Ranged Combat, the SR3R way |
Ranged Combat, the SR3R way |
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 |
|
|
Jan 19 2007, 01:05 AM
Post
#227
|
|||||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
So now Yagyu Jubei would be a less-than-perfect swordsman because he only had one eye? |
||||
|
|||||
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Jan 19 2007, 04:02 AM
Post
#233
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
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. |
||
|
|||
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Jan 19 2007, 04:25 AM
Post
#236
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
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. |
||
|
|||
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 |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
Jan 19 2007, 08:21 AM
Post
#239
|
|||
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,629 Joined: 14-December 06 Member No.: 10,361 |
century, decade, whatever, man... :rotfl: |
||
|
|||
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 |
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. |
||
|
|||
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.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
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 |
||
|
|||
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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? |
|
|
Jan 20 2007, 04:13 PM
Post
#247
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
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. |
||
|
|||
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.