Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for

Rupert · 02-05-2021, 06:24 AM

One thing I'd like to point out: A lot of people have claimed here and in other places that you need higher skill levels to reflect professional levels in things like combat skills.

I disagree. Guns-12 and proper use of modifiers for day-to-day situations is enough to reflect most skilled shooter's performance at the range, and without those reflects combat performance fairly well too (possibly too well). It also works for your trained policeman with a pistol in many fire-fights, as they tend to see very low hit rates (due to poor lighting, etc.). Guns-10 gets about the right results for badly trained people, such as gang members, cops who only normally use their gun once a year and on the range at that, and so on.

Note that using an Acc 5(+2) hunting rifle, with Guns-12 at shot at 200m at a person or other SM+0 target (a deer, say) has: Guns-12 - 12 (range) +5 (Acc) +2 (scope) +2 (time aiming) +1 (braced) +1 (AoA) = 11- to hit. A hunter who often does this probably gets a bonus, especially if it's in their 'home' hunting area, where they'll know the range precisely because they know the terrain intimately, increasing their hit chance even in poor light. For a 'marksman' sniping an 11- seems fair, considering they'll be under a fair bit of stress, if only because as soon as they fire they'll probably come under fire themselves.

A sniper with a good rifle (Acc 6) and more skill (Guns-14) will be making Vitals attacks, and even without a better scope and/or match-grade ammo will hit the torso on a 12-.

These numbers look good to me, and show that soldiers, even elite ones, with skill levels over 14 should be very rare. Of course if the PCs are themselves highly skilled it's quite reasonable that their more noteworthy foes are also highly skilled.

02-05-2021, 06:24 AM	#11
Rupert Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Wellington, NZ	Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for One thing I'd like to point out: A lot of people have claimed here and in other places that you need higher skill levels to reflect professional levels in things like combat skills. I disagree. Guns-12 and proper use of modifiers for day-to-day situations is enough to reflect most skilled shooter's performance at the range, and without those reflects combat performance fairly well too (possibly too well). It also works for your trained policeman with a pistol in many fire-fights, as they tend to see very low hit rates (due to poor lighting, etc.). Guns-10 gets about the right results for badly trained people, such as gang members, cops who only normally use their gun once a year and on the range at that, and so on. Note that using an Acc 5(+2) hunting rifle, with Guns-12 at shot at 200m at a person or other SM+0 target (a deer, say) has: Guns-12 - 12 (range) +5 (Acc) +2 (scope) +2 (time aiming) +1 (braced) +1 (AoA) = 11- to hit. A hunter who often does this probably gets a bonus, especially if it's in their 'home' hunting area, where they'll know the range precisely because they know the terrain intimately, increasing their hit chance even in poor light. For a 'marksman' sniping an 11- seems fair, considering they'll be under a fair bit of stress, if only because as soon as they fire they'll probably come under fire themselves. A sniper with a good rifle (Acc 6) and more skill (Guns-14) will be making Vitals attacks, and even without a better scope and/or match-grade ammo will hit the torso on a 12-. These numbers look good to me, and show that soldiers, even elite ones, with skill levels over 14 should be very rare. Of course if the PCs are themselves highly skilled it's quite reasonable that their more noteworthy foes are also highly skilled. __________________ Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."