| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | One of the suggestions i had from a player, was base it of 7d max for reg hand carry weapons. Your Fire rate and damage had to come out of that 7 score.. So pistols (4d) would have a 3 rof. Reg heavy pistols and rifles (5d) wuld have a 2 ROF. |
Huh, what? |
The less damaging the weapon the more ROF.. So those 6d heavy blaster pistols would have only 1 ROF (6+1=7), regular heavies ROF 2 (5+2=7)
and so on. |
Ah, I see!
I dont think such a rule have any use except if you want some kind of 'game balance' between weapons. You can have it as a guidline, but in the end I guess its up to how advanced a weapon is that determines its stats.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I could see such a rule as having a lot of use, since blasters do have recoil. I I real life, the limiting factors on rate of fire are recoil and heat build up. Both of which inbcrease with more powerful weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bren"]ld make the round longer, but it would require fewer rounds to resolve a light fight combat. So net-net no real change there. [/qupte]
Oh yes it would! More shots in one round tranlastes into more shots against the same dodge value. A PC can get through a fight much easier by boosting his dodge with CPs. Fewer rounds also means greater MAP penalties as character will have to take chances and do things more rapidly. Waiting until next round will mean taking a lot more attacks.
| Bren wrote: |
Where I think it may bog down, is when the shooter is firing 2x as many shots for each melee swing that the sword wielder has. Due to the bonus' of lightsaber combat I don't think this is much of a problem for Jedi, but for Wookiees or melee characters they may be a bit handicapped and players may feel annoyed that the shooter gets 2x as many shots (assuming a blaster pistol with ROF=2) as the melee/brawler gets swings. |
I don7t see that as a real problem. In real life, you can empty the clip of a semi-auto weapon faster than you can swing a sword. That is just the way it is. However, you probably won't hit what you are aiming at with many of those shots. Basically "spray & pray" looks cool, but is mostly a waste of ammo.Many modern weapons have replaced the full auto feature with a 3 round burst for just this reason (along with the heat/jamming issues). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | In real life, you can empty the clip of a semi-auto weapon faster than you can swing a sword. |
I can swing a short sword or a large knife as quickly as I can fire a semiautomatic gun unless the trigger is specially weighted. | atgxtg wrote: | | However, you probably won't hit what you are aiming at with many of those shots. Basically "spray & pray" looks cool, but is mostly a waste of ammo. Many modern weapons have replaced the full auto feature with a 3 round burst for just this reason (along with the heat/jamming issues). |
Well, if your gun's already pointed at the target when you start shooting, most of your rounds probably will hit. 3 round burst, as I understand it, is intended to give a larger grouping at long range than a single shot, but without the inaccuracy, finger fatigue, or time constraints of several trigger pulls. Therefore it is applying spray to semi-auto, rather than applying target tracking to automatic fire.
Maybe brawling and melee need RoF adjustments, too?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | [It wou]ld make the round longer, but it would require fewer rounds to resolve a light fight combat. So net-net no real change there. |
Oh yes it would! More shots in one round tranlastes into more shots against the same dodge value. A PC can get through a fight much easier by boosting his dodge with CPs. Fewer rounds also means greater MAP penalties as character will have to take chances and do things more rapidly. Waiting until next round will mean taking a lot more attacks. |
I think you may have lost the context of what I was writing. I was not trying to say that there is no effect at all. I was responding to your post that said increasing the # of shots per round "would really bog down the game." It won't. You are correct that it makes it less CP costly to dodge and changes the MAPs, but those are different issues. Neither CP or MAP changes increases the number of rolls required to resolve a combat. In fact, as you pointed out, shorter rounds increases the number of dodge rolls required. So shorter rounds increases the total number of rolls and is more likely to "bog down the game" than the existing system.
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: |
Where I think it may bog down, is when the shooter is firing 2x as many shots for each melee swing that the sword wielder has. Due to the bonus' of lightsaber combat I don't think this is much of a problem for Jedi, but for Wookiees or melee characters they may be a bit handicapped and players may feel annoyed that the shooter gets 2x as many shots (assuming a blaster pistol with ROF=2) as the melee/brawler gets swings. |
I don7t see that as a real problem. In real life, you can empty the clip of a semi-auto weapon faster than you can swing a sword. That is just the way it is. However, you probably won't hit what you are aiming at with many of those shots. Basically "spray & pray" looks cool, but is mostly a waste of ammo.Many modern weapons have replaced the full auto feature with a 3 round burst for just this reason (along with the heat/jamming issues). |
It may or may not be a problem and it may more accurately reflect reality. I was pointing out that increasing the number of shots per round compared to the number of hand-to-hand attacks per round is another change with respect to the RAW. You may like or dislike the effect, but it is a change.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Maybe brawling and melee need RoF adjustments, too? |
Yes, I thought about mentioning that, but it adds a lot more changes and potential complexity and moves D6 in a direction more like Runequest 2 and 3 strike ranks or other systems with different attack rates by weapon. I've played that extensively in the past and it's not a design direction I am interested in for Star Wars. I was kind of hoping no one else would bring it up  but if you think it adds to your campaign and are interested - go for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Maybe brawling and melee need RoF adjustments, too? |
Yes, I thought about mentioning that, but it adds a lot more changes and potential complexity and moves D6 in a direction more like Runequest 2 and 3 strike ranks or other systems with different attack rates by weapon. I've played that extensively in the past and it's not a design direction I am interested in for Star Wars. I was kind of hoping no one else would bring it up but if you think it adds to your campaign and are interested - go for it. |
That's a good point. I suppose I was just trying to help other people hash out what they wanted. I, personally, try and handle RoF with common sense rather than rules. If my player wants to fill the air with blaster bolts using a semiautomatic, then that's fine with me. Not so with an artillery piece! I do have rules for burst fire and automatic fire weapons, though: (burst fire gives you 2D and auto fire gives you 3D that can be added to your aim until you hit, with the remainder going to damage.)
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ]I can swing a short sword or a large knife as quickly as I can fire a semiautomatic gun unless the trigger is specially weighted. |
But you can't fight with the sword at that rate/. Not if you exp@ect to hit. Real sword fighting requires feints, beats and other maneuvers in order to get past the opponent7s guard. Just standing there swing the weapon back and forth isn't going to accomplish much other that tie you out.
/[uote]Well, if your gun's already pointed at the target when you start shooting, most of your rounds probably will hit.[/quote]
Nope, and I know some guys in the military who wpould love to get you on the range with. The recoil and kick (kick is the effect the weapon has to move to the side when it is ejecting spent cartridges) will push the weapon off target. That is why guys who use these thing actually practice firing short, controlled bursts. You can empty the clip on an M16 in a couple of seconds, but all you accomplish that way is to waste ammo, overheat your weapon, foul your weapon, and attract a lot of attention.
| Quote: |
3 round burst, as I understand it, is intended to give a larger grouping at long range than a single shot, but without the inaccuracy, finger fatigue, or time constraints of several trigger pulls. Therefore it is applying spray to semi-auto, rather than applying target tracking to automatic fire. |
Auto-burst is used to replace full auto fire. That is why weapons with a vurst feature don't have a full auto setting. Basically, troops firing full auto are usually wasting ammo and overheating/jamming their weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bren"
I think you may have lost the context of what I was writing. I was not trying to say that there is no effect at all. I was responding to your post that said increasing the # of shots per round "would really bog down the game." It won't. You are correct that it makes it less CP costly to dodge and changes the MAPs, but those are different issues. Neither CP or MAP changes increases the number of rolls required to resolve a combat. In fact, as you pointed out, shorter rounds increases the number of dodge rolls required. So shorter rounds increases the total number of rolls and is more likely to "bog down the game" than the existing system. [/quote]
I'd bet on it that it will bog the game down. I7ll also say that a LOT of the changes brought about by this rule change are going to be deter mental to a campaign. For instancce, since the PCs are susally outnumbered, a higher ROF makes it much more likely for a PC to get taken out by a lucky hit via the wild die (or just mauled when tthe wild die kills thier dodge roll). Sure, the Pcs will be knocking off more stromtroopers this way, but who cares? The stromtroopers don't have to show up next week.
I7m suprised that you are keen on this idea, since it seems to fly against the stuff that you have been keen on in the past. It is the exact opposite of the FlaK idea I was suggesting forhandling Starship combat. Nlow there will be a big delay w\hile the GM rolls multiple attacks attacks for all the stormtroopers. Likewise it will also make the difference between experienced and inexperienced PCs more pronounced.
| Bren wrote: |
It may or may not be a problem and it may more accurately reflect reality. I was pointing out that increasing the number of shots per round compared to the number of hand-to-hand attacks per round is another change with respect to the RAW. You may like or dislike the effect, but it is a change. |
No argument there. It certianly is a chance. IMO hand-to-hand/melee is is a bit overpowered, anyway. One thing I do like about thiis idea is that it would tone down the "bulletproof" Wookiees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liam (Gunman) Kissane
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 73
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | One of the suggestions i had from a player, was base it of 7d max for reg hand carry weapons. Your Fire rate and damage had to come out of that 7 score.. So pistols (4d) would have a 3 rof. Reg heavy pistols and rifles (5d) wuld have a 2 ROF. |
Huh, what? |
The less damaging the weapon the more ROF.. So those 6d heavy blaster pistols would have only 1 ROF (6+1=7), regular heavies ROF 2 (5+2=7)
and so on. |
Ah, I see!
I dont think such a rule have any use except if you want some kind of 'game balance' between weapons. You can have it as a guidline, but in the end I guess its up to how advanced a weapon is that determines its stats. |
This is all very similar to what my players have raised, although I am working on a sliding scale of efficiency, rather than on a formula of 7. I won't post the whole thing here, but a sample so you get the idea.
Based on two different "Standard Power Packs", one for Pistols and one for Rifles/Repeaters (not interchangeable).
Pitols:
3d dmg / 100 ammo / rof 6
4d dmg / 75 ammo / rof 5
5d dmg / 30 ammo / rof 3
6d dmg / 4 ammo / rof 1
Rifles / Repeaters:
3d dmg / 200 ammo / rof 7
4d dmg / 150 ammo / rof 6
5d dmg / 60 ammo / rof 4
6d dmg / 8 ammo / rof 2
7d dmg / 4 ammo / rof 1
Some years ago I also did a d6 conversion from Nathan Rockwood's Serenity RPG "Automatic Weapons Rules" (with permission) for use with Repeaters, but I am revisiting it again to more accurately account for weapon rof and ammo count.
Original d6 conversion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
But you can't fight with the sword at that rate. Not if you exp@ect to hit. |
Ahh, but I can. My brothers and I use padded swords of greater weight and worse balance than real ones, (and I have experience with the real ones too.) I regularly make four attacks in two seconds with the heavier, longer one. The short one is even faster.
| atgxtg wrote: |
Nope, and I know some guys in the military who wpould love to get you on the range with. The recoil and kick (kick is the effect the weapon has to move to the side when it is ejecting spent cartridges) will push the weapon off target. That is why guys who use these thing actually practice firing short, controlled bursts. You can empty the clip on an M16 in a couple of seconds, but all you accomplish that way is to waste ammo, overheat your weapon, foul your weapon, and attract a lot of attention.
|
At longer ranges, that's true, but only for modern firearms. The recoil of a blaster is not going to be a factor, and they have no horizontal kick. At short range, your shot would have to be bad to start out with. (Like maybe a subtraction of 1 pip rather than 1D per shot)
| atgxtg wrote: |
Auto-burst is used to replace full auto fire. That is why weapons with a vurst feature don't have a full auto setting. Basically, troops firing full auto are usually wasting ammo and overheating/jamming their weapons. |
Most military/police guns I've seen heard of or read about have safe, semi-auto, burst, and auto fire modes.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I7m suprised that you are keen on this idea, since it seems to fly against the stuff that you have been keen on in the past. It is the exact opposite of the FlaK idea I was suggesting forhandling Starship combat. Nlow there will be a big delay w\hile the GM rolls multiple attacks attacks for all the stormtroopers. Likewise it will also make the difference between experienced and inexperienced PCs more pronounced. |
I wouldn't say I was keen on the idea. I see some pros and some cons and it addresses an issue (ROF) that is not one of my major concerns. I'm just trying to brainstorm/analyze it for those that want to implement it. After looking at it, I don't see a big problem with the change, it does alter the power balance between melee and shooting and it makes for different choices on which weapons are optimal. It allows more shooting actions per round, but while this slows down each round, it shouldn't really require more die rolls because combat ends when one side stops fighting - often because they are dead, incapped, or wounded - not after a set number of rounds. So more shots per round likely means fewer rounds required to kill, incap, or wound the other side. So I don't see it as requiring more total rolls to get to a resolution, it just divides the shooting rolls into fewer rounds with more shots per round. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: |
Ahh, but I can. My brothers and I use padded swords of greater weight and worse balance than real ones, (and I have experience with the real ones too.) I regularly make four attacks in two seconds with the heavier, longer one. The short one is even faster. |
it's not the same thing as real fighting. With play fighting you can be a little reckless, since you are not risking getting killed. A two swings a second rate is not sustainable in real combat.
| Quote: |
At longer ranges, that's true, but only for modern firearms. |
Really at anyt range other that short range. But then most handhold auto firing is done up close. You don7t try to spray guys using a assault rifle if they are 100 meters away.
| Quote: |
The recoil of a blaster is not going to be a factor, |
Guess again. They have gone out of thier way to show that blasters do indeed have recoil. It seems to be more than just a laser.
| Quote: |
[[and they have no horizontal kick. At short range, your shot would have to be bad to start out with. (Like maybe a subtraction of 1 pip rather than 1D per shot) |
I agree that there would be no ejected casings to cause kick. But as for it having to be a "bad shot". Keep in mind that less than 20% of shots fired in agner at ranges of 7m or so hit.
Firing off loads of shots isn't really very effective in this regard. Esepcially for pistols. That is one reason why everybody isn't going full auto all the time.
| Quote: |
Most military/police guns I've seen heard of or read about have safe, semi-auto, burst, and auto fire modes. |
Find me ONE. I have not seen one with BOTH burst and full auto mode. It is one of the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | [I wouldn't say I was keen on the idea. I see some pros and some cons and it addresses an issue (ROF) that is not one of my major concerns. I'm just trying to brainstorm/analyze it for those that want to implement it. After looking at it, I don't see a big problem with the change, it does alter the power balance between melee and shooting and it makes for different choices on which weapons are optimal. It allows more shooting actions per round, but while this slows down each round, it shouldn't really require more die rolls because combat ends when one side stops fighting - often because they are dead, incapped, or wounded - not after a set number of rounds. So more shots per round likely means fewer rounds required to kill, incap, or wound the other side. So I don't see it as requiring more total rolls to get to a resolution, it just divides the shooting rolls into fewer rounds with more shots per round. |
I can see quite a few things that can cause bog down here. For starters, the Gm is going to be rolling a lot more attacks.
In fact, there won't be much else going on. since doing anything other than attacking is going to take time.
The effect on things like starfighter combat shouldn't be ignored. There will be a lot less maneuvering, since the number of attacks will be going up.
I still think a better solution would be to allow for more shots in a single attack. Sort of like combining fire with oneself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
it's not the same thing as real fighting. With play fighting you can be a little reckless, since you are not risking getting killed. A two swings a second rate is not sustainable in real combat. |
It's not recklessness. It's just style. I agree that it doesn't work for long, but if you kill your opponent in 30 seconds or less it doesn't have to.
| atgxtg wrote: |
Guess again. They have gone out of their way to show that blasters do indeed have recoil. It seems to be more than just a laser. |
I agree. It is more than just a laser. But the most likely alternate explanation is plasma, which is not as dense as lead, and the muzzle velocities are much slower, except for vehicle blasters or turbolasers. The recoil exists, it's just not enough to be a factor.
| Quote: |
Most military/police guns I've seen heard of or read about have safe, semi-auto, burst, and auto fire modes. |
| atgxtg wrote: | | Find me ONE. I have not seen one with BOTH burst and full auto mode. It is one of the other. |
SIG SG 550
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | [I wouldn't say I was keen on the idea. I see some pros and some cons and it addresses an issue (ROF) that is not one of my major concerns. I'm just trying to brainstorm/analyze it for those that want to implement it. After looking at it, I don't see a big problem with the change, it does alter the power balance between melee and shooting and it makes for different choices on which weapons are optimal. It allows more shooting actions per round, but while this slows down each round, it shouldn't really require more die rolls because combat ends when one side stops fighting - often because they are dead, incapped, or wounded - not after a set number of rounds. So more shots per round likely means fewer rounds required to kill, incap, or wound the other side. So I don't see it as requiring more total rolls to get to a resolution, it just divides the shooting rolls into fewer rounds with more shots per round. |
I can see quite a few things that can cause bog down here. For starters, the Gm is going to be rolling a lot more attacks.
In fact, there won't be much else going on. since doing anything other than attacking is going to take time.
The effect on things like starfighter combat shouldn't be ignored. There will be a lot less maneuvering, since the number of attacks will be going up.
I still think a better solution would be to allow for more shots in a single attack. Sort of like combining fire with oneself. |
Conceptually more shots in a single attack is also OK with me. But I just don't see how the original proposed change bogs down combat. I only see combat bogging down if it requres more rolls to resolve combat, not if it requires more rolls per round. If, for example it takes six rounds under the RAW and three rounds under the proposed change to resolve combat, six rounds of combat with N rolls per round won't play faster than three rounds of combat with 2x N rolls per round. You must be seeing this differently. Can you explain how? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
