Re: [WW] Aimed Fire and so on...

["nvdoyle" <nvdoyle@home.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <gathomas4@juno.com>
To: <weirdwars@gamerz.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: [WW] Aimed Fire and so on...


> Aimed fire just doesn't compare to Getting the Drop.

No, it doesn't, nor should it.

> WW:BotR109 under Aimed Fire states that a full round of aiming grants a
> +2 bonus.  This is something my players will never use since it's just
> not worth it.  With the exception of the Hetzer (AC17), most vehicles are
> not that hard to hit (AC12-14), so they'll opt to fire two unaimed shots
> rather than one aimed shot.

Long-range fire. The Aimed Fire bonus eliminates the penalties for a whole
range increment, and Getting the Drop doesn't/shouldn't apply outside of the
first range band. Non-snipers, unobserved - which is -not- Getting the Drop.
That moment of calm, collected professionalism, when everyone else is
blazing away, and you take your time to make the shot -just- right...

> On the other hand, since anyone in a position to do all that aiming is
> probably in a position to Get the Drop (WW:BotR92) why not apply the
> Getting the Drop rule to vehicle combat as well?

GtD (Getting the Drop) seems to be a uniquely 'human' thing - it's when the
target -knows- they're caught, and pauses, just for a second, or less.
Vehicle combat is far less personal. And when you've got a crew, you've got
buddies there who can help. Now - a vehicle could GtD on a person, I would
think.

> What's up with the weapon damages (WW:BotR80)?  An M2 firing a .50BR
> round does only slightly more damage than a BAR firing a .30-06 round
> (not sure about that, but i've held both rounds in my hands and there's a
> big difference).  The BAR and the M1 Garand do the SAME damage as the M1
> carbine?  Not a chance, i've fired all three and if they felt that
> different on my shoulder, there has to be a difference on my target.

I've got to agree there, somewhat, that was something that had been sticking
in my mind. The base damages aren't bad, but .50BMG is a -huge- round. I
fully agree with the 0 PV rating. But here's the rub - the 20mm cannon is
rated, AP, at 3d10.
But the average grunt has 5.5 HP.
More averages:
2d6 (9mm) 7 points (2-12, 14 point avg. CH)
2d6+2 (.45 ACP) 9 points (4-14, 18 point avg. CH)
2d8 (7.92mm, .30-06, .303, .30 Carbine*) 9 points (2-16, 18 point avg. CH)
2d10 (.50BMG) 11 points (2-20, 33 point avg. CH)

An -average- hit, from all of those, will drop your Grt 1. Let alone
criticals, -all- of which are 19-20/x2 (.50BMG is x3).
Now, granted, your NPC Veteran, Grt4, has 27 HP. He can stand up to a lot
more. But, as it's been made clear, HPs are not -just- physical damage, but
a combination of a lot of things, and they don't necessarily scale
mathematically. Despite how much I might want them to, in both cases. :) So,
a Grt4 can take two .50BMG rounds, and not die? Not necessarily. The HP to
him is not exactly the same HP to the Grt1. Same number, different effect.
It's not perfect, far from it - maximum damage still won't drop him, but a
critical sure would.

For sort of a reality check/fudge, there's been several studies done about
combat - mostly in Vietnam - showing that green troops would die from wounds
that a seasoned soldier would live through; less shock, less fear, less
stress, more determination, etc. So, it's something. :)

As for the .30 carbine round...I don't think it should be 2d8 either,
really - but it's hard to find a middle ground. I think that .45 ACP should
be 2d6+1(8 pt avg, 3-13, 16 pt avg CH) and the .30 2d8-1 (8 pt avg, 1-15, 16
pt avg CH). Not as much damage, but better penetration, higher velocity
round. Granted, the .45ACP was a -very- damaging round, but 4 points minimum
is a little high...

> WW:BotR89 under Shotguns states that "In game terms, any character using
> a shotgun gains a +2 bonus to her ranged attack roll, and an additional
> +2 bonus for each range increment beyond the first, up to a maximum bonus
> of +6."  PHB118 states that "each full range increment causes a
> cumulative -2 penalty to the attack roll [not including the first]."
> That would mean that a single barrel shotgun (range increment 30)
> effectively gains a +2 attack bonus out to 90 feet.  This doesn't jive at
> all with the summary table given on WW:BotR89.  Rather than an attack
> bonus of +0, +1, +2, +3; shouldn't it be +2 for the first three
> increments and then -2 for the fourth, -4 for the fifth, and so on?  Or
> is the bonus on the table to damage and not attack rolls?

Text
1st band: +2
2nd band: +2+2-2=+2
3rd band: +2+4-4=+2
4th band: +2-6=-4
5th band: +2-8=-6

Table - with modifiers applied to range penalties
1st band: +2+1=+3
2nd band: +2+2-2=+2
3rd band: +2+3-4=+1
4th band: +2-6=-5
5th band: +2-8=-6

I think we need errata on this one...

> WW:BotR69 under "Crew" says "If there is a second number, this is the
> number of passengers the vehicle can carry."  There are no second
> numbers.  The number of passengers is usually in the vehicle description,
> but not always.  How many troops can the Trucks (73, 75, 79) carry?  How
> about the M3 halftrack (76)?

Good questions. PEG?

> WW:BotR107 under Hull/Body Critical Damage the "71-90 Fire" entry says
> "Crew members can make a Dexterity Check (DC25) to extinguish the flames.
>  Each successful check reduces the flame damage by one die."  Crew
> members will not be able to make any ability check with a DC25.  Unless
> there's a chaplain throwing miracles (like bless) around, even a Wehrwolf
> would cook to death before making a single DEX check with a DC25.  There
> is a big difference in a D20 character's ability to make saves (like REF)
> and his ability to make ability checks (like DEX).

Another good point. Firefighting equipment, perhaps? The FOR save to avoid
stunning when a tank brews up (same page) is also DC 25, almost
do-able...well, except you've already taken 5d10 damage, and if you're
stunned, another 3d8 next round, and the next...

> I'm sorry, but the Wichtlein (WW:BotR173) are Kobolds.  My group, which
> has been playing D&D3E for about a year, will likely not be the only ones
> to think so.

Well, sure - and there are zombies, and 'orcs', and things like that. So
what? If they don't like kobolds, then dont put them in, or play them
differently - sneaky and vicious, say, they are as smart as humans...

Noah
nvdoyle@home.com