Ranged combat RPG

[Orzel]

Has anyone heard of an RPG that has a large amount of focus on ranged combat? OR has anyone heard/thought of any versions/variants/houserules of D&D where ranged combat is boosted and given more detail?

Because I want the new game to have the party hiding behind rocks and trees in a firefight with goblins. Most rpgs either make the character tough enough to enter melee even when shot at OR so deadly no one ever leaves cover without a sackload of protection.

[Darrin]

Has anyone heard of an RPG that has a large amount of focus on ranged combat?

Phoenix Command might work. From what I gather, each round of ranged combat takes 4-6 hours to complete, so most people give up before they close to melee range.

[ericgrau]

I played in a campaign with exactly the scenario you suggested and no game adjustments are necessary. With my poor dex I left cover and got quickly mowed down in one round since I was the only PC without cover. I was thus both easier to hit and the target of all of the baddies. From then on I was forced to use my sling far more than I planned, in spite of a much lower to-hit bonus. You only need to put the goblins more than a single charge away, but anything less than 100 feet won't give any penalties to hit, and max range is 1000 feet. Rough terrain can help even more. You can easily make melee an utterly ridiculous idea with travel distances that take longer than the entire fight to traverse.

Other relevant rules to consider: Look up all the combat modifiers. Cover gives +4 AC. Improved cover (like arrow slits) gives +8. Kneeling gives +2 vs. range. Being prone gives +4, but it only works with a crossbow or shuriken. Also check out the sniping rules (under the hide rules) combined with a -1 to spot per 10 feet to make the hide easy. The system already strongly favors ranged weapons, it's just that most DMs set up encounters at close range without any cover.

[infinitypanda]

I have no actual experience with the system, but it sounds like Twilight 2013 might be what you're looking for. However, be warned that it is a sci-fi system, not a fantasy one.

[sonofzeal]

For D&D 3.5....

1) Let anyone take an "aimed shot" as a special standard action to deal double damage on a ranged attack. Make opponents take readied actions with this, when necessary.

2) Start the encounter from 300-500 feet with difficult terrain.

3) Prone gives +4 AC vs ranged attacks. It's a move action to stand, and a free to drop back down; make heavy use of this.

4) Things under partial cover get +4 AC, and things under total cover can't be targeted.

5) Put a sort of time limit on the fight to keep things engaged.

6) There's a -1 penalty on spot checks for every 10 feet... but anything with zero cover is auto-spotted. Therefore, provide cover but also some clear sight lanes as well to discourage sneaking up.

[Raum]

Has anyone heard of an RPG that has a large amount of focus on ranged combat? OR has anyone heard/thought of any versions/variants/houserules of D&D where ranged combat is boosted and given more detail?

Because I want the new game to have the party hiding behind rocks and trees in a firefight with goblins. Most rpgs either make the character tough enough to enter melee even when shot at OR so deadly no one ever leaves cover without a sackload of protection.

I'd suggest taking a look at Savage Worlds. It's a very tactical pulp / cinematic game. It also has a variety of settings which may cover what you want.

Other possibilities include Shadowrun and, to a lesser degree, Unisystem.

[Tiki Snakes]

For D&D 3.5....

1) Let anyone take an "aimed shot" as a special standard action to deal double damage on a ranged attack. Make opponents take readied actions with this, when necessary.

2) Start the encounter from 300-500 feet with difficult terrain.

3) Prone gives +4 AC vs ranged attacks. It's a move action to stand, and a free to drop back down; make heavy use of this.

4) Things under partial cover get +4 AC, and things under total cover can't be targeted.

5) Put a sort of time limit on the fight to keep things engaged.

6) There's a -1 penalty on spot checks for every 10 feet... but anything with zero cover is auto-spotted. Therefore, provide cover but also some clear sight lanes as well to discourage sneaking up.

I'd endorse this. Maybe throw in a called shot mechanic of some sort, (either for disarming, automatic crits, or to 'injure' if you've time to brew up some dark heresy style critical damage-injury tables.

[Kaldrin]

The GURPS system has some pretty cool ranged rules. Both for gun play and medieval weapons. You can pull off a pretty effective cover-based shootout with minimal fuss using the Lite rules that are free on their website. Essentially cover just makes you harder to hit in that system, so skill penalties are assigned to the attacker.

[Lapak]

Another thing which helps a little bit is adjusting how initiative is handled to make things a little more believable. In any encounter where no one is caught off guard (no successful sneaking, no ambush) all characters and creatures with missile weapons already readied (or those who can ready them with a free action - e.g. has a throwing weapon and Quick Draw) automatically beat the initiative of anyone who does not.

This ensures that closing the gap to engage in melee WILL get you shot at if the other side wasn't somehow surprised.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I'm slightly leery of attempts to make things "realistic" in ways that subvert normal rules. Such motivations brought us the drowning rules, which I despise.

But this sounds decent, I suppose. I'd try to merge it into into the AoO/Reach Weapon rules.

I would second ericgrau's suggestion. Ranged combat is a state of mind. Use proper cover and distance rules, which exist in D&D, and you'll be fine.

[Zombimode]

You could also dig in Shadowrun.

[Lost Demiurge]

Shadowrun assumes that default combat is going to be ranged. Might be worth a look.

[valadil]

The GURPS system has some pretty cool ranged rules. Both for gun play and medieval weapons. You can pull off a pretty effective cover-based shootout with minimal fuss using the Lite rules that are free on their website. Essentially cover just makes you harder to hit in that system, so skill penalties are assigned to the attacker.

I agree that it has some cool rules for ranged combat. I'm playing in a WW2ish GURPs game right now. Pretty much all we do is ranged combat. It kinda sucks.

Moreso than melee combat, ranged combat needs to have interesting terrain. We've had way too many fights where we can hit the enemy and they can't hit us. The enemy then charges us until they're dead, never once posing a threat. Or we get ambushed and we're in melee.

The few times combat has been interesting has been when there's good terrain. Ranged combat at street level across a few city blocks is awesome. It's even better when you can enter buildings. I am firmly of the opinion that when it comes to ranged combat in an RPG, terrain is far more important than rules. Why am I emphasizing this? Because you're the one coming up with the terrain. Go be creative with it and see if you can find a system that supports your ideas.

[xPANCAKEx]

gurps in a modern/future setting (ie: with guns)

very gritty combat - even the most experianced fighter can be taken out with a single lucky shot from a grunt if they don't keep their head screwed on

[Another_Poet]

I disagree about Shadowrun.

If you want to play Shadowrun itself, fine. But converting any of its rules for a non-Shadworun game is going to be a mess.

In Shadowrun you have a situation where you are rolling handfuls of d6's. You're not adding up the results, you're counting "hits" (how many are 5's or 6's) and watching for two different kinds of fumbles based on the proportions of 1's to hits. The target number of hits needed is sometimes opposed and is sometimes fixed by the DM. The number of dice rolled comes from three different factors: and ability score, a skill rating and situational modifiers.

Now, once you understand how all of that works, what is the payoff? You get to roll an attack opposed by the target (or their arbitrary Professional rating) and if it hits, your weapon's damage is reduced by their armour. Any damage that gets through actually hurts them, and as they accumulate damage they receive scaling penalties to.... everything.

Are there any fancy gunshooting tricks you can use? Well sure, you can buy a better gun, or you can get cyberware to link you to your gun. What do these do? Increase your range, damage or to-hit.

The only actually interesting ranged attack option you have in Shadowrun 4e is that if you aim for one full turn you get a bonus to-hit on your next shot. Oh, and there are recoil penalties that vary with your rate of fire, type of gun and whether or not you installed special recoil-absorbing upgrades on your weapon.

So really, there's nothing in Shadowrun that can't be done just as well with rolling a d20 (or d100 or 4d6 or whatever) and adding motifiers as an attack roll, and using armour as damage reduction against a successful hit. It takes three times longer and involves more mental activity to count up hits, check for critical failures, etc.; but there's nothing about it that is more tactically interesting than your standard RPG attack-versus-armour mechanic. The interesting stuff in Shadowrun comes from the cool tech you can use and the awesome world. Not the rules. The rules suck.

I would second what several others have said. If you're using d20, you can probably just start battles at range and offer lots of interesting terrain and cover. Maybe get 2 or 3 battle mats and line them up, or consider squares to be 10' instead of 5'. Read up on the normal rules and your snipers/archers can do some interesting stuff.

If you still want more, offer a bunch of extra feats for ranged attacks - either comb through the splat books or homebrew them. Things like a ranged version of Power Attack, something to allow certain AoOs with ranged weapons, arcing your shots over walls and cover, a way of taking time to aim to do extra damage or get a to-hit bonus, etc. You can make a very interesting feat tree (or three) and call it a day.

ap

[Jack_Banzai]

I find that the damage threshold rules in d20 Modern and Star Wars SAGA make for a lot of people diving for cover. Nobody really wants to get shot at by 20 mooks with heavy blaster rifles each scoring 2d10 damage on a hit.

[serow]

Yes, damage threshold helps make combat much deadlier than it is currently.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'd endorse this. Maybe throw in a called shot mechanic of some sort, (either for disarming, automatic crits, or to 'injure' if you've time to brew up some dark heresy style critical damage-injury tables.

NO!


Do not implement an injury system or called shot mechanic for anyone! Seriously, noncasters have enough nerfs to put up with, they don't need another one.

[Kalirren]

Do not implement an injury system or called shot mechanic for anyone! Seriously, noncasters have enough nerfs to put up with, they don't need another one.

I'm a little confused by this quote. Why do you think that an injury system would be a nerf to noncasters? It sure seems like a buff to me, especially if injury interferes with spellcasting...just think about it, you don't even need critical damage tables. If every caster got spell failure chance upon being injured, then HP would suddenly become important again...

True Strike.

Oh. That's why you think it's a nerf. You're thinking inside the box of imposing an attack penalty.

[Foryn Gilnith]

True Strike. OF course, this likely is more of a buff for Duskblades than anything else...

I am firmly of the opinion that when it comes to ranged combat in an RPG, terrain is far more important than rules.

QFT.

[Lost Demiurge]

I disagree about Shadowrun.

-SNIP

ap

Well, to each their own.

[Thespianus]

Well... Depends on your definition of "Ranged Combat", but Traveller has fun rules for space combat between star ships. Might be more "ranged" than you wanted, though. ;)

[Kylarra]

I'm a little confused by this quote. Why do you think that an injury system would be a nerf to noncasters? It sure seems like a buff to me, especially if injury interferes with spellcasting...just think about it, you don't even need critical damage tables. If every caster got spell failure chance upon being injured, then HP would suddenly become important again...

Because your noncasters are much more likely to be hit than your casters due to assortments of buffs etc and the roles that they play, ie needing to be in melee for the most part as archery and similarly "mundane" ranged tactics are generally less than optimal. Thus the fighter's schtick, his HPs, are suddenly a liability when the injury tables come into play, because he can no longer just "take it and heal back to full later", but each hit suddenly has potentially crippling relevance to them.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That's why you think it's a nerf. You're thinking inside the box of imposing an attack penalty.

When practically everyone does think inside the box of imposing an attack penalty, it isn't unreasonable to assume that the 184th person to propose such an idea is also in said box. And I never called it a nerf, just explained the typical line of reasoning.
To be fair, I was in the box; and am generally opposed to new mechanics of the sort (the "Aimed shot" proposed earlier).

But as this is at best peripherally relevant to ranged combat, I'm not sure why we got hung up on it.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'm a little confused by this quote. Why do you think that an injury system would be a nerf to noncasters? It sure seems like a buff to me, especially if injury interferes with spellcasting...just think about it, you don't even need critical damage tables. If every caster got spell failure chance upon being injured, then HP would suddenly become important again...


Oh. That's why you think it's a nerf. You're thinking inside the box of imposing an attack penalty.

Not just that. There's more monsters than there are PCs in every campaign. Guess what? Odds are against the players if that happens. 3 Goblins against 1 Ranger. Sounds fair right? In normal DnD combat, the Ranger may have a little trouble depending on his level, but he can pull it off and only take a few hits.

Add in the injury system, or called shots. Or worse, both. All of a sudden, the odds tip in favor of the 3 goblins because of their action economy. Even if the Ranger kills one goblin every other round, he's putting up with 3 opponents for at least 2 rounds, 2 opponents for 2 rounds, and then 1-on-1 for 2 rounds. That's 11 tries for the Goblins to disable him. That's a fairly good number of tries, and hence the problem: Probability dictates that enough tries will result in success. The Ranger only gets 6 tries to their 11. He's going to get gunned down.


The only proper way to prevent the PCs from becoming fodder is to restrict the ability to a select few enemies and the PCs, but Fridge Logic sets in. Why can the BBEG shoot the Commoners in the eye but the Goblins can't? It isn't that hard to do, so why can't they use the ability too?

Injury systems and called shots are best left out of DnD combat.

[Kalirren]

Because your noncasters are much more likely to be hit than your casters due to assortments of buffs etc and the roles that they play, ie needing to be in melee for the most part as archery and similarly "mundane" ranged tactics are generally less than optimal. Thus the fighter's schtick, his HPs, are suddenly a liability when the injury tables come into play, because he can no longer just "take it and heal back to full later", but each hit suddenly has potentially crippling relevance to them.

Well, that's the way it works -now-. But is "mundane" ranged archery still less than optimal if you implement a system that penalizes casters for taking HP-damage with spell failure and removes the automatic win-buttons (Wind Wall is the big culprit) against mundane ranged combat? (Protection from Arrows is still completely fair game.) I think the classical party roles would change completely if damaging the enemy casters was a viable tactical option.

You don't need to make it an issue for fighters - who says that physical attacks have to be penalized by HP damage the same way that casting is? Sure, you could -make- it that way, but my suggestion here is that the -game- would be a lot more balanced if you used HP damage to nerf spellcasting in particular. The point I was confused about was the suggestion that any injury system necessarily penalized noncasters more than casters - I guess that might not have been clear.

[ericgrau]

For D&D 3.5....

1) Let anyone take an "aimed shot" as a special standard action to deal double damage on a ranged attack. Make opponents take readied actions with this, when necessary.

2) Start the encounter from 300-500 feet with difficult terrain.

3) Prone gives +4 AC vs ranged attacks. It's a move action to stand, and a free to drop back down; make heavy use of this.

4) Things under partial cover get +4 AC, and things under total cover can't be targeted.

5) Put a sort of time limit on the fight to keep things engaged.

6) There's a -1 penalty on spot checks for every 10 feet... but anything with zero cover is auto-spotted. Therefore, provide cover but also some clear sight lanes as well to discourage sneaking up.

I endorse 2-6. They require no rule changes at all and it's already plenty to force the PCs into range. I'll add readied actions to disrupt spellcasters. Concentration check DC 10 + spell level + damage or lose the spell.

[Aron Times]

I agree that terrain matters more than rules if you want to emphasize ranged combat.

In our current encounter (paused until this week due to it getting really late), the concentration camp that my party was going to liberate had two guard towers guarding the north gate. Each guard tower was manned by a hobgoblin warcaster, and we decided that we needed to take control of those towers ASAP.

The wizard used his Master's Wand of Magic Missile to send the mages falling, and then climbed one of the towers to get a better vantage point from which to rain death and destruction. As of the moment, the warlock and the cleric are taking cover behind the towers' foundations, though I might ask them to get to the towers to cover us three melee party members.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Well, that's the way it works -now-. But is "mundane" ranged archery still less than optimal if you implement a system that penalizes casters for taking HP-damage with spell failure and removes the automatic win-buttons (Wind Wall is the big culprit) against mundane ranged combat? (Protection from Arrows is still completely fair game.) I think the classical party roles would change completely if damaging the enemy casters was a viable tactical option.

Now we're going a lot more in-depth than simple called shots. And Sinfire's earlier point still stands - called shots with crippling ability are weighted against the PCs more.

[BizzaroStormy]

with all the different ordinance to choose from, the Cyberpunk 2020 system is great for ranged combat. Melee isnt completely ignored but ranged weapons are the favorite.