[Squirrel]

Lets say my limit on a pistol shot decreases from 6 to 1 due to modifiers.
I still roll my (not bad, not insane) pool of say 12 dice and get the expected average 4 hits. Only of them 1 would count. Because I tried some tricky long distant shot.

The problem with that is that in this variant perfect shots do never ever happen in my example even though it is possible -albeit unlikely- that the projectile hits right between the eyes.
With reduced limits every difficult shot is guaranteed to be a glancing hit at best.

[rednblack]

I will say that the idea of adjusting Limits on social rolls is interesting.

The big one that hit me was social. Instead of using dice-pool modifiers on negatives, what if they were limit modifiers? Change the general social modifiers to negative limits on the negative side (Suspicious/Prejudiced/Hostile/Enemy at -1/-2/-3/-4) for your limit. Etiquette - if you're wearing the wrong clothes, you decrease the limit.

I would consider house ruling something like that, but I don't think a blanket statement like all social dice modifiers are now limit modifiers is the best call, and picking and choosing would be complicated for players.  I'm torn, but adjusting the Limit here does seem "realistic" or at least makes sense with how I understand the spirit of the rules.

[falar]

The idea started in the guns world, but I don't think it really got cooking until I hit the social world. I think it models the social modifiers much better than the current system. But it's really tough to figure out how to do it without doing a lot of playtesting.

[Reaver]

For instance, consider range modifiers. Currently, they're a 0/-1/-3/-6 to your dice pool. With a high dice pool, this wouldn't make a ton of difference and doesn't really represent what's going on - what's going on is not that you're less skilled, it's that the the weapon just isn't accurate at that kind of range

I disagree.  I can group a lot closer at 50 yards than I can at 100, but it's not the rifle's fault, it's mine.  A small problem with shooting stance, or site picture, or jerking instead of pulling the trigger will make a more substantive difference the further out in range the target is, and a good shooter knows how to minimize or eliminate those mistakes.

By imposing Limit modifiers to shooting tests, you're saying that someone shooting an Ares Alpha at Extreme Range with 9 dice in their pool is on average, as good a shot as someone with 18.  Now, 9 dice isn't unskilled, but it does not represent the same kind of dedication, and training, and ware, and magic that gets somebody to the super-human level where they can reliably pull off 4 hits at 550 meters, which would seem to me to be within the capabilities of that kind of rifle -- maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself will chime in on that.

Well, I can tell you that a 9mm round has enough energy to fly approximately 3km. That is not to say you could HIT something at that range.... just that the round has the potential to travel that far.

The 2 biggest factors to accuracy of a weapon are gravity and windage. Bullets do not travel in a straight line, they arc through the air. Take a standard .308 hunting rifle, and zero it in for a 400m shot, at the 200m mark the round will land 2-3 inches higher then center. At 600m the round would be 3-5 inches lower.

Windage is a factor just because it blows the bullet off course causing it to sway in the direction its blowing.

This is why snipers use a logbook. It contains all the info and formulae needed to correct for these issues. They litterally look up/work out the firing adjustments they need to make. (Target is 600m away. Wind speed is 11km/h from the left. I am using 'X' weapon.... I have to adjust my sights 3.25 inches up, and 1.75 inches left.)

Technology has played a part in fixing sone of these challenges. Rifled barrels to put a spin of the bullet to decrease windage. Longer barrels to increase velocity. Adjustable sights made to the ballistic performance of the weapon...

And, its important to point out, not all weapons are created equal, even amoung the same calibers. The remington model 700/.308 is so accurate that it is used by many police agencies as a sniper rifle, even though it is classified as a hunting rifle. (And really, really more accurate then other .308 hunting rifles....)

Actual sniper platforms push this accuracy even farther through the use of finely balanced weights and forces...


And yes, there are some people out there that are ungodly accurate with their weapons! I forget the guys name, but there is a Yank out there that can hit a small balloon at 60m with a snubbed nosed .38 (accurate to 20m) on the first shot.... that's 3 times the "accepted accurate range" of the weapon!

[Halinn]

Well, I can tell you that a 9mm round has enough energy to fly approximately 3km. That is not to say you could HIT something at that range.... just that the round has the potential to travel that far.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the default that there's a maximum distance you can hit at all with a given weapon (except that some might disagree with the specific given numbers for that distance, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms).

[Reaver]

Not saying you could hit something (on purpose) at 3km with a 9mm.... but that is the distance the round could travel given its energy.

Accuracy has more to do with the weapon firing the round and the skill of the shooter. (Something SR already takes into account with its current weapon limit system)

And the round itself does play a small part. If your weapon range AND target are 1000m away, but your ammo only has the energy to reach 800m.... your never going to hit the target regardless of how good you or the weapon are.


But all of this is really beside the point. There isn't 300 different ammo manufacturers, making 200 different types of ammo. Heck there isn't even calibers in SR! (Aside from weapon class)

The entire firearm system in SR is an abstract to keep the game moving forward and simplify paperwork...

You buy 'heavy pistol' ammo, and that gets used in every heavy pistol, be it revolver, or automatic, across different brands.

In the real world. I have to buy 9mm rounds for my 9mm handguns, .45acp for my subgun and colt 191. 10mm for my colt delta elite, .44-40 for my remingtion 1871, .44mag for my S&W, .454mag for my cassul magnum. And .38 or .357mag for my king Cobra.....  and if I run out  of one ammo, that gun is a paperweight..... in SR you just take heavy pistol roubds from one pistol and put them in the next!

[rednblack]

@Reaver, I'm not sure that I follow your point.  Certainly all weapons will break down in accuracy -- and potential damage -- due to range.  The CRB makes an effort to adjust for that fact in the range table, and I think it does a fair job of that by reducing the dice pool of the shooter.  -6 dice at Extreme range not only accounts for the difficulty in hitting a target at that range, but also the -2 hits average equals a limit in damage output as well. 

Or am I missing what you're saying?

[Reaver]

I am saying there is more going on in the rules then most people realize. Part of this is abstraction, part is ease of book-keeping, and part is realism.

Falar's suggested changes to limits/dice pools needs a lot more thought and work before going anywhere as it doesn't deal well with some issues and opens up other issues in other areas.

That is not to say it's not worth exploring, just that there is already a lot of abstraction going on in the original rules that he is going to have to deal with if he wishes to continue on with his changes to limits/dice pools.

As it stands, and if I am reading his suggestion right, there are instances where you could have a skill of 13 (the absolute max), an agility of 11, all sorts of mod enhancements..... and a limit of 0 (zero)..... meaning you auto-fail.... even though the weapon is technically in range (even if extreme)

[rednblack]

@Reaver, gotcha.  That is my understanding as well, and the reason why I'm opposed to that blanket change, especially as it relates to combat.  With social modifiers, it would make more sense to me personally if the authors of the CRB had imposed some dice penalties and some Limit modifiers, but I'm unsure how to best implement those changes in a house-rules / home game environment. 

Of course, part of my willingness to do so may be the result of my own biases when it comes to how social interactions are handled by RAW.

[falar]

As it stands, and if I am reading his suggestion right, there are instances where you could have a skill of 13 (the absolute max), an agility of 11, all sorts of mod enhancements..... and a limit of 0 (zero)..... meaning you auto-fail.... even though the weapon is technically in range (even if extreme)

You'd never get to a limit of 0 at extreme range, unless you have a really crappy gun and don't use Take-Aim and a scope to reduce the range modifier. You'd get lower, yeah, but you wouldn't really get to 0.

0 would probably only be possible if you were shooting in very low light, it's raining, and you're at extreme range.

That said, one of the things I originally mentioned was the idea of a minimum limit. It would never be impossible to hit - it would just get very hard. I wibble back and forth what the minimum limit would be between 1 and 3, but anything that would drop you below the minimum limit would just start taking dice off your dice pool.

[Lucean]

I actually like the idea. It would be hard to balance out and get the numbers right, but it could be worthwile.

I don't think that you should have any hope of getting an official 5.5 version with these changes, though

[falar]

I don't think that you should have any hope of getting an official 5.5 version with these changes, though

It'd be combined with an Alchemy rewrite and a Rigger rewrite and a Hacking rewrite. Not that hacking isn't better in 5e, but it still could be even better.