Evening all,
Those of you who were at York last weekend may remember I expressed some dissatisfaction with how weapon range bands work in Inq2. On my way home I thought more about an alternative system which I rather like and would appreciate some feedback on. Although intended as a discussion point for Inq2, there's no reason why the system couldn't be used with the original rules.
The current Inq2 is good in that it gets rid of the need to constantly look up range modifiers in a table and working out the modifiers is very simple, however I don't like the big steps in the modifier between the different bands. My suggestion is as follows;
- Each ranged weapon has a range band made up of two numbers, e.g. 10/2.
- The first number is the zero-range, the range at which the to-hit modifier is zero.
- The second number is the range increment.
- For every yard the target is closer than the zero-range, you get a to-hit bonus equal to the range increment (up to a maximum of 20%).
- For every yard the target is further than the zero-range, you get a negative to to-hit modifier equal to the range increment.
Example 1
Trooper Stone is firing at a cultist 10 yards away. His Necromunda pattern lasgun is range 12/3.
The cultist is 2 yards closer than the zero-range of the lasgun.
Stone's to-hit modifier is therefore +6. I.e. 2 multiplied by the range increment of the lasgun (3); 2*3=6.
Example 2
The cultist survives the lasgun hit and returns fire with his autopistol; the range is still 10 yards and his autopistol is range 5/2.
Stone is 5 yards further away than the zero-range of the autopistol.
The cultists to-hit modifier is therefore -10. I.e. 5 multiplied by the range increment of the autopistol (2); 5*2=10.
A rough equivalency of my proposed range system to the original range bands is given below (I've ignored H & I because they're weird);
A: 5/2
B: 5/1
C: 10/1
D: 15/1
E: 12/3
F: 15/2
G: 5/½
H: -
I: -
J: 10/2
Obviously, there would still be a fair amount of tweaking to be done to decide on the best range for each weapon - but I don't really want to get into that now - my suggestions above were just to give a rough idea how the system could compare...
The advantages I see to my system over the current Inq2 version are that you don't get the sudden steps in to-hit modifier when a target is just inside/outside a range band, and that you get a lot more flexibility in how the accuracy of a weapon changes over distance. The range bands are still easy to remember (for example a shotgun might be 12/3 and an autopistol 5/2 etc), and there are no annoying tables to lookup. Also, the calculations are easy to do so although there is more maths in my system, it doesn't require any difficult mental arithmetic - just subtraction and multiplication. Unlike the current range bands, the ranges in my system are all linear, but I think the simplicity of this system more than makes up for that.
Some weapon ranges in my system map quite well to their Inq1 counterparts - for example A (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t286/kaled100/Random%20Pics/bandA.jpg), B (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t286/kaled100/Random%20Pics/bandB.jpg) & E (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t286/kaled100/Random%20Pics/bandE.jpg); whereas others aren't quite so good, F (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t286/kaled100/Random%20Pics/bandF.jpg) for example. (As well as the Inq1 range band, I've also graphed some common Inq2 ranges for comparision.)
So, what do you think?
- Dave
Seems good. I'm unsure of the bonuses for being less than zero range though. Does shooting need that kind of boost?
I'd save it for a special rule, not for all guns.
It's a good idea. I've spared quite a bit of thought on alternate range rules, and did have an idea along these lines, though it wasn't as refined and didn't have the 'zero range' only an incremant value. I found the weakness of the idea was the limeted number of ranges that could be applied. Really you've only got 4 range bands, relating to the range increments 1, 2, 3 and 1/2. You could sqeeze out 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 to get 6 range bands, but otherwise you're going to have to deal with some really fiddly numbers. Let me justify why I've not taken the zero range into accout here. If you compare your range bands B, C and D isn't C the same as B with +5 acc, and D the same as C with +5 acc or B with +10 acc.
Of course you might say that 6 is plenty of range bands, you've got Heavy weapon/Sniper rifle, Long rifle, Rifle, Carbine/Shotgun, SMG/Long pistol and Pistol. However I think this lacks versitility.
The rules I currently use are that each weapon is assigned an 'effective range'. At that range they are at -50 to hit. Whatever the range to the target is compaired to the effective range is the penalty to hit compaired to -50.
I.e. at 1/2 the effective range the shot is at 1/2 x -50 = -25 to hit.
The increments used (nearest yard, nearest 5 yards, nearest 10 yards etc.) are up to the GM based on the pace of the game, the mathematical apperatus available and the importance of the shot.
So for a range 75 autocarbine firing 58 yards the GM can say 'thats about 3/4 of the range so call it -35 to hit' or he could say 'well that is 77.3% of the effective range so -38.7 to hit (which would obviously round to -39)'. Alternatively he could say 'That falls between 3/4 of the effective range and the whole effective range so -50,' or if he were being a bit more precise 'that falls between 3/4 and 4/5 so -40 to hit.
To show the versitility of this system, example effective ranges are 15 for a snub stubber, 20 for a basic stubber, 25 for a laspistol or precision stubber, 30 for an SMG or dueling laspistol, 35 for a needle pistol. 50 for a shotgun, 70 for a bolter, 80 for an autogun, 90 for a high calibre autogun, 100 for a lasgun, 120 for a sniper rifle,and 130 for a long las.
The system looks good and I'm certainly considering it (I did get your email, Dave) for INQ2, as there were a few occasions in playtesting last week when it really was a matter of a quarter of an inch whether a character did or did not get a +20 or -20 modifier to hit. It's essentially the same system with a greater number of steps, summarized elegantly.
@Adlan - The point of giving a bonus to hit at short range is to give players genuine tactical decisions to make: either charge into a fight or stand off and blast him. With the wide variety of modifiers in favour of each option, the right choice is never an easy one to make.
R.
While I agree more gradual increments would be an improvement, I do have one small criticism-at the moment any deviation of an inch or greater from the zero range will result in a modifiers, and I'd rather there was more of a distance that was neutral. One of the things I liked about the inq2 system, as well as being a lot easier than the range bands, was that shots at 'normal' range, which constituted a fair proportion of shot's fired rolled to hit on the firer's basic BS value, with penalty's or bonuses reserved for long or short ranged shots. I feel that's a good mechanic to have in place, so how about making "zero range" a range band instead of a fixed point, for example 5-10 would mean a weapon could be fired without modifier from 5 to 10 yards. Also, I'd recommend keeping the sharp cut-off for 'extreme range' since that *is* intended to denote firing a weapon far beyond it's intended use, and therefore should be very difficult.
But sharp cutoffs are the problem that Kaled is trying to address. The idea that the shot would be conciderably easier or harder on the basis of a single yard is the problem.
In the case that Holiad gives, 10 would be the zero range. Ranges of less than 10 yards would grant a positive modifier of between +1 and +5 (in the case of a 10/1 weapon) - differences that could make all the difference.
R.
Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on November 13, 2009, 07:16:42 PM
Really you've only got 4 range bands, relating to the range increments 1, 2, 3 and 1/2. You could sqeeze out 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 to get 6 range bands
1 1/2 and 2 1/2 seem like they'd pose problems for those people who aren't great at mental maths. I hesitated a long time before including 1/2, but figured that one wasn't too difficult for people to calculate in their heads. The idea was to have a system that requires very little in the way of calculations - something that would be my main criticism of your system (especially if there isn't a GM to wing it). Obviously there's more variety in Inq1 than in my system, but I figured that the loss of a bit of versatility was worth it in the name of simplicity. And given that some of the Inq1 range bands are hardly used, a reduction in the number of bands didn't seem like too much of a loss.
QuoteIf you compare your range bands B, C and D isn't C the same as B with +5 acc, and D the same as C with +5 acc or B with +10 acc.
True, that is a good point - we can get rid of the Acc. statistic for the weapon.
Quote from: Holiad on November 14, 2009, 12:40:01 AM
While I agree more gradual increments would be an improvement, I do have one small criticism-at the moment any deviation of an inch or greater from the zero range will result in a modifiers, and I'd rather there was more of a distance that was neutral.
True, however the modifiers at that range will be small, and I guess you could round the modifiers off to the nearest 5. I did consider a few other ideas, such as working in increments of 5 yards (or even having different increments for different weapons) but it seemed easier to just stick to 1 yard increments. I felt that being able to describe a weapon's range in terms of just two numbers was the neatest solution, although I also considered a three number system where you had a zero-range and different increments for close and long range, but any benefit didn't seem worth the extra complexity. Also I quite liked the idea that the exact range has a direct bearing on the modifier rather than having bands, but I appreciate that's a matter of personal preference.
QuoteAlso, I'd recommend keeping the sharp cut-off for 'extreme range' since that *is* intended to denote firing a weapon far beyond it's intended use, and therefore should be very difficult.
I guess you could do that easily enough using this system, however I figured that 'maximum' range (I assume that's the one you meant as that's the one where you need the 01-05 to hit) is quite unlikely to crop up anyway and under my system there would be a hefty modifier at that range anyway - hence I figured it wasn't worth making a special rule for.
To expand on this idea, I also had a couple of thoughts about how some of the gunsights could work with this system (I hope they work - I haven't thought them through in too much detail);
- Range-finder - any negative to-hit modifier as a result of firing at at target beyond the zero-range of the weapon is halved.
- Telescopic Sight - the zero-range of the weapon is increased to 20 (or 25?), but no to-hit bonus is applied when firing at a target closer than this distance.
Quote from: precinctomega on November 14, 2009, 08:45:58 AM
In the case that Holiad gives, 10 would be the zero range. Ranges of less than 10 yards would grant a positive modifier of between +1 and +5 (in the case of a 10/1 weapon) - differences that could make all the difference.
R.
Actually, the example I would have modifiers for ranges below 5, or above ten, with 5-10 having no modifiers. Like I said, I feel it's a good basic premise that for shots at "normal range", you use basic BS, so I'd rather keep that range more or less as it is rather than reduce it to a single point.
Quote from: Kaled on November 14, 2009, 11:34:00 AM
QuoteIf you compare your range bands B, C and D isn't C the same as B with +5 acc, and D the same as C with +5 acc or B with +10 acc.
True, that is a good point - we can get rid of the Acc. statistic for the weapon.
Actually, I'm inclined to say that's another reason to have larger normal bands-a long range shouldn't automatically equate to a large accuracy bonus at medium ranges. Possibly put a cap on the bonus possible for short range?
Quote from: Holiad on November 14, 2009, 12:40:01 AM
While I agree more gradual increments would be an improvement, I do have one small criticism-at the moment any deviation of an inch or greater from the zero range will result in a modifiers, and I'd rather there was more of a distance that was neutral.
True, however the modifiers at that range will be small, and I guess you could round the modifiers off to the nearest 5. I did consider a few other ideas, such as working in increments of 5 yards (or even having different increments for different weapons) but it seemed easier to just stick to 1 yard increments. I felt that being able to describe a weapon's range in terms of just two numbers was the neatest solution, although I also considered a three number system where you had a zero-range and different increments for close and long range, but any benefit didn't seem worth the extra complexity. Also I quite liked the idea that the exact range has a direct bearing on the modifier rather than having bands, but I appreciate that's a matter of personal preference.
QuoteAlso, I'd recommend keeping the sharp cut-off for 'extreme range' since that *is* intended to denote firing a weapon far beyond it's intended use, and therefore should be very difficult.
I guess you could do that easily enough using this system, however I figured that 'maximum' range (I assume that's the one you meant as that's the one where you need the 01-05 to hit) is quite unlikely to crop up anyway and under my system there would be a hefty modifier at that range anyway - hence I figured it wasn't worth making a special rule for.[/quote]
Actually I was talking about the -50 for firing a weapon at over double its range band, which did come up once or twice, and as I said does represent shooting a weapon far outside its intended parameters-in the cases in question, the combatants were snap firing pistols at long distances with no aiming involved, which should be a very difficult shot.
I really don't think that 4 range bands are enough. The differences between the zero ranges aren't really significant. You say that the acc stat, but surely it's simpler to have a range stat with a single value, and an acc value which is the same as it is in Inc 1.
Quote from: Holiad on November 14, 2009, 12:02:29 PM
Actually, the example I would have modifiers for ranges below 5, or above ten, with 5-10 having no modifiers. Like I said, I feel it's a good basic premise that for shots at "normal range", you use basic BS, so I'd rather keep that range more or less as it is rather than reduce it to a single point.
So you're suggesting weapons be given range statistics such as 5-10/2 - i.e. a
zero-range band and a
range increment. That doesn't sound too bad to me, except that it reduces the positive modifier for being at close range. Another option I considered was the positive modifers could be based on the weapon type, with pistols being easier to use at close range than basic weapons, which in turn are easier to use up close than heavy weapons.
QuoteActually, I'm inclined to say that's another reason to have larger normal bands-a long range shouldn't automatically equate to a large accuracy bonus at medium ranges. Possibly put a cap on the bonus possible for short range?
I capped the positive modifier at 20%, but that was just an arbitrary number I picked as it matched the bonus in Inq2.
QuoteActually I was talking about the -50 for firing a weapon at over double its range band, which did come up once or twice, and as I said does represent shooting a weapon far outside its intended parameters-in the cases in question, the combatants were snap firing pistols at long distances with no aiming involved, which should be a very difficult shot.
But in the current Inq2 system that same pistol can be fired at 40 yards just as easily as at 20 yards. To address your concern though, I'd say it's a matter of tweaking the weapon range in my system - for example a range 12/3 pistol will have a -50% modifier at about 30-odd yards. You could adjust that by making it 5/3 and it'd be -50% at around 20-odd yards. As I said, there's still plenty of work to do to decide on the appropriate ranges for each weapon. I just like the idea of having one system that works across the whole range of the weapon.
EDIT:
Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on November 14, 2009, 12:55:43 PM
The differences between the zero ranges aren't really significant.
I thought the same at first, but when I started putting models on the table and working out the ranges & modifers I decided that the difference was significant enough and the system feels quite good (to me anyway).
One thing that sprang to mind for increasing the number of distinct range bands was to alter the definition of range increment.
Essentially range increment goes from being the modifier applied per yard difference from the zero-range, and instead is the number of yards difference at which a modifier (assume 5% for now, as it's a good number to start with, even if it might not be the most appropriate one in practice) is applied.
It might be easier to explain with an example.
A Guardsman is firing an an oncoming cultist with his Kantrael-pattern Lasgun (zero-range 12y, increment 2y); the cultist is 30 yards away. As the enemy is 9 full range increments from the Guardsman, the guardsman takes a -45% penalty on his attack roll.
As you'd only count full range increments, anything within 1 range increment either way of the weapon's zero-range suffers no penalty, granting an inherent zero-range band without having to specify it (so for the abovementioned Kantrael-pattern lasgun, anything more than 10 yards but less than 14 yards is within the weapon's zero-range, as that covers everything within one range increment either way of the zero-range of 12 yards).
I like the sound of NO1H3r3's suggestion, it feels like a simpler way of having a greater spread of range bands, and would be a lot simpler to calculate.
With this you could have a sniper rifle that does not lose or gain much accuracy as the distance changes a lot easier, rather than having some small fraction like 1/3 per yard you could have an increment of 10 (I know they don't equate) and therefore make life a lot easier, but without having ridiculous jumps.
How about this for a quick and dirty fix? After four "zero ranges", you start applying double the hit modifier for each yard beyond that distance.
So for a 10/2 weapon being used at 60 yards (an unusually long way for Inquisitor, but what the hey.)
You apply -2 per yard for the 30 yards between 10 yards and 40 yards, then -4 per yard for the next 20 yards, making for a total of -140.
It reintroduces the concept of an extreme range (but without it being a hard cut off). Yeah, it's a little more complex, but it could work.
The 12/3 equivalence for Range E would however need fixing, because that would give it a longer "extreme range" than it should have.
You could also throw a little more on that, say a letter suffix that tells you whether you get close range bonuses, penalties (which would make Range Band H easier to reincorporate, particularly if Acc was kept as a minor thing) ... or just no +/- at close range at all.
Like that, it's a pretty versatile system, and actually offers a more accurate way of representing accuracy and range than the current system.
I never much liked Acc as a way of representing accuracy (even though I've used it in the RIA), because in reality, a super pin-point accurate weapon is no advantage at short range, but it's a big bonus at long range (unlike the completely constant bonus it offers under the Inq 1 rules).
Quote from: The_fire_cleans on November 15, 2009, 01:32:21 PM
I like the sound of NO1H3r3's suggestion, it feels like a simpler way of having a greater spread of range bands, and would be a lot simpler to calculate.
Interesting that you say that - I considered an idea much like N01H3r3's but felt that subtraction and multiplication was easier than subtraction and division. Some players ability to do maths in their head is pretty poor, but I guess as long as you kept the range increments to easy number then I think this idea would work fine too.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on November 15, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
You could also throw a little more on that, say a letter suffix that tells you whether you get close range bonuses, penalties (which would make Range Band H easier to reincorporate
The main reason I didn't worry too much about losing range H was that PO has some rules for Executioner shells in Inq2 that seem pretty good (and none of the other common weapons use that range band).
On the subject of range bands, I've just done a quick tally on how many weapons in the rulebook use each range band (A: 10, B: 2, C: 7, D: 3, E: 19, F: 7, G: 1, H: 2, I: 4, J: 5). And when it comes to weapons that are commonly used in games I'd say the common ones crop up even more. Thus I don't think having only four increments in my system is a major problem. The zero-ranges make a fair difference, and in most games we're only dealing with ranges well under 30 yards anyway.
There's a range of good ideas in this thread - hopefully enough to give Robey some food for thought as to which might fit well into the Inq2 ruleset. I guess what's needed now is some playtesting of the various options...
Quote from: Kaled on November 15, 2009, 04:33:21 PMThe main reason I didn't worry too much about losing range H was that PO has some rules for Executioner shells in Inq2 that seem pretty good (and none of the other common weapons use that range band).
Well, that's much what I did for the RIA - other than one type of scope that "overlays" Range band H over another band, only tracking ammunition uses Range H.
(Similarly, I've practically scrapped Band I, because there appears to be little sane reason to apply it.)
Anyway, I have little idea about the INQ2 rules other than odd snippets (most of which were lost in the forum crash), so you'll have to forgive my ignorance of them. I'm forced into viewing this from the perspective of how it would fit into my games.
QuoteA Guardsman is firing an an oncoming cultist with his Kantrael-pattern Lasgun (zero-range 12y, increment 2y); the cultist is 30 yards away. As the enemy is 9 full range increments from the Guardsman, the guardsman takes a -45% penalty on his attack roll.
Is that 9 full increments from the guardsman or from the zero range (my maths suggests the latter). Similarly to Kaled's scheme I had an idea like this, but I never thought that the modifier for each increment could be anything other that 1. I scrapped it because it meant working with range incerments of fractions of inches, but obviously that isn't so much of a hinderance here.
This system to suffers from a limeted number of range bands. Also systems where the to hit modifier is a multiple of 5 seems to squander the D100 system of inquisitor and would be better suited to a D20 system where 5% is the smallest possible increment.
I think I still favour my modded version of rules that I think are ripped off INQ 2. I tried to explain them before but garbled it a bit, but basically, each weapon is given an 'effective' range is the range at which it suffers -50% to hit and the to hit penalty is proportional to the range (i.e. at half the effective range the to hit penalty is -25%).
The number of increments that are used (i.e. weather the range is rounded to the nearest 5, 10 or whatever) and thus the precision to which the to hit modifier is worked out can be chosen by the individual GM based on the circumstance (e.g. with a sniper shot that is pivotal to the outcome of the game he might want to spare a few seconds to work out the modifier to the nearest yard.)
Marco, I really like your 'dirty' fix to Kaled's rules as they solve the issue (well it was an issue for me) of the limeted number of range bands, though it does up the complexity. I suppose it won't be an issue at short-medium ranges so the added complexity would only apply to the longer ranged shots, where a bit more tension and complexity might be appropriate.
I've been playing around with the ideas suggested by Cade & N01H3r3.
N01H3r3's idea works well - range increments 2 to 10 look good, but some of those make for difficult calculations (7 for example). The main problem is that you don't really get much of a positive to hit modifier, especially with the larger increments (as only full increments count) - and a positive modifier was deliberate choice for the Inq2 rules. Otherwise I like the idea - it's fairly easy to calculate and gives a nice spread of modifiers.
I'm less keen on Cade's idea. I don't know about other people, but I think the calculations it needs are less than easy. For example, if the weapon's effective range is 20, and the target is 27 yards away, then what's the modifier? Even a rough calculation takes some thought. Also, it doesn't give any positive modifier up close, and although it theoretically has a lot of flexibility in the ranges - in practise you'd need to stick to 'easy' numbers or the numbers become even more unworkable, and thus a lot of the flexibility is lost.
Suppose you just had a base accuracy for a weapon, then a range increment for, say, each -5 (maybe -10 for each increment after the 4th). then all you have to calculate is straight multiples, most of which were drilled into us at an early age.
So a laspistol (currently range 12?) could be +20, 3, so 0 hit modifier at 12", -20 at 24, etc.
I haven't worked out how well this would work in terms of specific range bands - it strikes me that weapons could lose accuracy too slowly on a linear scale.
QuoteFor example, if the weapon's effective range is 20, and the target is 27 yards away, then what's the modifier? Even a rough calculation takes some thought.
If I were GMing I'd want a pocket calculator and could give an accurate modifier really quickly. without I'd say 27 is a bit more than the effective range, not quite half again so call it -70 with no difficulty. Certainly no harder than subtracting 12 from 27 and dividing by three.
A bit more though gives modifier -68 (20/5 =4 therefore every 4 yards is -10. 1 3/4 of 10 is 17.5, so thew modifier is -67.5 = -68. This took me a few seconds in my head but if maths isn't the GM's strong suit then he could
stick to approximations or have his mobile out with the calculator function.
I also use a point blank shot rule that gives +5% to hit for every yard closer than 10 the target is.
Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on November 17, 2009, 12:50:54 AM
A bit more though gives modifier -68 (20/5 =4 therefore every 4 yards is -10. 1 3/4 of 10 is 17.5, so thew modifier is -67.5 = -68.
Where did the 1 3/4 of 10 come from?
Also, if you give a positive modifier for being closer than 10 yards, then at 9 yards you get +5 and at 10 it's -25 which seems weird.
A range increment of seven by NO1H3r3's definition wouldn't be that hard to calulate. suppose someone was 79 yds away, and you were to fire a long las at them, which I'm arbitrarily giving 12/7. they're 67 yards beyond zero range, and the nearest multiple of seven below 67 is 63, so they are 9 full increments away. so they would have a penalty of -45%. easy enough if you've learned your times tables, and it doesn't have to deal with messy fractions at all.
if you wanted non linear loss of accuracy, then you could have a symbol which means you 5 times the number of increments covered squared. That would be quite complex for people though, cos after 12 most people don't know their times tables off by heart.
hmmm.
QuoteWhere did the 1 3/4 of 10 come from?
Every 4 yards is -10 to hit. 7 yards = 1 3/4 x 4 yards which equates to 1 3/4 x -10 to hit = - 17.5 to hit, so given that the first twenty yards is -50 the other 7 yards are another -17.5.
The point blank rule is supposed to be as well as the range rule, so at 9 yards the modifier is -23 +5, so -18 in total. Than isn't enough positive is it? Maybe it should start at 10 yard rather than 9 and be +10 to hit per yard, or maybe +10 for pistols only. That would give -15 at 10 yards, -3 at 9, +10 at 8, +22 at 7, +35 at 6, +43 at 5, +60 at 4. Are those reasonable numbers do you think?
An underpinning principle behind INQ2 is that it should be more friendly towards one-on-one, un-GM'd games. To that end, I try as far as possible to leave as little rules decision-making in the GM's hands as I can. So that effectively counts out any solution that requires the GM to use judgement. Moreover, I am trying to make the maths as mental as possible for even the mathematically-challenged amongst us.
I like N01-H3R3's suggestion and will look into it as a fix to Dave's proposal.
Another principle of INQ2 is to make the Core Rules as "simple" as possible (within the limits of a skirmish simulator, which must necessarily be complex). The complexity has been exported to the Character and Armoury sections.
So, for example, in my current range system, shots at short range are at +20 to hit and at long range are at -20. But if a character is using an optic sight, these modifier switch around (replicating the intent and effect of the infamous Range Band H). I'm not sure how I would apply the same thing to Kaled's/N01's suggestions, but I'm sure I can work it out.
The idea is that new players can build simple characters with off-the-shelf equipment and get straight into the game without too much confusion (as the Joker said to the Thief). But that experienced players can go to town with all sorts of wacky variations and twists. And that the former kind of player can take on the latter kind on equal terms.
R.
Quote from: precinctomega on November 17, 2009, 08:09:19 PMMoreover, I am trying to make the maths as mental as possible for even the mathematically-challenged amongst us.
The learning disabled amongst us thank you.
It's been while since I've been on here, and I can't remember my old username. Ah well!
Anyway,
I think the suggestion of a 'zero band' and modifiers per yard is the best method.
It accurately represents the ideas behind the original range bands, and has a reasonable level of variation, with both the increments, and the 'zero band'.
It also has the (most important) benefits of being easy to understand, and easy to work out.
I am mildly dyslexic, and I find this by far the easiest method to work out. The percentage method gets impossible with out a calculator very easily.
As to dividing/multiplying, Multiplying is much easier to do on fingers, and ends up with less nasty fractions!
Just thinking...
If I understand Kaled's rule suggestion clearly, if a target is closer than the zero range, then you gain a bonus to your chances of success up to a maximum of +20, but if they're further away than the zero range, you take a penalty.
So, why not just have the zero range right back at where the modifier would be +20, and then start taking penalties from there on? That way, you wouldn't need to have both penalties and bonuses to complicate matters, and with the addition of the +20% modifier, the calculation of the penalty would in effect come to the same required dice roll as the current method. You would just have penalties to think about.
Just for info:
I've adapted these rules into INQ2, with weapons having a bipartite range, such as "12/2", where the first part is the optimum range and the second is the increment. The modifier for ranges longer than the optimum is -((range-optimum) x increment) and for ranges shorter than the optimum is +((optimum-range) x increment).
In case you're wondering at what point the positive modifier stops, it's at the point where either the attacker or the defender can reach the other with a melee weapon they are actually wielding. At that point it becomes combat. So two characters facing off with pistols at 4 yards are still shooting. But it one of them has a halberd (reach 4) it becomes combat.
R.
Are you planning to run another Inq2 playtest next year some time? I staged a few 'gunfights' to get a feel for how these rules might work, but that was in isolation from the rest of the rules - I'm keen to see how they actually work in a proper game.
QuoteIn case you're wondering at what point the positive modifier stops, it's at the point where either the attacker or the defender can reach the other with a melee weapon they are actually wielding. At that point it becomes combat. So two characters facing off with pistols at 4 yards are still shooting. But it one of them has a halberd (reach 4) it becomes combat.
Not really related to the rest of this thread, but your comment jogged my memory - I remember in one playtest game there was some confusion about whether characters were in combat or not. I think it was when two characters were in combat and a third was just standing around unobserved by one/both of the first too (but within reach of at least one of them). Might be worth adding some additional explanation to the rules...
"Where a character may or may not be involved in a combat, according to these rules, it is up to the controlling player whether to count them as such or not."
How's that?
R.
I was thinking more of clarifying the rules for being locked. At the minute a character is locked if they have attacked or been attacked - if they haven't yet done either then I'd suggest they aren't yet in combat, but as soon as they do either then they are. Also the rules say that combat is initiated by an Attack, Charge or Sneak Attack - I assume that in this case Attack includes Fire Ranged Weapon? (And All Out Attack for that matter?)
Hm. Thought I'd eliminated all references to being locked - that was a passing stage in development that I dropped.
And I will clarify that thing about initiating a combat. Basically, if one character in any group can reach at least one other character and one of those characters makes an Action which, if successful, would cause a damage roll, then combat has been initiated (so, yes, it's possible to initiate combat with a psychic power or with a ranged weapon, as long as the initiating character is wielding a weapon with a reach that would mean they could have hit their opponent had they chosen to).
Does that make sense?
Ending combat occurs when the above isn't possible.
R.