Sletch pontificates on gun combat in SC3

[Mister Andersen]

Thing is, depending on the ammo/weapon involved, you'd be entirely justified declaring certain firearms as effectively having a beam attack

[MilitiaJim]

Thing is, depending on the ammo/weapon involved, you'd be entirely justified declaring certain firearms as effectively having a beam attack

*cough*miniandGatlingguns*cough*

[Sletchman]

Thing is, depending on the ammo/weapon involved, you'd be entirely justified declaring certain firearms as effectively having a beam attack

*cough*miniandGatlingguns*cough*

Even single shot things in huge calibers - a "Big .50" will overpenetrate humans like nobodies business.  I tried to impart that concept onto a player of mine, but unfortunately it had rather the opposite effect.

A beam attack would be a very cool idea for weapons with the GAT quality (and even many belt fed machine guns in general).  The only problem might be some quick trig for high/low ground, but I wouldn't have a problem with doing that.

[Mister Andersen]

Now see, with "beam weapons" I'd give it a really chunky error range -- 1-5 at least -- with the idea that getting an error doesn't mess you up, it means that you've managed to hit something or someone you probably shouldn't have.

[Sletchman]

Now see, with "beam weapons" I'd give it a really chunky error range -- 1-5 at least -- with the idea that getting an error doesn't mess you up, it means that you've managed to hit something or someone you probably shouldn't have.

I'm for that.  Though I still think that the core rules should remove "it's not an error if you succeed", especially if that error range comes from an item, rather then being purely skill based.

[Mister Andersen]

See, I like the idea of error+success. There's a lot of narrative possibility there.

[Sletchman]

See, I like the idea of error+success. There's a lot of narrative possibility there.

I'm curious if anyone doesn't like the idea.  It's just so much more interesting (and makes the number you roll as interesting as the total you get).  It also creates room for some interesting new flawless skill type character options (for those who want to have an ultra reliable schtick).

I thought about making a poll to see who was for / against, but it just didn't feel like my place to do so.

[TheTSKoala]

Devil's advocate here.  If we're giving guns a 'beam weapon' style attack, there would be a very slippery slope when it comes to scenery damage.  Technically... any long arm round should start ignore ALOT of objects at that point.  Normal Car doors.. doors.. windows.. ..house siding... I'm personally voting against.  Not because it's a bad idea, but it opens a nightmare of possibilities in my head that come terribly close to 'way too realistic'.

[Mister Andersen]

It's not all guns, it's certain very specific guns/ammo combos that are known to massively over penetrate.

[Crafty_Pat]

I thought about making a poll to see who was for / against, but it just didn't feel like my place to do so.

I believe polls are authorized for all users.

[TheTSKoala]

It's not all guns, it's certain very specific guns/ammo combos that are known to massively over penetrate.

Yeah.. I can see the point of it.. just.. a slippery slope to figure out what the point of "over penetration" is.  .50 cal?  Good canidate.  7.62?  Can.  etc etc.   Just playing devil's advocate a little. 

[Jake]

I had a thought and this seemed a decent place to post it. IIRC when taking a carbine version of a weapon in 2.0 the only things that changed were a reduction in range and an increase in recoil. It would be nice if there was some sort of bonus to balance out with these, maybe a a crit bonus in CQB.

[Crafty_Pat]

I had a thought and this seemed a decent place to post it. IIRC when taking a carbine version of a weapon in 2.0 the only things that changed were a reduction in range and an increase in recoil. It would be nice if there was some sort of bonus to balance out with these, maybe a a crit bonus in CQB.

We'll take a closer look at that. Thanks!

[Sletchman]

I had a thought and this seemed a decent place to post it. IIRC when taking a carbine version of a weapon in 2.0 the only things that changed were a reduction in range and an increase in recoil. It would be nice if there was some sort of bonus to balance out with these, maybe a a crit bonus in CQB.

Or even just a bonus to concealment.  That would be easy to script into a carbine "upgrade" - reduce weight by 20%, reduce range by 20% (to nearest 5 ft), +1 Recoil and +2 to Stash checks.

[MilitiaJim]

I had a thought and this seemed a decent place to post it. IIRC when taking a carbine version of a weapon in 2.0 the only things that changed were a reduction in range and an increase in recoil. It would be nice if there was some sort of bonus to balance out with these, maybe a a crit bonus in CQB.

The "bonus" to the carbine versions of full sized rifles is that they are lighter and easier to carry around All The Time.  Saving two pounds and four inches is right handy for folks who "need" a weapon, but will never actually need to use it; they can easily pay the "price" in reduced range.

A CQB crit bonus for carbines is inaccurate in every way I can think of.