I've been wondering about this for a while, and the final release doesn't seem to have changed auto-fire, so here we are. Either I've misunderstood the mechanics or I just don't get the flavor.
Auto-fire is very similar to cone area fire (It probably doesn't even deserve to be a separate mechanic, but that's beside the point.), but area fire is a lot easier to understand flavor-wise. You fire a shotgun blast, a volley, or whatever in an area. Because you aren't aiming precisely, it's a save instead of an attack roll. You expend an amount of ammunition that does not depend on the amount of targets because you aren't firing at individual targets, you are firing at the entire area. Everything makes sense from an in-world perspective.
If you use the same flavor of shooting indiscriminately for auto-fire, everything makes sense. Except for the expend cost. Why does the expend cost scale with the amount of targets? Maybe you simply turn on full-auto and shoot so fast you can hit multiple targets. But then, if you're aiming at each target separately, shouldn't you be able to exclude targets from the area? What if there's an invisible target you're completely unaware of? Currently, a PC can look at the magazine (assuming it's trivial to check how much ammo you have left) and realize that there must have been one more creature in the cone than he was able to see because the auto-fire expended two more ammo than he expected. I guess the targets are picked by the gun then. There must be a device that scans an area, locks onto targets, and starts firing. If such a device is a common part of weapons, you'd think most automatic weapons would have a small monitor that can show invisible creatures to the user. There's already a part that scans for them, so it seems easy to implement.
Point is, every in-character explanation I can think of for auto-fire seems flawed in some way. What am I missing?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The game mechanics are for game balance first. They don't always match up with the game narrative or reality exactly.
It sounds like you are starting a logic process trying to argue for game mechanics changes based on 'better representation of reality'. That process doesn't usually end well.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Don't start a realism argument in a game where you can have a Spellcasting Dagonkin, riding a Dragon, while wielding a flaming sword.
I do have issues with how Autofire is solved. But realism is absolutely the wrong starting point too argue against it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I like that it retains the ability to throttle back the amount of ammo spent depending on number of targets. Feels right.
I'd be fine letting a player expend ammo based on the number of targets they intend to hit, and letting the allies and unknown invisible enemies in the area get hit for "free".
In my head canon you're sorta aiming the gun while swinging it wildly through an arc and trying to compensate for recoil. If your targets are close you're holding the trigger, if they're far apart or there is only 1 you're firing short bursts,
But let's be honest here, there is nothing remotely realistic about guns in Starfinder. They shoot far more slowly and do way less damage than our modern day guns. Heck, they do the same damage as Pathfinder guns.
It KINDA makes sense if you squint, to me. I think of it as when you were a little kid with the hose running at full blast. It was naturally going to swing back and forth from the force, but you could kinda knuckle down and try to hold it still to aim it roughly at one spot.
It's the same with Auto-Fire. You're holding a machine gun, and you hold the trigger down. It goes spraying back and forth, which costs some ammo. And when you try to hold it still and roughly aim at certain points, thats going to cost more concentrated fire- and thus more ammo- to hit just that specific spot.
...ok, it doesn't sound TOO convincing when I say it out loud. You have to squint more than a little.
Well, I wasn't asking for realistic guns or any kind of mechanical changes. I did mention that auto-fire probably should have been combined with area fire, but I also said that that wasn't the point of the post.
"But there's magic!" has also never been a convincing argument, even though it gets repeated often. It just entirely misses the point. I'm not complaining about the existence of spells, Drift engines, or the cloud jump feat. None of those would make sense in real life, but they all have some explanation that makes at least some sense within the game's world, even if those explanations don't work IRL.
My takeaway is that I probably haven't missed any explanation in the book for what auto-firing is like. What I'm looking for is something like the justification for the flourish trait.
Flourish wrote: Actions with the flourish trait are special techniques that require too much exertion for you to perform frequently. You can use only one action with the flourish trait per round. Too tiring to do often. That's the amount of explanation I need to suspend my disbelief, but I haven't found anything about how the bullets bounce right back into the chamber when hitting the ground or anything else that makes just enough sense to be believable as long as you're willing to believe in borderline magical scifi technology. And I'm willing to believe something like that. I wouldn't be engaging with Starfinder in any way if I wasn't.
WatersLethe wrote: I like that it retains the ability to throttle back the amount of ammo spent depending on number of targets. Feels right.
I'd be fine letting a player expend ammo based on the number of targets they intend to hit, and letting the allies and unknown invisible enemies in the area get hit for "free".
Honestly, if there was a block of text explaining that "the quantum technology used in the weapon causes auto-fire to spend an amount of ammunition that depends on the wielders observations", that would somewhat fit in Starfinder. Otherwise, it seems weird that you could fire at an enemy for free except if you're aware of its existence.
pauljathome wrote: In my head canon you're sorta aiming the gun while swinging it wildly through an arc and trying to compensate for recoil. If your targets are close you're holding the trigger, if they're far apart or there is only 1 you're firing short bursts, Hmm, that does work pretty nicely most of the time. It's basically the full-auto option I was considering. Still wouldn't explain why you fire at allies and invisible enemies, since you'd be firing in bursts unless you have a group that you're aware of clumped together.
Justnobodyfqwl wrote: It KINDA makes sense if you squint, to me. I think of it as when you were a little kid with the hose running at full blast. It was naturally going to swing back and forth from the force, but you could kinda knuckle down and try to hold it still to aim it roughly at one spot.
It's the same with Auto-Fire. You're holding a machine gun, and you hold the trigger down. It goes spraying back and forth, which costs some ammo. And when you try to hold it still and roughly aim at certain points, thats going to cost more concentrated fire- and thus more ammo- to hit just that specific spot.
...ok, it doesn't sound TOO convincing when I say it out loud. You have to squint more than a little.
This is pretty much the explanation I'm leaning toward. It makes sense as long as the area only contains enemies and you're aware of all of those enemies. Otherwise... Yeah, a lot of squinting required.
Lamp Flower wrote: "But there's magic!" has also never been a convincing argument, even though it gets repeated often. It just entirely misses the point. I'm not complaining about the existence of spells, Drift engines, or the cloud jump feat. None of those would make sense in real life, but they all have some explanation that makes at least some sense within the game's world, even if those explanations don't work IRL. You are absolutely right. People shouldn't resort to pointing out the magical and completely fantastical aspects of the fantasy setting in order to counter argue against 'but reality' arguments.
There are plenty of completely mundane things that the game rules only crudely approximate to use instead.
How about the 3 action economy and Human Stride speed. Every Human, no matter their physique, can make three 25 foot Stride actions every 6 seconds. Which translates to approximately 8.5 MPH. No slower. No faster. Within 2 seconds, they can accelerate to that speed, move 25 feet, and decelerate to a stop. Then they can do other things such as swing weapons or fire guns immediately afterwards without any effects from their momentum on their aim or swing accuracy.
Everyone is also impeccably accurate at estimating distances. From 30 feet away people have no problems calculating where the center of a 15 foot radius circle needs to be in order to include an enemy character inside the effect, but exclude an ally adjacent to that enemy from the effect.
There is no character facing. You aren't looking in any one particular direction, you are instead looking and facing in all directions at the same time. The only nod to being surrounded or being attacked from behind is that Flanking exists and Strike only removes the Hidden condition after the Strike action resolves. Flanking only applies to melee attacks. If two people are stabbing at you from opposite sides, that is hard to deal with. If two people are shooting at you from opposite sides, you can dodge those bullets without penalties.
I'm not really trying to say that you can't ask for advice on coming up with a narrative that fits the mechanics. That makes sense to want.
I am explaining why it makes me suspicious when someone, after accepting all of these other game rule approximations, both takes exception to some minor bit of rules and then also proposes rules changes to fix the perceived problem: The Expend amount of auto-fire is hard to describe, I should either be allowed to exclude allies from the area or not have to pay Expend for hidden or invisible enemies.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lamp Flower wrote: Otherwise, it seems weird that you could fire at an enemy for free except if you're aware of its existence. You're firing an extra bullet for every target. Just justify it as one of those hitting them.
It's really not very hard to sweep under the rug. Much easier than, say, robots and undead being susceptible to diseases.
I'm actually REALLY surprised this is the one that gets you.
Feels like this is one of those "Eh, don't worry too much about the edge cases" kind of situations. But here you go, everything explained.
Why do you hit your allies? Because you're firing a lot of bullets.
Why does hitting your allies cost more ammunition? Because you need more ammo with all of those allies in the way of your enemies.
Why do invisible, undetected enemies cost ammo? Well, I'm a little uncertain if they count as a "target" when you can't target somebody undetected, but if they do, it's because the weirdness of the firing pattern with an invisible enemy in the way encourages you to hold the trigger down a little longer.
Why can't you use invisibility-detecting gun abilities always? Because it requires actually firing to notice something's off, and I'm not letting you Auto-Fire at zero targets for zero ammo.
In practical terms, most players will go every Starfinder campaign in their lives without ever catching an undetected invisible creature in an auto-fire area. I don't honestly believe that the rules handling such an edge case would be worthwhile, especially since I could easily see threads of people trying to make all enemies undetected to their character to save auto-fire ammo.
Here's one that gets me, though it's more a mechanical frustration than a flavor one (though it also hits flavor too).
Three enemies standing next to each other you have 5 bullets in your gun. You can't autofire unless you can reposition yourself such that one enemy is out of the cone.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: Here's one that gets me, though it's more a mechanical frustration than a flavor one (though it also hits flavor too).
Three enemies standing next to each other you have 5 bullets in your gun. You can't autofire unless you can reposition yourself such that one enemy is out of the cone.
Let me introduce you to a little thing called "lying to your GM" /s
But seriously that scenario came up a few times in playtesting and it was THE WORST
Finoan wrote: Lamp Flower wrote: "But there's magic!" has also never been a convincing argument, even though it gets repeated often. It just entirely misses the point. I'm not complaining about the existence of spells, Drift engines, or the cloud jump feat. None of those would make sense in real life, but they all have some explanation that makes at least some sense within the game's world, even if those explanations don't work IRL. You are absolutely right. People shouldn't resort to pointing out the magical and completely fantastical aspects of the fantasy setting in order to counter argue against 'but reality' arguments.
There are plenty of completely mundane things that the game rules only crudely approximate to use instead.
How about the 3 action economy and Human Stride speed. Every Human, no matter their physique, can make three 25 foot Stride actions every 6 seconds. Which translates to approximately 8.5 MPH. No slower. No faster. Within 2 seconds, they can accelerate to that speed, move 25 feet, and decelerate to a stop. Then they can do other things such as swing weapons or fire guns immediately afterwards without any effects from their momentum on their aim or swing accuracy.
Everyone is also impeccably accurate at estimating distances. From 30 feet away people have no problems calculating where the center of a 15 foot radius circle needs to be in order to include an enemy character inside the effect, but exclude an ally adjacent to that enemy from the effect.
There is no character facing. You aren't looking in any one particular direction, you are instead looking and facing in all directions at the same time. The only nod to being surrounded or being attacked from behind is that Flanking exists and Strike only removes the Hidden condition after the Strike action resolves. Flanking only applies to melee attacks. If two people are stabbing at you from opposite sides, that is hard to deal with. If two people are shooting at you from opposite sides, you can dodge those bullets without... Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest any mechanical changes. Those were only reasons for why my narrative explanations didn't make sense. I'd rather figure out how to explain the existing rules than come up with house rules, but I do want the explanation to somewhat fit together with the mechanics. I do agree that if mechanics need to be a certain way for balance, it's better to change the flavor than the rules.
Most weird balance-over-flavor quirks of the system I can explain in ways that are good enough. For example, you could just say that a fireball's radius is only approximately 20 ft. It varies a bit and the caster has a tiny amount of control over the exact size. Casters just ballpark it. Not a perfect explanation but close enough, and it also explains why every corridor's width is a multiple of 5 ft.
The rounding idea also makes sense if your gun uses batteries, for example. It even works with bullets if you say that one piece of ammunition in the rules isn't actually one piece of ammunition to the character and instead is merely a player-facing abstraction. Problem is, the amount of ammo you spend is still directly proportional to the amount of targets.
I'll discuss this more with my group when we're closer to starting our SF2 campaign. Out of the four of us, I'm expecting one person other than me to be bothered by this and the other two to go: "That's weird. Anyway...".
The idea I like most is just saying that the gun has an automatic targeting system. That seems like it wouldn't work with analog weapons, but the tracking trait does, so whatever. In a scifi setting, it's easy enough to believe that the machine works because science.
I've been thinking of it more as burst-firing. The fact that, unlike area guns, autofire guns can shoot singular projectiles suggests it's a toggle or switch you flip on the weapon. The number of shots expended per person represents the number of times a character is burst firing in a turn, calculating for the tiny pauses between pulling the trigger over and over, or calculating for holding down the trigger and sweeping back and forth. Friendlies getting potnentially hit is just something that may happen when you're filling the air with projectiles.
As for invisible enemies, I'd probably handle that on a case-by-case basis. I'm mostly in agreement that you can't really hit an enemy when they're Undetected to you, but on the other hand, filling the air with lead or lasers sounds like a very cool way to reveal an invisible foe, so it's something I'd probably allow the party to do if they knew an invisible enemy was around, but not exactly wear.
Recent threads in Starfinder General Discussion
|
