Light sources and vision question

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by bocephus

If I understand the chart, basically its saying that I should have a -10 to shoot a target with a weapon that has an Effective range (the edge of the full damage range) because its 100yds away?

You're ignoring Acc, Aiming, and the bonus for being on a calm range† not in combat, possibly the size of the target, and knowing the range†.

The two marked † aren't bonuses laid out* in Basic because Basic is focused on stressful action and combat, not leisurely plinking away at practice.



* I mean they are, to a point, in that GMs are given the guideline of applying bonuses for easier actions.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by bocephus

I have never, not once ever trained to shoot a target at 2yds. Why would anyone intending to use this skill in combat / hunting do something so idiotic, I theorize a "charging animal drill" (but if your using a bow in that situation you have bigger problems) and such a thing doesn't exist for a dismounted archer. If you want to train with a bow you would do it at the ranges you would expect to use it, including training to use it for multiple ranges. All of this is represented in your skill at bow.

The point of using 2-yards as the -0 point is that it's consistent for all ranged weapons, and all hit chances drop off from there.

As for the rest, well if we assume modern bows count as longbows, and thus have Acc 3 (Acc 4 if they have modern sighting systems), if you're shooting at a round target a yard across at 100 yards, there are the following modifiers for range and size: Range -10, Size +0 (-2 for 1 yard across, +2 for being round, see B550) = -10. This seems like a lot, but as we're on a range and in no hurry we aim, getting Acc +3, +2 for spending two extra turns (for a total of 3 seconds of aim), +1 for an All-out Attack = +6. Now we're at -4 overall, but wait! There's more! Being on a range, no time stress, nobody shooting back at us, and so we can consider this a pretty beneficial environment (see B345, Task Difficulty), and give a bonus of +4 or so, and now we've got a net +0 to our hit chance.

Note that this also works out fairly well for shooting with an Acc 5 rifle (like an M16), given that they can also be braced for a further +1.

[bocephus]

Sorry the "calm and not under stress on a range" is a modern thing that in a medieval world would be the realm of the very high status that can afford the time and resources just shooting without having to use the skill productively. It has no relevance to my argument

You are 100% correct IF your speaking about Bow skill as a modern "Its a fun hobby" based on spending 1-2 hours a week on a covered range with heaters/fans and multi colored targets and and and.... Make no mistake that helps. Especially when you are pushing your skills to a new distance or learning a new weapon. But that's only half the skill, literally I would rate that at half the skill, you are missing many tools to make you an effective bow hunter (bow hunter is about the best modern analogy we have). You're talking about a target shooter, with $600 in special gear strapped on to keep them straight, have neat little sights, and the bow NEVER ever gets wet (its too delicate). That's mechanical awareness of the weapon and how it works for you, but don't know how to apply it except in one limited environment. I know these people, they shoot targets at amazing distances in competitions.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people that feed themselves based on this skill, defend themselves based on this skill, make war based on this skill. They don't train like that. Youtube snake drills, that's a modern gun version of training for use, not suburban coffee clutch meeting for a couple hours of fun and refreshments Oh and we will shoot at some targets hehhehheh, which I do to, but its not "training" that's socializing with weapons. Yes there is still some argument to be made about stress or shock if your new to the swat team, never actually shot an animal, etc... but not much and the shock tapers off quick as you become used to that new reality. Again this is the way people live, not a Cthulhu Horror adventure with Millennials and lattes.

Weapon skill means you are skilled at using it, not the romantic notion that your look impressive holding it.



As for that range being "consistent for all range weapons" sorry, that assertion is not valid.

Your effective range with a dagger has no relevance to your effective range with a bow or a gun. period. There is no common point where distance has a common value at 2m/yds/hexs that has any relevance to the ability to use the skill. NTM they are completely different types of damage and techniques for creating that damage.

Distance has to be a function of the mechanical advantage up to a point. Then there is the addition of distance just making the target harder to see. Vision I sort of agree to that chart but again not at the closer distances. 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).

I use Acc on top of skill not meant to overcome an arbitrary range disparity (and Im using the stats of a "Regular Bow" which is Acc2, I have said a few times "Medieval Fantasy"). What does Bow skill even mean if trying to use it is so utterly useless. I don't see anyone being able to convince me that the way the b550 range table is being explained, is intended to be used that way. There is a big chunk missing where the mechanical advantage of the tool overcomes those penalties, at least to a point where its no longer the fault of the mechanics that you cant hit the target.

Medieval people weren't savants, and were using really basic materials to kill animals. Arrows and arrow heads were costly, failing to hit your target was expensive. Why would anyone even attempt to do something that has such a huge fail vs learning curve?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by bocephus

Sorry the "calm and not under stress on a range" is a modern thing that in a medieval world would be the realm of the very high status that can afford the time and resources just shooting without having to use the skill productively. It has no relevance to my argument.

You are massively over-stating what you need in an environment for it to count as an nice, easy place to practice. You're not in combat, you're shooting on a field in decent weather on a Sunday after church, you get bonuses for ease. Read B345's examples.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people that feed themselves based on this skill, defend themselves based on this skill, make war based on this skill. They don't train like that. Youtube snake drills, that's a modern gun version of training for use, not suburban coffee clutch meeting for a couple hours of fun and refreshments Oh and we will shoot at some targets hehhehheh, which I do to, but its not "training" that's socializing with weapons. Yes there is still some argument to be made about stress or shock if your new to the swat team, never actually shot an animal, etc... but not much and the shock tapers off quick as you become used to that new reality. Again this is the way people live, not a Cthulhu Horror adventure with Millennials and lattes.

Weapon skill means you are skilled at using it, not the romantic notion that your look impressive holding it.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Also, while I'm not a bow hunter, I have done a fair bit of hunting ans shooting with rifles and served in the army in the infantry. I do have some idea of how shooting and ranged combat works, if primarily in a modern military setting.

As for that range being "consistent for all range weapons" sorry, that assertion is not valid.

In the context of GURPS it is. The range scale gives you the penalty that's due to the target being further away, and thus a relatively smaller target and harder to hit. The zero point is set for all weapons at 2 yards, making the whole thing consistent.

Your effective range with a dagger has no relevance to your effective range with a bow or a gun. period. There is no common point where distance has a common value at 2m/yds/hexs that has any relevance to the ability to use the skill. NTM they are completely different types of damage and techniques for creating that damage.

Distance has to be a function of the mechanical advantage up to a point.

That's accuracy.

Now, if you want to argue that some weapons are innately less accurate to the point where they make it harder to hit even with hasty shots (ones where the weapon's Acc doesn't apply), then by all means give penalties or bonuses to their overall use. Shifting the 'zero point' of the range table is the same, but makes it harder to apply. I don't see a lot of point as, after using GURPS since the mid 90s (3rd edition used the same range table, though different acc rules), I find the current rules work pretty well in practice.

Medieval people weren't savants, and were using really basic materials to kill animals. Arrows and arrow heads were costly, failing to hit your target was expensive. Why would anyone even attempt to do something that has such a huge fail vs learning curve?

Well, for starters as a professional hunter they'd have Bow-12 or better (see B172, "Choosing Your Skill Levels"). Then they'd use Stealth to sneak nice and close, or Camouflage and a well-chosen spot and let the animal come close to them. Then they aim and take their time, and only loose if they have a good shot. Skill 12 + Acc2 + 2 turns +1 AoA = 17. Say 20 yards range gives 11- to hit (though aiming for the vitals with 8- to hit the vitals and 9- to hit something might be more likely). Not great, but not awful. You can pick up another +1 for weapon bond if you're always using the one weapon and have been using it a lot.

Also, this being a medieval fantasy, we know that you're either an outlaw or not poor if you're hunting deer, and for smaller animals you'd be trapping most of them, because it's more reliable.

Finally, most people, most of the time will be taking at least a second to aim, so Acc should always be considered when comparing weapons. Note that thrown knives have Acc 0, and thus a -2 hit chance compared to your bow (or a spear), and thus about half the effective range (in terms of hit chance), as well as terrible range and damage.

[Edges]

Many of your concerns have been covered repeatedly and at great length in threads discussing the realism of firearm range penalties. Searching for and reading some of those might help.

I have participated in, and even started, some of those threads and was finally able to understand what so many people were generous enough with their time to explain to me (I can be boneheaded).

It is realistic enough for a role playing game for someone with a 10 skill in Bow (considered novice) to only have a 50% to hit a target 2 years away if they are not taking any time to aim (just a quick snap shot), they are assuming a stance that means they are prepared to dodge or parry (even multiple times against multiple opponents) in that same second, and their adrenaline is pumping because it is a high stakes situation (e.g. they are fighting for their life). If any of these factors are not present, GURPS has rules for providing additional bonuses. With these bonuses, the probability of hitting a target quickly increases to levels you might expect.

Apparently, these penalties don't wear off much even for professionals. The statistics for missed bullets in war and police action show that even heavily trained and highly experienced individuals miss a lot when things get real. Even at very short ranges of only a few yards (say, when charged by a knife fighter), trained police fire wide with surprising frequency. Though I'm not an expert in either weapon, I would assume that this phenomenon is not specific to guns and would be consistent with bows as well.

As for the Size/speed/range table, it is my understanding that this was developed as an approximation of the geometry of perspective. Something 5 yards away appears approximately half the size and therefore the to-hit penalty for range at that distance should be equal to the penalty to hit something of half the size (in this case, -2). It is not a matter of mechanical advantage; it's just trig. That is why the table is treated as universal to all weapons.

The weapons-specific factor, like the advantage a bow has over a dagger in precisely hitting things down range, is modeled by what GURPS calls Accuracy. Due to their different Accuracy statistics, aiming for three seconds with a bow will give you a +4 on your to-hit roll while the knife thrower will only get a +2. This means that aiming with a bow will allow a 100-yard target to be effectively only 20 yards away. But the knife thrower would be rolling as if the target were 50 yards away.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Yes, I'm aware of that. Also, while I'm not a bow hunter, I have done a fair bit of hunting ans shooting with rifles and served in the army in the infantry. I do have some idea of how shooting and ranged combat works, if primarily in a modern military setting.

So other than using Bows, you and I seem to share a very similar combat arms background, 19D and needs of :)

Originally Posted by Edges

I have participated in, and even started, some of those threads and was finally able to understand what so many people were generous enough with their time to explain to me (I can be boneheaded).

I'm not saying I'm immune to being extraordinarily disagreeable and stubborn (even boneheaded), but so far all the attempts to explain the range thing have started from the same problem point and just try to throw lots of mods (words) on top of what should be a basic skill check. Granted some people are quoting books I dont have so ... meh...

But this thread really started about how light sources and plain old vision works (I assumed someone would point out something similar to Hearing Distance Table b358). I have been using an intuitive version of this that isnt documented and hard because I was apparently born with Acute Vision advantage so what I think is easy to see isnt always average. I tend to err to the players advantage in this regard.

I did get an answer, for light sources, or answer enough for me to extrapolate a simple set of rules for my game. The rest is engaging directly with others responses. I do appreciate the time people are spending, even if it results in nothing more than a clarification of how the books address it and how Im not going to :) .
Also one of my players lurks on this forum so I cant give specific encounter details that might make the answer simpler because the encounter(s) that prompted the question haven't happened yet. I just wanted to construct them better and use the new environment of the Dark to add some flavor.

Originally Posted by Edges

Apparently, these penalties don't wear off much even for professionals. The statistics for missed bullets in war and police action show that even heavily trained and highly experienced individuals miss a lot when things get real. Even at very short ranges of only a few yards (say, when charged by a knife fighter), trained police fire wide with surprising frequency. Though I'm not an expert in either weapon, I would assume that this phenomenon is not specific to guns and would be consistent with bows as well.

This is a logical fallacy and has been disproved in the context of what your asserting. Modern Military's (since WWI) teach suppressing fire, not accuracy, to the vast bulk of troops because its not cost or time effective to do otherwise it also makes large scale doctrine problematic. Military's don't pay for their ammo. Police don't train to shoot accurately at a distance over 15yds, they train to prove they can safely deploy the weapon and hit a man shape maybe 4 times a year. Its not a matter of 'this proves people cant' its a matter of 'this proves people made choices not to'. Also specific to police it has been shown that there is a direct correlation between cutting costs on training and shot placement during events.

Military's, police and competition shooters are often selected for, or choose to participate in, actual in depth training and the result is a much more effective shooter. At distance, under fire, and with consistent reproducible results. Yes there are for sure engagement specific issues to be addressed with penalties, but thats not a geometric or trigonomic progression outside of skill.

Noobies that kick their first door in are absolutely prone to the adrenaline shakes. That same kid two months later, after 12 patrols, has to be counseled because he's not being careful enough and not following procedure. That "penalty" does wear off fast if its part of your day to day life and even tips over into Fearless or reckless unless something or someone has the talk with them.

Originally Posted by Edges

As for the Size/speed/range table, it is my understanding that this was developed as an approximation of the geometry of perspective. Something 5 yards away appears approximately half the size and therefore the to-hit penalty for range at that distance should be equal to the penalty to hit something of half the size (in this case, -2). It is not a matter of mechanical advantage; it's just trig. That is why the table is treated as universal to all weapons.

I like and use this table b550 for Size and movement mods, its great and works well. I have just never used it for raw range mods for a skill check. I haven't seen anything so far that convinces me that all the other machinations are an elegant or simple rule. There may not be such a thing and I will just go forward with the house rules I wrote, they seem much simpler, more generic and drop an extraordinary amount of plusing and minusing on my part. This makes my job easier and I can focus on story and put the bulk of the hit mechanics in a simple already calculated box which makes the players experience better.

I dont have or use source books containing the "calm and not under stress" rule variant, and I would still maintain that this is basically day to day existence for "Mid-Fan Adventurers" and as such the impact will be limited to specific scenarios where they may be off guard, unsure, or overconfident and I sort of rule those intuitively.

[whswhs]

There ought to be some penalty for greater range.

Let's say, just illustratively (that is, if you prefer a different figure, you can use the method presented starting with that figure), that you are using a weapon whose distal end is 18 inches from your center of mass. You're trying to hit a target 5 yards away. A lateral error of 0.25 inch (~50 minutes of arc) will turn into a lateral error of 2.5 inches at the target's range. But if you're trying for a target 50 yards away, it will be a 25 inch lateral error at that range. The only place where you can control the trajectory is at the origin, and any given precision there will put you within a wider zone at the target's location as the range increases; this is just similar triangles. Hitting a man 2.5 inches to the side will still wound him; hitting him 25 inches to the side will be a miss.

GURPS provides all sorts of rules for compensating for this. But they all turn on taking a second or more to steady yourself and aim. Do you think that such a requirement is unrealistic?

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by whswhs

There ought to be some penalty for greater range.

100% agree. I just think that penalty should start at some distance that is reachable and trainable as part of what should be considered "Proficiency" well within the ability of both you and the weapon. After that point you begin to incur penalties based solely on distance (as in the target becomes harder to see, or your weapon isnt strong enough to reach it).

Originally Posted by whswhs

Let's say, just illustratively (that is, if you prefer a different figure, you can use the method presented starting with that figure), that you are using a weapon whose distal end is 18 inches from your center of mass. You're trying to hit a target 5 yards away. A lateral error of 0.25 inch (~50 minutes of arc) will turn into a lateral error of 2.5 inches at the target's range. But if you're trying for a target 50 yards away, it will be a 25 inch lateral error at that range. The only place where you can control the trajectory is at the origin, and any given precision there will put you within a wider zone at the target's location as the range increases; this is just similar triangles. Hitting a man 2.5 inches to the side will still wound him; hitting him 25 inches to the side will be a miss.

We are not in conflict in the least with this description. I stipulate that this is agreeable as stated and further that there is no flaw in your math. Further you have made me happy that I can now clarify my point clearly.

Now I shall introduce conflict :) hehheh

Person Bob has a proficiency in said weapon and has put 200 hours of practice (the generally excepted method of representing a skill point in time) into shooting at targets of 8 inches at ranges varying between 15yrd and 75yds with a weapon accurate to 150yds. I assert that Bob has learned to intuit the variation in distance without understanding the math involved, and that ability is represented by being proficient (to my thinking this is what proficiency means). I further assert that Bobs ability means he can hit a target a XX distance 50% of the time based solely on skill. I choose 50 cause its well within the capability of both Bob and the weapon.

Person Tom has a proficiency in said weapon and has put 200 hours of practice (the generally excepted method of representing a skill point in time) into shooting at targets of 8 inches at the range of 2yds with a weapon accurate to 150yds. I posit that Tom is an idiot. Tom has not learned to intuit the variation in distance nor recognize how the target appears at variations in distance and math dont enter into it. He has trained by shooting at a target 2yds away until he is perfect (that is a horribly flawed technique which math and logic seem to dictate is a perfectly suitable technique on paper). I would further suggest this is in fact an offshoot specialization that has at best a quirky effect on his char, maybe he uses it to win some crazy bar bets, and is at worst largely useless as a ranged fighter. All the aiming in the world isn't going to fix his flawed technique at 50yds.

I suggest that Tom is what is being asserted to me over and over.

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

Originally Posted by whswhs

GURPS provides all sorts of rules for compensating for this. But they all turn on taking a second or more to steady yourself and aim. Do you think that such a requirement is unrealistic?

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.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by bocephus

I suggest that Tom is what is being asserted to me over and over.

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

I agree Tom is not proficient in the normal usage.
I would build him as using a Technique and the kind of thing your more likely to see from a sport shooter than a military shooter or hunter.
Sports shooters use specifically measured ranges and tournaments would have certain ranges as part of the contest.

Originally Posted by bocephus

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.

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 have never been trained either by my dad (for hunting, but he was a USMC sniper) or in the service to shoot without aiming. Even using a pistol where I dont line up the iron sights we still aimed. Holding the breath, slowly squeezing rather than jerking the trigger, etc.
Except for snipers and certain contests no one directly uses math but practice lets us make an educated guess at windage and elevation adjustments.
So math is involved its just intuition more than consciously crunching the numbers.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by bocephus

Sorry the "calm and not under stress on a range" is a modern thing that in a medieval world would be the realm of the very high status that can afford the time and resources just shooting without having to use the skill productively. It has no relevance to my argument

It has absolute relevance to what I responded to which was:

Originally Posted by bocephus

If I understand the chart, basically its saying that I should have a -10 to shoot a target with a weapon that has an Effective range (the edge of the full damage range) because its 100yds away?

Yes, you have a -10 to hit a target at 100yds.

You are 100% correct IF your speaking about Bow skill as a modern "Its a fun hobby" based on spending 1-2 hours a week on a covered range with heaters/fans and multi colored targets and and and.... Make no mistake that helps.

I've bow hunted. And no, you have nowhere near the accuracy on a hunt that you have plinking away at leisure on your range. And yes, I used both a recurve and compound bow for hunting, and no I had none of the modern gadgetry, aside from the second bow being a compound (which makes a lot of difference in and of itself*).



* I would actually argue for extending the Aiming bonus when using a compound as, if your target sits still long enough, you can really take your time lining up your aim, looking for windage, estimating distance, etc. If using a non-compound bow there needs to be some level of "and here is where your arm starts shaking" introduced to foul Extended Aiming.