Automatic weapons and multiple attack house rule, Thoughts? |
Automatic weapons and multiple attack house rule, Thoughts? |
Apr 17 2014, 11:21 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,389 Joined: 20-August 12 From: Bunbury, western australia Member No.: 53,300 |
Okay, our GM and I have been chatting for a bit and have come up with a house rule. When using the Multiple Attacks rule with a gun firing multiple bullets, you split your dice pool as normal. If your targets are within (number of bullets in burst/3) meters of each other they all take the full burst penalty, otherwise you must split the bullets between targets (for instance, firing Full Auto (simple) at two targets 15 meters apart would mean that either both targets are getting 3 bullets [-2 dodge], 1 target is getting 2 and the other 4 [-1 and -3 dodge] or else 1 and 5 [no penalty and -4 dodge]. However, if the targets were merely 2 meters apart and the area was sprayed with bullets both would receive the full -5 penalty of a full auto (simple) attack).
The logic should be fairly obvious, but are we overthinking things? |
|
|
Apr 17 2014, 11:29 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,893 Joined: 8-August 13 From: New Jersey , USA Member No.: 140,076 |
Okay, our GM and I have been chatting for a bit and have come up with a house rule. When using the Multiple Attacks rule with a gun firing multiple bullets, you split your dice pool as normal. If your targets are within (number of bullets in burst/3) meters of each other they all take the full burst penalty, otherwise you must split the bullets between targets (for instance, firing Full Auto (simple) at two targets 15 meters apart would mean that either both targets are getting 3 bullets [-2 dodge], 1 target is getting 2 and the other 4 [-1 and -3 dodge] or else 1 and 5 [no penalty and -4 dodge]. However, if the targets were merely 2 meters apart and the area was sprayed with bullets both would receive the full -5 penalty of a full auto (simple) attack). The logic should be fairly obvious, but are we overthinking things? No, you are not. One of the things I HATE about the current system is the way the multiple attacks option on full auto treats things. Firing 10 bullets at someone makes them take a -9 penalty to dodge. I get that, that's fine. Firing 10 bullets at two different people who could be anywhere from 1 yard to hundreds of yards apart also causes them to be a -9? Stupid. I think your way is good, you could get grittier and make people "walk" the bullets to the target, but that isn't necessary. I'm almost inclined to say that unless they are within 1 meter of each other, you have to split it, but 2 for 6 bullets and 3 for 10 doesn't seem outlandish. |
|
|
Apr 17 2014, 11:32 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,389 Joined: 20-August 12 From: Bunbury, western australia Member No.: 53,300 |
We're also going back to 4th edition speed rules for vehicles and cutting walking and running speeds in half, but that's not really the focus of the thread.
|
|
|
May 6 2014, 01:31 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 17-January 10 From: Sweden Member No.: 18,046 |
I think I'd go for something like that in old Sr4
Where a full auto is like 2 long bursts or 3 short bursts. So a long burst (-5 on one target) becomes -2 on two targets and no penalty on 3+ targets. Full auto is enough for -9 one target, -5 two targets -2 on three or four targets and no penalty on more than 4 targets. My idea is to think in existing terms (-9, -5, -2 or no penalty) as long as possible. I do agree that -9 on all targets is just silly. |
|
|
May 7 2014, 12:26 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 865 Joined: 31-December 03 From: Shadows of Britain Member No.: 5,944 |
I follow a 3rd edition principle. Walk fire costing 1 bullet per meter to hit your next target and use the "nt enough bullets" rule to determine modifiers.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 09:39 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.