 Ranged Combat, the SR3R way |
  |
 May 28 2005, 04:10 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 21-March 05 From: UCAS (if its tuesday) Member No.: 7,200  |
I guess I should have put <smartass> tags on that. I play paintball, own my own gear, and play all manner of simulated combat-ish games. I know painball isnt realistic (in real life I'd never try to hide behind a two inch wide tree) at 300 FPS, range and accuracy are severly hampered (that and many other factors). My point was that if you want to operate in a world where the laws of physics rule, and you want combat, play paintball. if you want to have fun with abstract ideas play SR. personaly I don't care if the weapons and rules in SR are a bit whacked, I stll have fun with them. (oh and BTW the average rental marker doesn't have sights Tippmanns do, but the others really don't, they're either accessory mounts or just fairings for looks)
|
 |
 
|
|
May 29 2005, 12:16 AM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
That would be one of the more reasonable ways of going about it, as the majority of peole on earth aren't going to have the slightest idea of how to use automatic fire efficiently; kind of the differences in learning those skills from a hunting background as opposed to a military background. Though I think I would probably make autofire a "specialization" of either skill (with target numbers penalized if used without said specialization), rather than making it a separate skill entirely. Obviously, a Machine Gun skill would include it by default. Sniping could be another type of "specialization". In my opinion, shotguns absolutely do not belong in the same skill group as rifles or SMGs. They may be long arms, but there is a very distinct difference in how shotguns are employed that training with other weapon types would not cover, both from hunting and tactical points of view. Shotguns should have their own skill. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 29 2005, 12:22 AM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Bah. Ya brace one end firmly against your shoulder, point the other end at the bad guy, and hope you've got the right one in the right place before you pull the trigger. How hard can it be? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 12:32 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
If you and Flea should ever make it up here, I'll show you. :)
|
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 12:37 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
I understand there's a big difference between buckshot at a clay pigeon and a semi-auto rifle at an ork fifty feet out (not that I've done a lot of ork shooting, mind you, but I've done my part to wipe out those filthy clay pigeons) -- but, seriously, how much difference is there between a slug-firing rifled barrel shotgun (mounting a scope, etc) that someone uses to hunt a deer, and any other rifle? Besides the method used to ready the next round (and not even that, always, in some shotguns)?
It always seemed to be (without ever having fired slugs, or in fact fired a shotgun at all besides killing pigeons of the clay variety) the basic principles, stances, etc, would be pretty much the same as a "normal" rifle once you slapped a scope on there, fixed the barrel up for accurate slug-tossing, and started lobbing out the long shots. |
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 03:09 AM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 21-March 05 From: UCAS (if its tuesday) Member No.: 7,200 |
not much at all, you could make the argument that shotguns typicly have a slightly diffrent stock shape, but that's a given for every gun. so divide the skills into aiming and pointing? still target and wing shooting? I don't think that you can abstact them very well, I mean with pistols you could have a seperate skill for every station of a course of fire (standing, kneeling, long distance, CQB, from cover) I think the best thing to do is just let the TN's deturmine how well actions are accomplished. btw, this was a serious post
|
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 03:33 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 560 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 6,893 |
Perhaps things could be divided up in multiple ways. For example, people could learn to use shotguns of all types, or learn just semi-auto and pump shotguns in addition to semi-auto "sporting" rifles, or all "long" burst or full-auto weapons, such as assault rifles and auto-shotguns. The latter is bound to be abused, however.
|
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 04:43 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
There's really not much difference between using a slug gun (as opposed to a shotgun) and a rifle. In that case, I would allow the non-defaulted use of the Rifle skill, as what you're using technically is a rifle, and you're using it under very similar circumstances to a rifle. But, obviously, that's not what I had in mind. There's a right huge difference between the kind of shooting one learns to do with a shotgun from a hunting background than the kind of shooting one learns with a rifle under pretty much any circumstances. Most of which has to do with speed of identification and engagement and leading moving targets. You learn those skills much sooner and at a faster pace shotgunning than one would when learning rifles and other long arms, if they find it necessary at all. As far as military training goes, there's really not much that would be different, other than the use of specialized munitions that simply aren't available in a rifle format, and special circumstances. It's said that a shotgunner often makes for an excellent rifleman, while a rifleman often makes for a shitty shotgunner. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 29 2005, 04:57 AM
Post
#59
|
|||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
...and a fat guy makes a good pistol shooter. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 29 2005, 04:58 AM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
This is SR, though - why treat shotgun as a separate skill when 90% of people with the skill will NOT have learned it as part of a hunting background? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 29 2005, 05:15 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
so that's what the doughnuts are for, frosty?
|
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 05:23 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
How do you think the hole gets in the middle? :D
|
|
|
|
|
May 29 2005, 06:29 AM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Whether or not it's SR really doesn't matter. It's a different set of skills and, IMO, it's the right thing to do. Non combat-oriented characters (especially those from countries with heavy restrictions on firearms) might be more likely to learn shotgunning skills far before they would learn any skills specific to riflecraft. I guess "shotgun" could also be a "specialization" of the Rifle skill, like "autofire" and "long range riflecraft", though that's kind of a backward way of dealing with it. Maybe I'm just not a huge fan of generalizing skills that much. Maybe it shouldn't matter at all. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 29 2005, 05:04 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 21-March 05 From: UCAS (if its tuesday) Member No.: 7,200 |
one could do active skills the same way as knowlege skills, and just have them overlap all over the place. (as if char creation wasn't complex enough already)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 04:02 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
For the better part of 3 years, I've divided up Firearm skills into the following:
Handguns (any firearm gripped in one or two hands that isn't shoulder-fired) Examples: Ares Predator, Ingram Smartgun (stock folded), Ruger Superwarhawk Longarms (any firearm that is shoulder fired, but not primarily designed as a heavy weapon) Examples: Colt M-23, MP5 (most variants), Ranger Arms SM3, Remington 990 shotgun Gunnery (any firearm that is designed primarily for full-auto fire and/or fixed position use) Examples: M-60, M-249 SAW, Vindicator Minigun, various other LMGs, HMGs, Assault Cannons, and whatnot Launch Weapons Same as canon This has worked well in my games, and it makes sense. Also, has anyone considered keeping firearms (or any other skill for that matter) very general until rating 6 or so, then forcing characters to specialize beyond that? In Raygun's example, your Rifleman and Shogtunner bacially would use the same "Longarms" skill until they reach rating 6. After that, the Shotgunner HAS to specialize in Shotguns if he wants to progress beyond a rating 6. To me, that reflects that the skills don't really diverge until you reach a realtively high level of proficiency. Below rating 6, your shotgunner and rifleman are using pretty much the same methods and skill sets. Any comments/ideas? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 04:49 PM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
This is an interesting idea, but if you're going that route then it should be a general rule for all skills. In fact I'd actually lower the maximum ranks you can get before having to specialize to 4; after that point you're mostly spending karma to develop your own personal "style" rather than proficiency, so at that point it would be an interesting twist to force people to specialize. That should be an optional rule, however, as it increases the bookkeepping for a not-really-necessary reason. I like your skill deliniations. However I still think there should be a Str-based weapons skill, just to keep trolls and orks from getting screwed over. So, I like the idea of yours + Heavy Weapons. OH, and one more thing: "Line of Sight" should probably have a range modifier set of its own, so casters, for example, actually have to deal with range penalties when casting a spell, and everyone has to deal with range penalties for Perception tests. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 6 2005, 05:17 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'm not sure I agree that spellcasters should have to deal with range modifiers--actually, I think I don't. Range modifiers for perception tests yes, though--when you're engaging a target at 2.3 kilometers, finding them should be an issue.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 05:33 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Then why soft cover modifiers? Visability modifiers? In fact, casters already have to deal with every type of ranged combat modifier *except* range, because, what, somehow not being able to see someone very well (soft cover), or see someone very well (glare/darkness), is different from not being able to see someone very well (being far away)? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 05:44 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I suppose that's a point. Thinking on't.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2005, 05:56 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
You make a good point. I suppose 4 makes a much better breaking point than 6. But I don't suppose that's a discussion for this thread. As for STR based firearms, I don't get it. I understand the game balance issue, but I just don't see STR being a factor in using ANY firearm, short of making easier to carry/hold some of the heavier ones. Leave the STR linked skills tied to melee weapons. QCK and INT only for firearms. As for line of sight, yeah, I toyed around with have weapon independant visual range target # modifiers, but it just added too much complexity and number crunching. That, and it made the TNs skyrocket. It might just be simpler to impose a flat TN modifier if a target is over X numbers of meters away and the shooter doesn't have a scope or any type of visual magnification. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 6 2005, 07:04 PM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Knight Templar Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 212 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens Member No.: 6,424 |
I like this idea :) Don't forget, most orks and trolls will get recoil modifiers due to STR which will even things out a bit. I do like your firearms categorisations as well. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 7 2005, 03:56 AM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
The 2nd Ed. Grimoire has such a table for spellcasting which I still use and also apply to perception. It makes goggles and binoculars useful. Other points: If the 'ammo swapping within the same weapon class' rules are dropped hold-outs and light pistols can be combined. Weapon class would then only pertain to range categories while weapons should be assigned calibres. SMG's are penalised if fired 1 handed (or only pistols can be fired simultaneously). Use the Shadowland(?) rules for autofire where recoil compensation isn't a TN modifier but determines the base number of rounds on target. Extra succeses can be used for staging or extra rounds on target. Perhaps a bit too radical but you could look at SR1 power levels for small arms which range from 3 or 4 to 6. While armour ratings would have to be revised it would make the soak roll a little more pertinent where a character has light or no armour. Multiple rounds would add 1 to power and wound category for every 3 fired (double tap would add 1 to power). With SR2/3 power starts at 6 and manipulation spells seem to suffer in comparison. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 7 2005, 04:32 AM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Yeah. That's not really how it works, at least not in my experience. But I guess it's the best example I've seen of dealing with the problem (or at least what I perceive as such) so far. Generally, what you tend to learn first in shotgunning is how to engage fast moving targets at relatively short range. That applies to both hunting and military/tactical training. In riflecraft, you learn in pretty much the exact opposite fashion. Slow moving targets at relatively long range first. The skills you learn in shotgunning can be applied to certain "advanced" rifle skills, such as CQB/CRE. But the skills you learn first in riflecraft really don't apply much to shotgunning, as there are extremely few circumstances in which you'd bother to engage any target with a shotgun beyond, say, 100 meters. In other words, people tend to learn shotgunning from the inside out and riflecraft from the outside in (or further out). Also, in shotgunning, you don't deal with ballistics as point travelling in an arc as you would in riflecraft, but rather as a cone (again, slug guns have more in common with rifles than shotguns). So you tend to think about how to engage the target differently. That is, you think about it a lot less when shotgunning than you tend to in riflecraft, especially at longer ranges (sniping and such). Anyway, "longarms" as a general skill kind of bothers me as there are longarms whose skills sets don't necessarily relate well to each other, especially at the lower levels. But that's just me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 7 2005, 12:28 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
You know Raygun, I wasn't much of a hunter growing up, and I never received tactical shotgun training while I was in the Army, so I don't have much experience at all when it comes to being a "shotgunner". So I think it's a safe bet that you are dead on with how people train on them.
However, my experience with rifle training in the Army (mech inf) doesn't quite fit into your rifleman generalization. Sure, on the qualification range we shoot out to 300 meters with iron sites, but in most of the battle drills and combat training we did, almost all of the combat happened at 100 meters or closer. 50 - 75 meters was the norm. Indeed, we didn't engage too many moving targets, but there always were a few. In fact, a large majority of ARM (advanced rifle marksmanship, taught in Infantry school) was about engaging moving targets, and putting out effective fire from other than the prone supported position. I agree that an advanced shotgunner and an advanced rifleman will think about engaging targets differently. But I don't think that happens until the shooter gets particularly skilled in his respective weapon and the understanding of how it works. To me, that level of understanding doesn't happen until the shooter at least gets to a rating 4 or 5 in the skill. At the beginning levels, it's all stable platform, sight picture, breathing, and trigger squeeze. And those things should be universal across most shoulder-fired small arms. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 01:55 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well, if you are going to do this remember that one of the main goals of SR3R is to reduce the number of exceptions in the rules. That is, if Ranged Combat requires specialization starting at skill level 4, then all other skills should as well. And, really, it's not all that bad an idea; it certainly makes people with higher-level skills more distinctive from one another, but it's something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th February 2026 - 08:11 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.