| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The counterpoint is that, if we are talking about losing damage as range increases, then there should be some representation of it in the stats and rules.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I personally see no need to monkey with ranges at all. This is, at its heart, a cinematic system, not a combat simulator.
In world though, IIRC, blaster weapons jacket the charged tibanna gas in a magnetic bottle which is the shot seen. As far as I'm concerned, when that bottle's charge decays enough, it ruptures and the gas dissipates. If the shot hits its target, the forced collapse ignites the gas causing the blast effect and damage to the target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | The counterpoint is that, if we are talking about losing damage as range increases, then there should be some representation of it in the stats and rules. |
We do with some existing weapons. Both the Magna caster (a magnetic accelerated crossbow bolt) and the Wrist vac launcher, each have a graded to range damage value.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ral_Brelt wrote: | | I don't think there's any real reason to up the damage when close for blasters. . |
Actually there is a very good reason. Ranged weapons inflict damage based on the amount of energy the projectile dumps into the target. Now at the round travels through the air it slows down, and has less energy left to dump into the target. The drop off in speed and energy can be significant.
As far as a heavy blaster being effective against a walker, that's more of a flaw with the way the RAW handles armor for vehicles (it just adds to the body strength) rather than due to the extra die.
By the same reasoning an E-Web is much more effective against an AT-AT that it should be. That would be like taking a .50 cal to an M1A2 , walking up to within ten feet and actually damaging its armor on a scale that effects it more than paint scratches. That won't happen either in real life.
If small arms affecting walkers bothers you, I suggest taking the scale die off the smaller weapon's damage dice instead of add to the body strength. That way a walker will be immune to any handheld weapon that does 6D or less, and even the handheld stuff that can damage it usually won't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | In the case of your examples, I think its safe to assume that you and Griff has some training in the basics of firing a rifle at long ranges, As such, if I were writing up stats for you, I would likely give you both 3D (or so) in Firearms, plus 1D in (A)Sniper. |
Ah, but that is where you are wrong. I actually have a total of about 5 minutes of firearms training under my belt, and that was basic safety. I understand the physics of it all, but I have never spent even two weeks training in distance shooting. I'm pretty dexterous, so we can assume 3D dexterity, and maybe 1D of firearms skill on top of that. I'm a decent shot, with a good eye, but I'm no marksman/sniper. | crmcneill wrote: | | It seems, ultimately, that we are arguing terminology. My idea is of a narrow skill that focuses specifically on shooting technique, while you are thinking more in terms of the broader umbrella skill that covers both the marksmanship and the fieldcraft. Would it simplify things if we called my version (A)Marksmanship and yours (A)Sniper? Hell, mine could even be a prerequisite for yours... |
Well, no, we're not arguing terminology. My point is that one shouldn't need to make the (A) investment at all, before they even have a hope of hitting out past long range. I say that either suitable equipment or a standard skill (not an advanced one) should be sufficient. Particularly, my point is that equipment obviously can suffice in place of training and special skills in the real world, so they ought to in RPG rules, too.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So if I push my blaster away from my character as I fire, really hard...I should get to add my wookie's strength because the bolt is moving faster, right?
Technically, isn't a .50 rifle an anti-material rifle that we use as a sniper rifle? If it is, its supposed to damage vehicles...just like an E-Web is anti vehicle. If you go strictly canon, Ep V has the syormies setting one up in the Hoth hanger yo try and disable the Falcon, which oddly enough, is a vehicle of a higher scale than a walker.
In all seriousness. If what I recalled about blasters before is true, once it hits range it would be gone. A bullet doesn't just evaporate when it maxes out. It also gets effected by wind, gravity and moisture as others have noted. That such shots can occurs is due to training involving physics to use that gravity when lobbing the bullet to hit targets. Figuring that, on different G worlds, will you be readjusting ranges all the time?
Last edited by Ral_Brelt on Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:45 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ral_Brelt wrote: | | In all seriousness. If what I recalled about blasters before is true, once it hits range it would be gone. |
Well, in the X-wing series, laser cannon blasts dissipate slowly, and Wedge once uses very long range shots to blind targeting sensors in a head-on pass, where the blasts could not do any actual damage. This implies that blasts do not simply cease. Maybe the magnetic bottles develop "leaks" and some of the gasses escape. Maybe the bolts begin to lose collimation beyond a certain range.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I do recall that Fallon...it was to fuzz the 'lightboard' on a Blade-32 if I'm remembering correctly. But that is a laser cannon, not a blaster...there is an actual difference between them. A laser beam refracts as it passes through air due to moisture, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ral_Brelt wrote: | | So if I push my blaster away from my character as I fire, really hard/[I]...I should get to add my wookie's strength because the bolt is moving faster, right? |
Wrong. And for quite a lot of reasons. Even under the "best case situation", the effect would be negligible since moving forward wouldn't increase the energy by a significant amount.
Now if you were to rephrase that argument and replace the Wookiee with an A-wing going at high speed, you might have a point. Especially, if you were using a slugthrower.
| Quote: |
Technically, isn't a .50 rifle an anti-material rifle that we use as a sniper rifle? |
yes, it is, but I didn't specify a .50 cal sniper rifle. I just typed .50 cal. I [i]meant to type .50 cal. machine gun (such as a Browning M-2), but I didn't. 
| Quote: |
If it is, its supposed to damage vehicles... |
My point here, unfortunately lost because I failed to specify .50 cal MG is that the original .50 caliber MGs were technically, anti-vehicle weapons, but pretty quickly were outpaced by the armor, and soon were used mostly on soft targets, such as people.
My intended analogy was that a .50 caliber MG has next to no chance of damaging a modern tank.
| Quote: |
just like an E-Web is anti vehicle. If you go strictly canon, Ep V has the syormies setting one up in the Hoth hanger yo try and disable the Falcon, which oddly enough, is a vehicle of a higher scale than a walker. |
Well, sort of. Strictly canon we see them set up the E-Web, what we don't know, strictly from canon is why. Are they trying to disable the Falcon, blow a hatch and board her, or what. What we do see is that, whatever their reasons, the stormies weren't very successful.
| Quote: |
In all seriousness. If what I recalled about blasters before is true, once it hits range it would be gone. |
If it's true. In fact, I raised that same point a few posts back. Problem is we don't know one way or the other. Heck, technically, I've seen stuff that states that the glowing bolt of energy we see in the films isn't actually the blaster bolt but a sort of side effect.
| Quote: |
A bullet doesn't just evaporate when it maxes out. It also gets effected by wind, gravity and moisture as others have noted. |
Yup, and so would a blaster bolt (or anything else for that matter. Depending on how fast a blaster bolt travels (and there was a thread on that awhile back), gravity might be a bigger problem for it than for a bullet.
| Quote: |
That such shots can occurs is due to training involving physics to use that gravity when lobbing the bullet to hit targets. |
Uh, that applies to all shots with all missile weapons. Not just long range ones. It's a common misconception that bullets are shot in a straight line. All aimed shorts are arced to some degree.
| Quote: |
Figuring that, on different G worlds, will you be readjusting ranges all the time?[/i] |
No, because I wouldn't expect the PCs to be experience vastly different g ratings on those planets. While a planet with 10g gravity would certainly have an effect of a firearm's range, it would also have a more pronounced effect of most characters.
Now I get it that you don't like the idea of extending ranges or adjusting damages, that's fine. But there is really nothing wrong with the other approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm really not trying to flame or troll...the pushing the blaster was a sarcastic bit.
That being said...if pushing said blaster doesn't make it do more damage...then why does point blank make it do more damage? It doesn't lose say...60% of its energy leaving the barrel does it? I don't think a 9mm does more damage at 10 feet than it does at 40. If I'm wrong, fair enough...I'm relying on common sense instead of ballistics training.
To the Browning, fair enough, that's a human thing. I retract my argument there.
The issue I have is two fold...
Part one is entirely personal preference. You're right that I don't see a need to modify ranges or damages of weapons because I see it as trying to gain a benefit without a real setback. You're talking about doubling ranges, and reducing damage by a small amount on the other side. That just sounds kinda munchkinie to me. But to each their own.
Part two is that if its going to be done it should be done right. It needs to be applied across the board which can abuse the balance immensely and more almost more importantly....slow down the game with consulting charts. Take the A-wing reference and alter it to fit the situation a bit better...lets go with an X-wing, because it has the potential to carry warheads. Expanding along the line we're talking...an X-wing's torps should do more damage if its going at full burn towards a target when they fire. Its a cinematic system, it does that well by being rules light compared to other systems. Its not supposed to be Rolemaster, or Warhammer Fantasy. By all of the rules being added I can see it dragging the game down into 'Look at chart D, column 7 to figure out your range, then reference Chart Q for damage based on that range'.
I feel that all the rules modifications that are being discussed, while each on their own don't seem big, when applied together bloat the system. Frankly, some aren't even necessary as they harm the flow of the game.
Ultimately to each their own though, so I'll back out of the conversation now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Ah, but that is where you are wrong. I actually have a total of about 5 minutes of firearms training under my belt, and that was basic safety. I understand the physics of it all, but I have never spent even two weeks training in distance shooting. I'm pretty dexterous, so we can assume 3D dexterity, and maybe 1D of firearms skill on top of that. I'm a decent shot, with a good eye, but I'm no marksman/sniper. |
In that case, I would revise your stats to remove your advanced skill, and then, if you rolled straight-6's then doubled down and rolled three straight-6's again, then the result of your spectacular Wild Dice success was that you hit an improbably distant target, even though it was well outside of your weapon's effective range. Either that or I'd use the 10% penalties suggested above and increase the base difficulty of the shot to the point where you would need a spectacular Wild Die success to even come close.
| Quote: | | Well, no, we're not arguing terminology. My point is that one shouldn't need to make the (A) investment at all, before they even have a hope of hitting out past long range. I say that either suitable equipment or a standard skill (not an advanced one) should be sufficient. Particularly, my point is that equipment obviously can suffice in place of training and special skills in the real world, so they ought to in RPG rules, too. |
But pulling some moron off the street and handing him an M40 or M82 will never make him a sniper, regardless of how good the gun is. If you put all the emphasis on equipment, it ignores the fact that people who shoot at the distances have special training that greatly increases your chance of success.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this all boils down to how realistic versus cinematic you want your game.
In most movies an untrained hero can pick up the sniper rifle and make the shot at the critical juncture, even if its not a kill shot.
In real life there are complicated equations, scope settings, breathing techniques, and other difficult tasks that need to be performed properly to make that shot.
It comes down to personal preference on the game you want to run/play in.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: |
In most movies an untrained hero can pick up the sniper rifle and make the shot at the critical juncture, even if its not a kill shot.
|
What movies are you watching that has a hero picking up a sniper rifle and making the critical shot?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
In shooter the FBI agent becomes a trained sniper in a matter of days.
There was a movie I saw the end of years ago where an cop, searching for a sniper, finds him and he flees, and shoots him with his sniper rifle as he drives away at high speed.
I'll try to come up with other examples.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the novel upon which Shooter was based, the FBI agent was a former SWAT sniper who had quit after accidentally shooting and paralyzing a hostage. Background they should've included in the film.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
