Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

[Vassoom]

I'd like to solicit some more advice from the Dark Champions gurus out there.

 

In my hero-level near-future Dark Champions game, nearly everyone uses firearms, although there are still times when either one of the characters or a bad guy moves in for good ol' hand-to-hand combat.

 

The problem arises when the characters (or villains) elect to shoot at someone who is in the midst of a HTH melee. What happens when the attacker with the firearm (or missile weapon) misses, and how often might an unintended target be struck? Putting aside for the moment the "Combat Shooting" Talent (DC, page 90), let's look at what the book says happens.

 

Page 179 of Dark Champions addresses this issue, but the official ruling bothers me for two reasons. The ruling states that the GM can use the Concealment rules to help determine the likelihood of striking someone other than the target. I don't have a problem with this aspect of the ruling. However, it then goes on to state that if the attack is deemed to miss but is less than or equal to the Concealment penalty applied, the GM should determine the likely candidate among the unintended targets, and then the following second attack roll is made:

 

"The attacker must make another Attack Roll against that target, using only his base OCV from DEX (no bonuses from Combat Skill Levels, Combat Maneuvers, or the like apply). If that Attack Roll hits, the attacker's shot has accidentally hit someone other than his intended target!" [emphasis mine]

I have emphasized the portions of the ruling that gives me trouble, namely:

1. The OCV used to determine whether or not the unintended target is struck is the base OCV from DEX, and
   
2. The attacker gets no adjustments for Combat Skill Levels or Combat Maneuvers, etc.

These two parts strikes me as antithetical for two reasons. The first is that according to this framework, the more Dexterous you are (e.g., the higher your base OCV is), the more likely you are to hit an unintended target whenever you miss! Secondly, (barring the use of the Combat Shooting Talent), an expertly trained marksman is just as likely as a completely unskilled shooter to strike the unintended target, i.e., there is no "reward" for practice/skill levels here. (As a corollary, by excluding maneuvers, a carefully lined up shot is no less likely to hit the wrong target than a reckless hipshot.)

 

The best way to exemplify my problem with this ruling is by example. Let's assume that an important NPC and the nefarious Villain are duking it out in HTH combat. On the sidelines we have both our overeager Hero as well as one of the villain's overzealous henchman Mooks. For the purposes of this example, both the NPC and the Villain (the HTH combatants) are DCV 6. Also for the purposes of this scenario, let's say our Hero is a gifted and highly trained marksman, with a DEX of 20 and 2 Combat Skill Levels with his firearm. The untrained Mook, on the other hand, has a DEX of 10 and doesn't even have proficiency with the gun he just picked up off the floor.

 

Now, let's assume both our overeager Hero and the overzealous Mook decide to shoot into the melee, and that both of them manage to just miss, thereby enabling the official "firing into melee" ruling.

 

Based upon the ruling as stated, our expert marksman with a base OCV of 7 is nearly three times as likely to hit the DCV 6 unintended target (12-, 74.1% of the time) as the unskilled Mook with an OCV of 3 (8-, 25.9% of the time)!

 

How in the world does this make any sense?!? God forbid the Hero be a gifted superhuman with a DEX of 28 and a base OCV of 9...he'll hit the poor NPC 91% of the time!

 

Granted, I understand that a more skilled marksman may initially miss their target less often, but even if all else is equal, the more Dexterous shooter is still penalized, and that doesn't sit well with me. [As a second example, assume the Hero is merely gifted but not an expert marksman, and his 7 OCV is based solely on his 20 DEX, while the "average" 10 DEX Mook is a former military marksman who has 4 CSLs with firearms that raises his final OCV to 7, as well. So now both of them have the exact same chance of missing initially, but the Hero (with the higher DEX) is still 3x more likely to strike the unintended target! Huh?]

 

You wanna know how broken this rule is? The Hero is actually better off using a weapon that he is completely unfamiliar with and taking the -3 OCV penalty to his OCV, not applying any CSLs, then Hurrying (another -2 OCV) his 3-shot Rapid Fire attack (another -4 OCV), but all the while initially aiming at the NPC, since he's virtually assured of MISSING HIM with all 3 shots (needs a Natural 3 to hit, for a mere 0.5% chance of "accidentally" hitting the good guy) but knowing that he then gets his base OCV of 7 against the other guy in melee and is therefore 74% likely to hit the VILLAIN!

 

Am I missing something, or does anyone else also have a problem with this ruling?

 

I'm thinking of scrapping this Bizarro-World ruling and coming up with a house rule that is the opposite, wherein the more gifted you are (higher DEX), the more skilled you are (appropriate training and CSLs), and the more proficient you are (other OCV modifiers like, say...Weapon Familiarity), the LESS likely you are to hit that innocent bystander or unintended target.

 

That being said, I'm not sure exactly how to design that rule yet. Has anyone out there already done so? And if not, got any ideas?

 

I already use an optional critical/fumble system that takes into account the *really* bad "Oops!" scenarios...but I need to create a ruling that handles misses when firing into melee that aren't catastrophically bad Attack Rolls. No matter how I eventually define the new rule about shooting into melee, the following three things should always be kept in mind:

1. It should help reinforce that it's rarely a really good idea to shoot into melee
   
2. It should easily allow for something like the Combat Shooting Talent to be applied in a beneficial way (in order to encourage its use)
   
3. It should penalize the less dexterous, less skilled, and less proficient shooters, not the other way around

With that said, let's open the floor to comments and suggestions...

 

- Vassoom

[ghost-angel]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Well, here's a theory.

 

If they miss with trained skill, obviouslty the trained skill hasn't helped them in the least here. So those bonuses are ignored.

 

Now - they are STILL aiming into the melee, and nominally as close as possible to the intended target of a close fist fight.

 

Now, the person who's natural talent plays a larger factor than the person who relies more on training (which is established to have failed) still puts the shot very close to the intended target, but they'd missed and hit something else in the immediate area instead of just having gone wide with the shot itself.

 

Don't like it? I suggest using a Flast OCV to dertmine if another target was hit, for everyone. Say. . . 3-5 for any given game.

[Vassoom]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Well, here's a theory.

 

If they miss with trained skill, obviouslty the trained skill hasn't helped them in the least here. So those bonuses are ignored.

 

Now - they are STILL aiming into the melee, and nominally as close as possible to the intended target of a close fist fight.

 

Now, the person who's natural talent plays a larger factor than the person who relies more on training (which is established to have failed) still puts the shot very close to the intended target, but they'd missed and hit something else in the immediate area instead of just having gone wide with the shot itself.

 

Don't like it? I suggest using a [Flat] OCV to dertmine if another target was hit, for everyone. Say. . . 3-5 for any given game.

Yes, that's a very cogent rationalization for the ruling, I suppose...but it still doesn't get at the core of the ruling's problem, which is that it penalizes the more gifted combatant, which is counter-intuitive.

 

I considered the idea of using a flat OCV, but that also struck me as somewhat arbitrary. What should I set the baseline OCV equal to? Do I keep bumping up the baseline OCV used as the characters gain XP to keep the percentages the same? Or do I let their XP (and presumably, therefore, DEX gains) slowly diminish the likelihood of hitting an unintended target? And this still wouldn't really address careful shots into melee versus reckless shots into the scrum. Hmm.

 

Right after I posted the above conundrum, I started tossing around a few ideas on how I might possibly resolve it...and I think I've hit upon something pretty good. I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Here it is:

 

Instead of using the purely DEX-based OCV or using an arbitrarily assigned base OCV, what if the attacker's OCV was set to however much they missed their initial target by? Here's the example:

NPC and the Villain are in HTH combat, with the Hero and the Mook on the sidelines.

Hero: Dex 20 (OCV 7), +2 OCV w/ firearm from CSLs

Mook: Dex 10 (OCV 3), No CSLs, but at least a weapon familiarity

HTH Villain: DCV 6

HTH NPC: DCV 6

 

Scenario #1: Hero fires at the villain with a single, careful shot. He has a 9 OCV. Attack Roll is 15, missing by 1. Therefore, his OCV to accidentally hit the NPC is a 1, which versus a 6 DCV means he would only hit the NPC on a 6 or less (9.3% chance).

 

Scenario #2: Hero fires at the villain using a more reckless 3-shot Rapid Fire (-4 OCV). He has a 5 OCV. Attack Roll is 15, missing by 5. Therefore, his OCV to accidentally hit the NPC is a 5, which versus a 6 DCV means he would hit the NPC on a 10 or less (50.0% chance).

 

Scenario #3: Mook unwisely fires at the NPC with a single shot. He has a 3 OCV. Attack Roll is 15, missing by 7. Therefore, his OCV to accidentally hit the Villain is a 7, which versus a 6 DCV means he would hit the Villain on a 12 or less (74.1% chance).

This method rewards those with a higher DEX and more CSLs since those are always going to factor into how much the attacker initially misses by. It also penalizes those making reckless attacks into melee, since doing so would automatically increase the likelihood of missing by a lot, thereby increasing their OCV versus the unintended target(s).

 

This method would also allow you to easily keep the book's DC "Combat Shooting" Talent's defined +5 OCV for purposes of not hitting an unintended target.

 

As a house rule replacement for "Firing Into Melee", I think it may be a winner. Let me know what you think...

 

- Vassoom

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Hmmm... Generally, I would think that firing into a melee, the person is only aiming at the one target. Generally secondary targets are going to be rather random especially since the targets are moving.

 

What I would do for a player that wants to avoid hitting a wrong secondary target is hold OCV levels back for purposes of the secondary target. Basically they are lowering their focus on the primary target to insure that if they miss they won't hit the wrong thing or character.

 

These held back OCV levels can be used to add or subtract (players choice) from their ability to hit secondary target. PSL could probably be bought to represent skill at this. These can also be used to prevent the Sucker Attacks (from the Champions book)

 

This method allows skilled characters to be able to prevent themselves from hitting incorrect targets without giving them a free bonus from their earlier to-hit roll AND it allows them to a chance to hit a secondary target if they wish - just save a few OCV for the chance of hitting later.

[Zed-F]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

I'd rather just ignore that rule in the DC book altogether, and make up something completely different that makes more sense.

 

For instance you could assign an unluck-type roll to a missed shot fired into melee. Everyone gets 1d6, and on a 1, the shot hits an unintended target. Every die of unluck the character has adds to this roll. Though there are other ways you could do it; that's just one example.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Yes' date=' that's a very cogent [i']rationalization[/i] for the ruling, I suppose...but it still doesn't get at the core of the ruling's problem, which is that it penalizes the more gifted combatant, which is counter-intuitive.

 

I considered the idea of using a flat OCV, but that also struck me as somewhat arbitrary. What should I set the baseline OCV equal to? Do I keep bumping up the baseline OCV used as the characters gain XP to keep the percentages the same? Or do I let their XP (and presumably, therefore, DEX gains) slowly diminish the likelihood of hitting an unintended target? And this still wouldn't really address careful shots into melee versus reckless shots into the scrum. Hmm.

 

1) I don't see it as that coutnerintuitive. But that's me.

 

2) Use 0 OCV. A flat 11- to see if you hit another target, puts everyone on the same playing field. Heck lower the OCV Roll to 10- to give a near flat 50/50 chance of hitting someone else.

[mojo_bones]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Sorry, I don't see the problem at all. If a PC in a game I was running tried to pull the "I shoot at my teammate and do everything to lower my CV" crap, I would laugh in their face. Secondly, this is the danger of shooting into combat. If you have a high CV, then you better hit (and your chances to hit the right target are greatly increased). If you miss and are shooting into an area with teammates, then the likelihood you hit one of them should be very high. Foolish actions deserve foolish results.

And as you pointed out, the higher CV character has a higher chance to hit the right target, so their chance to get to the hit a random other target phase is lessened. I see this as a pretty big advantage when shooting into combat.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Mojo Bones put into different words me "rationalization" and possibly better words. I didn't "rationalize" I simply logically interpreted the events, based both on concept and ruling.

 

You fire into a group of people if you're good at hitting people then you're good at hitting people. If you're bad at hitting people than the round just goes off into nowhere land.

[Vassoom]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Sorry' date=' I don't see the problem at all. If a PC in a game I was running tried to pull the "I shoot at my teammate and do everything to lower my CV" crap, I would laugh in their face.[/quote']Well obviously any GM worth a darn is not gonna allow something that ridiculous. I was just using that extreme example to illustrate how the ruling as constructed seems backwards.

 

Mojo Bones put into different words me "rationalization" and possibly better words. I didn't "rationalize" I simply logically interpreted the events, based both on concept and ruling.

 

You fire into a group of people if you're good at hitting people then you're good at hitting people. If you're bad at hitting people than the round just goes off into nowhere land.

Fair enough.

 

I just don't think that when you miss your initial target, it's fair to have those characters with higher DEX be much more likely to hit the unintended target than the shooters with lower DEX.

 

I guess it's just me. *shrug*

 

- Vassoom

[ghost-angel]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

It probably isn't just you. I'm sure others have the same sentiment.

 

I put forth at least two alternative options. I'm not going to argue the validity of a rule, just whether I mind using it or not. This one makes some sense to me and I wouldn't have issues with it in any game I ran or participated in.

 

You do, so I was trying to come up with alternative ideas.

[Zed-F]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

It certainly isn't just you. I put forward another idea on how to handle it as well, since I agree it doesn't make sense to have more dextrous characters be more likely to hit unintended targets. Personally I think once you get past the point of 'I missed', what happens to the bullet after that is pretty much random and independent of skill. Usually 'I missed' should mean just that, but otherwise it could mean anything, depending on how target-rich the local environment is.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Well obviously any GM worth a darn is not gonna allow something that ridiculous. I was just using that extreme example to illustrate how the ruling as constructed seems backwards.

 

Fair enough.

 

I just don't think that when you miss your initial target, it's fair to have those characters with higher DEX be much more likely to hit the unintended target than the shooters with lower DEX.

 

I guess it's just me. *shrug*

 

- Vassoom

Nope, it's not jus you.

t's a very similar issue to one I had playing in a short lived Dark Conspiracy game back in the day. The rules (a variant on the usual GDW rolepalying system, IIRC) seemed a bit woning for automatic fire, and I ran the numbers and realized that there was an imbedded rule that seemed to make sense on the surface, but led to an illogical conclusion that it was easier to hit your friends than the badguys if you fired too many shots in a single burst...even if the friends in question were standing behind you.

 

Some interesting proposals to fix the problem already. For my $.02, I agree with the "flat OCV" solution, wit a small twist/variation. Make the Flat OCV of the second attack roll equal to the DCV bonus the intended target gets for cover. So if you shoot at a badguy in HTH with your buddy, and said badguiy gets a +4 DCV Cover bonus, then if you miss by the cover, your friend is attacked at his base DCV with an OCV of 4. This way, the more "covered" the intended target is, the more likely you are to accidentaly hit the cover.

*bam*

[Toadmaster]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

You could go the GURPS route, if you miss the intended target start rolling against other possible targets inline with the target from nearest to farthest with an unmodified 9- roll.

 

Another idea which I think is kind of where AmadanNaBriona was going is allow the shooter to take a penalty based on target size (head -8 etc) but I would allow the higher the penalty the less chance of hitting the unintended target, perhaps use the same penalty against the random 9- roll, this is not exactly a called shot as I would not allow an automatic head shot since that was not what the were doing they were taking an extra penalty to not hit another target. I'm not sure that actually makes sense from a purely "realistic" point of view but it feels right to allow a very skilled shooter to make these kind of shots with less risk than a less skilled shooter.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Yeah, I've run into this one before. This is one of those situations when the old GM has to just step in and toss the old rules aside for the tried and true measuring stick -- "What Makes Sense?" To my mind, it boils down to how reckless the firing character is being when he or she makes the attack. If he or she goes in with guns blazing, I generally make collateral damage more likely than the character who gets into a braced firing position and takes an action or two to aim while waiting for an obvious opening. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic about it, but then, I'm one of those GM's that rewards roleplaying and hand-waives the rules at times to keep a combat rolling smoothly. I'm also willing to forgo a to-hit roll if a player's character is obviously making the effort to do it right. Call me crazy, but (my) players respond to that sort of treatment positively. Good luck with your rules question, though.

 

Matt "Still-faking-it-after-all-these-years" Frisbee

 

P.S. If it were me in the hypothetical situation, I'd forgo the firearms, toss a concussion grenade into the fray and cap the bad guy while he's stunned. Of course, anyone running with my character already knows to bulk up on the armor because I'm likely to do that sort of thing...

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

You wanna know how broken this rule is? The Hero is actually better off using a weapon that he is completely unfamiliar with and taking the -3 OCV penalty to his OCV' date=' not applying any CSLs, then [i']Hurrying [/i](another -2 OCV) his 3-shot Rapid Fire attack (another -4 OCV), but all the while initially aiming at the NPC, since he's virtually assured of MISSING HIM with all 3 shots (needs a Natural 3 to hit, for a mere 0.5% chance of "accidentally" hitting the good guy) but knowing that he then gets his base OCV of 7 against the other guy in melee and is therefore 74% likely to hit the VILLAIN!

I just had to rep this! I know you meant it as an extreme "broken" example, but it's still one of the finest pieces of Extreme Munchkinism (in a good cause) I've seen in some time!

 

what if the attacker's OCV was set to however much they missed their initial target by?

Not a bad approach, but...

 

What I would do for a player that wants to avoid hitting a wrong secondary target is hold OCV levels back for purposes of the secondary target. Basically they are lowering their focus on the primary target to insure that if they miss they won't hit the wrong thing or character.

This one wins the Kewpie Doll for me personally, because it's the only one that 1. forces the firing player to decide how reckless he wants to be, and 2. actually makes it harder to hit the primary target in the first place (assuming the player "chose wisely.") Characters with higher DEX & CSLs aren't unfairly penalized, because they have more levels to spare. Nice.

[Kristopher]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

What does Combat Shooting do for you, anyway?

[CourtFool]

Sit down, gamist!

 

Foolish actions deserve foolish results.

 

Somewhat off topic, but, I find this very un-cinematic and disagree on preference.

[1EyedJack]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

The best way to do it is make the attacker go against the best dcv of group and the see who he hits randomly

[Checkmate]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Sorry' date=' I don't see the problem at all. If a PC in a game I was running tried to pull the "I shoot at my teammate and do everything to lower my CV" crap, I would laugh in their face. [/quote']

Laugh all you want, it's still "Rules Legal".

 

Secondly, this is the danger of shooting into combat. If you have a high CV, then you better hit (and your chances to hit the right target are greatly increased). If you miss and are shooting into an area with teammates, then the likelihood you hit one of them should be very high. Foolish actions deserve foolish results.

And as you pointed out, the higher CV character has a higher chance to hit the right target, so their chance to get to the hit a random other target phase is lessened. I see this as a pretty big advantage when shooting into combat.

If the greatest gunman in the world misses, as everyone misses sometimes, he is more likely to cause collateral damage than someone who's never even seen a gun in their life...And that makes sense to you? You don't think a highly trained marksman would have learned how to shoot at the proper angle to avoid collateral damage, or even hitting someone else when the bullet goes through their target?

 

Personally I like the OCV being the amount you missed by.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Laugh all you want' date=' it's still "Rules Legal". [/quote']

Fortunately, this is Hero. Which means it's also Rules Legal for me as a GM to smack the player for his excessive munchkinism and ignore the silly loophole he's seeking to exploit.

[Checkmate]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Fortunately' date=' this is Hero. Which means it's also Rules Legal for me as a GM to smack the player for his excessive munchkinism and ignore the silly loophole he's seeking to exploit. [/quote']

The problem isn't someone could do that, the problem is that it makes more sense TO do that.

[mojo_bones]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Laugh all you want, it's still "Rules Legal".

 

 

If the greatest gunman in the world misses, as everyone misses sometimes, he is more likely to cause collateral damage than someone who's never even seen a gun in their life...And that makes sense to you? You don't think a highly trained marksman would have learned how to shoot at the proper angle to avoid collateral damage, or even hitting someone else when the bullet goes through their target?

 

Personally I like the OCV being the amount you missed by.

 

First, I would laugh and laugh and laugh at anyone trying this. I have seen many "rules legal" builds and situations that I would not allow, and I am sure I could get a million stories here from others who have seen them as well. It is why we have terms like "rules lawyer" and "munchkin" rather than just calling all of this sort of thing cheating.

 

Second, yes it actually makes sense to me. See, if I have never used a gun and shoot at 2 people in close proximity, I am more likely to miss my target so badly that I don't come close to either target. Now,OTOH if I do know how to use a gun and shoot at 2 people in close proximity, if I miss my intended target, my shot is more likely to be close to my intended target and thus have a greater chance to hit the other person. I think that is pretty logical. Now, if you go to extreme of an expert marksmen setting up to make sure he will not hit anyone if he misses his target, then I would say make a skill for that sort of thing. But you have gone from just someone good vs someone not good to talking about very specific training when shooting into combat. Big difference there.

[mojo_bones]

Re: Sit down, gamist!

 

Somewhat off topic' date=' but, I find this very un-cinematic and disagree on preference.[/quote']

 

I think it would also depend on genre. I have in some campaigns rewarded foolish actions that were done for a good reason.

I have also seen people shoot blind into combat for no reason other than they felt like it. Now *that* was pretty uncinimatic and I feel deservedly punished. In other words, genre and situation would play a big part in how I handled a "foolish" action.

[Checkmate]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

First' date=' I would laugh and laugh and laugh at anyone trying this. I have seen many "rules legal" builds and situations that I would not allow, and I am sure I could get a million stories here from others who have seen them as well. It is why we have terms like "rules lawyer" and "munchkin" rather than just calling all of this sort of thing cheating.[/quote']

And in response, let me quote myself:

The problem isn't someone could do that' date=' the problem is that it makes more sense TO do that.[/quote']

The way the rules are set up, this technique is more effective. So while you laugh at someone that's done the math, and realized how screwed up that rule is, I'll be laughing at the rules themselves that make this technique more effective.

Second' date=' yes it actually makes sense to me. See, if I have never used a gun and shoot at 2 people in close proximity, I am more likely to miss my target so badly that I don't come close to either target.[/quote']

Being in the military, and seeing people that have never shot before shoot, I can pretty much vouch for the fallicy of this "logic". Most gun battles take place short distances (less than 9 yards) and even in HERO I'd bet that's a pretty good estimate. The trouble with the unexperienced isn't hitting the target. At that range point the barrel at what you want to hit and let the bullet do the rest. The problem is timing, angle, nerves. When to shoot, how long will the bullet take to get there. They don't know that if a right handed shooter pulls the trigger as opposed to squeezing the trigger it will shift the barrel slightly to the right. Not miles to the right, just slightly.

Now' date='OTOH if I do know how to use a gun and shoot at 2 people in close proximity, if I miss my intended target, my shot is more likely to be close to my intended target and thus have a greater chance to hit the other person.[/quote']

If you know how to use a gun, the first thing you learn IS NOT HITTING WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO HIT. If you haven't learned that, then I can safely say you haven't learned how to use a gun.

I think that is pretty logical.

If it works for you roll with it.

Now' date=' if you go to extreme of an expert marksmen setting up to make sure he will not hit anyone if he misses his target, then I would say make a skill for that sort of thing. But you have gone from just someone good vs someone not good to talking about very specific training when shooting into combat. Big difference there.[/quote']

I'm not talking extreme combat shooting. Anyone that's ever picked up a gun that MIGHT have the need to use it against the human learns 3 things before they even touch a real gun:

1. Definition of Deadly Force

2. 4 Universal Gun Saftey Rules (Treat, Never, Keep, Keep)

3. DON'T SHOOT YOUR PARTNER.

I mean this isn't Delta-Force Commando stuff here. These are the basics.

 

Now like I said, if it works for you, great go with it. Me, I think I'll come up with something that makes a bit more sense to me.

[mojo_bones]

Re: Firing Into Melee, a rules quandary

 

Well, for starters you have moved the bar a bit on the shooter. You did say "the greatest gunman in the world" before, but let's skip that.

 

The point I made about laughing is quite simple. I have seen rules in both Hero and other systems that when taken to the extreme (like the example given) can be abused, or make the rule appear broken. (see "rules lawyer" and "munchkin") Common sense has got to come into play at some point.

But to the actual complete novice shooter, let's add all of this up, plus a bit more. First you have nerves (the gun is now shaking) then you have the gun moving slightly to the right for squeeze rather than pull, you also did not mention dominant eye aiming or kick of the gun so let's add those in. Without ever picking up the gun are you familiar with it's weight? Do you know how to properly hold it without ever using a gun? Having seen and been someone who had never used a gun and then used one, I can tell you it is quite easy to miss by quite a bit. And no, I am not talking about miles, I am talking about feet as opposed to inches. If I miss you and the person you are HtH fighting with by 3 feet, I miss everything. If I miss you by a few inches, I could very well hit the other person. While I am not going to do the math of how being off in aim by just an inch or two translates out at 9 yards from the firing point, it is safe to say that just a few inches is all it would take to miss by feet. Angles work that way.

By all means, do what you are comfortable with, but it is pretty logical to think someone who knows how to hit a target is more likely to come close than someone who doesn't.