(2) In cases in which many targets are spread out over a wider area, targets you’d need to use a long cone to reach, automatic fire can yield more expected damage than comparable burst fire weapons, since they tend to have twice the range. So in some cases, the AOE attack of an automatic weapon is still better than that of a comparable burst fire weapon.Don't forget that Automatic does a cone only 1/2 the Range, so an Automatic weapon would need to have 4x the range for Automatic to cover double the range in cone.
Not forgotten!
(Range of the Autotarget Rifle is 60', or a 30' cone with automatic fire.
Range of the Tactical Arc Emitter is a 15' cone.
Range of the Paragon X-Gen Gun is 120', or a 60' cone with automatic fire.
Range of the Phoenix-class Flamethrower is a 30' cone.)
I personally try to avoid both.Indeed!
I, personally, am very pleased with my 100% success rate at never getting stabbed or shot by anyone.
I'm admittedly not in an area where that's super likely, but still, it's very nice.
I have to admit, my "Not getting stabbed" success rate is below 100%. The worst part is it wasn't even someone else - I just got too excited opening a laptop box with a kitchen knife once. One tug too hard and whoops! Into the hand! And that's why you don't use dull knives.
My "Not getting shot" success rate is, thankfully, still 100%. Even though I helped teach kids how to use BB guns a few times at a summer camp. I consider myself lucky.
|
How do people think automatic will compare to the explode property? It looks like the damage on the two near the same level are roughly equivalent. The x-gen tactical and the shock caster static are exactly the same level and damage, a 10' blast to a 60' cone. But with the explode property you place your blast where you like. Helpful if the enemy isn't willing to run right at you and really helpful if the solarion in front of you keeps making threats about all the friendly fire. They can also fire many times without a reload. The downside being that they don't have a single target option if the goblins all mingle with your party.
And how would the soldier's ability to expand the AOE template of the explosion effect that? With that bonus the area doubles in size.
And Thank you Porridge for the break downs, I've gone from being really interested in the ability, to disappointed when I read the rules and realized how little effect it had, to now if not happy then willing to work with it. You're right that in the flexibility it grants certainly has its place, particularly given how expensive it looks to be to have multiple weapons in the proper tier. Even if it still feels silly fire 50 people's worth of bullets down the field at 5 people, have less chance of hitting any of them, and still be out of bullets at the end.
Do you actually have to get hurt for the success rate to be below 100%? Or does being shot at and they missed count? What about bombs?
Or what about just threatened with, but no actual shooting/stabbing? What about threatened with a baseball bat?
There is a Suppressive Fire feat that does some of what you want.
So basically Infantry Basic taught soldiers how to be Soldiers, giving them the proficiencies they needed.
Also Suppressive Fire with an automatic is something that takes a feat unfortunately. It's not a horrible feat, but expending all your ammunition to inflict either -2 attack against 1 ally or (functional) -2 AC against first attack against them isn't a great feat either.
Yes. Crew served weapons, like the machine gun (M-60 and the M-2 .50 in my experience), do have assistant gunners. Typically, it's whoever is carrying a fresh belt at the time. And, yes, they need to be proficient in those weapons. In Infantry Basic, everyone received training for the M-60 machine gun.
Must have been some time ago. The M60 isn't taught in basic anymore. It's also been replaced by the M240, about 15 years ago.
|
|
Suppressing fire only takes 10 rounds, not the entire clip. That may not be much of a difference for some, but a number of the automatic weapons hold a decent number of shots. Imagine two soldiers holding a point against an incoming mob. The first soldier to act makes a harrying fire attack and grants a +2 to the first attack against most of the enemies. The second then makes an automatic attack with that bonus and does damage. The next round the second soldier reloads and makes that harrying fire attack while the first uses the rest of his clip to make an automatic attack.
Not saying it's amazing, but it could work out well.
Yes, it was. Nearly 30 years ago, in 1988.Yes. Crew served weapons, like the machine gun (M-60 and the M-2 .50 in my experience), do have assistant gunners. Typically, it's whoever is carrying a fresh belt at the time. And, yes, they need to be proficient in those weapons. In Infantry Basic, everyone received training for the M-60 machine gun.Must have been some time ago. The M60 isn't taught in basic anymore. It's also been replaced by the M240, about 15 years ago.
Still, your point remains valid. Crew Served weapons are taught in basic, whether it's the M60, M240, M249 SAW, or something else. Same with grenades, grenade launchers, missile launchers (like the AT-4), and more.
And that's just basic. Once I got to my unit, I practiced with a lot more weapons and gear: M2 Browning, MK-19, M240 (I had the SAW in basic. Didn't learn the M240 until I got to my unit), night vision scopes, infrared scopes, anti riot gear, rubber bullets, etc.. And that was all outside of my actual job. MK-19 was my favorite, though. Fully automatic grenade launcher.
I want to see that weapon in Starfinder.
The mathy folks that play might enjoy counting ammo to finish off a power pack with autofire. 3 enemies left? I got 13 rounds left, let's hit all three...
As a possible fix
I don't know if automatic weapons need a fix, since they seem useful as is, and boosting them would probably make them strictly better than either non-automatic weapons or blast weapons, neither of which would be a good outcome. That said...
how would this work to simulate the suppressive fire aspect? Instead of making single attack rolls, the person firing a fully automatic weapon lays down a zone where they're spraying their bullets. Any target in the zone, if they take any action (other than a guarded step, reflecting crawling a few feet), that provokes an attack of opportunity and if they're hit then there's a -4 penalty to any rolls they make that turn.
This sounds like a pretty cool and thematic way of modeling this. I suspect that using this option would probably be a little weaker than simply using automatic fire (since the latter makes an attack against everyone in the cone no matter what, instead of an attack they can avoid). But it's a cool idea nonetheless. And it introduces a mechanical difference between automatic fire and blast fire. Nice.
With automatic weapons, would it work to have a gunner firing the weapon and then an assistant loading it on their initiative? That seems to allow more flexibility, especially if the person actually firing the gun is good at it and the loader having other ways they could contribute. Or does that require both to have proficiency with the weapons?
Another cool idea. Maybe introducing a full round action that allows you to reload the weapon of an ally adjacent to you? Or introducing a special weapon quality which allows them to be reloaded by an assistant in this way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a possible fixI don't know if automatic weapons need a fix, since they seem useful as is, and boosting them would probably make them strictly better than either non-automatic weapons or blast weapons, neither of which would be a good outcome. That said...
how would this work to simulate the suppressive fire aspect? Instead of making single attack rolls, the person firing a fully automatic weapon lays down a zone where they're spraying their bullets. Any target in the zone, if they take any action (other than a guarded step, reflecting crawling a few feet), that provokes an attack of opportunity and if they're hit then there's a -4 penalty to any rolls they make that turn.This sounds like a pretty cool and thematic way of modeling this. I suspect that using this option would probably be a little weaker than simply using automatic fire (since the latter makes an attack against everyone in the cone no matter what, instead of an attack they can avoid). But it's a cool idea nonetheless. And it introduces a mechanical difference between automatic fire and blast fire. Nice.
Another cool idea. Maybe introducing a full round action that allows you to reload the weapon of an ally adjacent to you? Or introducing a special weapon quality which allows them to be reloaded by an assistant in this way?
With automatic weapons, would it work to have a gunner firing the weapon and then an assistant loading it on their initiative? That seems to allow more flexibility, especially if the person actually firing the gun is good at it and the loader having other ways they could contribute. Or does that require both to have proficiency with the weapons?
Crew reload is what I would tihnk a good name for the property.
Anybody check out The Modern Path burst fire rules? Might be worth looking at for anybody who wants to add that in to a game.
http://www.d20modernpf.com/wealth-and-equipment/weapons/#Firearm_Rate_of_Fi re
Any thoughts?
I've used it in a Modern game, worked okay for my purposes.
Just to chime in on the military experience here, I served in the US Army for 16 years and am intimately familiar with the M249 and M240B. Nobody is trained to spray-n-pray, and while I understand there needing to be a penalty of some sort to doing so, using up an entire magazine/cartridge (don't get me started on proper terminology here) to do so strikes me as wrong.
I suppose it might not be so bad if there was a feat in order to make the charge/ammo usage match the number of targets in the cone * 2. Maybe even another feat, having prerequisite of the prior feat, that allows the player to choose their targets within the cone. For the cost of two feats, being able to be actually good with an automatic weapon seems fair to me.
Can any enemies even be killed in one hit from the weapon? That would be my answer. If spraying them won't kill anything, then what's the point of wasting the ammo.
That's a general statement/question as well... does anything get killed in one hit, by a standard weapon?
Relying on killing enemies in one shot isn't reliable. The amount of damage enemies can take, and the total number of rounds it takes you to kill them, is what you have to consider. With spray-n-pray, there's a point at which taking a full round to attack 4+ enemies is very worth it, since you end up dealing more damage than you would have otherwise.
Do remember that usage stat for guns is there already to "force" burst fire on some weapons. Single attack with light machine gun spends 2 rounds. So full attack with 3 attacks is a 6 bullet burst.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue Thanshin seems to have is less of that happening more in the game, and more that being the response to questions asked of the community. Which honestly, I can understand. Yes GM Fiat is a powerful thing, but sometimes you want to know how the base system works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole advantage of the human element is the ability to do things that are narrative. The GM does decide. The rules are just guidelines.
This is true, but there is a point where the rules being "just guidelines" becomes an excuse for the GM to be overly (and unfairly) arbitrary.
For me, the level of rules Pathfinder/Starfinder has at least gives a relatively reliable framework so that there doesn't need to be as much GM fiat, yet still give the GM enough control to create that flexible narrative you're talking about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole advantage of the human element is the ability to do things that are narrative. The GM does decide. The rules are just guidelines.This is true, but there is a point where the rules being "just guidelines" becomes an excuse for the GM to be overly (and unfairly) arbitrary.
For me, the level of rules Pathfinder/Starfinder has at least gives a relatively reliable framework so that there doesn't need to be as much GM fiat, yet still give the GM enough control to create that flexible narrative you're talking about.
Strict rules won't fix a bad GM. If the problem is a bad GM, changing games from a rules flexible to a rules strict system won't solve the problem. That problem can only be fixed by the GM learning how to be better - or you finding a better GM.
Burst Fire could be like the Boost property. You spend a full-action to make a single attack with the weapon and if you hit, you deal extra damage as listed in the property. Regardless of if you hit or not, you use up double the ammo.
I had a thought concerning the automatic weapons, consider installing a "limited feed setting" which only allows bursts of X number of targets. Wether or not this setting is changeable in combat is up to the GM, but should be a full round or standard action.
Burst Fire could be like the Boost property. You spend a full-action to make a single attack with the weapon and if you hit, you deal extra damage as listed in the property. Regardless of if you hit or not, you use up double the ammo.That would really ruin the point of it. It would be like missing a Bird with a shotgun blast due to some of the pellets missing.
Not the kind of Burst Fire they're talking. They're talking about an automatic weapon just letting out a few rounds instead of doing either single-shot or emptying a clip.
The Boost property isn't "proposed", it's an existing weapon feature.
You can charge up a weapon with this special property as a move action. When you do, you increase the weapon’s damage by the listed amount on the next attack you make with the weapon. Boosting expends charges from the weapon equal to its usage value. This increases the weapon’s damage and is multiplied on a critical hit. Boosting a weapon more than once before firing it doesn’t have any extra effect, and the extra charge dissipates if the weapon is not fired by the end of your next turn.
Burst 3 rules should be treated carefully. I don't have Modern Path, but in many other systems, Burst 3 just do 1 to 3 times the damage. That makes automatic weapons the best option, bar none.
Just to chime in on the military experience here, I served in the US Army for 16 years and am intimately familiar with the M249 and M240B. Nobody is trained to spray-n-pray, and while I understand there needing to be a penalty of some sort to doing so, using up an entire magazine/cartridge (don't get me started on proper terminology here) to do so strikes me as wrong.
I suppose it might not be so bad if there was a feat in order to make the charge/ammo usage match the number of targets in the cone * 2. Maybe even another feat, having prerequisite of the prior feat, that allows the player to choose their targets within the cone. For the cost of two feats, being able to be actually good with an automatic weapon seems fair to me.
I agree. Using an entire clip is ridiculous.
Strict rules won't fix a bad GM. If the problem is a bad GM, changing games from a rules flexible to a rules strict system won't solve the problem. That problem can only be fixed by the GM learning how to be better - or you finding a better GM.The whole advantage of the human element is the ability to do things that are narrative. The GM does decide. The rules are just guidelines.This is true, but there is a point where the rules being "just guidelines" becomes an excuse for the GM to be overly (and unfairly) arbitrary.
For me, the level of rules Pathfinder/Starfinder has at least gives a relatively reliable framework so that there doesn't need to be as much GM fiat, yet still give the GM enough control to create that flexible narrative you're talking about.
That is not completely true. It depends on why he is a bad GM, and to what degree. As an example some people are great at the story part, and terrible with the mechanics. Have that part done for them allows them to run games better.
That is not completely true. It depends on why he is a bad GM, and to what degree. As an example some people are great at the story part, and terrible with the mechanics. Have that part done for them allows them to run games better.Strict rules won't fix a bad GM. If the problem is a bad GM, changing games from a rules flexible to a rules strict system won't solve the problem. That problem can only be fixed by the GM learning how to be better - or you finding a better GM.The whole advantage of the human element is the ability to do things that are narrative. The GM does decide. The rules are just guidelines.This is true, but there is a point where the rules being "just guidelines" becomes an excuse for the GM to be overly (and unfairly) arbitrary.
For me, the level of rules Pathfinder/Starfinder has at least gives a relatively reliable framework so that there doesn't need to be as much GM fiat, yet still give the GM enough control to create that flexible narrative you're talking about.
I've found the opposite to be true: GMs who are poor on rules tend to flourish better in systems with fewer rules. They don't have to struggle with massive volumes of rule books. Generally, lots of strict rules tend to inhibit GMs who are bad with rules, as they keep trying to make the story do one thing and the rules keep saying they can't or must do another thing.
In fact, it's such a common occurrence that any GM who wants to do something other than what the rules state is practically required to come up with a list of deviations from the rules and design there own house rules and present them to the players before the game, or they risk being labeled a bad GM. "As long as you notify your players beforehand" is an extremely common phrase on the PF forums.
Strict rules sets are not a benefit for people who are bad at rules. A GM who is a great story teller but bad with rules is better off running a game of FATE or other rules-lite system.
Either way, neither will help a GM who is a dick.
That is not completely true. It depends on why he is a bad GM, and to what degree. As an example some people are great at the story part, and terrible with the mechanics. Have that part done for them allows them to run games better.Strict rules won't fix a bad GM. If the problem is a bad GM, changing games from a rules flexible to a rules strict system won't solve the problem. That problem can only be fixed by the GM learning how to be better - or you finding a better GM.The whole advantage of the human element is the ability to do things that are narrative. The GM does decide. The rules are just guidelines.This is true, but there is a point where the rules being "just guidelines" becomes an excuse for the GM to be overly (and unfairly) arbitrary.
For me, the level of rules Pathfinder/Starfinder has at least gives a relatively reliable framework so that there doesn't need to be as much GM fiat, yet still give the GM enough control to create that flexible narrative you're talking about.
I've found the opposite to be true: GMs who are poor on rules tend to flourish better in systems with fewer rules. They don't have to struggle with massive volumes of rule books. Generally, lots of strict rules tend to inhibit GMs who are bad with rules, as they keep trying to make the story do one thing and the rules keep saying they can't or must do another thing.
In fact, it's such a common occurrence that any GM who wants to do something other than what the rules state is practically required to come up with a list of deviations from the rules and design there own house rules and present them to the players before the game, or they risk being labeled a bad GM. "As long as you notify your players beforehand" is an extremely common phrase on the PF forums.
Strict rules sets are not a benefit for people who are bad at rules. A GM who is a great story teller but bad with rules is better off...
Once again you are overgeneralizing.
GM's who are bad in mechanics fall into two categories.
Those who don't know the rules. In this case the rules don't matter and that supports your point because they tend to not really care about the rules. They are better off with groups that dont mind playing loosely with the rules.
The others are the ones who can learn the rules, but still don't understand them enough to make adjustments without unbalancing everything. Some I have seen try enough times, and then realize they should just follow the book. Good rules are great for these types. They can tell their story within the rules, and it just works.
I would rather see the automatic fire use extra bullets and give you a penalty to attack so that you can give the enemies a penalty to their attack rolls.
One person lays down suppressing fire, and the others can try to move to cover or a better position.
There's a feat for that: Suppressive Fire
I think I'm fine with the Auto rules as written. You won't use them every round, but there are times you'll want to use them. The weapons with Automatic do pretty close to the same damage as non-auto weapons, and don't have to be fired full auto.
If auto was always better, than there's no reason to use other weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect future books will make full-auto fire a better option with either feats or weapon mods.
Yeah I expect plenty of feats to make differing combat options better.