IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ranged Combat, the SR3R way
mmu1
post Jul 1 2005, 10:46 PM
Post #151


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Though I'm not a fan of that idea, that does bring up a question: shotguns and suppressive fire. Should it be able to be used for this, and if so how?

I think suppressive fire with semi-automatic weapon doesn't makes sense... Not that the current SR suppressive fire rules do, either, so perhaps that's not the best argument.

Still, there is no need that I can see for semi-auto shotguns to be able to lay down suppressive fire - they're not close to being underpowered weapons even with the changes you proposed, and the fact it makes no real-world sense just strenghtens the case against the suppressive fire idea.

If I were to give shotguns any "special" abilites, I would increase their performance against barriers, allowing people to use them cinematically to blow locks out of doors and so on. After all, they should make a bigger hole than a pistol... But I think it's probably best to stick to the relatively simple and consistent, all told.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jul 1 2005, 10:53 PM
Post #152


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Fair enough. Scrap that idea. With regard to the blow-through, that's already reflected in their ability to load "Shock-Lock" rounds that other weapons can't.

Now the pistols question. Ugh. Anyone else want to chime in on this before I come to a preliminary decision?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrJest
post Jul 1 2005, 10:57 PM
Post #153


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



QUOTE
If I were to give shotguns any "special" abilites, I would increase their performance against barriers, allowing people to use them cinematically to blow locks out of doors and so on. After all, they should make a bigger hole than a pistol... But I think it's probably best to stick to the relatively simple and consistent, all told.


The SAS use a short-barrel Remington 870 shotgun round to breach doors, but apparently using a specialist round called a "Hatton". I don't know what a Hatton round is, but according to this site (provenance unproved) they're supposed to be able to drop a door in 3 seconds.

Found a picture of a HRT in action, it's about 3/4 of the way down the page.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrJest
post Jul 1 2005, 11:06 PM
Post #154


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



QUOTE
Now the pistols question. Ugh. Anyone else want to chime in on this before I come to a preliminary decision?


Missed this while posting. I still think that a heavy pistol and a rifle in single shot should have roughly the same damage code, given the discussion over rounds that took place a few pages back, but that rifles should get the armour piercing bonus. I'd also up Light and Holdout Pistols to M from L, whilst keeping the same relative power. From what little I know, the difference in getting hit by a 9mm (light?) and a .32 (seems to be a popular cartridge size for pocket pistols) is going to be negligible from the target's point of view, at least under the level of detail offered by the SR system. I'd support Power being the major differentiator between pistol calibres rather than damage code.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yoan
post Jul 1 2005, 11:11 PM
Post #155


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 8-June 05
From: Montréal, République du Québec
Member No.: 7,433



QUOTE (DrJest @ Jul 1 2005, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE
Now the pistols question. Ugh. Anyone else want to chime in on this before I come to a preliminary decision?


Missed this while posting. I still think that a heavy pistol and a rifle in single shot should have roughly the same damage code, given the discussion over rounds that took place a few pages back, but that rifles should get the armour piercing bonus. I'd also up Light and Holdout Pistols to M from L, whilst keeping the same relative power. From what little I know, the difference in getting hit by a 9mm (light?) and a .32 (seems to be a popular cartridge size for pocket pistols) is going to be negligible from the target's point of view, at least under the level of detail offered by the SR system. I'd support Power being the major differentiator between pistol calibres rather than damage code.

Seconded. Holdouts do 4-5M, 'Light' pistols doing 6-7M and Heavy Pistols doing 7-9M.

In my game, currently, I knocked all Heavy Pistols down to 8M, except the revolver-types, who fire in SS and still deal 9M.

A single assault rifle shot and a single heavy pistol shot, from 10 meters, should deal the same wound, at least roughly. ARs gain an edge due to: clip capacity, range, and especially, burst/auto fire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shadow
post Jul 1 2005, 11:12 PM
Post #156


Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill.
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,545
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Gloomy Boise Idaho
Member No.: 2,006



I still think AR's should do more damage than a pistol. The velocity the round is spat out at seems like it should. I don't know, maybe I am off on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrJest
post Jul 1 2005, 11:21 PM
Post #157


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



I think the velocity would be a factor more in penetration than in damage. Raygun said a few pages back that he applies an armour modifier to high velocity rifle rounds.

I was really following the (apparent) consensus among the respective firearms gurus round here that, versus an unarmoured opponent, a single rifle shot and a single heavy pistol shot would be similarly effective, but that rifles penetrate armour better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yoan
post Jul 1 2005, 11:30 PM
Post #158


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 8-June 05
From: Montréal, République du Québec
Member No.: 7,433



QUOTE (DrJest)
I think the velocity would be a factor more in penetration than in damage.

Amen. But are we talking a bonus when used against armour (which is cumbersome, IMO), or just a higher Power than Heavy Pistols (9-11M versus 8-9M).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jul 1 2005, 11:34 PM
Post #159


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I'd personally prefer just a higher Power if we're changing at all.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jul 1 2005, 11:45 PM
Post #160


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (DrJest)
I was really following the (apparent) consensus among the respective firearms gurus round here that, versus an unarmoured opponent, a single rifle shot and a single heavy pistol shot would be similarly effective, but that rifles penetrate armour better.

Make that "a single assault rifle shot and a single heavy pistol shot would be similarly effective, but that rifles penetrate armour better" and we're in agreement. Raygun's Ammo By Caliber system gives similar Damage Codes (excluding penetration) to many of the rather hefty pistol calibers and assault rifle calibers, and the same is (not incidentally) true of what I use.

Velocity is an important factor in damaging unarmored humans as well. How else would a 50-120 grain (3.2-7.8 gram), 0.22-0.3" (5.5-7.6mm) diameter bullet traveling at 2300-3000fps (700-910mps) fare as well as a 180-360 grain, 0.4-0.5" bullet traveling at 1200-1500fps? It is true, however, that velocity is even more important in penetrating armor, which is why ARs outclass "heavy pistols" in this respect by a huge margin.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jul 1 2005, 11:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raygun
post Jul 2 2005, 12:40 AM
Post #161


Mostly Harmless
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 937
Joined: 26-February 02
From: 44.662,-63.469
Member No.: 176



QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jul 1 2005, 11:34 PM)
I'd personally prefer just a higher Power if we're changing at all.

~J

That is excessively simplistic and I explained why earlier. In reality, more "power" does not necessarily equal better armor penetration. Ideally, power should have nothing at all to do with penetration, but I'm personally willing to deal with it as a simplified mechanic so long as there's a way of evening it out when necessary.

You can treat rifles as having an APDS-like effect by default without bogging the game down any more than having to perform about two seconds worth of arithmetic only when both a rifle and armor are factors. It adds a realistic effect without much effort on the part of the players/GM.

Calling a mechanic that simple "cumbersome" is stretching it just a tad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yoan
post Jul 2 2005, 05:31 PM
Post #162


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 8-June 05
From: Montréal, République du Québec
Member No.: 7,433



QUOTE (Raygun)
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jul 1 2005, 11:34 PM)
I'd personally prefer just a higher Power if we're changing at all.

~J

That is excessively simplistic and I explained why earlier. In reality, more "power" does not necessarily equal better armor penetration.

...

Calling a mechanic that simple "cumbersome" is stretching it just a tad.

While we're in agreement, I'm confused as to what your suggestion is. Maybe it's not cumbersome, maybe it doesn't add unnecessary rolls or calculations to the game. If not: great, I support it, completely.

Adding a higher power is just 'simpler', but I agree it isn't necessarily 'better'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Catsnightmare
post Jul 2 2005, 11:20 PM
Post #163


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 491
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 90



Here's the the version I'm gonna playtest if I can get a group back together.

All Heavy Pistols will be dropped in power from 9M and 10M to 7M and 8M respectively and Assault Rifles will have their power upped to 9M.
However, if the players still want 9 and 10M hand cannons they can have them since the police/sec will too, but it will cost.

Firepower Ammo: High power ammunition designed for heavy pistols. Adds +2 to the power of of heavy pistols, and +1 to all recoil modifiers. Availability and as per explosive rounds, cost 70 nuyen a box.
However all that added power puts too heavy a strain on a pistol and requires that it be heavily customized and reinforced, the cost of this reinforcement after manufacture doubles the cost of the weapon. Pistols modified to handle firepower ammo can fire regular ammo as normal. Attempting to use this ammo in an unreinforced pistol will warp the handgun giving it a permanent +1 TN to accuracy with each shot fired up to +4 when then gun will explode in the users hand from the stress.
Only a few select pistols are manufactured specifically to handle this ammo, The Ruger Thunderbolt, and the Ares Predator II and III.

Also thinking of allowing suppressive fire with a semi-automatic weapons. The max number of shots = to Quickness attribute to a max of 10.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrJest
post Jul 3 2005, 12:16 AM
Post #164


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



QUOTE
While we're in agreement, I'm confused as to what your suggestion is. Maybe it's not cumbersome, maybe it doesn't add unnecessary rolls or calculations to the game. If not: great, I support it, completely.


Raygun's suggestion, iirc, was to halve ballistic armour versus high velocity rifle rounds. In practice, from a game point of view, I guess that would be any rifle or assault rifle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yoan
post Jul 3 2005, 12:16 AM
Post #165


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 8-June 05
From: Montréal, République du Québec
Member No.: 7,433



QUOTE (DrJest @ Jul 2 2005, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE
While we're in agreement, I'm confused as to what your suggestion is. Maybe it's not cumbersome, maybe it doesn't add unnecessary rolls or calculations to the game. If not: great, I support it, completely.


Raygun's suggestion, iirc, was to halve ballistic armour versus high velocity rifle rounds. In practice, from a game point of view, I guess that would be any rifle or assault rifle.


So, 2 Armour (instead of, say, 4) against 8M (assuming he doesn't wish to change AR damage codes)... I suppose that sounds fair, and not at all cumbersome.

Still, I think a higher Power is best... not sure why. It just makes sense to me.

QUOTE

Here's the the version I'm gonna playtest if I can get a group back together.

...


I'm running something akin to yours at the moment. Works fine, upto date.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrJest
post Jul 3 2005, 12:20 AM
Post #166


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



Horses for courses. I favour ARs and HPs having similar Power Levels and halving the armour. To each their own.

However, a higher power also makes the round harder to resist for an unarmoured target, which - according to the forum experts - shouldn't necessarily be the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yoan
post Jul 3 2005, 01:01 AM
Post #167


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 8-June 05
From: Montréal, République du Québec
Member No.: 7,433



QUOTE (DrJest)
Horses for courses. I favour ARs and HPs having similar Power Levels and halving the armour. To each their own.

However, a higher power also makes the round harder to resist for an unarmoured target, which - according to the forum experts - shouldn't necessarily be the case.

Good point. It's not as it halving armour (rounded up, or down?) is difficult...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jul 3 2005, 01:04 AM
Post #168


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Then what is the interaction between rifles and APDS? Quartering? That seems excessively powerful to me.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pragma
post Jul 3 2005, 04:40 AM
Post #169


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,278
Joined: 15-April 05
Member No.: 7,336



I'm in favor of dropping the power of heavy pistols by 2-3 points in order to bring their power in line with rifles and leaving light pistols and holdouts alone.

Regarding armor piercing rifles, I think that it is a sound idea but would make assault rifles very powerful, which seems like a reasonable idea given their various drawbacks (concealibility and legality). If the armor piercing rifle is implementd I would rule that APDS is redundant when fired from a rifle to prevent sniper rifles from completely ignoring hardened military armor much less anything smaller. (12/12 would go to 3/12 if a sniper rifle with APDS were fired at it, making the human wearable tank shell little more effective at stopping bullets than armored clothing.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jul 3 2005, 05:14 AM
Post #170


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



On a side note, part of the reason I'm not thrilled about the idea of applying an armor modifier to certain classes of weapons is because part of what I consider "simplicity" isn't just ease of calculation, but also making things act the way one would expect them to act. Granted that this is at times contrary to the way they actually do act, but (and keeping in mind that I'm heavily tainted by knowledge of the SR3 rules) I might expect a Power difference while I would not expect an armor modification. I'm still considering it, though.

Maybe I just need to find someone who hasn't played Shadowrun and ask them what they'd expect.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Jul 3 2005, 07:32 AM
Post #171


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



I don't like the idea of making ARs armor-piercing by deafult, but that's primarily because I think changing anything to "make more sense" or be more "realistic" when said change affects several other game mechanics is a bad idea.

Are you going to re-design armor to reflect this? Will availability be adjusted? Do you actaully want to increase the default lethality level of the game by making changes like these?

I think these sort of rule changes are detrimental to the game when implemented piecemeal, and since, as far as I know, there's no plan to implement something like Raygun's gun system...

The question that needs to be answered first is whether we want to change some of the basic definitions of the game - like a gun being defined by Power and Damage Level - because if we do, simply patching things by introducing a lot of exceptions to existing rules is probably not the best way to go about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jul 3 2005, 11:58 AM
Post #172


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (mmu1 @ Jul 3 2005, 02:32 AM)
Are you going to re-design armor to reflect this?

Not unless I have to.
QUOTE
Will availability be adjusted?

If it needs to be. On the other hand, I suppose changes like this are especially undesirable as they make entire statblocks in the current books useless.
QUOTE
Do you actaully want to increase the default lethality level of the game by making changes like these?

No, I suppose I don't.

Hm. Anyone have other issues they'd like addressed while we're working on this? Or opinions on the Narcoject dilemma, for that matter?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yoan
post Jul 3 2005, 03:27 PM
Post #173


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 8-June 05
From: Montréal, République du Québec
Member No.: 7,433



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
On a side note, part of the reason I'm not thrilled about the idea of applying an armor modifier to certain classes of weapons is because part of what I consider "simplicity" isn't just ease of calculation, but also making things act the way one would expect them to act.

You basically summed up my worries. Yes, it makes sense... but it's not entirely consistent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raygun
post Jul 3 2005, 09:14 PM
Post #174


Mostly Harmless
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 937
Joined: 26-February 02
From: 44.662,-63.469
Member No.: 176



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Then what is the interaction between rifles and APDS? Quartering? That seems excessively powerful to me.

Actually, I would give AP (meaning conventional steel-cored armor piercing ammunition) a x0.25 AP modifier when fired from a rifle/machine gun (x0.5 from handguns).

APDS would completely negate soft body armor ratings because, well, it really does that. Soft body armor is completely ineffective against APDS munitions. APDS should also be treated as anti-vehicular (and "AV ammo" goes bye-bye).

If you wanted to implement some "balancing" effects for APDS, you could reduce its Power Rating by, say, 25% (round down; 9S becomes 6S), restrict it to certain weapon classes (Shotgun, Machine Gun, Sport/Sniper Rifle, AMR/Assault Cannon), and include hardened body armor as an option, giving it the effect of simply negating all armor piercing effects (with its own caveats of being very heavy, very expensive, and degrading quickly). Treat vehicular armor as hardened.

Then you treat AP/APDS as being extremely restricted, highly-controlled stuff like it really is and stop letting every PC/NPC get their hands on it at a whim. Then, as should be the case anyway, don't get shot.

I know that sounds like a lot to change, but what you are effectively doing is very simple. All it takes is some getting used to. But it appears that there may be too much resistance to that kind of a change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Jul 3 2005, 09:37 PM
Post #175


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



QUOTE (Raygun @ Jul 3 2005, 04:14 PM)
I know that sounds like a lot to change, but what you are effectively doing is very simple. All it takes is some getting used to. But it appears that there may be too much resistance to that kind of a change.

I personally just don't agree with what you think SR firefights should look like. I don't dislike your gun rules, I just don't want to play a game that uses them, just like I don't feel like playing Changeling or Blue Rose...

And if I really wanted realistically deadly assault rifles, the easiest thing to do would be to play GURPS, where a typical man has 10 hit points, a soft armor vest has a DR of 8, and an average 5.56mm rifle shot does 21 points of damage, and if it hits a vital organ, whatever gets past the armor is tripled, forcing a check to stay conscious and then 2 or 3 checks to see if you live or die.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th February 2026 - 01:16 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.