-game simple now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I assume you meant it as a joke, but what you're suggesting basically *is* how Burst Fire rules work already; it's just more honest? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) That, and people worried about ammo costs still have the option of shooting less.

Don't forget that Full bursts are still Complex Actions, as well.

[Heath Robinson]

You really think it's more complex that Narrow/Wide? :/ Alas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Can you explain what you mean about 'modern game'?

I feel like you're really overstating the lack of RC, though. Everyone should have at least 2 (free short bursts), and most will have 5 (2 free short bursts). I see what you're saying about 'assume full auto and make RC a simple bonus', but that's into the realm of board-game simple now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ah, sorry, my suggestion must not have been phrased all that well. I meant to say that the system you propose is more complex than the amount of variety it'll produce should warrant. The fact that you basically have three modifiers instead of one, and it all mostly serves to make pistols worse than they might otherwise be is pretty difficult to support in my opinion.

The base system is also more complex than I think it should be, as well. Personally, I'd prefer a threshold system with different burst and autofire options providing threshold modifiers to different range categories. Of course, a little extra is necessary so that BF pistols have more value and so on.

[Whipstitch]

I've experimented with making all bursts into wide bursts by default just because I think the narrow mechanic is weird and kinda messy by virtue of it's all or nothing nature. I personally rather like it and it slows down the runners quite a bit (My NPCs already made more use of wide than narrow due to the simple fact that my average security guard isn't crazy skilled), but I hesitate to do so with groups that have magicians. Taking away the Narrow burst option when another guy has the ability to overcast Stun Balls seems a li'l punitive. Plus, there's also the fact that not allowing bursts to stage damage up directly means that if you get the drop on someone there's no point in putting more bullets into them because you're already rolling for successes, which is more than a li'l weird.

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, Whipstitch, that's basically where my train of thought went. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Heath Robinson, I sort of see where you're going. I'm not sure that it makes pistols (I assume you actually mean any SS/SA gun?) any worse than they already are by RAW, though. They perform exactly the same, and Burst weapons perform *slightly* better in cases of very low Reaction enemies (because fewer 'dice' are wasted). Overall, modified Burst weapons do much less damage than Narrow bursts, and slightly more than Wide bursts (I think, based on the numbers).

Can you explain what the 'three modifiers' are? There's +DP for each bullet (N-1), and there's +DV for each 3 (N/3). Also, how does the RAW system only have one modifier? I'm sorry, I'm just having trouble following you, no worries. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Appreciate the help, guys!

[Heath Robinson]

Heath Robinson, I sort of see where you're going. I'm not sure that it makes pistols (I assume you actually mean any SS/SA gun?) any worse than they already are by RAW, though. They perform exactly the same, and Burst weapons perform *slightly* better in cases of very low Reaction enemies (because fewer 'dice' are wasted). Overall, modified Burst weapons do much less damage than Narrow bursts, and slightly more than Wide bursts (I think, based on the numbers).

Can you explain what the 'three modifiers' are? There's +DP for each bullet (N-1), and there's +DV for each 3 (N/3). Also, how does the RAW system only have one modifier? I'm sorry, I'm just having trouble following you, no worries. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Clearly we're talking straight past each other. I'm not advocating the RAW system at all. I'll lay out what I proposed again after I point out the three modifiers for you.

1. Attack DP +(N-1) for burst
2. Attack DP -(N-1) from Recoil
3. Recoil reduced by M from RC

Since the first two are always equal in size unless the third acts, we can say that the only efficacious modifier is the third. We only actually care about the size of the third. However, there are three rules here instead of one, so it's easier to misunderstand.

What I want is to simplify this. Scrap the burst modifier and the recoil modifiers to your attack DP. They are in perfect balance and don't need to be mentioned. Say only the following: add your RC to your attack dice pool. Don't reduce the benefit RC gives you if you fire fewer rounds because that gives firing larger bursts both more attack dice and more damage. Let pistols and other SA/SS weapons benefit from higher values of RC. They need it, since Automatics is already a pretty good buy

[Yerameyahu]

Ah. I think I addressed that, and you're still ignoring other distinctions: +DV N/3, Simple vs. Complex Action. My point is that RC should never really be *out* of play, so it doesn't really matter that there's a balance between Recoil and Burst mod. After all, that's how Wide bursts already work, except there's a hard cut-off point. I don't think the RAW is *bad*, so I didn't realize you were comparing my suggestion against a separate suggestion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Having RC be a simple bonus to everything is indeed simple, but I think that's too far (for my group), as I said earlier. My players and I *want* to choose how many bullets we fire, and pay for them, and so on. Larger bursts *should* have more dice and damage. At your table, your board-game-simple version may be great. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I still don't see how SS/SA weapons are made worse, unless you meant in comparison to your proposal.

Whipstitch, personally I think Narrow bursts may easily be *too* strong, so I'm not terribly worried about nerfing Full Auto surprise assassinations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Under my suggestion (#2), you'd still want to shoot more bullets, because you'd get +Net hits and +DV (N/3). In that case, it *might* even be worth it to go beyond your RC for the guaranteed +DV, instead of the risky Net Hits.

[Draco18s]

Another issue:
Burst fire damage would now count towards the Modified DV when comparing to armor.

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah that's Problem #3 in the OP. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I think it's acceptable to just roll them apart, but it *is* a kluge.

[Dumori]

Another issue:
Burst fire damage would now count towards the Modified DV when comparing to armor.

One could always say that it dosen't with out to much difficulty might be harder to write unambiguously though.

[Falconer]

Burst fire applying to armor DV is no different than a wide burst is now.

I roll 4 more dice and get 1-2 more hits for damage.... target rolls 4 less dice and stages down the damage 1-2 points before armor. The bigger problem is the whole, you miss me I don't need to soak part. Penalizing a smaller dice pool is comparatively far more effective in an opposed test. 10 dice vs 5 is 2:1 odds very roughly speaking, but 5:0 is entirely in the attackers favor. (effective soak if hit, is always reaction-defense pool + bod + armor).

It's been well known for ages that if armor is a problem (vehicles, spirits, and to a lesser extent trolls) use a wide burst unless your pre-narrow burst damage can reliably breach their armor.


Overall, I like the concept of adding more dice to attacking rather than penalizing the defender. The problem is I can't see how to reconcile it neatly w/ recoil comp.

The only idea I can see is treat recoil comp like normal, then taking the number of shots/2 (round down) then add it as +dice and +damage in the same way as a narrow burst. IE: a narrow burst is +1 damage, +1 dice (but you can can fire two of them), long burst (+3 dam, +3dice), Full burst (+5dam, +5dice). Also I'd disallow called shot for damage whenever this is done (unless firing at something very large... like the radiator of a mack truck, IMO called shot and wide bursts are wholly incompatible).

IE: without any recoil comp... you'll take the -2 penalty, modified to -1 dice total for +1 damage. Effectively not quite as good as a called shot for damage, but it doesn't require an action to declare the called shot for every shot then. So it's not that bad, considering it's 2 per pass for short bursts. Uncompensated long (-5+3== -2, for +3 damage). Uncompensated Full (-9, +5==-4, for +5 dam).

[Deadmannumberone]

An option that I tried to use in SR2 (slightly modified to fit better with SR4);

SA: Declare number of shots fired at a target in action phase (limit Agility), one round hits with the first net hit, and one more round hits with every four additional net hits. More than two shots must use a complex action.
BF: Declare number of bursts fired at a target in action phase (limit Agility/2), one round hits with the first net hit, and one more for every three additional net hits. One burst uses a simple action, more uses a complex action.
Point FA: Declare number of rounds fired at a target (min/max limits 5/30 for basic FA, 8/40 for HV FA, or 15/60 for miniguns), one round hits for every other net hit.
Area FA: Use suppressive fire rules.

Range: Halve the range penalty for BF or FA, and increase the net hits needed to get multiple hits by the base range modifier.
Point Blank: SA gets an additional round hit for every other net hit, and BF/FA gets one for every net hit.

Recoil functions normally.

[Draco18s]

What is the "benefit" of having more bullets hit?

[Deadmannumberone]

What is the "benefit" of having more bullets hit?

Total the DV of all rounds that hit (though you'd compare them individually to determine if they beat the armor).

[Draco18s]

So I fire a semi-auto gun, deciding to fire two shots. If I get 4 net hits, I do (base damage x2) + 4? (base damage +4) x2? But I compare to armor....base+4, twice? base+2, twice? base+0, twice?

[Yerameyahu]

Hmm. What I'm looking at right now (in the OP) is DP+N, DV+N/3.

Falconer, are you suggesting DP+N, DV+N? Like, all bursts are Wide and Narrow? I think I misread, sorry, my brain's not working at the moment. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I like your point that Wide bursts can effectively give more net hits to beat armor; I never thought about it like that.

Deadmannumberone, is your suggestion to treat bursts as multiple attacks (like the existing multiple attack rules, but all at the same person)? Hm. No, I guess you're not. That looks very complicated. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Deadmannumberone]

So I fire a semi-auto gun, deciding to fire two shots. If I get 4 net hits, I do (base damage x2) + 4? (base damage +4) x2? But I compare to armor....base+4, twice? base+2, twice? base+0, twice?

Let's use an assault rifle for this example.

With 1-4 net hits at short range, one bullet hits for DV 5, 5-9 net hits has two bullets hit for 10 DV (armor compares to 5 DV), etc., so it increases damage in steps, instead of linearly.

You can still stage up the damage with called shots (though called shots are incompatible with multiple shots unless looking at an extremely large target), or with some ammo types.

Deadmannumberone, is your suggestion to treat bursts as multiple attacks (like the existing multiple attack rules, but all at the same person)? Hm. No, I guess you're not. That looks very complicated. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

In practice it plays easier than it sounds.

[Draco18s]

With 1-4 net hits at short range, one bullet hits for DV 5, 5-9 net hits has two bullets hit for 10 DV (armor compares to 5 DV), etc., so it increases damage in steps, instead of linearly.

All damage will be stun, all the time, unless someone is wearing very small amounts of armor, because you're not adding in nethits to the DV that you compare to the armor.
(Even so, drakes still get f*cked with their 4 hardened armor, as almost no guns do 4 DV).

[Deadmannumberone]

All damage will be stun, all the time, unless someone is wearing very small amounts of armor, because you're not adding in nethits to the DV that you compare to the armor.
(Even so, drakes still get f*cked with their 4 hardened armor, as almost no guns do 4 DV).

Don't forget about AP, and things like EX-Ex, APDS, and AV rounds. Not to mention armor tech is advancing much faster than bullet tech.

[Yerameyahu]

Poor drakes. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I'm going to compare the results of DP+N, DV+N/3 with allowing all net hits to count for armor purposes, and then without (the original/normal way). It may be that it's not unbalancing, compared to how Wide bursts work in RAW already.

[Falconer]

Hmm. What I'm looking at right now (in the OP) is DP+N, DV+N/3.

Falconer, are you suggesting DP+N, DV+N? Like, all bursts are Wide and Narrow? I think I misread, sorry, my brain's not working at the moment. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I like your point that Wide bursts can effectively give more net hits to beat armor; I never thought about it like that.

Yes, completely remove wide and narrow bursts and treat any burst fire as effectively half of each (round down). Right now as it stands full auto weapons fire is pretty much *THE* way to go in SR4.

Yes exactly, I'm suggesting DP + (N/2) - (uncompensated recoil), DV + (N/2).

Otherwise +dice is completely offset by -dice from recoil comp. Which is a rather stupid mechanic, it also differentiates automatic weapons fire (which is a little more area saturation, from precision aimed fire).

If I'm reading your idea correctly it's even more overpowered (and automatics already are). You're effectively giving +dice (which increases both the chance to hit, and the raw net hits damage... and increasing base damage by the full number of rounds fired). IE: they get the full benefit of wide burst and partial benefit of narrow...


Again, it makes sense... 2 short bursts is effectively +1 dice, +1 damage, x2. 1 long burst is +3dice, +3damage. 1 full burst is +5 dice, +5 damage. You could run into some wierdness w/ long/full bursts and splitting the attack against adjacent targets... even there just treat them as short bursts and it works out.