I'm working on a homebrew mod of 3.x that changes the use of actions, and i'm specifically debating with myself on the validity of having an option to use a Full Round action available for firearms combat.
First, some spoiler'd specifics:
Spoiler
Rather than using the baseline of Standard Action+Move Action, each player has a number of Combat Actions(CA). The calculation for CA is
1+(Dex Mod+Int Mod)/2
Which results in a dead average norm having 1 CA per round, and the 'average' PC having about 3 (depending on the stat rolling convention, but that's a different thought).
Movement can be combined with each CA, but can't exceed the movement allowance for the round without breaking into a hustle, which disrupts the firing stance (applying a negative modifier to hit for 'hip fire'
In general, the procession of accuracy for firing a weapon is:
1 CA: Point Weapon at target (Snap Fire)
2 CA: Properly align sights (Action Fire)
In the baseline of my concept, the next point of accuracy is (Round Fire), where the shooter spends a full round aiming the weapon, then fires. The Full Round option uses all your remaining CA for the round, and the balance of a full round's CA on the next round if you used any actions prior to declaring a Round Action of aiming. Here's the example text that I'm using, I think it clarifies the overall concept a bit:
QuoteAs an example, Mike (an operator with 3 Combat Actions) moves out from behind cover, assuming a firing stance with his assault rifle (1 CA) and moving 5m. He notices an enemy 40m away and closing, and takes aim while moving another 5m towards his opponent (1CA). With his final action he cannot close the distance any further without breaking his firing stance, so he takes the shot, firing a burst at the opponent (1CA) using the 'Action' modifier for accuracy (2 CA spent acquiring the target).
Mike sees another enemy trooper moving across a rooftop 200m away. He takes a knee and changes to single shot fire mode (CA1) and carefully lines up his assault rifle on the target, declaring a Round action of aim. On his next turn, if he can still see the target, he fires a shot at his target, then stands and moves 2.5m (half of a CA's worth of movement for changing his posture up one stance) while performing a tactical magazine reload (CA2)
The last bit is the accuracy improvement for the various actions. Here's my entry for the M4 Carbine (Probably what Mike in the example was using):
Weapon...............................Snap..Action..Round....+Ac
M4 Carbine 5.56mm NATO......-4......-2........-1.......+1/2(2)
So, my two viewpoints on this are as follows:
Spoiler
1) Having the Full Round option simulates deliberate fire, which, while it is a factor of experience, is also more strictly time dependent. In a pure game sense, it provides lower CA combatants the chance to place more accurate fire without spending 3-5 rounds preparing each shot (even for inexperienced firers, 18-30 seconds is a long time between aimed shots, it's perfectly reasonable for a regularly trained Soldier to take a single shot every 5-10 seconds, even with shifting their aim to targets as they appear). In the case of the example, a shooter with 1 or 2 CA would be just as capable of taking the same shot as Mike, but wouldn't be able to accomplish as much around it.
However,
2) The Full Round option limits the relative utility of personnel with high CA totals, and feels a bit off when used the way I first wrote it. (Depending on the weapon, the Round action can be less effective than declaring an Action fire then spending additional CA on aim actions without declaring a Round fire. This would generally be the case with long barrel weapons, which have a higher maximum number of actions that can be spent aiming.) In this case, for the example purposes, Mike would've used the Action Aim modifier, then spent another 2 CA to reach the maximum aim potential of his M4 (+1/2(2) means that each CA adds 1/2 point of bonus with a maximum of 2 CA spent) before firing. His shot would've gone off at the end of his turn on the round he saw the target instead of at the beginning of his next turn, and he would've spent a total of 1CA less on his shot.
I can see three possible options:
Spoiler
A) Leave the Round Fire option in, making it a mandatory step prior to gaining the +Ac fire bonus. This caters to the concept of 1).
B) Remove Round Fire and have the accuracy procession become: Snap>Action>+Ac. This eliminates 1) and makes combatants with higher CA much more effective in terms of accurate fire.
C) Leave Round Fire in, but allow the Action>+Ac procession to permit high CA shooters to be more effective, but retaining the ability of low CA combatants to provide effective fire on a by-round basis. This seems like a middle ground, but I'm not sure how well it will work for keeping things even. My gut says that the high CA people will still vastly outclass the low CA in terms of volume of fire.
I can elaborate more on the process if needed, but I'd appreciate any input on things I might not have considered.
I like it. Fast guys can do lots of stuff but if they want to aim it takes them as long as everyone else.
A few minor points
A soldier can fire a lot more than one accurate shot every 5 seconds - not that important to your rules because your rules are a working abstration that I think are playable
What about weapons on burst or full auto.
The CA system is usable but how does it fit into a 'round' in terms of sequencing. So if I have 3 CAs you have 2 do I act first then you etc ... is there a round clock? what about if I have 4CAs and you have 1 what is the sequence of actions?
I raise it because systems like this can get slow in actual play (remember Car Wars .....)
A suggestion to manage in play I have used on similar games is to give players poker chips based on their CAs then they spend them in the round and its very easy to track
Quote from: jibbajibba;565125I like it. Fast guys can do lots of stuff but if they want to aim it takes them as long as everyone else.
A few minor points
A soldier can fire a lot more than one accurate shot every 5 seconds - not that important to your rules because your rules are a working abstration that I think are playable
True, in the scope of this being a d20-based game the rounds are 6 seconds. While 'average joe' only has one action, it's probable that with the physical selection process and PT the average Soldier is more likely to be working with 2-3 actions, and then there's feats that can be taken (one of the baseline feats is an INT 13 required, which gives +1CA).
QuoteWhat about weapons on burst or full auto.
Bursts and FA are covered, a burst provides one extra round of aim time, and dependent on the physical distance (not the effective distance, which is modified by optics if present) can result in multiple hits, but mostly it's more applicable to providing more effective fire.
QuoteThe CA system is usable but how does it fit into a 'round' in terms of sequencing. So if I have 3 CAs you have 2 do I act first then you etc ... is there a round clock? what about if I have 4CAs and you have 1 what is the sequence of actions?
I raise it because systems like this can get slow in actual play (remember Car Wars .....)
It's based on Phoenix Command/Living Steel, so the CA are more of a counter that limits what you can do during your phase of the initiative. So the example actions would all be declared by Mike's player and occur at Mike's initiative roll. PCCS split the round into 4 phases, but I wasn't interested in splitting a round any more than it already is, because the goal of the modification is to keep the feel of the game intact for D20 players while bringing in the feel from PCCS.
The glut that I'm envisioning though, will come when Virca-empowered(psionic) Power Armor troops on combat drugs start trying to drive their CA up to the limit. I haven't decided what that is just yet, but I'm thinking that the absolute physical maximum I'll allow is 12 (two actions per second) and honestly, that's going to be pretty hard to get.. discounting Virca.. you'd need Power Armor (+3), Combat Expertise Feat (+1), Amphicane (a combat drug) (+1), and a 24 Dex/Int (+7) to reach that number.
Maybe a physical max of 8 would be better...
I started to write an edit to clarify a couple points, but it started getting long winded, so I thought I'd just make it another post.
On the subject of Soldiers being able to provide more aimed shots in a round than the system would seem to allow:
Additionally, the primary amount of CA in going from 'not ready to fire' to fire is frontloaded. So, starting from 'Port Arms', a Soldier would shoulder their weapon to assume a firing position (CA 1), initially acquire the target (CA 1, Snap Fire Accuracy), Align the sights (CA 1, Action Fire Accuracy), and then fire (The action for firing is included in the accuracy action). Which means that a fairly capable Soldier (CA 3) would be able to go from port arms to firing in the first 6 seconds. Once you've aligned on the target though, you no longer need to assume the firing position or conduct Snap Fire, as long as you don't change your target, so on round 2, that same Soldier would be able to put three more rounds at Action Fire accuracy on the same target.
Also, Burst fire and Aim Point sights provide additional 'free' actions worth of aim time, meaning that if you have an M68 or a Doctor sight or EOTech, and fire on burst, you could be as accurate (to just hit the target) with CA 1 as someone with 3 actions who was using iron sights for a single shot. Which justifies the prevalence of that type of optic lately. Right now, my M4 hanging on the wall next to me has an ELCAN, Doctor Sight, and LA-5; in the right circumstances any of those 3 would provide the same functional bonus to hit, but they all have specific advantages in certain situations.
So, to bring back Mike from the first example, assuming he has the same rig that I do (a reasonable assumption, some specifics may vary but overall the equipment stays roughly the same)
As an example, Mike (an operator with 3 Combat Actions, Gun Combat 13, and an M4 with Aim Point sight and x4 optics) moves out from behind cover, assuming a firing stance with his assault rifle (1 CA) and moving 5m. He notices an enemy 40m away and closing, and takes aim while moving another 5m towards his opponent (1CA). With his final action he cannot close the distance any further without breaking his firing stance, so he takes the shot, firing a burst at the opponent (1CA) using the 'Action' modifier for accuracy (2 CA spent acquiring the target).
Mike would be firing with a d20+ 13 (gun combat skill) -1 (weapon accuracy; -2 for Action Fire, +1/2 Aim Point, +1/2 Burst Fire) +0 (shooter standing) +1 (-2target moving, +3 target standing exposed) vs 20 (30m distance)
Assuming he hits (I would, considering he needs a 7), he would hit with 2 rounds (Low Rate Auto Fire, aka 3 round burst, at 30m).
Mike sees another enemy trooper moving across a rooftop 200m away. He takes a knee and changes to single shot fire mode (CA1) and carefully lines up his assault rifle on the target, declaring a Round action of aim. On his next turn, if he can still see the target, he fires a shot at his target, then stands and moves 2.5m (half of a CA's worth of movement for changing his posture up one stance) while performing a tactical magazine reload (CA2)
In this case, realism is driving the gameism a bit. Mike's choice to change from burst to semi for this shot seems like he's giving up a free action of aim time, but IRL there's really no reason to take a burst shot at 200m, you're only going to hit one time most of the time (it becomes a luck thing) and it makes it harder to put more effective shots on target because of the recovery time. Gamewise, the decision he's making is to use his x4 optics on the ELCAN to reduce his effective range to 50m (Difficulty 20) from 200m (Difficulty 26). You can only use one type of optics at a time, so he can't get the Aim Point bonus, and using Round Fire, all that the Burst would have given him is a +1/2, which would round down anyway. He COULD spend one extra action to get the extra +1, but I don't think that this would turn out to be worth the cost of the extra CA on the next round.
Any additional thoughts, Jibba? Sorry if I went all system diarrhea on you, I've been stuck out here for 7 months already with noone to vent ideas like that at...
So, I have a working copy of this Living Steel d20 put together, I was wondering if anyone would like to volunteer to take a look at it and see if it makes enough sense to people other than me (since it's always the case that the designer/author has too much insight to really edit their own work).
It's about 130 pages long, so it's not a small undertaking, but I was hoping someone who's familiar with and is still willing to think about the following could take a look at it and see if I'm missing something.
d20, Cyberpunk, Traveller, Power Armor in general, and (not likely, I know..) the Living Steel setting.
Also, it's not a complete game, it's intended for use with a group that's already familiar with the baseline system, and it's really just a mashup of rules adjustments specific to this setting. I like to think that I've managed to put it in a coherent order, but that's part of what I'd like someone to take a look at.
I'd post it up with a link, but it's a) an adaptation of an existing game that's still under copyright, including images and tabulated data that would fall under IP, and b) fairly large. It's about 7 Megs, and rather than hang it somewhere for download, I'd just rather send it via email.
So, if you're interested in taking a look, please respond here or shoot me a PM with an email I can send to.
Thanks,