Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: DamienHollow on <01-12-13/0049:27>
-
Shotguns are my favorite real world firearms, being less of a conventional "gun" and more of a "payload delivery system" capable of being loaded with everything from rock salt to explosive slugs. But I have a hard time swallowing Shadowrun's Shotgun rules.
Real world, a 12 gauge slug works out to about 18mm in diameter and leave the barrel at around 1600 fps (this actually means they are faster and heavier than many .45-70 gvt. loads and deliver 50-100% more energy than most modern assault rifle rounds) Being typically bare lead or hollow/ballistic point, they expand rapidly and do tremendous amounts of damage.
In Shadowrun, the shotgun does barely any more damage than a rifle without even half the range. Shot is considered nearly worthless to the point they only have Flechette rules which grant insane bonuses to enemy armor (ignoring the fact that one of those darts might just slip though an unprotected area..) Essentially they've completely removed any and all advantage the shotgun holds in real life without providing a good reason to use one.
So it boils down to this, is there any reason to even have these in the game and not just give all shotguns some arbitrary reference?
-
The only advantage of shotguns at least in my experience is that they are part of the longarm skill so if you are building a sniper they are nice as a back up gun. The fact that there are full auto shotguns that can use any type of ammo is a nice alternative to a sniper rifle in certain situations.
-
Shock Lock ammunition. Pretty much one of the best rounds for blowing down a door.
-
Shock Lock ammunition. Pretty much one of the best rounds for blowing down a door.
Yeah, but isn't that what the party troll is for?
-
Shock Lock ammunition. Pretty much one of the best rounds for blowing down a door.
Yeah, but isn't that what the party troll is for?
Not every team has a troll. At least not the metatype; pretty much all groups have at least one of the other kind. :P
-
Not every team has a troll. At least not the metatype; pretty much all groups have at least one of the other kind. :P
Yeah, ours was the GM, that's why I don't play with him anymore.
-
Dragonsbreath rounds are great for when you have to kill something with fire!
-
Thing is, Damien, shotgun blasts really are great at short range against unarmored targets - less so at longer ranges, or against an armored target. Just part of reality, which is folded into the game by the rules. *shrugs*
-
Thing is, Damien, shotgun blasts really are great at short range against unarmored targets - less so at longer ranges, or against an armored target. Just part of reality, which is folded into the game by the rules. *shrugs*
Full Auto Long Burst plus Corridor.
Messy is an understatement.
-
max of 9DV with a +5 AP, street gangs might fall easy prey but anyone with a 4 Ballistic takes nothing but stun. Though that's a lot of stun.
I'm not arguing about the range, I'm saying that it's one less reason to go for shotgun.
-
It depends on the type of game you play. If shooting mostly takes place in buildings, the longer range of an assault riffle shouldn't be much of an issue. I often give a shotgun to non-primary combat characters (like hackers and such). It does more than a pistol and in those characters I don't often see an assault riffle background-wise. Also most shotguns have lower availability and don't raise as many questions if Lone star or KE finds then in your van.
-
Depends on whether you're using shot or slugs how useful a shotgun is. Personally, for any sniper build I find that they're a great backup weapon. I also use them sometimes on Face/Hacker types, especially when I'm a low IP character in the meat. A 1-2 IP character with a shotgun is a bigger threat than a 1-2 IP character with a pistol, IMO. Especially if you're just trying to hold people off or look intimidating until the street samurai and the weapons specialist look this way.
-
Shotguns are AMAZING and most people underestimate them.
- In crowded areas you can hit up to 3 targets twice per round.
- +5 Armor is not going to add up to that much damage resisted in most cases. +2 DV is better than +5 AP.
- Unarmored targets can be taken out very efficiently
- You always have the option to use slugs and they're decent
Shotguns have weaknesses too, primarily the poor range on flechettes. But in the right circumstances they're very deadly. The advantages I listed were off the top of my head, there are more that I forgot.
-
Also remember that with a wide choke setting, a non-combat character may not be doing much damage, but he can make multiple enemies have to dodge with every shot. With two Simple Actions, they would be at -2 to dodge attacks from the combat oriented characters even if they soak all the stun.
-
Yup shotguns fully auto on one or 5 of those lovely little Arachne drones (as illustrated in a previous thread) if its a weapon for security forces its perfect.It`s not likely to over penetrate and you can load the rounds with dozens of security Rfids to activate at a time of your choosing letting local law enforcent get a reasonably easy arrest unless of course the party have stripped naked, scrubbed, had a magnetic hoover running over any open wounds and have secured any kit used in a faraday cage. Hell for security purposes load some of the rounds with DMSO and a horse laxative, almost guaranteed physical link for sorcery purposes.
-
My GM implemented a change that helped my Sniper mage. Since he wasn't happy that SnS rounds did all the damage and did the don't taze my bro effect, he ruled that only SnS rounds fire from shotguns have enough power to deal the DTMB effect. That and an AA16 loaded with AP Flechette rounds means the entire room is going to be destroyed with only have the ammo.
Even though the AA16 is a watered down version of the real life AA12, it is an awesome gun for anyone with longarms.
-
Longarms are also very useful for grabbing things a normal person me be unable to reach.
-
Paracritters.
Most of them aren't armored, so shotguns work great against them. Very handy when you're facing a few Cockatrices.
-
max of 9DV with a +5 AP, street gangs might fall easy prey but anyone with a 4 Ballistic takes nothing but stun. Though that's a lot of stun.
I'm not arguing about the range, I'm saying that it's one less reason to go for shotgun.
If you have the money and connections to get it, AP-fletchette rounds remove that +5AP, ofcource most of the time your better of doing stun damage anyway so it's not much of an issue(i seriously can't understand the obsession many people seem to have with doing physical damage)
-
Shotguns are very meh weapons. They're what you use when not sniping as a Longarms user, because they come in a package deal with the Barrett. With proper mods, the AA12's magical gas-vent system makes it only a bit worse than a battle rifle.
-
Hell for security purposes load some of the rounds with DMSO and a horse laxative, almost guaranteed physical link for sorcery purposes.
That's just nasty and just the way we like it. +1 to you.
-
Maybe we will luck out in 5th edition and Armor Piercing Flichette rounds from War will replace the sucky normal ones.
-
Not likely, but I do think that automatic weapons should be a little more restricted in the range of ammunition they can fire, and shotguns should be open to more. I've already gone over aspects like real-world shotguns being the only weapons to deploy stick-and-shock rounds in the real world now. It hasn't come up yet, because my players have generally stuck with either: Automatics with burst-fire and regular ammo, Sniper rifles with APDS, or tasers, but making "SnS" shotgun-only or more easily available for shotguns is something I'm considering.
-
The tech present in SR is far beyond what we have now, so it isn't really fair to rule just based on what we have now. Miniaturization has taken off in the SR setting, so thinking that the Stick-n-Shock rounds we have now (12 guage roughly 18mm) can be shrunk down to fit on a light pistol round (.22 caliber is roughly 5.5mm) isn't at all out of line. Just consider how far nanotech has come just since 2050 in the setting.
Shotguns do have a few more options already than automatics, but I think those options should be expanded much further (rather than limiting automatics).
-
Not likely, but I do think that automatic weapons should be a little more restricted in the range of ammunition they can fire, and shotguns should be open to more. I've already gone over aspects like real-world shotguns being the only weapons to deploy stick-and-shock rounds in the real world now. It hasn't come up yet, because my players have generally stuck with either: Automatics with burst-fire and regular ammo, Sniper rifles with APDS, or tasers, but making "SnS" shotgun-only or more easily available for shotguns is something I'm considering.
I would rather suggest making shotgun S&S rounds more powerful (for example 8S) as the bigger rounds can have bigger capacitors.
As i i believe its better to give incentives for using something rather then ruling away something else.
-
The tech present in SR is far beyond what we have now, so it isn't really fair to rule just based on what we have now. Miniaturization has taken off in the SR setting, so thinking that the Stick-n-Shock rounds we have now (12 guage roughly 18mm) can be shrunk down to fit on a light pistol round (.22 caliber is roughly 5.5mm) isn't at all out of line. Just consider how far nanotech has come just since 2050 in the setting.
Shotguns do have a few more options already than automatics, but I think those options should be expanded much further (rather than limiting automatics).
All it is is people griping about SnS, but after nerfing or banning it, they'll start griping about "too much armor" since they've nerfed or banned one of the mitigators for high armor.
-
They already do, A4BG. They already do...
-
They already do, A4BG. They already do...
Yeah, but generally the ones I see complaining about high armor are ones I've seen mention their dislike for that ammunition.
-
That's what I was saying. There's an excellent foil for super-heavy armor that isn't magic dependent and I've seen a lot of ppl who want nothing to do with it.
Of course, one of my favorite foils for the heavy armor guy is capsule rounds loaded with nanites. So...not exactly who you want running against you, I guess.
-
Back in SR1, armored clothing was rare on the streets, blades were still more common than pistols. That's changed a lot over the last 24-years, and the lowering cost of armor has made it more affordable to the average person on the street.
The real main advantage to shotguns, however, is they are INTIMIDATING! (http://youtu.be/i0_TGeM-s7o)
-
Yeah even in SR3 shotguns were a big deal in close combat. In SR4... though the automatics rules and the mass amounts of recoil comp make them chopped liver though.
The only thing going is shock-lock rounds.
I agree with your assertion that they make good payload delivery systems though... their lower muzzle velocities and high bore sizes allows for a lot more viable payloads which don't need to worry about the G-shock on firing as much. I personally feel that SnS should be shotgun only... I'd also love to see a return to the classic 40mm single shot grenade and grenades which are actually bigass scary grenades.... the mini-grenades described in the system as fired by the SR4 current generation of GL's are almost exactly the same size as a 12guage shell as well. You toss those three together... and i think you'd see shotguns make a comeback as a distinct utility weapon. (slugs, shot/flechette, SnS, shock-lock, and mini/microgrenades).
-
Hell for security purposes load some of the rounds with DMSO and a horse laxative, almost guaranteed physical link for sorcery purposes.
I really hope my GM doesn't read this post...
That said, I agree that shotguns are a bit underrated. I think the issue is that they are a little...primitive. By 2070 firearms tech has advanced in every category, but shotguns are still basically smooth tubes with an explosion at one end and an opening at the other. They have become specialized tools than they are general weapons (which is sort of the opposite of what they are now) as other weapons have become more powerful, more accurate, more versatile and more customizable.
I would like to see more shotgun-exclusive ammos (like Shock-Lock) that give them specific roles as tools in addition to being useful as weapons. I also agree that SnS fired from a shotgun should be slightly more powerful, maybe make it 7S and lower other guns to 5S or something.
-
Hell for security purposes load some of the rounds with DMSO and a horse laxative, almost guaranteed physical link for sorcery purposes.
I really hope my GM doesn't read this post...
This one has, but it was the player's own choice to glug the bottle of "Draino Stomach Pump" without reading the suggested servings.
Yeah, he was a troll, it was still the family-sized bottle. A troll family, at that!
-
Hell for security purposes load some of the rounds with DMSO and a horse laxative, almost guaranteed physical link for sorcery purposes.
I really hope my GM doesn't read this post...
This one has, but it was the player's own choice to glug the bottle of "Draino Stomach Pump" without reading the suggested servings.
Yeah, he was a troll, it was still the family-sized bottle. A troll family, at that!
*Brain bleach*
-
I like shotguns.
I'm not sure how common it is, but the groups I've played in have house-ruled that only shotguns can use stick-n-shock rounds, which makes sense and gives shotguns a nice 'Anti-spirits' bonus role.
Roleplaying/character-wise, my troll carries a sawn-off shotgun without a stock and uses it as a pistol. I use the longarms skill still, but there's something kind of neat about pulling out twin barrels of death from a thick armored trenchcoat when the puny meatbags around you fumble around with their pistols.
-
I'll admit that until the armor-piercing flechette ammo came out in WAR!, I never once considered putting shot in a shotgun. I always use ExEx, APDS, SnS, or Shock Lock rounds. I have had characters that carried two shotguns, one with lethal or SnS ammo, and the other one sawed off and on a sling, with shock lock rounds, as a 'master key'.
-
The only advantage of shotguns at least in my experience is that they are part of the longarm skill so if you are building a sniper they are nice as a back up gun. The fact that there are full auto shotguns that can use any type of ammo is a nice alternative to a sniper rifle in certain situations.
Not going to read the whole thread before responding, but oh well:
(1) Anecdotally, I have never built a sniper nor played with someone who built a sniper and was satisfied with the role of "sniper." It just gets really boring and narrow if that's your main thing. Umaro has gone into why this role (while glamorous-sounding) doesn't really fit a great majority of the runs and I happen to agree (given typical relative spontaneity of ops, typical engagement ranges, and how much people seem to want to headshot but don't want to be headshot themselves).
(2) I don't like shotguns because they can't be modded or silenced to the same extent as any other gun. Shock lock aside, they're too loud, not concealable enough, too terrible at full-auto with their fewer options for RC. Shock lock doesn't outweigh the fact that flechettes pretty much suck against any reasonably-armored or tough opponent.
On the other front, SnS should scale in its effect based on the normal damage code of the gun it's shot from.
-
Where does it say what weapons can use a silencer / suppressor, besides the accessory paragraph?
-
even if you can't suppress one, you can easily justify house-ruling silent ammo... they've made it in real life.
-
(2) I don't like shotguns because they can't be modded or silenced to the same extent as any other gun.
You know, I just checked it because a poster asked here - the Silencer/Sound Suppressor rules don't prevent putting it on a shotgun by RAW. For some reason.
As for Concealability: Barrel Reduction (-1), Sling (-1/-2 for ready/unready), Lined Coat (-2). That's -5 without adding the Concealable Holster (no reason by RAW that we can't).
Longarms SHOULD be the utility set. Shotguns for special ammo or high damage in close range (better damage codes than Assault Rifles), Sporting or Sniper Rifles for longer range engagements. And, especially considering that War doesn't seem to specify a skill for them, if they showed up at one of my games I'd rule Battle Rifles into Longarms. Is there a clarification somewhere that sets them into Automatics?
-
Longarms SHOULD be the utility set. Shotguns for special ammo or high damage in close range (better damage codes than Assault Rifles), Sporting or Sniper Rifles for longer range engagements. And, especially considering that War doesn't seem to specify a skill for them, if they showed up at one of my games I'd rule Battle Rifles into Longarms. Is there a clarification somewhere that sets them into Automatics?
None that i cna find, and it would be fairly dumb considering the classification Battle Rifle is based on weapons like the M1 Garrard, M14, FAL (meh... it's a battle rifle that wants to be an assault rifle but that is neither here nor there,) ect. of those only one ever saw use as an automatic.
-
It's in Gun Haven, the first one. They put Battle Rifles in with Automatics.
-
A battle rifle is an up-powered version of an assault rifl e. It fi res heavier
caliber rounds than an assault rifle and offers better accuracy at longer
ranges. It is heavier than an assault rifle, which helps compensate for the
added recoil of the larger round. A battle rifle’s role lies between that of an
assault rifl e and a sniper rifl e. Battle rifles use sporting rifl e ranges, and can
take any modification or accessory available to assault rifl es.
The Battle Rifle requires the Automatics skill to use effectively.
-
even if you can't suppress one, you can easily justify house-ruling silent ammo... they've made it in real life.
Rule Zero Fallacy.
Turns out I'm wrong about silencing, even though that's really weird. Still, they can't gas-vent.
-
even if you can't suppress one, you can easily justify house-ruling silent ammo... they've made it in real life.
Rule Zero Fallacy.
Turns out I'm wrong about silencing, even though that's really weird. Still, they can't gas-vent.
Yeah, but if you're in SA or BF mode, it is pretty easy to eliminate recoil, even without gas-vents. And you can't use gas vent and silencers at the same time.
-
It's in Gun Haven, the first one. They put Battle Rifles in with Automatics.
That's unfortunate. I'd still houserule it otherwise, though - in fact, if you're dissatisfied with Automatics being too much of a One Skill, a couple of recategorizations could solve your problem. Most obvious choices would be Machine Pistols into Pistols and Battle Rifles into Longarms. That along with some minor changes to to shotguns (more exclusive ammo options, maybe making SnS unique to or uniquely effective for shotguns, and perhaps giving shotgun gel rounds a stronger secondary affect due to the greater mass of the projectile) should make things work.
-
The skills are fine as-is. Sure Automatics has one more gun type, but oh well. It's those weapons that that skill covers that will cause the most problems (aside from Heavy Weapons) if you're caught with one. True, the same could be said for sniper rifles, but a shotgun or sport rifle could be easily explained away by saying you're going to be going on a hunting trip in the next couple of hours.
-
I see a royal mess happening with this, but couldn't things like the Machine Pistol (a weapon you hardly see in real life) be dual class (automatics and Pistols) and just use the higher of your two skills?
-
The skills are fine as-is. Sure Automatics has one more gun type, but oh well. It's those weapons that that skill covers that will cause the most problems (aside from Heavy Weapons) if you're caught with one. True, the same could be said for sniper rifles, but a shotgun or sport rifle could be easily explained away by saying you're going to be going on a hunting trip in the next couple of hours.
Unless it's the wrong shotgun - good luck explaining why you need an AA-16 to go hunting.
It's not about number of gun types, however. It's about the number of problems those firearms solve. Automatics gives you good concealability (Machine Pistols), extremely strong offensive capability and fully automatic weapons with SMG's and Assault Rifles, and long range of engagement with Battle Rifles.
Frankly, Machine Pistols can be left alone - shifting Battle Rifles gives a somewhat needed boost to Longarms, and means that Automatics isn't providing a weapon for every problem - thus giving a character more reason to take more weapon skills. Pistols for concealability (Machine Pistols might due in a pinch, but they ARE worse for this than any Pistols option), Automatics for general combat purposes, and Longarms for longer distances or specialty munitions. And thus, any of them are a real option for a combative build, with particular advantages and disadvantages - this is real balance.
-
Personally, I'd rather see machine pistols just subsumed into heavy / light /hold out, while SMGs and rifles get better recoil reduction & damage.
Battle rifles feel more like a solution seeking a problem, as far as core rules go.
-
The issue with Automatics is that it just does not make any sense. A machine pistol like the FN 5-7C uses a different skill than a heavy pistol like the Salvette Guardian when both are firing in BF even though they use the same frame type. Similarly, there is no reason for a Battle Rifle being fired in SA to use a completely different skill than a Sport Rifle firing in SA. It's the same style of shooting.
The best solution, what I'm hoping gets done in SR5, is to toss Automatics into a bottomless pit, roll Machine Pistols and SMGs into the Pistols skill, and toss Assault Rifles and Battle Rifles into the Longarms skill. Toss Gunnery or Heavy Weapons into the Firearms group to replace the lost Automatics skill and everything would work fine.
-
even if you can't suppress one, you can easily justify house-ruling silent ammo... they've made it in real life.
Rule Zero Fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy.
"Argumentum ad logicam, is the logical fallacy that if an argument contains a logical fallacy all of the entire proposition is wrong."
-
even if you can't suppress one, you can easily justify house-ruling silent ammo... they've made it in real life.
Rule Zero Fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy.
"Argumentum ad logicam, is the logical fallacy that if an argument contains a logical fallacy all of the entire proposition is wrong."
I'm not certain why this has caused such a stir. I can see plenty of reason to want silenced ammunition as opposed to a silenced weapon (for one it's far more effective at signature reduction at the cost of power.) and it's something that's actually been done with several rounds, not just shotguns.
As far as whether or not rules are broken or not, I just leave the rules to the developers and make house rules to patch things until they actually fix them. That's the point of house rules, isn't it?
-
My point was basically, whether or not shotguns can/should be silenced SHOULD be something the mechanics developers considered and wrote into the rules, given we're playing basically special ops disposable assets. Not really interested in discussing potential house rules TBH.
-
Seriously? You are winging about what someone else wrote and are not interested in making a fix at your table?
Why the hell talk to us, then?
-
Because some of us like to play by the normal rules... and not house rule everything and anything. Keeping that to a minimum.
As soon as you start doing a ton of houseruling you end up with SR3 where one table would do things vastly different than another... and vastly different problems/game experiences.
-
Because some of us like to play by the normal rules... and not house rule everything and anything. Keeping that to a minimum.
As soon as you start doing a ton of houseruling you end up with SR3 where one table would do things vastly different than another... and vastly different problems/game experiences.
That's kind of one of the constants of tabletop gaming. You can't write a game such that nobody will houserule, rather, you can only hope to write one such that people will houserule because they want to rather than need to.
-
Crazy idea that might make shotguns a bit more popular and useful...
sports rifles, sniper rifles and assault rifles are all designed for relatively long engagement ranges, and can be unwieldy and more difficult to aim in close quarters. So rather than just giving them longer ranges, why not give the guns different sorts of range penalties as well.
For example
Short Medium Long Extreme
Shotgun +1 -1 -3 -6
SMG -0 -1 -3 -5
Assault Rifle -2 -0 -2 -4
Sports Rifle -3 -0 -2 -3
Sniper Rifle -3 -2 -0 -3
Obviously that's very crude and it would be hard to balance (and make things more complicated, but it might make SMGs and shotguns more worth taking other than just for concealibility. Afterall, their purpose in military use is closequarters combat like room clearance. The sort of thing I'd have thought runners actually do quite a lot, and I'd normally expect them to be a smart runner's preferred weapon, logically.
But then I'm a brit, so I know sod all about guns.
-
I don't see why they make such a difference between sniper and sporting/hunting rifles, the two tend to be fairly interchangeable in the real world. both are built for accuracy at long range and great power. I've seen plenty of "hunting" arms that are better weapons than most military arms.
-
I don't see why they make such a difference between sniper and sporting/hunting rifles, the two tend to be fairly interchangeable in the real world. both are built for accuracy at long range and great power. I've seen plenty of "hunting" arms that are better weapons than most military arms.
It's the difference between Restricted and Forbidden - it's more about the game end of things than the modelling reality end of things.
-
It's the difference between Restricted and Forbidden - it's more about the game end of things than the modelling reality end of things.
Yeah, but you don't need two entirely different classes just to explain the Availability rating.
-
It's the difference between Restricted and Forbidden - it's more about the game end of things than the modelling reality end of things.
Yeah, but you don't need two entirely different classes just to explain the Availability rating.
I'm AFB right now and could be wrong, but as I recall, Sport Rifles are a bit worse on range increment, and their damage codes are worse. These mean different weapon classes in SR.
-
Yeah, but unless something's changed behind the scenes they use similar or identical cartridges (IRL) from similar or identical barrels (length, design, quality, ect.) So that doesn;t make much sense either... it would make sense that the Mega Corps intentional produced sub standard weapons for the public, unfortunately.
-
Yeah, but unless something's changed behind the scenes they use similar or identical cartridges (IRL) from similar or identical barrels (length, design, quality, ect.) So that doesn;t make much sense either... it would make sense that the Mega Corps intentional produced sub standard weapons for the public, unfortunately.
You really don't think that in 2074, the average Sniper Rifle might be firing a larger round from a longer barrel and just be all around BETTER than what the corps make easily available to others? If nothing else than for their own protection?
-
I don't see why they make such a difference between sniper and sporting/hunting rifles, the two tend to be fairly interchangeable in the real world. both are built for accuracy at long range and great power. I've seen plenty of "hunting" arms that are better weapons than most military arms.
With sniper rifles, you get up into things like the Anti-materiel rifles. You know, the things it is technically a war crime to use on people, because they're designed to hunt armored vehicles. Of course, that point is moot, since if you don't catch a sniper, you can't exactly prosecute war crimes, and because of what snipers do, they tend to wind up dead rather than captured when they are caught.
-
With sniper rifles, you get up into things like the Anti-materiel rifles. You know, the things it is technically a war crime to use on people, because they're designed to hunt armored vehicles. Of course, that point is moot, since if you don't catch a sniper, you can't exactly prosecute war crimes, and because of what snipers do, they tend to wind up dead rather than captured when they are caught.
Actually, it's not a war crime as long as the rounds don't violate the frangible ammunition clause of the Geneva or the Geneva's 20mm minimum diameter limit on explosive shells. If two countries are at war and neither have signed the Geneva but both have signed the Hague convention on the same subject, then the minimum explosive shell is a "1lb shell" or roughly 37mm.
And while i can understand the exceptional weapons like .50 BMG and .416 Barrets. But most snipers never use rounds anywhere near that large, the .338 Lapua Magnum is about as large as comfort permits under most circumstances and i have seen hunting rifles (usually for long range elk hunting) in that size. Must snipers i've spoken with actually prefer the .300 Win Mag and Ultra Mag series, very popular elk rounds.
-
Not to offend, but have you ever heard of a bighorn or elk kill beyond 2000m? While you can certainly use a hunting rifle to kill at some fairly significant ranges - and you absolutely can use the same cartridges to fire out to even more extreme ranges - sniper rifles tend to be made to a finer tolerance than the hunting rifle you got down at Bass Pro, or to both finer tolerances and more extreme use. A weapon is more than just the rifle, as well; it's the entire unity. Yes, you can get civilian weapons that will fire out that far, and in all actuality most of them probably do - but the accuracy curve goes down further. Can you refine a civilian rifle to get those tolerances? Sure. And y'know, that's what those modifications in Arsenal are for.
When it comes down to it, it's a game design issue. Yes, you can just say 'oh, all rifles are X', but when it's blatantly clear that a German cop or a US Marine are not carrying around a .30-06 they got at Outdoor world, you need to differentiate - in the weapon class, the damage done, the availability, etc.
Game design tries to approximate real life, but that's mostly what it tries to do - approximate. You can refine one part or another, if you like, for your own game, but for design issues including but not limited to playability, things are probably best as they've been portrayed for the last 4 iterations.
-
One of the first things you guys gotta remember is that while the caliber might be X, there is a cartridge behind it that affects the power of the round and therefore how far it travels. Most military snipers are chambered for either 5.56 or 7.62 mm, and if its a NATO country, its the same rounds we use in our assault rifles/carbines/machine guns of various flavors. Those rounds and weapons were designed to be useful from about 800 meters down because typical engagement ranges were pretty small at the time (think WWI till after Vietnam) and they didn't need an normal infantry dude shooting out to a few miles. Then it was all standardized to save money and make ammo readily available to any other NATO soldier. Now this isn't every sniper, but quite a few of them are designed this way. One of the easy ways to control the power of the rifles (in game), and ensure that good military ones don't get into civilian hands, is to simply change the size of the cartridge and therefore the size of the inside of the breech. You produce smaller cartridges for the same calibers for civilians, and the military gets a longer/bigger cartridge giving them more powerful rounds for rifles of the same caliber. This means a civilian cannot fit the larger military cartridge into his civilian rifle making it much harder for them to fire the military rounds, ignoring the difficulty of obtaining them in the first place. Now you have an explanation for both why the sniper rifles have longer range and greater power.
-
Not to offend, but have you ever heard of a bighorn or elk kill beyond 2000m? While you can certainly use a hunting rifle to kill at some fairly significant ranges - and you absolutely can use the same cartridges to fire out to even more extreme ranges - sniper rifles tend to be made to a finer tolerance than the hunting rifle you got down at Bass Pro, or to both finer tolerances and more extreme use. A weapon is more than just the rifle, as well; it's the entire unity. Yes, you can get civilian weapons that will fire out that far, and in all actuality most of them probably do - but the accuracy curve goes down further. Can you refine a civilian rifle to get those tolerances? Sure. And y'know, that's what those modifications in Arsenal are for.
When it comes down to it, it's a game design issue. Yes, you can just say 'oh, all rifles are X', but when it's blatantly clear that a German cop or a US Marine are not carrying around a .30-06 they got at Outdoor world, you need to differentiate - in the weapon class, the damage done, the availability, etc.
Game design tries to approximate real life, but that's mostly what it tries to do - approximate. You can refine one part or another, if you like, for your own game, but for design issues including but not limited to playability, things are probably best as they've been portrayed for the last 4 iterations.
Actually it's not that uncommon for large game (such as elk) to be shot from 800m+. The main reason you see police/military using specialized versions of these rifles is because those versions make the rifle lighter, more durable, and easier to handle.
The last time I was at a gun shop they tried to sell me a hunting rifle chambered in .300 Win Mag that was able to shoot a 1/2 inch group at 400m.
The problem isn't that hunting rifles are weaker/less accurate than their same caliber sniper counterparts, it's that your average person can't take advantage of the accuracy the rifle is capable of.
Just throwing that out there.
-
A large number of "sniper" rifles are in fact modified hunting rifles. The Remington Model 700 is especially popular as a base weapon.
-
A large number of "sniper" rifles are in fact modified hunting rifles. The Remington Model 700 is especially popular as a base weapon.
That is because the original snipers were just marksmen using the same rifles as all the other troops, but they were just better shots. However, there are dedicated sniper rifles, which do shoot further and hit harder than civilian rifles. Some of these things are heavy enough that it is impossible to fire from a standing position, like the Barrett .50 cal. However, even amongst lighter dedicated sniper rifles, like what you would see SWAT teams use, there is a difference between what they have and what you can get at Bass Pro Shop.
-
Again, the .50 BMG is an anti-material round. It's large enough that it's practically a canon in it's own right (though some hunters will use them for certain large game such as "The Big Five".) There are plenty of .50 caliber weapons out there (some used for hunting) that are no ware near as powerful as that monster. In fact, until fairly recently there was a massive power gap in cartridges between the .30-06'ish cartridges and the .50 BMG. Most snipers don't even use weapons that large, typically preferring the .308 Win to .338 Lapua range. Also, saying "what you find at a Bass Pro Shop" makes it sound like all hunting rifles are all cheep and poorly manufactured. Keeping in mind that any modern military's first priority is Cost and not Quality, and that a civilian hunting rifle's only limitations are what the customer is willing to pay and the local laws allow, you can't really say that the quality of one is better than the other. Odds are a marine M40 or M24 SWS chambered in .300 Win Mag with a 26 inch barrel will shoot just as well as a Savage Model 110 chambered for the same with an identical length barrel. Both style's are built to do the same thing, hit a target at great distance with accuracy. As a side note, humans only qualify as medium game by weight. "Hitting Harder" really isn't an issue past a certain point.
-
And is actually detrimental to the amount of damage one wishes to inflict. Since human skin isn't as tough as many big game animals, the round will not mushroom properly and create as large a wound channel. Of course, "as large" is a relative term, as I'm sure any human hit by a .308 will not properly appreciate the difference. ;D
-
Medium Game... THAT SHOOTS BACK!
Sorry, got Insanity Wolf on my mind for some reason.
No, I mean, literally, he's laying down between my skull and brains! It itches.
-
I have a thought--A good old "Weapon Inappropriate" modifier. This way you avoid things like assaultcannon sniping.
-
Why? It can be done IRL with little trouble. Putting this modifier in the game may make it feel artificial to your players.
The mechanics are there to help immerse the players into the world, to help them feel like they are there, and to provide a means by which they can think their way into or out of the situations that exist within the session/adventure/mission.
Discuss these things with your players and ask them to think about what the modifiers and house-rules mean. Then ask them if they are necessary or do they simply clutter up the game table.
-
With sniper rifles, you get up into things like the Anti-materiel rifles. You know, the things it is technically a war crime to use on people, because they're designed to hunt armored vehicles. Of course, that point is moot, since if you don't catch a sniper, you can't exactly prosecute war crimes, and because of what snipers do, they tend to wind up dead rather than captured when they are caught.
In real life that's true, but the only example in Shadowrun (based directly on the Barret M82, or XM500) of this isn't classified as a sniper rifle, it's classified as an assault cannon (Ares Vigorous Assault Cannon, Arsenal p30).
Granted, with weapon modifications and alternative ammo you can shrink jump over that line for most practical intents and purposes.
The main reason you see police/military using specialized versions of these rifles is because those versions make the rifle lighter, more durable, and easier to handle.
Civilian hunting rifles tend to be customized precisely to the hunter and dedicated to the ranges and conditions of hunting, sniper rifles are manufactured by the lowest bidder for a different variety of ranges and conditions. That's the primary difference from where I see it. The difference of the user is something I figure is always there and doesn't even usually need to be mentioned.
-
The military tells the "lowest bidder" the exact conditions and specifications that they (military) require their weapons to perform under. This also means that the weapon has to be durable enough to perform repeatedly under extremely harsh conditions that civilian weapons never get subjected to, such as repeated firings over a significant duration (days, perhaps weeks). This means that the weapon is likely far more expensive and of higher quality than its civilian counterpart.
All this "lowest bidder" crap is starting to annoy. Yes, the military grants the contract to those who promise to deliver the specified equipment for the least investment. This does not mean that they are the lowest quality. This means they have no bells and whistles and are only delivered with exactly what the customer (the military) wants. No more, no less.
-
A good example of a "civilian" design that didn't work for the military, but was selected for political reasons is Canada's Ross Rifle. Great hunting rifle, excellent target rifle (Russia won an Olympic Biathlon with one), but the least bit of dirt or grit jammed it, and if you put the bolt in backwards (easy enough to do when trying to reassemble the weapon under combat conditions) it had a tendency of blowing up. (Read tendency as "You didn't really need that eye, did you?")
Also, it encouraged the worst design for an entrenching tool I ever heard of.
-
Exactly, Gun Nut. "Lowest Bidder" doesn't mean "Barrens Special", it means "This is the cheapest I can produce this item that is capable of firing accurately every time, even after being dropped, kicked, thrown in the dirt, thrown in the water, thrown in the mud, in heat and in cold, after lying exposed to the elements for days, and won't break down after a few hundred rounds. The difference between a sniper rifle and a civilian hunting rifle also has to do with the amount of abuse the sniper rifle is going to take before even taking the shot.
-
Actually that's false Mirikon.
Most of those weapons need to be resighted after say parachuting into position or which take any rough use or after being stuffed on a buffeting plane being vibrated while transitting... or stuffed in a vehicle going cross country even taking hard jarring bumps.
If you want a gun like you describe then you want an AK which functions when ignored... just don't expect it to shoot straight afterwards due to the loose tolerances.
There are far more similarities between hunting rifles and sniper rifles than differences. Definitely far more than with your typical assault rifle which trades precision and range for reliability and high rate of fire. The only major difference between the two is that sniper rifles commonly have heavier thicker barrels (not necessarily longer) since precision is of more importance than gun weight for extended field carry.
-
And again, the main point here is avoided - that the seperation is done in main part for game design. You still need to differentiate - in the weapon class, the damage done, the availability, etc.
Game design tries to approximate real life, but that's mostly what it tries to do - approximate. You can refine one part or another, if you like, for your own game, but for design issues including but not limited to playability, things are probably best as they've been portrayed for the last 4 iterations.
-
When GMing I've always changed the rules for the choke setting to increase your chance to hit by 1 for each setting but decrease damage equally for each setting. I've found that it's more realistic and works for characters with poor skill or facing a lot of negative modifiers.
The issue with Automatics is that it just does not make any sense. A machine pistol like the FN 5-7C uses a different skill than a heavy pistol like the Salvette Guardian when both are firing in BF even though they use the same frame type. Similarly, there is no reason for a Battle Rifle being fired in SA to use a completely different skill than a Sport Rifle firing in SA. It's the same style of shooting.
The best solution, what I'm hoping gets done in SR5, is to toss Automatics into a bottomless pit, roll Machine Pistols and SMGs into the Pistols skill, and toss Assault Rifles and Battle Rifles into the Longarms skill. Toss Gunnery or Heavy Weapons into the Firearms group to replace the lost Automatics skill and everything would work fine.
Do you work for Bethesda? Or have a soul even? I'm sorry but conglomerating unlike skills together to reduce specialization is always the wrong answer. I'd rule that a machine pistol firing in single fire could use the pistols skill, but the concept of firing in bursts or suppressing isn't something regular pistols cover. If you wanted to rearange skills, I'd say battle rifles would go to the longarms skill, and sniping rifles (Not sporting rifles though) would go into a new skill with the assault cannon and some other heavy precision weapon. I don't know why machine guns and various forms of launch weaponry go together, I think they should be broken up but that's a different topic.
-
I could also get behind a total redesign of the skills based on how it is being used. Rather than Pistols, Automatics and Longarms, Why not Single Round (SS and SA), Automatic Fire (BF and FA), Sniping (aimed shots), etc.? It seems like firing a modded heavy pistol on full auto has less in common with taking pot shots with a holdout revolver, and more in common with opening up with even something as large as a light machine gun, in terms of the skills involved in doing it effectively and sccurately.
It just crossed my mind, so don't feel bad about tearing the idea apart if you don't like it.
-
Actually, shot gun suppressive fire. I'd give that a hefty + modifier.... ;) seeing as recoil doesnt matter that much.
-
I could also get behind a total redesign of the skills based on how it is being used. Rather than Pistols, Automatics and Longarms, Why not Single Round (SS and SA), Automatic Fire (BF and FA), Sniping (aimed shots), etc.? It seems like firing a modded heavy pistol on full auto has less in common with taking pot shots with a holdout revolver, and more in common with opening up with even something as large as a light machine gun, in terms of the skills involved in doing it effectively and sccurately.
It just crossed my mind, so don't feel bad about tearing the idea apart if you don't like it.
Thought about this, but it would have to be by strict firing modes - SS/SA, BF, and FA. That's a lot clumsier, though, than the easier solution of shifting Battle Rifles into Longarms, making SnS shotgun only or at least more effective in shotguns (Perhaps 4S in anything up to light pistol, 6S north of there, shotguns exceptionally being 8S?), and put in more special shotgun rounds. That way, any weapon skill is viable for a combat focused character, with the following balancing elements:
Pistols - High concealability, lack rapid fire options, if some sort of rule accounting for precision is added these would be counted as precise. Firing Selection Change rules might need a note about turning Pistols into Machine Pistols if FA is added. Hypothetically, you could move Machine Pistols into here, but that might be making this group too powerful.
Automatics - General utility, but not fantastic at everything. Concealability is worse than pistols, range is worse than longarms, but wide variety of weapon options allow for the tools to solve many problems. Removal of Battle Rifles keeps this from being the weapon skill to solve all problems.
Longarms - Not much middle ground on range, as they're either long range weapons or shotguns. Addition of more specialized ammo for shotguns means that there's more reason to use those (After a wendigo? Iron slugs! After bugs? Insecticide-soaked flechettes! Need to Kill It With Fire? Dragonsbreath rounds!).
And thus, weapon skills become more balanced. Tossing Gunnery into the group wouldn't be a bad idea, though.
-
I could also get behind a total redesign of the skills based on how it is being used. Rather than Pistols, Automatics and Longarms, Why not Single Round (SS and SA), Automatic Fire (BF and FA), Sniping (aimed shots), etc.? It seems like firing a modded heavy pistol on full auto has less in common with taking pot shots with a holdout revolver, and more in common with opening up with even something as large as a light machine gun, in terms of the skills involved in doing it effectively and sccurately.
It just crossed my mind, so don't feel bad about tearing the idea apart if you don't like it.
i like this idea.
-
The basics of firing a weapon are the same, but the details are different. Each kind of weapon has specific grips, body positions, and sight alignment. No, I don't mean the sight picture is different, I mean how one holds one's head while sighting is slightly different.
Are these differences enough between the different firearm types to be a big deal? For some yes, for some no (sighting along a hold out is a different animal than sighting down a scoped sniper rifle). I'm not sure I want that much detail in the game, however.
-
True, but I'm starting to like the idea of folding machine guns into the Firearms skill. There are a lot of ways to do it right - I think that some people get tripped up over the ways it can go wrong. We'll see, though - either way, that's different than the thread topic, which the thread hasn't quite been about for a couple pages.
I personally think they're well-suited to toolkit-weapons, somewhat like crossbows - one of my players wanted to modify his crossbow into more of a batman-utility belt thing with a flashlight built-in and a grapple-hook/winch attachable for getting in and out of high buildings and etc. Since it's done in real life, I don't see how a little common-sense rulings could hurt.
-
Do you work for Bethesda? Or have a soul even? I'm sorry but conglomerating unlike skills together to reduce specialization is always the wrong answer. I'd rule that a machine pistol firing in single fire could use the pistols skill, but the concept of firing in bursts or suppressing isn't something regular pistols cover. If you wanted to rearange skills, I'd say battle rifles would go to the longarms skill, and sniping rifles (Not sporting rifles though) would go into a new skill with the assault cannon and some other heavy precision weapon. I don't know why machine guns and various forms of launch weaponry go together, I think they should be broken up but that's a different topic.
What about a Heavy Pistol firing a burst (Like the Ares Viper Slivergun or the Salvette Guardian)?
They work under the Pistol skill currently. That means that currently the Pistol skill does cover the concept of bursts.
Let's do an example here:
Fichetti Executive Action modded for Firing Mode: Small (FA) and Extended Clip.
Here we have a Light Pistol that can fire SA, BF, or FA (including suppressive fire) all while using the Pistols skill.
Meanwhile the FN 5-7C holds 2 less rounds, doesn't have a FA setting, and falls under Automatics for some reason.
What is "unlike" about these two guns?
The only real difference in learning to shoot most firearms is in the stance being used, whether firing at close range or long range. It's easily adaptable from one gun to the other meant for use at the same range. I see no reason to change back to an every weapon class is a separate skill type of system. Even firing an automatic isn't that much different. The only difference is recoil, which is already compensated for by having a penalty for recoil.
-
Let's do an example here:
Fichetti Executive Action modded for Firing Mode: Small (FA) and Extended Clip.
Here we have a Light Pistol that can fire SA, BF, or FA (including suppressive fire) all while using the Pistols skill.
Meanwhile the FN 5-7C holds 2 less rounds, doesn't have a FA setting, and falls under Automatics for some reason.
What is "unlike" about these two guns?
I think this demonstrates an issue with machine pistols falling under automatics skill, rather than any other aspect of the game.
-
It's not just machine pistols. Look at Sport Rifles now.
If I take a Terracota Arms Carravan and slap Firing Mode:Large (BF) onto it, it still uses Longarms (since it's a Sport Rifle) when I fire it in burst mode. Same issue if you make it FA instead of BF. Longarms does cover using its weapons with burst fire and full auto and suppression. At that point, the Automatics skill just becomes an arbitrary selection of weapons. The one defining characteristic of the skill's classification, being an automatic weapon, is not solely available with that skill. At the same time, there are weapons in that skill that aren't automatic weapons.
And it brings up the question of "Why is an automatic rifle under a different skill (AR/BR vs. Sport Rifle/Sniper Rifle) when an automatic shotgun stays under the Longarms skill?"
I don't mind weapon classes. It's pretty much mandatory for game design. I would just like to see the skills and what they cover make sense.
-
I suppose a question for those out there who actually have real-world experience with a variety of firearms would be appropriate:
What is most similar to you in your real-world experience? What skills carry over from one class of firearms to another? Are there any skills you have had to basically relearn with every new weapon or class of weapons?
- Firing automatic bursts long arms
- Firing single-shots from long arms
- Firing automatic (or burst fire) bursts from smaller weapons
- Firing single shots from smaller weapons
Now I'm all curious. I'll have to ask my coworkers too, I have a couple who are gun nuts.
-
Maybe change the categories a bit:
Small arms (Pistols and machine pistols)
Assault weapons (SMGs, Assault rifles and shotguns)
Long arms (as current but replace shotguns with battle rifles).
Meh, what do I know? Leave it as is, it's easier that way.
-
I would say longarms are longarms, slide action, lever actions, bolt actions, and similar are all fairly close in terms of how you handle them.
Automatics (and the semi-automatic use there of) of the SMG and Rifle varieties are nearly identical and are often up/down scaled versions of each other.
Handguns are distinctive in how you handle them and how they are designed. Nothing else out there really shares much in common with the layout.
The two complicated ones are Machine Pistols and Battle Rifles. MP's are literally handguns being forced into doing a job the designs were not meant for ( a few notable exceptions being the MP7 and TMP.) Battle rifles are larger and heavier than assault rifles, often completely forgoing fully automatic fire in favor of accuracy but while keeping the ability to lay down round after round of aimed fire.
The issue is that arms aren't as cut and dry as "automatics." compare a Callico M960 to a Thompson Sub-Machinegun and you'll see why lumping them in the same category gets wonky.
-
Maybe change the categories a bit:
Small arms (Pistols and machine pistols)
Assault weapons (SMGs, Assault rifles and shotguns)
Long arms (as current but replace shotguns with battle rifles).
Meh, what do I know? Leave it as is, it's easier that way.
This makes a lot of sense, although if shotguns were actually made a mean weapon again I would think they would be their own catagory since the skills to fire a shotgun are very different than an smg or assault rifle. The only reason to currently lump them in is because no one would ever take the "shotgun skill" the way they are now. Other than that the above is very simple, logical and what I see as the most common sense solution without a bunch of wonky grey area. Also add the 4th catagory "heavy weapons" so:
Small arms (Pistols and machine pistols)
Assault weapons (SMGs, Assault rifles)
Shotguns (obvious, lol.)
Long arms (sniper, hunting, and battle rifles.)
Heavy weapons (LMG, MMG, HMG, cannons)
-
Long arms (as current but replace shotguns with battle rifles)
Once you remove the distinction of sports rifles using longarms & battle rifles using automatics, is there any good reason to distinguish between them as separate categories of firearm? BRs suddenly just become more expensive / less available SRs.
Machine Pistols likewise suffer a lack of identity once you take them out of automatics - one might as well ask whether they're heavy or light and be done with that, too.
That would leave you with;
Pistols (Heavy / Light / Holdout / Taser)
Assault (SMG / Assault Rifle / Shotgun)
Longarms (Rifles / Sniper Rifles)
Heavy Weapons (Assault Cannons / Machine Guns / Grenade Launchers / Missile Launchers / Mortars)
... Heavy Weapons has a lot to it, but you could probably take out mortars.
-
I think someone a ways back missed the point of my post, or I didn't phrase it right.
I'm actually quite comfortable with how the guns are set up currently, though I'd change a couple things, like putting MPs in with pistols, and breaking machine guns into their own skill, with launchers being separate. Assault cannons I should think would go with long arms, along with battle rifles. The idea is that each weapon type does get its own skill if you specialize, which makes the skills more or less mini skill groups.
Another thought would be sorting the weapons by their grip type and role. So handguns, PDWs, assault weapons, LSWs, DMRs, and support launchers. Make it so that certain weapons get a slight default bonus from other skill groups for those guns that don't quite fit all the way in one skill. So a machine pistol on single fire would get your full pistols skill, but if you used them on full auto they'd only get 1/3rd of your pistols skill rating unless you had the PDW skill. Your battle rifle on full auto would use the LSW skill but on semi auto would use the DMR skill, that kind of thing.
well I feel like I'm rambling.
But yes, Shotguns should get a bonus to special ammos being a payload weapon. +2s all around!
-
I'm actually quite comfortable with how the guns are set up currently, though I'd change a couple things, like putting MPs in with pistols, and breaking machine guns into their own skill, with launchers being separate. Assault cannons I should think would go with long arms, along with battle rifles. The idea is that each weapon type does get its own skill if you specialize, which makes the skills more or less mini skill groups.
I go back and forth on machine pistols - in doing that, you risk making Automatics too weak and Pistols too strong. Heavy Weapons doesn't really need to be broken up, because all of what's in there isn't practical for most Shadowrun situations. If a player wants a character to be good with those weapons, it is not fair (do to the rarity with which they are a viable solution) to ask them to invest in multiple skills. Assault Cannons wouldn't make sense in Longarms, and make the skill too powerful - going too far in the other direction. Battle Rifles into Longarms, however, would be good. Combine that with some Shotgun fixes, and that's all Longarms needs to be a balanced skill. Anything more is just change for the sake of change, and that's not good.
If you make that exchange from Automatics to Longarms for Battle Rifles, Automatics goes from One Skill to Rule Them All to a balanced skill revolving around having utility for any situation without being fantastic for nearly any - Longarms beats it for range flexibility (and with the right Shotgun changes, specific utility), Heavy Weapons beats it for Suppressing Fire and rapid fire, Pistols beats it for Concealability, but it has a little bit of everything - the Mario skill, basically.
-
I go back and forth on machine pistols - in doing that, you risk making Automatics too weak and Pistols too strong.
I don't see it. SMGs / Assault rifles generally have better damage, RC, AP, cost (for equivalent basic SMGs) ... where are BF/FA pistols getting the better end of the deal?
Assault Cannons wouldn't make sense in Longarms, and make the skill too powerful - going too far in the other direction.
I thought about this; there's also the fact that assault cannons would edge out sniper rifles' niche.
-
My shooting experience, being an M16 (I mostly fire it on semi), 240B (7.62 machine gun), SAW (5.56 machine gun), a buddies shotgun ( I don't remember the model but it was a pump), and his .30-06 (bolt-action), there was pretty minimal difference for me. The biggest differences between the weapons was rate of fire, recoil, and the sights. Otherwise I just used them like I would any other weapon and I did fine. So maybe I'm just good, but I really think its because all the weapons are pretty much shouldered the same. You stick the butt-stock in your shoulder, grab the pistol grip firmly, and assume a proper firing position.
So as to how to translate that, I don't really know. I don't think you properly can. But I do believe that the battle rifles are more akin to the snipers and shotguns. They are longer and most likely heavier than most of the assault rifles, plus I think most start out as semi-auto anyway. Since most of the hate seems to be directed at shotguns being weaker and battle rifles make the automatics group to strong, I think we should just move the battle rifles over to long arms. Also as a point, I think it makes sense to put machine pistols with other pistols, though since I never used them myself, I will defer to some else's greater experience. But since automatics are dominated by shouldered weapons, I don't think it makes since to have non-shouldered weapons included.
-
My shooting experience, being an M16 (I mostly fire it on semi), 240B (7.62 machine gun), SAW (5.56 machine gun), a buddies shotgun ( I don't remember the model but it was a pump), and his .30-06 (bolt-action), there was pretty minimal difference for me. The biggest differences between the weapons was rate of fire, recoil, and the sights. Otherwise I just used them like I would any other weapon and I did fine. So maybe I'm just good, but I really think its because all the weapons are pretty much shouldered the same. You stick the butt-stock in your shoulder, grab the pistol grip firmly, and assume a proper firing position.
The problem being discussed here is more a game issue than a simulation issue. So, really, there's not much relevance to differences or similarities in the real life use of the weapon.
-
The problem being discussed here is more a game issue than a simulation issue. So, really, there's not much relevance to differences or similarities in the real life use of the weapon.
Why does there need to be a fourth weapons skill (Automatics)? Forcing a bunch of weapons into another skill instead of spreading them in other skills doesn't solve a game issue. It just creates a further break from reality. The issue is really in both areas.
In all reality, shooting is pretty much a point and click interface. Stance and recoil are the only things that change as you go from one hand, to two hand, to shouldered stances. Styles and sights are drastically different even within the current skills that.
The reason I go for folding MPs and SMGs into the Pistols group is that in SR they both fall into the "One Handed" category and are shorter ranged. Popping BRs and ARs into Longarms makes since since BRs and ARs are both rifles already and use the exact same stances that Shotguns, Sport Rifles and Sniper Rifles use.
-
Stance and recoil are the only things that change as you go from one hand, to two hand, to shouldered stances.
Hmmm, that sounds familiar...
IMHO, pistols (anything where energy transfer is through hands and arms) and longarms (anything where the energy is transferred into your shoulder) are easily justifiable as two different skills, they simply relate differently to your body.
...
In reality, I'd say the skill-set changes from pistol to longarm, depending on whether you're using a stock (so a "pistol grip" shotgun with no stock, but say a fore-grip, would be a pistol skill roll :P), because the only real difference between the two shooting techniques is how energy distribution is handled.
Which is to say I would fully back elimination of the Automatics Skill.
But then you have the issue raised by the post my quote is taken from, if you put a folding stock on a pistol or machine-pistol, do you then have to use Longarms?
-
The problem being discussed here is more a game issue than a simulation issue. So, really, there's not much relevance to differences or similarities in the real life use of the weapon.
Why does there need to be a fourth weapons skill (Automatics)? Forcing a bunch of weapons into another skill instead of spreading them in other skills doesn't solve a game issue. It just creates a further break from reality. The issue is really in both areas.
More skills allows for more variety without risking balance. Splitting Automatics down the middle like that would play havoc with the inter-skill balance, which is of course not good. Conversely, what would be the purpose of its removal?
-
I couldn't stand behind the automatics skill being removed, maybe renamed and organized a bit. I can almost see pistols becoming PDWs with one handed MAC/UZI style submachine carbines, and then automatics becoming "Assault Weapons" holding full sized SMGs, Carbines, and Assault Rifles. With Long arms becoming a marksman's skill.
As far as that idea goes, or even current weapons rules going, I think GMs should just rule that an MP firing on single uses the pistol's skill, and a battle rifle on single uses the Longarm's skill, I know I will. The other weapon that I really can't place in heavy weapons is the assault cannon, but I don't like the heavy weapon's skill because of how it tries to quantify "Big Guns".
-
More skills allows for more variety without risking balance. Splitting Automatics down the middle like that would play havoc with the inter-skill balance, which is of course not good. Conversely, what would be the purpose of its removal?
Flip it around and look at it again. More skills equals:
-Less Utility per Skill (range of options gets diluted by each additional skill that the options are split between)
-More Optimization Issues (People will usually just spend their points in the skill that allows them to do the most. This is the issue with Automatics currently.)
-More Karma for Generalists (Each additional skill that options are divided into costs a large amount of resources to possess.)
Now take a look at what other attack skills cover:
-Spellcasting covers everything from combat and offensive manipulation spells as well as all others. It certainly isn't split between different categories.
-Blades covers everything from that knife to a claymore.
-Clubs covers everything from a rifle butt to a splitting maul.
-Gunnery cover any mounted weapons.
Yet guns are split into not one, not two, not three, but four different skills. I fail to see how eliminating one is causing a balance issue, because currently it seems like the mass amount of them is the balance issue. Most sammy types just choose one or two and go with it because of the current issues.
Automatics removal would:
-Make weapon skills less arbitrary (rather than pretending that BF/FA modes matter for skill classification).
-Allow the Firearms skill to actually cover all firearms (by folding Heavy Weapons into the skill group in Automatics place).
-Lower the cost of being a firearms generalist, opening up more utility to such characters.
-Cause less optimization issues (since there is no single skill that covers short concealable weapons all the way to long range marksman rifles).
But then you have the issue raised by the post my quote is taken from, if you put a folding stock on a pistol or machine-pistol, do you then have to use Longarms?
Even in those situations, the stance and sighting is a little different. Absorbing the recoil from pistol rounds is a lot easier than absorbing the recoil from rifle rounds. Similarly stances for using pistol gripped long arms are a lot different than stances for using pistols and the like. The Pistols and Longarms skills would cover using those stances in the right circumstances no matter which stance you're using for the appropriate weapon.
-
The problem being discussed here is more a game issue than a simulation issue. So, really, there's not much relevance to differences or similarities in the real life use of the weapon.
More skills allows for more variety without risking balance. Splitting Automatics down the middle like that would play havoc with the inter-skill balance, which is of course not good. Conversely, what would be the purpose of its removal?
In light of these very important points, I have to say that I agree with a renaming and possibly rearranging of the firearms skills, but game balance is more important than realism in this case, and decreasing the number of skils would affect the balance of the game. Shadowrun is an abstraction of reality, like all roleplaying games. The game is more important than perfectly modeling reality.
-
Agreed, Anarkitty. While a certain level of fidelity to the real world is nice, game balance and having workable mechanics is far more important than being a reality simulator.
-
The nebulous "game balance" is one touted loudly in several circles. It's biggest proponent, of course is 4th edition D&D. Incredible balance, and incredibly milquetoast.
While I agree one must strive to balance simulation with playability, going to either extreme is bad. Shadowrun does well with playability, and also does well with simulation. For normal humans (read: no augmentations, magical or technological), it simulates reality very well.
Given that we don't have mystic troll adepts or elven cyberzombies IRL, it is a bit harder to judge on that end of the scale. This is where playability comes to the fore, but I do not believe that simulation should be ignored.
-
The nebulous "game balance" is one touted loudly in several circles. It's biggest proponent, of course is 4th edition D&D. Incredible balance, and incredibly milquetoast.
While I agree one must strive to balance simulation with playability, going to either extreme is bad. Shadowrun does well with playability, and also does well with simulation. For normal humans (read: no augmentations, magical or technological), it simulates reality very well.
Given that we don't have mystic troll adepts or elven cyberzombies IRL, it is a bit harder to judge on that end of the scale. This is where playability comes to the fore, but I do not believe that simulation should be ignored.
"Balance" isn't a thing that some people favour, and some people don't. All games have either good balance or bad balance, and it dramatically impacts game quality. it is possible to do good balance badly, sure, but that is not remotely a reason to not put priority on balance.
And noone's saying to ignore simulation, but it takes a back seat, full stop.
-
The thing is that 9 times out of 10, the most vocal ones touting "balance" claim that things are "out of balance" because their idea of it is "all things equal". This is NOT the way to go unless you want a flavorless "tofu" version of a game like what happened with D&D 4e, or you're just that damn used to MMOs that you think all games should work in just that same way.
-
The thing is that 9 times out of 10, the most vocal ones touting "balance" claim that things are "out of balance" because their idea of it is "all things equal". This is NOT the way to go unless you want a flavorless "tofu" version of a game like what happened with D&D 4e, or you're just that damn used to MMOs that you think all games should work in just that same way.
That would be what's called a bad way to do balance.
Good balance is about tradeoffs - the concealability and legality of pistols versus the broad applicability of automatics versus the range and special uses of longarms. They don't need to be equal for the same use, but rather equally useful overall. That's why part of the correction I'd suggest is to move Battle Rifles into Longarms, and to provide more specialized shotgun rounds. Machine Pistols are probably best were they are because it creates a circumstance where there's an Automatics weapon for almost any situation, but they're never the best in any but a rare few. Heavy weapons are specially restricted because of how hard it is to get away with packing them and the Strength and Body scores involved, allowing them to be more powerful.
-
No one has shown any evidence at all that reducing the number of skills for firearms, by one, would in any way hurt the game balance. It is perfectly possible to maintain game balance and simulation at the same time. If Simulation is taking the back seat, that means things need to be reworked so that both are able to be a priority. Even SR3's system with a skill for every gun class worked better in this regard than SR4's magical Automatics skill that covers every contingency and the couple others that are only taken by specialists and non-combatants or as fluff.
Moving Battlerifles doesn't change that much really. I mean, Automatics was still the go to choice before they were even introduced to the game.
-
No one has shown any evidence at all that reducing the number of skills for firearms, by one, would in any way hurt the game balance. It is perfectly possible to maintain game balance and simulation at the same time. If Simulation is taking the back seat, that means things need to be reworked so that both are able to be a priority. Even SR3's system with a skill for every gun class worked better in this regard than SR4's magical Automatics skill that covers every contingency and the couple others that are only taken by specialists and non-combatants or as fluff.
Moving Battlerifles doesn't change that much really. I mean, Automatics was still the go to choice before they were even introduced to the game.
Probably best to just get rid of the Firearms skill group (and all of the skills in it) and just make Firearms the skill. That way no one can complain about how one of them is better than the others (though they'd just find something else to complain about).
-
If we did that then we'd only be able to specialise in one type of fire arm, instead of saying "I'm good with revolvers in a pinch, but I favour the shotgun for mid ranged engagements, I can also use battle rifles for long range if needed."
Now it's "I'm really good with the SMG, and every other gun at Rating 6."
I mean, the Clubs skill covers things like bats and stun batons, and blades covers swords and knives, because they are actually similar, neither covers pole arms because it isn't the same, similar but still a different method of attack and strategy.
Why not break the firearms skills into categories that cover the range and roll they generally operate in, make it so the skill used depends on the situation and less on the gun?
-
Wells, the reason it would negatively influence game balance is because of the nature of a BP-based (or karma-based, if you do that) resource allocation system. When you have finite resources to spread amongst the various skills, abilities, qualities, and resources, more skills means that one must either devote more points in order to excel at all weapon types, either buying the skills separately, or the group as a whole. Either way, it is certainly a game balance construct that admittedly does not lend itself to a simulation environment, because the point of it is to limit players, so that one must devote significant resources to their skills (thereby denying those resources to abilities, qualities, contacts, and gear) in order to be effective at using multiple types of weapons.
And here's the thing, no pen and paper RPG has ever claimed to be a true simulation. There are always constructs designed for game balance. Even such things as 'damage codes', 'armor penetration', and 'wound modifiers' are simply constructs designed more for game balance reasons than any kind of simulation effect. If you're looking for a simulator, then I'd suggest LARPing or Laser Tag, or video games such as Call of Duty. But within the context of an RPG, the primary focus of the game designers will always be game balance, followed closely by fun. Any simulator-like effects are merely byproducts of the game design process, because the designers thought they'd be fun.
-
tbh, i entirely understand the argument against the automatics group. when building a character, it is incredibly tempting just to go for the automatics skill rather than any other as you still can use suppressed MP's in SA for quiet concealable work, SMGs and AR's for bigger engagements and battlerifles for sniping with. it covers everything, so its a bit of a no-brainer. you can cover all situations with one skill!
i think the long-arms skill is a bit funky as well tbh, firing shotguns and sniper rifles with the same skill seems a bit odd, one is an assault weapon for close up use and the other is a medium/long weapon for precision fire.
pistols skill is about right for me tbh.
what i would like to see is more of a tweak than a re-do of all the groups.
i'd like to see:
machine pistols moved to pistols skill, would give the group more flexibility but i think you'd need to consider how it affected light pistols as an in-game choice. MP's should be more expensive than LP's.
automatics renamed to "Assault weapons". group uses SMG's, AR's, shotguns and potentially thrown grenades (assault weapon users would have received some kind of formal assault training by police/military/corpsec, which would include grenades)
longarms is sniper rifles, hunting rifles and battle rifles. as far as i'm aware, these all require different stances, breathing techniques and calculations for elevation/windage etc and suit a precision/marksmen group better than one lumped in with shotguns.
heavy weapons is a bit funky at the moment. a minigun is just a bit different to a mortar!
i think MG's/GL's/LAW could be fine in one heavy weaps group (would represent common military weapons training, even regular infantry have access to gpmg's). The more esoteric choices like miniguns, mortars and assault cannons should be exotic weapon skills to represent how rare and unwieldy the skills are in the real world and how that relates to the shadow community at large.
this is all of course, totally my opinion, feel free to disagree :-)
-
well, to be fair, shotguns aren't inaccurate blunderbusses. A combat shotgun only has about 8 inches of spread over 100 meters, which is their maximum effective range, and slugs have quite a severe drop, and that's with modern common ammo. In 2070, they have aerodynamic flechette, and saboted tungsten slugs, so I can imagine that they SHOULD have quite precision and range advantage. But then again, SR's range tables are at less than half of most modern weapon's effective ranges in most cases.
-
Shotguns should not be put in with Automatics, no matter what you name it. Shotguns are a utility weapon, and should be made more so - and one of the balancing points of Automatics needs to be that it lacks that level of direct utility.
In any case: Having too many weapon skills means that the balancing method inevitably shifts towards everything being the same, because there's only so many ways you can differentiate. It's a delicate trade-off, and the weapon system as it stands can only support a fairly small number of skills. Just making Firearms the skill, frankly, has a bit of the same problem - along with the loss of character customization; this would also be a bad thing.
Moving Machine Pistols out of Automatics, however, risks taking away the idea of Automatics having an option for every situation - the skill should have broad uses, but lack deep utility to contrast against the more specialized Pistols and Longarms skills.
And no, you simply cannot have game design and simulationism share top priority - there are differing concerns at play and many times that the right choice for one is the wrong choice for the other. Game design is all about trade-offs, and in some cases that trade-off will be "option A is more realistic, but option B (increases agency/improves balance/offers more customization/<insert any other of the myriad game-focused concerns here>)".
Splitting based on range would have... Issues. Many of them. Including the fact that it would just feel wrong to some players that they have to use a different skill to fire the same weapon. And, frankly, this seems like a case of harming realism for a very dubious gain, especially when there are other, better ways to deal with it.
In truth, the existing weapon skills that far off being balanced - a major overhaul is not needed.
-
So are we back to, put battle rifles in longarms and it's all fixed then? Not that that's a bad thing.
-
So are we back to, put battle rifles in longarms and it's all fixed then? Not that that's a bad thing.
Pretty much. The only other thing is adding more shotgun-specific rounds to help them fill their niche. Maybe do something to limit how much you can silence a Machine Pistol.
I'd like to see them add something to have different weapons benefit from Take Aim differently, too, which would also help in some ways.
-
Wait, why limit the silenced factor of MPs? Though I would like to see shotguns having harder hitting special purpose rounds (S&S's and Explosives), and a better range.
-
Wait, why limit the silenced factor of MPs? Though I would like to see shotguns having harder hitting special purpose rounds (S&S's and Explosives), and a better range.
They may or may not be too good for silent work - they can't be as good as regular pistols for that, otherwise they're starting to tread into the domain where pistols are supposed to be king. This is one of those things I'd need to test out to be certain of (the superior Concealability of Pistols may or may not be sufficient), but still.
-
This is where I think MPs could go over to pistols, I mean, they're a concealed option for automatics sure. But what are they really? Automatic pistols. I dunno, I think pistols deserve a high capacity fire arm that can suppress, either that or enable pistols the ability to fire in 3 round bursts if they have the SA Quality, or suppress, but with a highly reduced range and coverage area.
-
This is where I think MPs could go over to pistols, I mean, they're a concealed option for automatics sure. But what are they really? Automatic pistols. I dunno, I think pistols deserve a high capacity fire arm that can suppress, either that or enable pistols the ability to fire in 3 round bursts if they have the SA Quality, or suppress, but with a highly reduced range and coverage area.
There's a couple of specific pistols with higher capacities. But by default, suppression fire belongs outside of their purview. The balance here is that they're very good for certain things, which means being bad at other things.
-
Yeah, and MPs aren't great automatics, at best they're suppression weapons or you can use them to bring down your opponent's defense, so I dunno, they feel like they should go with pistols. I'd say it's something that could be play tested, but I'm not standing by it as the end all solution.
-
This is where I think MPs could go over to pistols, I mean, they're a concealed option for automatics sure. But what are they really? Automatic pistols. I dunno, I think pistols deserve a high capacity fire arm that can suppress, either that or enable pistols the ability to fire in 3 round bursts if they have the SA Quality, or suppress, but with a highly reduced range and coverage area.
Machine pistol become an especial awkward category when you realize there's a few light & heavy pistols that are BF/FA capable. :x
-
This is where I think MPs could go over to pistols, I mean, they're a concealed option for automatics sure. But what are they really? Automatic pistols. I dunno, I think pistols deserve a high capacity fire arm that can suppress, either that or enable pistols the ability to fire in 3 round bursts if they have the SA Quality, or suppress, but with a highly reduced range and coverage area.
Machine pistol become an especial awkward category when you realize there's a few light & heavy pistols that are BF/FA capable. :x
Which typically have some other balancing factor.
The Fubuki changes its loading style to a muzzle-load, requiring 4 complex actions to reload (assuming that the complex action for loading a muzzle-tube isn't for inserting a single round) and loses wide bursts, the Slivergun is flechettes only, the Palm Pistol doesn't count because it only fires two rounds, and then it's empty, the 200ST requires a Complex Action to fire bursts which "strain the weapon" (so you better hope you never get a critical glitch), and the Savalette Guardian requires a Complex Action for Burst Fire as well.
The only real offender is the Fichetti Executive Action, and even then they seem to think its lack of RC is a balancer (as given the lack of RC options available for a pistol, you won't be able to deal with all the recoil of 2 bursts).
-
Shotguns should not be put in with Automatics, no matter what you name it. Shotguns are a utility weapon, and should be made more so - and one of the balancing points of Automatics needs to be that it lacks that level of direct utility.
In any case: Having too many weapon skills means that the balancing method inevitably shifts towards everything being the same, because there's only so many ways you can differentiate. It's a delicate trade-off, and the weapon system as it stands can only support a fairly small number of skills. Just making Firearms the skill, frankly, has a bit of the same problem - along with the loss of character customization; this would also be a bad thing.
Moving Machine Pistols out of Automatics, however, risks taking away the idea of Automatics having an option for every situation - the skill should have broad uses, but lack deep utility to contrast against the more specialized Pistols and Longarms skills.
And no, you simply cannot have game design and simulationism share top priority - there are differing concerns at play and many times that the right choice for one is the wrong choice for the other. Game design is all about trade-offs, and in some cases that trade-off will be "option A is more realistic, but option B (increases agency/improves balance/offers more customization/<insert any other of the myriad game-focused concerns here>)".
Splitting based on range would have... Issues. Many of them. Including the fact that it would just feel wrong to some players that they have to use a different skill to fire the same weapon. And, frankly, this seems like a case of harming realism for a very dubious gain, especially when there are other, better ways to deal with it.
In truth, the existing weapon skills that far off being balanced - a major overhaul is not needed.
yeah what i actually said in my post was "rename automatics to ASSAULT WEAPONS"
shotguns=close range assault weapons and therefore suit that group better than the sniper rifle group imo.
that way, pistols becomes more of a sidearms/pdw group (ideal for concealibility/stealth) + has a broad range of weapons from tasers through to machine pistols (which is probably where the majority of shadowrunners/gangers are going to find their niche)
assault weapons are the guns you bring for a serious showdown, you're taking in an SMG for a high rate of fire over a short/medium range, an AR for greater range, and a shotgun for the real close up stuff. utility comes from shock locks, and full auto flechette suppression etc
precision/marksman group gets the battle rifles for marksman type roles, sniper rifles for the 3 mile kill, and hunting rifles for those who cant afford one of the other two types of gun :-)
as it is now, you can just take automatics. battle rifles for long range, AR'/SMG for medium, MP for close/concealable work. aside from taser/hand cannons you're not really missing out on much by just chucking your skill points into it, which is bad game design in my opinion.
as many of the other posters have said, the other groups should be equally useful within their role, there shouldn't necessarily be an "auto-include" that is good in every situation
-
Shotguns should not be put in with Automatics, no matter what you name it. Shotguns are a utility weapon, and should be made more so - and one of the balancing points of Automatics needs to be that it lacks that level of direct utility.
In any case: Having too many weapon skills means that the balancing method inevitably shifts towards everything being the same, because there's only so many ways you can differentiate. It's a delicate trade-off, and the weapon system as it stands can only support a fairly small number of skills. Just making Firearms the skill, frankly, has a bit of the same problem - along with the loss of character customization; this would also be a bad thing.
Moving Machine Pistols out of Automatics, however, risks taking away the idea of Automatics having an option for every situation - the skill should have broad uses, but lack deep utility to contrast against the more specialized Pistols and Longarms skills.
And no, you simply cannot have game design and simulationism share top priority - there are differing concerns at play and many times that the right choice for one is the wrong choice for the other. Game design is all about trade-offs, and in some cases that trade-off will be "option A is more realistic, but option B (increases agency/improves balance/offers more customization/<insert any other of the myriad game-focused concerns here>)".
Splitting based on range would have... Issues. Many of them. Including the fact that it would just feel wrong to some players that they have to use a different skill to fire the same weapon. And, frankly, this seems like a case of harming realism for a very dubious gain, especially when there are other, better ways to deal with it.
In truth, the existing weapon skills that far off being balanced - a major overhaul is not needed.
yeah what i actually said in my post was "rename automatics to ASSAULT WEAPONS"
shotguns=close range assault weapons and therefore suit that group better than the sniper rifle group imo.
that way, pistols becomes more of a sidearms/pdw group (ideal for concealibility/stealth) + has a broad range of weapons from tasers through to machine pistols (which is probably where the majority of shadowrunners/gangers are going to find their niche)
assault weapons are the guns you bring for a serious showdown, you're taking in an SMG for a high rate of fire over a short/medium range, an AR for greater range, and a shotgun for the real close up stuff. utility comes from shock locks, and full auto flechette suppression etc
precision/marksman group gets the battle rifles for marksman type roles, sniper rifles for the 3 mile kill, and hunting rifles for those who cant afford one of the other two types of gun :-)
as it is now, you can just take automatics. battle rifles for long range, AR'/SMG for medium, MP for close/concealable work. aside from taser/hand cannons you're not really missing out on much by just chucking your skill points into it, which is bad game design in my opinion.
as many of the other posters have said, the other groups should be equally useful within their role, there shouldn't necessarily be an "auto-include" that is good in every situation
The name is not a consideration.
As a game design and balance point, it is a bad idea - you shift battle rifles off to Longarms, add more specialized shotgun rounds as a boost to Longarms. The role of pistols is to have easily concealed weapons that don't take much to be good with, the role of Automatics should be one of general utility without being the perfect choice for almost any, and Longarms is for long range or certain specialized uses. A small boost to Pistols and Longarms may yet be needed at that point (if so, adding a stat that determines the bonus gained from Take Aim, and perhaps making Take Aim incompatible with FA fire), but a dramatic rearrangement is wholly unnecessary making large wholly unnecessary change to fix an issue that could easily be fixed by a smaller change is a very bad thing to do and is simply asking for new problems.
And Automatics cannot be made the "serious showdown" skill. Heavy Weapons gets that role.
-
lol, yeah, nothing says "hello" like a gyro mounted assault cannon :-)
i dunno, i mean it makes sense to me to change the groups up. like one of the previous posters had said, if "automatics" covers weapons that arent automatic and other weapons have automatic modes that dont use the automatics skill, it seems a bit odd.
i think classifying weapons by purpose/role rather than firing mode would be common sense but thats just my opinion.
have to say i really like the idea of changing the "take aim" bonuses for different weapon classes, that could be a really nice way to give lighter/smaller/accurate weapons more of a boost. a +2 for light pistols would be a nice way to give them a lift
-
I'm actually thinking by weapon - becomes another means of inter-weapon differentiation - with each weapon class having a certain baseline. Seems like a good add, and since it feeds off of what already exists, not much complication. Could even use it to give mods like Firing Selection Change a downside.
And Automatics could well be renamed. I just am not all that concerned with the name of the skill as much as I am the game effects of it. And the game benefits of changing up the groups dramatically when they're *this* close to being good are... Dubious at best. In the abstract, there could be good divisions like that, but we're not dealing with the abstract.
-
Believe it or not, I like the groups and the weapon assignments just the way they are. One can argue both sides of the equation until one is blue in the face, but the Firearms group wraps things up the way it should be, and the individual skills hold sufficient and specific uses so that one is not sufficiently all-around for everything - no, not even Automatics.
-
Believe it or not, I like the groups and the weapon assignments just the way they are. One can argue both sides of the equation until one is blue in the face, but the Firearms group wraps things up the way it should be, and the individual skills hold sufficient and specific uses so that one is not sufficiently all-around for everything - no, not even Automatics.
For the most part, Pistols and Longarms are specialized, rather than generalized. The problem is that Automatics dips too far into the specialties of others, and becomes the one true option unless a character has a specific reason not to take it.
-
And in my own never-humble opinion, a shadowrunner should select Automatics as a distant third. Pistols for most work, shotguns for really nasty and/or specialized stuff, sporting or sniper rifles for the long work, and only then should they be getting into the dakka-dakka. Automatics, whether that's SMGs or ARs or (god help you) machine-guns, are for war, whether that's street or straight-up merc stuff.
But again, that's my own never-humble opinion. Only once in my entire SR career did I pause and say, "I wish I had an assault rifle and the skill to use it." That was during what was basically an amphibious assault, and the enemy was out past 200m range. Otherwise, even the worst incidents needed nothing more than a well-placed pistol shot or two. (Rarely two.)
-
You run some pretty gentle work Wyrm. But then again my last run was against other runners (actual other players that didn't know we were running against them, within their run.) and I only fired one one shot. But, also we had to use allot of other gear like gas grenades, allot of hacking, and a drone armed with gel rounds and an automatic shotgun, which did get used. I'm going to stand by putting MPs in with pistols and Battle rifles with long arms though, because that's what they are and those are the roles they should be in. But as I've said earlier, I'd like to see actual play testing instead just our conjecture; because as I've learned, really surprising things can crop up that was way out of what we speculated would happen.
-
You run some pretty gentle work Wyrm. But then again my last run was against other runners (actual other players that didn't know we were running against them, within their run.) and I only fired one one shot. But, also we had to use allot of other gear like gas grenades, allot of hacking, and a drone armed with gel rounds and an automatic shotgun, which did get used. I'm going to stand by putting MPs in with pistols and Battle rifles with long arms though, because that's what they are and those are the roles they should be in. But as I've said earlier, I'd like to see actual play testing instead just our conjecture; because as I've learned, really surprising things can crop up that was way out of what we speculated would happen.
*laughs* No, no, I don't. In the session set off which Pananagutan is based, I racked up literally five times as many kills of the toxic shapeshifters as all the other PCs and the 20 mercs - combined - using a Hammerli 610S (loading DMSO + Gamma-Scopalomine) and a katana. In other adventures, the character took out first one, then several heavy weapon emplacements (and AR-using Aztlan soldiers) using only the katana. When I play, I play a precisionist. I choose the right tool for the job. If it required high explosives, grenades, heavy firepower, I would have used that; that's the same character who really wished she'd had an assault rifle to engage the 100-200m-distant opposition during the inflatable run into the beach. But in an urban situation, the only times you would really need an SMG is during a car chase (during which I prefer one or two AV rounds from an HP) or if you're trying to mow down dozens of mooks at once - and they have grenades for that sort of thing.
-
Or when you're in that street fight that got a little out of control and you need suppressing fire, or you're trying to hit that weaving target and a distance and need to drop their defense to practically nothing to score a hit or two. But yeah, precision counts for something, like when my husband nut-checked two ghouls to death with his raptor cyberlegs, and his partner sliced the other three up with his katana.
But yeah, ARs and Carbines are for Corpsec and military (Guards). The Ingram Smartgun X, or the Izom RP-71, or Onotari Equalizer, are usually all you need as a runner for those situations. But then again I've been known to use a Praetor P-93 with chameleon coating, and camera neutralizers.
For most PCs though a Skill of 1 in automatics and a specialization in a type of automatic (Usually MPs or SMGs) will get you through most street level campaigns that don't get too serious.
-
Putting two-an-action down for the count is suppressive enough for me. And if the target is weaving and at a considerable range, well - that's why the rigger has aerodrones with automatic weapons. ;) I'll agree that Automatics (SMGs) is a good general idea.
Shadowtalk for the Ares Crusader Machine Pistol, the first in the game:
"Wonderful. Now I can flatten light ammo against body armor faster than ever before."
-- Steel Lynx <22:18:01/12-16-50>
-
"Wonderful. Now I can flatten light ammo against body armor faster than ever before."
-- Steel Lynx <22:18:01/12-16-50>
And that was before armor got insanely popular with everyone.
Machine Pistols used to be great to give to Gangers who were threatening civvies who MIGHT have armored clothing. Maybe. Possibly.
Not likely.
-
Oh hey, I didn't know there was a runner named Steel Lynx, it's a good thing I went with an alternative name for my runner.
-
Oh hey, I didn't know there was a runner named Steel Lynx, it's a good thing I went with an alternative name for my runner.
And he was LIVID when the Steel Lynx Drone came out!
-
Are the Steel Lynx drones that Gatling Mounted Fuchikoma looking thing on Pg. 96 of SR4A? Or are they actual mechanical lynxes? Because that's how I treated them the first time I GMed a big campaign.
-
Are the Steel Lynx drones that Gatling Mounted Fuchikoma looking thing on Pg. 96 of SR4A? Or are they actual mechanical lynxes? Because that's how I treated them the first time I GMed a big campaign.
http://www.gods-inc.de/macavity/IsleOfShadows/vehicles/lynx.jpg (http://www.gods-inc.de/macavity/IsleOfShadows/vehicles/lynx.jpg)
-
Ah, okay, I suppose the MTC Dobermans are the same as well then?
-
And according to the new dev blog, they're adding Accuracy to weapons.
-
And according to the new dev blog, they're adding Accuracy to weapons.
Which should probably put a big hit on the majority of the Automatics group. Wonder how BF and FA affect the accuracy rating. If, for example, a narrow burst increases Accuracy, while a wide burst decreases it, in addition to the normal effects, that would make things interesting.
-
And according to the new dev blog, they're adding Accuracy to weapons.
Which should probably put a big hit on the majority of the Automatics group. Wonder how BF and FA affect the accuracy rating. If, for example, a narrow burst increases Accuracy, while a wide burst decreases it, in addition to the normal effects, that would make things interesting.
Seems more likely to me that they'd apply an Accuracy hit on all Long and Full Bursts, such that while narrow bursts more difficult to get on target, if you can land it it's worth it - giving these methods of firing a way around the damage cap that Accuracy would impose, but increasing the difficulty of their use. On the wide burst side, the value of the defense penalty would become somewhat diminished, but not terribly so.
Wonder if they're going to change Called Shots to provide synergy with the new system - IE, more accurate weapons are more suited to Called Shots.
-
Didn't wide and narrow bursts already simulate accuracy? Wasn't that the point?
-
Didn't wide and narrow bursts already simulate accuracy? Wasn't that the point?
Nope. The simulate the effect of a lot of flying lead. The effects of accuracy are there - and are perhaps more prevalent - when firing in smaller bursts or a single round.
-
well, strictly speaking, higher volume of fire in a shorter time span does increase the likelihood of hits being scored, but I understand that we're talking specific bullet accuracy. Well, most weapons today are under 5 MOA, and I would think that in 2070 they're using mostly highly aerodynamic ammunition that is accurate to one minute of angle. So, I don't really see room for there to be an accuracy stat, since recoil already makes up for degrading accuracy and taking aim improves it. In games where combat is more summarized (IE Bad) some weapons have an accurate trait, or are meant to illustrate their single shot power (Dark Heresy). I'd be interested to see how exactly they plan on implementing it, so long as they stay away from the stupid trend of reducing automatic weapon damage simply because it has a high rate of fire, common on most video game RPGs.
-
I could also get behind a total redesign of the skills based on how it is being used. Rather than Pistols, Automatics and Longarms, Why not Single Round (SS and SA), Automatic Fire (BF and FA), Sniping (aimed shots), etc.? It seems like firing a modded heavy pistol on full auto has less in common with taking pot shots with a holdout revolver, and more in common with opening up with even something as large as a light machine gun, in terms of the skills involved in doing it effectively and sccurately.
It just crossed my mind, so don't feel bad about tearing the idea apart if you don't like it.
I would prefer this. The number of firearm skills is very high and too specialised.
-
I could also get behind a total redesign of the skills based on how it is being used. Rather than Pistols, Automatics and Longarms, Why not Single Round (SS and SA), Automatic Fire (BF and FA), Sniping (aimed shots), etc.? It seems like firing a modded heavy pistol on full auto has less in common with taking pot shots with a holdout revolver, and more in common with opening up with even something as large as a light machine gun, in terms of the skills involved in doing it effectively and sccurately.
It just crossed my mind, so don't feel bad about tearing the idea apart if you don't like it.
I would prefer this. The number of firearm skills is very high and too specialised.
... So, because of that you would prefer a system with as many if not more skills, which are then more specialized?
-
They're more generalized than the current skills we have and pertain to the scenario you use them in, instead of what you use them with. Like gymnastics or climbing or running, they're all moving skills, but in different ways.
-
Really, the Athletics skill group could stand to just become the Athletics skill again, but one of the things I did like about SR3 (other than the fact that 6s exploded ALWAYS) was that the skills to use firearms were by class (Pistols, Assault Rifles, Submachine Guns, Heavy Weapons, Rifles, Shotguns, etc.)
-
which is how they are now, but certain weapons cross those lines, because firearms aren't that cut and dry. I'd be more interested in skills that work on how you use them than on what you use with them, there'd still probably be the same amount of skills, maybe an extra 1 or 2, but probably less.
You could then make a character with either the firearms skill group, which covers all the forms of firing, - certain things like artillery or shoulder mounted, or specialize in a certain form of fighting. Maximize the skills that deal with CQB or Sharpshooting, and then the skills in them could be specialized for a certain type of weapon. Which would mean, you could have multiple specialization's for the pistol or the assault rifle based on how you use it.
This idea is starting to sound better and better.
-
which is how they are now, but certain weapons cross those lines, because firearms aren't that cut and dry. I'd be more interested in skills that work on how you use them than on what you use with them, there'd still probably be the same amount of skills, maybe an extra 1 or 2, but probably less.
You could then make a character with either the firearms skill group, which covers all the forms of firing, - certain things like artillery or shoulder mounted, or specialize in a certain form of fighting. Maximize the skills that deal with CQB or Sharpshooting, and then the skills in them could be specialized for a certain type of weapon. Which would mean, you could have multiple specialization's for the pistol or the assault rifle based on how you use it.
This idea is starting to sound better and better.
No they're not like that now.
SR3 Weapon Skills
Throwing Weapons
Projectile Weapons
Heavy Weapons
Pistols
Submachine Guns
Rifles
Assault Rifles
Shotguns
Gunnery
Launch Weapons
Laser Weapons
Edged Weapons
Pole Arms/Staffs
Clubs
Cyber-Implant Combat
Unarmed Combat
Underwater Combat
Whips
SR4A Weapon Skills
Pistols
Automatics
Longarms
Heavy Weapons
Blades
Clubs
Unarmed Combat
Archery
Throwing Weapons
Gunnery
Exotic Melee Weapon
Exotic Ranged Weapon
-
I didn't say they were like that now, I said I liked the idea of them working that way, though looking at the SR3 charts I find them more agreeable than the SR4 ones, but still.
-
Having played them all, I will admit to being very satisfied with the balance of skills in SR4. SR3 exploded a single skill (Firearms!) into a zillion of them; this was less than pleasant to have to deal with. Having them trimmed back into three primary weapon classes, with an overarching skill group and side-bar skills (i.e. the Exotic weapons) has proven to be quite pleasant.
And, to be honest, any way you dice them up is going to have issues.
-
Okay, I'll make yet another diagram of how I think it could work. Keep in mind these are all working skill titles.
- Precision firing, covers firing in semi auto or single shot, can use a small amount of aim actions.
- Sharp shooting, covers the same but when you take a full round action to aim or more, (Maybe this skill will let you get a +1 bonus for aiming up to its skill rating, since they're doing 12 as the skill cap in 5th ed. or maybe only half, It'd need playtesting)
- Tactical Firing, covers your Burst firing in narrow bursts, probably can use as many aim actions as precision firing.
- Suppressive fire, covers suppressive fire and wide bursts, aiming works the same as precision firing
- Gunnery, works with your computer guided munitions, smart firing platforms, and other wholly electronically and motor aimed weapons. (CIWS guns, missile launchers, rocket pods, gravity bombs, and remote turrets, but not manually operated guns.)
Indirect fire, rockets artillery, mortars, and howitzers. - Launchers, direct fire weapons with no computer guidance, I'd probably just say these should be exotic weapons like the flamer.
-
Okay, I'll make yet another diagram of how I think it could work. Keep in mind these are all working skill titles.
- Precision firing, covers firing in semi auto or single shot, can use a small amount of aim actions.
- Sharp shooting, covers the same but when you take a full round action to aim or more, (Maybe this skill will let you get a +1 bonus for aiming up to its skill rating, since they're doing 12 as the skill cap in 5th ed. or maybe only half, It'd need playtesting)
- Tactical Firing, covers your Burst firing in narrow bursts, probably can use as many aim actions as precision firing.
- Suppressive fire, covers suppressive fire and wide bursts, aiming works the same as precision firing
- Gunnery, works with your computer guided munitions, smart firing platforms, and other wholly electronically and motor aimed weapons. (CIWS guns, missile launchers, rocket pods, gravity bombs, and remote turrets, but not manually operated guns.)
Indirect fire, rockets artillery, mortars, and howitzers. - Launchers, direct fire weapons with no computer guidance, I'd probably just say these should be exotic weapons like the flamer.
See, my issues with this at the least are at the conceptual level. Differences for forms of use should be in terms of the weapons themselves, but the skill to use the weapon should in and of itself remain constant. Accuracy will probably do a great deal to assist in all this.
-
Well, I had an idea of using those skills + weapon skills relating to the type of firearm, but then I thought the dice pools might get to big or it might be overcomplicated, but maybe if it was so that you could only get up to a 6 in each one, and then gear bonuses, it might work out.
-
Okay, I'll make yet another diagram of how I think it could work. Keep in mind these are all working skill titles.
- Precision firing, covers firing in semi auto or single shot, can use a small amount of aim actions.
- Sharp shooting, covers the same but when you take a full round action to aim or more, (Maybe this skill will let you get a +1 bonus for aiming up to its skill rating, since they're doing 12 as the skill cap in 5th ed. or maybe only half, It'd need playtesting)
- Tactical Firing, covers your Burst firing in narrow bursts, probably can use as many aim actions as precision firing.
- Suppressive fire, covers suppressive fire and wide bursts, aiming works the same as precision firing
- Gunnery, works with your computer guided munitions, smart firing platforms, and other wholly electronically and motor aimed weapons. (CIWS guns, missile launchers, rocket pods, gravity bombs, and remote turrets, but not manually operated guns.)
Indirect fire, rockets artillery, mortars, and howitzers. - Launchers, direct fire weapons with no computer guidance, I'd probably just say these should be exotic weapons like the flamer.
No. Just no. Just a bad idea. No more needs saying.
-
Okay, I'll make yet another diagram of how I think it could work. Keep in mind these are all working skill titles.
- Precision firing, covers firing in semi auto or single shot, can use a small amount of aim actions.
- Sharp shooting, covers the same but when you take a full round action to aim or more, (Maybe this skill will let you get a +1 bonus for aiming up to its skill rating, since they're doing 12 as the skill cap in 5th ed. or maybe only half, It'd need playtesting)
- Tactical Firing, covers your Burst firing in narrow bursts, probably can use as many aim actions as precision firing.
- Suppressive fire, covers suppressive fire and wide bursts, aiming works the same as precision firing
- Gunnery, works with your computer guided munitions, smart firing platforms, and other wholly electronically and motor aimed weapons. (CIWS guns, missile launchers, rocket pods, gravity bombs, and remote turrets, but not manually operated guns.)
Indirect fire, rockets artillery, mortars, and howitzers. - Launchers, direct fire weapons with no computer guidance, I'd probably just say these should be exotic weapons like the flamer.
No. Just no. Just a bad idea. No more needs saying.
I am in complete agreement with A4BG.
-
Perhaps those could be specializations? I actually like that a bit....
-
Eh. Something to boost one's ability for precision fire and htings like that is better to be used as an addition to Adept Powers and/or Martial Arts.
-
No,
I don't think that should be something I'm completely against the idea that only adepts can take the abilities, because it doesn't take super human magic to accomplish allot of these things. Using the gun itself is secondary to the way in which you use it, being a good shot and a quick one is in your muscle control and ability to understand the weapon as an extension of you, knowing where the shots are going to go and knowing how to handle the recoil. Proper shooting technique extends across the board to any gun you hold, but obviously you would learn more about the certain type of firearms you would be using in the process. I'll stand by the idea of a combined weapon/technique skillset.
-
Hence a more flexibly applied martial art that revolves around guns instead of eschewing them. I do agree that you shouldn't have to be Awakened/cybered to be feared for your skill or power.
Han Solo from Star Wars dropped dozens of bounty hunters and Storm Troopers because he was quick on the trigger, pragmatic, and had just enough in terms of weapons to get him by. No need for a lightsaber, or a lifetime of a martial code like is implied may have been the case for Boba Fett as a mandalorian.
-
KillerKarate V2.4 does not beat 10mm Caseless.
-
See, Adept powers are the backup if Martial Arts aren't made core. And they should be.
And before anyone comes along thinking that the idea of a Martial Art for ranged combat is somehow wrong, there's a few martial arts all over the world that would like to talk to you - let's start with kyudo.
Skills for how your using them are a bad idea. Full stop. It intuitively won't make sense to a great deal of players, adds needless bloat, makes building characters more restricted rather than less, and doesn't solve any of the issues whatsoever. However, the core of the idea, specifically introducing something so that different characters are good at using weapons in different ways, does ahve merit but needs s different implementation.
-
So how would you go about it? I am genuinely interested.
-
Me personally? I still lean towards a skill for each firing mode, though an arguement for SS and SA to be combined might sway me. If you're trying to use a mode for a skill you don't have, you take a penalty. For learning the new skill I'd imagine it's pretty straightforward, spend time at the range (as it were). If there are easy and difficult divisions for the purposes of learning I'd put all firearm skills in the easy category.
-
So how would you go about it? I am genuinely interested.
Short version?
Precision Firing: For SS/SA mode, boost weapon accuracy (thus a good marksman can do more with bad gear), alter Called Shot penalties to allow for "trick shots". Maneuvers could allow for things like lining up successive shots (so that a partial Take Aim bonus could be applied to a second shot on a second target), enhanced quick draw, Mozambique/Failure-to-Stop firing, and so on. Sharpshooting is in this category, because anything worth adding for one is worth adding for the other.
Controlled Bursts: For Short Bursts, allows a partial reduction in Burst Fire penalty and/or Accuracy loss if one exists. Not sure on maneuvers, maybe something for more effective aimed bursts.
Hail of Lead: Full auto firing. Enhances suppressive fire, defense penalties from wide bursts. Maneuvers would be focused on a run-and-gun approach.
I'd need to know more about the new system to actually design something, though.
-
So you're thinking of using these as martial arts maneuvers, essentially, and holding to the gun skills as is, is that right?
-
With some shuffling around to balance the skills - the skills, as they are, are not an issue. Weapon groupings have a minor problem that is so close to being fixed it's hilarious, which means systemic changes to weapon skills is actually a bad idea - large changes bring in new problems and should only be used to correct large problems (so far as fixing things goes).
Adding something to allow further specialization is good, but having the skill you use to use the same weapon change from one circumstance to the next is a clunky system that would inhibit adoption and introduction. Need to pull a different lever, basically.
-
huh, I can agree with that, in general I'd like to see a boost to base line player capability, not necessarily bigger dice pools or easier success just more realistic flexibility.
But honestly I'm quite happy with the idea we have going.
-
So how would you go about it? I am genuinely interested.
Qualities allowing an additional bonus under certain situations. Like, +1 Accuracy/dice with Pistols when the target has not moved since your last action, call it "Hitting the Side of a Barn, Easy". Heheh
Or clump it with Martial Arts as Advantages.
-
10 karma for +1 dice pool to hit a stationary target sounds like a good deal...
-
Like, +1 Accuracy/dice with Pistols when the target has not moved since your last action, call it "Hitting the Side of a Barn, Easy". Heheh
I call it "taking aim". ::)
-
Like, +1 Accuracy/dice with Pistols when the target has not moved since your last action, call it "Hitting the Side of a Barn, Easy". Heheh
I call it "taking aim". ::)
Oooh, that's good, that should definitely go in the next edition!
-
Like, +1 Accuracy/dice with Pistols when the target has not moved since your last action, call it "Hitting the Side of a Barn, Easy". Heheh
I call it "taking aim". ::)
It would be a static bonus that stacks with Taking Aim.
-
I think you're missing the point.
Small bonus, circumstance which would almost never come up, large investment. Add it all up, and you've got a bad addition.