[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I think SSDR accidentally did >1 when meant <1, aka 'if you modify from X to <1, it should turn into not-possible', not 'you can modify a - into an X to allow attacking outside your range'.

Well I figured that >1 = -  gets around potential abuse involving scopes.  If your AR is already super low where you're not gaining the edge, then the cogent concern is whether or not the defender gains edge.  Saying >1 = no attack at least prevents shenanigans involving "yeah I'm using automatic fire at extreme range, doesn't matter!  I have a scope!"

If the weapon had an AR <=1 without modifications at extreme range I don't see the issue.

That why is support that only the baseline AR should determine range capability... adding a scope should not actually extend the range of any given weapon just make it better at its "normal" ranges, and extend that same principle to all weapon modifications

The issue isn't gaining range.  The issue I see is gaining capability at no cost.

Example: An AK-97 has AR1 at extreme range.  You're never gaining edge, and you're likely giving it away.  Unless you use a Scope.  In which case, ok that's what the scope does.  Noone gets edge now.  However, an AK-97 has advantageous firing modes.  If you lay down a burst at -4 AR and +2DV, now you're just getting 2 free DV since the scope is making your penalty meaningless.  Unless, of course, going down below 1 means that you now count as a "-" and no attack is possible at all.

I don't like burst fire being the optimized way to attack people at extreme range.  It's beyond my standard of reasonableness

I think SSDR accidentally did >1 when meant <1, aka 'if you modify from X to <1, it should turn into not-possible', not 'you can modify a - into an X to allow attacking outside your range'.

Ugh. Indeed.  I know the alligator is supposed to always want to eat the bigger number.  I need to wake up more before making posts involving basic math, apparently. My earlier post is corrected

[Banshee]

Ok, I see where you are going now ... yes but that is more a problem of scopes and not AR modifications. I think scopes are the only models so far that just negates the edge gain right?

So I'd instead they added 3 or 4 to the AR at long or extreme range you would be back to extreme range burst is possible but just a lousy AR with the AK

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, even if there's no scope... when you're at the extremes, going more extreme in that direction results in no further penalty but you get the bonus.

Say the AK-97 had no scope.  Whether the AR is 1 or -3, either way its the same result (defender gains edge) except taking the burst fire gives you +2 free DV.  Unless the attack flatly isn't possible at AR-3.  OTOH if the AR was high enough to to still be a positive number after applying the -4 penalty, then the starting AR had to be 5 or higher.  And at that point, we're not in "extremes becoming more extreme".   AR 5 means you are still denying edge to a reasonably sized envelope of possible DRs.  Going down to 1 means you're all but guaranteed to give away edge, so the "price" of your +2DV is "working".  It stops "working" when you start super low, and then go below zero.

[Banshee]

Yeah .. that starts to get into the territory of where the AR system breaks down but overall I'm ok with it since you are still giving up that edge point which can sometimes be quite pivotal

[Michael Chandra]

Whistles as he writes down an alternative finer-grained houserule system for AR-DR

[Hobbes]

Well the issue only exists with Stock weapons.  If you've stuck something on there to fix the AR, Scope, Gas Vent, Bipod, Adept Power, APDS Ammo.... suddenly your AR is positive and away you go.

[Banshee]

Well the issue only exists with Stock weapons.  If you've stuck something on there to fix the AR, Scope, Gas Vent, Bipod, Adept Power, APDS Ammo.... suddenly your AR is positive and away you go.

That's my approach... the baseline stock weapon AR is the only thing I use to determine if an attack is possible at a given range.

If I had a player making regular use of say burst fire at extreme range I would make them get some modifications to bring the AR up but in general if it's just used sparingly I'm ok with it as is.

[skalchemist]

The comment about spirits is on how you calculate their "starting" AR ... i.e. stronger spirits have greater range.

I get that now, I had interpreted it in my mind as a general rule, but it is specific to the initial AR calculation for spirits. 

That being said, after reading this discussion I find SSDR's arguments for having it be a general rule persuasive.  That is, if your modifications would make the AR zero or less then the shot will automatically miss, so no point making it in the first place.  As Lormyr and Hobbes have said, its an edge case and would rarely come up, but it still pleases my sense of consistency for some reason.
 

[skalchemist]

I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges.  It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.

[Michael Chandra]

Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.

[Trigger Lynx]

Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.

I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges.  It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.

I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.

[adzling]

Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.

I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges.  It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.

I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.

so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?

[Reaver]

Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.

I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges.  It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.

I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.

so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?

<crosses fingers, toes, arms, legs>
Oh, please say yeas! PLEASE say yes!! PL-LEASE SAY YES!!!!!!! For the love of reason and common sense: PLEASE SAY YES!!!!


The thought of something the size of a toddler having the mass and strength to harm a full grown man with an empty hand is just plain silly....

[Hobbes]

Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.

I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges.  It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.

I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.

so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?

<crosses fingers, toes, arms, legs>
Oh, please say yeas! PLEASE say yes!! PL-LEASE SAY YES!!!!!!! For the love of reason and common sense: PLEASE SAY YES!!!!


The thought of something the size of a toddler having the mass and strength to harm a full grown man with an empty hand is just plain silly....

Finesse Weapons appeared in ... 3rd?  Edition D&D.  20 Years ago give or take?  The concept of divorcing Str from melee damage isn't breaking new RPG grounds.   Str matters for melee, not as much as previous editions, absolutely.   Lots more things to take issue with in 6th, IMO.

If Str adding to AR and not DV was 6ths biggest sin we'd all be singing the praises of the new edition.   

(totally could be 3.5 Edition that Finesse Weapons appeared...but I doubt D&D was the first game to do something along those lines)

[adzling]

I think it was 3.5