D20 Gun Rules Suck! How Can we Fix Them?

[8BitNinja]

So I wanted to run a D20 Modern game set during the 1980's. It was going to be about espionage and counter espionage between the CIA and KGB, so there was bound to be guns. So I looked at the rules for them and found this monstrosity (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/smack/weapons.html)

On a side note, some of the guns are inaccurate. For example, the Tec-9 is not automatic. Not really important, just want to mention that.

So does anyone have any idea how to fix this?

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you want a game with rules that make sense and work then may I suggest that d20 Modern is not the game for you?

If, however, you want to duel a baby dragon on the roof of a firetruck full of cocaine stolen from a kobold drug den as it speeds down the highway then d20 Modern may possibly be the game for you.

[Anonymouswizard]

In general I'd recommend not using D20, because it's specifically made for a certain type of game. But assuming you are definitely 100% using d20 because you prefer it or it's easier for you to houserule it than learn a new system or whatever reason.

Okay, now I prefer a certain type of game, so I'm going to be honest that my suggestion for fixes are probably going to make the system significantly more simple.

So the first off, fire modes? I know guns have different fire modes, but why should attacking with a gun be different from attacking with a bow? (and why should that be different from attacking with a sword is a question I like to ask, but at the end of the day I keep them separate) I'd personally begin by scrapping most of that, I'd keep an automatic tag on weapons but unless a character has an ability that makes them better a burst from an automatic weapon is the same as a shot from a bow: one successful attack deals the weapon's listed damage.

On that note, why do I care about the ammunition capacity of these weapons!? Especially when you can probably empty most of them in six seconds. Probably best to scrap tracking ammunition in most cases and just make it a dramatic complication.

Also, there's too many guns. I couldn't care what model gun a player's character has, just the basic outline will do. You can probably compress that chart down to a mere 10 guns (light pistol, heavy pistol, machine pistol, hunting/sniper rifle, assault rifle, shotgun, submachine gun, grenade launcher, machine gun) with as much real choice and make it a lot easier to deal with.

That should cut down on a lot of the mess in and of itself, I'll think and see if there's anything else that can be done.

[Inevitability]

If, however, you want to duel a baby dragon on the roof of a firetruck full of cocaine stolen from a kobold drug den as it speeds down the highway then d20 Modern may possibly be the game for you.

Requesting permission for sigging.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In general I'd recommend not using D20, because it's specifically made for a certain type of game. But assuming you are definitely 100% using d20 because you prefer it or it's easier for you to houserule it than learn a new system or whatever reason.

This may not be bad advice. Unless there's something about d20 that you're really wedded to, you should at least consider it.


Okay, now I prefer a certain type of game, so I'm going to be honest that my suggestion for fixes are probably going to make the system significantly more simple.

And oversimplification is always a danger. To whit:


So the first off, fire modes? I know guns have different fire modes, but why should attacking with a gun be different from attacking with a bow? (and why should that be different from attacking with a sword is a question I like to ask, but at the end of the day I keep them separate) I'd personally begin by scrapping most of that, I'd keep an automatic tag on weapons but unless a character has an ability that makes them better a burst from an automatic weapon is the same as a shot from a bow: one successful attack deals the weapon's listed damage.

Two things: recoil and suppressive fire.

Swords and bows and crossbows don't push back when you try to attack with them (not counting the impact of succsefully hitting a target with a melee weapon, of course), burst-fired weapons do. Only the first round is going to land more or less precisely where you were aiming while the other 2-4 are going to cluster near that point in what will almost certainly be a broader spread than if you're firing the same number of rounds in semi-auto mode. With some training (represented by the burst-fire feat) you can learn to put most of the cluster into the target but otherwise you're quite likely to only hit with that first round.

Full-auto is basically useless for anything but laying down suppressing fire. However, suppressing fire is a basic part of modern combat tactics. By spraying an area with bullets, you can guarantee the enemy won't go through that area unless they're suicidal or bullet-proof. If they do, you're pretty much guaranteed -a- hit but recoil and muzzle-flash make aiming well enough to put multiple rounds into a single, moving target difficult at best. I suppose that, technically, it's also good for mowing down clustered mooks without having to take as much time and precision as firing a single round into each of them on semi-auto.


On that note, why do I care about the ammunition capacity of these weapons!? Especially when you can probably empty most of them in six seconds. Probably best to scrap tracking ammunition in most cases and just make it a dramatic complication.

Reload time. The action you have to burn on a reload (or time, IRL) presents an opportunity for the opponent to do something -other- than cower behind cover while you make the nearer side of it look more and more like swiss cheese. It's usually just long enough to pop-up and squeeze off a round or two of his own or to sprint between two cover points.

Likewise, ammo gets heavy fast and it being limited because of this makes a huge impact on whether you can actually stick around for drawn out fire-fights or if you need to get done and get out before reinforcememnts arive, above and beyond the normal risk/reward calculation for the likelihood of being shot.


Also, there's too many guns. I couldn't care what model gun a player's character has, just the basic outline will do. You can probably compress that chart down to a mere 10 guns (light pistol, heavy pistol, machine pistol, hunting/sniper rifle, assault rifle, shotgun, submachine gun, grenade launcher, machine gun) with as much real choice and make it a lot easier to deal with.

You could do the same with the weapons tables in D&D: blade, bludgeon, and spear in normal, reach, and projectile. Six weapons to cover everything, right?

Different weapons have different details. Magazine size, projectile caliber, grain charge, variable or fixed firing rate, and current firing rate all affect how the weapon handles in combat, no different from the trip, reach, crit-mod, etc from more classical weapons. These have already been simplified to the abstraction with just firing rate, variabl or fixed, and a given damage die. Simplifying further is cutting out important nuance.


That should cut down on a lot of the mess in and of itself, I'll think and see if there's anything else that can be done.

Honestly looks to me like you've already done too much unless you're trying to make spaghetti western style shoot'em-ups a common occurence.



OP, I'd suggest just rolling with it as is. There're going to be some minor inaccuracies in anything gaming related anyway and it's really not that bad. Besides, if you're doing espionage accurately, you probably won't need anything but the handguns and the odd kalishnakov or M16 anyway. Spies that are good at being spies (as opposed to, say, James Bond) rarely fire a shot.

[Hawkstar]

What's the problem? They deal damage - enough to one-shot low-level foes, force a CON save-or-die on higher-level ones (Keeping them deadly), yet able to be survived by D20 heroes. Semiautomatic fire is fine - it's your standard attack. Full Auto is fine for suppressive fire or mowing down mooks (You're not aiming the same way). Burst fire is the only wonky one. It functions as "Try to hit someone multiple times in quick succession", which it works for.

[Steel Mirror]

Full-auto is basically useless for anything but laying down suppressing fire. However, suppressing fire is a basic part of modern combat tactics. By spraying an area with bullets, you can guarantee the enemy won't go through that area unless they're suicidal or bullet-proof. If they do, you're pretty much guaranteed -a- hit but recoil and muzzle-flash make aiming well enough to put multiple rounds into a single, moving target difficult at best. I suppose that, technically, it's also good for mowing down clustered mooks without having to take as much time and precision as firing a single round into each of them on semi-auto.
I'm not going to get too into this whole discussion, though broadly I agree with what you posted for why it's nice to have some detail on the weapons you are using, and that modern d20's guns are mostly okay. I just wanted to put in my 2cp on the specific subject of automatic fire because it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Firing a rifle on full auto from your shoulder (i.e. when standing or crouching) is fairly inaccurate, yes. It's why modern infantry rifles in the US armed forces no longer even allow their operators to select automatic fire, having at most a 3 round burst mode. Firing a pistol, SMG, or other weapon from the hip or without a shoulder stock is even more laughably inaccurate. Firing fully automatic weapons from a more stable position, however, for example when braced on a bipod or (even better) emplaced, can be extremely accurate.

When you see suppressing fire mentioned in the context of modern battlefield tactics, it doesn't really mean "spray an area with bullets and maybe something will hit anyone dumb enough to be there". It means very accurate, targeted fire on areas where enemies are known to be, often to fix them in place or prevent them from firing back while your allies take the opportunity to move into a more advantageous position. If the bad guys are dumb enough to poke their heads up while being suppressed, of course, you could end up with a kill-because again, suppressing fire when done right is very accurate.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by muzzle flash affecting the accuracy of a shot. Muzzle flash is the visible burst of light that happens when you fire a firearm. Possibly you are referring to muzzle climb, which happens to firearms as a component of recoil which makes rapid, successive shots less accurate. Muzzle brakes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake) are sometimes used to reroute propellant gasses as they escape the end of the barrel, thus helping to counter this phenomenon, and might possibly be what you were referring to when you said that muzzle flash has some sort of effect on accuracy?


In any case, my nitpicking aside, I do agree with others that the OP might consider a completely different game system to use if they don't like how d20 does firearms. Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, Cortex, and GURPS spring to mind as places to look.

[lightningcat]

If you want to stick to d20, check out SpyCraft. It was almost designed for the setting you described. They already did a lot of the houseruling for you.

[Ashtagon]

So I wanted to run a D20 Modern game set during the 1980's. It was going to be about espionage and counter espionage between the CIA and KGB, so there was bound to be guns. So I looked at the rules for them and found this monstrosity (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/smack/weapons.html)

On a side note, some of the guns are inaccurate. For example, the Tec-9 is not automatic. Not really important, just want to mention that.

So does anyone have any idea how to fix this?

You call the d20m firearms rules a monstrosity. Clearly, you don't like them. Your choice. Without knowing why you don't like them, it's a bit hard to suggest useful alternatives.

Regarding the Tec-9 specifically, the item's specific descriptions says this: "The Intratec TEC-9 is an inexpensive machine pistol popular with criminals because it can be modified (Repair check DC 15) to fire on automatic. The pistol only works on semiautomatic fire or, if modified, only on automatic. Once modified to fire on automatic, the TEC-9 cannot be changed back to semiautomatic." Clearly, the retail version is semiauto, but it can be hacked to fully auto. That's the information being given in the stat line. Wikipedia backs this up: "The open-bolt design was too easy to convert to full-auto." So it appears your criticism on this point is not valid.

[Pleh]

I put a vote in the ring for Star Wars Saga edition gun rules. Not hard to refluff the blasters as normal guns and just use the stats. Otherwise they function like 3.5 ranged weapons plus a couple extra rules (like auto fire mode).

[Anonymouswizard]

And oversimplification is always a danger. To whit:

I mentioned that I enjoy a very specific type of game, this is a side effect. I tend to simply stuff like this because I like simplified combat which might be a side note at best. I don't run D20 anymore because I hate complex combat.


Two things: recoil and suppressive fire.

Swords and bows and crossbows don't push back when you try to attack with them (not counting the impact of succsefully hitting a target with a melee weapon, of course), burst-fired weapons do. Only the first round is going to land more or less precisely where you were aiming while the other 2-4 are going to cluster near that point in what will almost certainly be a broader spread than if you're firing the same number of rounds in semi-auto mode. With some training (represented by the burst-fire feat) you can learn to put most of the cluster into the target but otherwise you're quite likely to only hit with that first round.

Okay and why do I about that. Here's the end result of making an attack with a gun: damage. It's the same end result as attacking them with a bow. There are other ways to solve it, maybe a feat/special ability allows you to deal extra damage with any fun that isn't called out as incapable of semiautomatic fire.

It's how much you care about the game simulating reality. I don't really mind as long as it works as a game, if at the end of the day all attacks deal damage then there's no reason to add complicated rules when you can just say all attacks are 'make an attack roll, if you hit roll/calculate damage'.


Full-auto is basically useless for anything but laying down suppressing fire. However, suppressing fire is a basic part of modern combat tactics. By spraying an area with bullets, you can guarantee the enemy won't go through that area unless they're suicidal or bullet-proof. If they do, you're pretty much guaranteed -a- hit but recoil and muzzle-flash make aiming well enough to put multiple rounds into a single, moving target difficult at best. I suppose that, technically, it's also good for mowing down clustered mooks without having to take as much time and precision as firing a single round into each of them on semi-auto.

Leaving out the the question of if this is accurate, this sounds like it's not an attack. It's useful in combat, so we can say that you can take an action called 'suppressive fire' to pin down enemies. I don't care how it works or if we specify if you need an automatic weapon to use it, but it's an option in combat: you can attack, take a second move action, use an item, initiate a grapple, go full defense, heal an ally, or lay down suppressive fire.


Reload time. The action you have to burn on a reload (or time, IRL) presents an opportunity for the opponent to do something -other- than cower behind cover while you make the nearer side of it look more and more like swiss cheese. It's usually just long enough to pop-up and squeeze off a round or two of his own or to sprint between two cover points.

This really depends on the game in question. I've played games where ammunition wasn't tracked and reload times were ignored. It worked because gunplay wasn't the core of the game. The reload time was assumed to be what lets them take their action this round.


Likewise, ammo gets heavy fast and it being limited because of this makes a huge impact on whether you can actually stick around for drawn out fire-fights or if you need to get done and get out before reinforcememnts arive, above and beyond the normal risk/reward calculation for the likelihood of being shot.

Assuming it fits your genre. In my games we assume infinite paper, ink, pencils, phone battery, drinks, and so on, why not add ammunition to the list? Maybe I'm running a game more cinematic than realistic, and it's a problem if Space Captain Geoff storms the event be and then discovers that he doesn't have enough bullets for the final fight with the villain (who, knowing Geoff specialised in firearms has given all his henchmen plasma blasters to limit Geoff's ability to replenish his supplies).


You could do the same with the weapons tables in D&D: blade, bludgeon, and spear in normal, reach, and projectile. Six weapons to cover everything, right?

Considering I play Fate? Describe it however you want, but it falls into one of eight weapon categories: Weapon rating 1, 2, 3, or 4, melee or ranged? It works well enough for me.


Different weapons have different details. Magazine size, projectile caliber, grain charge, variable or fixed firing rate, and current firing rate all affect how the weapon handles in combat, no different from the trip, reach, crit-mod, etc from more classical weapons. These have already been simplified to the abstraction with just firing rate, variabl or fixed, and a given damage die. Simplifying further is cutting out important nuance.

Really? Because I find all I need to now is if I'm wielding a Weapon:2 gun or a Weapon:3 gun. Like I only need to know if my sword is Weapon:2 or Weapon:3.

Heck one of my favourite systems for weapons is melee weapons in Unknown Armies. It consists of three questions: is it big? Is it heavy? Is it sharp? Each gives +3 damage, no difference if it's a quarterstaff or a chair. No need for a crit mod or specific reach.


Honestly looks to me like you've already done too much unless you're trying to make spaghetti western style shoot'em-ups a common occurence.

Maybe I'm not trying to run a realistic game. If I already have for armed aliens from the planet Venus why should I care if you've emptied your entire clip.

Nothing wrong with complex combat, but maybe I do want lots of spaghetti western style shoot'em-ups or characters running around shooting lasers everywhere. There's more than one way to play a tabletop RPG, I began by admitting I like a specific style, so it might not be for everyone.


OP, I'd suggest just rolling with it as is. There're going to be some minor inaccuracies in anything gaming related anyway and it's really not that bad. Besides, if you're doing espionage accurately, you probably won't need anything but the handguns and the odd kalishnakov or M16 anyway. Spies that are good at being spies (as opposed to, say, James Bond) rarely fire a shot.

So two very different approaches have been outlined, I think we should let the OP give his insight on if they want it simplified or streamlined.

[John Longarrow]

Steel Mirror,

You list for full auto should include walking your rounds on target. Really accurate when you can see where your rounds are falling and adjust to bring where they land on top of a target. Makes running a lot less useful for avoiding getting hit.

[Steel Mirror]

Steel Mirror,

You list for full auto should include walking your rounds on target. Really accurate when you can see where your rounds are falling and adjust to bring where they land on top of a target. Makes running a lot less useful for avoiding getting hit.Yeah there is a lot more to using a fully automatic weapon effectively in a real context-walking your shots in, using tracers, pre-bracketing certain terrain features and ranging your shots if its going to be a fixed defensive emplacement, and plenty of other neat tricks that make a properly employed automatic weapon absolutely pants-filling to go up against. I was more speaking to the widely repeated "full auto=inaccurate" trope that gets used a lot in games and movies. It's not exactly wrong, because if you're talking about a little grease gun or an AK just ripping rounds out at the full rate of fire, which is what people usually think of when they thing "full auto", yeah, that's shockingly inaccurate. But it's not the full story, either.

Precisely because of that, when you hear about machine guns or suppressing fire in the military context (or even Squad Automatic Weapons), it's something very different. Suppressing fire doesn't even need to be auto fire, and often isn't, it just means putting a few rounds downrange to keep the other guy scared.

Not that any of that is particularly relevant to the vast majority of RPGs which use modern firearms, because those sorts of techniques are either too granular to be very interesting, will emerge naturally from the game system itself, or just aren't particularly relevant to whatever play style the game is interested in. If it's a spy thriller, like the OP seemed to be interested in, for instance, there probably won't be much call for detailed squad based small arms tactics or faithful simulations of machine gunning. It might make complete sense for that game to say auto-fire=accuracy penalty but more damage, or is an AoE, or something like that. Not particularly realistic maybe, but realism is only one part of making a satisfying game, and often not a particularly important part.

As to the OP, giving us what exactly you find unsatisfying about d20's firearms might increase the quality and suitability of the advice we're able to give you for making it better.

[John Longarrow]

Steel Mirror,

Very true that there are a LOT of different ways that suppression fire work, as well as how different weapons systems can take better or worse advantage of these style.

For fixing something like the D20 modern rules, I'd look at what firearms you are considered proficient with based on general traits then have more specific feats that have the general feats as prereqs.

Weapon proficiency(long arm) would allow you to fire long arms as one shot per attack
--Weapon Proficiency( Assault Rifle) would allow you to use an assault rifle effectively and give several ways you can use it, such as using a burst for increased accuracy (shoot across) or potential additional hits (keeping on target).
--Weapon Proficiency(shotgun) allows for use in close quarters (use like a spear and pull the trigger at end of thrust, remarkably accurate for most shooters)
--Weapon Proficiency(Crew Served gun) that gives a lot of fun uses for machine guns.

This would let you have a class that gives these proficiency, say "Infantry", that reflects professionals who've spent the couple weeks training on each needed to become proficient with them.

Toss in a few additional specialty uses (Hinge breakers for shot guns) and we can keep the weapons pretty much as is while giving a LOT of options for their use.

For a spy-centric game a lot of these won't pop up in most encounters, but it would accurately reflect when the spy is dealing with professional troops for one reason or another.

[Hawkstar]

Are Anonymous_Wizard's complaints about d20's rules not making sense to anyone else? Because I can't figure out what he's trying to say or complain about.

Most attacks with a gun ARE like normal attacks. Others have special actions you can take with them (Automatic Area Fire). There are also feats like Burst Fire and Double Tap that allow attacks to be modified by taking advantage of a gun's automatic or semi-automatic nature. All the other stuff about guns are properties, not unlike properties of weapons in D&D. Except in D&D, the only magazine-fed weapons are the Light and Heavy Repeating Crossbows. With the proliferation of ammunition magazines in guns, and assorted modifiers (Not different from D&D's weapon properties), it's simpler just to make them universal.

If the complaint is about the number and minor differences between firearms... http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html

[VoxRationis]

An issue I'm seeing with d20 systems and gun concepts like suppressing fire is that suppressing fire, particularly suppressing fire that involves filling an area with bullets, is less effective in any game system that uses hit points. In real life, getting shot is quite often lethal, and almost always incapacitating. People therefore don't want to rush into fire and can be forced to remain in areas they would much rather leave. Conversely, in a game with hit points, an opponent can decide "Well, I know roughly how much getting shot will hurt me, and getting out of this position/firing upon a vulnerable opponent is more important than that." Of course, you can fix that with things like making most people die in one hit, either through a simple "one hit" rule or giving guns very high base damage, but those generally either won't apply to PCs or won't deter PCs, so you'll just end up with one side using such concepts.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not going to get too into this whole discussion, though broadly I agree with what you posted for why it's nice to have some detail on the weapons you are using, and that modern d20's guns are mostly okay. I just wanted to put in my 2cp on the specific subject of automatic fire because it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

'Kay.


Firing a rifle on full auto from your shoulder (i.e. when standing or crouching) is fairly inaccurate, yes. It's why modern infantry rifles in the US armed forces no longer even allow their operators to select automatic fire, having at most a 3 round burst mode. Firing a pistol, SMG, or other weapon from the hip or without a shoulder stock is even more laughably inaccurate. Firing fully automatic weapons from a more stable position, however, for example when braced on a bipod or (even better) emplaced, can be extremely accurate.

I'm aware. PC's are rarely firing from gun emplacements with heavy weapons, though. Probably more like never in the OP's intended setting. Like I said, we're probably discussing M16s and AK's being fired from the shoulder.

I will disagree with you about proper use of a pistol though. If you're close enough for it to be the appropriate weapon, you're close enough that putting a round in a man-sized target shouldn't require you to actually use the iron sights. Firing one on full auto (glock 18 anyone?) is pretty dumb regardless, if that's what you meant, just a waste of ammo.


When you see suppressing fire mentioned in the context of modern battlefield tactics, it doesn't really mean "spray an area with bullets and maybe something will hit anyone dumb enough to be there". It means very accurate, targeted fire on areas where enemies are known to be, often to fix them in place or prevent them from firing back while your allies take the opportunity to move into a more advantageous position. If the bad guys are dumb enough to poke their heads up while being suppressed, of course, you could end up with a kill-because again, suppressing fire when done right is very accurate.

Yeah, it's about area denial. I get that. Perhaps I didn't get that accross properly. We don't actually seem t be in disagreement on that.


Also I'm not sure what you mean by muzzle flash affecting the accuracy of a shot. Muzzle flash is the visible burst of light that happens when you fire a firearm. Possibly you are referring to muzzle climb, which happens to firearms as a component of recoil which makes rapid, successive shots less accurate. Muzzle brakes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake) are sometimes used to reroute propellant gasses as they escape the end of the barrel, thus helping to counter this phenomenon, and might possibly be what you were referring to when you said that muzzle flash has some sort of effect on accuracy?

No, I meant flash. That constantly, rapidly blinking light at the end of the barrel makes using the iron sights difficult with a number of weapons and creates a small blind-area around it. The lower the lighting conditions, the more pronounced the effect. An ACOG pretty much eliminates the concern with combat rifles but I didn't want to assume even that minor modification. Muzzle climb is just part of the effect of recoil that I mentioned.


In any case, my nitpicking aside, I do agree with others that the OP might consider a completely different game system to use if they don't like how d20 does firearms. Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, Cortex, and GURPS spring to mind as places to look.

QFT.


I sometimes forget that there are some basic assumptions I make about firearms use that aren't readily apparent to those unfamiliar and neglect to mention them. Given how gods-awful common it is for TT players to know everything about 16 million different classic melee weapons while knowing next to nothing about firearms, it's no wonder neglecting to mention them tends to result in others who do know firearms combat presuming they're not there at all. :smalltongue: My fault for not communicating better.

[Anonymouswizard]

Are Anonymous_Wizard's complaints about d20's rules not making sense to anyone else? Because I can't figure out what he's trying to say or complain about.

Most attacks with a gun ARE like normal attacks. Others have special actions you can take with them (Automatic Area Fire). There are also feats like Burst Fire and Double Tap that allow attacks to be modified by taking advantage of a gun's automatic or semi-automatic nature. All the other stuff about guns are properties, not unlike properties of weapons in D&D. Except in D&D, the only magazine-fed weapons are the Light and Heavy Repeating Crossbows. With the proliferation of ammunition magazines in guns, and assorted modifiers (Not different from D&D's weapon properties), it's simpler just to make them universal.

If the complaint is about the number and minor differences between firearms... http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html

First off, no underscore. It's Anonymouswizard.

My complaint is that, if the end result is to deal damage then a lot of this stuff is needless extras. I also very much prefer more simplified combat because I don't like combat being the focus of a game or having a 3 round combat take half an hour. Therefore to me the d20 firearm rules (and to be honest, the standard D&D weapon rules) are overly complex.

As I've said, I'm happy boiling a weapon's statistics down to 'how much damage does it deal' plus tags, and honestly that's why I dislike d20's weapon system. I did say I prefer a certain style of game, and part of that includes boiling weapons down to the absolute minimum of important statistics.

Oh, and on the 'minor differences in modern firearms versus the minor differences in polearms', I would like to mention that I also don't see the point in the minor differences between polearms. If it's long and pointy at the end of the day it's a variation on a spear, if it's long and slicey it can be represented by a glaive/halberd, and if it's long and grabby I'm sure there's a weapon to represent it (bill hook?). Really, I prefer combat abstracted enough that while having a 7 foot weapon might be worthy of a bonus in certain situations, it's not going to work inherently differently to a three foot weapon.

In short, I just don't like d20 combat. I'm only following this thread because it was initially posted on the general forum, and to offer a different viewpoint to the discussion.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First off, no underscore. It's Anonymouswizard.

My complaint is that, if the end result is to deal damage then a lot of this stuff is needless extras. I also very much prefer more simplified combat because I don't like combat being the focus of a game or having a 3 round combat take half an hour. Therefore to me the d20 firearm rules (and to be honest, the standard D&D weapon rules) are overly complex.

As I've said, I'm happy boiling a weapon's statistics down to 'how much damage does it deal' plus tags, and honestly that's why I dislike d20's weapon system. I did say I prefer a certain style of game, and part of that includes boiling weapons down to the absolute minimum of important statistics.

Oh, and on the 'minor differences in modern firearms versus the minor differences in polearms', I would like to mention that I also don't see the point in the minor differences between polearms. If it's long and pointy at the end of the day it's a variation on a spear, if it's long and slicey it can be represented by a glaive/halberd, and if it's long and grabby I'm sure there's a weapon to represent it (bill hook?). Really, I prefer combat abstracted enough that while having a 7 foot weapon might be worthy of a bonus in certain situations, it's not going to work inherently differently to a three foot weapon.

In short, I just don't like d20 combat. I'm only following this thread because it was initially posted on the general forum, and to offer a different viewpoint to the discussion.

Don't use d20.

There are systems that will fit your needs far better and you'd have to mod d20 until it was unrecognizable anyway. Just find a different system.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Seconding Star Wars Saga Edition for representing modern combat better than D20 Modern did. Just... Ugh. All of the ugh.

All I did for Saga to convert things quick and dirty (as I got more used to playing Saga, I started converting guns wholesale) was to drop one die of damage, and lower the ammo count to modern averages. If you have access to most of the books, you have rules for autofire, burstfire, suppression, adjusting your autofire pattern to suit your needs at the time... Lots of things.

That said, if you don't like long or heavy combats, you have two options. One, don't play d20 (har har, joking). Two, more seriously, don't run combats. Abstract it out.

The real number one is; Don't give the enemies much HP or HD. This makes combat really lethal, if they're working with 2dx firearms, and all they've got is 1d6/8 plus Con. By all means, let stats and skills build like normal, that sort of makes things more realistic.

Besides, real gunslingers don't aim with their sights, they aim with their eye.

[Anonymouswizard]

Don't use d20.

There are systems that will fit your needs far better and you'd have to mod d20 until it was unrecognizable anyway. Just find a different system.

I don't? I think I made that pretty clear, I first posted in this thread before it was moved to this subforum, and am mainly following to see what the OP actually wants from 'de-messing' the system. I have Fate, d6 Fantasy/D6 Space, Mutants and Masterminds, Qin: the Warring States, and several other games with weapon systems I prefer, why would you assume I'm running d20 when I don't like it's core element?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't? I think I made that pretty clear, I first posted in this thread before it was moved to this subforum, and am mainly following to see what the OP actually wants from 'de-messing' the system. I have Fate, d6 Fantasy/D6 Space, Mutants and Masterminds, Qin: the Warring States, and several other games with weapon systems I prefer, why would you assume I'm running d20 when I don't like it's core element?

Thought you were the OP for some reason. Probably has to do with clicking the "skip to most recent unread post" link when I open a thread I'm already posting in.

[8BitNinja]

Don't use d20.

There are systems that will fit your needs far better and you'd have to mod d20 until it was unrecognizable anyway. Just find a different system.

That sounds like a good idea, I'll find a better system.

Now I'm going to reply to all the gun based comments.

[Steel Mirror]

I sometimes forget that there are some basic assumptions I make about firearms use that aren't readily apparent to those unfamiliar and neglect to mention them. Given how gods-awful common it is for TT players to know everything about 16 million different classic melee weapons while knowing next to nothing about firearms, it's no wonder neglecting to mention them tends to result in others who do know firearms combat presuming they're not there at all. :smalltongue: My fault for not communicating better.
Yeah I figured that might be the case, but you know how it is when every once in a while you feel like infodumping into a random topic online. :smallbiggrin: I'm sure I folded in a few things I wanted to say about the topic from other places where people talk about gun rules, it just so happened that this thread is where I ended up getting it off my chest.

I did mean full auto for pistols and such, btw. Obviously you can fire a sidearm very accurately if you have the skill, but pretty much anyone's going to be useless if they fire it on full auto for some reason (probably to look cool).

I apologize for derailing the thread somewhat, but it looks like the OP's decided to look at some other systems, so at least he got his answer.

[Anonymouswizard]

As a side note, I should mention that in England, especially the part I'm from, knowing more than the basics about guns is unusual. I've never been to a firing range, and never owned a licence for a gun (although I have a couple of friends who either own one themselves or have a family member who owns one, generally in more rural areas), and nobody I've gamed with can say the same. To us having all these different model names in the gun chart is problematic when we would much rather just have a few generic ones. It's actually the only thing about d6 Adventure I dislike, on the plus side I can just use d6 Space to give me a list of 'generic' firearms (adjusted in ammo capacity slightly).

It's actually something that really annoys me, and the one thing I use to point it out is Vampire: the Masquerade 2nd edition. The corebook is fine when it comes to weapon variety, giving some generic melee and ranged weapons, and then the Player's Guide decided that the best way to add to that was to throw in a two-page table of various gun models, very few of which brought anything new to the table over just limiting players to the generic weapons in the core rulebook.

8BitNinja, I recommend looking at d6 Adventure. While it still has a table across most of a page taken up by various guns, but all you have to worry about is damage, capacity, and range making it nicer to read. The table doesn't specify if weapons are single shot, semiautomatic, or fully automatic, but there are rules for all three if you want to use them. It's not brilliant, and as I've said it's my least favourite of the line, but it's solid enough that it should work.

[Steel Mirror]

As a side note, I should mention that in England, especially the part I'm from, knowing more than the basics about guns is unusual. I've never been to a firing range, and never owned a licence for a gun (although I have a couple of friends who either own one themselves or have a family member who owns one, generally in more rural areas), and nobody I've gamed with can say the same. To us having all these different model names in the gun chart is problematic when we would much rather just have a few generic ones. It's actually the only thing about d6 Adventure I dislike, on the plus side I can just use d6 Space to give me a list of 'generic' firearms (adjusted in ammo capacity slightly).

It's actually something that really annoys meThat's fair, which is why it's nice to have an option to ignore that level of detail and just use the few generic options for 'revolver', 'automatic sidearm', 'rifle', 'shotgun', and so on. My favorite game in the world, Dresden Files Fate, goes even simpler than that, and I love it.

On the other hand, some games and some people really love the extra detail. I played a Star Wars game back in the day, for instance, where everyone's blasters were heavily modded and as distinct and flavorful as the characters themselves. Just like swinging Milvinduel, the elven blade forged of adamantium and enchanted with mystical fire and imbued with a hatred for white dragons is cooler (for some) than 'two handed sword', some games really benefit from having some difference between a .38 snub nosed revolver, a Desert Eagle, and an integrally suppressed SOCOM 9mm. We think it's cool! :smallwink:

[8BitNinja]

Yeah I figured that might be the case, but you know how it is when every once in a while you feel like infodumping into a random topic online. :smallbiggrin: I'm sure I folded in a few things I wanted to say about the topic from other places where people talk about gun rules, it just so happened that this thread is where I ended up getting it off my chest.

I did mean full auto for pistols and such, btw. Obviously you can fire a sidearm very accurately if you have the skill, but pretty much anyone's going to be useless if they fire it on full auto for some reason (probably to look cool).

I apologize for derailing the thread somewhat, but it looks like the OP's decided to look at some other systems, so at least he got his answer.

You can fire any gun accurately with some practice. I have no military background, but I can accurately shoot a 30cm target from 300 yards.

However, automatic fire is much more difficult. Mostly because of the recoil you have to control. That takes a little bit more to master.


As a side note, I should mention that in England, especially the part I'm from, knowing more than the basics about guns is unusual. I've never been to a firing range, and never owned a licence for a gun (although I have a couple of friends who either own one themselves or have a family member who owns one, generally in more rural areas), and nobody I've gamed with can say the same. To us having all these different model names in the gun chart is problematic when we would much rather just have a few generic ones. It's actually the only thing about d6 Adventure I dislike, on the plus side I can just use d6 Space to give me a list of 'generic' firearms (adjusted in ammo capacity slightly).

It's actually something that really annoys me, and the one thing I use to point it out is Vampire: the Masquerade 2nd edition. The corebook is fine when it comes to weapon variety, giving some generic melee and ranged weapons, and then the Player's Guide decided that the best way to add to that was to throw in a two-page table of various gun models, very few of which brought anything new to the table over just limiting players to the generic weapons in the core rulebook.

8BitNinja, I recommend looking at d6 Adventure. While it still has a table across most of a page taken up by various guns, but all you have to worry about is damage, capacity, and range making it nicer to read. The table doesn't specify if weapons are single shot, semiautomatic, or fully automatic, but there are rules for all three if you want to use them. It's not brilliant, and as I've said it's my least favourite of the line, but it's solid enough that it should work.

Okay, thanks. I guess firearm knowledge is just a privilege of living in the good ol' U S of A.

And in the state I reside in, I'm pretty sure the Wild West didn't end. The technology just got better.

[danielxcutter]

On a side note, while we're on the topic of firearms, how would you add firearms - either modern, simple, or futuristic - to a classic D&D fantasy campaign? You'd have to change or adapt the rules for them quite a bit.

[Nifft]

I feel like a good modern firearms ruleset would need to include stuff like:
- How spells interact with firearms.
- How the different firearms & ammo types interact with armor & non-armor AC.
- How to treat large, heavily armored monsters (like dragons), and armored structures & vehicles. Maybe treat dragons as vehicles?

Some systems (like Shadowrun) treat armor as DR ("soak"), and have some weapons which penetrate different armor types. That might be the way to go here: use a Defense rating for non-armor AC stuff, and modify armor + natural armor into DR, with different weapons penetrating different armor types.

As an aside, I'd like to see the effect of a HEAT warhead shot into a non-Fire dragon.

[Pleh]

On a side note, while we're on the topic of firearms, how would you add firearms - either modern, simple, or futuristic - to a classic D&D fantasy campaign? You'd have to change or adapt the rules for them quite a bit.

Dmg for 3.5 has rules for firearms.

The Renaissance muskets and flintlock pistols fit best thematically, imo.

[Kelb_Panthera]

On a side note, while we're on the topic of firearms, how would you add firearms - either modern, simple, or futuristic - to a classic D&D fantasy campaign? You'd have to change or adapt the rules for them quite a bit.

There's no need to change the rules, just combat conventions. Melee basically stops being a thing because charging gun emplacements or regiments of musketeers is suicidal. It could be done at higher levels but you can't get to higher levels if you're full of lead.

Ultimately, it's a matter of how advanced and prevalent the firearms are but the rules themselves don't need to be changed, regardless.

[danielxcutter]

There's no need to change the rules, just combat conventions. Melee basically stops being a thing because charging gun emplacements or regiments of musketeers is suicidal. It could be done at higher levels but you can't get to higher levels if you're full of lead.

Ultimately, it's a matter of advaced and prevalent the firearms are but the rules themselves don't need to be changed, regardless.

I suppose - most guns deal the kind of damage you'd usually see on a two-handed weapon. And they're only one feat away. This becomes less of a problem at mid to high levels, after the PCs leave "slightly tougher than normal" and get to "there is no fricking way that isn't superhuman level by any standard", but that has to take a while.

[GiantFlyingHog]

If, however, you want to duel a baby dragon on the roof of a firetruck full of cocaine stolen from a kobold drug den as it speeds down the highway then d20 Modern may possibly be the game for you.

Actually, if you wanted to do that, play Shadowrun.

More on topic, do the purchase DCs for the LAW and the m79 seem strange to anyone? They both have lower DCs than a Beretta.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Actually, if you wanted to do that, play Shadowrun.

More on topic, do the purchase DCs for the LAW and the m79 seem strange to anyone? They both have lower DCs than a Beretta.

Not really. They're both Mil(litary) +3 weapons. It's pretty darn illegal to get them if you're operating outside of a/the military, say, the black market.

[ngilop]

So I wanted to run a D20 Modern game set during the 1980's. It was going to be about espionage and counter espionage between the CIA and KGB, so there was bound to be guns. So I looked at the rules for them and found this monstrosity (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/smack/weapons.html)

On a side note, some of the guns are inaccurate. For example, the Tec-9 is not automatic. Not really important, just want to mention that.

So does anyone have any idea how to fix this?

I do not belive it is an issue with guns, but an issue with having HP past 1st level.

When you can be a 5th level character and laugh off a rocket launcher to the face from a mech It a bit too much

I whole heartedly belive that if you just say 'No more HP after 1st level" the issue with guns fixes itself.

ANything else involves so much convoluted messes of fixes that it better to not even play anything related to D20.

[Nifft]

I do not belive it is an issue with guns, but an issue with having HP past 1st level.

When you can be a 5th level character and laugh off a rocket launcher to the face from a mech It a bit too much

I whole heartedly belive that if you just say 'No more HP after 1st level" the issue with guns fixes itself.

ANything else involves so much convoluted messes of fixes that it better to not even play anything related to D20.

I see a few possible ways:

- Use SW Saga Vitality + Wounds, with a Damage Threshold so significant hits can hurt you even through your pile of HP.

- Use 4e style HP growth, so you start out with ~20 HP at level 1, and then you gain from 2 to 4 (depending on class) each level. Do not add Con bonus, do not collect 1d12.

- Do both, and have DT equal to your healing surge value. Now losing 1/4 of your max HP is a big deal. Maybe instead of Bloodied being just about your current HP, the condition attaches to anyone down one or more Wound levels -- and the first time you cross into Bloodied, you lose a Wound (if you're not already wounded).

[Ashtagon]

I do not belive it is an issue with guns, but an issue with having HP past 1st level.

When you can be a 5th level character and laugh off a rocket launcher to the face from a mech It a bit too much

I whole heartedly belive that if you just say 'No more HP after 1st level" the issue with guns fixes itself.

ANything else involves so much convoluted messes of fixes that it better to not even play anything related to D20.

This depends a lot more on how you see hp.

If you see hp as "how many axes can I carry in my face before I drop", then yeah, it's unrealistic.

If you see hp more as plot armour (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor) and/or stamina spent dodging those bullets, with only the last half-dozen hp representing actual injuries, it's a lot more realistic.

[Pleh]

SW Saga vitality + wounds? I think you're thinking of a different system, mate. Saga used regular HP similar to 3.5

The Damage Threshold is totally a Saga thing, though. It was basically equal to your Fortitude Defense, not a quarter of your health.

[Kelb_Panthera]

SW Saga vitality + wounds? I think you're thinking of a different system, mate. Saga used regular HP similar to 3.5

The Damage Threshold is totally a Saga thing, though. It was basically equal to your Fortitude Defense, not a quarter of your health.

The vitality/wound alternative to HP's is in unearthed arcana and here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm).