Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2019, 11:10 PM   #1
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default rifles in close combat

B391 says you apply bulk as a penalty to hit in close combat, aside from sharing the hex of the shooter would that also apply with sharing the hex of the rifle? B400 has

TS25 "Close-Contact Shots" uses melee-ish rules for pistols at reach C and other guns at reach C,1. The downside for non-pistols being that unlike pistols, they can be parried at reach 1 while pistols can only be parried at reach C.

Would this also mean that rifles suffer the bulk penalty to hit at reach 1?

Rifles seem like maybe they ought to be reach 1 (not c,1) for Close-Combat Shots because firing at someone in the same hex would be very awkward.

If they are treated like melee weapons then firing at someone at reach C could be done at -4 to hit, like when trying to use a reach 1 weapon against someone in close combat.

Bayonets can extend stabbing range to Reach 2 and that seems like it might make it easier to parry the gun (swat aside the more easily reached bayonet to move the entire rifle) as well as making it even harder to shoot closer targets (-8 at close, -4 at 1?)

B240's C/1/2 reaches for short wands / (long wands or short staff) / long staff sounds like it maybe it should cause similar problems for mages who are engaged at close range.

If you are firing your spells from a weapon held in an adjacent hex, then shouldn't it be -4 to hit someone sharing your hex?

Or with a weapon held with the tip 2 yards away, a -4 to target adjacent hexes and a -8 to target your own hex?

Same for parrying; seems like you should be able to parry spells from a further distance away if they're being fired from a longer staff?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2019, 11:34 PM   #2
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
TS25 "Close-Contact Shots" uses melee-ish rules for pistols at reach C and other guns at reach C,1. The downside for non-pistols being that unlike pistols, they can be parried at reach 1 while pistols can only be parried at reach C.

Would this also mean that rifles suffer the bulk penalty to hit at reach 1?
I would penalise them like this, yes.
Quote:
Rifles seem like maybe they ought to be reach 1 (not c,1) for Close-Combat Shots because firing at someone in the same hex would be very awkward.
Gun at hip, it's not much worse than shooting someone at reach 1.

Quote:
Bayonets can extend stabbing range to Reach 2 and that seems like it might make it easier to parry the gun (swat aside the more easily reached bayonet to move the entire rifle) as well as making it even harder to shoot closer targets (-8 at close, -4 at 1?)
Unless it's a very long bayonet, I say not. You get that reach with the bayonet by extending the rifle in a way that you don't do when shooting with it - bayonet drills do not have the rifle to your shoulder.

Quote:
If you are firing your spells from a weapon held in an adjacent hex, then shouldn't it be -4 to hit someone sharing your hex?

Or with a weapon held with the tip 2 yards away, a -4 to target adjacent hexes and a -8 to target your own hex?
Missile spells, maybe. Regular spells? The greater rach and striking area of the staff would make it harder to avoid, I think - touching with the staff means the spell has zero range to you.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2019, 01:01 AM   #3
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Gun at hip, it's not much worse than shooting someone at reach 1.
TS12 "Hip Shooting of Long Arms" perhaps ought to change what hexes a rifle occupies? I get the impression that rifles (even though some might be larger and easier to hit than a reach 1 melee weapon) occupy the adjacent front hex like reach 1 melee weapons (why you can parry them from further away if you are able to target that hex instead of the wielder's)

Do you think shooting from hip should change it (the "tuck under the shoulder" idea) so it doesn't occupy 2 hexes and only can only be parried if a melee weapon can target the user's hex, with parrying not allowed if only the hex in front is in range?

It already gives -1 to parry but needing to get closer (slip?) to parry a hip-shooting longarm would make that Shooting Stance a lot more useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Unless it's a very long bayonet, I say not. You get that reach with the bayonet by extending the rifle in a way that you don't do when shooting with it - bayonet drills do not have the rifle to your shoulder.
That makes sense, I was only imagining the added reach of the knife, forgot bout the thrusting action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Missile spells, maybe. Regular spells? The greater rach and striking area of the staff would make it harder to avoid, I think - touching with the staff means the spell has zero range to you.
I guess I'm trying to figure out how wands/staffs work, I sort of envision a spell being fired from the tip of the wand/staff and there being a problem if the wand/staff is so long that it would reach past the hex your enemy is occupying.

Then it seems (like a spear) you'd need to do weird angles (wraparound shots) to hit them, like the rules in MA used to hit people at lower-than-Reach ranges.

I guess if you were doing that it'd make more sense to just take a -1 range penalty rather than rely on touching with the staff at -4 to avoid that range penalty...

I guess it's more of a consideration for the "Magic Items" (M16) since you MUST shoot the spell out of the staff to use it and don't have the option to ignore the staff in hand and just cast it mentally.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2019, 07:02 AM   #4
evileeyore
Banned
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Would this also mean that rifles suffer the bulk penalty to hit at reach 1?
Simple question: Are you in Close Combat at Reach 1?

Quote:
If they are treated like melee weapons then firing at someone at reach C could be done at -4 to hit, like when trying to use a reach 1 weapon against someone in close combat.
They are not. They are treated as Ranged Weapons.



Quote:
B240's C/1/2 reaches for short wands / (long wands or short staff) / long staff sounds like it maybe it should cause similar problems for mages who are engaged at close range.
A Long Staff is too long to be turned into a 'Wizard Staff' (per Staff Enchantment). Long Staves are 8-9 feet long.

Quote:
If you are firing your spells from a weapon held in an adjacent hex, then shouldn't it be -4 to hit someone sharing your hex?
No, because it's also in your hex.

There is no requirement that the spell leave the "tip" of the Wand or Staff.



Regardless if you want to do things this way, feel free.
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2019, 05:25 PM   #5
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
Simple question: Are you in Close Combat at Reach 1?
This has to do with whether or not the hex a weapon occupies (presuming that a rifle is big enough to stick out of your hex as long weapons do) influences this.

Like for example, a multi-hex creature, which would include a human who is lying down and occupying two (one for upper, one adjacent for lower)

An attacker sharing the hex with your lower body would be in "close combat" with your lower body, but in respect to your upper body they would not be, they would be "reach 1".

If you had to try and shoot at creatures trying to grapple/trample you while you were lying on the ground, since it would be the upper body wielding pistols, it sounds like the Bulk penalty for Close Combat should apply when a creature is sharing the same hex as your upper body, but perhaps not if the creature is only sharing the same hex as your lower body?

Whereas with a rifle, while you wield the base of a rifle using the upper body, the length is probably like a reach 1 weapon where the tip of the barrel would occupy the hex your lower body is in (if you were aiming at something grappling your feet) and so perhaps (since the rifle tip is sharing the hex with that creature) it should be considered in Close Combat and suffer the Bulk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
They are not. They are treated as Ranged Weapons.
Ranged weapons which get +4 to hit from All-Out Determined and can get another +4 for Telegraphic Attack in that situaton, so what I mean is they're Ranged Weapons with melee-esque treatment based on better bonuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
A Long Staff is too long to be turned into a 'Wizard Staff' (per Staff Enchantment). Long Staves are 8-9 feet long.
I mispoke, B240/M13 describes the longest (reach 2) ones as "full-length" staffs which are quarterstaffs, the longest on B273. That made me think of them as the opposite of a "Short Staff" using the Shortsword skill.

found what you mean on MA230, will try to remember that.

I guess the "full-length" aka "quarter" staff might be thought of as a "medium" staff since at max reach 2 the QS/MS lies between the SS at 1 and the LS at max reach 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
No, because it's also in your hex.

There is no requirement that the spell leave the "tip" of the Wand or Staff.
I guess I assumed that from the "pointing with a staff" that you basically had to draw a line from the base end of the staff to the tip end of the staff to the target.

IE if you are pointing the perpendicular bisector of a staff at someone it maybe shouldn't extend your reach since if you do that your fingers will always be closer to the foe than the staff would be.

With baseline operation being "I can touch them with ANY part of the quarterstaff" I'm wondering if there is some way using the Enchantment rules to have staff to only work by touching with just the tip of the staff.

I was thinking maybe using Bane (M62) although it probably wouldn't be worth any reduction in spell costs to do something like "Bane: doesn't affect anyone touching the lower half"

This would allow an ally sharing your hex to put a hand on the base of your staff and avoid being hit by some kind of area effect attack.

The downside being that if you wanted to use "touch with my staff" casting (to avoid touching something) you could only use the distal half (like only the distal part of a halberd can cut) making touching people closer to you with the appropriate "dangerous end" harder, due to weird angles (the need to make wrap-shots, like with spears) which is where applying a -4 would seem appropriate.

Another primary benefit (other than protecting allies) would also be protecting yourself: if an enchanted item cannot work on a class of beings designated as those touching the "safe end" then if you had the staff enchanted with a melee spell, shouldn't that protect you from being hurt with the melee spell on a critical miss where you might normally harm yourself?

A side-benefit would also be that if an enemy disarmed you (M19 they become "the first to touch it" in that case) even if you couldn't disarm them in return, simply being able to get your hand back on the weapon's base (assuming they haven't had time to flip it around and hold the base and point the tip at you) would prevent them from targeting you with it.

A more direct way to get that would be B68 "Limit" with the complexity of the "class of users" being "only the person holding the base of the weapon".

What it would cause, basically, is like with a gun: you can't simply take it off them, you have to flip it around 180 (readying it in a proper grip) to be able to use it, to hold the proper handle/trigger side of the tool.

Last edited by Plane; 06-15-2019 at 05:32 PM.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2019, 09:06 PM   #6
evileeyore
Banned
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
This has to do with whether or not the hex a weapon occupies (presuming that a rifle is big enough to stick out of your hex as long weapons do) influences this.
It does not. Does your sword influence whether or not you are in Close Combat? No it does not.

Quote:
Like for example, a multi-hex creature, which would include a human who is lying down and occupying two (one for upper, one adjacent for lower)

An attacker sharing the hex with your lower body would be in "close combat" with your lower body, but in respect to your upper body they would not be, they would be "reach 1".
Do you need a sword to hit your own legs? No. If you are in Close Combat, you are in Close Combat*. The only thing that changes for a prone individual is that hitting anything higher than a foe's groin requires a Reach 1 weapon (Martial Arts pg 99, otherwise as per Basic the only penalty to punch a standing foe in the chest while you are prone is a -2).



* This may be unrealistic for some creatures, however, if you are occupying the same hex as a foe, you are in Close Combat.

Quote:
If you had to try and shoot at creatures trying to grapple/trample you while you were lying on the ground, since it would be the upper body wielding pistols, it sounds like the Bulk penalty for Close Combat should apply when a creature is sharing the same hex as your upper body, but perhaps not if the creature is only sharing the same hex as your lower body?
Not as per RAW. And I agree, as the penalty for fighting in Close Combat is in part due to being constrained in your movements.

Quote:
Ranged weapons which get +4 to hit from All-Out Determined and can get another +4 for Telegraphic Attack in that situaton, so what I mean is they're Ranged Weapons with melee-esque treatment based on better bonuses.
If you are firing the rifle it is a ranged weapon. If you are stabbing someone it is a melee weapon.

Quote:
I guess I assumed that from the "pointing with a staff" that you basically had to draw a line from the base end of the staff to the tip end of the staff to the target.
What? No, the entire point of Wands/Staves is to increase the Wizard's Reach for spell casting, not to institute some bizarre geometry.

Quote:
IE if you are pointing the perpendicular bisector of a staff at someone it maybe shouldn't extend your reach since if you do that your fingers will always be closer to the foe than the staff would be.
Of course not. In that case you are clearly not reaching out with the Staff are you?

Quote:
I was thinking maybe using Bane (M62) although it probably wouldn't be worth any reduction in spell costs to do something like "Bane: doesn't affect anyone touching the lower half"
I wouldn't allow it. Staff is already a cheap enchantment.

And as your next several paragraphs illustrate you're just making complications for complication's sake.
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2019, 09:29 PM   #7
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
What? No, the entire point of Wands/Staves is to increase the Wizard's Reach for spell casting, not to institute some bizarre geometry.
It's not really bizarre, just awkwardly described. "you basically had to draw a line from the base end of the staff to the tip end of the staff to the target" is the same as 'pointing the staff at the target', it's just about as obfuscatory as "dihydrogen monoxide".

That said, the putative problem seems esoteric since pointing the staff isn't the only option - a staff can also deliver spells by touching the subject with no range penalty rather than by pointing at them, so using it on targets too close to conveniently point at isn't really a problem. Maybe if there was some reason you really didn't want your staff to touch the target...
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2019, 10:59 PM   #8
evileeyore
Banned
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Maybe if there was some reason you really didn't want your staff to touch the target...
The you don't touch the Essential Fast Fire Elemental with your wooden Staff.

There's no penalty in most cases for not touching but being less than 1 yard away... however that now poses to me an interesting idea. Round up the distance if not touching.

Not touching your subject immediately becomes -1, and means you may now want to risk touching the black pudding with your staff if that -1 makes a serious difference.


I once ran a campaign where it wasn't trained skill that gave FP reduction, but final skill... had Wizards using the Take Extra Time and Elaborate Rituals* rules as often as they could get away with it.

* It was 3e and basically used the Alternate Magic Ritual Rules.
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2019, 01:33 AM   #9
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
It does not. Does your sword influence whether or not you are in Close Combat? No it does not.
But wouldn't an enemy sharing the sword's hex be in close combat with the sword but not the wielder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
Do you need a sword to hit your own legs? No.
Well as absurd as it seems, technically if you are lying down and since your lower body occupies a different hex than your upper, you'd need to use All-Out Attack (Long) to punch your own leg.

What we envision as touching the leg is more likely the leg kicking (since it has reach 1) into the upper body's hex and then you can grab it and keep it held up there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
the entire point of Wands/Staves is to increase the Wizard's Reach for spell casting, not to institute some bizarre geometry.
What does "pointing with a staff" if not the staff's tip being a point on a line between yourself and the target? If I point my hex forward then I don't think I'd get +1 to Reach at a target to the left, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
There's no penalty in most cases for not touching but being less than 1 yard away... however that now poses to me an interesting idea. Round up the distance if not touching.

Not touching your subject immediately becomes -1, and means you may now want to risk touching the black pudding with your staff if that -1 makes a serious difference.
The weird thing is, I can find "If it takes -1 per yard of range, like a Regular spell, it costs" on B106 (description of Malediction enhancement) but I couldn't easily find -1 per yard in the magic section on B234...

Eventually found it on B239 though:
If you cannot touch the subject, apply a skill penalty equal to your distance in yards from the subject

It doesn't address fractions, but for policy on that, we might consult the precedent on B550:
If size falls between two values, base SM on the next-highest size.

That's pretty much a "round up" type policy.

B241's Long-Distance Modifiers works like that as well:
If the distance falls between two values, use the higher.

so I think there's support for your idea actually being canonically supported.

Even if there was no rounding up and being 1/2 a yard a way (1.5 feet, or 18 inches) only resulted in -0.5 to skill, that's basically the same effect as a -1 in terms of what you need to roll under to succeed.

The only case where it might make a difference is if you had some kind of result equivalent to MoS multiplied, in which case I guess you could opt to use the fraction if you wanted?

In terms of hex-targeting, if we round up anyone in close combat (not touching) to 1 yard (always -1) because you are guaranteed to be 1 yard or less away from someone in a hex you share, perhaps it should be -2 for someone in adjacent hexes?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2019, 12:33 PM   #10
evileeyore
Banned
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: rifles in close combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
But wouldn't an enemy sharing the sword's hex be in close combat with the sword but not the wielder?
I don't think you understand what Close Combat is. Close Combat inhibits the Character because they are pressed and have their capacity to freely maneuver reduced.

Quote:
Well as absurd as it seems, technically if you are lying down and since your lower body occupies a different hex than your upper, you'd need to use All-Out Attack (Long) to punch your own leg.
No you wouldn't. There is no call for this in the rules, no is there a call for it from a 'realism' perspective.

Quote:
What we envision as touching the leg is more likely the leg kicking (since it has reach 1) into the upper body's hex and then you can grab it and keep it held up there.
Or you just bend slightly and touch your leg. Or bend a bit more and touch your feet. If you were needing to attack your own leg or feet this would be part of the attack and not require anything weird, unless you had an alien* leg and had to restrain it or cut it off or some other weirdness.

Thus, punching someone in the groin who is standing in your leg's hex while you are lying down only incurs a -2 penalty nothing more, and that is because you are lying down and are fighting from an odd position, not because they are "way over there in a different hex than your torso".

Taking up 2 hexes because you are prone is an abstraction in the rules, a way to say you are longer lying down and take up more of a footprint on the combat mat than when standing up, not that you somehow take up the entirety of two hexes, or that your feet are suddenly harder to touch than when you are standing and "all in one hex".

You're seeking to over complicate things unnecessarily.



* 'Alien' in the 'alien limb syndrome' sense.

Quote:
What does "pointing with a staff" if not the staff's tip being a point on a line between yourself and the target?
If it is a wand, you are probably correct, you are probably "drawing a line from yourself to the target". However with a six foot length of wood, to reduce your distance by 1 yard does not require you to extend your staff out from yourself "drawing a line from you, through the base to the tip, and directly towards your target". You can lazily extend it towards your target, even at an upwards angle, so long as it reduces the distance from you to the target by three feet.

Quote:
If I point my hex forward then I don't think I'd get +1 to Reach at a target to the left, for example.
As a GM I don't care what direction you think you are "pointing" your weapon. Unless I'm running with the full tactical rules I'm not going to require you to "declare where your weapon is facing" and even then I won't care as long as the direction you are "aiming" is one within your Reach. I don't demand such fiddliness.

But no, if for some reason you must point your staff directly forward of you, of course you don't get the Reach bonus into your side, flank, or rear hexes (okay, maybe the hex opposite your center of "aiming", depending on how you are griping it. But that's a height of fiddliness I don't care about).

Quote:
The weird thing is, I can find "If it takes -1 per yard of range, like a Regular spell, it costs" on B106 (description of Malediction enhancement) but I couldn't easily find -1 per yard in the magic section on B234...

Eventually found it on B239 though:
It's always been discussed in relation to Regular spells as those are the class of spell affected, any other classes always say "Otherwise, [Class] spells work like Regular spells".

Quote:
In terms of hex-targeting, if we round up anyone in close combat (not touching) to 1 yard (always -1) because you are guaranteed to be 1 yard or less away from someone in a hex you share, perhaps it should be -2 for someone in adjacent hexes?
0 to 1 should be -1, that would make having to actually touch a foe a bonus in some circumstances, where that -1 is important. Say if your skill fell into the 13 and under range, your skill is 14-16 if you touch the subject (for crit fishing), or you were worried about your MoV(S).

Being a caster in Close Combat already brings enough ancillary penalties (or at least the great possibility of penalties) that encouraging a caster to going into CC is probably a poor choice.
evileeyore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.