Ranged Combat, the SR3R way Options

[Wounded Ronin]

The problem with dual wielding weapons is that you really can't aim them in an appropriate manner. Just hit them with some truly ginormous to hit penalty which represents you crapping all over Using Firearms 101.

[Kagetenshi]

Using Firearms 101 doesn't involve you having a limited simsense rig helping you aim.

~J

[nezumi]

Currently the penalty is +2 to each weapon. However, as you're aware, with ambidexterity, that can be reduced to 0. So are you suggesting that the initial penalty be increased, or that the ambidexterity bonus be decreased?

[Kagetenshi]

That the ability for ambidexterity to offset the entire penalty be decreased, whether by increasing the initial penalty or decreasing the ambidexterity offset (or possibly eliminating its applicability to ranged combat).

I first need to figure out what's happening to two-weapon combat in melee, but my initial inclination is to cut Ambidexterity down into two levels, costing 3 and 6 points respectively, that each offer -1 to the penalty.

~J

[Sphynx]

Am I missing the point here? Ambidexterity isn't a problem, why tamper with it? Anyone spending 8 points on an edge should expect a solid bonus, it's nice and balanced.

And from my understanding of the 'limited simsense', it's limited in that it can only read, not write. Ie: it's used to figure out where the gun is pointed so the crosshairs in your eye is focused on whatever the gun is pointed at. It doesn't aim the gun for you. That's why Smartlinks can't be used to fire 2 weapons at once. You only have 1 set of crosshairs in your eyes (and your eyes can only focus on 1 object at a time).

That's why it should be possible to use the Smartlink while wielding 2 weapons if you're only aiming with 1, and using the other to lay some suppressive fire.

[nezumi]

[Sphynx]

But using 2 SmartLinks doesn't make sense. The cross-hairs would be 3-dimensional, requiring 2 eyes to focus on a per-object basis. The best you could hope for is if you're shooting at the same target, and personally, I don't think it's unbalancing to allow the smartlink bonus when pointing 2 weapons at the same target. Ambidexterity is still pretty much 8 points to get a -2TN. Nothing unbalanced there.

[Wounded Ronin]

[mfb]

if using two smartlinks doesn't make sense, then neither does ambidexterity. if ambidexterity makes sense, then two smartlinks make sense.

[Sphynx]

Ronin, ambidex doesn't give any bonuses. It only offsets a negative modifier. There is a huge difference.

mfb, you're right, ambidexterity really shouldn't be a factor in firearm usage. Doesn't take someone ambidextrous to shot at the same target with 2 guns, that just takes practice. And shooting at different targets is a perception problem, not an ambidextrous problem. Might make more sense to use a rule like this:

If shooting at the same target with 2 weapons, you suffer a -2 for each weapon. Every 2 levels of lowest skill rating in the firearms being used, can reduce that penalty by 1 per-weapon, requiring a skill of 8 to offset the negatives entirely.

If shooting at seperate targets, you recieve a -6 to the secondary target. By concentrating less on the primary target you can reduce the penalty to the secondary target as you increase the penalty on the primary up to a -3 on each target. The maximum anyone can raise/lower the penalty is by 1 for every 2 levels of lowest skill rating in the weapons being used.

That kinda ruling would make the most sense I think.... if you're going for more realism anyways.

[nezumi]

[Sir_Psycho]

Shall we put this in perspective, we've talked about how much extra damage can be done with dual firearms. Yes. It's certailnly more effective than using one of the same firearm in the hands of a skilled user.

Let's define skilled user though. First of all, we'll assume this gunbunny has a quickness of 6 let's go with Ambidexterity at full, which costs us 8 bp. We'll need a relative firearm skill for it, so we choose pistols at 6. That's up to 14 points (expensive), not including the high quickness. This allows a character to fire more rapidly, with no negative penalties, other than stacking recoil.

Now, I'd say that the damage from an assault rifle burst or autofire would equal or exceed the damage of two pistols, as well as having a much better range among other things, and being able to use smartlinks, lasersights, scopes, whatever. We'll still take a skill in pistols, for a side-arm, but when we want to kill a whole bunch of people we bring the assault rifle.

So 6 + 6 Bp for Assault rifles and pistols at 6, or 6 + 8 for being restricted to pistols, but carrying two when you need to lay into some-one in combat.

So I don't think it's really a balance issue, although I would like to add that using dual SMG's should some-how be more difficult than two pistols.

[nezumi]

Firing two pistols will generally cause more damage than a single assault rifle in my experience (due to how quickly it wears down the target's combat pool). If you applied burst fire rules to dual-wielding pistols, that would solve the problem, however.

[Kagetenshi]

8) Grenades vanish into thin air

Take a grenade. Throw and/or shoot it at a target. Get no successes, but don't botch.

What happens to the grenade?

~J

[Herald of Verjig...]

[Kagetenshi]

Here's a suggestion (going along with yours): since we're using the explosives-stage-based-on-Power rules, we make 1 success subtract the base amount of scatter, and no successes be, as you say, flat Scatter. If that results in excessively tight grenade placement, switch to +1d6 Scatter on a miss.

Thoughts?

~J

[Platinum]

What's wrong with the current scatter rules? I really like them.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Kagetenshi]

[Platinum]

Isn't a failed unbotched roll play you that you just throw, and don't reduce the scatter be enough?

If you get 8 scatter an 1 success, you are close, but not exact... therefore the power gets reduced. the direction is random so it is realistic.

How is this failing? You can't really increase or decrease the power of the grenade based on a throw, only by where it lands. How well you throw depends on successes.

Does anyone else think nades are broken?

[Kagetenshi]

[Crossfire]

Have you ever seen an adept with the "throwing mastery" power throwing 'nades at people, doing dmg for the hit itself and then explode? What happens to the scatter?

Peace!

Crossfire

P.S. What about grenade dmg? Using the optional Fields of fire rules or standard dmg rules depending on successes? What does 3rd edition says about it?

[Moon-Hawk]

[Kagetenshi]

I'm not sure what I'd do with that. I guess we should probably have rules for it—my inclination is to insist that all successes go to damage, so the grenade will get full scatter afterwards. Though I don't think it makes sense, I could be open to a compelling argument that the adept should be able to declare before throwing how many successes go where.

Edit: wow, Moon-Hawk is generous :)

As for damage, the official SR3R rule for staging explosives is the formerly optional SR3 rule that dice equal to 1/2 Power at target's location are rolled against TN 4 for staging up. That still leaves the question of whether the staging should act like melee, ranged, or a third way—my inclination is to use ranged staging.

~J

[Herald of Verjig...]

Moon-Hawk's ruling makes sense to me, except I'd split the dice before the roll. If the adept focuses on hitting the target hard with the grenade, then there is the risk of completely overpowering and throwing too early so that it bounces a lot. If the adept primarily focuses on getting the timing right, that's less dice on the impact damage.