Light sources and vision question

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by bocephus

It seem unnecessarily onerous early on and assumes you are largely blind or stupid, but if you interpret the table/skills that way there is no reason to ever choose a bow or any range over sword as a player, unlike the real world where the bow was a huge problem for people with swords (before gun powder).

Interesting. In playing GURPS by the book for the past 25+ years, I would say that most PCs who expect to see combat will put some points into a ranged weapon. At modest skill levels, characters know that their ranged weapons are only dependable when they have a chance to aim or otherwise offset poor conditions. These situations come up often enough, though, that most PCs have wanted the option to cause injury at a distance. PCs who want to be full-on combat archers sink more points into the skill so that they can make snapshots, fast draw arrows, and hit the vitals, neck, or eyes.

I have certainly taken out PCs with some orc archers with skill 11 or 12. A small number of archers aiming from the bushes can be a serious threat. After their first salvo, though, they will likely either throw down their bows to engage in melee or, if the PCs can't close rapidly, they will take a few seconds to reload and aim. I've run many, many, many versions of this scenario over the years.

Most archers I know in real life can't reliably hit realistic targets at modest range without aiming.

Originally Posted by bocephus

Do you agree with the issue between Bob and Tom in the application of the word "Proficiency"?

The term "proficiency" has no defined meaning in GURPS. It feels like a carryover from D&D. I think in terms of skill levels. An archer with skill 10-12 is capable of hitting targets at modest range in optimal conditions (good light, calm wind, time to aim). Rapid-fire conditions with moving targets at range require higher skill levels.

Ultimately, though, you do you. If you're consistent and your players are happy with your rules, then all is good at your table.

[Refplace]

One thing worth noting, Archers were a specialized unit in ancient times, they trained heavily in the use of the bow in order to be effective on the field. Also they often fired not at specific people but a unit.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Refplace

As someone trained to shoot in the service and as a hunter, with bow, pistol, and rifle I disagree with the first part of your contention.
Aiming is part of your training and how your usually expected to use the weapon. In range shooting and hunting, the only thing you dont aim with is the shotgun. In those situations you generally have plenty of time, its like sniping.

In combat though you may snap off some shots as suppression fire but your usually going to Aim.
Consider aiming takes 1 second and lets you take advantage of the weapons sights so greatly improves your chances to hit. Taking a few extra seconds is typical on the range, not as typical in combat.

I dont think your using aim as the GURPS mechanic (the one I have the problem with). It sounds like your using it more like I was till this thread got going.

GURPS "Aim" if I understand correctly requires you wait 1 second for each plus to aim you want to take advantage of Aim (b324)
M-16= Acc5
So you aim (@1sec = Acc1), you aim (@ 2sec = Acc2), you aim (@ 3sec = Acc3), you aim (@ 4 sec = Acc4), you aim (@5sec = Acc5) NOW you get to squeeze the trigger and use the weapons full Acc. Oh you have a scope with +2 Acc... 2 more seconds.

If aiming was an action that took 1 second to get the full benefit, it still wouldn't affect my range argument apropos an Acc2 bow at 50yards. Desn't effect the range vs proficiency application problem though. The fact that Acc exists isn't a bone of contention, its just that people are hiding behind it to avoid the Bob and Tom discussion.

Less to my point and more to yours, I'm not really talking about firearms at all, but muscle powered weapons specifically. I have never used GURPS with firearms, so I have only a passing reference point to them and none of it practical. I dont know if my argument ports directly over but it seems to, I just dont know.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by bocephus

GURPS "Aim" if I understand correctly requires you wait 1 second for each plus to aim you want to take advantage of Aim (b324)
M-16= Acc5
So you aim (@1sec = Acc1), you aim (@ 2sec = Acc2), you aim (@ 3sec = Acc3), you aim (@ 4 sec = Acc4), you aim (@5sec = Acc5) NOW you get to squeeze the trigger and use the weapons full Acc. Oh you have a scope with +2 Acc... 2 more seconds.

It may not as you say still change your impression of the utility but I offer this correction so you know how it works.
A single Aim maneuver lets you add the ACC of the weapon, bonus from sights, bracing, etc. Additional turns give +1 each, up to +3/
See p. B364 for details.

So 1 turn of aiming with a longbow or composite bow gives +3 to hit from ACC Modern bows could get more from sights and stabilizers.
That +3 is a huge deal, especially at lower skill levels.
A 30y shot (the most I expect to see without additional aiming) becomes -4 to hit instead of -7 with just that one turn of aiming. And a 30y shot is not trivial enough I would expect a barely proficient shooter to hit 50% of the time. There is a reason those targets are round and larger than people :)

Edit to add.... I would say that almost every shot I ever took, with any weapon except my shotgun was an aimed shot using GURPS rules.
A second to focus on the target is just so typical in my experience, and on a range unless I was speed shooting I took another second or two. I was never in a live fire shoot out situation though but from those that I talked to they would often shoot in the general direction just to throw the enemies aim off till they got to cover. Then they would aim.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by bocephus

If aiming was an action that took 1 second to get the full benefit, it still wouldn't affect my range argument apropos an Acc2 bow at 50yards. Desn't effect the range vs proficiency application problem though. The fact that Acc exists isn't a bone of contention, its just that people are hiding behind it to avoid the Bob and Tom discussion.

Your Bob and Tom thing is claiming we're saying something we're not. When I say that 2-yards is the base point for range penalties I'm not saying it's the standard range anyone practice at. I'm simply saying that it's the point at which GURPS says you get your full skill without penalties for shooting at a 'distant' target.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Interesting. In playing GURPS by the book for the past 25+ years, I would say that most PCs who expect to see combat will put some points into a ranged weapon. At modest skill levels, characters know that their ranged weapons are only dependable when they have a chance to aim or otherwise offset poor conditions. These situations come up often enough, though, that most PCs have wanted the option to cause injury at a distance. PCs who want to be full-on combat archers sink more points into the skill so that they can make snapshots, fast draw arrows, and hit the vitals, neck, or eyes.

I have certainly taken out PCs with some orc archers with skill 11 or 12. A small number of archers aiming from the bushes can be a serious threat. After their first salvo, though, they will likely either throw down their bows to engage in melee or, if the PCs can't close rapidly, they will take a few seconds to reload and aim. I've run many, many, many versions of this scenario over the years.

Oddly other than the statement "By the book" that is exactly how I would have described my GURPS up till now (before this thread started) and I have discovered that I have not been using RAW and at the moment Im a little put off that the system isn't a great as I thought it was RAW (I'll get better Im sure)

OTOH I still love GURPS and have already figured out the mechanics of how I have been doing it, so I will just use them as house rules, Im definitely not changing the way the mechanics work for the players.

Originally Posted by Dalin

Most archers I know in real life can't reliably hit realistic targets at modest range without aiming.

The question is do you know an statistically anomalous sample of bad archers, or do I know a statistically anomalous sample of good ones. Whats reliable, whats realistic? I dont disagree with you at all, unless we know the same archers!?!?! hehheh

Could be Im just a much better archer than I think I am and happen to have been blessed to know a lot of other better than average ones, or are you setting the bar to low cause you just know bad ones who over estimate their ability?

I do know that {b] I personally [/b] am utterly and completely at odds with the idea that anything past 2yds incurs a range penalty. Where to set that bar is open for discussion in my mind, and I have given a couple thoughts. Till now the responses have been great , detailed, and specific but mostly distill down to "RAW and get over yourself" (Oh and I have been using Acc all wrong as well, but I sorta knew that).

Originally Posted by Dalin

The term "proficiency" has no defined meaning in GURPS.

Ahhh but it does in English: competency, great skill, ability, and experience Im not using it as a D&D term, but as an english word.

Originally Posted by Dalin

I think in terms of skill levels. An archer with skill 10-12 is capable of hitting targets at modest range in optimal conditions (good light, calm wind, time to aim). Rapid-fire conditions with moving targets at range require higher skill levels.

Nothing you said there is in opposition to anything I have posted. There is some wiggle room in realistic use of "time to aim" and what is "modest range" but that pretty much sums up the entirety of the discussion about archery.

Originally Posted by Dalin

Ultimately, though, you do you. If you're consistent and your players are happy with your rules, then all is good at your table.

Indeed, well spoken

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by bocephus

I see aiming as an addition to your skill that you can optionally invoke to mitigate an opponents active defenses, IE the target is moving away at an oblique angle and varying their speed or trying to hide behind a small child. Aiming comes into play when you desire it as an addition to your ability, not your ability is predicated on using aim. I dont see my statement being in conflict with what your saying, just different in interpretation which is really what this hinges on. And yes GURPS provides many and varied rules for adjudicating your opponents defense vs your offense. GURPS does not state that "Aiming" is or is not factored into a skill. I claim that it is not.

I just disagree with how the benefit of 'aiming' is being applied. Its not magic and after a set point you have achieved as much "Aim" as you can from setting your self, carefully observing the target, searching out a weak spot, and loose. This is additional and not mashed into the skill proficiency. You shoot 5 projectiles as fast as you can and see how you do, you do the same thing slowly and aim each one, then you shoot the first 3 fast as you can and the last 2 carefully. This is a way to train to overcome the "aim pause" when you dont have time for it and to my mind this IS part of your proficiency if you live in a world where this is part of your occupation.

Also apropos to Aiming... knowing that "now is the time to take a second or two and aim carefully" is part of being proficient.


Thank you for continuing to engage me in this, I feel like we are finally getting somewhere productive.

You're welcome.

I'm ignoring your example of Bob and Tom, because Tom has nothing to do with anything in GURPS. The use of 2 yards as a base distance does not remotely mean that anyone practices using a bow to shoot targets 2 yards away. It's simply that any scale has to have a zero point somewhere, and 2 yards is the point GURPS has used for this since the dawn ages.

There are two ways this is applied.

Case 1: You are shooting in a planned, disciplined way. You have your bow in hand. It takes you one turn to draw an arrow and nock it, one turn to pull the bow back, and one turn to "aim" (as the word is used in GURPS): that is, you stand there for a brief interval (by GURPS convention a second) focusing on the target and adjusting your stance and getting the point of aim lined up right. Your longbow has Acc 3. This cancels out the -3 penalty for being at range 7 yards; that is, you shoot at a target 7 yards away at base skill. You can get off one shot per three seconds, emptying a decent sized quiver in a minute.

Case 2: You are shooting in haste, without time to aim carefully. You take one second less. Now you don't get the Acc 3 bonus, and you shoot at a target 2 yards away at base skill. Normally you wouldn't do this, but you might if the target was going to close with you in one more second, say.

Note that the Heroic Archer trait lets you do Case 2 and gain some of the benefits of Case 1. You can find it in GURPS Martial Arts. I don't remember all the details; I tend not to run cinematic martial arts campaigns.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Your Bob and Tom thing is claiming we're saying something we're not. When I say that 2-yards is the base point for range penalties I'm not saying it's the standard range anyone practice at. I'm simply saying that it's the point at which GURPS says you get your full skill without penalties for shooting at a 'distant' target.

Yes which is the exact same as saying you have skill level 10 at shooting a bow 2yds. Everything else is a penalty distance. You wanna shoot 2yds, roll against your skill.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by whswhs

You're welcome.

I'm ignoring your example of Bob and Tom, because Tom has nothing to do with anything in GURPS. The use of 2 yards as a base distance does not remotely mean that anyone practices using a bow to shoot targets 2 yards away. It's simply that any scale has to have a zero point somewhere, and 2 yards is the point GURPS has used for this since the dawn ages.

.

You dont get to ignore it, when it was directly in response to what you wrote. And was 100% on point based on that example. Since drift can occur, drift must occur hence there must be a penalty before too much drift can enter the system. The assumption being you cant hit a target far away without just being crazy lucky and aiming for half an hour

Originally Posted by whswhs

2 yards is the point GURPS has used for this since the dawn ages..

Well from my perspective GURPS has used this since the dawn of hours maybe a day by now.

We will just have to agree to disagree and walk away civilly. I did get what I needed to actually write a house rule, for consistency and it covers my issue with the range chart. I am leaning to setting the zero point lower than I had it, but not 2yds.

The rest is just going to be us annoying each other while we both keep doing what we're doing anyway.

Originally Posted by Refplace

It may not as you say still change your impression of the utility but I offer this correction so you know how it works.
A single Aim maneuver lets you add the ACC of the weapon, bonus from sights, bracing, etc. Additional turns give +1 each, up to +3/
See p. B364 for details.

You're right, since I never used anything with Acc more than 3 and that mostly with magic items, I had keyed on that text specifically on page b324 and then chose to stop paying attention to it. I can see how Acc is a big deal for Modern settings now. Its not a huge change for my setting at any rate I was just letting them use it like a weapon bonus. The bad guys got the same advantage so its not as overpowering as it would have been using an M16 with a scope, that would have broken encounters.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by bocephus

You're right, since I never used anything with Acc more than 3 and that mostly with magic items, I had keyed on that text specifically on page b324 and then chose to stop paying attention to it.

Might I suggest that before you decide to alter the rules, perhaps reading them a bit more thoroughly might be in order? At least then you'll fully understand what you're doing away with before deciding to do away with it.