Altered Autofire

[NanDispute]

The following idea has not yet been implemented as a house rule, but I and my friends have discussed it.

 

The Autofire Advantage is altered so that for every 3 points, rounded off (*), that the role is made by, the number of shots that hit doubles, up to the number of shots that can be made. Standard "sprayfire" limits autofire to one hit per target (as it does now); the "autofire skills" Accurate Sprayfire and Precise Sprayfire I allow only one hit per target; Concentrated Sprayfire, Skipover Sprayfire and Rapid Autofire allow multiple hits--use this new method. Precise Sprayfire II is superceded, and Deadly Sprayfire doesn't effect to-hit chances.

 

The genesis of this idea is that a number of people in one game wanted to carry the ILARCO 180, but realized its very high ROF was completely wasted by the current rules regarding Autofire. A weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second, and is capable of putting a burst into a 15 cm circle at 25 meters, should not require one to make a to-hit roll by 38 to make use of its potential.

 

Given how few weapons are capable of more than 5-round Autofire, any GM with the spunk to keep players from abuse will have no problem with this change, yet it will allow those weapons (or superpowers) which reasonably should have high ROFs to be, finally, fully useful.

 

 

* Note this means making the roll by one point does not double the number of hits. Doubling occurs if the roll is made by 2, 3, or 4 points, quadrupling if it is made by 5, 6, or 7, etc.

[tesuji]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

The following idea has not yet been implemented as a house rule, but I and my friends have discussed it.

 

The Autofire Advantage is altered so that for every 3 points, rounded off (*), that the role is made by, the number of shots that hit doubles, up to the number of shots that can be made. Standard "sprayfire" limits autofire to one hit per target (as it does now); the "autofire skills" Accurate Sprayfire and Precise Sprayfire I allow only one hit per target; Concentrated Sprayfire, Skipover Sprayfire and Rapid Autofire allow multiple hits--use this new method. Precise Sprayfire II is superceded, and Deadly Sprayfire doesn't effect to-hit chances.

 

The genesis of this idea is that a number of people in one game wanted to carry the ILARCO 180, but realized its very high ROF was completely wasted by the current rules regarding Autofire. A weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second, and is capable of putting a burst into a 15 cm circle at 25 meters, should not require one to make a to-hit roll by 38 to make use of its potential.

 

Given how few weapons are capable of more than 5-round Autofire, any GM with the spunk to keep players from abuse will have no problem with this change, yet it will allow those weapons (or superpowers) which reasonably should have high ROFs to be, finally, fully useful.

 

 

* Note this means making the roll by one point does not double the number of hits. Doubling occurs if the roll is made by 2, 3, or 4 points, quadrupling if it is made by 5, 6, or 7, etc.

 

well first issue is an IRL one, it is not normal for an autofire weapon to see its potential reached, defined as putting all of its shots into the target. So any autofire rule starting from the premise that its too difficult to put 20 rounds into one target is IMo starting from a flawed premise.

 

Second issue, is that this sounds great to me if it does however emulate what you want to see from autofire. Doing this not because "we have found the autofire advantage to not be worth its points" but because "we think autofire should get more hits on target for high volume bursts" is fine of course.

 

third issue is - what value do you see adding to this autofire advantage? its clearly better than the current one, allowing for more hits on target in some cases. So that makes it better than the +1/2 for autofire now. So what do you think, maybe +3/4 for 5 shots and the same +1/4 for each doubling after that?

[Checkmate]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

well first issue is an IRL one' date=' it is not normal for an autofire weapon to see its potential reached, defined as putting all of its shots into the target. So any autofire rule starting from the premise that its too difficult to put 20 rounds into one target is IMo starting from a flawed premise.[/quote']

I agree with this. Sure in a controlled situation the gun is that accurate. Let's see someone do it while the target is shooting back.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

The following idea has not yet been implemented as a house rule, but I and my friends have discussed it.

 

The Autofire Advantage is altered so that for every 3 points, rounded off (*), that the role is made by, the number of shots that hit doubles, up to the number of shots that can be made. Standard "sprayfire" limits autofire to one hit per target (as it does now); the "autofire skills" Accurate Sprayfire and Precise Sprayfire I allow only one hit per target; Concentrated Sprayfire, Skipover Sprayfire and Rapid Autofire allow multiple hits--use this new method. Precise Sprayfire II is superceded, and Deadly Sprayfire doesn't effect to-hit chances.

 

The genesis of this idea is that a number of people in one game wanted to carry the ILARCO 180, but realized its very high ROF was completely wasted by the current rules regarding Autofire. A weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second, and is capable of putting a burst into a 15 cm circle at 25 meters, should not require one to make a to-hit roll by 38 to make use of its potential.

 

Given how few weapons are capable of more than 5-round Autofire, any GM with the spunk to keep players from abuse will have no problem with this change, yet it will allow those weapons (or superpowers) which reasonably should have high ROFs to be, finally, fully useful.

 

 

* Note this means making the roll by one point does not double the number of hits. Doubling occurs if the roll is made by 2, 3, or 4 points, quadrupling if it is made by 5, 6, or 7, etc.

 

 

'Realistic' autofire is difficult: weapons these days are getting so accurate and have such a high rate of fire that they almost do not work like a weapon throwing out several attacks but more like one that directs a beam of destruction at a target. Maybe that would be a better way to build it, especially in Hero where damage thresholds are so important - instead of a 2d6 x 5 shot autofire, build a 3d6 attack and define it as an attack that actually consists of a lot of bullets which, together, do a lot of damage. You want to hit several targets? Spread the attack.

 

I know that approach almost completely ignores autofire in favour of simply building machine guns as other guns but without the 'beam' limitation. Still, worth thinking about.

[tesuji]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

I know that approach almost completely ignores autofire in favour of simply building machine guns as other guns but without the 'beam' limitation. Still, worth thinking about.

 

I tend to give full autofire the following characteristics when i design...

 

1 - improved chance to hit - walking the bullets onto target at least as good as laser sight

2 - base damage as a normal attack since five bullet wont go thru tank armor better than one will barring ablative armor properties

3 - greater chance of critical hit (lucky strike)

4 - ability to do area attacks - ie sweep or spread (loses bonuses to hit)

5 - hand held weapons rely on STRENGTH not DEX for base to-hit as its not aim as much as controlling the stream of bullets with the recoil. (doesn't correspond well to hero, except perhaps thru a high strength min for full autofire.)

6 - requires full action.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

Sean's idea can also be combined with autofire as already written. You want to be able to shoot 20 bullets instead of 5? Instead of each "shot" (read: attack) being one bullet at 2d6rka or whatever, have each attack be defined has a tight burst of 4 bullets and up it by 4 or 5 Damage Classes. You get the increased damage, can still shoot 5 targets (because, seriously, if you wanted to shoot 20 different people with an autofire that'd just be ridiculous), and you're using the RAW. I'm not saying you have to do it this way, but it would sure be easier than trying to juryrig a house rule. Then again, if it's not what you are looking for or doesn't fit the "feel" of your campaign, that's fine too. Adaptability is the best thing about Hero.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

I tend to give full autofire the following characteristics when i design...

 

1 - improved chance to hit - walking the bullets onto target at least as good as laser sight

2 - base damage as a normal attack since five bullet wont go thru tank armor better than one will barring ablative armor properties

3 - greater chance of critical hit (lucky strike)

4 - ability to do area attacks - ie sweep or spread (loses bonuses to hit)

5 - hand held weapons rely on STRENGTH not DEX for base to-hit as its not aim as much as controlling the stream of bullets with the recoil. (doesn't correspond well to hero, except perhaps thru a high strength min for full autofire.)

6 - requires full action.

 

I’m not sure I agree with your #1 point. I’ve had friends in the Marines and Air Force both tell me that the only reason they ever use full automatic is for cover or suppression fire, because it is simply inaccurate unless firing into a dense crowd (This is not accounting for mounted weapons or ones that regularly use tripods, simply assault rifles or other commonly carried arms). Even the best made modern assault rifles tend to “pull” either left or right and most detrimentally, up. Unless firing into a crowd looking for any target, if your first two or three rounds don’t hit your target you’re probably not going to hit it at all unless you sweep back and forth repeatedly. This might not be entirely accurate, but that’s my understanding as relayed to me from several military sources. Also, #3 seems odd. A single carefully aimed attack (headshot) would, I would think, have a better chance to get a “critical hit” as a wild spray of bullets. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by that.

 

I like you’re idea about strength being involved in the equation, but perhaps it shouldn’t replace DEX. What if the STR min to use a weapon was increased if used on automatic? A character strong enough to carry and shoot (a single shot from) an M-16 (a fairly light assault rifle) might not be able to handle the multiple recoil of firing it on automatic. Then they would suffer the regular penalty for not being strong enough to use a weapon properly. Just a thought.

[tesuji]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

I’m not sure I agree with your #1 point. I’ve had friends in the Marines and Air Force both tell me that the only reason they ever use full automatic is for cover or suppression fire' date=' because it is simply inaccurate unless firing into a dense crowd (This is not accounting for mounted weapons or ones that regularly use tripods, simply assault rifles or other commonly carried arms). Even the best made modern assault rifles tend to “pull” either left or right and most detrimentally, up. Unless firing into a crowd looking for [i']any[/i] target, if your first two or three rounds don’t hit your target you’re probably not going to hit it at all unless you sweep back and forth repeatedly. This might not be entirely accurate, but that’s my understanding as relayed to me from several military sources. Also, #3 seems odd. A single carefully aimed attack (headshot) would, I would think, have a better chance to get a “critical hit” as a wild spray of bullets. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by that.

 

I like you’re idea about strength being involved in the equation, but perhaps it shouldn’t replace DEX. What if the STR min to use a weapon was increased if used on automatic? A character strong enough to carry and shoot (a single shot from) an M-16 (a fairly light assault rifle) might not be able to handle the multiple recoil of firing it on automatic. Then they would suffer the regular penalty for not being strong enough to use a weapon properly. Just a thought.

 

the accuracy bonus is for walking a spray of fire, including tracers, onto a target. its certainly not specific aimed fire per se as much as it is seeing where the first shot hits and pulling left or right or up or down. it makes it easy to miss a lot but hit with some.

 

yeah the increased str min was mentioned.

 

as for critical hit thats to account for the odd chance of actually getting multiple shots to hit the target. the basic model assumption is only one hit but there are flukey occurances where multiple rounds strike home.

 

i would not allow called shots with autofire, it is "unaimed fire" in much the same way i would disallow a called headshot from someone firing blind.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

Why not simply adjust the default rule regarding AF higher than 5 by applying the same 'multiple' (AF10 = x2, AF20 = x4) to all uses of Autofire Skills and how many shots actually hit?

 

This idea is based on the 5 shot Autofire as being the default.

 

So if a character using an AF5 weapon hits his target by 2 points he hits with 2 shots. If using this option, and the character were instead using an AF10 weapon he hits with 4 shots. If AF20; 8 hits.

 

To go along with this I would also make the discreet minimum number of shots at a target be multiplied by this same multiple. Skipover Sprayfire might be a little more difficult to 'not hit' a particular target/hex as well.

 

Of course this increases the effectiveness of AF10 and higher but miniguns are supposed to be dangerous to the enemy.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

I didn't mean to imply that you could place a "called shot" with autofire. My point was that you are adding to the chance to hit as well as the chance of getting a critical hit. This does not seem right to me. If we accept the increase chance to hit due to "I'm firing that many more bullets, one of them's gotta hit" that's fine, but why should it get more of a chance for critical damage than simply firing one shot with the weapon?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

I recently had this conversation with someone in chat, and gave them very similar guidance; what are you really simulating? Is it putting a silly number of bullets on the target?

 

That's not the Advantage, Autofire. That's actually a special effect, where one 'trigger pull' can be up to five rounds (a burst, if you will) that acts, as Sean said, as a 'beam' of rounds. There's a lot of ways to do this, but the simplest is to define your starting point, in this case, say, 'burst fire: five rounds,' and then add to that the Autofire Advantage.

 

Not all weapons have a single round option, either; in that case, 'burst fire' is your 'single round,' putting 3 rounds on target pretty much instantly, and 'autofire' is then best described as autofiring bursts. It's less about making 'full use of the AF options,' and more about defining what you really want to do with the weapon in the scope of the rules.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

You can also raise the damage dice, but add Reduced Penetration to simulate the fact that the damage is coming from many bullets which must penetrate individually. "Soft" targets will get shredded, but "hard" targets can ignore it.

[NanDispute]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

well first issue is an IRL one' date=' it is not normal for an autofire weapon to see its potential reached, defined as putting all of its shots into the target. So any autofire rule starting from the premise that its too difficult to put 20 rounds into one target is IMo starting from a flawed premise.[/quote']

I believe you meant to say "...that it's not too difficult..."

 

I can only point to the ILARCO 180 as one example of an ergonomically-designed firearm. There are others, and they are becoming less rare. It is, largely, a matter of designing the weapon so the thrust of the recoil travels straight back to where it is well-braced by the firer. This reduces muzzle climb to where it can be controlled by the firer.

 

Second issue, is that this sounds great to me if it does however emulate what you want to see from autofire. Doing this not because "we have found the autofire advantage to not be worth its points" but because "we think autofire should get more hits on target for high volume bursts" is fine of course.

IMO, it comes to much the same thing in the end.

 

third issue is - what value do you see adding to this autofire advantage? its clearly better than the current one, allowing for more hits on target in some cases. So that makes it better than the +1/2 for autofire now. So what do you think, maybe +3/4 for 5 shots and the same +1/4 for each doubling after that?

There is no real need to change the cost. Or, if adjustments are made, they should be made at higher levels.

 

Now, if I can get this to format properly; the first column is how many points the to-hit roll is made by, the second column is how many bullets hit under the current system, the third is how many hit under the proposal. Note that those numbers followed by an asterisk are only achieved if the weapon has Auto-Fire of 10, and those followed by a double asterisk can only be achieved with Auto-Fire 20.

00----1----1
01----1----1
02----2----2
03----2----2
04----3----2
05----3----4
06----4----4
07----4----4
08----5----8*
09----5----8*
10----6*---8*
11----6*---16**
12----7*---16**
13----7*---16**

 

As you can see, for a weapon with Auto-Fire 5, the difference is negligible. Indeed, it is only when the to-hit roll is made by 4 or by 5 that there is any difference. Weapons with higher Auto-Fire will see a difference (which is what we wanted), but then only with very good shots.

 

Thank you for bringing up the matter. It gives me an excuse to show the work I've done.

[NanDispute]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

'Realistic' autofire is difficult: weapons these days are getting so accurate and have such a high rate of fire that they almost do not work like a weapon throwing out several attacks but more like one that directs a beam of destruction at a target. Maybe that would be a better way to build it, especially in Hero where damage thresholds are so important - instead of a 2d6 x 5 shot autofire, build a 3d6 attack and define it as an attack that actually consists of a lot of bullets which, together, do a lot of damage. You want to hit several targets? Spread the attack.

 

I know that approach almost completely ignores autofire in favour of simply building machine guns as other guns but without the 'beam' limitation. Still, worth thinking about.

 

An interesting idea. We have built some extremely high ROF weapons as AoE, Line. These, BTW, are emplacement weapons.

 

The problem, of course, is dealing with a human-portable weapon, which can be switched between autofire and single shot (and, in some cases, bursts in the 2-4 round range). A Multipower seems like a solution, until the question of tracking rounds fired is considered.

 

Does anyone have suggestion for solving the above problem? Boosted charges doesn't (as far as I can see) address this.

[NanDispute]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

Sean's idea can also be combined with autofire as already written. You want to be able to shoot 20 bullets instead of 5? Instead of each "shot" (read: attack) being one bullet at 2d6rka or whatever' date=' have each attack be defined has a tight burst of 4 bullets and up it by 4 or 5 Damage Classes. You get the increased damage, can still shoot 5 targets (because, seriously, if you wanted to shoot 20 different people with an autofire that'd just be ridiculous), and you're using the RAW. I'm not saying you have to do it this way, but it would sure be easier than trying to juryrig a house rule. Then again, if it's not what you are looking for or doesn't fit the "feel" of your campaign, that's fine too. Adaptability is the best thing about Hero.[/quote']

That is a very interesting idea. I will talk to the rest about it. It is especially useful (IMO) because it helps deal with the problem of "tracking" charges in a Multipower where each slot uses a different number of bullets.

 

A note: There is a good reason to shoot one target with (e.g.) 20 shots: some foes can take that much damage before being appreciably hurt, particularly if the weapon uses smaller rounds, as would be almost required by such a high ROF.

[NanDispute]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

I like you’re idea about strength being involved in the equation' date=' but perhaps it shouldn’t replace DEX. What if the STR min to use a weapon was increased if used on automatic? A character strong enough to carry and shoot (a single shot from) an M-16 (a fairly light assault rifle) might not be able to handle the multiple recoil of firing it on automatic. Then they would suffer the regular penalty for not being strong enough to use a weapon properly. Just a thought.[/quote']

There is already a +5 STR Minimum when using Autofire. Did you miss the part of the rules book that mentioned it? Or, do you think that should be increased?

 

---Excuse me, I was not quite right: the "stats" for Autofire weapons usually show the STR Min when using Autofire. Fired in single-shot mode, the STR Min is 5 lower.

 

In any event, there's already a STR Min for Autofire.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

There is already a +5 STR Minimum when using Autofire. Did you miss the part of the rules book that mentioned it? Or' date=' do you think that should be increased?[/font']

---Excuse me, I was not quite right: the "stats" for Autofire weapons usually show the STR Min when using Autofire. Fired in single-shot mode, the STR Min is 5 lower.

In any event, there's already a STR Min for Autofire.

I'm sure I didn't miss it, since I've read FRED from cover to cover, however I don't quite have it memorized yet . A lot of my posting is done from work and I don't always have my book. I was responding to the suggestion of using STR instead of DEX for OCV when using autofire, which seemed extreme to me. It appears my idea was not as great as I thought, since it was probably simply a half-remembered rule floating around the back of my head .

 

EDIT: Not sure why that split the quote...

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

'Realistic' autofire is difficult: weapons these days are getting so accurate and have such a high rate of fire that they almost do not work like a weapon throwing out several attacks but more like one that directs a beam of destruction at a target. Maybe that would be a better way to build it, especially in Hero where damage thresholds are so important - instead of a 2d6 x 5 shot autofire, build a 3d6 attack and define it as an attack that actually consists of a lot of bullets which, together, do a lot of damage. You want to hit several targets? Spread the attack.

 

I know that approach almost completely ignores autofire in favour of simply building machine guns as other guns but without the 'beam' limitation. Still, worth thinking about.

 

 

That's actually not a bad way of handling it. Although some reduced penetration might be in order so machine guns with high rates of fire aren't modeled so they chew through tank armor.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

---Excuse me' date=' I was not quite right: the "stats" for Autofire weapons usually show the STR Min when using Autofire. Fired in single-shot mode, the STR Min is 5 lower. In any event, there's already a STR Min for Autofire.[/quote']

 

Where did you find this? I just read every single occurrence of the terms “Autofire” “Rapid Fire” and “Fire Arms” listed in the appendix of Hero System 5th Edition, Revised, and could not find what you are referring to (making me question my earlier statement about me half remembering a rule). I also glanced through the Rules FAQ and found nothing. If you could cite a source, including page number, that would be greatly appreciated, because I am completely missing it. If you don’t have 5ther the page number from regular 5th Ed would be fine. Thanks in advance.

[NanDispute]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

Where did you find this? I just read every single occurrence of the terms “Autofire” “Rapid Fire” and “Fire Arms” listed in the appendix of Hero System 5th Edition' date=' Revised, and could not find what you are referring to (making me question my earlier statement about me half remembering a rule). I also glanced through the Rules FAQ and found nothing. If you could cite a source, including page number, that would be greatly appreciated, because I am completely missing it. If you don’t have 5ther the page number from regular 5th Ed would be fine. Thanks in advance.[/quote']

 

I do not have v5.5. In Fifth Edition, it is on page 328. In the index, it can be found under "STR Minimum (Limitation)".

 

It is confusing it is not indexed under Autofire, nor any of the others you listed.

 

Upon review, I must admit that my earlier statement "the "stats" for Autofire weapons usually show the STR Min when using Autofire" is my deduction; I can find no clear statement in this regard.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

It's page 479 for in 5er for anyone following along. Good catch. I have to agree with your assumption that the STR Min shown is probably for using autofire, if for no other reason than adding +5 to some of them would put many of them near or over the NCM, though it would be nice to know for sure.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Altered Autofire

 

The common sense application here is that if you aren't using the Advantage, you don't take the hit to STR min. But yes, that's a known (and poorly placed) rule.