[eviltikiman]

So one of my players has been pestering me with various home brewed rules and what not over the last week or so. On one hand i smell a large chunk of self serving, as they have only come into being when something may affect their character in some way (be it presently or in the future). And most of it i have had to argue with them for a long time to see sense, though over all it was on things i can more or less handle. However they have recently brought up something harder to handle, The weapons range table.
The player finds it wrong on many levels as it not only 'hurts' the dual pistol wielding orc that they want to make (Max Payne-esq), but also as a gun lover(irl), and in a more general sense. And this is where the flip side comes in as i can see and hear in how much effort that they put into describing their first character(both background and individual pieces of gear aesthetically), which screams enthusiasm. Enthusiasm for a new game, that i was able to introduce to them no less, is something i love to see in people, and which is why when they took a crack at remaking the range table, i have been more hesitant to just say no.

Personally i find nothing wrong with the existing range table as well as a lot of the rules. Sure the rules often hobble some of my ideas, but i work around them. Still, I would like to hear some feedback regarding the table before i come to a decision. I told the player to post their ideas to forums and such(pointing out that i don't know nearly as much as the collective input of others), but they have refused for unknown reasons. Please comment because I am in a bind.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ryhZ4_D2WoWVTuk6zsasy9AKPR8bwLs30IZZc-ntSdU/edit#gid=0

[emsquared]

Straight up ask them; why? What is the purpose of this rule you're proposing? Mechanically. If they have a well thought-out legit answer, maybe it's worth considering. If there's stuttering and humming and hawing and equivocating, you smell something fishy, don't waste your time, move on immediately. Tell them straight up; "It's not worth our time to even consider, we'd have to make handouts, alter char-sheets, the other players would have to become familiar with it. Just no. There's nothing wrong as is." For something like the range table, there's nothing wrong with the vanilla table, it's (and this is important for the player to know) just an abstraction of reality meant to employ a game balance thought out by the designers of the game, the only reason to modify it is to shift their designed balance. In what direction(s)? Why? If you haven't found it imbalanced, why consider shifting it at all? It would just make it harder to reference for other players and an inconsistency that could effect presumptions other players have already made.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

ProTip - ask him how accurately he thinks people can fire a 9mm or .45 handgun past 196'10.2" - which is 60m - while in the middle of combat.  If he hems and haws like emsquared said, smile and move on.  What I did create for SR3 and before were three 'extreme-plus' ranges for rifle-class weapons - but that's back when you had ratings for your telescopic vision magnifiers, and they reduced the range by the rating.  (You could only fire out to an 'extreme-plus' range equivalent to your magnifier rating - so L3 mags could fire at targets in their extreme-plus-three range bracket.)

If he tries to argue, remind him that many if not most shots fired from a pistol in close combat - within 10', three meters - by presumably trained personnel (I'm lookin' at you, ossifers of the law) actually miss their targets.  Yes, his character is undoubtedly better trained, but a pistol is meant to be used in close quarters.  60m should be enough for anyone ...

[LionofPerth]

I think you guys are being generous. I'd have flat out said no, the tables in the book are reasonable in this instance. If you disagree with me, I'd like to see you throw a 20 on a dart board as I shoot you with a paintball gun.

The values are pretty good, though to be honest I think the Assault cannon could be extended slightly, considering the capabilities of what I think are equivalent items and the fact it has its own ammo type. Those things should be big, scary and make you worry that one might get used against you. They're nominally survivable at the moment, a little more than I would like.

[Medicineman]

as a compromise you could double the range of RAW Table and call it a Day
but from my experience most Combat is in the ...20 Yard Range,so this would mean that most of the  combat would be with (nearly) no range modifiers, so it's up to you

with a compromizing Dance
Medicineman

[Tarislar]

What range is it they are asking for a Heavy Pistol ?

[ZeConster]

It's in the linked Google Document, Tarislar, Basically, ranges would change as follows (I've bolded the "really close gives a penalty" and "range decreased compared to core" bits):

• Taser: Long 15- -> 20, Extreme 20 -> 30
• Holdout: Short 5 -> 10, Medium 15 -> 20
• Light Pistol: Short 5 -> 15, Medium 15 -> 30, Long 30 -> 50, Extreme 50 -> 75
• Heavy Pistol: Short 5 -> 25, Medium 20 -> 50, Long 40 -> 100, Extreme 60 -> 150
• Machine Pistol: Short 5 -> 20, Medium 15 -> 40, Long 30 -> 100, Extreme 50 -> 150
• SMG: Short 10 -> 50, Medium 40 -> 100, Long 80 -> 200, Extreme 150 -> 250
• Assault Rifle: Short 25 -> 100, Medium: 150 -> 300 (and 0-5 for some), Long 350- -> 500, Extreme 550 -> 600
• Shotgun (flechette): Short 15 -> 20, Medimum 30 -> 40, Long 45 -> 50
• Shotgun (slug): Short 10 -> 30, Medium 40 -> 60, Extreme 150 -> 100
• Sniper Rifle: Short 50 -> 400, Medium 350 -> 800, Long 800 -> 1200 (and 0-9), Extreme 1500 -> 1600
• LMG: Short 25 -> 200, Medium 200 -> 400, Long 400 -> 800 (and 0-9), Extreme 800 -> 1000
• MMG/HMG: Short 40 -> 200, Medium 250 -> 500, Long 750 -> 1000, Extreme 1200 -> 1400 (and 0-9)
• Assault Cannon: Short 50 -> 300, Medium 300 -> 700, Long 750 -> 1100 (and 0-10)
• Grenade Launcher: Short 50 -> 40, Long 150 -> 200, Extreme 500 -> 300
• Missile Launcher: unchanged

Quite frankly, it's pretty ridiculous: it ignores that Medium is only a -1, gives Short way too wide a range, and reduces the range of Extreme (which at a -6 instead of a -3, is supposed to cover a pretty wide range).

[Tarislar]

150 Meters for a Pistol Shot ?      ..........................................  rrrrriiiiiiigggggghhhhhhttttt

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

Yeah.  The guy clearly knows little about weapons in combat or effective ranges, or is aware that the scale is in meters, not feet.  Slap him hard a couple of times, and tell him the ranges are as-is - or he can take his cute little modifications and find a GM stupid enough to allow them.

[martinchaen]

For what it's worth, and purely for anecdotal purposes, during my service we'd sometimes go to the 100m range with our H&K USPs chambered for .45ACP. A 200+ grain bullet will have an effective muzzle velocity of just over 300m/s with the ~5" barrel we used, and the velocity isn't reduced much at a distance of 100m so it can still kill you, though you're look at a good foot of drop on a still day.

What I'm saying is that it's not impossible to hit the chest on a human sized target at that kind of range, though any center mass 10s will be down to luck more than anything else. At 200m you might as well be throwing stones for all the good it'll do ya; I think I can count on one hand the times we even hit the fraggin' board at that range.

My point is this; if these guys knows ballistics it's entirely plausible that they've done their math and calculated the theoretical capabilities of hypothetical rounds. I'd make it simple and add an "ultra-extreme" range category and make the dice pool modifier -12, because good fraggin' luck.

To put things into perspective; the round I mentioned above was classified by NATO as being effective to around 30-35m...

[LionofPerth]

For what it's worth, and purely for anecdotal purposes, during my service we'd sometimes go to the 100m range with our H&K USPs chambered for .45ACP. A 200+ grain bullet will have an effective muzzle velocity of just over 300m/s with the ~5" barrel we used, and the velocity isn't reduced much at a distance of 100m so it can still kill you, though you're look at a good foot of drop on a still day.

What I'm saying is that it's not impossible to hit the chest on a human sized target at that kind of range, though any center mass 10s will be down to luck more than anything else. At 200m you might as well be throwing stones for all the good it'll do ya; I think I can count on one hand the times we even hit the fraggin' board at that range.

My point is this; if these guys knows ballistics it's entirely plausible that they've done their math and calculated the theoretical capabilities of hypothetical rounds. I'd make it simple and add an "ultra-extreme" range category and make the dice pool modifier -12, because good fraggin' luck.

To put things into perspective; the round I mentioned above was classified by NATO as being effective to around 30-35m...

That .45 can't have much energy left in it at 100m, nevermind 200m. You'd have to be very lucky to hit something and do enough damage.

[martinchaen]

LionofPerth
You'd be surprised. With a 5" barrel and a muzzle velocity of ~300m/s, a 200gr .45ACP has a muzzle energy of ~700 joules. At 100m, it's velocity will have dropped by less than 100m/s, resulting in an energy at 100m of more than 500 joules.

This is still plenty enough energy to do damage. Your issue will be hitting anything, as mentioned.

[LionofPerth]

LionofPerth
You'd be surprised. With a 5" barrel and a muzzle velocity of ~300m/s, a 200gr .45ACP has a muzzle energy of ~700 joules. At 100m, it's velocity will have dropped by less than 100m/s, resulting in an energy at 100m of more than 500 joules.

This is still plenty enough energy to do damage. Your issue will be hitting anything, as mentioned.

Guess I need to check out the numbers on it. I would have thought the drop off would have been much higher than it.

[martinchaen]

Energy-wise? No. Gravitational? Hell yes. Like I said, figure almost a foot of drop at 100m.

Like I said, not a good idea, certainly not at a moving target, but impossible for a trained and skilled marksman? No.

I'd allow shots to be taken out to ultra-extreme ranges at a -12; for simplicity, just take Extreme range and multiply it by 1.5 or 2. At a -12 to hit (-6 at the very least with take aim or improved range finder), you'll be lucky to hit anything, even with 20 dice before modifiers.

[LionofPerth]

Energy-wise? No. Gravitational? Hell yes. Like I said, figure almost a foot of drop at 100m.

Like I said, not a good idea, certainly not at a moving target, but impossible for a trained and skilled marksman? No.

I'd allow shots to be taken out to ultra-extreme ranges at a -12; for simplicity, just take Extreme range and multiply it by 1.5 or 2. At a -12 to hit (-6 at the very least with take aim or improved range finder), you'll be lucky to hit anything, even with 20 dice before modifiers.

I was only talking about energy. It seems I used a very confusing word, considering the subject matter.

I'm on the same page, of a sorts. This seems to be very much an exercise in..... capability, because we can, we're going to prove we can. I don't even have so much a problem with keeping it to a -8 or -10. In my mind what stands out is the fact a well trained marksman can do it. I'd more limit to a minimum skill rating than anything else. You want to try it, you need some serious training with that weapon class at a minimum. If not be using a weapon customised for you.