Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Sir_Prometheus on <06-25-14/1110:37>
-
I mean, you only really only build up recoil if you're using complex action attacks. But even long bursts are dimple actions, now! It seems unless you're doing something fairly extreme you're you're never going to build up a recoil penalty.
It also removed some of the specialness of single shot weapons. I think it liked the old way better.
-
I guess I meant full auto simple, same difference.
-
I think SR5 recoil rules make a lot of sense and actually reflect how recoil work in real life.
Having a non wired strength 10 Troll shooting one bullet every 3 seconds with a light pistol eventually ending up with so much recoil that he would miss the broad side of a barn and just fire straight up in the air never really made any sense at all....
With Hollywood realistic rules (which SR often follow in other aspects of combat) recoil would have an even less impact ;)
If you want to "punish" automatic weapons then there are other ways instead of unrealistic hash recoil rules.....
-
There are people who feel recoil shouldn't reset from a Simple Action alone, yes, but that's houserule territory.
Also: recoil can still build up with Simple Actions, if your second Simple Action is spent firing, and then the next time it's your turn your first Simple Action is spent firing.
-
So if I fire a burst then Aim , then fire off another burst on my next turn. Why would the recoil carry over? I think the errata makes sense as well.
-
The weird thing to me is the way the Aim action works, actually. I think you should have to Aim in the same turn that you shoot - you could carry it over, but Aim before shooting. Shooting then Aiming seems odd. But maybe that's just my OCDness.
-
I think SR5 recoil rules make a lot of sense and actually reflect how recoil work in real life.
Having a non wired strength 10 Troll shooting one bullet every 3 seconds with a light pistol eventually ending up with so much recoil that he would miss the broad side of a barn and just fire straight up in the air never really made any sense at all....
With Hollywood realistic rules (which SR often follow in other aspects of combat) recoil would have an even less impact ;)
If you want to "punish" automatic weapons then there are other ways instead of unrealistic hash recoil rules.....
Actually, I think str 10 gets you 4 pts of recoil (str/3, rounded up) + the free one so you wouldn't even feel anything until the 6th bullet.
There are people who feel recoil shouldn't reset from a Simple Action alone, yes, but that's houserule territory.
Yeah, basically my position. That's how everyone read the rule prior to the errata, right?
So if I fire a burst then Aim , then fire off another burst on my next turn. Why would the recoil carry over? I think the errata makes sense as well.
I guess it really depends upon how long you think aiming, which apparently includes bringing the barrel back down to bear, should really take. I will tell you that IRL aiming takes longer than snapping off the shot, usually. I.e. aiming + shooting is more than twice as slow as just blazing away with a semi-auto.
-
This looks like it's already getting into forum tough talk.
Has anyone here tried playing and without the changes? What are your experiences? I honestly think it made no difference, players mostly still use complex actions (they seem to be a better deal in an actual game combat when NPCs are shooting back). Mainly the only time they use simple action shots is for dual pistols (we us RG1 from R&G)
-
My favourite subject 8)
Personally, I love this part of errata. Automatics should be deadly, and now they ARE deadly.
Yes, Take Aim + Simple Full Auto, Take Aim + Simple Full Auto. Maybe it's overpowered, but that really makes sense. If you can do that, well, your gun has pretty good rate of fire, so you can spend only 1/2 of your Action Phase for shooting and spend another 1/2 for stabilizing the barrel.
Variant (sure it's only a possibe houserule after errata) "two Simple Actions (divided by two IPs count too) or one Complex action reset recoil" was more or less fair, you can use Simple Full Auto + Take Aim, Take Aim + Full Auto.
Variant "only whole Action Phase without firing resets recoil" is silly, because I could do Simple Burst + Remove Clip (1st IP), Insert Clip + Simple Burst (2nd IP) and still have a progressive recoil. After reloading weapon. Sounds ridiculous to me.
Here's my collection (maybe it'll help some new guy to get acquainted with pros and cons):
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14800.0
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=13066.30
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14804.0
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=12147.30
-
Personally, I love this part of errata. Automatics should be deadly, and now they ARE deadly.
Yes, Take Aim + Simple Full Auto, Take Aim + Simple Full Auto. Maybe it's overpowered, but that really makes sense. If you can do that, well, your gun has pretty good rate of fire, so you can spend only 1/2 of your Action Phase for shooting and spend another 1/2 for stabilizing the barrel.
See, this looks powerful but the main thing you have to think about... "Is it worth having giving the enemy a chance to act between shots worth the +2 aim bonus" Maybe against thugs, but opposition with good armor is going to make you regret it.
-
There are people who feel recoil shouldn't reset from a Simple Action alone, yes, but that's houserule territory.
Yeah, basically my position. That's how everyone read the rule prior to the errata, right?
Wrong. I for one never doubted that the rules should function like the Errata clarifies.
-
Fine, "most"
-
Almost there.
-
It did seem to be the significant majority who read it the opposite of the errata as the errata basically makes the entire concept of progressive recoil pointless. They should have just stuck with recoil per pass that doesn't carry over instead of changing the rules to progressive recoil and then errata things so it effectively never carries over to the next pass outside of corner cases.
My only real issue with the errata is it really hit SS weapons hard when they didn't need the hit. For example the ruger super warhawk is plenty balanced by its limited ammo capacity, there is no need to slap the now much harsher SS onto it.
-
It did seem to be the significant majority who read it the opposite of the errata as the errata basically makes the entire concept of progressive recoil pointless. They should have just stuck with recoil per pass that doesn't carry over instead of changing the rules to progressive recoil and then errata things so it effectively never carries over to the next pass outside of corner cases.
My only real issue with the errata is it really hit SS weapons hard when they didn't need the hit. For example the ruger super warhawk is plenty balanced by its limited ammo capacity, there is no need to slap the now much harsher SS onto it.
^^ This.
-
So... nobody has any actual in-game experience with the two different rulings? It's all forum warriors but me?
-
I played it both ways, and it didn't seem to make a difference in the long run. As long as the rules are applied evenly across the board, you just go with it.
-
I did extensive demos with the rule before the errata and found that were it made the big difference was the NPC guards couldn't fire bursts in consecutive actions. When your life expectation is 2-3 actions this is a big deal. For more elite characters or larger dice pools it doesn't make much difference.
I like the errata better, but I do think it took much of the teeth out of the recoil rules.
-
I honestly don't like them. Especially not when combined with the new 'only one attack action' rule. Consider this - a normal person (6 + 1d6) is going to get one attack action every three seconds. Scan that again: every three seconds. They can make one pistol shot in those three seconds, so it's BLAM one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. If they're especially lucky, they'll get two actions: BLAM-one thousand, two one BLAMsand, three one thousand. Set a metronome - no, better yet, go here: http://www.webmetronome.com/ (http://www.webmetronome.com/). Set the metronome to 120 (2 beats per second) and set the second dial to 6, for one combat turn. You can click on just one - that's one shot every turn - and listen to how long you have between shots to recover from the recoil of a semi-automatic shot. Adjust it to emphasize the first and fourth - that's two shots. Go on, I'll wait.
...
One 'tick' among the 'tocks' every three seconds sure as hell is a lot of time to recover from recoil, ain't it? Even two, you get plenty of time. I can see a competent shooter, someone with a 4 or 5 in the skill, handling without penalty one semi-automatic or short burst shot per second (accents on 1, 3, and 5), even under fire. I can see anyone at all handling one shot per turn with no problem, too, so long as they didn't have an incompetency in the skill. Someone who's especially competent - like that guy who accurately fires 6 shots from a single-shot weapon (a revolver) in a half-second - to be able to handle more fire, simply because they know how to handle the recoil, to ride it, to use it to set up their next shot.
Hm.
I may have to work on this, but if I do, I'm pretty sure my house recoil rulings are going to be a matter of skill, not pure muscle. Muscle may enter into the equation, especially with autofire weapons, but it isn't going to matter a whit when it comes to SS/SA weapons ...
-
So... nobody has any actual in-game experience with the two different rulings? It's all forum warriors but me?
Well, our table always used the rules as they were intended, that is, according to the errata, so no, we never used the proposed house rules. We are all in agreement that the rules in the book (as clarified by errata) are good enough for the system as is.
-
So... nobody has any actual in-game experience with the two different rulings? It's all forum warriors but me?
I've played ...like ...a dozen Runs on Conventions and I don't really see a difference between shooting smg or Assault Rifles in SR5 and in 4A.
in 4A they where a little bit more pimped for recoil compensation but thats all.
And I don't relly note ACC Limitations in SR5 too, so either my chars are all well made or Limitations are a hyperbole
I played it both ways, and it didn't seem to make a difference in the long run. As long as the rules are applied evenly across the board, you just go with it.
that's my impression too
Hough!
Medicineman
-
Honestly, the biggest difference I've seen is from the GM side of things. Decision making for goons is much easier (long bursts over and over vs. coordinated attacks so people can reset their recoil), but the consequence is the tactical side of things is less enjoyable.
I haven't yet played with the new options from Run & Gun. I'm curious to see how the various Complex Actions in there work with clarified recoil, since many of them are excellent ways of increasing your damage.
-
I honestly don't like them. Especially not when combined with the new 'only one attack action' rule. Consider this - a normal person (6 + 1d6) is going to get one attack action every three seconds. Scan that again: every three seconds. They can make one pistol shot in those three seconds, so it's BLAM one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. If they're especially lucky, they'll get two actions: BLAM-one thousand, two one BLAMsand, three one thousand. Set a metronome - no, better yet, go here: http://www.webmetronome.com/ (http://www.webmetronome.com/). Set the metronome to 120 (2 beats per second) and set the second dial to 6, for one combat turn. You can click on just one - that's one shot every turn - and listen to how long you have between shots to recover from the recoil of a semi-automatic shot. Adjust it to emphasize the first and fourth - that's two shots. Go on, I'll wait.
...
One 'tick' among the 'tocks' every three seconds sure as hell is a lot of time to recover from recoil, ain't it? Even two, you get plenty of time. I can see a competent shooter, someone with a 4 or 5 in the skill, handling without penalty one semi-automatic or short burst shot per second (accents on 1, 3, and 5), even under fire. I can see anyone at all handling one shot per turn with no problem, too, so long as they didn't have an incompetency in the skill. Someone who's especially competent - like that guy who accurately fires 6 shots from a single-shot weapon (a revolver) in a half-second - to be able to handle more fire, simply because they know how to handle the recoil, to ride it, to use it to set up their next shot.
Hm.
I may have to work on this, but if I do, I'm pretty sure my house recoil rulings are going to be a matter of skill, not pure muscle. Muscle may enter into the equation, especially with autofire weapons, but it isn't going to matter a whit when it comes to SS/SA weapons ...
Meh, turn based mechanics will always have issues like this as the turn or pass is meant to encompass a wide range of activities not just standing still while shooting. So while real life has its place it doesn't always help in abstract systems.
The game mechanics do play out differently in my experience. I don't see it as better or worse, as both versions have positive and negative aspects but its too abstract IMO to get hung up on what 3 seconds is.
-
They can make one pistol shot in those three seconds, so it's BLAM one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand.
NoNo, You got it wrong ;) :)
They can shoot twice with a Pistol, they can make only one Attack. so the second shot has to be in the Air (or somewhere its save ;) )
You could also Double Tap a single Target or even triple Tap
but you can't shoot two adjacent Goons
with a save Dance
Medicineman
-
You also have to understand that you are doing more than just standing still, holding a gun, pulling the trigger as fast as you can. You are looking around you for targets and enemies; remember that SR does not deal with facing, it's assumed you are moving and turning. You are also dodging any incoming attacks, ducking and weaving. Not to mention any movement you may or not make, or cover you may or may not take advantage of. The limited number of attacks is more of a number of 'effective' attacks. This is illustrated better with melee combat, where each attack is assumed to a series of strikes, each melee attack roll is more than just a single punch.
I am torn on the errata'ed change. One the one hand it makes more sense to me that Taking Aim, or (free action w/ smartlink) ejecting a clip then Simple Action Insert Clip will reset recoil. On the other, SS weapons now get nerfed. The Ruger really has no advantage over the Predator now. Well, maybe the extra point of AP, but is that worth the limited ammo and the inability to fire Semi Auto Burst? Smaller revolvers are also capable of SA fire, like the Taurus Multi with light pistol ammo, or the Cavalier Deputy. If it were up to me, I would beef up the Ruger just a tiny bit to compensate. A higher DV, maybe, or AP3? Hell, even counting the total damage as two higher for purposes of Knock Down would be nice. No, this has nothing to do with my Orc Sammie's favorite weapon being a Ruger, why do you ask?
-
They can make one pistol shot in those three seconds, so it's BLAM one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand.
NoNo, You got it wrong ;) :)
They can shoot twice with a Pistol, they can make only one Attack. so the second shot has to be in the Air (or somewhere its save ;) )
You could also Double Tap a single Target or even triple Tap
but you can't shoot two adjacent Goons
you can shoot up to 3 adjacent goons as one single complex action + a free action as long as they are within short or medium range and you have a pistol skill of 5+ ;)
Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using this fire mode...
-
Timing is why I houserule that any Semiautomatic or faster firing weapon can make suppressive fire... still takes 20 rounds, but that can come from different magazines.
-
You also have to understand that you are doing more than just standing still, holding a gun, pulling the trigger as fast as you can. You are looking around you for targets and enemies; remember that SR does not deal with facing, it's assumed you are moving and turning. You are also dodging any incoming attacks, ducking and weaving. Not to mention any movement you may or not make, or cover you may or may not take advantage of. The limited number of attacks is more of a number of 'effective' attacks. This is illustrated better with melee combat, where each attack is assumed to a series of strikes, each melee attack roll is more than just a single punch.
Nobody understands this better than I, but adjusting for recoil is actually easier when you're active - and the game already has penalties for movement and the like. Your statement seems to suggest that awareness and body activity impairs adjusting for recoil; my statement is that, depending on skill level, adjusting for a certain amount of recoil is par for the course. Recovering from the recoil of firing a weapon once every 1.5-3 seconds because that's how often you take an attack action that's a firearms attack ... I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense.
I do agree with needing to track this stuff across a Turn; while I fondly remember the super-speed street sam who could fire a 'cut down' modified assault shotgun as a pistol, firing semi-automatic and empty its 10-round magazine in one combat Turn, that is too much, and recoil should have to be accounted for.
Thinking this over, I believe I'm going to view it this way:
A character's recoil compensation is equal to 1 free shot + 1/3 strength + 1/3 skill + recoil compensation on the weapon. Progressive recoil is as stated in the errata, with one variation - that 'one free shot' and the skill-based recoil compensation resets every Turn. If you're skilled with a pistol, hammering away with semi-automatic fire every second and a half isn't going to be a problem. If you've got the jitters and your initiative is 18 + 4d6 and you're managing to fire five (or ten - I plan in my game on house ruling that you can use two simple actions for basic semi-automatic fire every initiative pass - not sure about BF short bursts yet, though) shots, then yeah, there's only so much recoil skill can handle, and that penalty remains until the person 'recovers from recoil' - and if it progresses into the next action, that penalty remains and is not reduced; you simply don't get more added on until you exceed your limit again.
In any case. My game, my rules; I'm not arguing for a change, just hammering out how it'll work at my table. (Setting up a group soon, so ...)
-
I have been running an online Shadowrun game since the PDF was released last year. So nearly a year of running a game. We used Progressive Recoil as printed in the Core Book, and never had any problems. Yes, this "uberstrong Troll will eventually have such a high penalty with a Semi Automatic Weapon that he would miss the ground if the barrel was pressed into the dirt" situation sounds good on paper, yet it never came up in my game from August (or whenever the PDF came out) until February (When the errata came out).
By the time anyone was close to having SA recoil issues, the fight was either over, or the PC had to reload, or just the general flow of the game caused them to take a full Phase without firing, and thus resetting recoil.
So along comes the errata, which was supposed to reword it, because some were confused about the actual wording "cumulative over every Action Phase and Combat Turn unless the character takes, or is forced into, an action other than shooting for an entire Action Phase."
Now, some debated that this meant recoil reset as long as you weren't shooting for an entire action phase. So, Simple Action shoot, Simple Action Pick your nose cleared recoil, because you picking your nose meant you weren't shooting for the entire action phase. Most seemed to read it that you needed an entire action phase in which you did not shoot at all.
Back to the Errata. What did it fix? The only thing it seemed to "Fix" was the troll missing the planet with the barrel in the ground, maybe on the last shot of a 15 round magazine (assuming any actual skill in shooting).
What did it break? It broke Single Shot weapons. Well, maybe not broke them, but negated their only real benefit, and that being no accumulated recoil., Because now, a SA weapon fired once per turn also meant no accumulated recoil. It also broke Simple Action Full Auto. Taking a 6 round burst, Phase after Phase, combined with aiming actions or whatnot, means you never accumulate recoil. This lumps them in with the Single Shot weapon benefit as well.
Complex Full Auto did't see any changes.
So, in my game, I decided not to use the errata in this regard. There were some other areas where the errata broke things. Adepts can't initiate, according to the errata. They tried to reword something to correct a mistake, and worded it in a way that broke it. We disregard this "clarification" as well, since I have adepts in my group that would like to Initiate.
So, since the errata came out in Feb, I've still continued to use recoil as presented in the core book, and still haven't had any issues. That high strength troll still hits the ground well after combat ends because that extreme recoil penalty never seems to get high enough to matter. I am not saying that it will never be a problem, but in nearly a year's worth of gaming experience, it hasn't yet.
-
^^ THIS
-
Good points about single shot weapons Agonar. Using optional rule RG1 from Run & Gun helps with that.
-
.........THE de facto nerfing of SS weapons was mentioned several times already......
Anyway, while removing the one attack per phase limit does suddenly make recoil matter again, I think limiting attacks to one per phase was one of the best things about 5th ed. It would also require rebalancing melee attacks by comparison. I'd much rather just revert to the pre-errata recoil.
-
They can make one pistol shot in those three seconds, so it's BLAM one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand.
NoNo, You got it wrong ;) :)
They can shoot twice with a Pistol, they can make only one Attack. so the second shot has to be in the Air (or somewhere its save ;) )
You could also Double Tap a single Target or even triple Tap
but you can't shoot two adjacent Goons
you can shoot up to 3 adjacent goons as one single complex action + a free action as long as they are within short or medium range and you have a pistol skill of 5+ ;)
Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using this fire mode...
According to German Erratta You could, If You've got two Pistols You can shoot both as complex Action at two Targets.
But thats the only way to affect two targets with Pistols
you can shoot up to 3 adjacent goons as one single complex action + a free action as long as they are within short or medium range and you have a pistol skill of 5+
only if You single AM Pistol manages to fire at least 9 Bullets in one Inipass because you need 3 Bullets per Burst/Target ! ;) !
Skill of 5+ is one thing ,mechanical impossibility another
If You've got it differently RAW please post the Page, and I will gladly compare it with my BBB
with an impossible Dance
Medicineamn
-
Semi-Automatic bursts can take advantage of the Multiple Attacks Free Action to fire at multiple targets with the same burst.
-
thanks :)
I just checked it.But its not in the German BBB (Pg 180)
The passus is only in Long Burst and Full Auto Burst
with a German Dance
Medicineman
-
Oh? The reputation of the German edition is at stake. :P
-
Oh? The reputation of the German edition is at stake. :P
Not in My Opinion
I guess it was left out on Purpose becuase it makes no sense to "divide " aBurst from a Pistol If you can't divide a Burst from Burst Fire Waepons ;)
Without this ...Dividing/Spreading the Burst , teh rest of the Burst Rules are kinda Streamlined (ImO)
But thats a topic for another Thread ;)
with a strweamlined Dance
Medicineman
-
So effectively, Agonar, what you're saying is you haven't played with the errata rules.
Gotcha. That makes your experience just as valuable to the OP as mine, as we both have only played with one system and not the other.
At my table we use the errata version, and no one is overusing the 6 round burst, and one character even has a Warhawk.
So what does this prove? Absolutely nothing, seeing as it's all anectodal. Regardless, with our without errata recoil rules, the game is still patently fun for the players it seems, so who really cares?
Though I wouldn't be surprised if Prometheus makes one last remark and then closes the thread, as per his usual MO...
-
A "burst" from semi automatic is you pressing the trigger up to three times in one complex action. Fire a shot. Point the weapon at your target. Fire again. Point the weapon at your target. Fire a third time.
You can do this against one target.
You can also spend a free action to aim the three shots at three different targets. However, all targets need to be within medium range, you need a weapon skill if 5+ and you split the dice pool.
A BF mode weapon is you pressing the trigger once. And the weapon fire 3 bullets within 0.2 seconds. All three will hit roughly at the same place. You can't "split" them on different targets.
A Long Burst with a BF weapon is you pulling the trigger once. The weapon fire 3 bullets on your target. Then you bring your gun to your target and press the trigger once again.
You can do this against one target.
You can also spend a free action to aim the two individually bursts at two different targets. However, both targets need to be within medium range, you need a weapon skill if 3+ and you split the dice pool.
-
To fire at different targets with a FA mode weapon you fire controlled bursts on everything (friends and foe) that moves in a frontal cone area (aka suppressive fire).
-
I have played both systems. Carried over the same characters from 4th to 5th. And I don't really see much difference in how recoil works between the one and the other. But that is most likely because of our group: A phys/ad, a katana wielding Troll, and my brawler Orc sammie who uses his Ruger more than anything else. I've played a few one-shot runs with a number of characters, mostly with machine pistols, and recoil was never really an issue, under either edition.
I can't speak for Automatics heavy groups though.
My main complaint is still that SS weapons got seriously nerfed. But that's from a game balance perspective. From a realism perspective, there's a reason automatics are more popular/prevalent than SS. Personally I liked 4th ed better, where more than one attack could be taken per Initiative Pass, but with 5th editions progressive recoil carrying over from round to round.
-
In earlier editions SA had twice as many attacks than SS. In 5th SA only get one attack action just like SS. Balance wise SS became almost twice as "strong" in 5th when you compare them to earlier editions and SA.
-
In earlier editions SA had twice as many attacks than SS. In 5th SA only get one attack action just like SS. Balance wise SS became almost twice as "strong" in 5th when you compare them to earlier editions and SA.
How so? In the case of Long Arms, the SA/BF weapons are all much stronger than their SS alternatives: the PJSS has only 11P when compared to the SA/BF capable Enfield's 13P, and the SS Remington does only 12P compared the the 12, 13, or 14P of the other Sniper Rifles(only the cheap Ruger 100 does less). Anything using Automatics skill need not even be mentioned. In Light Pistols, the only SS weapon is the Taurus Omni-6, which does damage on par with the other weapons listed; not better at all(6P for the Taurus' SA mode is on par, and there are two other pistols capable of 7P damage at SA which the Taurus has to be in SS mode to fire, a distinct disadvantage). And finally in Heavy Pistols, the Ruger does do one more damage than the Predator, with slightly better Penetration, but 1P extra is nowhere near 'twice as strong'.
There is not a single case where SS weapons stand out as the 'strongest' in the bunch. The Ruger almost outdistances the Ares Predator V, but with the new options from Run and Gun and the errata'd recoil no longer being the hindrance it was before the Ruger no longer really has any advantage over the Ares. Before the errata the Ruger had enough of an advantage for some people to consider it. But not any more. And I see so many discussions fall apart into arguments of what is the 'only choice' when it comes to builds, the Predator is going to be on every single one of those 'essential' builds for the most effective characters.
But were SS weapons so strong they needed to get nerfed to balance things out? Clearly no.
Now, my current character uses a Ruger, and even specializes in Revolvers. Because it's cool, it's fun to play. I don't get bogged down in what is or isn't the 'only choice'. So there's that...
-
Do I think it would be cool if SS weapons like the Taurus Omni-6 and Ruger Super Warhawk had something unique or special going for them; yes.
Do I think it is needed for "balance" reasons; no.
Revolvers are preferred by some (certain police forces, for instance) in real life because they are very reliable; there's very little chance of jamming, for instance, and they are exceedingly easy to clean. However, they have their drawbacks as well. In Shadowrun, maintenance is not really an issue, and so the biggest distinguishing feature between SS weapons like revolvers and bolt action rifles becomes the drawbacks.
Besides ultra-large caliber revolvers and high-precision bolt-action rifles, there really isn't much functional difference between real-world equivalent SS and other weapons. So how do people who feel SS weapons are too weak propose that they be improved or made unique/given an advantage over their SA/BF/FA counterparts? I'm genuinely curious about this, and I'd prefer other solutions than "recoil", because I for one use the Errata rules and feel they are more than adequate.
-
Read again. What I typed was that In earlier editions a SA weapon could fire twice. In the same target. Without splitting the pool. Double damage. While SS could only fire once at a target. SS weapons was rather "weak" compared to SA weapons (or SA weapons was rather "strong" compared to SS weapons; same thing).
In SR5 SS weapons can fire as often as SA weapons. Compared to SA and some of the earlier editions SS weapons are now roughly twice as "strong" (or SA half as strong while SS is not half as strong.; same thing).
Balance wise SS weapons are at a rather good spot in SR5.
-
Martin, perhaps if SS tended to do more damage than their SA counterparts, rather than less, that would balance things more. There would be a reason besides style to pick a SS weapon. Or if there were a mechanic to account for better reliability. There is the Glitch system, but how would you work that? SS weapons Glitch any time half+1 of your dice come up 1s?
Xenon, I understand your point now.
-
Martin, perhaps if SS tended to do more damage than their SA counterparts, rather than less, that would balance things more.
Going over all the SS weapons I can find, it boils down to this: SS Longarms, Holdouts and Light Pistols all suck. SS Heavy Weapons and the Ruger Super Warhawk are actually pretty good, being generally on par or better than their contemporaries damage-wise, with the exception of the SA grenade Launcher, which is just a nightmare.
-
While I've dabbled in the new system I've always preferred the pre-errata system, simply because post-errata makes weapons with full auto as a simple action too good in comparison to the other choices in most situations. SS is near pointless now, and why bother with being a combat mage, when the guy with the assault rifle can aim and full auto (simple) for bonus to hit every round until they need to reload. My opinion hasn't changed that the system was fine before the errata, SS weapons had their place, and assault rifles where still the preferred weapon, with good reason. I said before that assault rifles where basically top-tier pre-errata, and the change has brought them into god tier, which can be quite detrimental to game balance in a combat situation. Realism is nice and all, but when we've got Orcs, Trolls, and Elves walking around with people throwing fireballs and other magical effects, I think realism is a secondary concern to balance.
-
Revolvers are preferred by some (certain police forces, for instance) in real life because they are very reliable; there's very little chance of jamming, for instance, and they are exceedingly easy to clean. However, they have their drawbacks as well. In Shadowrun, maintenance is not really an issue, and so the biggest distinguishing feature between SS weapons like revolvers and bolt action rifles becomes the drawbacks.
Martin is dead on right here. SS weapons might be easier to get, more reliable, but there is no need for them to be 'balanced'. Some technologies/ designs just become inferior to others.
-
Revolvers are preferred by some (certain police forces, for instance) in real life because they are very reliable; there's very little chance of jamming, for instance, and they are exceedingly easy to clean. However, they have their drawbacks as well. In Shadowrun, maintenance is not really an issue, and so the biggest distinguishing feature between SS weapons like revolvers and bolt action rifles becomes the drawbacks.
Martin is dead on right here. SS weapons might be easier to get, more reliable, but there is no need for them to be 'balanced'. Some technologies/ designs just become inferior to others.
But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles. From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades. Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go. The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise. It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".
-
But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles. From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades. Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go. The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise. It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".
This is then not an issue of the game, or game-balance - it's an issue of people playing the game system instead of playing the game. Like tightly balanced systems - such as HERO - the GM has to look at a character and decide if a disadvantage is really a disadvantage. It has always been the GM's job to make sure that people who made interesting choices instead of The Optimal Choice were in some way rewarded for that selection - whether that's 'he's got a refurbished Colt .44 made in 1869? That is so cool.' or "I'll need to store your weapon, sir."
Real life is imbalanced. Games can be just as imbalanced, and IMO to a certain extent should be - because then that means that making a less-than-optimal choice is something that can be rewarded. And should be.
-
But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles. From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades. Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go. The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise. It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".
This is then not an issue of the game, or game-balance - it's an issue of people playing the game system instead of playing the game. Like tightly balanced systems - such as HERO - the GM has to look at a character and decide if a disadvantage is really a disadvantage. It has always been the GM's job to make sure that people who made interesting choices instead of The Optimal Choice were in some way rewarded for that selection - whether that's 'he's got a refurbished Colt .44 made in 1869? That is so cool.' or "I'll need to store your weapon, sir."
Real life is imbalanced. Games can be just as imbalanced, and IMO to a certain extent should be - because then that means that making a less-than-optimal choice is something that can be rewarded. And should be.
I see what you're saying, but I still feel there is a fundamental problem with one way being the "right way", as that leads to all the combat being samey and boring because everyone is doing it "the right way", and anyone who tries to make it interesting is just penalized. To be honest, I just feel the system worked better pre-errata, nobody disliked it (as far as I saw), the system ran smoothly, and while assault rifles were still awesome, and the best all around weapons, the other weapons had their place, whereas now it feels like there is no reason to choose anything else, should the game or campaign lean more towards combat. It feels like there are less options now compared to before, and in my opinion that is a mistake. Just my two cents on the issue though.
-
Realism is nice and all, but when we've got Orcs, Trolls, and Elves walking around with people throwing fireballs and other magical effects, I think realism is a secondary concern to balance.
The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.
Realism means to jive with reality. The real world is what you are living in.
Verisimilitude means to jive with itself - to feel internally consistent and plausible from the perspective of people in the world. A world with versimility is a world you can imagine existing and living in.
No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.
-
The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.
No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.
Well-said.
I will say, Dracain, that you just gutted your argument by one simple phrase: ... should the game or campaign lean more towards combat.
There is a reason why virtually every organized armed force (and a lot of disorganized ones) on Earth use assault rifles: they are the optimal choice for 90+% of combat. They clearly lean heavily towards efficiency in combat, because that is what their game is. You can't say 'all weapon choices should be balanced for combat' when obviously weapons aren't. There are weapons that are best for a certain style of combat, but if it's hot and heavy at variable ranges, then you're going to want the assault rifle, aren't you??
Other weapons are efficient for other things. You can't carry an assault rifle into the Eye of the Needle; Old West Towne isn't going to let you carry an automatic weapon, but they will allow that revolver. If combats are 'samey and boring', then the GM has more serious problems than whether or not a guy is using a semi-automatic or a revolver.
I will say that I intend to allow certain of the specialty rounds - like tracker rounds - only in certain weapons. Stick'N'Shok (or whatever) are going to be shotgun-only; tracker rounds will require a revolver. There will be reasons to diversify, and like all reasons to diversify, it's going to be situation-dependent. Lots of weapons exist because there's a zillion-and-one different situations in which to apply them.
-
But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles. From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades. Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go. The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise. It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".
I can't agree with either premise.
1: you can choose how you want to play the game, but the rules and setting as set out in SR5 are way more dark trenchcoat than pink mohawk. "Everything has a price, and you will pay" is much more noir than "happy fun gun time!" In my experience, 4th edition was way more Pink Mohawk, but it was written by a different company. This edition is much more in line with the flavor of 3rd, but wireless tech has made it more dystopian, what with SINs being both mandatory for life and generally not available.
2: if everyone in the group is taking Ares Alphas, then the GM really needs to highlight the consequences of weapon choices. There are so many runs where assault rifles just aren't a good idea.
I'll mention two; I recently had the runners assaulting a guerilla militant compound in the desert a ways out from San Francisco. The guerillas were armed with sniper rifles (actually hunting rifles) and machine guns (crappy ones) on their buggies, and the samurai could not engage them with her assault rifle... but the guerillas had no trouble on the open desert a kilometer away. Stealth was nearly impossible, even at night, due to thermographic vision and lack of cover.
The second example I've got: my runner was hunting for a saboteur at a nightclub. I had to blend in and take out the guy who was planting bombs, before he had a chance to detonate them. That meant total discretion - I had a taser, mono whip and light pistol, the only weapons I could get past security. In this case, combat was one uncontested mono whip attack to the back of the neck.
Oh, and did I mention the time my runner was in space? Only laser weapons and gyrojets worked on the moon. I guess that's three.
The errata didn't change our weapon selection for any of these runs, and that's why a variety of weapons exist in the first place. Concealability, range, versatility, stopping power, magazine size, these are all important traits to consider when selecting your weapon.
3: Single Shot isn't a play style, it's a weapon trait. If SS weapons are really important to your character, the Ruger Superwarhawk is still a fine way to go. It hits as hard as an assault rifle and neatly fits in a cyberholster for a free action, highly concealable quick draw. Ammo's cheap too, you aren't blasting it all over the place.
-
But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles. From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades. Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go. The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise. It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".
This isn't about playstyle. Its about different types of weapons, some of which are simply better, and often more expensive. A Colt peacemaker revolver might be cool, but its simply not as good as a semi-automatic pistol. Yes--certain weapons may have a place, and the place for many of them is behind, in terms of effectiveness, of better designs and styles.
-
Realism is nice and all, but when we've got Orcs, Trolls, and Elves walking around with people throwing fireballs and other magical effects, I think realism is a secondary concern to balance.
The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.
Realism means to jive with reality. The real world is what you are living in.
Verisimilitude means to jive with itself - to feel internally consistent and plausible from the perspective of people in the world. A world with versimility is a world you can imagine existing and living in.
No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.
I used realism because whenever this conversation comes up, they talk about how firing a gun works in reality. They are using reality as an example, which is why I chose the word realism. However, you make a very fair point, but I will point out that neither pre nor post errata had any real issues with internal consistency, which is why I didn't mention it.
I will say, Dracain, that you just gutted your argument by one simple phrase: ... should the game or campaign lean more towards combat.
There is a reason why virtually every organized armed force (and a lot of disorganized ones) on Earth use assault rifles: they are the optimal choice for 90+% of combat. They clearly lean heavily towards efficiency in combat, because that is what their game is. You can't say 'all weapon choices should be balanced for combat' when obviously weapons aren't. There are weapons that are best for a certain style of combat, but if it's hot and heavy at variable ranges, then you're going to want the assault rifle, aren't you??
Other weapons are efficient for other things. You can't carry an assault rifle into the Eye of the Needle; Old West Towne isn't going to let you carry an automatic weapon, but they will allow that revolver. If combats are 'samey and boring', then the GM has more serious problems than whether or not a guy is using a semi-automatic or a revolver.
I will say that I intend to allow certain of the specialty rounds - like tracker rounds - only in certain weapons. Stick'N'Shok (or whatever) are going to be shotgun-only; tracker rounds will require a revolver. There will be reasons to diversify, and like all reasons to diversify, it's going to be situation-dependent. Lots of weapons exist because there's a zillion-and-one different situations in which to apply them.
Fair enough, I worded that poorly, what I meant is that post errata there are even fewer situations where those other weapons can show their efficiency. I am not saying that assault rifle shouldn't be the all around gun, because it is, and it was before the errata. However, after the errata, SS weapons are practically pointless in comparison to SA weapons, and there is little reason to play a Combat Mage (a character archetype that has been around for quite some time) because you would do just as well with an assault rifle in most situations, and you wouldn't have to deal with drain.
I realize that Combat Mages have the ability to conceal their "weapon" much more easily than someone with an assault rifle, but that is not how they're portrayed, and that is not why "geek the mage first" is a term. The balance between the two generally came in that the gun-bunny has to take around their equipment, but doesn't have to deal with drain (or background count), but they both do comparable damage. Now the gunner is just better in a situation where they can take their gun with them, which is generally quite often.
-
I would quote, but I'm on my phone and that's a PITA. If we compare SA, BF and FA weapons to SS weapons, it becomes readily apparent that there just aren't any good SS weapons, outside of the Ruger Superwarhawk and the Panther XXL.
But let's ignore that for now. There are two issues the make the errata change a moot point, highlighting that the role of SS weapons hasn't changed. Then, I'll make a quick statement about mages.
First, SS weapons have less ammo capacity than other weapons, and therefore need to be taken aside and reloaded more often... which is a complex action. SA weapons, when fired one round at a time, would have met the recoil penalty on average about when SS revolvers run out of ammo. (RC: 1 inherent + 1 str + 3 gas vent = 5 recoil).
Post- errata at least, the SA weapons can function like SS weapons when only making one shot a turn. However, if we want to get the same performance out of our SA pistol as a Ruger, we need to double-tap, a complex action that stacks up recoil twice as fast.
The big kicker is that FA weapons can now fire 6 round bursts every round without penalty. This does make them more lethal, undoubtedly.
What's concerning is that there is no SS competition in their weight class. One does not bring and Ares Alpha to a dinner party, nor do the pull out a warhawk on a battlefield. There is no SS assault rifle or submachinegun. The machine pistols are the same size as the warhawk, but even with brain blaster barely squeak by at 9 damage, which is effectively the same action with less AP.
One could say the SS shotguns and sniper rifles are the competition, but they don't even compete within their own weapon set. I started out with a Remington 950 only because I couldn't afford an Ares Desert Strike. Lower damage, less ammo capacity and internal magazines... eww. Those aren't a runner's weapons, they're civilian hunting and home defense guns.
Now, mages.
Why shouldn't a mage carry around an Ares Alpha instead of sling combat spells? Well, for one, an Ares Alpha doesn't do a hell of a lot to a troll in Hardened Military armor, but a couple stunbolts and it's night-night.
Second, a mage needs to be versatile enough to deal with magical threats, like spirits. The Street Sam is there to handle corporeal security. Mr wiggly fingers solely is responsible for taking down watcher spirits, extraterrestrial threats and using countermagic. If you can squeeze in around all that toting, upgrading and being good at shooting an Ares Alpha, by all means go ahead.
-
...post errata there are even fewer situations where those other weapons can show their efficiency. I am not saying that assault rifle shouldn't be the all around gun, because it is, and it was before the errata. However, after the errata, SS weapons are practically pointless in comparison to SA weapons, and there is little reason to play a Combat Mage (a character archetype that has been around for quite some time) because you would do just as well with an assault rifle in most situations, and you wouldn't have to deal with drain.
And here's the thing - since the early 1900's - or at least since the semi-automatic handgun was perfected - the revolver hasn't been efficient, or preferred. It's why nobody carries one any more, or at least why they're very, very rarely carried, and then only as a backup piece. It's faster to pull the six-shooter if the rare thing of 'my semi-automatic jammed' than try to clear the jam, and you still have six shots. Personally, I would have - and probably will have - a rule on revolvers minimizing their glitchability: that the fault is in the ammo, mark off one round used, go ahead and pull the trigger again.
But in neither Shadowrun's world or in the real one has a revolver been an optimal piece except as a preference because of the feel. (Though like I said - specialty rounds ... or Very Heavy Rounds with specialty revolvers. To see what I'm talking about, look up Inspector Leon McNichol in the 'Knight Sabers' anime - and his godawful 3-round boomer-killing revolver.)
-
Revolvers are usually more reliable but there's still a lot that can go wrong with them, and it almost always requires a gunsmith. You wont get a stovepipe or extraction failure, but you might get a squib or a jammed cylinder.
Typically, people use revolvers because they eat a wide variety of ammo. They also tolerate very hot loads that are out of the bounds in which an automatic will function. While you could have a pistol that fires magnum powered rounds (Desert Eagle, the original 10mm automatic, the Automag), these are specialty weapons not frequently purchased, certainly not for police or military work, and only seen in the hands of afficianados.
The modern soldier doesn't need a bullet designed to enter and exit an 800 lb grizzly, so automatics are fine. The modern Alaskan backpacker might.
-
Ok, how about a balancing factor for muzzleloaders? ;D
-
Now, mages.
Why shouldn't a mage carry around an Ares Alpha instead of sling combat spells? Well, for one, an Ares Alpha doesn't do a hell of a lot to a troll in Hardened Military armor, but a couple stunbolts and it's night-night.
Second, a mage needs to be versatile enough to deal with magical threats, like spirits. The Street Sam is there to handle corporeal security. Mr wiggly fingers solely is responsible for taking down watcher spirits, extraterrestrial threats and using countermagic. If you can squeeze in around all that toting, upgrading and being good at shooting an Ares Alpha, by all means go ahead.
You and Wyrm bring up some excellent points. I quoted this section specifically because my group actually takes the opposite approach - kind of. What the players have decided to do is make sure that everyone carries around something that makes them look like a threat, even if that weapon is never used. Their rationale is that my NPCs shouldn't be able to easily identify who is the bigger threat, and in a last-ditch scenario everyone can always use Suppression Fire to make a fighting retreat. My players also all take identical ballistic masks for the same basic idea - they don't want to be easily identified in a firefight. I mean, two orks, a dwarf, and a human are going to stand out as a group of runners - but that's after the fighting is over with.
It's worth pointing out as well that a mage can have anything they want in their hands when they cast a spell. The only exception to this is the 4th edition rule that requires finger wiggling to take place. So the mage could be aiming a rifle at you and hit you with a stunbolt. So long as he's not firing the rifle when he's casting, all's good.
-
Ok, how about a balancing factor for muzzleloaders? ;D
Oh, that's easy. Automatic 2m conical thermal smoke effect directly in front of the firer, persisting for 1d6+1 turns. ;)
I don't know if my character has ever been taken for a mage, but in most of the games I've played (that weren't pickup/convention games) the characters went around mostly with pistols, sawed-down shotguns, or concealed SMGs. Heavy shotguns (I loooooove me an Enfield AS-7 with a drum!!) and assault rifles were kept in the car/van unless it was very likely to be needed; other, heavier weapons (MGs, sniper rifles) had to be planned for. The thing about mages is that they always tend to have quirky little pieces of jewelry, or elaborately decorated melee weapon hilts (yeah, I'm looking at you, Mirikon ;) ) or something similar. Look for the odd, and you'll have a good chance of spotting the mage.
Which is why, IMO, the whole 'mage chic' thing that sells meganuyen worth of fashion goods should be emphasized in games. Is that twentysomething in the fringed trenchcoat with the tribal tattoo a shaman, or just a low-level corper getting her fashion groove on? Can the businessman with subtle hermetic sigils part of his suit design and the Masons lapel pin chuck a killer powerball, or is he just looking to move up in the office hierarchy by kissing up to his mage boss? Geeking the mage first on purely visual cues should be a seriously hit-or-miss proposition - by preference more 'miss' than 'hit'. Your players should only know for sure when they start putting your guys down with the mana ...
-
Astral Perception and mark all awakened with an ARO on the team's heads-up display AR?
-
I think SS weapons should have a place in the game beyond 'feel'.
SS weapons need more balance. Not out of fairness, but because they are included in the books and other than the Warhawk simply aren't a viable choice for any character. Reliability would be an excellent advantage. No, I don't think every weapon choice should be balanced against every other choice, but as it stands now there really is no reason to take any SS weapon, with the notable exception of the Ruger Warhawk.
If you don't think SS weapons should have something, even a token advantage, then why even include them in your game? Just hand wave that they are no longer manufactured at all.
-
I think SS weapons should have a place in the game beyond 'feel'.
SS weapons need more balance. Not out of fairness, but because they are included in the books and other than the Warhawk simply aren't a viable choice for any character. Reliability would be an excellent advantage. No, I don't think every weapon choice should be balanced against every other choice, but as it stands now there really is no reason to take any SS weapon, with the notable exception of the Ruger Warhawk.
If you don't think SS weapons should have something, even a token advantage, then why even include them in your game? Just hand wave that they are no longer manufactured at all.
That's what I've been trying to say, though I will admit, you said it in a much better way.
Second, a mage needs to be versatile enough to deal with magical threats, like spirits. The Street Sam is there to handle corporeal security. Mr wiggly fingers solely is responsible for taking down watcher spirits, extraterrestrial threats and using countermagic. If you can squeeze in around all that toting, upgrading and being good at shooting an Ares Alpha, by all means go ahead.
So if I'm playing a Mage it is magical support or nothing, no Combat Mages anymore (despite being one of the most common archetypes in Shadowrun, and still used in the stories), just variations on the basic magic support archetype. This is exactly what I'm talking about with losing playstyles. Why use a shotgun, or play a melee character anymore, they have to carry similar amounts of stuff, but the simple full auto every turn negates any advantages they may have. SS is one problem this errata has caused, and the pre-errata version was still just fine, and didn't really need changes.
-
- The SS taser deal +2(!) more stun damage than the semi-automatic version while at the same time can attack a single target just as often as a semi automatic taser.
- The hold out SS pistol have short BF mode which let you reduce target defense pool by 1 with a simple action attack (something no other hold out pistols have) while at the same time can attack a single target just as often as a semi automatic hold out pistol.
- The light SS pistol have armor pen (something no other light pistols have) while at the same time can attack a single target just as often as a semi automatic light pistol.
- The heavy SS pistol deal more damage while at the same time can attack a single target just as often as a semi automatic heavy pistol.
- The SS sniper rifle is not forbidden(!) and compared to the semi automatic sniper that is also not forbidden it deal more damage, have higher accuracy and more armor penetration while at the same time can attack a single target just as often as a semi automatic sniper rifle.
- The SS shotgun is not forbidden(!) and compared to the semi automatic shotgun it deal more damage and have more accuracy while at the same time can attack a single target just as often as a semi automatic shotgun.
Semi Automatic give you two complex attack options (semi-automatic burst against one target that get reduce defense pool or semi-automatic burst together with multiple attacks to attack up to three targets within short or medium range by splitting the pool). In both cases you need to remember the effects of cumulative recoil.
Difference between a semi-automatic and single shot when you just use it for a simple action single attack is negligible (and if you dual wield two one handed single shot weapons you can mitigate some of the complex action options that semi-automatic weapons have).
-
I think SS weapons should have a place in the game beyond 'feel'.
Says who? :)
Him, he just said it, oh, and I agree with him, so me too. Really 'Says who?" isn't a very good point in a discussion. That said, everything else you said it a very good point.
-
You guys want SS to have some sort of effect that makes them as good as SA, BF, or FA weapons? Why? It's not because it's realistic - SS weapons generally suck in real life as well as in-game. There's a reason the USMC doesn't use a bolt-action rifle for their designated marksmen anymore. Simply put, semi-automatic fire has become so reliable, so effective, and so easy to implement that bolt-action rifles are only really ever used for sport. And as pointed out in the sport rifle section of every single SR gun book - sport rifles aren't good for shadowrunning.
The point is that SS weapons suck. Period. There's no good reason for implementing some sort of effect to make them better than they are. Seriously, if you've never fired a weapon you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the realism of firing one.
-
You guys want SS to have some sort of effect that makes them as good as SA, BF, or FA weapons? Why? It's not because it's realistic - SS weapons generally suck in real life as well as in-game. There's a reason the USMC doesn't use a bolt-action rifle for their designated marksmen anymore. Simply put, semi-automatic fire has become so reliable, so effective, and so easy to implement that bolt-action rifles are only really ever used for sport. And as pointed out in the sport rifle section of every single SR gun book - sport rifles aren't good for shadowrunning.
The point is that SS weapons suck. Period. There's no good reason for implementing some sort of effect to make them better than they are. Seriously, if you've never fired a weapon you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the realism of firing one.
I'm not saying that they need to be able to rival the other types, I am saying they should have SOME benefit. SOME reason to exist. pre-errata it was that they didn't have to worry about progressive recoil, now they are generally there just to pad out the weapons section.
-
I'm not saying that they need to be able to rival the other types, I am saying they should have SOME benefit. SOME reason to exist. pre-errata it was that they didn't have to worry about progressive recoil, now they are generally there just to pad out the weapons section.
That's the only reason they exist in the real world, too.
-
You guys want SS to have some sort of effect that makes them as good as SA, BF, or FA weapons? Why? It's not because it's realistic - SS weapons generally suck in real life as well as in-game. There's a reason the USMC doesn't use a bolt-action rifle for their designated marksmen anymore. Simply put, semi-automatic fire has become so reliable, so effective, and so easy to implement that bolt-action rifles are only really ever used for sport. And as pointed out in the sport rifle section of every single SR gun book - sport rifles aren't good for shadowrunning.
The point is that SS weapons suck. Period. There's no good reason for implementing some sort of effect to make them better than they are. Seriously, if you've never fired a weapon you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the realism of firing one.
I'm not saying that they need to be able to rival the other types, I am saying they should have SOME benefit. SOME reason to exist. pre-errata it was that they didn't have to worry about progressive recoil, now they are generally there just to pad out the weapons section.
I agree. When you look at every other stat, a +/- 1 or 2DV can be a style choice. Yes, there are people that are solely interested in doing the most possible damage, and they will always gravitate towards a select few weapons, but for the average non number-focused player every weapon was a viable choice.. pre-errata.
As I said before, the only problem there was pre-errata, was that potential "If a SA weapon is shot often enough, it might eventually have a penalty so high you couldn't hit the darkness at night," but in actuality, it never really came up in my experience. None of the other weapons functioned in a manner that was aberrant to to the game, world, or mechanics.
Post-errata now changed the effects/benefits of 3 fire modes, of which only one had a potential problem before. That potential problem was fixed, but the two other fire modes were broken. One, because it's only real benefit is no longer a benefit, and the other because it's now begging to be abused.
When errata fixes a non-problem, and creates 2 other problems, that shows me that it wasn't very well thought out. Combined with the Adept/Arcana issue, that shows me that the writers of the errata didn't really think out the effects of their re-wording. I doubt they intended to break Adepts, so I ignore their re-wording, and just use common sense with the previous wording (there's no magician quality anymore, so that aspect can be ignored). I don't know if they intended to break SS weapons, and Simple Action FA fire modes, but I don't think so, so I ignore their rewording and use common sense with the previous wording.... which a vast majority were already doing, and only a few seemed to be pushing that "if you are shooting for your entire action phase" stuff...
Now, if I ever run Missions, I'll have to run it with the broken errata, Adepts won't be able to Initiate*, and Recoil will be wonky, but until then, original Core mechanics is fine with me
*Unless the Missions Documentation also says to ignore the broken Arcana errata.
-
Being able to have weapons that you can carry around (so only restricted and not forbidden) seems to be overlooked by the nay-sayers ... just see what Xenon wrote. There are SS-weapons offering options to stay within your preferred weapon skill. Weapons are not only characterized by DV and AP ...
-
I'm not saying that they need to be able to rival the other types, I am saying they should have SOME benefit. SOME reason to exist. pre-errata it was that they didn't have to worry about progressive recoil, now they are generally there just to pad out the weapons section.
Single Shot weapons still don't have to worry about progressive recoil and semi-automatic and burst fire weapons still have to worry about recoil when you pull the trigger as fast as you can rather than fully getting control of the recoil between each time you pull the trigger... and full auto weapons still have to worry about recoil when you resort to keeping the trigger pressed rather than using short controlled bursts where you can keep the recoil at a manageable level.
Single shot weapons also do have various benefits over semi-automatic weapons, just look at my previous post....
-
You guys want SS to have some sort of effect that makes them as good as SA, BF, or FA weapons? Why? It's not because it's realistic - SS weapons generally suck in real life as well as in-game. There's a reason the USMC doesn't use a bolt-action rifle for their designated marksmen anymore. Simply put, semi-automatic fire has become so reliable, so effective, and so easy to implement that bolt-action rifles are only really ever used for sport. And as pointed out in the sport rifle section of every single SR gun book - sport rifles aren't good for shadowrunning.
The point is that SS weapons suck. Period. There's no good reason for implementing some sort of effect to make them better than they are. Seriously, if you've never fired a weapon you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the realism of firing one.
I think one of the main problems is they made single shot weapons in places they didn't need. to. Being a revolver isn't enough justification, being a big revolver still isn't. You can blaze away with a revolver just fine. The only thing that slows you down isn't the firing rate but the ammo capacity and speed of reloading. Now if they decide to make certain weapons SS they should for a reason like it would kick to much ass if it was SA or BF. So make the ruger SA, make most of the guns SA and only make them SS if there is some game balance reason to do so. Not to give a reasons for SS, but because the gun would break the game if it wasn't.
-
Fanning the hammer should be an action that can be used with revolvers specifically - it's definitely not "standard" as it's incredibly inaccurate. With bolt-action rifles, there's not much you can do to speed things up, beyond simply being better at using the rifle. For gaming purposes, there's no mechanical advantage though. Maybe the ability to reload it as a Free Action?
-
I think one of the main problems is they made single shot weapons in places they didn't need. to. Being a revolver isn't enough justification, being a big revolver still isn't. You can blaze away with a revolver just fine. The only thing that slows you down isn't the firing rate but the ammo capacity and speed of reloading. Now if they decide to make certain weapons SS they should for a reason like it would kick to much ass if it was SA or BF. So make the ruger SA, make most of the guns SA and only make them SS if there is some game balance reason to do so. Not to give a reasons for SS, but because the gun would break the game if it wasn't.
This is a salient point. They clearly did this with the Ruger. And tried with the Taurus, seeing as how it becomes SS when firing Heavy Pistol ammo. I think they failed here just a little, as even with the larger ammo it still only does damage comparable to other Light Pistols(7p for both Colt America and Fichetti Security). At least it gets a point of AP. Not that I suggest the Taurus doing even more damage, as then it outclasses two of the Heavy Pistols. And then there are the Long Arms, Shot Guns and Sniper Rifles. The only SS Sniper Rifle is the Remington, which does a paltry 12P, compared to the Ranger Arms. At least the Ranger is expensive and Forbidden. Still, I would think that with modern weapons being so reliable, it would make sense that the one rifle that fires the heaviest ammunition, outside of its class, would be bolt action. But it doesn't. So why, other than Availability, would you ever bother with the Remington? The antiquated PJSS is almost laughable. It should be doing MORE damage than the Enfield, in my humble opinion. Modern shotguns have a much smaller bore than the old double barrel beasts. The Defience T-250 has a SS mode, but why ever use that? Why even include in the fluff that the pump action is less prone to jams, but there is no mechanic for that.
This is all a moot point, I know, as the rules is the rules and that's how we plays them.
-
There's no reason to buff SS weapons. Things don't always have to be 'equal'.
But as they are, the cheap SS holdouts are just that--cheap.
No SS light pistols
The Ruger warhawk--highest punch and best AP of its category. Good accuracy, not an excessive cost.
Ok, next SS weapons--the Pioneer 60 and Remington 950--the Remington is a decades old hunting rifle. It might be grabbed in a pinch, and it has an very low availability code. Low availability weapons have a place--especially in a campaign where weapons availability may be very limited. The Pioneer is super cheap, and incredibly easy to get, and designed 'weekend of drinking beer and popping off a few rounds into the local fauna'. Theres no need to 'game balance' that. The PJSS--well, its inclusion is as a weapon of desperation, something scrounged from a hunters cabin or abandaoned building--or as a legitimate weapon for those making a cover identity as locaks, huntsmen--anything than Shadowrunners, (because Shadowrunners know better than to take SS weapons).
There's absolutely no need, nor reason, to adjust the effectiveness of any of these weapons, at all.
-
Taurus Omni is a SS Light Pistol when firing Heavy Pistol ammo, DV 7P and AP -1, as opposed to the Light Pistol ammo DV 69 and AP -..
And I believe what you mean is '(you) see no reason to buff SS weapons'. You are right about the Ruger 100, it's a civilian hunting weapon, not a Shadowruner's weapon. But this is a theoretical debate, about possible reasons to, and ways to balance SS weapons. Plenty of other things have been balanced. Look at bows, bows don't have anywhere near the range or accuracy of modern firearms, and yet the game has balanced them to be a valid choice for reasons other than fondness for anachronisms.
What I would like to see is not so much a game balance adjustment, as a choice balance. I want to see players making choices, 'Hmm, do I take the Crocket for the burst fire capablity, or the Remington for the higher caliber...' (assuming the Remington did 14P like I think it should.
As for the PJSS, my orc decker carries a throwback, sawn-off PJSS, and you would not believe how useful it turns out to be, much more so than the Ares Crusader he also carries.
-
There's absolutely no need, nor reason, to adjust the effectiveness of any of these weapons, at all.
This, exactly this. SS is just another quality that crappy weapons have that runners shouldn't use.
Gang bangers, 'concerned citizens', hunters and junkies will all be armed, and their weapons will be mediocre and low quality. There's no reason joe wageslave is going to get a smartlink, and wouldn't even know what to do with an Ingram Smartgun X if he had one. On the other hand, he's just the guy who the gun store clerk sells a Taurus.
Consider that those weapons are in the book for the GM, and leave it at that.
-
So in your opinion, the only weapons a runner should ever use are an Ares Predator, Ares Alpha, Ranger Arms SM-5. And that's it.
Do you optimize all your builds? In 4th did you only play Troll Adept brawlers? And now in 5th do you only play- huh, I don't even know what the current 'only choice' optimal build is for this edition...
Forgive my tone, I'm not being confrontational, I just disagree with the absolutist tone of your post.
-
Madbear
He's got a point, though. How many builds do you see on this forum that sport Ares Alpha assault rifles vs pretty much any other weapon?
Some people choose what some call sub-optimal weapons, and they do so for a reason other than numbers. For everyone else, there's Automatics.
Just like how the majority of armed forces in the world (i.e. people who are trained for combat) are equipped with various assault rifles.
I do agree that it would be cool if certain SS weapons had a little something extra going for them, but so far I haven't seen a single compelling argument for what that should be, exactly.
-
So in your opinion, the only weapons a runner should ever use are an Ares Predator, Ares Alpha, Ranger Arms SM-5. And that's it.
Do you optimize all your builds? In 4th did you only play Troll Adept brawlers? And now in 5th do you only play- huh, I don't even know what the current 'only choice' optimal build is for this edition...
Forgive my tone, I'm not being confrontational, I just disagree with the absolutist tone of your post.
I accept your apology.
To answer your question, I rarely if ever make a character who uses any of those weapons in particular. I don't like them, mostly because they are played out. There's nothing inherently wrong about the Ares Predator, I just don't like it. The Ares Alpha is too obvious for most of my runners, and I'd rather take an MMG on a gyromount if I'm going that loud and obvious. The SM-5 breaks down as you run with it. It's damage potential isn't worth it eventually falling apart on you. It's still a great weapon for it's specific purpose - sneaking in somewhere and setting up a sniper position, then taking it down and escaping undetected after killing your target. It's basically a lone-wolf assassin's weapon, but my sniper usually end ups on-site rather than down the block.
My primary runner has the following arms list, they are all tricked out, I won't go into how; Onotari Arms JP-k50 with underbarrel Shiawase Blazer, Auto Assault 16, Ares Desert Strike, Colt Special Agent (3 of them, for hiding in cyberarms on cyberarm slide, one with a silencer), Monowhip, Remington 950 (didn't have the nuyen at char gen for a real rifle), defiance EX-Shocker (2 of them), Savalette Guardian, Ares Lancer and Ares Thunderstruck.
I have all those weapons because I use them for different situations and circumstances, and I've used nearly all of them on the run I bought them for. Each has it's own specific niche in my weapons cache, and that's what gives my runner the edge she needs to survive. She's a professional, she chooses the best tool for the job.
There are plenty of good guns, and plenty of variety in those guns. Crappy weapons have their own place too - you can throw them away, and you can store them under the floorboards in all your safehouses. Streetline Specials are great for that, if you have the skill to take someone down in six rounds.
You don't have to take a crappy gun on the run, even if you feel bad because the taurus gets no love.
-
So in your opinion, the only weapons a runner should ever use are an Ares Predator, Ares Alpha, Ranger Arms SM-5. And that's it.
Sometimes a run takes you out into another area, maybe even another continent. The options of bringing your tricked out tools along with you are limited. Then you have to take what is available or poke your nose and fail at the job.
Being able to improvise is also part of being a runner.
There are too many levels of gameplay and situations to be put in to make a statement like yours valid.
-
The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.
No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.
Well-said.
I will say, Dracain, that you just gutted your argument by one simple phrase: ... should the game or campaign lean more towards combat.
There is a reason why virtually every organized armed force (and a lot of disorganized ones) on Earth use assault rifles: they are the optimal choice for 90+% of combat. They clearly lean heavily towards efficiency in combat, because that is what their game is. You can't say 'all weapon choices should be balanced for combat' when obviously weapons aren't. There are weapons that are best for a certain style of combat, but if it's hot and heavy at variable ranges, then you're going to want the assault rifle, aren't you??
Other weapons are efficient for other things. You can't carry an assault rifle into the Eye of the Needle; Old West Towne isn't going to let you carry an automatic weapon, but they will allow that revolver. If combats are 'samey and boring', then the GM has more serious problems than whether or not a guy is using a semi-automatic or a revolver.
I will say that I intend to allow certain of the specialty rounds - like tracker rounds - only in certain weapons. Stick'N'Shok (or whatever) are going to be shotgun-only; tracker rounds will require a revolver. There will be reasons to diversify, and like all reasons to diversify, it's going to be situation-dependent. Lots of weapons exist because there's a zillion-and-one different situations in which to apply them.
Isn't part of the emphasis on assault rifles tactical flexibility with things like suppressing fire, rather than efficacy? And what aboit the whole DMR concept?
In any case, I take issue with the notion that verisimilitude automatically trumps balance. Simply stated, Automatics is too good, the right solution for too many problems, if Longarms more directly effective. Longarms+Pistols should be the better choice for the dedicated combatant, basically the designated marksman of the group, than Automatics alone.
-
RHat
I would agree with your assessment that Automatics are too good, if not for the fact that very few Shadowrun encounters take place at ranges greater than 300m, which is where the DMR role of military units come in.
In nearly every encounter we've had in Missions (I'm GMing a Season 2 through current Missions run, and we're one mission into Season 3), ranges have rarely exceeded medium for assault rifles (150m). If you run or play in a game where engagements take place at longer range then the role of weapons change, but as a general rule I find that automatics simply are the obvious choice because Shadowrun is ultimately based on the real world.
So, to re-emphasise my point to the OP; no, I don't think the recoil rules after Errata (or before for that matter, since the Errata merely confirmed my view of them) are toothless. I find that they are an accurate representation of how I envision guns working in the fictional setting of Shadowrun, and they work for me and my table.
Again, though, I think it'd be cool if Single-Shot weapons actually did have some reliability factor, I just don't know how that would work in game. Ignores glitches, only suffering critical glitch, perhaps? That would make them very valuable to low-skill characters whose chances of a glitch are significantly higher than your average 14+ dice pool shadowrunner...
-
You missed the thrust of my point - I was, after all, discussing balance, in which verisimilitude is not a factor.
-
I wouldn't say I missed your point, because I simply disagree that there is a balance issue to begin with, verisimilitude or no.
Automatics are good, I agree, but I also think they're supposed to be and in my opinion there doesn't need to be a balance between pistols, automatics, and longarms; they all have their uses, but automatics simply have a broader range of application than the other weapon categories, just like in real life. The errata rules emphasize short, controlled bursts, just like military operatives are taught to use their weapons in modern times; I see absolutely no problem with this.
As an example of good writing (although sadly, likely to be underused), the section on small unit tactics in Run & Gun is something I as a veteran can really appreciate, and between the core book and Run & Gun I think the range of weaponry presented to the player is good (with a few notable exceptions).
In short, I think balance is good, but as with all things there is such as thing as too much.
-
The point of all this is to say that weapon balance is not realistic in any sense. Not all weapons are created equal - and if someone wants to optimize their build so that they only ever use one of a few weapons, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. It's been this way forever. SS weapons suck. Period.
-
Not sure why everyone keep telling that SS weapons suck.
SS weapons would kinda suck if you could use both single actions to fire your gun without splitting your pool with a SA weapon like you could in earlier editions, but in SR5 you can't....
SA weapons can do one attack action (and use the other action for aiming or taking cover).
SS weapons can do one attack action (and use the other action for aiming or taking cover).
Compared to SA weapons; SS weapons have similar damage, accuracy, range and armor pen.
SS weapons have a few different advantages over their SA counterparts:
the taser SS weapon have increased stun DV
the hold-out SS weapon have a 2-bullet BF mode
the light pistol SS weapon have armor pen
the heavy pistol SS weapon have both increased DV value and armor pen
the sniper rifle SS weapon have increased DV (than the SA non-forbidden sniper rifle)
the shotgun SS weapon have both increased DV and accuracy (than SA non-forbidden shotgun)
....If this actually just boils down to that a few selected weapons are better, then maybe the issue have more to do with a few selected weapons being overpowered rather than a blanket statement that "all single shot weapons suck" ;)
-
Xenon
Thanks for that breakdown, by the way, good job highlighting the actual differences.
I tend to agree with your comment about different views on this matter; it's a perception thing. The Ares Alpha is just flat out a beast when it comes to role diversity and damage potential. It's only downfall is it's highly illegal nature. The same goes for the high-end Sniper Rifles, which are equally illegal.
The only reason NOT to take these weapons for most characters is the potential they have for getting you in trouble in-game; if the GM doesn't capitalize on this, there really is NO reason NOT to take a weapon that's as versatile as an assault rifle. The MMGs and HMGs have the potential to outclass the Alpha in terms of damage potential and sustained fire, but are even bigger and require Troll-level strength to wield effectively.
-
I'm saying they suck from a non-gaming perspective. The argument that SS weapons need to be "better" is usually from a position that isn't based in reality - it's based on gaming mechanics. As you pointed out, Xenon, there are plenty of gaming mechanics that show that SS weapons don't need to be "better." My argument is that in the real world, SS weapons suck - so between the two of us, we've got the mechanics and the reality covered. :)
-
:)
-
A good way to "nerf" weapons such as Monowhip, Slivergun, Praetor, Ares Alpha, Yamaha Raiden, Desert Strike, Crockett EBR, SM-5, Enfield AS-7 and pretty much every single heavy weapon is to not downplay the importance of the availability code "Forbidden" ;)
-
Very true - availability isn't just about how to acquire gear. It's about how other people see you with that gear. Someone carrying around a Thunderstruck is going to be rare, and clearly have access to money. That makes them a target for the right kind of person. The more flashy your stuff is, the more risk you take.
-
Not sure why everyone keep telling that SS weapons suck.
SS weapons would kinda suck if you could use both single actions to fire your gun without splitting your pool with a SA weapon like you could in earlier editions, but in SR5 you can't....
SA weapons can do one attack action (and use the other action for aiming or taking cover).
SS weapons can do one attack action (and use the other action for aiming or taking cover).
Compared to SA weapons; SS weapons have similar damage, accuracy, range and armor pen.
SS weapons have a few different advantages over their SA counterparts:
the taser SS weapon have increased stun DV
the hold-out SS weapon have a 2-bullet BF mode
the light pistol SS weapon have armor pen
the heavy pistol SS weapon have both increased DV value and armor pen
the sniper rifle SS weapon have increased DV (than the SA non-forbidden sniper rifle)
the shotgun SS weapon have both increased DV and accuracy (than SA non-forbidden shotgun)
....If this actually just boils down to that a few selected weapons are better, then maybe the issue have more to do with a few selected weapons being overpowered rather than a blanket statement that "all single shot weapons suck" ;)
You make a fair point, however, that only covers the SS problem, which, as I said before, is but one of the issues the errata introduced.
I'm saying they suck from a non-gaming perspective. The argument that SS weapons need to be "better" is usually from a position that isn't based in reality - it's based on gaming mechanics. As you pointed out, Xenon, there are plenty of gaming mechanics that show that SS weapons don't need to be "better." My argument is that in the real world, SS weapons suck - so between the two of us, we've got the mechanics and the reality covered. :)
Shadowrun isn't the real world, in the real world, people cannot throw fireballs by believing they can, nor are there elves, trolls, or orcs. Stop brining realism into a game which seems to be invented off rule of the cool. If you want verisimilitude, well RHat makes a good point, in that balance should come first. Any gun that can just continuously put a -5 to the defenders dice pool with no real issue is too strong on a pure mechanical value in comparison to the other weapons and ways to attack in the game. It is unbalanced. The pre-errata version did not have this issue. The errata made more problems than it fixed.
Automatics are good, I agree, but I also think they're supposed to be and in my opinion there doesn't need to be a balance between pistols, automatics, and longarms; they all have their uses, but automatics simply have a broader range of application than the other weapon categories, just like in real life. The errata rules emphasize short, controlled bursts, just like military operatives are taught to use their weapons in modern times; I see absolutely no problem with this.
The errata rules emphasize holding down the trigger until you need to reload, the pre-errata rules emphasized short, controlled bursts.
-
The errata rules emphasize holding down the trigger until you need to reload, the pre-errata rules emphasized short, controlled bursts.
I disagree, but then I never read the pre-errata rules any differently than the errata rules. Short bursts are not "holding down the trigger until you need to reload", to my mind.
Long Burst
Long Burst (LB) mode is really just quickly firing in Burst Fire mode. In this mode, a gun fires two three-round bursts in rapid succession.
Burst Fire
In burst-fire mode a gun rapidly fires three bullets every time the trigger is pulled.
Full-Auto
Weapons that can fire in Full-Auto (FA) mode can throw bullets for as long as the attacker keeps the trigger pulled and the rounds last. Full-Auto weapons can be fired as a Simple Action, firing 6 bullets, or a Complex Action, firing 10 bullets.
How is the simple action Full Auto in ANY way, shape, or form "holding down the trigger until you need to reload" based on the core rulebook definitions above? Short answer; it isn't.
Long answer; the only difference between a Long Burst (complex action) and Full-Auto (simple action) is in the time it takes to fire off the 6 rounds, which essentially boils down to "squeeze, pause, squeeze" vs "squeeze".
Seems to me your issue is with the Simple Action Full-Auto more than anything.
-
The errata rules emphasize holding down the trigger until you need to reload, the pre-errata rules emphasized short, controlled bursts.
I disagree, but then I never read the pre-errata rules any differently than the errata rules. Six-round bursts are not "holding down the trigger until you need to reload", to my mind.
If you do it every round, then for all intents and purposes, it is. You're spraying bullets all over the place without a care. The pre-errata version, required a full action phase of no attacking to reset the recoil, which meant that the 6 points of progressive recoil actually mattered, so you would actually need to think about whether you should you the more costly bursts or not. This means that when you needed to take down someone, you would use a short, controlled burst to take them down, but there was a reason to use the other bursts and fire modes. After the errata, once a fight starts, you might as well just aim+simple full-auto everything (replacing aim with move, or whatever else you need, should it come up). Before the errata, the system was more balanced, encouraged diversity, and encouraged tactical application of the different fire types within a firefight, and I honestly prefer it that way.
-
Again, I disagree with you on the reading of the pre-errata rules, Dracain.
And to my mind, aim and squeeze is not holding down the trigger until you run out; it's careful application of maximum force. 6 round bursts from a rifle with a sufficiently high cycle rate (i.e. full-auto capable) is not that different from a 3 round burst from a rifle with a lower cycle rate (i.e. non-full auto/Burst Fire only).
EDIT:
Also, FYI; move doesn't require an action. If you run, you have to spend a free action, and if you sprint it's a complex action, but you'll never need to combine a movement action with a simple shooting action.
As for your preference; that's fine, houserule it. After all, that's what some of you told me when I argued the pre-errata rules didn't in fact state what you (amongst others) claimed. Sucks to be told that, doesn't it. :D
-
Again, I disagree with you on the reading of the pre-errata rules, Dracain.
And to my mind, aim and squeeze is not holding down the trigger until you run out; it's careful application of maximum force. 6 round bursts from a rifle with a sufficiently high cycle rate is not that different from a 3 round burst from a rifle with a lower cycle rate.
EDIT:
Also, FYI; move doesn't require an action. If you run, you have to spend a free action, and if you sprint it's a complex action, but you'll never need to combine a movement action with a simple shooting action.
As for your preference; that's fine, houserule it. After all, that's what some of you told me when I argued the pre-errata rules. Sucks to be told that, doesn't it. :D
I don't really mind houseruling it, I am just stating my case for the sake of discussion. I love coming here and discussing things, and seeing peoples opinions, even if I don't always agree with them. But ok, i was perhaps exaggerating when I said hold down the trigger until you run out, but it is close, it is continuously full-auto firing, and it is still less tactical or controlled than the pre-errata version.
On movement, I am sorry, I just had a brain fart, my mistake.
-
Cool as cool, Dracain.
Your opinion is noted. :D
I'll still argue that Simple Action: Take Aim plus Simple Action: Full Auto does not equate to continuous firing; it amounts to the difference between squeezing the trigger twice in BF mode and once in FA mode on a modern assault rifle. A good shooter can manage 3-5 round bursts in FA mode every time he squeezes the trigger, with the option of going full on Family Mode if needed; the only difference between the two modes is the trigger squeeze.
Seriously though, on the topic of recoil; I still think it has more of a place than it ever did in SR4; as long as you could get 5+3=8 recoil comp (which was NOT at all hard), you could fire Long Burst + Short Burst every single initiative pass, and never suffer from recoil. So what has really changed between editions (if you take into account that pre-errata rules were intended to work like the errata rules, as have been stated)?
Nothing, is my answer to that question.
-
Shadowrun isn't the real world, in the real world, people cannot throw fireballs by believing they can, nor are there elves, trolls, or orcs. Stop brining realism into a game which seems to be invented off rule of the cool.
You're one of the people who approaches this as a game mechanics issue. Other people approach this as a realism issue. Xenon has the mechanics down cold. I'm covering the real world aspects. Both of us (Xenon and I) agree that SS weapons are just fine as they are.
If you want verisimilitude, well RHat makes a good point, in that balance should come first.
I think it's awesome that people are now using the word verisimilitude so much. Thanks JimmyCrisis! :P
Any gun that can just continuously put a -5 to the defenders dice pool with no real issue is too strong on a pure mechanical value in comparison to the other weapons and ways to attack in the game. It is unbalanced. The pre-errata version did not have this issue. The errata made more problems than it fixed.
I disagree. You want verisimilitude? How about applying these bonuses and penalties across the board to NPCs and players? As long as there's consistency, that's your verisimilitude and balance.
The errata rules emphasize holding down the trigger until you need to reload, the pre-errata rules emphasized short, controlled bursts.
Disagree. The current rules emphasize shooting 6-round bursts followed by a period of aiming. Or vice versa. That's hardly "holding down the trigger until you need to reload."
So what has really changed between editions (if you take into account that pre-errata rules were intended to work like the errata rules, as have been stated)?
Nothing, is my answer to that question.
Dead on. The key to combat balance is to ensure that both sides have the same advantages and disadvantages.
-
Dead on. The key to combat balance is to ensure that both sides have the same advantages and disadvantages.
Except what about every combat archetype that isn't the gunbunny? Do they just need to be content with being worse, despite the disadvantages that go with them? You're entirely missing what we mean when we say balance. We don't mean balance between players and the GM, we mean balance among the player. We don't want there to be one combat archetype that is better than every other combat archetype, because than the others feel ineffective or weak in comparison, when it really is just the system saying that a previously working archetype suddenly is less effective than the gunner.
The combat balance your talking about works in video games, but even then, you have to keep all the classes (or heroes, or champions, whatever) to some level of balance, otherwise they will become the end-all-be-all in a certain field, making players of other classes (etc.) who are meant to fill the same role in a different way feel ineffectual. Which is exactly what is happening here.
I would like to clarify in that I am not saying a pistol should beat an assault rifle, but the way I always saw it was that among firearms shotguns and snipers hit the hardest, but had range issues on the different sides of the field, but assault rifles where the general weapon for varying distances, pistols where the concealed weapons. The problem I have is that there is little reason to bother with shotguns even in situations where they should be the preferable weapon because simple full auto can just be done over and over. My problem with SS was that there was no reason to use SS compared to SA in the same category, which I still think is somewhat true, given how often one can burst now, but I admit, I haven't run the numbers on this one.
Also, to martinchaen, I suggest you give the pre-errata (or how I see it) a try sometime if you're bored or want to try something different. I think you may actually like it if you try it. I tried out the errata and found it not to my liking, but again, that is why I houserule.
-
No thanks, Dracain, I'm very content with the rules as intended and written, thank you. As my father used to say; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have houserules for a lot of other things, though.
As for other combat archetypes, the melee adept is still dangerous against a guy with an assault rifle due to the fact that he can now spend all of his movement in a single initiative pass/action phase/whatever they call it nowadawys, as well as both gain benefits for charging and incur negatives on the target for being in close combat if the guy with the assault rifle does try to shoot the adept while in close combat (-2 for targeting a running character, -3 for being in close combat), effectively nullifying that full-auto burst. Melee characters, by comparison to previous editions have never been as strong as they are, while the reduction in number of attacks per round to the gunbunny has made them comparatively weaker than ever before.
The above doesn't mean much if you never played 4th (and I never really played a previous edition, so I don't know about those), but it's significant none the less. I have had no problem with my combat-axe wielding Troll melee ganger against BF and FA wielding enemies so far, so I don't really see the issue of balance here. As some people persist in saying; if [rule x] doesn't work at your table, change it. We certainly do.
-
Single shot weapons does not generate progressive recoil unless you dual wield them. So with a single shot revolver you can for example end an action phase by shooting a bullet and start the next action phase by continuing shooting another bullet. Without having to worry about progressive recoil (not an uncommon situation when you for example use Take Aim (or Ready Weapon) + Fire Weapon in the first action phase and Fire Weapon + Take Cover in your next action phase).
With a semi-automatic weapon you would have a progressive recoil (and, depending on your reading, since you are not start firing - you are continuing shooting; you no longer get the free point of recoil compensation on your second action phase. This means that with a strength of 3 or less you would take a negative dice pool modifier of 1 dice by just using simple actions to fire your two bullets - unless the weapon your use have some sort of built-in extra recoil compensation). With a BF weapon that would be 6 bullets worth of recoil with no free recoil compensation and with a FA weapon that would be 12 bullets worth of recoil to consider...
Shadowrun isn't the real world...
True, Shadowrun normally use Hollywood Realism whenever it is applicable rather than Real World Realism. Because Hollywood realism is cooler. And more fun. With Hollywood Realism people are knocked flying when hit by a sniper rifle. In Real Life they just fall down on the spot.
With Hollywood Realism people can use Full Automatic with complex actions all day long without spending time to control the recoil (here you need to picture yourself the scene from Transporter where the female villain dual wield two machine pistols and spray full auto with both) ;)
However, in SR5 they decided to make recoil more Real Life Realistic and actually punish you with progressive recoil if you pull the trigger as fast as you can without spending time between rounds to compensate for recoil (3 shots per complex action or 2 individual 3-bullet bursts per complex action) or keeping the trigger pressed during the whole complex action to fire 10 bullets. And that if you spend some time not shooting bullets as fast as you can and instead spend time between rounds to compensate for recoil you don't suffer progressive recoil. The intention (IIRC was explained by Aaron on a post over at Dumpshock) was all along that you need to spend the whole complex action shooting bullets to get progressive recoil. That explains the reason why only the complex firearm actions have the phrase "Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using these fire modes". People, myself included, played it that way long before the Errata. And then the text even got crystal clear in the Errata. If you ever fired a firearm before you would realize that SR5 actually have pretty good [post-errata] progressive recoil rules.
Now, it is not like Fully Automatic weapons suddenly don't generate any recoil at all. You still have 6 (or 10) bullets worth of recoil to compensate for, even if you always clear out the progressive recoil until the next time you start to fire. It is not impossible to compensate for it all, but you still have to consider it and you still have to take steps to mitigate it. There still is a price to pay (maybe you need to go loud by using gasvent instead of sound suppressor, maybe you need to sacrifice valuable attribute points on strength to get more recoil compensation, maybe you can not end an action phase by shooting bullets and start the next action phase by shooting bullets or maybe you need to sacrifice concealment by wearing a gyro mount harness).
...balance should come first...
I can think of a couple of things that should come first. Having Fun. Looking Cool.
Different firing modes have different bons and cons - different situations where they shine.
For example;
FA mode is better when facing a single target with a very high defense pool.
SA mode is better when facing several unaware or surprised targets.
BF mode is decent in both situations
FA mode is better when there are several mooks and no friendly targets in an area in front of you.
SA mode is better when there are several mooks spread out around you and between friendlies.
The errata rules emphasize holding down the trigger until you need to reload, the pre-errata rules emphasized short, controlled bursts.
The rules before the errata was the same as post errata, the errata just clarified the rules because it was ambiguous and a lot of people did not use the rule as it was intended. That aside, the post errata rules does emphasize short, controlled bursts since if you use that you don't suffer progressive recoil. If you shoot as fast as you can then you are not giving yourself time to compensate for recoil and you will be punished by progressive recoil.
The pre-errata rules you and some other people played with (where you had to spend [at least] 4.5(!) seconds between rounds to not suffer progressive recoil from a light pistol) straight out punished you from shooting bullets. Period. There was nothing "cool" or "fun" with that (not close to being as Hollywood Realistic as SR5 normally would be). It was not even remotely close to how firearms behave in the Real World. Basically it was a fail on all levels. The only good thing about it, according to you and some other voices on the forums, was that it toned down automatic weapons
....but if you want to balance medium ranged weapons (aka automatic weapons) there are a lot of other -better- ways of doing that than neuter them with punishing and totally Hollywood- and Real Life unrealistic recoil rules.
-
Well thought out and presented, Xenon. I want to applaud you for your last post, because I couldn't agree more.
-
As for other combat archetypes, the melee adept is still dangerous against a guy with an assault rifle due to the fact that he can now spend all of his movement in a single initiative pass/action phase/whatever they call it nowadawys, as well as both gain benefits for charging and incur negatives on the target for being in close combat if the guy with the assault rifle does try to shoot the adept while in close combat (-2 for targeting a running character, -3 for being in close combat), effectively nullifying that full-auto burst. Melee characters, by comparison to previous editions have never been as strong as they are, while the reduction in number of attacks per round to the gunbunny has made them comparatively weaker than ever before.
In that case I want to applaud you for ^This post ;)
There are even more modifiers in favor of the melee character in the example above.
Depending on your reading a melee attacker running around whatever cover the ranged defender might have remove the defensive bonus (since target is no longer behind 25+% or 50+% cover). This equals removing up to 4 defensive dice for the ranged defender (plus the simple action he spend to get into cover in the first place)
If the melee attacker have a weapon with longer reach (say hello to trolls with +1 reach wielding a reach 2 combat axe -or maybe just a human decker with an agility 9 arm wielding a reach 2 mono whip) then the ranged defender lose another 1 defensive dice per point of net reach (but at least he gain 1 dice to defend against a charge attack).
Since the melee attacker is considered running he get a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice to avoid all attacks (equal to partial cover, but by spending a free action instead of a simple action and does not require to actually have more than 25% cover to hide behind and does not give ties to attackers).
Running normally give -2 dice on attacks, but melee attacks while you are considered running give you +4 dice (for a total of +2 dice). This is similar to a wireless gun with an internal smartlink, but without risk of being bricked and without the need for chrome.
In addition all ranged attackers also get -2 dice trying to hit a running target (now we are basically talking about good cover, but by spending a free action instead of a simple action - and does not require to actually have more than 50% cover to hide behind and does not give ties to attackers).
Since the ranged defender now is in melee he get -3 dice to defend against ranged attacks from the melee attacker's ranged team mates (a single melee attacker basically give all ranged attackers in his team +3 bullets to each their attacks against all targets locked in melee, but without them suffering the effects of extra recoil; melee tanks are great at buffing ranged team mates)
Since the ranged defender now is in melee he also get -3 dice to attack anyone with a ranged attack (including, but not limited to the melee attacker - this include all the melee attacker's team mates as well; melee tanks are great at debuffing ranged opponents to protect their team mates). This stack on-top the -2 dice for hitting a running target like the melee attacker.
If the ranged defender want to break away from the melee attacker to avoid all them negative dice pool modifiers he give the melee attacker another free attack during the same initiative pass for only 5 initiative score and if he move far enough to avoid being charged again the next initiative pass he will get -2 dice on all ranged attacks and lose all his free actions for the remaining of the combat turn because he is considered running.... He is basically stuck in melee (area denial) and have to choose between dropping his ranged weapon and reach for a melee weapon, drop his ranged weapon and use unarmed combat or continue to have -3 dice to defense and -3 dice to ranged attacks (or -5 against running targets like the melee attacker) for as long as he is locked in melee combat.
Melee never been in such a good spot as in this edition.
-
Except what about every combat archetype that isn't the gunbunny? Do they just need to be content with being worse, despite the disadvantages that go with them? You're entirely missing what we mean when we say balance. We don't mean balance between players and the GM, we mean balance among the player.
So let's look at common combat archetypes:
Ranged combat "gunbunnies"
Melee combat "razor boys/girls"
And that's it. So what you're talking about is the difference between ranged and melee characters, which doesn't factor into this discussion at all. Or you could be talking about a gunbunny that specializes in pistols vs. one that specializes in automatics. Well, in that comparison the guy with the automatics is almost certainly going to win. There's no point in balancing the pistol with the automatic, as they are fundamentally unbalanced. So give me an example that fits what you're talking about, and I'll show you where you're wrong.
We don't want there to be one combat archetype that is better than every other combat archetype, because than the others feel ineffective or weak in comparison, when it really is just the system saying that a previously working archetype suddenly is less effective than the gunner.
I can't even imagine a situation that fits with what you're describing here. Any combatant, like any other person in the world, is limited by their tools. If you are entering into a combat zone without an automatic weapon, helicopter support, and indirect fire, you're entering into the situation unprepared at best. This isn't any different - if you're wielding a single-shot pistol against a person with a grenade launcher... well then you're hosed. And from a game perspective, if you're using a single-shot pistol against a semi-automatic pistol, there's not a lot of difference. Look at what Xenon pointed out about the time for recoil against the time that it takes to get to the point for reloading a single-shot weapon. They're pretty darn equal.
What you're arguing is a really minimal difference in the long run.
-
The pre-errata rules you and some other people played with (where you had to spend [at least] 4.5(!) seconds between rounds to not suffer progressive recoil from a light pistol) straight out punished you from shooting bullets.
4.5? Where did you get the way that number? I was playing is about 1 second of no firing, depending. One action phase is about 1 complex action, so 3s if you have 1 initiative pass, 1.5 if you have 2, 1 if you have 3IP etc.
No thanks, Dracain, I'm very content with the rules as intended and written, thank you. As my father used to say; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have houserules for a lot of other things, though.
Hehe, that's what I thought of the errata.
I can think of a couple of things that should come first. Having Fun. Looking Cool.
If the system makes your character seem weaker, you won't be having much fun.
As for other combat archetypes, the melee adept is still dangerous against a guy with an assault rifle due to the fact that he can now spend all of his movement in a single initiative pass/action phase/whatever they call it nowadawys, as well as both gain benefits for charging and incur negatives on the target for being in close combat if the guy with the assault rifle does try to shoot the adept while in close combat (-2 for targeting a running character, -3 for being in close combat), effectively nullifying that full-auto burst. Melee characters, by comparison to previous editions have never been as strong as they are, while the reduction in number of attacks per round to the gunbunny has made them comparatively weaker than ever before.
In that case I want to applaud you for ^This post ;)
There are even more modifiers in favor of the melee character in the example above.
Depending on your reading a melee attacker running around whatever cover the ranged defender might have remove the defensive bonus (since target is no longer behind 25+% or 50+% cover). This equals removing up to 4 defensive dice for the ranged defender (plus the simple action he spend to get into cover in the first place)
If the melee attacker have a weapon with longer reach (say hello to trolls with +1 reach wielding a reach 2 combat axe -or maybe just a human decker with an agility 9 arm wielding a reach 2 mono whip) then the ranged defender lose another 1 defensive dice per point of net reach (but at least he gain 1 dice to defend against a charge attack).
Since the melee attacker is considered running he get a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice to avoid all attacks (equal to partial cover, but by spending a free action instead of a simple action and does not require to actually have more than 25% cover to hide behind and does not give ties to attackers).
Running normally give -2 dice on attacks, but melee attacks while you are considered running give you +4 dice (for a total of +2 dice). This is similar to a wireless gun with an internal smartlink, but without risk of being bricked and without the need for chrome.
In addition all ranged attackers also get -2 dice trying to hit a running target (now we are basically talking about good cover, but by spending a free action instead of a simple action - and does not require to actually have more than 50% cover to hide behind and does not give ties to attackers).
Since the ranged defender now is in melee he get -3 dice to defend against ranged attacks from the melee attacker's ranged team mates (a single melee attacker basically give all ranged attackers in his team +3 bullets to each their attacks against all targets locked in melee, but without them suffering the effects of extra recoil; melee tanks are great at buffing ranged team mates)
Since the ranged defender now is in melee he also get -3 dice to attack anyone with a ranged attack (including, but not limited to the melee attacker - this include all the melee attacker's team mates as well; melee tanks are great at debuffing ranged opponents to protect their team mates). This stack on-top the -2 dice for hitting a running target like the melee attacker.
If the ranged defender want to break away from the melee attacker to avoid all them negative dice pool modifiers he give the melee attacker another free attack during the same initiative pass for only 5 initiative score and if he move far enough to avoid being charged again the next initiative pass he will get -2 dice on all ranged attacks and lose all his free actions for the remaining of the combat turn because he is considered running.... He is basically stuck in melee (area denial) and have to choose between dropping his ranged weapon and reach for a melee weapon, drop his ranged weapon and use unarmed combat or continue to have -3 dice to defense and -3 dice to ranged attacks (or -5 against running targets like the melee attacker) for as long as he is locked in melee combat.
Melee never been in such a good spot as in this edition.
I stand corrected on the melee count, however, shotguns are still not very attractive compared to assault rifles, even in situations where they should excel.
That said, I seem to have been soundly proven wrong on most counts, though I wanna do a little number crunching before I come to a conclusion.
-
Automatics are good, I agree, but I also think they're supposed to be and in my opinion there doesn't need to be a balance between pistols, automatics, and longarms; they all have their uses, but automatics simply have a broader range of application than the other weapon categories, just like in real life. The errata rules emphasize short, controlled bursts, just like military operatives are taught to use their weapons in modern times; I see absolutely no problem with this.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't constitute an argument that balance is not needed. You're basically saying that Automatics are good at their thing (being suited to many different engagements and offering tactical flexibility), so other weapons don't need their thing (for example, Pistols are the best option for concealable firearms, which is a fairly big deal in a game like this). It's not that the weapon skills should all be equally good at all times, that's pointless. Rather, they should be equally valuable - the fact that Longarms are superior against hardened targets is a start, but the range advantage isn't enough because it simply doesn't come up often enough. Under the old recoil rules (at least, the interpretation I and many others took), firing shorter bursts or single shots was greatly incentivized for characters that could expect to hit either way, which made the base damage of the weapon more important in the hands of more skilled characters and thus gave Longarms a needed edge.
Dead on. The key to combat balance is to ensure that both sides have the same advantages and disadvantages.
... If we assume that inter-team combat balance is the only form of balance to be concerned with, sure. But there is literally no reason to assume that and many reasons not to.
-
... If we assume that inter-team combat balance is the only form of balance to be concerned with, sure. But there is literally no reason to assume that and many reasons not to.
Considering that my point ALL ALONG has been that the recoil rule changes are minimal when applied evenly across the board, I'd say that's the point I've been trying to make.
-
I'm not saying that Automatics are "the one twue way", RHat, quite the contrary. Our opinions are actually quite aligned in that I too think pistols have their place, just like longarms do; automatics are simply the most versatile, and thus, when appropriate, will naturally see the most use.
That doesn't mean that pistols and longarms (and heavy weapons, but nobody seems overly concerned about them despite the rather lackluster features of MGs compared to assault rifles, for instance) don't have a place, I think they do, but unlike you I think their different features place them in very valuable niche roles.
Take the Roto-Drone with a sniper rifle, for instance; with a little leeway from a GM you can sit out of range of every other weapon in the game barring other sniper rifles and take potshots at the enemy using sensor based targeting; the ubiquitous nature of the Ares Alpha doesn't help when the enemy is 1000m away.
And fully kitted ceramic handguns or cyberguns can be taken where an Ares Alpha would stand out like a sore thumb.
To my mind, it's not the game that unbalances the weapons, but the GM. If the GM allows his players to bring their Ares Alpha to every mission he is at fault for not creating an atmosphere where the highly illegal nature of such weapons come to light. Does that make him a bad GM; absolutely not. Perhaps the table just likes spec-ops style warfare for their team and are happy with that.
If the GM and players favors more stealthy combat, he'll, firearms might not even have a place at all.
My point with all this is to illustrate my opinion that the guns as they are, as well as the recoil rules, adequately represent the "norm" for an armed unit. Tables are free to emphasise either way on weapon illegallity and thus choice, and isn't that the whole point of the game, to give players choice.
Anyone who says that players "must" make the "obvious" choice of something like an Ares Alpha because it is the most optimized choice just has a too narrow view of what is and is not optimized to my mind.
What works for one team may not work for another, and it's going to vary from table to table. In the end, however, just like in the majority of the fluff that deals with combat units, I would expect to see quite a fe combatants armed with some sort of automatic weapon simply because it IS the logical choice for someone expecting combat. The versatility of these weapons simply make them an overall great choice for a team expecting to engage the enemy in combat, just like in the real world.
-
To my mind, it's not the game that unbalances the weapons, but the GM. If the GM allows his players to bring their Ares Alpha to every mission he is at fault for not creating an atmosphere where the highly illegal nature of such weapons come to light.
This is essentially what I've been saying - and have stopped contributing, because it's all I've been saying. Each weapon, whether melee or ranged, firearm or muscle-powered or what-have-you, has a place and a situation in which it is 'the optimal choice'. The game system's numbers can never show this. It's up to the GM to highlight each individual 'best use'.
Also, do not forget that players will make plans based on what weapons they have. "We got three pistols, an SMG, and two rifles. Okay, here's the setup ..."
-
I'm not saying that Automatics are "the one twue way", RHat, quite the contrary. Our opinions are actually quite aligned in that I too think pistols have their place, just like longarms do; automatics are simply the most versatile, and thus, when appropriate, will naturally see the most use.
To my mind, it's not the game that unbalances the weapons, but the GM. If the GM allows his players to bring their Ares Alpha to every mission he is at fault for not creating an atmosphere where the highly illegal nature of such weapons come to light.
This is essentially what I've been saying - and have stopped contributing, because it's all I've been saying. Each weapon, whether melee or ranged, firearm or muscle-powered or what-have-you, has a place and a situation in which it is 'the optimal choice'. The game system's numbers can never show this. It's up to the GM to highlight each individual 'best use'.
Both of these go back to what I said earlier - Pistols and Longarms should be a more effective choice for the dedicated combatant than Automatics alone. And I'm sorry, but drone mounting is irrelevant to this conversation, which is more about the value of the skills.
Heavy weapons is completely screwed as well, but we've got to start somewhere.
I also have to disagree, Wyrm, that it should be up to the GM to provide imbalanced weapons time to shine. Balance needs to be part of the basic formula of the game; while he might be the guy that gets stuck doing it, it's not his job to fix poorly constructed elements of the system.
... If we assume that inter-team combat balance is the only form of balance to be concerned with, sure. But there is literally no reason to assume that and many reasons not to.
Considering that my point ALL ALONG has been that the recoil rule changes are minimal when applied evenly across the board, I'd say that's the point I've been trying to make.
I find that recoil accumulating on Simple Actions can be a significant difference.
-
I find that recoil accumulating on Simple Actions can be a significant difference.
You're not alone in that thinking. But I'm not alone in my thinking. The game is about having fun, ultimately - and whatever method works for your group is what is perfect. The recoil errata was an issue for me as well when I first saw the change. Initially, I was thinking, "what's the point of progressive recoil if it's so easy to clear?" But then I stopped worrying about it because it didn't affect my game as much as I expected it to do. I'll be honest - I did like the pre-errata rules. I don't really like the new errata'd rules either. But it hasn't made enough of a difference for me to be upset about it months later.
-
Well, then, RHat, I'm just going to agree to disagree with you, because we clearly see this differently.
Bottom line is I don't think a pistol needs to have a balance reason to compete with assault rifles, for example; the two are inherently different, except for the fact that they both fire bullets. There is absolutely no need, to my mind, to cater to an individual's desire to want to be as effective with a pistol (or two) as someone with an Assault rifle, which to me sounds more like what you're arguing. A pistol has its place in the game, just like an assault rifle does; it's up to the GM to come up with situations where both can shine. Because lets face it, were never going to see a world (fictious or not) where a sniper rifle provides a balanced option to a pistol; they are just different tools all together.
I equate this with trying to pick a lock and blowing the door off it's hinges; one uses one skill and is very subtle, the other goes all out with another skill and is the opposite. Are the choices balanced because they both let you get through the door? No, because the way in which the tools are used determines their effectiveness.
Another example would be comparing a tank with a motorcycle; both enables you to get from a to b, but you can bet your ass that the tank is going to draw a whole lot more attention while also providing you with the capability to blow other vehicles off the road, something the motorcycle can't do.
Expecting any of the above (granted extreme) examples to apply to firearms is just as ludicrous to me as expecting a pistol to be able to provide a balanced choice to an assault or sniper rifle; not only shouldn't it happen to my mind, but it likely won't.
-
Effective is the wrong word - it suggests both are just as good at killing people, which isn't the idea. The reason I use the word valuable is because effectiveness is a component of value, but only one - a serious component of the value of pistols is their concealability and legality, which lead to them being the only sensible choice for a number of characters. By contrast, Longarms are generally less legal and concealable than assault rifles; effectiveness is one of, if not the only lever available to work with.
-
So what is your stance, exactly, RHat? That pistols and/or aren't a valuable option to Automatics? Because if that's it, I definitely disagree.
If that isn't your view, please do enlighten me.
I'd also like to point out that I used the word balanced more than I did effective, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to highlight the latter...
Edit:
Also, you're the one who said this, so now I'm really confused...
Both of these go back to what I said earlier - Pistols and Longarms should be a more effective choice for the dedicated combatant than Automatics alone
-
So what has really changed between editions (if you take into account that pre-errata rules were intended to work like the errata rules, as have been stated)?
Nothing, is my answer to that question.
Exactly, nothing changed Even though, they made a point to introduce a new recoil rule, implying they wanted a change. In sr4, they stated that recoil was only for "Weapons that fire more than one round in an Action Phase," so recoil reset every action phase by default. And in sr5, they introduced Progressive Recoil, so that it wouldn't automatically reset every Action Phase, unless a certain condition was met. The pre-errata wording backed this up. But, the post-errata wording takes it almost back to sr4 days. Except for select situations, recoil is resetting every action phase again.
If this was their intent from the beginning, why bother even introducing Progressive Recoil?
-
Because progressive recoil still applies in those specific situations? I'm not a dev, but the pre-errata wording sure never read like what some thought they did to me. Maybe they just wanted to highlight that certain fire modes aren't going to be controllable for extended periods of time, just like the current rules actually reflect (as burst, long burst, and full-auto 10 rounds)...
-
Except that a bursts and long bursts are completely controllable over extended periods of time.
Take an Ingram Valiant LMG, it already has 3 points of RC, everyone gets 2 minimum, 3 with a str 4 or higher. Assuming a str4, and a belt of 100 rounds, that LMG can continuously Long Burst (or simple action full auto) for 16 Phases, and never get to the point that it is not controllable due to recoil. Yet, it's a heavy weapon, and it's supposed to get hard to control, thus the double uncompensated recoil on heavy weapons. . . but unless you do a full 10 rounds, this situation would never generate any uncompensated recoil.
-
Pistols are actually fine - Machine Pistols are nice, sure, but their Accuracy and Damage is worse than most Heavy Pistols at the same concealability, and their Accuracy is notably worse than that of Light Pistols, which offer better concealability. Even holdouts have damage on par, but massively better concealability. They also have the beautiful option of a taser's null availability code, something no other weapon option offers - making less-lethal options highly accessible in basically any scenario. So, Pistols offer a better Concealability/effectiveness ratio than the Automatics option for the same role (where this ratio is highly important), and have a nice little bit of unique utility. Pistols isn't the problem at all. Longarms, however, is something of a weak skill. Shotguns provide it with a bit of unique utility, but with concealabilty as bad or worse than the Assault Rifles, much higher costs, and every option worthwhile for runners being Forbidden, it needs to have something notable over Automatics for the skill to be on par - and given the engagement ranges in Shadowrun, range increments aren't really gonna do it.
-
Except that a bursts and long bursts are completely controllable over extended periods of time.
Take an Ingram Valiant LMG, it already has 3 points of RC, everyone gets 2 minimum, 3 with a str 4 or higher. Assuming a str4, and a belt of 100 rounds, that LMG can continuously Long Burst (or simple action full auto) for 16 Phases, and never get to the point that it is not controllable due to recoil. Yet, it's a heavy weapon, and it's supposed to get hard to control, thus the double uncompensated recoil on heavy weapons. . . but unless you do a full 10 rounds, this situation would never generate any uncompensated recoil.
Because you are taking breaks between the shots and not continuously holding the trigger.
And with regards to uncompensated recoil ... lighter weapons should rather get this doubling, due to their lower weight and not the heavy ones, but that would be another discussion.
-
The pre-errata rules you and some other people played with (where you had to spend [at least] 4.5(!) seconds between rounds to not suffer progressive recoil from a light pistol) straight out punished you from shooting bullets.
4.5? Where did you get the way that number?
It is at least 4.5 seconds. During sustained fire with reset between each shot it will land on 6.0 seconds between each shot...
Fire a bullet is instant. Simple action is 1.5 sec. Complex action is 3 sec. With the rules some people used before errata to avoid getting punished from progressive recoil you had to spend a full complex action not shooting bullets.
0.0 start of combat turn 1, 1st simple action
1.5 2nd simple action. Shot one shot.
3.0 start of combat turn 2. Do nothing.
6.0 start of combat turn 3. Shot second shot.
7.5 do nothing
9.0 start of combat turn 4. Do nothing
12.0 start of combat turn 5. Shot 3rd shot.
Time between shots to avoid progressive recoil with the pre errata rules some people used where you need a full complex action between shots to reset recoil: 4.5 seconds (and then 6.0 seconds for each following shot).
With post errata rules look like this;
0.0 fire 1st shot.
1.5 do nothing to reset recoil
3.0 fire second shot
4.5 do nothing to reset recoil
6.0 fire third shot
Time between shots to reset recoil with post errata rules: 3.0 seconds.
You can also pull the trigger as fast as you can while still have time to bring the weapon on your target but not enough time to compensate for progressive recoil.
0.0 shot 1. Combat turn 1 start
1.0 shot 2
2.0 shot 3
3.0 shot 4. Combat turn 2 start
4.0 shot 5
5.0 shot 6
6.0 shot 7. Combat turn 3 start
Time between shots when using SA-burst: 1.0 seconds.
-
Except that a bursts and long bursts are completely controllable over extended periods of time.
If you spend time between bursts to control the recoil then you don't suffer progressive recoil. If you don't spend time between bursts to control the recoil then you will suffer progressive recoil.
A "Long Burst" is when you use BF mode where the weapon automatically fire 3 bullets in about 0.2 seconds each time you pull the trigger and where you keep pulling the trigger as fast as you can manage while still bring the weapon on your target but not slow enough to compensate for progressive recoil.
0.0 pull trigger to fire first 3-bullet burst
1.5 pull trigger to fire second 3-bullet burst
3.0 pull trigger to fire third 3-bullet burst
4.5 pull trigger to fire forth 3-bullet burst
Time between last bullet in previous burst to first bullet in next burst: 1.3 seconds
This build progressive recoil.
If you want to avoid building progressive recoil with a 3-bullet burst mode weapon you need to take a pause to control the recoil.
0.0 pull trigger to fire first 3-bullet burst
1.5 do nothing. Compensate for recoil.
3.0 pull trigger to fire second 3-bullet burst
4.5 do nothing. Compensate for recoil.
Time between last bullet in previous 3-bullet bursts and first bullet in next 3-bullet burst without progressive recoil: 2.8 seconds.
This does not build progressive recoil.
-
As for your math.
You get one point of free recoil comp when you start firing. Depending on your reading this mean you don't get a free point if you don't take a pause to start firing again and instead continue to fire.
16 phases of SA burst generate 48 points of recoil.
16 phases of Long Burst 96 points if recoil.
16 phases of 10 bullet FA 160 points of recoil.
Each point of uncompressed recoil give double negative dice pool modifier.
Good luck mate.
-
As for your math.
You get one point of free recoil comp when you start firing. Depending on your reading this mean you don't get a free point if you don't take a pause to start firing again and instead continue to fire.
16 phases of SA burst generate 48 points of recoil.
16 phases of Long Burst 96 points if recoil.
16 phases of 10 bullet FA 160 points of recoil.
Each point of uncompressed recoil give double negative dice pool modifier.
Good luck mate.
But since he was just using Simple Actions, his recoil was always reset between action phases.
-
SA burst and long burst (and 10 bullet FA) are all complex actions... Not at all "completely controllable over extended periods of time".
-
Hehe, thinking the same thing, Xenon; thanks for summarizing for me.
Agonar, Lucean
You'll note that the actions I listed were all the Complex actions that will incur progressive recoil if you keep using them; Semi-Automatic Burst, Long Burst, and Full-Auto (10 Rounds), so your comments are a little moot for this particular instance.
Now, Full-Auto (6 Rounds) and Long Burst are essentially the same thing. Some weapons don't have FA (I'm looking at you, Pistols, most Machine Pistols, and even some SMGs), while others don't have BF (like the MMG and HMG), so there is a reason for these firing modes to exist. Is the FA Simple Action an attractive option for those times when shit hits the fan? Absolutely. Do I think it needs to get "balanced" in favour of the other firing modes? Absolutely not.
RHat
You didn't really clarify much with that last post to my mind; I'm still unsure of why you made the whole effectiveness comment when you very clearly referenced it yourself.
And if pistols are ok but longarms isn't to your mind, then it seems to me your issue is with Longarms being less "effective" or "valuable" (whichever you prefer, the two aren't that much different to my mind as it boils down to effectiveness to my mind) than other options. Again, though, this is to be expected; a precision rifle has a very specific purpose, and shouldn't be able to compete with assault rifles in terms of effectiveness at short to medium range (i.e. anything out to 150-200m in my opinion).
So, if range isn't a good enough value in your opinion, what would you do to make Longarms a "better" option?
-
The only thing Long Burst and 6 bullet FA have in common is that they spend 6 bullets when you use them. Long Burst have a lot more in common with Semi-Automatic Burst than with Full Auto (why both SA-Burst and Long Burst use the same complex action on p.167).
With a Long Burst you pull the trigger once, bring the weapon on your target and pull the trigger once again. It is a complex action and it can be used to fire one individual 3-bullet burst at two different targets that can stand on opposite sides of the shooter but no further than medium range and you need a weapon skill of at least 3 (and you need to spilt the dice pool). You can also aim both individual 3-bullet bursts on the same target. Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using Long Burst.
The simple action Full Auto is you pressing and keeping the trigger pressed until you shoot about 6 rounds against a single target. Then you release the trigger before the recoil get out of hand. You are free to use the other simple action for something else before you spray another target.
The complex action to fire at multiple targets with a FA weapon is something that look like spray n pray, but is really a combination of controlled and fully automatic bursts focused over a narrow frontal cone area. This attack action use 20 bullets and can last for the entire combat turn, it can also hit both friends and foe in the designated area.
-
Xenon
Doesn't Full Auto (6 rounds) also allow you to fire at two different targets? The text certainly indicates that it does.
Full-auto weapons can take advantage of the Multiple Attacks Free Action to fire at multiple targets with the same burst.
In fact, the same goes for all firing modes from Semi-Automatic Burst to Burst Fire to Long Burst. I don't see why splitting the dice pool would be unique to Long Burst and not be applicable to Full-Auto.
Also, where are the rules for the "opposite sides of the shooter but no further than medium range" comment? Page 196 doesn't specify any of that.
Also, Xenon, you're way off on the Complex Action Full Auto; what you're talking about is Suppressive Fire, not Full Auto (10 Rounds).
-
Unlike all other simple and complex fire actions besides Suppressive Fire on p. 179, the Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst complex action on p. 167 describe rules for using one weapon to fire at multiple targets. The rest only state that you can use them with the multiple attack free action if you wield one weapon in each hand.
I can tell you right now that there is no way you can pull the trigger once on a BF weapon and "spilt" the 3 bullets on different targets ;)
However you can for example dual wield two BF weapons and fire them at two different targets with the same attack action by splitting the dice pool.
If the intent really is that you can use a single FA weapon to attack multiple targets without spraying a narrow frontal cone area (but I can't picture how tbh) then they totally forgot to add the rules for it on the simple and complex FA actions on p. 165 and p. 167. There was nothing about it in the errata so odds are you are not meant to do it (which make a lot of sense from a real world perspective as well).
Yes I am talking about suppressive fire. That is how you DO attack multiple targets with a FA weapon (in Real Life). You, if anyone, should know that.
In SR5 you don't get any bonus by using a short barrel weapon such as a pistol, MP, SMG, combat shotgun or a carbine at close range.
You also don't get any negative effects of using a long barrel weapon such as an assault rifle, sport rifle, sniper rifle or even heavy weapons at close range.
If you want to house rule anything to make pistols, SMGs and shotguns better then that would be a great place to start. Maybe less negative dice pool modifier to use a pistol in melee combat. Maybe a bigger negative dice pool modifier to run and fire a AR, sniper rifle or LMG at the sane time.
If you consider the medium range weapon skill (aka the automatics skill) to powerful compared to pistols and longarms then a good house rule is to get rid of the medium range weapon skill and make all 1h weapons use pistol skill and all 2h weapons use longarm skill (where the spilt is SMGs that you can use with two hands and longarm while taking advantage of folding stock or with one hand and pistol skill taking advantage of shooting around corners with a periscope).
As rules are written you can very well bring a dessert strike sniper rifle into CQB. There is no advantage to pull out your backup pistol (but this is what both a Hollywood and Real Life sniper would do if forced to fight at closer indoors).
Ares Alpha can be used to give a single target a negative dice pool modifier of 5 dice when defending against your attack. It also have an armor pen of 2 dice. One damage value is on average worth 3 net dice. You can simplify it by saying that it have a +2 DV (for a total of 13) and one extra net dice on top of that.
Ares Desert Strike have DV 13 and 4 armor pen. Simplified that give us DV 14 and one extra net dice on top of that.
Now this is not the whole truth. A smaller defense pool might be the difference between hitting and totally miss. High armor pen does nothing against non armored targets. At some point you will deal do much damage that your target dies. Dealing more damage beyond this is waste as well. But if you have a sufficient big pool to hit most targets and if we consider that most targets have at least 4 points of armor, then the above simplifications are actually not to far off....
-
As for the any target as long as they are within short or medium range?
SR5 p. 167 Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst
A character may attack multiple targets within Short or Medium range by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action...
Suppressive Fire define a narrow frontal cone area, but that is because you use a combination of controlled bursts and full automatic fire. SA-Bust and Long Burst is when you point the weapon on a target and then you press the trigger. Then you point the weapon in the same target or another target (but then toy need to spilt the dice pool). After that you pull the trigger again. You don't "walk" bullets between your target. You don't spray a frontal area with bullets. Aim at one target. Press trigger. Aim at the same or another target. Press trigger again. Perfect against unaware or surprised targets - or mooks that are not close enough for AoE attacks such as FA Suppressive Fire, shotguns, spells or explosives.
- This is the best advantage of SA and BF mode over FA.
-
I can tell you right now that there is no way you can pull the trigger once on a BF weapon and "spilt" the 3 bullets on different targets ;)
Why not? I don't see a problem with that at all. I will agree that the rules for multiple attacks are horribly, horribly lacking, but I really don't see a problem interpreting the "you can use this action with a multiple attack action to attack multiple enemies with the same burst" in a way that makes this possible.
As for me knowing about this in real life; I'd beg to differ that it's not possible, actually, but then I was a marksman and not a machinegunner... :D
EDIT
Wow... So the multiple attack rules are actually spread over three different locations?
P167 mentions the specific multiple attacks rules for Full-Auto, Long Burst and Semi-Auto Burst as complex actions. P179 makes mention of the multiple attacks rules. P196 mentions extremely vague rules for multiple attacks.
*sighs*
But yeah, thanks for providing those references. It clears the subject up a little, I guess...
-
0.0 start of combat turn 1, 1st simple action
1.5 2nd simple action. Shot one shot.
3.0 start of combat turn 2. Do nothing.
6.0 start of combat turn 3. Shot second shot.
7.5 do nothing
9.0 start of combat turn 4. Do nothing
12.0 start of combat turn 5. Shot 3rd shot.
You're skewing things a bit: what actually happens is the process of firing 1 bullet takes you 1.5 seconds. :P Also, that's only with 1 IP per combat turn.
-
Seriously?
You never tested a BF weapon...?
On a 900rpm FA weapon it take 0.13 seconds from the first bullet to the third. You telling me that you can press the trigger and then aim the weapon at three different targets at the exact correct time as the bullets automatically exit the barrel?
No way mate. You pull the trigger and all three bullets will automatically hit roughly the same spot. You only aim the first bullet.
If you swipe your rifle sideways before you press the trigger you might hit different spots but there is no way you can "aim" where each individual bullet (after the first) will hit.
-
Yeah, I'm not saying you can aim individual bullets, Xenon.
Again, I wasn't a machinegunner, but we did practice walking burst across targets during basic; approximate 6-10 round intermittent bursts (meaning 3-5 bursts total with a 30 round mag) from a G-3 rifle chambered for 7.62mm, at 50m with full-size stationary paper targets. We achieved high 80% hit ratios, meaning most rounds were on (at least one) target. This was less effective with an actual machine gun (MG-3 in my case, also chambered for 7.62mm but with 200-round belts) as we'd walk bursts of approximately 10-20 rounds over the same size targets at 100m.
That's why I said I don't see a problem using Full-Auto to attack multiple targets, but at this stage given the rules you quoted on page 167 I'll concede that this is absolutely house rule territory. I don't necessarily agree with the rules not having provisions for walking a burst similar to choke settings on shotguns (which is likely what I'd use for house rule material for full-auto sweeps), but it's clear that the rules as is do not provide for it.
-
But what you are describing is basically what the book call Suppressive Fire... ;)
You can use FA to attack multiple targets, by using a series of controlled bursts and full auto against everything that moves in a narrow frontal cone area.
FA against more than one target is basically "spaying" bullets over a narrow frontal cone area.
According to FA actions on p. 165 and p. 167 you can also use one FA weapon in each hand. This let you attack two individually targets with either 6 or 10 bullets each (with no restrictions on range etc, but recoil might become a serious issue....) as one single attack action by taking the multiple attacks free action (and splitting the pool).
-
Yep as yep; like I said, your reference to p167 cleared things up for me in terms of what the rules actually say.
I think it's a testament to how the rule book is written when people are still discovering new sections or details of the rules they haven't really connected until 6-8 months after the book was released, despite playing it frequently and having read the book several times.
I really don't see why rules need to be spread over 3 or more different sections, for example. I shouldn't have to go over the book with a fine toothed comb and reference three different parts of the combat chapter to understand how to fire a weapon at multiple targets...
Again, thanks for providing those references, Xenon.
-
I really don't see why rules need to be spread over 3 or more different sections, for example. I shouldn't have to go over the book with a fine toothed comb and reference three different parts of the combat chapter to understand how to fire a weapon at multiple targets...
I agree 100%. That's part of why I love Chandra's list of easily missed rules. It'd be pretty cool if we could somehow recompile the rules into more clearly-organized sections, but I don't know of anyone that has that kind of time.
-
But what you are describing is basically what the book call Suppressive Fire... ;)
You can use FA to attack multiple targets, by using a series of controlled bursts and full auto against everything that moves in a narrow frontal cone area.
FA against more than one target is basically "spaying" bullets over a narrow frontal cone area.
According to FA actions on p. 165 and p. 167 you can also use one FA weapon in each hand. This let you attack two individually targets with either 6 or 10 bullets each (with no restrictions on range etc, but recoil might become a serious issue....) as one single attack action by taking the multiple attacks free action (and splitting the pool).
That's why I said I don't see a problem using Full-Auto to attack multiple targets, but at this stage given the rules you quoted on page 167 I'll concede that this is absolutely house rule territory. I don't necessarily agree with the rules not having provisions for walking a burst similar to choke settings on shotguns (which is likely what I'd use for house rule material for full-auto sweeps), but it's clear that the rules as is do not provide for it.
Except on p.179 Under Full Auto, the rules totally say that you can use Full Auto to attack multiple targets.
That "series of controlled bursts" is something SR4 forced you to do, because they specifically broke down bursts into 3 and 6 round bursts. They also had strict rules because each burst could add to DV or penalize Defense. Attacking multiple targets was also mere effective in SR4, in that your first shot was full dice pool, each additional was at -2.
SR5 Has you split your dice pool, so attacking multiple targets is already a lot harder than it was in previous editions. It also doesn't specifically break down split bursts into 3/6 rounds, because 1) there's no +DV mod, and 2) the defense penalties pretty much tell you how to generate their number based on bullets. Penalty = 1 less than the number of bullets heading their way, which lets you break a 10 round burst into 5/5, 3/3/4, 3/3/2/2
I also see a lot of arbitrary interpretations "well, clearly this activity describes how suppressive fire works. Suppressive Fire isn't really an attack, it's area denial. You aren't really trying to hit targets when you suppress, you are trying to make sure that targets stay out of the line of fire, which is why it's also called "Covering" fire. You suppress an area to keep enemies down, delay them while something else happens, like while allies move, hoping that the enemy doesn't want to risk a stray bullet by popping out of cover to shoot your allies. This is also why, in game, Suppressive fire is so easy to avoid, if the targets are willing to get out of the way.
Also, the arbitrary insertion of time frame. "Weapons that can fire in Full-Auto (FA) mode can throw bullets for as long as the attacker keeps the trigger pulled and the rounds last. Full-Auto weapons can be fired as a Simple Action, firing 6 bullets,"
So, even if you are doing Take Aim, Simple Action FA (6), Simple Take Aim, Simple FA (6), the assumption is you are holding down the trigger. No where does Take Aim say that you cannot currently be firing to do it, that you cannot be in the middle of holding down the trigger for Simple Action Full Auto.
Just because the game has to roughly break down Turns into a time frame, doesn't mean each action must take a specific amount of time within that turn. As per page 49, Each Combat Turn lasts approximately three seconds, representing the amount of time it takes individuals to stage an attack. Not Exactly 3 seconds, approximately 3 seconds. The First Combat turn, if everyone only has 1 or 2 Phases to act might only take 2 seconds, but after everyone turns on their wires, and has 3-4 Phases to act on, now maybe that turn takes 4 seconds. Which means, the length of time a combat turn lasts, is enough time needed to make it work, not an exact time log to be broken down into individual tenths of a second to see exactly what is happening when.
I do appreciate other points of view, but I see less accepting the rules as they are, and more trying to insert real world mechanics in an attempt to justify an interpretation. Specially when you get into "Yeah, but that style of shooting means the shooter is sitting there twiddling his thumbs for x.x seconds before he takes another shot! So obviously, that makes no sense" arguments. Except that, as posted above, turn times are approximation, not intended to be tracked down to the thousandth of a second. Just because someone is mechanically firing once per Turn, doesn't mean he's not doing it as fast as he possibly can. The game just needs to allow for the Wired, and magically hyped up combat monkeys to get their 3+ Passes per turn as well.
-
So, even if you are doing Take Aim, Simple Action FA (6), Simple Take Aim, Simple FA (6), the assumption is you are holding down the trigger. No where does Take Aim say that you cannot currently be firing to do it, that you cannot be in the middle of holding down the trigger for Simple Action Full Auto.
No, that would be AN assumption, not THE assumption. Both views are equally valid, because the book doesn't state either way. We have to interpret whether two (or more) initiative passes of Take Aim followed by Full Auto (6 Rounds) constitutes aiming while holding down the trigger, or pausing in between (one of many, many other interpretations, unfortunately).
-
Except on p.179 Under Full Auto, the rules totally say that you can use Full Auto to attack multiple targets.
And on p. 165, p. 167 and p. 179 the actions you use to attack multiple targets with Full Auto are explained.
SR5 p. 165 Fire Semi-Auto, Single-Shot, Burst Fire or Full-Auto
If a character has one weapon in each hand, he may fire once with each weapon by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 96); the offhand modifier applies (see Attacking Using Off-Hand Weapon, p. 178). When taken as Simple Actions ... Full-Auto fires 6 bullets.
SR5 p. 167 Fire Full-Auto Weapon
If a character has one weapon in each hand, he may fire once with each weapon by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 196). Off-hand modifier applies (see Attacker Using Off-Hand Weapon, p. 178). When fired as a Complex Action, Full-Auto uses 10 bullets. Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using these fire modes. And good fragging luck!
SR5 p. 179 Suppressive Fire
Suppressive fire takes a Complex Action, uses twenty rounds of ammo, and ignores recoil. Though it may appear as a “spray and pray” technique it is in fact a combination of controlled and fully automatic bursts focused over a narrow area and directed at anything that moves. A character can suppress a triangular area projecting from the shooting character outward up to a distance of his choosing, up to the maximum range of the weapon, with a width of 10 meters at its end and a height of 2 meters...
The complex action on p. 167 for Long Burst with a BF mode weapon and Semi-Auto Burst with a SA mode weapon give you an option to attack multiple targets with one weapon.
SR5 p. 165 Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst
A character may fire a readied firearm in Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst via a Complex Action (see Firearms, p. 424). A character may attack multiple targets within Short or Medium range by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 196). If a character has one weapon in each hand, he may fire once with each weapon by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 167). Off-hand modifier applies (see Attacker Using Off-Hand Weapon, p. 178). Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using these fire modes.
If you could do the same with FA mode weapon then the "Fire Semi-Auto, Single-Shot, Burst Fire or Full-Auto" simple action on p. 165 or the "Fire Full-Auto Weapon" complex action on p. 167 would say so. They don't. Not even after the errata. You are free to house rule the limitations and effects of splitting a 6 bullet simple FA burst or a 10 bullet complex FA burst - but really... why??; If you would attack a group of multiple moving targets in a narrow frontal cone area with a FA mode weapon in Real Life then you would use a combination of controlled and fully automatic bursts focused over a narrow area and directed at anything that moves (and SR5 already have very detailed rules for how you spray a narrow frontal cone area with a FA mode weapon - you find them on p. 179 under Suppressive Fire).
I am pretty sure that the intention is that to attack multiple targets with a SA mode weapon you either use the "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" complex action together with the Multiple Attack free action or you use a SA mode weapon in each hand together with the Multiple Attack free action.
That to attack multiple targets with a BF mode weapon you either use the "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" complex action together with the Multiple Attack free action or you use a BF mode weapon in each hand together with the Multiple Attack free action.
...and that to attack multiple targets with FA mode weapon you either use the "Suppressive Fire" complex action or you use a FA mode weapon in each hand together with the Multiple Attack free action.
This is accepting rules as they are.
Trying split an individual 3 bullet burst from a BF weapon is doing so without any rules that explains how it is done. How many bullets each target is hit with. How many bullets you "waste" when you swipe your weapon over the targets. If a smartgun let you avoid wasting bullets or not as you "walk" between targets. If targets need to be next to each other or if they can be far apart. If there are two opponents with a friendly target between them, can you split the attack on the two opponents and not risk hitting your friend. etc etc etc. Questions like this will never be answered (because I think it is not intended that you split an individual 3 bullet burst from a BF mode weapon to begin with) and you have to house rule all of them.
So, even if you are doing Take Aim, Simple Action FA (6), Simple Take Aim, Simple FA (6), the assumption is you are holding down the trigger. No where does Take Aim say that you cannot currently be firing to do it, that you cannot be in the middle of holding down the trigger for Simple Action Full Auto.
The simple action FA is when you point the barrel of your gun at your target and squeeze the trigger just long enough for the weapon to fire 6 bullets. Then you let go of the trigger to give you time to do other things (like Take Aim) and since you are doing other things than shooting bullets you will also clear out any progressive recoil.
If you pull the trigger and never let go until you run out of bullets then you are actually using the complex action 10 bullet FA for every initiative pass you have, building up insane amount of progressive recoil.
And no, you can not take a Take Aim simple action at the same time as you keep pressing the trigger of your FA mode weapon for a Fire Full-Auto Weapon complex action ;)
-
0.0 start of combat turn 1, 1st simple action
1.5 2nd simple action. Shot one shot.
3.0 start of combat turn 2. Do nothing.
6.0 start of combat turn 3. Shot second shot.
7.5 do nothing
9.0 start of combat turn 4. Do nothing
12.0 start of combat turn 5. Shot 3rd shot.
Post errata, assuming someone used full-auto (simple) and had 3 IPs, then is would be 18 bullets in 3 second.
First IP (1st second) would be aim+full-auto (simple)
Second IP (2nd second) would be aim+full-auto (simple)
Third IP (3rd second) would once again be aim+full-auto (simple)
The errata has you resetting the recoil and aiming in 0.5 seconds.
Pre-errata is doing that would rack up 18 points of progressive recoil, so to do something similar would shoot 12 bullets and look more like this.
First IP (1st second) would be aim+full-auto (simple)
Second IP (2nd second) would be aim+not shooting
Third IP (3rd second) would once again be aim+full-auto (simple)
-
Post errata, assuming someone used full-auto (simple) and had 3 IPs, then is would be 18 bullets in 3 second.
First IP (1st second) would be aim+full-auto (simple)
Second IP (2nd second) would be aim+full-auto (simple)
Third IP (3rd second) would once again be aim+full-auto (simple)
The errata has you resetting the recoil and aiming in 0.5 seconds.
Yes, that sound about right. Remember that everything kinda move in slow-mo for a character with 3 actions (reliable getting 31+ initiative score is equal to about 4D6+10). It is like one of them breach scenes in Call of Duty where you clear a full room of tangos with a single clip during slow motion.... ;)
0.0 first IP start. Aim.
0.5 squeezing the trigger for little less than 0.5 sec which equals 6 bullets.
1.0 second IP start. Aim and 0.5 seconds to reset progressive recoil.
1.5 squeezing the trigger for little less than 0.5 sec which equals 6 bullets.
2.0 third IP start. Aim and 0.5 seconds to reset progressive recoil.
2.5 squeezing the trigger for little less than 0.5 sec which equals 6 bullets.
compared to the complex action:
0.0 squeezing the trigger for the whole complex action which equals 10 bullets.
1.0 continue squeezing the trigger for 10 more bullets (20 in a row now).
2.0 continue squeezing the trigger for 10 more bullets (30 in a row now, good fragging luck!).
or with a SA-burst
0.00 pulling the trigger at target 1
0.33 pulling the trigger at target 2
0.66 pulling the trigger at target 3
1.00 pulling the trigger at target 4
1.33 pulling the trigger at target 5
1.66 pulling the trigger at target 6
2.00 pulling the trigger at target 7
2.33 pulling the trigger at target 8
2.66 pulling the trigger at target 9
(This is pretty darn fast btw...! Go to http://www.metronomeonline.com/ check 176 BPM and see for yourself)
Pre-errata is doing that would rack up 18 points of progressive recoil, so to do something similar would shoot 12 bullets and look more like this.
First IP (1st second) would be aim+full-auto (simple)
Second IP (2nd second) would be aim+not shooting
Third IP (3rd second) would once again be aim+full-auto (simple)
With rules like that you could do this:
0.0 Squeezing the trigger for the whole combat turn which equals 10 bullets.
1.0 Aim for one simple action
1.5 Aim for another simple action. This reset progressive recoil
2.0 Squeezing the trigger for the whole combat turn which equals 10 bullets.
-
RHat
You didn't really clarify much with that last post to my mind; I'm still unsure of why you made the whole effectiveness comment when you very clearly referenced it yourself.
And if pistols are ok but longarms isn't to your mind, then it seems to me your issue is with Longarms being less "effective" or "valuable" (whichever you prefer, the two aren't that much different to my mind as it boils down to effectiveness to my mind) than other options. Again, though, this is to be expected; a precision rifle has a very specific purpose, and shouldn't be able to compete with assault rifles in terms of effectiveness at short to medium range (i.e. anything out to 150-200m in my opinion).
So, if range isn't a good enough value in your opinion, what would you do to make Longarms a "better" option?
Effectiveness versus value is a pretty big difference in terms of design language, but I get that it might not be so clear in general terms. The basic way I can put it is this: The concealability of a pistol is not part of its effectiveness, because its effectiveness is a measure of how good it is at killing the enemy. It is, however, a significant component of its value.
Part of what I liked about the common interpretation of pre-errata rules was that it made the base damage of the weapon more important if you were going to hit anyways, because if you were firing even Simple Action FA you would rapidly have progressive recoil building up. That emphasis did a lot to make Longarms more valuable.
-
With rules like that you could do this:
0.0 Squeezing the trigger for the whole combat turn which equals 10 bullets.
1.0 Aim for one simple action
1.5 Aim for another simple action. This reset progressive recoil
2.0 Squeezing the trigger for the whole combat turn which equals 10 bullets.
That's a better idea, but either way, not 4.5 seconds to reset recoil, it is 0.5 post errata, and 1 pre-errata.
Also, I hereby name pre errata wine, and post errata cheese. We need names for them, and I figured the names fit.
-
What make semi-automatic mode valuable is because really skilled shooters can one-shot up to 3 unaware of surprised targets at short or medium range in one single attack action.
What make FA mode valuable is the ability to reduce the defense pool on hard to hit targets as well as the area denial of suppressive fire that last an entire combat turn even if you only have one single initiative pass.
What make BF mode valuable is a mix of both semi-automatic mode (can attack two targets with one attack action) and FA mode (can reduce the defense pool of hard to hit targets)
What make pistols valuable is the ease of concealment as you mentioned. They are also not forbidden (with the exception of the Ares Light Fire 75 and the Ares Viper Slivergun)
What make sub machine guns valuable is the combination of not being impossible to hide, having access to multiple fire modes and not being forbidden (with the exception of the FN P93 Praetor).
What make assault rifles valuable is that they are efficient and flexible firearms in a combat situation with their good damage, good armor penetration, good range, most of them having access to all fire modes and they fit in gyro mounts.
What make sniper rifles valuable is the high base damage, high accuracy, high armor penetration values and the fact that you can freely use sniper rifles at point blank range without any negative modifiers (except maybe for the SM-5). Short range (no negative dice pool modifier) is all the way up to 50(!) meters (extreme range for pistol sized firearms).
What make shotguns valuable is the high base damage and the option to use frontal aoe cone attacks without splitting the dice pool (might be one of the better firearm types in the game when you want to deal with tightly packed groups of mooks).
What make light machine guns valuable is that with tracer rounds they have "short" range up to 200(!) meters, can be loaded with belted ammo which give them several seconds of suppressive fire to play with, rather good armor penetration and they fit in gyro mounts.
-
I'm stealing that summary.
-
Thank you Xenon, for your summary. I think with that point there - this discussion is likely over.
-
Agreed, excellent summary Xenon, thanks for putting that together for us. Nicely done.
-
What make sniper rifles valuable is the high base damage, high accuracy, high armor penetration values and the fact that you can freely use sniper rifles at point blank range without any negative modifiers (except maybe for the SM-5). Short range (no negative dice pool modifier) is all the way up to 50(!) meters (extreme range for pistol sized firearms).
The problem here that the math doesn't track. Compare, for a second, the Crockett EBR to the Alpha - the base damage and AP difference only accounts for a 1.33 difference in damage on hit, which between the effective damage increase and better chance to hit at all means they even out in effectiveness - and when it comes to balancing out the skills, that's problem because of all the various value-adds automatics has.
-
I really don't see why rules need to be spread over 3 or more different sections, for example. I shouldn't have to go over the book with a fine toothed comb and reference three different parts of the combat chapter to understand how to fire a weapon at multiple targets...
I agree 100%. That's part of why I love Chandra's list of easily missed rules. It'd be pretty cool if we could somehow recompile the rules into more clearly-organized sections, but I don't know of anyone that has that kind of time.
I agree 100% also. I'm finding this "splitting rules up over 3 or 4 different sections of the book" happening a lot in 5e core.It's almost as though there was no editor at all before it went to press. Someone who was not involved in the writing of the content really needed to look this over with a critical eye and tried to run a quick one shot game with the book before it was finalized - maybe they could have caught all the instances where the book tells you to look at a page number, and then that page tells you to look at another page, and then that page tells you to go look at a 3rd, and then a 4th, until you finally find the thing you needed. A good example of this is smartlink listed on pg. 453. Anyway, sorry, the point of this post was to ask:
Where can one find this "Chandra's list of easily missed rules"? Can I get a link to it? I would absolutely love to see this!
Edit: Nevermind, I found the thread. =)
-
What make semi-automatic mode valuable is because really skilled shooters can one-shot up to 3 unaware of surprised targets at short or medium range in one single attack action.
What make FA mode valuable is the ability to reduce the defense pool on hard to hit targets as well as the area denial of suppressive fire that last an entire combat turn even if you only have one single initiative pass.
What make BF mode valuable is a mix of both semi-automatic mode (can attack two targets with one attack action) and FA mode (can reduce the defense pool of hard to hit targets)
<snip>
The only problem with this, as much as I agree with you, is that there's really nothing you can do with a SA weapon that a FA weapon can't do as well. And realistically, FA weapons trump BF weapons too. Really there is no reason to pick a SA or BF weapon except in the case of "I can't handle that recoil". Unless I'm missing something.
-
Math was quite good last I checked. Desert strike vs Ares Alpga. -5 dice from simple 6 bullet FA and -2 armor pen is on average 2 and 1/3 more DV for a total of 13 and 1/3. Desert Strike don't have FA but it have higher armor pen which give it in average 1 and 1/3 DV for a total of 14 and 1/3.
Alpha still better against high defense pool targets where you risk missing the target. Desert Strike is still slightly better against rest (and a lot better against hardened targets).
Reason to pick SA or BF over FA is the option to take the Multiple Attack free action described on p. 167 that let you attack up to 3 (two with BF mode) different targets within short or medium range by splitting the dice pool. Excellent when you want to take out multiple unaware or surprised targets with one attack action. The closest thing FA come to this is the narrow frontal cone attack described on p. 179.
-
Reason to pick SA or BF over FA is the option to take the Multiple Attack free action described on p. 167 that let you attack up to 3 (two with BF mode) different targets within short or medium range by splitting the dice pool. Excellent when you want to take out multiple unaware or surprised targets with one attack action. The closest thing FA come to this is the narrow frontal cone attack described on p. 179.
The multiple attacks free action (pg 164, not 167) also works with FA weapons regardless of which fire action you choose to use.
If you are referring to the "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" on pg.167, which I believe you are, that can also be used by a FA weapon, it's just called a different name and only takes a simple action instead of a complex ("Fire Semi-Auto, Single-Shot, Burst Fire or Full-Auto" pg.165), but you get the exact same results (see table on pg. 180 - they're on the exact same line). True enough you can't do an "SA burst" with a full auto weapon, but much like the above simple v complex same results trick, a SA burst yields the exact same results as a BF burst but just uses a complex instead of a simple. And yes, you can even split targets with a free action when using a BF mode burst - much as that is a little unrealistic IRL.
So, unless you want to use less bullets, get less recoil, or purposefully make it easier for your target to evade, a 3 round burst (whether as a SA complex, or a BF simple) simply isn't as good as a FA attack of some variety. Now granted, you can't fire less than 6 rounds at a time (3 with BF), but again, that just ends up being a RC issue. and if you can handle the RC, then you're good to go. Really the only thing a SA or BF gun can do that an FA can't is fire less bullets, and the way the rules are written, that is a recoil/math problem.
Because of the fact that you can split targets with any shot except SS mode shots (via multiple attacks free action), and the rules effects are the same for bursts, long bursts, etc, regardless of gun (see table on pg. 180), it's simply: FA>BF>SA>SS as the rules are written right now, unless you have poor STR/RC ratings and can't mitigate the recoil.
-
What make semi-automatic mode valuable is because really skilled shooters can one-shot up to 3 unaware of surprised targets at short or medium range in one single attack action.
What make FA mode valuable is the ability to reduce the defense pool on hard to hit targets as well as the area denial of suppressive fire that last an entire combat turn even if you only have one single initiative pass.
What make BF mode valuable is a mix of both semi-automatic mode (can attack two targets with one attack action) and FA mode (can reduce the defense pool of hard to hit targets)
What make pistols valuable is the ease of concealment as you mentioned. They are also not forbidden (with the exception of the Ares Light Fire 75 and the Ares Viper Slivergun)
What make sub machine guns valuable is the combination of not being impossible to hide, having access to multiple fire modes and not being forbidden (with the exception of the FN P93 Praetor).
What make assault rifles valuable is that they are efficient and flexible firearms in a combat situation with their good damage, good armor penetration, good range, most of them having access to all fire modes and they fit in gyro mounts.
What make sniper rifles valuable is the high base damage, high accuracy, high armor penetration values and the fact that you can freely use sniper rifles at point blank range without any negative modifiers (except maybe for the SM-5). Short range (no negative dice pool modifier) is all the way up to 50(!) meters (extreme range for pistol sized firearms).
What make shotguns valuable is the high base damage and the option to use frontal aoe cone attacks without splitting the dice pool (might be one of the better firearm types in the game when you want to deal with tightly packed groups of mooks).
What make light machine guns valuable is that with tracer rounds they have "short" range up to 200(!) meters, can be loaded with belted ammo which give them several seconds of suppressive fire to play with, rather good armor penetration and they fit in gyro mounts.
That sounds a lot like how it should be, and was before the errata (wine), after the errata (cheese) we feel that the mechanics do not match up with what it is should be.
Reason to pick SA or BF over FA is the option to take the Multiple Attack free action described on p. 167 that let you attack up to 3 (two with BF mode) different targets within short or medium range by splitting the dice pool. Excellent when you want to take out multiple unaware or surprised targets with one attack action. The closest thing FA come to this is the narrow frontal cone attack described on p. 179.
The multiple attacks free action (pg 164, not 167) also works with FA weapons regardless of which fire action you choose to use.
If you are referring to the "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" on pg.167, which I believe you are, that can also be used by a FA weapon, it's just called a different name and only takes a simple action instead of a complex ("Fire Semi-Auto, Single-Shot, Burst Fire or Full-Auto" pg.165), but you get the exact same results (see table on pg. 180 - they're on the exact same line). True enough you can't do an "SA burst" with a full auto weapon, but much like the above simple v complex same results trick, a SA burst yields the exact same results as a BF burst but just uses a complex instead of a simple. And yes, you can even split targets with a free action when using a BF mode burst - much as that is a little unrealistic IRL.
So, unless you want to use less bullets, get less recoil, or purposefully make it easier for your target to evade, a 3 round burst (whether as a SA complex, or a BF simple) simply isn't as good as a FA attack of some variety. Now granted, you can't fire less than 6 rounds at a time (3 with BF), but again, that just ends up being a RC issue. and if you can handle the RC, then you're good to go. Really the only thing a SA or BF gun can do that an FA can't is fire less bullets, and the way the rules are written, that is a recoil/math problem.
Because of the fact that you can split targets with any shot except SS mode shots (via multiple attacks free action), and the rules effects are the same for bursts, long bursts, etc, regardless of gun (see table on pg. 180), it's simply: FA>BF>SA>SS as the rules are written right now, unless you have poor STR/RC ratings and can't mitigate the recoil.
I agree, and I feel that is the problem with the errata. Before the recoil had more teeth, so there was more reason to use the other firing modes. Everything had a point and purpose before, now it seems like a lot of things have been made unnecessary. I prefer the option with more valid choices.
-
All options are still valid with the current (as always) recoil rules.
And after the rather unnecessary, in my opinion, wine and cheese comments I am no longer taking you seriously where this discussion is concerned.
-
All options are still valid with the current (as always) recoil rules.
And after the rather unnecessary, in my opinion, wine and cheese comments I am no longer taking you seriously where this discussion is concerned.
Firstly, a bit of levity can be helpful in most situations, we're discussing mechanics and verisimilitude in a tabletop roleplaying game, and while that is an interesting topic, it isn't the death penalty, religion, or any of those other serious topics, no reason to get upset at my small joke. However I do really think we should have other names however, since pre-errata and post-errata doesn't work because it technically isn't true, as you continuously point out.
By more valid choices I mean choices that have they're own "thing", like for pistols it is concealability. I feel the problem is that assault rifles have encroached upon the "thing" of other weapons types post-errata, and that is a problem.
-
If you are referring to the "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" on pg.167, which I believe you are, that can also be used by a FA weapon
No, it can't.
1) The simple action on p. 165 does not mention anything about attacking multiple targets within Short or Medium range by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action.
2) The FA equivalent you are looking for is called "Fire Full-Auto Weapon" and is a complex action found found on p. 167. This action does also not mention anything about attacking multiple targets within Short or Medium range by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action like the "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst"
...nor should it since you are not pressing the trigger two or three times like in the SA/BF complex action; You are holding the trigger the entire complex action to spray 10 bullets towards the general direction of your target. The only rules that cover how you can spray bullets towards the general direction of multiple targets is the Suppressive Fire action on p. 179.
Some people thought that the Errata should include rules how to split an individual simple 3 bullet BF, 6 bullet simple FA and 10 bullet complex FA, but it didn't. And until it does you need to house rule how it works or just accept that SA mode weapons use the complex action "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" to attack more than one target, BF mode weapons use the complex action "Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst" to attack more than one target and FA mode weapons use the complex action "Suppressive Fire" to attack more than one target. Everything beyond that require house ruling.... or wielding one firearm in each hand.
-
Since I doubt we're going to get anywhere going back and forth like this, I went ahead and posted a clarification request in the SR5 Rules clarification and FAQ thread. We'll see if any dev's can clear it up for us.
Also, note, I never said that you could do the things I said with only 1 weapon, I am fully aware you would need to be dual-wielding to do that. But that doesn't make the way I claimed the rules function any less correct. My point is that you can attack multiple targets with FA weapons, and there's really no arguing that. Just as I said, you would use either a complex or simple Fire FA weapon action combined with the multiple attacks free action and *poof*, you hit two or more targets with a FA action.
-
I have no issue if you are talking about taking the multiple attack action while using one FA mode weapon in each hand ;)
-
Math was quite good last I checked. Desert strike vs Ares Alpga. -5 dice from simple 6 bullet FA and -2 armor pen is on average 2 and 1/3 more DV for a total of 13 and 1/3. Desert Strike don't have FA but it have higher armor pen which give it in average 1 and 1/3 DV for a total of 14 and 1/3.
Alpha still better against high defense pool targets where you risk missing the target. Desert Strike is still slightly better against rest (and a lot better against hardened targets).
This math isn't factoring a hit percentage, which will tilt the numbers towards the Assault Rifle such that any remaining advantage to the Desert Strike is less than a single point of damage, which isn't even significant, let alone sufficient.
-
This isn't really a discussion any longer, just a rehash of an argument that's been around since the release of SR5...
How about factoring in Run & Gun sniper rifles?
What about coming up with suggestions other than messing around with recoil, because people are clearly not trying to win hearts and minds here, and no one is likely going to convince those that like the recoil rules that they need changing, and vice versa.
At this point, why not just be done with it and play the game however we like, because enough information has certainly been provided about each point of view in this thread for any rational human being to make their own decision.
For the love of every debate team in the world, let's see some new arguments here or let's just let this issue die...
-
What about coming up with suggestions other than messing around with recoil, because people are clearly not trying to win hearts and minds here, and no one is likely going to convince those that like the recoil rules that they need changing, and vice versa.
If I had any other ideas, I'd have brought them forward by now - but I'd welcome any ideas anyone has. I would submit, however, that the idea of Automatics both being the jack of all trades and offering the best (or close enough as makes no difference) combat weapon class is strictly incompatible with balance.
-
For people that consider the medium range weapon skill (aka automatics skill) unbalanced here is a serious suggestion that i personally like a lot:
Scratch the entire automatics skill.
Move machine pistols to pistol skill.
Use pistol skill if you wield SMG with one hand and longarm if you wield it with two hands
Move carbines and assault rifles to the longarm skill.
Basically;
Pistol skill = if you wield the weapon with one hand
Longarm skill = if you wield the weapon with two hands (not counting heavy weapons and gunnery)
What will this fix?
Dedicated Pistol users get a few more 1h options.
Dedicated Longarm users get a few more 2h options.
Weapon specialists will no longer manage with just one firearm skill.
-
For people that consider FA mode unbalanced and at the same time interpret that you can split simple action 6 bullet and complex action 10 bullet FA from a single weapon to attack more than one target per attack action here is a serious suggestion (that i personally even consider RAW):
Rule that you can't split simple action 6 bullet and complex action 10 bullet FA from a single weapon to attack more than one target per attack action.
Basically;
SA = can hit up to 3 different targets with a complex action
BF = can hit up to 2 different targets with a complex action
FA = can use suppressive fire over a narrow frontal cone area if they want to hit multiple targets
What will this fix?
This give SA and BF the [intended?] edge of dealing great amount of damage to multiple unaware or surprised targets with one single attack action.
-
For people that consider forbidden weapons such as monowhip, FN P93 Praetor, Ares Alpha, Yamaha Raiden, Ares Desert Strike, Cavalier Arms Crockett EBR, Ranger Arms SM-5, Enfield AS-7, heavy weapons and explosives unbalanced compared to legal or restricted weapons here is a serious suggestion (that I don't even consider a house rule):
Don't downplay the Forbidden availability code.
Call in HTR every single time your players bring out Forbidden hardware.
Don't downplay the Concealability Modifier.
If your players normally walk around with hard to conceal hardware start to harass them with local police and security until they only bring them for dedicated shadowruns.
What will this fix?
It will make less "powerful" weapons that are "only" restricted (or even legal) and/or smaller and easy to hide a lot more desirable. Will turn the table from "Using Ares Alpha for everything" to "Using the right weapon for the job"
-
+1
That stuff is forbidden for a reason.
-
For people that consider forbidden weapons such as monowhip, FN P93 Praetor, Ares Alpha, Yamaha Raiden, Ares Desert Strike, Cavalier Arms Crockett EBR, Ranger Arms SM-5, Enfield AS-7, heavy weapons and explosives unbalanced compared to legal or restricted weapons here is a serious suggestion (that I don't even consider a house rule):
Don't downplay the Forbidden availability code.
Call in HTR every single time your players bring out Forbidden hardware.
Don't downplay the Concealability Modifier.
If your players normally walk around with hard to conceal hardware start to harass them with local police and security until they only bring them for dedicated shadowruns.
What will this fix?
It will make less "powerful" weapons that are "only" restricted (or even legal) and/or smaller and easy to hide a lot more desirable. Will turn the table from "Using Ares Alpha for everything" to "Using the right weapon for the job"
I completely agree, but at the same time, it isn't exactly uncommon for a Shadowrun to take people to places where they are shoot-on-sight anyway, so while F is important to keep in mind, for a lot of missions, all you need to worry about is getting to the job site. I am agreeing that availability is important, but I don't think it should be the only balancing factor, so I still agree with what RHat said.
-
Constantly getting HTR teams called in is a very good reason to raise Notoriety.
-
For people that consider the medium range weapon skill (aka automatics skill) unbalanced here is a serious suggestion that i personally like a lot:
Scratch the entire automatics skill.
Move machine pistols to pistol skill.
Use pistol skill if you wield SMG with one hand and longarm if you wield it with two hands
Move carbines and assault rifles to the longarm skill.
Basically;
Pistol skill = if you wield the weapon with one hand
Longarm skill = if you wield the weapon with two hands (not counting heavy weapons and gunnery)
What will this fix?
Dedicated Pistol users get a few more 1h options.
Dedicated Longarm users get a few more 2h options.
Weapon specialists will no longer manage with just one firearm skill.
The only change I make to this is that it isn't about wielding. After all, most people do actually use two hands on pistols and MPs. I toss SMGs completely into the pistols skill (since can be used one handed, and logically since they use lower powered ammo like a pistol).
Pistols gets most of the close range weapons, and all the concealable ones really. Longarms gets the long range options and Shotguns (close range, but not that concealable).
-
that work too (although in real life SMGs are considered 2H i think)
The 2H thing I talked about was more meant as a "if you hold the weapon with 2 hands and brace the stock towards your shoulder"-thing rather than strictly just using two hands to wield the weapon (you don't get to use longarm skill to shoot a pistol just because you wield it with two hands either)
If you hold the SMG with one hand (gangsta style) and use a periscope or on-board camera to shoot around a corner or wield one SMG in each hand you use pistol skill. If you brace the folding stock against your shoulder and use the SMG with two hands (SWAT-style) you get a point of recoil compensation and use the longarm skill.
anyway, this is a house rule so there isn't really anything right or wrong i guess. just wanted to explain my thinking
-
For people that consider the medium range weapon skill (aka automatics skill) unbalanced here is a serious suggestion that i personally like a lot:
Scratch the entire automatics skill.
Move machine pistols to pistol skill.
Use pistol skill if you wield SMG with one hand and longarm if you wield it with two hands
Move carbines and assault rifles to the longarm skill.
Basically;
Pistol skill = if you wield the weapon with one hand
Longarm skill = if you wield the weapon with two hands (not counting heavy weapons and gunnery)
What will this fix?
Dedicated Pistol users get a few more 1h options.
Dedicated Longarm users get a few more 2h options.
Weapon specialists will no longer manage with just one firearm skill.
The existence of Automatics isn't the problem - having a skill that covers a lot of bases, a sort of "jack of all trades" isn't a bad thing. The problem comes in where that skill ALSO covers something that competes for being the best combat weapon, just like it would be a problem if machine pistols were competitive for the best concealable weapon.
-
Anyone ever consider going back to 1st edition's skill break down? They had Firearms as a skill. Done. Rather broad, I know, but there is president by grouping both Axes and Knives in the same skill, Edged. Then you could take Concentrations, for a +1 at the expense of a -1 for everything not in that concentration. I don't have my old 1st book with me, loaned it to a friend, but I believe the Groups would break down similar to how the skills are divided up now. So you could have Firearms of 5, or Concentrate in Automatics of 6 with everything else then becoming 4. And you could further Specialize, for Assault Rifles 7, Automatics 5, and Firearms 3. I loved that system, and thought it perfectly balanced.
-
Anyone ever consider going back to 1st edition's skill break down? They had Firearms as a skill. Done. Rather broad, I know, but there is president by grouping both Axes and Knives in the same skill, Edged. Then you could take Concentrations, for a +1 at the expense of a -1 for everything not in that concentration. I don't have my old 1st book with me, loaned it to a friend, but I believe the Groups would break down similar to how the skills are divided up now. So you could have Firearms of 5, or Concentrate in Automatics of 6 with everything else then becoming 4. And you could further Specialize, for Assault Rifles 7, Automatics 5, and Firearms 3. I loved that system, and thought it perfectly balanced.
Actually, the discussed problems wouldn't be impacted in a meaningful way by that system - Automatics would remain too strong of a choice.
-
I confess I find the debate to be endlessly useless to me; despite playing SR since six months after it came out, and watching / engaging in character creation for literally hundreds of characters, I have had one - one - individual pick an automatic weapon because it was 'the optimal choice', or not pick a single-shot weapon because despite it fitting the character better, another weapon (i.e. a semi-automatic) was more optimal.
One.
This debate may have a point in the minutae of one selection having fractional-percentage successes over another, but people - players - don't want cookie-cutter characters. People will get the Manhunter over the Predator, ICly because Andrea McBain recommends it, but OOCly because they don't want to play Another Predator Character. And they'll spend more to add a smartlink. Why? Not because it's optimal, but because it fits the character - every time. The only people who won't be doing that are those who aren't going to be playing a character anyhow - they'll be playing the numbers and trying to 'win'.
-
The existence of Automatics isn't the problem...
It is for some people. Some people think it is a problem that automatic skill cover everything from small and easy to conceal close range machine pistols to long range heavy duty forbidden military spec long barrel assault rifles. That a weapon specialist can cover almost all bases with just one single firearm skill. This is obviously not an issue for everyone, but for some.
"Automatic weapon skill" is actually more of a "Medium Range weapon skill".
It have nothing to do with the capability of having multiple firing modes.
If they introduce a SA Carbine it will be a Medium Range weapon skill (aka Automatic weapon skill) rather than Longarm skill (since it will be bigger than a pistol and as big or smaller than an assault rifle).
That "Assault Rifles" are good all-round combat weapons is not really a balance issue by it self. Not as long as other weapon types are better in their special niche. There is, after all, a reason why virtually all armed forces around the world use Assault Rifles in one form or another (but that long range snipers still use sniper rifles and CQB units still use SMGs). There are several ways to make Assault Rifles less viable (or make other weapon categories more viable), but personally I don't believe house ruling unrealistic punishing recoil rules is the answer....
One thing I would like to change, but have not found the correct mechanic for yet, is to make SMGs more efficient at close range compared to an Assault Rifle and Pistols more efficient at close range compared to a Sniper Rifle (because it fit from both a Hollywood- and Real Life realistic point of view). By SR5 RAW you are better off using an Assault Rifle or Sniper Rifle for indoor combat rather than a SMG or Pistol (except if you also need concealability! -but IMO this is not enough, there should be a combat advantage of using a Pistol or SMG over a long barrel firearm in close range combat)
-
It is for some people. Some people think it is a problem that automatic skill cover everything from small and easy to conceal close range machine pistols to long range heavy duty forbidden military spec long barrel assault rifles. That a weapon specialist can cover almost all bases with just one single firearm skill. This is obviously not an issue for everyone, but for some.
There is a hell of a logical hole to dig your way out of there, though. The "jack of all trades" idea is pretty deeply ingrained into game design; the fundamental question is one of how much value each option provides individually and in combination, not on whether options can be combined.
-
In SR5 they went pretty far to make sure it would be hard to build a jack of all trades character (with the re-introduction of the priority table, re-introducing expansive decks etc. etc). In SR5 they kinda want you to specialize.
Characters get to choose if they want to specialize in close range concealable weapons that are a bit less powerful and limited when it comes to range (by getting Pistol skill) or more firepower, hard to conceal but a lot longer range (by getting Longarm skill).... and characters that are weapon specialists would probably pick both pistols and longarms.
With the system we have now a character that normally use pistols are kinda forced to also pick up automatics or longarms as well if they want to get access to a weapon option that goes further away than 60 meters (current pistol skill is very limiting). A character that normally use sniper rifles have to pick up automatics or pistols as well if they want to get access to a weapon option that they can hide under their long coat (current longarm skill is very limiting). One would assume that a character that specialize into weapon would get multiple firearm skills, but truth is that in SR5 he can get away with just picking up automatics and use assault rifles for targets up to 550 meters and machine pistols if he want a weapon that is concealable (automatics is very flexible).
IMO a character that just pick up Pistol skill because he normally use Pistol should be able to use Machine Pistols (for BF and FA too, not just SA) and SMGs and a character that pick up Longarms should be allowed to use Assault Rifles and Carbines.
An alternative house rule would be to keep automatics but instead rule that most weapons in the automatic skill range overlap with pistol or longarm. That you can use machine pistols and SMGs with either automatics or pistol skill. That you can use carbines and assault rifles with either automatics or longarm skill.
...however, I personally also like to "force" characters that want to specialize into both close and long range weapons to pick up two weapon skills and not get away with just the medium range weapon skill (automatics) to cover most bases. The house rule i posted earlier fix both problems without causing any new "balance issues". Smooth.
-
In SR5 they went pretty far to make sure it would be hard to build a jack of all trades character (with the re-introduction of the priority table, re-introducing expansive decks etc. etc). In SR5 they kinda want you to specialize.
Characters get to choose if they want to specialize in close range concealable weapons that are a bit less powerful and limited when it comes to range (by getting Pistol skill) or more firepower, hard to conceal but a lot longer range (by getting Longarm skill).... and characters that are weapon specialists would probably pick both pistols and longarms.
With the system we have now a character that normally use pistols are kinda forced to also pick up automatics or longarms as well if they want to get access to a weapon option that goes further away than 60 meters (current pistol skill is very limiting). A character that normally use sniper rifles have to pick up automatics or pistols as well if they want to get access to a weapon option that they can hide under their long coat (current longarm skill is very limiting). One would assume that a character that specialize into weapon would get multiple firearm skills, but truth is that in SR5 he can get away with just picking up automatics and use assault rifles for targets up to 550 meters and machine pistols if he want a weapon that is concealable (automatics is very flexible).
IMO a character that just pick up Pistol skill because he normally use Pistol should be able to use Machine Pistols (for BF and FA too, not just SA) and SMGs and a character that pick up Longarms should be allowed to use Assault Rifles and Carbines.
An alternative house rule would be to keep automatics but instead rule that most weapons in the automatic skill range overlap with pistol or longarm. That you can use machine pistols and SMGs with either automatics or pistol skill. That you can use carbines and assault rifles with either automatics or longarm skill.
...however, I personally also like to "force" characters that want to specialize into both close and long range weapons to pick up two weapon skills and not get away with just the medium range weapon skill (automatics) to cover most bases. The house rule i posted earlier fix both problems without causing any new "balance issues". Smooth.
It isn't that hard to build a jack-of-all-trades, just get a high priority in skills and attributes, and spread them out. A=skills, B=attributes, C=resources, D=metatype, E=magic, and you can mix those around a fair bit while still being able to create a character with a wide variety of skills and abilities. Concerning your last paragraph, it doesn't change the assault rifle issue in any way, just moves it around a bit. Assault rifles would still have a advantage.
I confess I find the debate to be endlessly useless to me; despite playing SR since six months after it came out, and watching / engaging in character creation for literally hundreds of characters, I have had one - one - individual pick an automatic weapon because it was 'the optimal choice', or not pick a single-shot weapon because despite it fitting the character better, another weapon (i.e. a semi-automatic) was more optimal.
One.
This debate may have a point in the minutae of one selection having fractional-percentage successes over another, but people - players - don't want cookie-cutter characters. People will get the Manhunter over the Predator, ICly because Andrea McBain recommends it, but OOCly because they don't want to play Another Predator Character. And they'll spend more to add a smartlink. Why? Not because it's optimal, but because it fits the character - every time. The only people who won't be doing that are those who aren't going to be playing a character anyhow - they'll be playing the numbers and trying to 'win'.
There are a lot of players, and it seems like you're attempting to speak for all of them here. You may not make that choice often, but there are people who will.
-
It isn't that hard to build a jack-of-all-trades, just get a high priority in skills and attributes, and spread them out. A=skills, B=attributes, C=resources, D=metatype, E=magic, and you can mix those around a fair bit while still being able to create a character with a wide variety of skills and abilities. Concerning your last paragraph, it doesn't change the assault rifle issue in any way, just moves it around a bit. Assault rifles would still have a advantage.
At the moment it's not that AR have an advantage that is the biggest reason they get picked. It has a lot to do with the skill group breakdown.
Pistols - Close range only, but all concealable.
Longarms - Mostly long and extreme range, shotguns for close range, but nothing concealable.
Auotmatics - Close range concealable (MP), medium range semi-concealable (SMG), Long range non-concealable (ARs)
Automatics cover everything. So, a player is looking at a sniper rifle. He doesn't just have to balance against the fact that ARs have a damage potential advantage. He has to balance the fact that he is tossing money straight into what might as well be an exotic weapon because he's taking a skill just for that extreme range ability. Pistols is similar. Automatics is the equivalent of basic firearms proficiency and the other two are fringe skills by current design.
If they add Battle Rifles back in, it will just get even worse...again.
-
...it doesn't change the assault rifle issue in any way... Assault rifles would still have a advantage.
I am not sure what the "Assault Rifle Issue" is.
All weapon types have different advantages.... ;)
Assault Rifles are not easy to conceal as Pistols, Assault Rifles does not have the high armor penetration ratings and extreme range as Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles does not have the narrow frontal cone attack of Shotguns.
The only real issue I have with Assault Rifles is that they out-perform SMGs at close range. Both from a Hollywood point of view and a Real Life point of view SMGs should be the better option in close quarter battles (the same applies to Sniper Rifles vs Pistols).
-
The only real issue I have with Assault Rifles is that they out-perform SMGs at close range. Both from a Hollywood point of view and a Real Life point of view SMGs should be the better option in close quarter battles (the same applies to Sniper Rifles vs Pistols).
It would be nice if that had put some optional rule in Run and Gun about the disadvantages of longer weapons in tight quarters. Maybe making it harder to take cover, (or reducing the benefit to cover as you have to expose yourself more) or making it easier to ready the smaller weapons.
I'd also consider lowering the attacker penalty when using a pistol or SMG when engaged by someone else in melee combat as opposed to a Assault Rifle or a Longarms. (Pistols are 0, SMG's -1, Carbines -2, for example).
-
Another thought: a GM could impose penalties to certain tests for those packing the Assault Rifles, LongArms, Sniper Rifles) for certain tests, such as running, gymnastics and so on, or when moving through really cramped areas. For example, a fight taking place in the guts of some factory, or other area where there is very restricted free space, the GM might impose dice pool modifiers on those longer weapons due to the awkward conditions.
And having a free hand available might com in handy at times Sadly we don't have detailed damage results yet, but an arm or hand injury certainly would make one wish for a weapon more easily wielded by one hand.
-
If they add Battle Rifles back in, it will just get even worse...again.
What did you think the "BR" in "Crockett EBR" stands for?
And as a small but important point, it's not the "Assault Rifle issue", it's the "Automatics issue".
-
I confess I find the debate to be endlessly useless to me; despite playing SR since six months after it came out, and watching / engaging in character creation for literally hundreds of characters, I have had one - one - individual pick an automatic weapon because it was 'the optimal choice', or not pick a single-shot weapon because despite it fitting the character better, another weapon (i.e. a semi-automatic) was more optimal.
One.
This debate may have a point in the minutae of one selection having fractional-percentage successes over another, but people - players - don't want cookie-cutter characters. People will get the Manhunter over the Predator, ICly because Andrea McBain recommends it, but OOCly because they don't want to play Another Predator Character. And they'll spend more to add a smartlink. Why? Not because it's optimal, but because it fits the character - every time. The only people who won't be doing that are those who aren't going to be playing a character anyhow - they'll be playing the numbers and trying to 'win'.
There are a lot of players, and it seems like you're attempting to speak for all of them here. You may not make that choice often, but there are people who will.
'Seems like' is a dangerous phrase. I did say I had a player who will pick every optimal choice - and I've indicated that yeah, there are people who play the numbers and not the game, who spend this kind of research to make the optimal choice at every turn. They are out there. But you know, even he didn't want a cookie-cutter character.
In any case. Enjoy your debate.
-
One thing I would like to change, but have not found the correct mechanic for yet, is to make SMGs more efficient at close range compared to an Assault Rifle and Pistols more efficient at close range compared to a Sniper Rifle (because it fit from both a Hollywood- and Real Life realistic point of view). By SR5 RAW you are better off using an Assault Rifle or Sniper Rifle for indoor combat rather than a SMG or Pistol (except if you also need concealability! -but IMO this is not enough, there should be a combat advantage of using a Pistol or SMG over a long barrel firearm in close range combat)
I have tossed this about my group as well since I started running the game. We have a Sniper. Now, when they are in "Casual" company, the character keeps her Predator handy, and if the situation might get a little hairy, then she has her shotgun. But, when loaded for Bear, it's the Predator and the Desert Strike. Yet, it's the Desert Strike primarily, and I just don't like the image of someone sweeping hallways, and breaching rooms with a Sniper Rifle.
Some of the modifiers I have thought about are
1) In "Tight" quarters, subtract half the concealability mod from the Accuracy of the weapon. Concealability could be considered a way or gauging portability, or mobility in this case. Longer weapons are a lot more difficult to sweep around a room or hallway, than a pistol or smaller* SMG would be. Of course, Someone would have to define Tight quarters. Another mod could be cut their accuracy in half, round down.
2) Within half of their short range, longarms and Sniper rifles suffer Long Range penalties to hit. This would make it a little more difficult for Snipers within 25m, and assault rifles within 12.5m I don't like this method as much, because losing a few dice isn't always that much of a penalty.
3) Within half of their short range, modify their accuracy as in #1.
4) Moving while having a longarm or Sniper rifle out and ready to fire cuts movement in half. Of course, this isn't much of a penalty when clearing an office building or the like, since most people would be sneaking/moving slowly anyway.
* I say Smaller SMG, because there exists some SMGs that are built on rifle frames, but are just modified to use pistol caliber ammunition. So, while considered an SMG, for size purposed, they are still as large as their assault rifle base frame.
Ultimately, I haven't come up with anything that feels right to me in this regards. So, until I do, our Sniper will continue to brandish her Desert Strike with the ease of a pistol in close combat.
-
A simpler fix would be to throw in a "Weapon Handling" attribute as a combination of size and ease of control, relating to the space needed to use the weapon properly and functioning as a penalty in especially close quarters.
-
One thing I would like to change, but have not found the correct mechanic for yet, is to make SMGs more efficient at close range compared to an Assault Rifle and Pistols more efficient at close range compared to a Sniper Rifle (because it fit from both a Hollywood- and Real Life realistic point of view). By SR5 RAW you are better off using an Assault Rifle or Sniper Rifle for indoor combat rather than a SMG or Pistol (except if you also need concealability! -but IMO this is not enough, there should be a combat advantage of using a Pistol or SMG over a long barrel firearm in close range combat)
I have tossed this about my group as well since I started running the game. We have a Sniper. Now, when they are in "Casual" company, the character keeps her Predator handy, and if the situation might get a little hairy, then she has her shotgun. But, when loaded for Bear, it's the Predator and the Desert Strike. Yet, it's the Desert Strike primarily, and I just don't like the image of someone sweeping hallways, and breaching rooms with a Sniper Rifle.
Some of the modifiers I have thought about are
1) In "Tight" quarters, subtract half the concealability mod from the Accuracy of the weapon. Concealability could be considered a way or gauging portability, or mobility in this case. Longer weapons are a lot more difficult to sweep around a room or hallway, than a pistol or smaller* SMG would be. Of course, Someone would have to define Tight quarters. Another mod could be cut their accuracy in half, round down.
2) Within half of their short range, longarms and Sniper rifles suffer Long Range penalties to hit. This would make it a little more difficult for Snipers within 25m, and assault rifles within 12.5m I don't like this method as much, because losing a few dice isn't always that much of a penalty.
3) Within half of their short range, modify their accuracy as in #1.
4) Moving while having a longarm or Sniper rifle out and ready to fire cuts movement in half. Of course, this isn't much of a penalty when clearing an office building or the like, since most people would be sneaking/moving slowly anyway.
* I say Smaller SMG, because there exists some SMGs that are built on rifle frames, but are just modified to use pistol caliber ammunition. So, while considered an SMG, for size purposed, they are still as large as their assault rifle base frame.
Ultimately, I haven't come up with anything that feels right to me in this regards. So, until I do, our Sniper will continue to brandish her Desert Strike with the ease of a pistol in close combat.
A simple solution is to highlight in the fiction the disadvantage of packing a big weapon in tight quarters. For instance, a sniper rifle makes a huge amount of noise, compared to smaller weapons. This can draw attention from elsewhere in the complex that pistol fire would not necessarily reach. Silenced snipers are even worse, their length gets crazy, and even then it's as loud as a jackhammer... You can make the weapon a liability in combat as well - it can't be used in melee, except as a poor (and fragile) club. You should let the runner know that using a dedicated sniper in tight quarters is both professionally out of character (maybe not HIS character, but OOC for a professional) and a liability.
Give them situational modifiers, even an ad-hoc intiative penalty (slower weapon to bring to bear). You can also take the weapon out of play entirely; in melee for instance, or climbing through a window, etc. Treat it like you would a disadvantage that the player gets points for.
Be careful, though. While the heavier sniper rifles are metahuman-sized things, the lighter snipers are more like bolt-action hunting rifles or EBRs, and can be quite quick and easy to point and shoot. My general rule of thumb is that if it's got a damage of 12 or less, it's no more cumbersome than an Assault Rifle or Shotgun. The Ares Desert Strike is a little bigger, definitely more of a purpose built sniper rifle.
-
... You can't solve a mechanical problem in the fiction. Any solution would have to be mechanical.
-
... You can't solve a mechanical problem in the fiction. Any solution would have to be mechanical.
I agree. The players that do this don't really care that it's out of character to use sniper rifles as room sweepers. They do so, because there is nothing mechanically saying that they can't.
I suppose some other quick-fix options could be to make it a complex action to brace these larger weapons and prepare it to fire. Widening your stance, making sure your footing is steady, etc. Or, double the recoil of each shot, unless you are kneeling/prone.
Of the options, I think the Accuracy penalty probably make the most sense. At one point, I even thought of having an accuracy penalty, and each Phase you spent steady, taking aim, would restore a point of accuracy, and then once restored to full value, then the take aim actions would provide their normal benefit.
But ultimately, anything I come up with just seems like it's personally bashing the player that decided to get the sniper rifle.
-
One could rule that Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles need to be braced against the shoulder before you fire them or you take a negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice (and cannot utilize recoil compensation from shock pads). Game mechanic wise that mean three things.
1) You take another negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice when using a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle to shoot around corners without exposing yourself.
2) You take another negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice when using a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle while engaged in melee combat.
3) You take another negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice (for a total of 6 dice) when you are considered running with a Sniper Rifle or an Assault Rifle.
- Instead of the additional negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice you may choose to spend a Ready Weapon simple action after each movement while considered running to again brace the weapon against the shoulder before aiming or firing (and only get -2 for running).
- If you place your assault rifle in a gyro mount harness you can keep your weapon braced against the shoulder even while considered running and thus does not take an extra negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice.
SR5 p. 161 Movement
It’s important to point out that “run” does not mean bolt as fast as you can; that’s sprinting. Think of running as a trained combat hustle or a jog, something to get you to another point quickly but still leave you able to perform other actions, albeit with a penalty.
-
Or going by a more strict reading that weapon must be ready before it can be used at all.
...and for a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle to be considered ready you must brace them against the shoulder;
1) You cannot use a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle to shoot around corners without exposing yourself.
2) You cannot use a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle while engaged in melee combat.
3) You must spend a Ready Weapon simple action after each movement while considered running to again brace the weapon against the shoulder before aiming or firing.
-
Or going by a more strict reading that weapon must be ready before it can be used at all.
...and for a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle to be considered ready you must brace them against the shoulder;
1) You cannot use a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle to shoot around corners without exposing yourself.
2) You cannot use a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle while engaged in melee combat.
3) You must spend a Ready Weapon simple action after each movement while considered running to again brace the weapon against the shoulder before aiming or firing.
Very good extrapolation of the rules as they already exist. I like it.
... You can't solve a mechanical problem in the fiction. Any solution would have to be mechanical.
Yes, you can. There will always be issues the rules and mechanics don't cover, that's one of the primary jobs of the GM.
-
... You can't solve a mechanical problem in the fiction. Any solution would have to be mechanical.
Yes, you can. There will always be issues the rules and mechanics don't cover, that's one of the primary jobs of the GM.
Really. Please do go ahead and explain your non-mechanical suggestion for resolving this.
-
... You can't solve a mechanical problem in the fiction. Any solution would have to be mechanical.
Yes, you can. There will always be issues the rules and mechanics don't cover, that's one of the primary jobs of the GM.
Really. Please do go ahead and explain your non-mechanical suggestion for resolving this.
Let's get something out of the way; fiction and mechanics are not diametrically opposed, they're married to each other. It's not role playing if mechanics don't pertain to the fiction, and it's not a game if the fiction has no mechanics. So, I can agree that "any solution would have to be mechanical," but I take issue with the assertion that the narrative can't solve the problem.
Second, I thought Xenon pretty much had the best solution to this problem in particular with utilizing the "ready weapon" action.
But since you're asking, let me show you what I would do;
It's simple. Bring out the disadvantages of their equipment. Put them in a spot and use ad-hoc modifiers.
Examples:
Sure, the elevator's tall enough for your sniper rifle to fit, but not wide enough. When the door opens, and the firefight starts, your weapon won't be ready, and you can't close the elevator doors until the rifle is out of the way again.
Everyone's jumping rooftops? You still lugging that 5 foot sniper rifle and trying to run with it? It's banging into the backs of your knees as you run and puts you off balance for your jump. +1 Threshold on your acrobatics test, and if you glitch you land on your rifle, badly.
You're clearing the room? The hallway you're in is pretty narrow. You can enter but you're operating at some bad angles with that long barrel, you won't be able to bring the weapon to bear this phase at the oblique angles... you sure you don't want to draw your Predator?
The ganger isn't expecting you to shoot him, but that sniper rifle weighs ten kilos. There's no way you're gonna bring it to bear on him before he gets a chance to react. Roll initiative.
I'd recommend Dungeon World for further reading. It's quite good, and has entirely narrative gameplay.
-
Never said they were diametrically opposed, but they are distinct and seperate entities.
Second, ad hoc modifiers like that are, in fact, mechanical. Weapon readiness is a mechanical state, +1 Threshold is a mechanical effect, losing the opportunity for Surprise is a mechanical effect...
-
Semantics, gentlemen. Semantics.
-
Never said they were diametrically opposed, but they are distinct and seperate entities.
Second, ad hoc modifiers like that are, in fact, mechanical. Weapon readiness is a mechanical state, +1 Threshold is a mechanical effect, losing the opportunity for Surprise is a mechanical effect...
I accept your apology. I'm glad to see that we agree on so many things.
Semantics, gentlemen. Semantics.
Don't worry, we're done.
-
One could rule that Sniper Rifles and Assault Rifles need to be braced against the shoulder before you fire them or you take a negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice (and cannot utilize recoil compensation from shock pads). Game mechanic wise that mean three things.
1) You take another negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice when using a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle to shoot around corners without exposing yourself.
2) You take another negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice when using a Sniper Rifle or Assault Rifle while engaged in melee combat.
3) You take another negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice (for a total of 6 dice) when you are considered running with a Sniper Rifle or an Assault Rifle.
- Instead of the additional negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice you may choose to spend a Ready Weapon simple action after each movement while considered running to again brace the weapon against the shoulder before aiming or firing (and only get -2 for running).
- If you place your assault rifle in a gyro mount harness you can keep your weapon braced against the shoulder even while considered running and thus does not take an extra negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice.
SR5 p. 161 Movement
It’s important to point out that “run” does not mean bolt as fast as you can; that’s sprinting. Think of running as a trained combat hustle or a jog, something to get you to another point quickly but still leave you able to perform other actions, albeit with a penalty.
I really like this idea. It's clever and it works. I would +1 you if that system was still in effect.