Autofire & Burst

[TheTSKoala]

Thanks for the edit Ninja.

Koala, I think you need to run the numbers.  I will confess I didn't before I thought up that feat, but here is what I came up with:

Light Tank Defense = 19  Save bonus = +30
roll   BAB   Dex   Auto    Total   Effect   Dmg   Save
         Shot            Needed
         Penalty
5   15   3   -10   13   Nil             N/A
10   15   3   -10   18   Nil             N/A
15   15   3   -10   23   8d4   8-32   14-26
20   15   3   -10   28   12d4   12-48 16-34
AD    15   3   -10   59   40d4   40-160  30-90   

Until you practically score a triumph yourself, that SAW is not going to be hurting that light tank.  If you get a triumph against the tank, I think you're entitled to some fireworks.  Please check those numbers and let me know if I missed something.  Does someone want to draw a little graph of damage you can do with a SAW?

Jim, you're right.  I definitely forgot to increase by 3 for every hit.  Shows you how often I use high range auto fire.  (I think the most my players ever went for was 3.) 

However.. let me actually run this out in my head.  I score a hit for every 3 over (assuming an Auto-fire jockey is all the way up the autofire tree.)

Let's go with 5 volleys.  -5 to attack.  Same stats as before.  So.. +13/+8/+3/-2 to hit with the volleys for the attacker.

Light tank has a (+9 Def) + (+Driver Dex) + (+Acceleration Difference) + (+Turning Difference).  So.. +9+1+2 (Is a tank turning rated better than a person's torso?).. we've got a 12.  (My 2nd printing is with a player, so if I'm missing errata, let me know.)  ((If I'm missing flat out.. let me know.  My group is very light on vehicle combat.  Minus amazing dramatics, we use it infrequently.  So.. I'll be the first to admit, I'm rusty.)

First hit... 95% to hit.  4D4 (4-16 DC)
Second hit... 80% to hit.  8D4 (8-32 DC)
Third hit... 55% to hit.  12D4 (12-48 DC)
Fourth hit... 30% to hit.  16D4 (16-64 DC)

Am I off on this one?

[MilitiaJim]

I think you're pretty close, if not spot on.  I think my point was that the damage isn't quite that severe, and to hit all the prerequisites, I think you're entitled to some overkill.  I am tempted to not let it apply to strafing, which would let the GC hit said automonkey with waves of moderately tough mooks.

The real problem I see is that to make mooks who are any sort of challenge to this character, they are pretty invincible against characters not focused on combat.  Though maybe not using the second rank let's the other characters benefit from special ammo and still be effective.  Thoughts?

Jim - I think that tank's def's a little high. A light tank has a Def of *9*, which translates to 3 more hits in your model at each level.

Ah.  See, I knew I was missing something, I was using 19 as my target number.  Still, 49 isn't an easy number to hit.  But yeah, house rule it and it's not horrid, but it sure is open to some abuse.

If it's any consolation, you really can do some mission critical damage with a machine gun, if you do it right.  Would it help balance any to restrict this to CQB range?  (No, then you just get one of those auto-shotguns with slugs.)

[TheTSKoala]

I think you're pretty close, if not spot on.  I think my point was that the damage isn't quite that severe, and to hit all the prerequisites, I think you're entitled to some overkill.  I am tempted to not let it apply to strafing, which would let the GC hit said automonkey with waves of moderately tough mooks.

The real problem I see is that to make mooks who are any sort of challenge to this character, they are pretty invincible against characters not focused on combat.  Though maybe not using the second rank let's the other characters benefit from special ammo and still be effective.  Thoughts?

Jim - I think that tank's def's a little high. A light tank has a Def of *9*, which translates to 3 more hits in your model at each level.

Ah.  See, I knew I was missing something, I was using 19 as my target number.  Still, 49 isn't an easy number to hit.  But yeah, house rule it and it's not horrid, but it sure is open to some abuse.

If it's any consolation, you really can do some mission critical damage with a machine gun, if you do it right.  Would it help balance any to restrict this to CQB range?  (No, then you just get one of those auto-shotguns with slugs.)

Okay.. now that I've poked holes... let's try to DC some of that.  

Hmmm... I like the destructive idea of the feat.. this feat can literally tear through a bunker... which I like the idea.  Alot.  (I'm all about scene destruction if you've never could tell.)

What about adding onto I:

"Vehicles targeted by this feat have their Damage saves doubled."

That way.. at least they need to push it to the 5-7 hit range to even threaten an armored vehicle.  I'm also looking at it as a GC who has players who would see that feat, and go try to take a Space Shuttle out of the air in mid launch.

[MilitiaJim]

...try to take a Space Shuttle out of the air in mid launch.

You hardly need that feat to take out the Space Shuttle.  One ATGM at the ET when she's full.  Kerblam.

I'm torn between thinking this feat should be useful for massive overkill, and agreeing that something like doubling the vehicles save when attacked is necessary.  How amenable to later on adjustments are your players?  This seems like the feat for turning cars to swiss cheese, but it's still less reliable for killing tanks than a missile.

[TheTSKoala]

...try to take a Space Shuttle out of the air in mid launch.

You hardly need that feat to take out the Space Shuttle.  One ATGM at the ET when she's full.  Kerblam.

I'm torn between thinking this feat should be useful for massive overkill, and agreeing that something like doubling the vehicles save when attacked is necessary.  How amenable to later on adjustments are your players?  This seems like the feat for turning cars to swiss cheese, but it's still less reliable for killing tanks than a missile.

Oh.. my players are used to me modifying house rules, espically after a play session where something was horribly overpowered or terribly suckage.  (See my Bar Brawl homemade feats.  I think I'm on revision 4.)  (Gore off the roof of a small high rise.. the attacker lived with barely a scratch.  ...woops.) 

Though.. you're right.. I'm almost tempted to arm a temporary PC (one of my players who pops in and out) with it.. put them in the back of a mini-van.. and have an LA Highway Chase...

[MilitiaJim]

Make it a full size van.  Does the player have a standard character, or do you give him a new one every time?  If you make a new one, give him a customized weapon not known for its magazine capacity and add a drum, maybe a Garand or a C-96 Mauser in .45, not 9mm, and let him open the back door and go to town.

[TheTSKoala]

Make it a full size van.  Does the player have a standard character, or do you give him a new one every time?  If you make a new one, give him a customized weapon not known for its magazine capacity and add a drum, maybe a Garand or a C-96 Mauser in .45, not 9mm, and let him open the back door and go to town.

The player typically plays some sort of a "Mission Special" character that I have stat'd out.  (Marriage, career, 2 kids, etc. makes him an infrequent, but enjoyable, player to have.)  I think I like that idea of the drum firing C-96.  Give him a German ethnic background, and a love for auto-fire.  Yes!

[MilitiaJim]

Father was one of the POWs kept at Fort Hood, in buildings the Marines still sleep in when they're training there, and immigrated instead of being repatriated.  Mother lived on farm/ranch where he started working after the war. 

Oh dear.  I just got an idea that's either awesome or awful:  Triggerman, with enough engineering to mod his own weapons.  Two C-96s, in .45ACP, each with a 30 round drum.  Toss in the precise burst and a safety harness so he doesn't even need to hold on...yeah, chasing that van will be a losing proposition.

[Desertpuma]

Why not use a Thompson M1928? ... My LSpy character had one. It was a great rugged weapon and can unload tremendous damage when using the 50 round drum. If you feel really daring, go two weapon firing with them.

As for the feats suggested, I see no problem with them if you up the feat requirements somewhat to the point where selection of the feat will require approx. 6 or 7 feats outright to obtain it. Someone willing to go that far to obtain the new feat, almost to the exclusion of the others, deserves a bit of break in that regard, dontcha think?

I'm without my book here at work but Marksmanship Mastery and the feat from WoF which requires a 12+ BAB to get where it is like fish in barrel shooting would seem appropriate here.

[Deral]

Instead of going to great lengths to make sure vehicles aren't outright destroyed by the feat- especially when Autofire already works pretty well against vehicles- why not just add "when targeting a special or standard NPC" to the feats?

[Desertpuma]

Or "when targeting a NPC" ... vehicles are not NPCs unless they are a Transmech

[MugMug]

Which Transmechs we need to not forget about when crafting these feats. Does it make sense that a Transmech would be more vulnerable to this kind of attack than would be a mundane vehicle?

Walter

[Desertpuma]

I guess it depends if it is a lightning gun ...

But seriously folks ... probably not more vulnerable which really calls into question the whole NPC aspect of it. A group of Transmech NPC motorcycles where only one is a Henchman and the rest minions would make the Henchman more vulnerable.

[Deral]

Or "when targeting a NPC" ... vehicles are not NPCs unless they are a Transmech

Right, well my intention was just to exclude vehicles from the effects of the feats- I split it up just for clarification but I think the point came across anyway. I don't know the rules for Transmechs, but I'd say it's pretty straight forward, if they work like vehicles when targeted with a normal attack then allowing the feats to affect them would be comparable in strength to allowing it to work on vehicles.

[OverNinja]

I'd still like to be able to sink Japanese destroyers with the massed fire from six .50in machineguns.