IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ranged Combat, the SR3R way
Kagetenshi
post Jan 19 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #226


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I thought there was at least one other mention. Anyway, we'll be making a flaw to allow one-eyed characters (presumably with some sort of neural damage to remove the possibility of a cybereye in that socket).

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 19 2007, 01:05 AM
Post #227


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Sir_Psycho)
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jan 18 2007, 12:51 AM)
7) Binocular Vision Works Backwards

I propose that henceforth monocular vision shall give no penalties to ranged combat. When the melee combat section is opened, a proposal will go up to assign a penalty for monocular vision to it. This is both more in keeping with reality (binocular vision only helps within 25-30 feet anyway, and at that range you don't need to know how close something is to shoot it—on the other hand, how close that fist/knife/whatever is is very important information) and serves to encourage single-eyed characters, as ranged deficiencies are generally more crippling than melee issues for non-close/general-combat characters.

Thoughts?

~J

It's a good point.

Although for ranged weapons that really do require depth perception, specifically bow's, crossbows and throwing weapons, there should be a hefty penalty.

So now Yagyu Jubei would be a less-than-perfect swordsman because he only had one eye?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Link
post Jan 19 2007, 02:25 AM
Post #228


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 27-August 02
From: Queensland
Member No.: 3,180



Inevitably so.

On the topic of new rules and close quarters combat, I made a rule that is simple and yet models CQB, at least to the extent of encouraging counter terrorist types to use an SMG rather than rifle in confined areas. Is this objective realistic?

Anyway here's the rule;
Close Quarters Battle (CQB)
In tight or restricted terrain (based on character and environment) larger weapons may impede the combatant. Combat pool is reduced by the difference between the terrain threshold and a weapons concealment rating. (Light weapons with no concealment listed are considered to have a concealment rating of 1 while heavy weapons are considered to have a concealment rating of 0.)

CQB
Terrain Threshold
Open, normal -
Tight 3
Restricted 5

Eg. On a large plane/HSCT (tight terrain 3) with an Ares Alpha (Conceal 2) would mean (3-2) or 1 is taken from the combat pool. This represents an impediment to rapid aiming or dodging.

Hope this is topical here. SR3R Manouevre scores are next.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 19 2007, 02:36 AM
Post #229


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



I like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 19 2007, 02:44 AM
Post #230


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Apart from the namespace collision with the terrain classes for vehicles (which, admittedly, have their own collisions—it makes no sense to think of Restricted for a Main Battle Tank as the same thing as Restricted for a Renraku Arachnoid), I like it. Any other opinions out there?

Edit: one problem, though: adding a laser sight to an Ares Predator makes it take penalties in Restricted terrain. That seems off to me—thoughts?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Jan 19 2007, 03:02 AM
Post #231


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



Only include bayonettes or barrel adjustments in size calculations for CQB penalty testing. But that's adds a whole new level of record keeping, so maybe just make it based on the weapon type. All pistols fall in one category, ARs and shotguns in another, long rifles is a third, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Link
post Jan 19 2007, 03:35 AM
Post #232


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 27-August 02
From: Queensland
Member No.: 3,180



Terrain is generally (but probably not always) relative to the class of the vehicle, the terrain classifications for men would need to be defined somewhat.

Bayonettes & Barrels, Stocks & Suppressors. I think general categories might devalue certain weapons, such as those with integral suppressors and high concealment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 19 2007, 04:02 AM
Post #233


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
Only include bayonettes or barrel adjustments in size calculations for CQB penalty testing. But that's adds a whole new level of record keeping, so maybe just make it based on the weapon type. All pistols fall in one category, ARs and shotguns in another, long rifles is a third, etc.

Or, just to keep things simple, say pistols don't get any penalties. That way your SMG can still be penalized if it's the size of a tommy gun but not if it's the size of one of the smaller uzis or if it's like a Mac 10 you're firing one handed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 19 2007, 04:13 AM
Post #234


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



That still creates the problem where slapping a laser sight on certain weapons gives them penalties.

Another possibility is to drop the conceal penalty for miniaturizable items like the laser sight… thoughts?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 19 2007, 04:17 AM
Post #235


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



Personally I've always thought that laser sights and external smartguns (if I'm correct) detracting from concealability was silly. A Scope, fair enough, but really, a laser sight in the 27th century would probably be about the size of a triple A battery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 19 2007, 04:25 AM
Post #236


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
That still creates the problem where slapping a laser sight on certain weapons gives them penalties.

Another possibility is to drop the conceal penalty for miniaturizable items like the laser sight… thoughts?

~J

Uh, how about we say that laser sights and shock pads and internal gas vents don't count for the purpose of this calculation? Scopes and suppressors, though, you're out of luck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 19 2007, 04:30 AM
Post #237


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Not that I don't agree about the laser-sight-conceal issue, but we're in the 21st century here still :)

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Jan 19 2007, 07:38 AM
Post #238


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



Buck Rogersrun!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 19 2007, 08:21 AM
Post #239


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Not that I don't agree about the laser-sight-conceal issue, but we're in the 21st century here still :)

~J

century, decade, whatever, man... :rotfl:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Jan 19 2007, 01:29 PM
Post #240


Running Target
***

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



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Apart from the namespace collision with the terrain classes for vehicles (which, admittedly, have their own collisions—it makes no sense to think of Restricted for a Main Battle Tank as the same thing as Restricted for a Renraku Arachnoid), I like it. Any other opinions out there?

Edit: one problem, though: adding a laser sight to an Ares Predator makes it take penalties in Restricted terrain. That seems off to me—thoughts?

~J

I think that - while this isn't inherently a bad idea - basing it on concealability creates more problems than it solves.

How easy a weapon is to handle in CQB depends mainly on the length of it, which isn't really what concealability models, so you either end up with nonsensical results, or spend way too much effort taking the various exceptions into account.

Since you're already creating a new "terrain" table, I think it'd be simpler all-around to do what the Herald suggested, and simply make different categories - small weapons you can hold in one hand if needed (pistols, SMGs - at least the way SR does SMGs), two-handed weapons like rifles/assault rifles/shotguns, and heavy weapons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 19 2007, 01:35 PM
Post #241


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



This is all getting to be a little too complicated, especially for something that will barely ever be implemented, as it has to be VERY tight for a gun of man-portable size to be a big hindrance, and bottom line is, I don't think it fits in with what we're trying to do with SR3R, which is revise to make things balanced, make more sense and most importantly, simpler.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 19 2007, 01:58 PM
Post #242


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I'm going to keep discussing this for a few more days, but if an option that's about as easy as basing it on Conceal would have been (but that makes sense) doesn't appear, the idea's probably going to have to be scrapped (or at least backburnered).

I'll look into doing it by-weapon-class over the weekend.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Jan 19 2007, 01:59 PM
Post #243


Great Dragon
*********

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



QUOTE (Sir_Psycho)
as it has to be VERY tight for a gun of man-portable size to be a big hindrance

About as tight as the average residential building or office space, for example. Something like the 1.25-meter, 12-5kg (empty) M240B, while by definition man-portable, is a serious pain in the ass anywhere where you may have to move within 1.5 meters of tall objects.

Still not something I consider critical. I've never attempted to make rules for this. Unless some very simple and sensible ruling can be made, it might be better to just let the GM deal with it.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jan 19 2007, 02:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 19 2007, 02:06 PM
Post #244


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Plus, the applications here are as useful (more so, even) when relating to melee weapons—this might finally give a way to reduce the number of Trolls using polearms inside submarines, etc. without just declaring situational modifiers.

Though, as you point out, there are worse fates than leaving it unaddressed.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 19 2007, 02:08 PM
Post #245


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



For one thing, some-one trained in the use of a weapon has some ability to carry and operate it in a close quarters environment. Even if you're holding an assault rifle in a standard hallway, you can still turn on your heel, because you automatically point it up/pull it close to you, but we don't really need to create specific rules for it, the same as we don't add the weight of weapons (or whatever else you're carrying) to your aiming target numbers, it's excessive number crunching.

I think if you want to do something about it, have it at GM discretion, like all target numbers are. They are not totally rigid, there are many things not in the target number tables that we add and subtract TN for. If your character is brandishing an LMG in an office space, go ahead and nail a +1 or +2 at your discretion, but I don't think it calls for a formalized rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 20 2007, 05:02 AM
Post #246


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361




Bump:Oh as for more proposed revisions, I think the Sport rifles are a bit broken. "... The 750 sport rifle and the 950, its heavy-duty sister, both use smooth bolt-action..." However the listed mode for the Remington rifles is Semi Automatic. A bolt action rifle can not be fired as quickly as a semi automatic, or even as fast as a single shot revolver. Should we have a new rule for Bolt Action rifles? Any propositions?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Link
post Jan 20 2007, 04:13 PM
Post #247


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 27-August 02
From: Queensland
Member No.: 3,180



QUOTE (mmu1)
- while this isn't inherently a bad idea -

I'm touched.

I'd place the CQB rule along side other combat pool modifiers like armour layering and combat armour. The role of these rules is to encourage players to consider varying their tactics where heavy armour and weapons might realistically be a disadvantage. As has been pointed out this house rule would only occasionally be required but it is no more complicated than the other combat pool modifiers.

On bolt action rifles, a common rule is to have reloading as a simple action, giving effectively 1 shot per combat phase.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 21 2007, 01:17 AM
Post #248


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



What acronym would we use for bolt action? BA conflicts with Break action.

Does a similar problem occur with all shotguns seemingy being semi-auto rather than pump action? It doesn't really strike me as being that bad, especially given shotgun rules are already a little complicated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Link
post Jan 21 2007, 11:15 AM
Post #249


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 519
Joined: 27-August 02
From: Queensland
Member No.: 3,180



SS for single shot - any weapon that can be fired only once each combat phase. The extra idea is that a bolt action would require you to take the 'ready weapon' simple action after each shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Jan 22 2007, 03:20 AM
Post #250


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



Real men make it a Simple Action to fire and a Simple Action to throw the bolt. That way we can also separate reloading and working the bolt. If I use up all my rounds and I switch mags with a Complex Action there's still one Simple action in the cards before I can party again.

I do the same thing with pump action.

It's much more mentally masurbatory when you think about throwing the bolt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 3rd December 2024 - 06:28 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.