Topic: Noob Weapons Law: Firearms + Spacemaster Blaster Law questions please

[Hurin]

Actually the system I have for the fixed three-round burst uses one attack roll modified twice. The first is normal, the second deals with a -20 (applied to the original roll), and the third is a -30 to the original roll, in addition to all other penalties and modifiers. Hit location (I use crit tables based on hit location) does not change. This deals with the "spread" of such an attack, making it possible for the third (or even the second) round to either miss or do no critical damage while the first round does.

That's an interesting idea, and I don't think I've ever heard it before. My main question is: how do you handle the critical? Let's say for example that I am using a small projectile attack vs AT 1. My attack roll ends up with a result of 103. That would mean that the first bullet does 17D, the second (-20) does 8B, and the third 7A. The total hits are easy to figure out and mimic in a way that bursts used to give a 150% concussion hit damage modifier in SM. Here, the burst does 17 + 8 + 7 = 32 total hits, which is closer to 200% than 150%, but results will vary of course depending on how high the attack roll is. In any case, I like the way this handles hits.

Now though you have three separate criticals (whereas in SM you would just upgrade the critical chart from Puncture to the considerably deadlier shrapnel/automatic fire table). So how do you handle the additional criticals?

[intothatdarkness]

I roll the crits separately, as they represent three distinct attacks. It's lethal for the first attack, but after that its effectiveness drops drastically as recoil penalties stack (for each shot after the first unless a Steadying action is taken...which works out to pretty much a full CR - recoil carries over to each new CR until a character actually ceases fire and Steadies).

Since my crits are location-based, you'd have three to roll: the initial D, a B, and a third A.

[jdale]

Using the same attack roll means no additional chance to fumble (although also no additional chance to roll open-ended), but using separate critical rolls means you are increasing the chance of an outright kill or takedown effect, probably at least on par with increasing the critical severity (depending on your tables), and the chance of stun or bleeding goes up quite a bit more. It's interesting, but a single attack roll with an OB bonus sufficient to get that additional degree of critical severity or two gives a similar result that adjudicates more quickly.

[Hurin]

It is an interesting idea. I might be a bit more comfortable with it if the penalties were a bit larger, say -10 for the first bullet, then -30, then -50. That might seem like a lot, but you are essentially getting three attacks for the price of one. That may be realistic -- semi and automatic weapons really are extremely deadly; i am just a little wary of the balance implications, from a gamist perspective.

[intothatdarkness]

You also need to understand that there are far more penalties in play than just the recoil modifier. You have range for one, penalties for shooting at a moving target for another, any penalties the shooter accrued by moving, and also penalties for firing from cover.

Example: A character uses a three-round burst from a Beretta 93-R. At Medium Range (anything from 5 to 20 yards) she has a -50 to hit. A Moving Target is anywhere from -10 to -20 depending on the pace. If the shooter moved (up to 25% of the movement allowance) she's facing a -20 and can't fire at all if she moved over 25%. If she hurries the attack it's an additional -30, and if she's firing from cover there's an additional -25. That doesn't include penalties for the target being in cover. So an attack against a moving target at Medium Range would have an automatic -70 to hit, -100 if the shooter rushes things. 9mm maxes out at 19D, but if her final attack roll is a net 62 she's doing 6A and the next two shots actually miss or are just no-point grazes. A a higher-level character would have better results, but you're still looking at the damage cap and dropping from there (so 19D, 12C, and 10C more or less). In rifles and carbines, most three-round burst weapons are 5.56mm, which has the same crit spread as 9mm but more concussion damage (31, 15 and 11 respectively.

And from a gamist perspective, there are relatively few weapons that actually USE a fixed three round burst, and the bulk of them are military-issue assault rifles and are in lighter calibers. In espionage gaming you simply don't run into them as often because stealth is key, so it's easy to keep them out of play if you want. I've actually seen more characters killed by double-taps from .45 ACP in test sessions than I have three-round burst kills (especially with pistols). And that's because .45 ACP caps at 31E. A double-tap is two attack rolls, but with the higher damage potential (and range of crits) lethality is more common.

[intothatdarkness]

I should also note that a three-round burst uses the weapon's entire RoF for the current CR. So you're only getting one of them per round in any case. Still scaling this for AP-type stuff, but this attack will likely have a special AP cost and thus fall somewhere in the middle of any round. It can also only be directed at one target and not spread out like a true Burst attack or using automatic weapons on a "round-by-round" basis.

[Hurin]

Yes, i see how those penalties make sense in your own system. I like the way pace adds a DB bonus (or OB penalty).

[intothatdarkness]

Yes, i see how those penalties make sense in your own system. I like the way pace adds a DB bonus (or OB penalty).

In a short round that kind of modification is essential. Moving targets are harder to hit, period. Every serious firearms system has penalties for moving targets and moving shooters. The lack of those, IMO, was always one of the great weaknesses of every RM-style take on firearms.

[Hurin]

Yes, agreed; it is even a bit of a problem in non-firearm systems, I think because it could involve a lot of bookkeeping. But moving makes you harder to hit even with a bow and arrow. Especially with a bow and arrow actually (because the projectile is even slower).

[intothatdarkness]

Yes, agreed; it is even a bit of a problem in non-firearm systems, I think because it could involve a lot of bookkeeping. But moving makes you harder to hit even with a bow and arrow. Especially with a bow and arrow actually (because the projectile is even slower).

Agreed. I started using moving target penalties with bows in my stuff for the same reason. As rounds get shorter and discrete melee attacks become more practical I suspect some sort of penalty for moving targets could come in there as well, although perhaps mostly for targets who move over 25% of their allowance and thus could be seen as 'evading' attacks.

I've always opted to keep these things as OB modifiers instead of DB bonuses simply because it makes more sense for the shooter to deal with the modification. And it also may not factor into certain types of area attacks so it wouldn't be a blanket DB bonus if that makes sense.

[Hurin]

Yes, I like the fact that it wouldn't affect area attacks. Have you ever tried tying the OB penalty for firing at a moving target to the rate of the target's movement directly? I mean, -10 per every 20' moved or something like that. That could easily get quite complicated, but it would be more realistic I think.

[intothatdarkness]

Yes, I like the fact that it wouldn't affect area attacks. Have you ever tried tying the OB penalty for firing at a moving target to the rate of the target's movement directly? I mean, -10 per every 20' moved or something like that. That could easily get quite complicated, but it would be more realistic I think.

It's more based on how much they move (generically 25% or less and then the rest), but it could be tuned to a greater degree. I think I'd base it on declared pace (walking, running, and so on), as that's easier to build mods around and doesn't require as much bookkeeping. That's also fairly standard with firearms rules.

[C.Tozer]

Hi all

Thanks for everyone for their thoughts. I've gone ahead, and with some valuable input from the comments from this post and else where cobbled together my own House Rules for firearms.

They are included in a draft document up on the Rolemaster Group Facebook page - have a look at the link below. I will also try to add the document to this post too.

The longer document is one that I have been working on for a while which covers all of my house rules but the Firearms ones are from page 26 - 43. They are still in draft form at the moment and any feedback thoughts MOST welcome.

Also as mentioned in my Facebook post there are a bunch of other House Rule/compilation documents I have created (all RM2/RMC Spell Lists, all RM2/RMC Professions and my own attempt to amend the RM2/RMC armor rules).
If anyone wants a copy of any of these either let me know or go to the Files section of the Facebook page - all three finished documents are there.

Look forward to any feedback on my Firearms House Rules (or any of my other House Rules too .... particuarly the bleeding/first aid rules too).

Cheers

Chris

My post on Facebook is the link below:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2576550882/permalink/10156529829345883/?comment_id=10156530773515883&notif_id=1534894769314976&notif_t=group_comment

The Rolemaster FB Files page is at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2576550882/files/

[Hurin]

That is very well done, and you have a wealth of interesting ideas in there.

One thing I did notice was that I don't think the page numbers in your Table of Contents matches up with the pages in the rest of the document. The pagination starts with pages 1-5, then starts with page 1 again where it should be page 6, and then does that again later in the document. That means that the topics don't really line up with the page numbers.

[C.Tozer]

Thanks very much Hurin - really appreciate the feedback.

Yes indeed the page numbering is out of whack - I have removed all of the Rolemaster optional rules (which are plentiful) from this draft document and only included my own "Home Rules". In the final version it will have, along with a lot of artwork to break things up, both the RM optional rules that I use and my own House Rules.

Very grateful for any other feedback you may have about my (currently draft) house rules particularly regarding Firearms (pretty much just cobbled together by myself).

Cheers

Chris

That is very well done, and you have a wealth of interesting ideas in there.

One thing I did notice was that I don't think the page numbers in your Table of Contents matches up with the pages in the rest of the document. The pagination starts with pages 1-5, then starts with page 1 again where it should be page 6, and then does that again later in the document. That means that the topics don't really line up with the page numbers.