Toolkitting: Rifles vs. Pistols

[bigdamnhero]

I hate to be the one to toss a Gun Realism Debate grenade into the room, but I'm looking for some feedback.

 

It's been awhile since I ran a gun-heavy campaign, but while putting together an MHI game I was again struck by how rifles are only marginally more powerful than pistols in Hero, eg - an M14 rifle does a whopping 2 points of Body more than a .45 pistol, even tho the former has nearly 10 times the KE of the latter. In reality* rifles are far more lethal than pistols - the majority of people shot with handguns survive, while the majority of people shot with rifles simply do not.

 

I know Hero characteristics aren't supposed to be linear. But even so, it seems to me like the difference between pistol calibers increases linearly, then the actually-exponential jump from big-pistol to small-rifle is all of 1 DC, then the difference between different rifle calibers goes back to being linear.

 

Realism aside, I don't believe it's genre-appropriate either. In most genre fiction, rifles are portrayed as being far more lethal than handguns - characters like Bond get away with it only because he's such an awesome shot than every hit is Head or Vitals. And Jason Bourne with a rifle is exponentially deadlier than Bourne with a pistol.

 

Now if you disagree with all that, that's fine - I'm not really looking to persuade anyone. But if you do agree, them I'm curious what you've done to try and "fix" this in your heroic games, and how has it turned out?

• Did you make pistols weaker, or lower the "spread" of damage between pistol calibers? Did that make pistols too weak? Did the players miss the granularity?
  
• Did you make rifles more powerful? If so, what did that do to the lethality of your games?
  
• Alternately, what about giving pistols Reduced Penetration vs kevlar (one suggestion in the MHI book). That would basically nerf them against decent body armor, which is not unrealistic, but leave them equally effective against unarmored opponents.
  
• In my last gun-fu game, we went the opposite route and gave all rifles 1 level of AP. It meant that even armored-up characters couldn't ignore rifle fire, which I liked. But it made for some bloody gunfights, so may not be suitable for all games.
  

As I said, just looking to see what others have tried. Thanks,

 

* And no, I'm not putting irony quotes around reality. Sorry.

[Hyper-Man]

You raise some good points that I've not thought about in years. If I were to make a cross campaign house rule I would probably go with "giving pistols Reduced Penetration vs kevlar". That way it's easy enough to fold into a heroic or supers game with little difficulty. Armor Piercing presents issues when mixed with supers. Suddenly a character with 20 rPD has to worry about rifles unless they also have hardened, damage negation, etc.. . It seems a like too much of a reaction.

 

Of course, fine tuning the 'realistic' aspects of weapon damage can get really finicky. It's one of the reasons that the whole 'super-skill/deadly blow' bonus KA damage approach that began with Dark Champions really turned me off. I've always thought it was just another way of expressing the same special effect as targeted shots. It bothered me that there were little to no warnings against mixing something like deadly blow with a targeted head shot (it seems like double dipping - similar to a player building a martial arts character who has ma 'maneuvers' as slots in a multipower and then later the player asks to buy tradtional martial maneuvers for the character and combine the 2).

[psyber624]

The main difference between pistols and rifles is accuracy at range. Damage is due more to caliber than anything else. A .45 Pistol will do FAR more damage than a .22 Rifle, but accuracy drops off at different rates between the two. You could therefore give pistols the "Limited Range" limitation to reflect this. (Note that when you mention rifles I assume you are speaking more along the lines of hunting rifles rather than assault rifles. Two totally different kettles of fish.)

[bigdamnhero]

You raise some good points that I've not thought about in years. If I were to make a cross campaign house rule I would probably go with "giving pistols Reduced Penetration vs kevlar". That way it's easy enough to fold into a heroic or supers game with little difficulty. Armor Piercing presents issues when mixed with supers. Suddenly a character with 20 rPD has to worry about rifles unless they also have hardened, damage negation, etc.. . It seems a like too much of a reaction.

 

Of course, fine tuning the 'realistic' aspects of weapon damage can get really finicky. It's one of the reasons that the whole 'super-skill/deadly blow' bonus KA damage approach that began with Dark Champions really turned me off. I've always thought it was just another way of expressing the same special effect as targeted shots. It bothered me that there were little to no warnings against mixing something like deadly blow with a targeted head shot (it seems like double dipping - similar to a player building a martial arts character who has ma 'maneuvers' as slots in a multipower and then later the player asks to buy tradtional martial maneuvers for the character and combine the 2).

Good points. I guess you could give rifles AP with only vs kevlar/Real Armor. But I agree the RP for pistols is probably easier to translate to different genres.

[bigdamnhero]

@psyber624: OK, I know I said I wasn't looking to persuade anyone, but...

 

Actually velocity matters more than round size. Remember that whole KE = mv^2 thing? Yeah, KE isn't a perfect measure of how much damage a round does to tissue and there are a lot of other factors. But all other things being remotely equal, increasing mass/size increases damage linearly, while increasing velocity increases damage exponentially.

 

Edit: Okay, it's mroe technically accurate to say that bullet size matters more in terms of direct tissue destruction, which is the primary wounding mechanism for handgun wounds. But the main wounding mechanism for rifles is actually the indirect damage from cavitation, a mechanism that is small enough to be negligible in handgun wounds.

 

Here's a great video by an ER doctor comparing gunshot wounds. Warning: some pretty graphic images. It won't seem to let me post it as a hyperlink, so:

 

You're right about accuracy, of course. Giving rifles a +1 vs RMod, like RAW do doesn't quite capture the difference. I give rifles 1/2 Range Mods. I also agree that hunting rifles are very different from assault rifles; I wasn't going to differentiate for simplicity's sake. I think for purposes of this discussion, they're still far more similar to each other than they are to pistols.

[bigdamnhero]

@psyber624: OK, I know I said I wasn't looking to persuade anyone, but...

 

Actually velocity matters more than round size. Remember that whole KE = mv^2 thing? Yeah, KE isn't a perfect measure of how much damage a round does to tissue and there are a lot of other factors. But all other things being remotely equal, increasing mass/size increases damage linearly, while increasing velocity increases damage exponentially.

 

Edit: Okay, it's mroe technically accurate to say that bullet size matters more in terms of direct tissue destruction, which is the primary wounding mechanism for handgun wounds. But the main wounding mechanism for rifles is actually the indirect damage from cavitation, a mechanism that is small enough to be negligible in handgun wounds.

 

Here's a great video by an ER doctor comparing gunshot wounds. Warning: some pretty graphic images. It won't seem to let me post it as a hyperlink, so:

 

You're right about accuracy, of course. Giving rifles a +1 vs RMod, like RAW do doesn't quite capture the difference. I give rifles 1/2 Range Mods. I also agree that hunting rifles are very different from assault rifles; I wasn't going to differentiate for simplicity's sake. I think for purposes of this discussion, they're still far more similar to each other than they are to pistols.

If you don't want to watch the video, the Dr. talks a lot about how relatively survivable handgun wounds are (7 out of 8 survive), and that it's a good thing they don't get as many rifle wounds because "there's not much we can do" in the ER.

[Christopher]

I think it might be missleading to look at mortality rates. The goal of using a weapon on any target is not killing, but incapacitating. While killing is a rather permanent way to incapacitate a traget, it isn't the only way to incapacitate said target. I think once a weapon is reliably capable to incapacitate it's intended target, improvent of the killing power stops. The main goal is reached, now comes the refinement - better reach, accuracy, ammocapacity, firerate (or even just reuseablilty in case of man portable anti-armor weapons).

 

Afaik the M16 has a 3-shot-burstfire mode because that amount of bullets from that weapon has the best chance of incapacitating a target (unarmored human) while still using reasonable ammounts of ammunition. The target might be dead, might be bleeding to death or might only be knocked out - in any case it stops being an issue that shoots back.

 

I don't have the MHI book myself, but you might be overlooking several factors:

Autofire. In addition to the normal Autifre Skills and the change to deal multiple times the weapons damage*, APG I 35 has three optinal Autofire Skils: Deadly Sprayfire (only roll damage once, but add DC for every bullet past the first), Precise Sprayfire I (roll damage once, recieve OCV bonus for Number of shoots fired), Precise Sprayfire II (improves the amount of shoots from an autofire attack that hit)

Increased STUN. While KA's aren't as likely to stun or K.O. a target anymore, with this (and especially Hit Locations) they knock out the target.

+OCV and Range PSL

The ability to use them on longer range, thus avoid return fire (you can brace, put all CSL into damage or haymaker when the target isn't shooting back).

 

The most important thing perhaps is the durability of henchmen. If you want handguns to kill Henchmen with one shoot, either apply the one-shoot-rule (one hit and they are gone, nobody cares about the details) or build them so weak they can be killed or considered incapcaitated in one shoot.

Damage tracking is only adviseable for relevant Characters. And for those firearms should not be too powerfull. Few players like thier character being one-hitted by a lucky shoot. And your Monster's of the week would be not very threathening if they could be one-shooted by any rifle.

 

In order to adjust weapons you can either make the weapons stronger/weaker or the targets stronger/weaker.

 

 

*And here we are back at the 3-shoot-burstfire. When you have a decent chance to hit with 2-3 bullets, each single bullets doesn't needs to insta-kill the target. The combined body & stun past defenses is enough to incapacitate.

[psyber624]

@psyber624: OK, I know I said I wasn't looking to persuade anyone, but...

 

Actually velocity matters more than round size. Remember that whole KE = mv^2 thing? Yeah, KE isn't a perfect measure of how much damage a round does to tissue and there are a lot of other factors. But all other things being remotely equal, increasing mass/size increases damage linearly, while increasing velocity increases damage exponentially.

 

Edit: Okay, it's mroe technically accurate to say that bullet size matters more in terms of direct tissue destruction, which is the primary wounding mechanism for handgun wounds. But the main wounding mechanism for rifles is actually the indirect damage from cavitation, a mechanism that is small enough to be negligible in handgun wounds.

 

Here's a great video by an ER doctor comparing gunshot wounds. Warning: some pretty graphic images. It won't seem to let me post it as a hyperlink, so:

 

You're right about accuracy, of course. Giving rifles a +1 vs RMod, like RAW do doesn't quite capture the difference. I give rifles 1/2 Range Mods. I also agree that hunting rifles are very different from assault rifles; I wasn't going to differentiate for simplicity's sake. I think for purposes of this discussion, they're still far more similar to each other than they are to pistols.

I stand corrected. Velocity has more to do than caliber. And rifles are able to handle heavier loads resulting in higher muzzle velocities so that IN GENERAL rifles will do more damage than handguns. My bad.

[bigdamnhero]

Good point that mortality rates aren't the whole story. But unless you're strictly enforcing the Wounding rules, it's probably more relevant for an RPG. My understanding is that the 3 round burst was more about conserving ammo than damage per se, since most people couldn't keep on target after 3-5 rounds. And I agree in general about durability of henchmen. But that's not my question - my question is whether or not rifles should do more damage than they do - or if pistols should do less - and if anyone has done any house-ruling to that effect?

[Zeropoint]

Maybe this is one of those "acceptable breaks from reality" that I've heard about? I've heard that statistics collected in WW2 indicate that an unarmored target hit with a modern rifle has about a one in four chance of just falling over and dying on the spot, game over. I've also read that bullets at rifle velocities cause a pressure wave which is transmitted through the vascular system to the brain where it stuns the victim . . . maybe rifles could be modeled with a high Stun Modifier and mandatory use of the bleeding rules; get Stunned and you fall over and bleed out before you recover? The thing is, the player's enemies can get rifles, too . . .

[Christopher]

Good point that mortality rates aren't the whole story. But unless you're strictly enforcing the Wounding rules' date=' it's probably more relevant for an RPG. My understanding is that the 3 round burst was more about conserving ammo than damage per se, since most people couldn't keep on target after 3-5 rounds. And I agree in general about durability of henchmen. But that's not my question - my question is whether or not rifles should do more damage than they do - or if pistols should do less - and if anyone has done any house-ruling to that effect?[/quote']

I think you are asking the wrong question. You ask: "Should rilfes do more damage then in the Tables in MHI?"

The real question is: "How much damage do I want Rifles and Pistols to deal in Scenario X, both compared to thier targets and to one another?"

 

Here what I thought up about Tooolkitting Weaponry:

If I ever get to GM a Superheroic game, I will completely ignore the "Guns do Killing Damage" asumptions. As well as the equipment tables, as they are build for heroic games. If I build a 175 Point Henchmen, he will have get a cap fitting Blast - be it a handgun or a energy rifle. Guns will do normal Damage, Blades will do normal damage.

Simply because I think KA's only serve to destroy foci and barriers in Superheroic games and getting "Pistol Proof" should not be as hard in superhero games as it is now.

 

 

I had some thoughts about realising "High Body, Low Armor Penetration" (doing more damage against unarmored target) with an Advantage.

The current way is to add more DC, then limit them with Reduced penetration. So a gun suddenly does more DC and has more AP because of the special ammunition.

Using an advantage for this work means the same 9 DC can be 3D6 KA, 2D6+1 KA Armor Piercing or a 2D6+1 DumDum Bullet.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/foru...dum-ammunition

 

 

I also once had a though of fitting everything from Arrows to Antimater rifles in a acceptable AP budget. It was based on how Warhammer 40k RPG handeled it's things, but it never got past the idea phase.

The basic idea is not that different from "armor piercing vs Kevlar", except it is turned around: You create a set of tiers for weapons and armors. Rifles could be on a higher tier then pistols, or actially do more damage. Heavier weapons and armor (like tanks maingun and armor) would also be a higher tier. Modern weapons are on a higher tier then older ones of the same wieghtclass (the Flintlock vs. Assault Rifle Debate).

Eqaully heavy weapons still do about the same damage against unprotected Targets - once you reach the Incapacitation point, you stop making it more deadly. Weapons and Armor recieve a limitation for being lower then top tier, making them cheaper to have (not as many other limitations needed to make them affordable). But they would also become useless against weapon on a higher tier.

The primary goal is to prevent AP inflation when you want to span a wide range of weapons an protections (like a Star Trek, Star Wars or Stargate game): A Flintlock bullet to the head is still as deadly as modern Assault Rifles bullet to the head and propably has the same Active Points (ignoring that one does Autofire). A Monofilament sword still does the same damage as a Medieval Sword and propably has the same Active Points.

But a Flintlock or Medival Sword won't get through a Steelhelmet, much less as Sci-Fi Marines Power Armor. Even thick clothing (like Biker Gear) could offer some protection against old weaponry.

[IndianaJoe3]

Most of the martial arts armor in HSMA is built with the Limitation, "Not vs Bullets." I can see a similar distinction made between pistols and rifles, or high- and low-tech weaponry.

[bigdamnhero]

The real question is: "How much damage do I want Rifles and Pistols to deal in Scenario X' date=' both compared to thier targets and to one another?"[/quote']

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to ask, but with Improved Phrasing (+1/2). Thanks.

 

Simply because I think KA's only serve to destroy foci and barriers in Superheroic games and getting "Pistol Proof" should not be as hard in superhero games as it is now.

I've tried that in a few superheroic games, with everything normal damage. Depending on the flavor of game you want, it actually works quite well. Especially when you have things like AP, Pen and AVAD to add flavor.

 

I also once had a though of fitting everything from Arrows to Antimater rifles in a acceptable AP budget.

[nod] We played with that in a time travel campaign I ran, where bullets were considered AP vs. metal armor, etc. Never fully statted it out, but the idea was basically to treat tech level in a manner similar to weapon reach - you can ignore it if everyone has comparable gear, and absolute values don't matter, you just have to keep track of the tech gap.

[bigdamnhero]

Huh.

 

So I thought I might as well take a few minutes and actually do the math. So I picked several calibers of popular handgun and rifle ammo and plotted their Damage Class vs. muzzle energy (which, according to Wikipedia "is often used as a rough indication of the destructive potential of a given firearm or load.").

 

When I first plotted it, the two lines (DC vs. KE) didn't match up at all, and seemed to reinforce my original assertion that rifles were underpowered compared to pistols. However, if you assume that DCs represent an exponential increase like characteristics* and set the KE scale to logarithmic...then the lines actually match up pretty well. So maybe range and armor penetration are the only real issues after all. * I can't actually find a reference for this in the 6ed core books, but I believe this has always been the case, right?

 

Here's what the plots look like. Let me know if my back-of-the-envelope methodology is jacked.[ATTACH]n3599591[/ATTACH]