StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Specifically, d20 Modern (or Past) -- was wondering if anyone knew how to make matchlocks, wheel locks and flintlocks not suck more than compound bows. Apparently they're so bad without house-ruling that my player was thinking of taking a compound bow instead, and it took me upping snaplock pistols to 2d6 damage and 20 feet range increment before he took one at character creation, though the "killer" was that matchlocks and wheel locks don't get the Dex modifier to attack rolls...

(This was before my overanalyzing of the situation led to him slinking off. We have "cinematic/flashy" versus "mundane-but-realistic" differences.)

I'd mostly just suggest using a system that isn't d20 if you're going to bring in firearms.

But if you need to stay with d20, the big thing would probably be up the damage. Or perhaps give firearms a special effect, like the target has to make a fortitude save or be stunned for a round or some crap like that.

Well, the no Dex modifier is somewhat illogical, but it's actually true that an archer was better than a gunman. He could fire faster and more accurately from longer range, with a projectile that was just as lethal, if not more so. The reason everyone jumped on the firearm bandwagon is because it was so cheap to train musketmen vs. archers. You could train someone to shoot a musket competently in a few weeks, while it took years of intensive muscle training just to be able to draw the string on some longbows. If you're going to use house rules to correct the imbalance of guns vs. bows, you should require feats to be able to use a decent bow at all.

I submit that the main reason you have a problem is that it's easier for a person to accept an archaic weapon that nobody uses anymore to do very little damage than it is for a firearm, something whose effects anyone who watches movies or the news is familiar with. I'd say that the real problem is that the hit point model is broken, and you just never noticed it until you introduced something you were familiar with (guns). But this post is starting to wander into general d20 bashing, and I think we've all had quite enough of that on this forum.

Well if you are playing traditional DnD the guns are designed to be poor quality since they are a new invention. But they are too weak in alot of cases. I would say you up the damage to make them almost one hit kills(for low level-mid level stuff) at close range and let them have less stopping power as the target is farther away.

On a related topic has anyone read the D20 modern book? How do they deal with the damage and health system.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I'd say that the real problem is that the hit point model is broken, and you just never noticed it until you introduced something you were familiar with (guns). But this post is starting to wander into general d20 bashing, and I think we've all had quite enough of that on this forum.

To be fair, I believe d20 Modern has the Vitality Point / Hit Point duality, which is a huge step forward.

Eleas wrote: To be fair, I believe d20 Modern has the Vitality Point / Hit Point duality, which is a huge step forward.

It's VP & Wound points.
While it does make more sense, it makes critical hits far too lethal against "human" charatcers/Npc's, and makes Critical hits on big monsters less useful.

For anyone curious, d20 has VP (Same as hp), and a WP score which is equal to a charatcers constitution modified for size and a few other factors.
Hit's/Damage will only affect the WP score on a critical hit or after the VP's are finished, andany damage to the WP can cause fatigue and takes a far greater amount of time to heal.

DEATH wrote: It's VP & Wound points.

I stand corrected.

DEATH wrote: While it does make more sense, it makes critical hits far too lethal against "human" charatcers/Npc's, and makes Critical hits on big monsters less useful.

"Far too lethal" according to which criteria? To my mind, a system in which you can conceivably kill a man with a single sword blow is preferrable to one in which you can't ever do so.

"Far too lethal" according to which criteria? To my mind, a system in which you can conceivably kill a man with a single sword blow is preferrable to one in which you can't ever do so.

According to fun and game balance.
I don't like a system in which a bad roll of the dice can get you killed from a normal attack, it may be more realistic but it can be infuriating.
I first encountered it in the SW d20 game, where one decent shot with a blaster pistol can easily kill a charatcer, realistic? yes, but it can be very annoying.

My point is this: If you're going to make guns a 1-2 shot-kill weapon, then bows should also be a 1-2 shot-kill weapon, as they were just as lethal. The reason for the inconsistency in this thinking, in my mind, is because anyone who has played d20 has bought the hit point (or VP and WP in this case) concept for medieval weapons, but cannot buy it for a weapon we are all familiar with.

DEATH wrote: According to fun and game balance.

Not to bash d20 unduly, but its famed game balance doesn't really exist.

DEATH wrote: I don't like a system in which a bad roll of the dice can get you killed from a normal attack, it may be more realistic but it can be infuriating.
I first encountered it in the SW d20 game, where one decent shot with a blaster pistol can easily kill a charatcer, realistic? yes, but it can be very annoying.

That's apples and oranges, but I feel you put up a false dilemma. A system like Västmark's or better yet Skymningshem does both of these, as does Eon, and to a lesser extent WitchCraft, Buffy, or even WEG Star Wars.

Not to bash d20 unduly, but its famed game balance doesn't really exist.

All systems have rule breaks, especially the more accesible ones.

A system like Västmark's or better yet Skymningshem does both of these, as does Eon, and to a lesser extent WitchCraft, Buffy, or even WEG Star Wars.

Never played any of those, can you please give an example?

he reason for the inconsistency in this thinking, in my mind, is because anyone who has played d20 has bought the hit point (or VP and WP in this case) concept for medieval weapons, but cannot buy it for a weapon we are all familiar with.

I don't want it for only modern weapons, I like it in all d20 games (Hp that is, not the wp system).
There is d20 fantasy and an easy conversion system for anyone who prefers realsim and wants regular d&d beasties with WP (Dragon's are still astly to their size modifier to their Wound points )

DEATH wrote: I don't like a system in which a bad roll of the dice can get you killed from a normal attack, it may be more realistic but it can be infuriating.

Well thats where DM intervention comes in.

Fortitude Save on hit = damage from firearm

On failed save, Stunned/knocked prone.

On a fail of a natural 1, or fail + shooter rolled critical, save or die (same DC)

Actually, Eleas, d20 Modern also uses hit points (i.e. Strong/Fast get 1d8, Tough gets 1d10, Smart/Dedicated/Charismatic get 1d6), and Star Wars d20 uses VP/WP -- where VP partly represents one's parrying

IIRC, though, the 'threat' from firearms under hp and the rule of Massive Damage (threshold = Con score + 3 each from takings of Improved Massive Damage threshold, roll against DC 15 Fort when damage in one attack = or > MDT, fall to -1 hp on failure") goes under when one's Fortitude save is high enough.

(Under VP/WP, a critical hit goes straight to the wound points instead of the vitality points, but VP acts as both a representation of a close-shave kinda parry/glancing hit and as one's "Force use points" pool. Someone on WOTC's Jedi Counseling column posted a house-rule where a critical hit does double damage and to the VP instead of simply doing normal damage to the wound points.)

Solauren, I see...

Note -- admittedly, the decision to use d20 (and not GURPS) is less my decision than my player's desire to return to d20, although apparently also wanting to go back to 'cinematic' play versus the more mundane stuff I was doing (more intellectual/roleplaying than combat/rolling -- yes, he admitted earlier that D&D was basically a dungeon crawl in the style of the new Star Wars Galaxies, but he wanted more combat/action opportunities to 'act cinematically', and I wasn't giving it to him because it wouldn't have fit the situation ).

Say, how much of the d20 bashing on here has been D&D specific?

(I don't do D&D at all anymore due to its various problems -- only d20 Modern, Future, Past, and Star Wars d20 as a guideline/base for an on-the-side Star Trek d20 non-commercial fan project.)

I object to the characterization of less realistic games as "more cinematic". They're less cinematic. How many movies have you seen where somebody with no superpowers dodges bullets, or where the bullets hit them in such a glancing way that it doesn't slow them at all? In movies, the characters take cover, and when they run out into the open it's exciting because you know how dangerous it is. I would even go so far as to say that any game system where you have only a small chance of being quickly killed by gunfire can't be cinematic.

I don't want to mischaracterize the player by saying that "somebody with no superpowers dodges bullets, or where the bullets hit them in such a glancing way that it doesn't slow them at all" is what he's looking for, but he specifically wanted a return to d20 out of boredom with GURPS (due to playing D&D offline) and more specifically with my noncombat-oriented GMing...

(Assumptions re: firearms made in context of 1500s-1700s, think Three Musketeers and swashbuckling/pirate flicks.)

Quite a bit, if not most of what I've seen and engaged in has related to D&D, as it's the most common and vanilla of the company's P&P engine, without the tweaks and extra rules found in other systems.

Eleas wrote:That's apples and oranges, but I feel you put up a false dilemma. A system like Västmark's or better yet Skymningshem does both of these, as does Eon, and to a lesser extent WitchCraft, Buffy, or even WEG Star Wars.

I'd suggest that WEG SW has quite a bit of vulnerability to instant kills (rolling for damage with 3 more dice than their Strength attribute, like with a heavy rifle, will regularly incapacitate and sometimes kill), although spending Force and Character Points helps a lot if the player knows they're in trouble. The rules also encourages only killing for bad chboice-making/RPing and instead leaving PCs with major wounds or the loss of material items and status, come to think of it.

It's a minor amount of mitigation, but really any GM with creativity can lessen results in instant-kill systems when it's appropriate. D20 requires a lot of tweaking to let a thug or henchman flash a weapon and be even remotely threatening.

In terms of D&D firearms sucking I change it when GMing so that firearms make ranged touch attacks as opposed to standard ranged attacks. I do this because medeival armour isn't all that good against bullets, (or longbow arrows for that matter) so the AC bonus from armour is irrelevant.

Another way is to make firearms Simple Weapons as opposed to exotic weapons to reflect their ease of use.

This only works for D&D, I don't know about the d20 Modern rules.

Xess wrote:In terms of D&D firearms sucking I change it when GMing so that firearms make ranged touch attacks as opposed to standard ranged attacks. I do this because medeival armour isn't all that good against bullets, (or longbow arrows for that matter) so the AC bonus from armour is irrelevant.

There was a an optional rule in second edition that metal armor gave half its mudane armor bonus+ the magical bonus against bullets. Non-metal armor just gives the magical bonus against them.

lance wrote:

Xess wrote:In terms of D&D firearms sucking I change it when GMing so that firearms make ranged touch attacks as opposed to standard ranged attacks. I do this because medeival armour isn't all that good against bullets, (or longbow arrows for that matter) so the AC bonus from armour is irrelevant.

There was a an optional rule in second edition that metal armor gave half its mudane armor bonus+ the magical bonus against bullets. Non-metal armor just gives the magical bonus against them.

Masque of the Red Death had a mandatory rule where armor provided no protection at short range, was 5 armor classes worse at medium range, and 4 armor classes worse at long range, while shields provided a 1 point bonus at medium or long range.

As a DM, I made firearms a ranged touch attack like Xess suggested. As a player with a DM who kept to book rules, we simply made the guns a lot deadlier via magic.

+1 Bullets of Fireball > enemy

Guns just illustrate one the weakness of D&D's armour class system. A mail shirt gives a +4 AC bonus, but realistically its armour that isn't very effective against a two handed warhammer, a longbowmen with bodkin points, or bullets from even primitive firearms. Guns are just the point where players stop automatically suspending disbelief. Star Wars d20 avoids that problem by having armour work differently, but being a blatantly heroic game may not satisfy people looking for a grittier or more realistic game.

I will say that firearms are nicely lethal in the Second Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

DEATH wrote:All systems have rule breaks, especially the more accesible ones.

Yes, and that only becomes a problem when one of said systems use the broken factor as a selling point.

DEATH wrote:Never played any of those, can you please give an example?

Certainly. While the various mechanisms they use differ, all of them basically employ the same philosophy and rough methodology, which I'll make an attempt at explaining.

In Västmark, and its successor Skymningshem, the main characters (not "heroes," per se, as that sort of behaviour isn't mandatory) are more important than bit characters. Damage comes in three levels -- scratch, light wound, and serious wound. There's of course the obvious fourth (dead), and in Skymningshem there's also mortal wound, but the principle should be clear. Anyway, in conventional combat, if a bit character / mook is given a serious wound, he's down and out. Whether he's dead or merely incapacitated is up to the GM, though he's assumed to be dead unless otherwise stated. A main character given a serious wound is down, in agony, delirious with fever, weak as a kitten, etc., and cannot act, but she's not dead per se -- that fate is reserved for those who put themselves in situations where the enemy will make sure they're dead. In other words, you'll have to act with true stupidity, or in a nobly heroical fashion, to die.

In Buffy, Eon or WEG SW (as Utsanomiko touched on), the characters are given certain mechanisms allowing them to bend fortune in their favor. Some of these means are more effective than the other (of these, WEG SW has the weakest mechanism, to my mind) but all allow you to turn an instant death to a mere setback, without becoming some kind of human tank.

The problem with merely giving a hero a lot of hitpoints to simulate script immunity is that you'll be just about invincible against normal mooks. Thus, you've solved the problem of the hero dying ahead of time by the simple expedient of removing him from danger throughout the majority of the adventure. It inundates the player to the idea that she can do whatever moronic thing she'd like, as long as her hitpoint levels are okay, without any ill effects. Only the battles against the villain at the end of the adventure really matter. But at the same time, they don't -- they can never be a true test of what the character is capable of, since her hit points, the very thing that has brought her to that point, by then usually are severely depleted.

Using such mechanisms as Drama Points, you can not only simulate the effects that hit points were supposed to invoke, but you can do it with the damage system of your choice, as well as invoke other staples of dramaticism. That sort of system is used in the Buffy and Angel RPGs. I heartily recommend you take a look at either game -- before them, I was a staunch opponent of both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Reading the game converted me. It's that good.

Edward Yee wrote:Actually, Eleas, d20 Modern also uses hit points (i.e. Strong/Fast get 1d8, Tough gets 1d10, Smart/Dedicated/Charismatic get 1d6), and Star Wars d20 uses VP/WP -- where VP partly represents one's parrying

Interesting. I was previously under the impression SW d20 borrowed that mechanism from d20 Modern, but apparently not.

Edward Yee wrote:Say, how much of the d20 bashing on here has been D&D specific?

I'd hesitate to call it "bashing," given the startling levels of politeness in this thread so far.

I'm not really familiar with the D20 modern system of firearms, but one I particularly liked came from the Living Death campaign I was playing in recently. I'll look up a link to all the details when I get home(I believe the website is http://www.livingdeath.org, but I can't check it from work). The short version is if you rolled a 6 (or whatever the max is for that weapon) for damage, you were allowed to roll that die again and add it to the total. For example, if your pistol does 2d6 damage and you roll a 3 and a 6 you get to roll the 6 again and add it to the total (say you roll a 4 on that, the total would be 13 damage.) Basically it gives guns an extra chance to crit and do more damage.

You also might want to think about making guns a ranged touch attack, maybe adding in the bonus of magical armor but not mundane armor (i.e. a suit of +2 Chainmail would give the +2 bonus, but not the chainmail bonus.) You could also consider magic bullets, maybe allowing any enhancement that you would allow on an arrow/bolt.