Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fully Automatic Weapons
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Juggler
I have no doubt that this has been brought up in another thread, but it is faster to just ask the questions to the forum.

1.) According to the SR3 rules, firing a fully automatic weapon uses a Complex Action, which means that a person who has an initiative advantage (wired reflexes, etc.) could fire more bullets per round than a normal person. There is no logic here, as two shooters (one with WR, and the other normal) holding back a trigger would fire the exact number of bullets. I understand that Shadowrun≠Real Life (just to save the tired response), but this is a legitimate question. Do any of you have a good house rule that does not speed up full auto weaponry just becasue the shooter is faster?

2.)The SR3 rules are a little tricky when it comes to FA targeting. According to the FA rules, loosing a full load of bullets (10 per CP) at a single target would add 10 to the target number (before RC). I have no problem with this from the perspective of hitting the target with all ten bullets, but the logic fails when you consider all of the bullets missing for failing to hit this number. The example on page 115/116 fits my problem exactly. Wedge (the example character) ventilates the first two targets (11S damage to each), and has an incredibly high target number for the third (also hits). This is good logic to me so far, but what would have happened if he would have just stayed targeting the first ganger? As the example stands, he only needed a 3 to hit the guy in the first place, but the target number would have been massive if he would have kept targeting the same guy, making it unlikely to even hit him at all. Basicilly, the rule makes it easier to hit someone if he doesn't shoot as many bullets at them in the first place. Suggestions for a house rule that still incorporates modifiers for gas vents and such?
Summerstorm
to 1. Well you could always rationalize it with: Well, he can react/target faster so he can shoot more USEFUL bullets. And someone without reaction enhancements automatically uses less bullets because he knows he can't keep up (making it seem more like burst fire). Or you could just ignore it. OR you could rule that they DO use the same number of bullets, but only the faster shooter gets all the use out of them. (So you need to calculate ammo use differently... it would be... not that good, i guess.

to 2. In my group we always played it like this: If you didn't hit the target number for your full automatic burst, but would have hit at least the base, you just look up how many rounds would have hit and say you got that many with one success.

For example: shooting at some running dude at some range, 5 points of recoil reduction, full auto. base TN= 8, needed to fully hit=12. You roll 3,4,5,2,10,11: You take the 11, and that makes it a one success hit with 9 bullets.
Juggler
Yeah, that is our favorite so far, but it doesn't make much use for recoil compensation (response to #2)
Summerstorm
Hm? it makes GREAT use of recoil compensation. You still lower your final TN to get more successes and get free damage and dodge-modifiers if you don't hit the final TN. Recoil compensation is a total must for full-auto.

(Or didn't i understand what you meant?)
Juggler
I missread your post. We had a similar house rule that worked like your idea (an idea that one of our team said he got off of dumpshock), where we start with a base target number for a single bullet (say 4), and then we use that target to count successes, but the high roll to count bullets. So, if we scored 4 successes, with a high roll of an 8, then we would call it 5 bullets hit. We haven't found a very good RC modifier for this concept. I read your post too quickly and thought we were talking the same rule.
Critias
It's one that I put forward a couple years ago (not sure if I was first to do so, or anything), but in essence it turns full auto into -- almost -- an Open Test instead of a regular success test. You still have a "total" TN that you're trying to get multiple dice over (calculate it just like the book says, with all modifiers, including recoil comp), but on the instance you don't manage it, it turns it into a single-success attack with a lesser number of rounds hitting (calculated by comparing the highest roll with the TN, knocking off the bullets that would miss due to recoil).

I thought it worked okay.
Summerstorm
So... the same we did. Hm... don't know where we got it from. I think we just came up with it on the fly... shortly after we figured out how full auto works. (We had a troll shooting a LMG, wondering why it doesn't really do much more than a pistol *g*)
Juggler
Thanks for the input. I will try your suggestion for question #2 this weekend. I will continue asking around on the first topic though. If a machine gun fires 600 rounds a minute (using an Uzi for comparison), then it would go through 30 bullets per Combat Turn, regardless of who is firing it. One of my players suggested having another set of actions that are essentially Exclusive Actions (not in the Spellcasting sense, though somewhat similar), that are actions that require the full Combat Turn (3 seconds). Though the initial Initiative would still count for determining who went first, the firing of a Full Auto would still take the full Combat Turn to pull off. I still see holes in this idea, which is why I am still asking around.
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (Juggler @ Oct 18 2010, 05:10 AM) *
Thanks for the input. I will try your suggestion for question #2 this weekend. I will continue asking around on the first topic though. If a machine gun fires 600 rounds a minute (using an Uzi for comparison), then it would go through 30 bullets per Combat Turn, regardless of who is firing it. One of my players suggested having another set of actions that are essentially Exclusive Actions (not in the Spellcasting sense, though somewhat similar), that are actions that require the full Combat Turn (3 seconds). Though the initial Initiative would still count for determining who went first, the firing of a Full Auto would still take the full Combat Turn to pull off. I still see holes in this idea, which is why I am still asking around.


Well... you could do it like running: divide cyclic rate by the largest number of IPs and that's the largest number of bullets to be fired in one IP. So, for example, a guy with one IP will be able to shoot his single IP on full-auto for, say, 10 bullets, as an aimed attack, BUT in order to provide suppressive fire for the entire round he would have to fire 30 bullets. Right now, it is strangely assumed that the 10 bullets he shoots in IP1 fill the entire combat round.

The other thing, about full-auto fire, I would have liked to do a second roll, which tries to simulate high first-round accuracy:

Make the attack test without recoil modifiers. If that produces at least one success, you've got one bullet hit. Now take note of the TN with full recoil modifiers, add one bullet hit per success (on the same roll) against that TN. Take note of how many bullets have not been accounted for. For each of those, roll 1d6 against a target number depending on distance + uncompensated recoil - modifier for tracers. (base 2 for very close, 3 for close, 4 medium, 6 far, 8 or 9 extreme, or something like that.) Each success adds another bullet. Calculate power/damage depending on how many bullets hit. If you have net hits left over after all the bullets are accounted for, adjust damage normally.
What this does is remove those ugly 19D with one success attacks at extreme range when shooting a HMG at full-auto. What you would get then is a lot less, because your one success only assures one bullet hit, the others being quite random. Of course at close range... chances are a HMG still kills you smile.gif.

Example
[ Spoiler ]


The trouble is that it's a complicated system, and each additional roll takes more time on already lengthy combat.
Wounded Ronin
Use Raygun's rules for SR3!
MJBurrage
I haven't tried this yet (as it occurred to me while reading the thread), but what about letting characters with fewer actions—and firing on full auto—get more actions, but they count as unskilled (roll as if defaulting). This would make all full-auto weapons fire the same number of bullets, but for those normally without the extra actions most bullets would end up being wild shots. Giving meaning to the term "spray and pray"
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Juggler @ Oct 17 2010, 04:08 PM) *
I have no doubt that this has been brought up in another thread, but it is faster to just ask the questions to the forum.

1.) According to the SR3 rules, firing a fully automatic weapon uses a Complex Action, which means that a person who has an initiative advantage (wired reflexes, etc.) could fire more bullets per round than a normal person. There is no logic here, as two shooters (one with WR, and the other normal) holding back a trigger would fire the exact number of bullets. I understand that Shadowrun≠Real Life (just to save the tired response), but this is a legitimate question. Do any of you have a good house rule that does not speed up full auto weaponry just becasue the shooter is faster?

There's logic here, it's just dumb logic. The trick is that no full-auto weapon fires even vaguely close to reasonably fast in the hands of someone with normal human abilities (Initiative 20 or less), so clearly using FA does not represent actually holding down the trigger the whole time. The dumb part comes in where there's no way to actually do this.

Unless you fix the rate-of-fire issue (which requires a reworking of the way FA works in general, as the current system doesn't scale), there's no point in adding caps.

QUOTE
2.)The SR3 rules are a little tricky when it comes to FA targeting. According to the FA rules, loosing a full load of bullets (10 per CP) at a single target would add 10 to the target number (before RC). I have no problem with this from the perspective of hitting the target with all ten bullets, but the logic fails when you consider all of the bullets missing for failing to hit this number. The example on page 115/116 fits my problem exactly. Wedge (the example character) ventilates the first two targets (11S damage to each), and has an incredibly high target number for the third (also hits). This is good logic to me so far, but what would have happened if he would have just stayed targeting the first ganger? As the example stands, he only needed a 3 to hit the guy in the first place, but the target number would have been massive if he would have kept targeting the same guy, making it unlikely to even hit him at all. Basicilly, the rule makes it easier to hit someone if he doesn't shoot as many bullets at them in the first place. Suggestions for a house rule that still incorporates modifiers for gas vents and such?

We at SR3R have been toying with a number of ideas, including changing BF/FA effects to adding mostly dice instead of mostly damage, but we haven't found something we're happy with yet.

~J
Juggler
QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Oct 18 2010, 02:42 PM) *
Well... you could do it like running: divide cyclic rate by the largest number of IPs and that's the largest number of bullets to be fired in one IP. So, for example, a guy with one IP will be able to shoot his single IP on full-auto for, say, 10 bullets, as an aimed attack, BUT in order to provide suppressive fire for the entire round he would have to fire 30 bullets. Right now, it is strangely assumed that the 10 bullets he shoots in IP1 fill the entire combat round.

The other thing, about full-auto fire, I would have liked to do a second roll, which tries to simulate high first-round accuracy:

Make the attack test without recoil modifiers. If that produces at least one success, you've got one bullet hit. Now take note of the TN with full recoil modifiers, add one bullet hit per success (on the same roll) against that TN. Take note of how many bullets have not been accounted for. For each of those, roll 1d6 against a target number depending on distance + uncompensated recoil - modifier for tracers. (base 2 for very close, 3 for close, 4 medium, 6 far, 8 or 9 extreme, or something like that.) Each success adds another bullet. Calculate power/damage depending on how many bullets hit. If you have net hits left over after all the bullets are accounted for, adjust damage normally.
What this does is remove those ugly 19D with one success attacks at extreme range when shooting a HMG at full-auto. What you would get then is a lot less, because your one success only assures one bullet hit, the others being quite random. Of course at close range... chances are a HMG still kills you smile.gif.

Example
[ Spoiler ]


The trouble is that it's a complicated system, and each additional roll takes more time on already lengthy combat.


Wow, thanks Kagetenshi, that was very well thought out. I don't mind the extra number-crunching. I just printed that one out and will try it. Thanks!
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (Juggler @ Oct 19 2010, 05:05 AM) *
Wow, thanks Kagetenshi, that was very well thought out. I don't mind the extra number-crunching. I just printed that one out and will try it. Thanks!


Either you quoted the wrong guy, or you wanted to quote me, in which case I'm not Katetenshi smile.gif.

Also, I used to have another rule for spray and pray, I'll see whether I can dig that up.
Juggler
Yep, it was for you (oops). After hitting the quote button, I scanned up quickly to get the name and looked at the wrong post. I will blame that one on my being up later than normal smile.gif Thanks!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012