| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hm.. didn;t know that about the good FBI officer in shooter who helped our 'hero'.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The novel is called point of impact, by Stephen Hunter, IIRC.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ral_Brelt"]I'm really not trying to flame or troll...the pushing the blaster was a sarcastic bit. {/quote]
I know.
| Quote: |
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? |
Not within 10 feet, although it will lose it down range.
| Quote: |
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. |
Actually it does, for two reasons. First off the energy does drop a bit over the 40 feet, and that does reduce the damage a bit, but secondly the bullet itself rises and drops some. This not only makes it more difficult to hit the target (already factored into the range bands), but also makes it less likely for a hit to get the exect location the shooter wanted to hit, and that makes a big difference with "damage", especially with handguns. Up close there is a much better chance of hitting a vital organ. Most firefights take place within 20 feet.
Range becomes an even greater factor with a shotgun loaded with shot. Up close the pellets don't spread and hit like a slug. At range they spread out and while that increases the likelihood of a hit, only a smaller number of the pellets hit, and for less damage.
| Quote: |
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. |
Hold on. I can see an argument being made for not doing it. But there is a real setback here. Damage should be dropping a few dice over range. Now while that 9mm above doesn't lose 60% of it's energy over 10 feet, quite a few firearms loose 60% of their energy at long range.
"Damage" in D6 doesn't accumulate quite the same way it does in hit point based games. In a game like D&D a weapon that does 1D6 or even 1D2 is still doing some damage to the target with each hit. In D6 that's not the case. Character get a STR roll to soak damage. So a weapon that does only 1D damage or so isn't going to be much of a threat.
In the real world things like effective range actually vary from shooter to shooter. In fact, what most militaries use as the effective range is the range at which an average skilled shooter can hit a mansized target half the time. The actual weapons can throw a bullet several times the actual range that one can actually aim and hit a target. So extending the ranges isn't a case of munckinism.
| Quote: |
Part two is that if its going to be done it should be done right. |
No argument there.
| Quote: |
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. |
Not if it is done right. For instance if the modifiers are set up easily we wouldn't need charts.
| Quote: |
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. |
Not necessarily. You see bullets do damage by dumping energy into the target on impact. Greater velocity means greater energy and greater damage. Blasters are somewhat different, but still dump energy into the target. But a missile with a warhead is different. A missile inflicts damage primarily by exploding the warhead. And this damage isn't going to be affected by the speed the missile is traveling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | 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? |
Been thinkin' hard and I can't think of any other examples.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dic1
Cadet
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 24
Location: Sydney, Australlia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | 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. |
This is covered in the RAW, A expert marksman lets say 6D blaster skill V common joe 4D blaster skill.
If they both just pick up a weapon the marksman has the advantage, But if joe has time to brace the weapon (1 round of aiming) and use a scope they both wind up with 6D.
The big difference is the time taken to prepare for the shot. After all the 2D difference in skill is 27cp, depending of how liberal the gm is with rewards this represents a lot of time and training to improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, if using the Stormtrooper-1 blaster rifle, they gain +1d more from using the stock!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
