Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How realistic is the SR combat system for firearm?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Wounded Ronin
I think that it would be fair to say that the SR combat system for firearms is relatively realistic, compared to the likes of icky icky d20. But, the SR firearms system has some elements that are clearly unrealistic, such as scopes providing no difficulty at close range, dodge tests, strange grenade timing, or the bizarre damage codes. My question to all of you is how "realistic" are the more "realistic" parts?

What I mean is,
1.) Are the to-hits realistic? Do the amount of times people are likely to get hit vs. be missed compare in any way at all to real stats in terms of things like police officers or FBI agents' recorded accuracy on the job? I realize that this is a pretty difficult question to answer but I also have the feeling that someone might have a gut feeling for this, so it' worth at least asking.

2.) If we don't apply any of that extreme recoil compensation crap how accurately does the SR system reflect the impact of automatic fire upon accuracy? (My guess would be that automatic fire wouldn't make a big difference at close range but would make a huge difference at long range.)

3.) Do you think it would be possible to use some core elements of the SR combat system (i.e. the to-hits) as a starting point of a realism-based firearms combat RPG system?
FrostyNSO
1. I think the national hit rate for law enforcement officers is somewhere in the 13-17% range. Could be off, but it is shockingly low, even at ranges of only 5 to 10 yards. I guess at short range, with a pistol, the target being 4, a person with a skill of 1 has what, a 50% chance to hit?
The problem I have with SR is the ranges applied to different classes of firearms, but that's a deep and complicated beast so I'm not gonna touch it. It has it's strong points, and then it has it's ridiculously off the wall weak points.

2. Not very well. At longer ranges, automatic fire is not all that useful, though a 2 or 3 round burst (some weapons provide these trigger groups, and actually fire those 2 or 3 rounds faster than when the same weapon is in FA mode), can be useful at range if you know what you're doing. The "All or Nothing" approach to automatic fire in SR is horrible though. I posted an alternative rule (with a hint of how area spells are resolved) that i think others have posted before, but I'm too lazy to look for it.

3. I'm not a game designer so I'm not going to venture a guess at this one.

4. I feel free to try and forget reality and just enjoy the game. Sometimes it's just not very fun unless you can stop thiking about it and just roll. Now movies...movies really get me pissed with their depictions of firefights.
mmu1
1. SR does a decent job of making you realize that certain things matter - like cover, movement, and range - but the hit rate tends to be unrealistically high compared to what happens in real firefights, even when you account for the fact the average SR character probably has a much higher skill than the average law enforcment type... (aside from situations like a well-executed SWAT-style raid, or something)

2. Unless it's being fired from a crew-served weapon, automatic fire will tend to be pretty useless at long range, but can be devastating (far more so than in SR) at short ranges. SR does pretty much everything wrong when it comes to automatic fire - for example, the idea that a 3-round burst actually makes it harder to hit a target is pretty off-base.

3. Nope, not enough granularity... The fact that SR uses the d6 means that each +/- 1 modifier has a big impact - probably too big to really reflect the realistic probabilities accurately. On the other hand, it is probably good enough to use (with a few modifications) for a sytem that isn't necessarily realistic, but has a fair amount of verisimilitude.
FrostyNSO
Ammended answer for 3. Any system that could simulate an actual firefight with close realism would be so complicated and include so many factors that it would bog down the game and make play so slow as to be pointless.
Even RL hands-on training systems such as MILES and simunitions cannot replicate every aspect of a real firefight, for a pen and paper game to do so would be really really hard.

Simplify the system and just allow the GM to add his own flavor, perhaps by modifying results by his whim to give slightly more realistic results, even if they are not covered in the rules.
As I said before, just let realism go...It's only a game.
mfb
1. it's... kinda hard to judge this. on the one hand, it's generally too easy to make a shot in SR. on the other, getting shot in SR is a hell of a lot less traumatic than it is in real life, so it balances out some.

2. hahahahahahahahahahahah, jesus no. there is nothing salvageable in SR's autofire system. from start to finish. everything beyond the basic concept of "autofire makes more bullets come out of your gun than other firing modes" needs to be scrapped.

3. depends. i don't think it's possible to make a realistic game with a 3-second combat turn that doesn't devolve into massive encyclopedias full of charts and rules--combat's too chaotic to resolve on a scale that small. get rid of the 3-second combat turn, and... eh. it's a'ight, i guess.
Syd
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
1.)  Are the to-hits realistic?  Do the amount of times people are likely to get hit vs. be missed compare in any way at all to real stats in terms of things like police officers or FBI agents' recorded accuracy on the job?  I realize that this is a pretty difficult question to answer but I also have the feeling that someone might have a gut feeling for this, so it' worth at least asking.

Estimates of wartime shots fired/casualty inflicted varies, but all the estimates are much higher than in shadowrun. The lowest I've seen is 10,000 rds per casualty for WWII, up to 60,000 rds per casualty for Vietnam. Shadowrun is a little too easy smile.gif
Critias
I call it a bad combat phase in Shadowrun if it takes me three bullets to drop someone. "Dammit! They're armored too heavily for a single round to stop them! Burst fire!"
Austere Emancipator
In my last 2060s SR game, the two combat-types had an assault rifle and a GPMG. I think most combats saw between 20 and 30 rounds fired by the PCs per kill -- although that often meant that the target had been hit quite a lot of times.

Of course, I have a few house rules that might affect those results.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Syd)
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
1.)  Are the to-hits realistic?  Do the amount of times people are likely to get hit vs. be missed compare in any way at all to real stats in terms of things like police officers or FBI agents' recorded accuracy on the job?  I realize that this is a pretty difficult question to answer but I also have the feeling that someone might have a gut feeling for this, so it' worth at least asking.

Estimates of wartime shots fired/casualty inflicted varies, but all the estimates are much higher than in shadowrun. The lowest I've seen is 10,000 rds per casualty for WWII, up to 60,000 rds per casualty for Vietnam. Shadowrun is a little too easy smile.gif

Thos stats are useless for determining rounds expended per person in low level conflicts. Those number involve ammunition usage on every level, including aircraft, emplaced weaponry, antiaircaft, vehicles, etc. While SR certainly is ludicrously efficient, you certainly shouldn't need to fire off 10,000 rounds per casualty on the level of the individual. The numbers for individual soldiers (and especially special operations/commando type units, which in terms of operations are closer to shadowrunners), werethey available, would be much smaller.
Club
How many rounds did / do the soldiers carry per individual? I've seen pictures of soldiers from 'Nam loaded with rounds.
Wounded Ronin
My understanding is that today in the US military it's 210 rounds of 5.56 ammo.
Swing Kid
First of all, I should be clear. I love this game, and have solved most of my beefs using house rules, so this really isn't intended as a bitch-fest on one of my favorite passtimes, so much as my input on the "realism" of Shadowrun firearms.

Beef #1 - Unrealistic Rates of fire - My biggest beef is that character attributes somehow control the rate of automatic gunfire, and attack order. Two guys with full auto weaponry, both simply pulling the trigger back on equal guns, but one is a normal jack with an initiative of 4+1d6, and the other with 10+3d6. The faster character somehow manages several Complex actions at 10 rounds per combat phase while the slower usually only gets one combat phase and so only 10 rounds. So, assuming that all of the dice rolled, say 5's, then Slowjack fires 10 rounds at the 9th phase, and Fastjack fires a total of 30 rounds between phases 25, 15, and 5. So, even though both of them were holding down the trigger, the faster character threw out three times as much ammo over the same period of time.

Beef #2 - Unrealsitic accuracy issue - A basic guy with a gun (no recoil compensators), say level 2 just to say he is not unfamiliar with guns, points his fully automatic firearm at point blank range ( 1 meter away) at a person who is standing still (wanting to get hit from one meter away), electing to fire all 10 bullets. He gets a target number of 13 to hit (Base 4 + 10 rounds -1 target stationary). For this example, we will say he is not using his combat pool to show my point. He has two dice to hit a 13. If he does not (and he is not likely to) make a 13 on one of the dice, then he completely misses with every bullet. No Damage! I have fired fully automatic weapons a few times at our local gun club, and I must say that I am as amatuer as they come at the accuracy of such use, but I managed to keep a normal SMG under control enough to tear the crap out of a paper target. The recoil was far worse than I thought it would be having played SR for so long, but the actual accuracy was simply not that hindered.

Beef #3 - It amazes me that the game gives us the idea that these damage codes make any real sense. A Heavy Pistol (which has been compared to our heaviest pistols of today (like the Desert Eagle 50) generally does 9M damage with normal ammo, and with no increases for this example. Lets just say that a runner hits a normal person, with say a 4 Body, with a 9M pistol (a Desert Eagle 50). One of several things happens. First, the target theoretically could get lucky and manage to roll four successes (unlikely, but it could happen), at which case, his normal, physical body could take the hit with no damage, chalking it up to glancing wounds or near misses, when it was his four BODY dice that saved him. The second possiblity is the very likely chance that none of the four dice result in a success, at which this normal hit would have done only Moderate Damage, even though the target failed every part of his side of the formula. The third possiblity is generally that some, but not all dice were successful at defending off the attack, which means that the character still only takes Moderate or Light Damage. All of this when a Dessert Eagle 50 hits a normal person. I have never fired a Desert Eagle 50, but I did get a chance to shoot a Colt 45 service pistol (quoted as 7M on this site) on a number different occasions, and the damage normal ammo does to living and non-living material is phenomenal. My father showed me what it would do to a coyote, and I was more than surprised, It only hit the shoulder, but the wound was horriffic. It was nothing like in the movies. The best anyone can hope for is a clean pathway through their body when hit by one of those monsters.

I know that these beefs can be argued on a philosophic gaming scale where the fails mean near misses and lucky accidental ducking, or whatever, but I still see them as coverups more than anything. I have read a number of responses to this topic stating that the rules are very realistic, and I have to say, I completely disagree. I think the key is using house rules that work for each given game group, or quietly ignoring these issues alltogether.
nezumi
I will say, don't forget with #3, you're neglecting to account for the shooter's skill.

Supposing we're talking about a 'standard' shot, which has a TN of 4, with combat pool (which really can't be ignored), a person with skill 1, pretty much a shooter like me who has fired a gun half a dozen times in his life, will most likely get 1 success. A poorly aimed shot, probably hitting somewhere around the torso or mid-body. It's reasonable that someone like me won't kill someone else with one shot when shooting (I presume, I might be wrong).

If we're dealing with a semi-skilled shadowrunner, the situation you're talking about he'll be putting ALL his dice into the shot. We can expect at least 8 dice, which makes for about 4 successes. Pretty easy to do serious or deadly damage there. If he's throwing any less than 8 dice (4 from skill, 4 from pool) or the TN is above 4, it's because he's either not concentrating fully on the shot (hence less pool), or he's fighting under difficult circumstances (hence, higher TN). So non-fatal shots make more sense.

But I claim no experience with firing guns at living animals. So I really couldn't say if shooting someone in the abdomen with a predator SHOULD be a serious or killing shot.

That said, my big complaint stemming from that, is the idea that having been shot, you don't quickly bleed to death. Wounds, once caused, are pretty much static until you get them healed or wait a day. A gut shot might be a 'moderate wound' when you receive it, but give it a few hours and it'll make your day significantly less jolly.
Link
QUOTE
A gut shot might be a 'moderate wound' when you receive it, but give it a few hours and it'll make your day significantly less jolly.


I would interpret a genuine 'gut shot' as deadly but your point stands; apart from deadly wounds, no injury deteriorates.
lorthazar
Answers to some of the Beef

Beef #1: I know this may sound odd, but have you thought that maybe they might have made some sort of cycle lock on automatic weapons that stops them after 10 rounds forcing you to pull the trigger again. That maybe this cycle lock is so ingrained into manufacturers and gunsmiths that the idea of removing never occurs to anyone.

Beef #2: I have seen people wildly spray an automatic and hit nothing, including the broadside of a barn. If you really want to hit that guy just step forward and still the gun in his belly or use anyone of a hundred house rules to more accurately reflect the ability to hit with the first few shots.

Beef #3: So you want every shot to be instantly fatal? I think your living in chipland there. I've seen .45 wounds, unless it was an hollowpoint, it really isn't all that deadly. Plus your average ShadowRunner wears armor which significant improves their chance of living.
Austere Emancipator
A Deadly Physical wound in Shadowrun is one which kills the average human within 27 seconds. This is only possible by rupturing a major artery, preferably in the thoracic cavity or in the neck/brain -- or indeed by rendering the CNS inoperable. Unless a gut shot severs the abdominal aorta or ruptures the liver or simply causes massive tissue damage, it doesn't really qualify as a Deadly. If an average human has at least several minutes to live after receiving a particular wound, that basically means it's Serious (or lower) wound.
Demosthenes
QUOTE
Beef #1: I know this may sound odd, but have you thought that maybe they might have made some sort of cycle lock on automatic weapons that stops them after 10 rounds forcing you to pull the trigger again. That maybe this cycle lock is so ingrained into manufacturers and gunsmiths that the idea of removing never occurs to anyone.

Possible?
Sure.
Plausible?
Nope.

Beef in this case = Verisimilitude, which SR makes vague stabs at achieving elsewhere using the most complicated rules possible...

@Austere:
Actually, a Deadly wound in SR terms is one that will leave an average human unconscious and dead in 27 seconds...
But that has to do with how SR represents wounding, not how it deals with firearms...
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Demosthenes)
Actually, a Deadly wound in SR terms is one that will leave an average human unconscious and dead in 27 seconds...

Which either requires that the person suffering from the wound goes immediately into shock, or that the CNS is dinged up pretty bad (in addition to a major artery being severed).
lorthazar
QUOTE (Demosthenes)
QUOTE
Beef #1: I know this may sound odd, but have you thought that maybe they might have made some sort of cycle lock on automatic weapons that stops them after 10 rounds forcing you to pull the trigger again. That maybe this cycle lock is so ingrained into manufacturers and gunsmiths that the idea of removing never occurs to anyone.

Possible?
Sure.
Plausible?
Nope.


Actually it is very plausible. A cycle lock like that would be lauded by every tight fisted corporation. After all if you can't kill it in ten rounds, you should be using a bigger weapon. It would also limited the wasted rounds used when a finger reflexively clutches as a person dies. in fact i am surprised we don't come up them now.
Arethusa
I'm not. It's unnecessary, overly complicated, and silly as hell.
mmu1
QUOTE (lorthazar @ May 4 2005, 10:00 AM)
Actually it is very plausible. A cycle lock like that would be lauded by every tight fisted corporation. After all if you can't kill it in ten rounds, you should be using a bigger weapon. It would also limited the wasted rounds used when a finger reflexively clutches as a person dies. in fact i am surprised we don't come up them now.

Corporations make money by making guns someone actually wants to buy.

The military and law enforcement agencies (the primary consumers of full-auto weapons) are the ones who effectively determine the gun specs based on their particular requirements, and neither are going to want to buy guns with a cutoff on them that limits automatic fire to 10-round bursts for no logical reason.


Anyway... I never actually had too much trouble with how many shots on full-auto you can fire in a round, because in 99% of the cases, even the very fast guy isn't shooting faster than the real ROF (usally somehwere between 600 and 800 shots per minute for most modern automatic werapons, IIRC) would allow for, and I think it's pretty clear that the SR combat system is based not on how many times you could physcially pull the trigger in 3 seconds, but on how many actual aimed shots you can make in that time.
Demosthenes
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (Demosthenes)
Actually, a Deadly wound in SR terms is one that will leave an average human unconscious and dead in 27 seconds...

Which either requires that the person suffering from the wound goes immediately into shock, or that the CNS is dinged up pretty bad (in addition to a major artery being severed).

Quite right...
What I was implying (damn this having to use text and not being able to waggle eyebrows at people!) was that it is possible IRL for someone to be so seriously injured that they will die in less than 30 seconds, and yet remain conscious and active...(Possible...not common...not likely....just possible).
ie - The system SR uses for tracking damage to the human body is pretty damn abstract, and that in turn has an effect on the amount of realism that is possible in any given subset of the combat system...
nezumi
I never really complain about the ROF any more than I do about a helmet adding just as much armor as armored boots would. I chalk it up to being abstract. The gun isn't ACTUALLY firing only 10 rounds, it's firing far more. However, for the purpose of mechanics, only 10 of the rounds actually 'hit'. The only problem that thinking causes is clip size, but I have a nasty tendancy to forget that with any gun big enough to fire FA anyway.

So say they fired off 600 rounds in a minute (which would be about 30 every round) if you want. Describe the brass casings shooting out of the side of the gun. But they're only skilled/fast/lucky/whatever enough that 10 of those rounds hit the target in question OR we conveniently forget the other 20 when doing the math. I don't think that's game breaking.
Raygun
QUOTE (lorthazar)
Answers to some of the Beef

Beef #1: I know this may sound odd, but have you thought that maybe they might have made some sort of cycle lock on automatic weapons that stops them after 10 rounds forcing you to pull the trigger again. That maybe this cycle lock is so ingrained into manufacturers and gunsmiths that the idea of removing never occurs to anyone.

Pffft. No.

QUOTE
Actually it is very plausible. A cycle lock like that would be lauded by every tight fisted corporation. After all if you can't kill it in ten rounds, you should be using a bigger weapon. It would also limited the wasted rounds used when a finger reflexively clutches as a person dies. in fact i am surprised we don't come up them now.

We did, many years ago. We call it "burst fire" and it is usually limited to three rounds, as on the M16A2 rifle. The objective in firing a lot of rounds at once may not necessarily be to "kill things". Anyway, tactically speaking, the operator should have discretion when it comes to how many rounds he may find useful to fire at a given time.

QUOTE
Beef #2: I have seen people wildly spray an automatic and hit nothing, including the broadside of a barn. If you really want to hit that guy just step forward and still the gun in his belly or use anyone of a hundred house rules to more accurately reflect the ability to hit with the first few shots.

There is not always an opportunity to do such a thing. In context of tactics, automatic fire can be useful in terms of movement. One element of a team lays down covering (suppressive) fire, while other elements move against the objective.

QUOTE
Beef #3: So you want every shot to be instantly fatal? I think your living in chipland there. I've seen .45 wounds, unless it was an hollowpoint, it really isn't all that deadly.

rotfl.gif
Reaver
QUOTE (Link @ May 4 2005, 07:29 AM)
QUOTE
A gut shot might be a 'moderate wound' when you receive it, but give it a few hours and it'll make your day significantly less jolly.


I would interpret a genuine 'gut shot' as deadly but your point stands; apart from deadly wounds, no injury deteriorates.

Yes and no. The injury itself may not deteriorate, but the person very well could.

As to an injury deteriorating, a lung wound will almost always deteriorate as the lung fills up with blood and the person drowns or develops a tension pnemothorax. Then of course there is also the possibility of pericardial tampenade with a chest wound (ask if you want to know more).

Head wounds present another problem altogether and are difficult to treat even in a surgery suite.

Abdominal injuries contain highly vascular organs that can cause a person to bleed out in a matter of minutes, especially the kidneys. And the abdomen can hold more than enough blood to cause you to "bottom out."

Shock is of course one of your biggest threats and can send even the lightest injury into a severe trauma case.

So, in essence, I'd say you're both right and wrong. Some wounds can deteriorate quite quickly. Others don't... at least not with out help.

No, I was never in the medical field, I swear. wink.gif
Edward
It occurs to me that in war many rounds are expended on what would be considered suppressive fire in SR, further much of this suppressive fire is against targets with near total cover (the idea being that they wont get up and shoot you) or targets that in fact do not exist (at least not anywhere near where your firing).

When considering the accuracy of the base firearms mechanic we should only consider firing a single round or burst (of up to 10 rounds) at a target you correctly know the position of with the expectation of hitting.

Examples to look for would be
SWAT teams compared to skill 6.
Olympic shooters compared to skill 8 with stationary target bonus
Soldiers on the range with popup targets compared to skill 3-5 (depending on soldiers)

How do these comparisons fair

Edward
Swing Kid
QUOTE (lorthazar)
Answers to some of the Beef

Beef #1: I know this may sound odd, but have you thought that maybe they might have made some sort of cycle lock on automatic weapons that stops them after 10 rounds forcing you to pull the trigger again. That maybe this cycle lock is so ingrained into manufacturers and gunsmiths that the idea of removing never occurs to anyone.

Beef #2: I have seen people wildly spray an automatic and hit nothing, including the broadside of a barn. If you really want to hit that guy just step forward and still the gun in his belly or use anyone of a hundred house rules to more accurately reflect the ability to hit with the first few shots.

Beef #3: So you want every shot to be instantly fatal? I think your living in chipland there. I've seen .45 wounds, unless it was an hollowpoint, it really isn't all that deadly. Plus your average ShadowRunner wears armor which significant improves their chance of living.

Retorts to the answers to my beefs. (I appreciate the good points though)

Beef #1: This answer made no sense to me (not trying to strike back, it just didn't). I was going to point out the whole burst fire thing, but that has already been retorted. Honestly, the trigger lock answer far from argue's my point. If it were actually the case, then sure, I would agree, but something as big as that would have been in bold print in the rulebook. It would also be common to see such locks disengaged by those who know how to modify weapons, much like people adapt semi-autos to full-auto, etc. The fact is, designing a gamesystem that uses fully-automatic weapon fire and performance enhancing cyberware is a logistical nightmare, and honestly, my hat is off to the guys who came up with the rules, even if I don't particularly like them. It is my beef, but I hold no ill will towards the effort.

Beef #2: I would agree with the belly idea, and the idea of house rules for such a situation, but then again, my original point included house rules as an answer. Matter of fact, we have a house rule where the base target number given (before number of rounds modifier) stands, but only for the first bullet. The shot becomes an open test, and for every point higher the player rolls on that target, an extra bullet hits the target. It doesn't work well with recoil rules so much, but with our teams always prioritizing recoil compensation, it doesn't make for much of a problem. So, in the same scenario that I used to make my initial beef, with the Base 4, and a stationary target, equaling a target number of 3, then if I rolled, say a 9, then 7 bullets would hit the target for 13D damage, staging the damage for 7 bullets from 7M to 13D. It isn't perfect, but it works.

Beef #3: Although, No, I wouldn't want every shot to be instantly fatal, but making all shots that only score one hit to be non-fatal, I still see as a problem. I am a fan of hit-location rules, though I will admit to their drawbacks in gameplay. My point is that though it works for what we do in these games, generally, it isn't realistic (which is the topic of this thread). Lets take another example. Lets say Clyde the freaked out postal worker (cliche, I know, but hey) goes out, buys a pistol (Desert "9M" Eagle .50), heads to the target range and is taught the basics of how to use it (taking him to 1st level). Now, he stocks up on ammo and heads to work. This is when all hell breaks loose. He starts shooting up the place. Reserving Combat Pool for dodging would be heros, he starts blasting everyone in sight. Now, since he is only 1st level, the best he could hope for is to get a single success on every shot. No one would die, no matter how much ammo he spent, unless he hit someone at least four separate times, with a desert eagle 50. So, again, No I do not expect every shot to be instantly fatal, but damn, none of them were.

Again, I hold no heartfelt complaints towards the system, and am only throwing out honest debate on the subject of firearm rule legitimacy.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Swing Kid)
No one would die, no matter how much ammo he spent, unless he hit someone at least four separate times, with a desert eagle 50.

Unless you want to include a random factor into the damage calculation other than the to-hit roll -- which could be a hit location roll or anything else -- one way to fix this would be to use exploding d6s and having every 6 you roll over the TN to count as an extra success.

QUOTE (Demosthenes)
(damn this having to use text and not being able to waggle eyebrows at people!)

Roger that. I think I got what you meant at first, but looking back at my reply I see that it isn't anything like I meant for it to be. Anyway, I think we agree on the matter.
Swing Kid
I like that idea. I might have to explore it in next weekend's game. Goes to show that house rules are the way to go.
lorthazar
QUOTE (Swing Kid)
[Beef #3: Although, No, I wouldn't want every shot to be instantly fatal, but making all shots that only score one hit to be non-fatal, I still see as a problem. I am a fan of hit-location rules, though I will admit to their drawbacks in gameplay. My point is that though it works for what we do in these games, generally, it isn't realistic (which is the topic of this thread). Lets take another example. Lets say Clyde the freaked out postal worker (cliche, I know, but hey) goes out, buys a pistol (Desert "9M" Eagle .50), heads to the target range and is taught the basics of how to use it (taking him to 1st level). Now, he stocks up on ammo and heads to work. This is when all hell breaks loose. He starts shooting up the place. Reserving Combat Pool for dodging would be heros, he starts blasting everyone in sight. Now, since he is only 1st level, the best he could hope for is to get a single success on every shot. No one would die, no matter how much ammo he spent, unless he hit someone at least four separate times, with a desert eagle 50. So, again, No I do not expect every shot to be instantly fatal, but damn, none of them were.


In all fairness a postal worker in 2060 should have Pistol 4 already. nyahnyah.gif

Actually the kind of situation you're imply is a guy with skill 1; knows how to hit if he takes careful aim. You have him walking through a post office blasting away at everyone and dodging every annoying little thing. The SOB would be lucky if he grazed people at this rate. Now if he tied them up and made them completely helpless, held the gun to their head and pulled the trigger, then you ignore rules and just declare the victims dead or dying. the Combat rules are meant to be used in combat, not in slaughter.

Oh, and you are forget rule of 1 applies in soaking damage, too


BTW if I am not mistaken a Desert Eagle .50 has a 9S damage coade so it would only take 2 shots.
Arethusa
9M is rather light for a Desert Eagle in .50AE. 9M is more like the .357 mag variant, really. And calling a Desert Eagle a "classic heavy pistol" or, really, a classic anything is silly as hell. It is not a common design, and it never will be. Thank Hollywood for its silly popularity.
Swing Kid
Actually, I agree with you. My recent topic about Tommyguns took us in the direction of Heavy Pistols, which is where I got that information. I was told that a .45 was only a 7M, and that the Desert Eagle 50 was more like the 9M guns of Shadowrun. I didn't actually completely agree with that information, but wanted to keep roughly on the same page as the forum.

I even agree that calling it a "Classic Heavy Pistol," is out of line. By the way, since you also used quotation marks around "classic heavy pistol," who were you quoting? I couldn't find the word "classic" in anyone's dialog except yours. Maybe a different thread?

All that aside, it still doesn't change any of my points.
lorthazar
No it didn't change your points becuase they were blunt anyway if you read my previous post you'd understand a little better.
Swing Kid
QUOTE (lorthazar)
[Actually the kind of situation you're imply is a guy with skill 1; knows how to hit if he takes careful aim. You have him walking through a post office blasting away at everyone and dodging every annoying little thing. The SOB would be lucky if he grazed people at this rate. Now if he tied them up and made them completely helpless, held the gun to their head and pulled the trigger, then you ignore rules and just declare the victims dead or dying. the Combat rules are meant to be used in combat, not in slaughter.]

Oops, I forgot about the rule of 1, thanks.

You don't think that in such a situation, rules aside, people wouldn't die? Although I do see your point about aiming, I can't help but to see the sad irony that in these situations, people really do die. Once the bullets start flying, people get killed, not just take Moderate or Serious wounds. I apologize for going down the realistic route about firearms, but this is the topic of the thread.
Swing Kid
QUOTE (lorthazar)
No it didn't change your points becuase they were blunt anyway if you read my previous post you'd understand a little better.

Sorry for the confusion, I was quoting Arethusa in the other post.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Swing Kid)
Actually, I agree with you. My recent topic about Tommyguns took us in the direction of Heavy Pistols, which is where I got that information. I was told that a .45 was only a 7M, and that the Desert Eagle 50 was more like the 9M guns of Shadowrun. I didn't actually completely agree with that information, but wanted to keep roughly on the same page as the forum.

I even agree that calling it a "Classic Heavy Pistol," is out of line. By the way, since you also used quotation marks around "classic heavy pistol," who were you quoting? I couldn't find the word "classic" in anyone's dialog except yours. Maybe a different thread?

All that aside, it still doesn't change any of my points.

Even with .45ACP gauged at 7 or 8M, .50AE is a very different cartridge. We're not just talking about giving it .05" more diameter; that would give you something along the lines of .50GI. .50AE is shooting a much heavier bullet at much higher speeds. If you're putting .45ACP around 7 or 8M, .50AE comes in as much higher powered Moderate or possibly 9S. It's not the most powerful round on the planet, or anything, but it is quite nasty.

Incidentally, you do seem to be greatly overstating the effectiveness of .45ACP. Unpleasant and reliably effective it may be, but its terminal performance is by no means "phenomenal." Plenty of people have been hit and not even noticed until they were out of the situation that got them shot in the first place.

Also, you may not have called a Desert Eagle exactly a "classic heavy pistol," but it's a general (and very erroneous) sentiment that comes up here quite often, and it's always at least a little grating. You did cite a Desert Eagle as an example of a heavy pistol, which is close enough. I realize SR's firearms are a disaster in nearly ever important way, but there's no way a Desert Eagle is really representative of heavy pistols. It is very much a bizarre and largely not combat viable niche weapon.

I think I did grab the quote from another recent thread, though; been a long day, and I didn't bother to check. Sorry about that.
Edward
A desert eagle .50 in SR will have moderate damage. Its SR equivalent should be the most powerful pistol you can buy (possibly the most powerful you can build using canon companion) this gives a damage code of 9M or 10M. if heavy pistols can be built with an S damage code in the SR world then at least one would be in the book

This however shows a problem in the system. The only differences between guns in a class is what toys they come with. And maybe a couple of points of power. Compared to the preserved difference in damage dealt by different heavy pistols on this board this would appear to be an error.

Edward
Halloween Jack
QUOTE (Swing Kid)
Actually, I agree with you. My recent topic about Tommyguns took us in the direction of Heavy Pistols, which is where I got that information. I was told that a .45 was only a 7M, and that the Desert Eagle 50 was more like the 9M guns of Shadowrun. I didn't actually completely agree with that information, but wanted to keep roughly on the same page as the forum.

On Raygun's page, a 9M firearm is listed in calibers like .357 SIG, .40 Cor Bon, .45 Super, or 10mm. This makes sense given that, if I'm not mistaken, those are all fairly standard combat pistol rounds.

A .50 AE pistol would generally do 9S damage.
Austere Emancipator
My comment on standard SR Heavy Pistols at 9M being like .50 AE Desert Eagles in the Tommygun-thread was mostly a joke, in case that wasn't clear.

However, there is little point trying to give certain calibers certain damage codes based on the canon SR weapons. One way or another the numbers won't make sense, because the DCs given to canon SR weapons don't make sense to begin with.
Link
QUOTE
Some wounds can deteriorate quite quickly. Others don't... at least not with out help.

No, I was never in the medical field, I swear. wink.gif


Dr. Mengele I presume. cool.gif

QUOTE
It occurs to me that in war many rounds are expended on what would be considered suppressive fire in SR


In our games anyone can continue suppressive fire into passes where they have no action. This would better reflect the guns ROF than 10 round autofire bursts.
Reaver
QUOTE (Link)
QUOTE
Some wounds can deteriorate quite quickly. Others don't... at least not with out help.

No, I was never in the medical field, I swear. wink.gif


Dr. Mengele I presume. cool.gif


No. I was just a feild medic in the Navy for 8 years. smile.gif
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