07-15-2020, 12:33 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Inherent inaccuracies?
Does any game system include mechanics to account for the fact that some weapons are inherently inaccurate. In most game, if you're good, you will almost always hit your target, even if, for example, you're firing a Brown Bess musket at long range. No matter HOW good you are, at long range, many shots will miss--the weapon is that bad.
I'm considering adding a miss chance, a lot like Pathfinder uses when you're attacking an invisible or displaced foe, to some weapons at long range. |
07-15-2020, 12:38 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
These threads discuss the question :
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=34683 http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=137504 The best "solution" suggested : set a skill cap (including all aiming bonus) based on the weapon real world accuracy in a perfect case. Last edited by Celjabba; 07-15-2020 at 12:41 PM. |
07-15-2020, 12:50 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
Quote:
|
|
07-15-2020, 02:12 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
For GURPS and similar systems, a skill cap works well; GURPS: Tactical Shooting has an optional rule to that effect, although it arguably overstates the accuracy of a musket*. For d20 and similar systems, a set miss chance at range feels out of genre (it's arguably more realistic, but d20 tends not be overly concerned with realism anyway**), and my limited experience with primitive firearms in d20 is that is they typically don't need anything else working against them (a high-damage weapon you can use once per combat works in GURPS, where one hit can reliably drop a foe; it doesn't work so well in d20, where most enemies are damage sponges).
*The skill cap for a typical musket is 26, corresponding to a Minute of Arc of around 7. Typical muskets apparently had MoA somewhere around 36, which corresponds to a skill cap of around 22. If you have a real-world MoA (at around 74%, which is close to where a lot of MoA values are), you can calculate the GURPS skill cap by taking MoA/36, reading this as "yards" on the Size and Speed/Range table, and adding the resulting Range penalty/bonus to 20. An MoA 36 weapon has a skill cap of 22; an MoA 5 weapon has a skill cap of 27 (5/36=0.14, 0.15 is +7 as a Range bonus). **At the point you're high enough level that your BAB lets you pull off what should be impossible shots reliably, the sort of feats you can manage with, say, the jumping skill are similarly impossible; it seems odd to let someone do the latter but not the former.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
07-15-2020, 02:38 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
It's probably most realistic to just have two rolls, one for the shooter and one for the weapon's inherent accuracy, but the result is pretty slow to play, and usually ignorable at the ranges of RPG combat (while wargame maps can be quite a bit larger, it's a rare RPG tactical map that's more than fifty yards or so, at which range mechanical accuracy is unlikely to matter much).
|
07-15-2020, 04:48 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
Miss chances are in genre for Pathfinder/D&D for various forms of invisibility/concealment. I'vew been thinking about this since I put the post up; if the attacker rolls a D10 with each attack, then it won't slow things down. (Just keep the miss chance on a D10, and all's well)
|
07-15-2020, 08:17 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
Quote:
That said, if you do still want something like this, you could certainly do worse than some % miss chance beyond a particular range. In GURPS, an MoA 36 weapon (roughly appropriate for a musket) can strike a human-sized* target up to 20 yards away without the skill cap having any appreciable effect (a character with maximum skill - before penalties - of 22 would be at effective skill 16, which is as high as you can get for an individual roll). That's a 98% chance to hit. At 30 yards, this drops to a 95% chance, at 50 it becomes 90%, at 70 it's 84%, at 100 it's 74%, at 150 it's 63%, at 200 it's 50%, at 300 it's 37%, and so forth. d20 uses feet (in multiples of 5) and prefers flatter progressions; I'd probably keep 50% at 200 yards, which I'd round down to 500 feet. I'd say 10% miss chance for every full 100 feet (20 squares) would probably work alright, but I'd have natural 20's ignore this. This is harsher than GURPS, but it's easy (if you want to get closer to GURPS, go with 10% miss chance every 120 ft). Magical firearms and the like may not need to worry about these, or may simply have longer ranges per +10% to miss chance. If you want a second d20, you could instead do 5% miss chance every 50 feet (10 squares), or you could even roll d% with a 1% miss chance every 10 feet (2 squares), although that last is arguably a bit excessive. *Size also comes into play, but I'd suggest ignoring that for simplicity and just going with a % miss in d20.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
07-16-2020, 05:30 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
Quote:
That is why musketeers are a bad specialty for roleplaying. You are better off as light hussars.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
|
07-16-2020, 06:08 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
Quote:
Which has very little to do with inherent inaccuracy of the weapon. It's mostly about the inherent inaccuracy of "I'm shooting bullets into a large area that might have an enemy somewhere in it". |
|
07-16-2020, 06:47 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: traveller
|
Re: Inherent inaccuracies?
Any system that includes "effective range" as a meaningful weapon statistic (Striker and derivatives; Space Opera) or sets range bands by weapon (Mechwarrior, Jovian Chronicles, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0.) is implicitly accounting for this.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|