Small Guns how would I build that they are hard to notice and find if hidden on the person?

[tigersloth]

Hey guys, In 5th Edition, I a starting to build some basic Star Wars blasters and guns and I wanted to simulate somehow that a small holdout pistol is hard to notice if hidden on a person carrying it?

Should this just be a small special effect of small guns or can I build it somehow into the mechanics of the gun.

 

Thoughts would be great thank you.

[Pegasus40218]

I'm relatively new to the system, but I would start by looking at how some other weapons/equipment were built.  For example, from the 5E Equipment guide, "realistic" silencers (of various qualities) were built using Change Environment (-X to Hearing PER Rolls).  "Cinematic" silencers were built using Invisible to Hearing Group (scaled based upon the active points in the gun start at a 10 Active Point gun and going up to a 100 Active Point gun).

[Surrealone]

Don't try to build it into the gun.  Instead, have the character make a Concealment roll when placing the weapon on his/her body and use the result of that roll (in contested fashion, if desired) to determine how concealed the weapon is.

 

I suggest this approach because strapping a holdout piece to one's ankle, concealing a firearm in an IWB holster, and slinging an Uzi or shotgun under one's coat -- and moving about with such things equipped … all have one thing in common: a degree of skill when it comes to clothing choices, precise position on the body, and movement with the concealed weapon in place.

 

You might also consider a complementary PS: Concealed Carry.  I suggest this because practically every person who carries concealed … has a bin of holsters s/he has tried in various combinations with clothing until he/she has arrived at what works for his/her body type, clothing preferences, and movement tendencies.  I also suggest this because someone who is carrying a firearm for the very first time tends to move much less naturally than someone who has been doing it for years.  Movement characteristics in conjunction with clothing and body type  are important because certain motions can cause a concealed firearm to 'print' (i.e. have the outline of it shown on a cover garment).

• Example -- an ankle holster with a small firearm may print if someone is wearing loose slacks and the wind blows hard directly against the side of the leg where the firearm is located; someone who is accustomed to carrying concealed will almost instinctively move to positionthe ankle holster and firearm in the lee of the leg relative to the wind, thereby avoiding such printing.
• Example: an IWB (inside waistband) holster with a firearm located at the 4 o'clock position beneath a tucked-in shirt is prone to printing on that shirt when someone stretches to reach something high, specifically due to the tension applied to the otherwise loose shirt being applied directly over the firearm; someone who is accustomed to carrying concealed will naturally tend to use the left arm/hand to perform that reach, thereby tightening/tensioning the material on the 8 o'clock position of the body rather than the 4 o'clock side

 

A Concealment roll each time a weapon is strapped on also makes sense … because something as slight as the difference between the 3:30 and 4 o'clock positions can make a substantial difference in print levels or noticeability.  Colour choices also matter, and as another example, consider that open carry of a black firearm in a black/grey custom leather holster … while wearing grey shorts and a black shirt … with black socks and black/grey shoes … can yield an openly-carried (i.e. in plain sight) firearm that next to no one notices simply because it blends into the colour palette of the clothing being worn with a rudimentary camouflage effect.  This is basically what belt buckle firearms rely on -- a very limited form of camouflage that causes people to overlook them.  In reality that form of camouflage isn't something built into the belt buckle gun. Instead, it's something specific to the relationship of the gun, the belt buckle holster on which it's carried, the clothing choices of the person wearing it to 'gel' with that belt and belt buckle, the body type of someone able to wear a belt buckle that large, and the human tendency to overlook certain things yet perk up and pay attention to others while people busily go about their lives.  Concealment is likely the skill that best suits someone's ability to identify and effectively leverage that relationship.

[massey]

You could build it as a bonus to the Concealment roll.

 

Regular Blaster

2D6+1 RKA, OAF, 12 charges

 

Concealed Blaster

2D6 RKA, OAF, 8 charges

+2 to Concealment rolls, OAF

 

[薔薇語]

I generally wouldn't buy any special skill or power for the weapon unless it was specifically designed to be hard to detect. 

 

Most swords are built with OAFocus. 

Many guns are also built with OAFocus. 

If there is a class of gun easily concealed, have that class merely get IAFocus. Inobvious to reflect that it can be concealed by most folks in most situations. 

 

If a weapon is like a Dillenger gun and designed  to be hard to detect, then buy it with a plus 1 or 2 to a concealment roll. 

 

La Rose.

[Surrealone]

Massey has a solid idea with regard to certain weapons having a bonus to Concealment.

 

Using the belt buckle gun example, we have a gun/holster designed intentionally not to stand out on certain body types … so I would agree that combo has a bonus to Concealment rolls.  Another example of this would be intentionally-miniaturized firearms like a Derringer or one of the plethora of light-weight, polymer-framed .380 ACP pocket pistols spawned after the debut of the Kel-Tec P-3AT … all of which are meant to be easily shoved in a pocket, purse, waistband, etc. and have them easily disappear.

[Doc Democracy]

Why is it not as simple as purchasing the weapon as an Inobvious Accessible Focus?  I know that the point of this is usually identifying the source of a power once it has been used but I would be content to use it as the fact that the focus is inobvious until it has been used....

 

Doc

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

Why is it not as simple as purchasing the weapon as an Inobvious Accessible Focus?  I know that the point of this is usually identifying the source of a power once it has been used but I would be content to use it as the fact that the focus is inobvious until it has been used....

 

Doc

Because when you pull and fire a gun, it's hardly 'inobvious'... and an IAF remains inobvious even during use.  A great parallel example would be a cell-phone vs. Bluetooth-enabled Airpods.  The cell phone would be an OAF (much like a gun) because it's inobvious when vibrating in your pocket but quite obvious and quite accessible when it's in hand and being used ….  while the Bluetooth-enabled Airpods would be an IAF because they remain inobvious throughout use (unlike a gun).

 

More important, I think, is the fact that concealing a weapon on one's body is absolutely a skill … and is an example of why we have Concealment in the book.

Why is it not as simple as just using what's in the book to properly simulate what actually happens when someone, you know, conceals (hint: skill roll) a gun on his/her person … rather than taking some hackneyed approach with an IAF that is actually obvious while being used … and handwaving when you need not do so?

[tigersloth]

Thank you guys, I think I am going to go with the simple approach of giving the gun a small bonus to the wearers concealment skill roll.

[dsatow]

IDK if its in the rules or not, possibly in one of the supplements, but you might want to come up with a standard rule about what the penalties are for your various weapons.  

 

For instance, if you state for 1 handed weapons, the concealment modifier is -1 to your concealment per 15 active points, a small holdout pistol will have probably a -1 to your concealment roll while a large blaster might have a -2 or -3.  You can then give the device a bonus or penalty based on what it would be normally.  Extending this to 1.5H and 2H weapons at -1 per 12 and 10 respectively.

 

Of course, this is SciFi, so anything is possible.

 

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Why is it not as simple as just using what's in the book to properly simulate what actually happens when someone, you know, conceals (hint: skill roll) a gun on his/her person … rather than taking some hackneyed approach with an IAF that is actually obvious while being used … and handwaving when you need not do so?

 

Am struggling to see what is hackneyed, but that is peripheral to the approach.

 

Looking at the rulebook (6th edition-vol 1-p376)

“If a Focus is Inobvious, it's not immediately clear where the power comes from. Examples include disguised or concealed weapons (such as a cane-gun or a blaster hidden inside an ordinary-looking glove)”

 

I think this shows that the rules intend for it to encompass weapons inobvious until they are used as well as rings that provide powers without it being obvious that they are the source of the power.  No hand waving necessary. RAW.

[Surrealone]

33 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Looking at the rulebook (6th edition-vol 1-p376)

“If a Focus is Inobvious, it's not immediately clear where the power comes from. Examples include disguised or concealed weapons (such as a cane-gun or a blaster hidden inside an ordinary-looking glove)”

 

I think this shows that the rules intend for it to encompass weapons inobvious until they are used as well as rings that provide powers without it being obvious that they are the source of the power.  No hand waving necessary. RAW.

 

Disguising a weapon is very, very different from simply concealing it on one's person … and it's the latter situation where I felt the IAF approach is hackneyed and handwaving.  (The former makes complete sense … and RAW's examples make it clear as to the intent.)

 

Based on RAW and those examples, I absolutely agree that a disguised weapon (i.e. a weapon caused to look like something other than what it is) would qualify as an IAF.  RAW's examples which you included in your citation (thank you!) provide perfect clarification as to what is meant by "disguised or concealed weapons." Notice in those examples the gun looks like a cane (cane gun) … and the blaster looks like a glove (because it's concealed inside one).  Both of those are clearly examples of a weapon disguised to look like something else, with concealment (inside the glove … or inside the cane) being used to achieve the disguise.

 

Concealment for the purpose of disguise logic will only go so far, as I think we can all agree that concealing a handgun inside a glove can disguise it as a glove … but concealing a handgun inside of a coat pocket or a purse doesn't disguise it as a coat or a purse (instead it merely conceals the handgun from view).  So far, this thread hasn't been about disguising a weapon; it's been about a weapon being "hidden on a person carrying it" (to use the original poster's exact words) -- hence my stance on the IAF.  

 

There is, of course, some novelty in the disguise (to achieve concealment) approach you've mentioned; it's fairly out of the box thinking (which, interestingly, also happens to be illegal in a number of states in the real-world USA).  If the objective is to disguise a weapon rather than merely conceal it, you've certainly proposed a valid approach for such disguise.

 

 

[dsatow]

Just thought people might like to see an IAF.  Link below if interested.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN9Z0DLGYo

 

[Duke Bushido]

If you really want to make it impossible to detect and adhere strictly to the video above, don't use Focus at all, and pay Character Points for it.

 

Seriously extreme, particularly for a heroic level game, but it's book-legal and matches the video perfectly.

 

Of course, he'll never, ever lose it or have it taken away, either, but hey-- perfectly hidden weapon.

 

 

[薔薇語]

I am totally with Doc on this. The difference between OAF and IAF is a quarter lim. That point increase is more than reasonable to simulate that greater utility for a specific class of weapons. 

 

I also believe similar builds are used for Bricks and Speedsters ala Flash using improvised rocks, etc. as thrown weapons. Inobvious because it is hard to account for all the variety of potential around the character but accessible because it can be taken away or the access to the character mitigated (distancing them from rubble, etc.). 

 

This doesn't mean a Cane Gun isn't also an IAF, but resting everything on that single style of application might be a bit too extreme. And even in its case, once it is used, it is fairly obvious that it is a weapon. No one shooting another character with a gun lodged in a cane is fooling anyone as to the nature of the Cane. Just that it is essentially inobvious until used. If the Cane-Focus RKA wants to be so undetectable such that it is hard to recognize it even in use, it needs Invisible-Power-Effects. As a default all power should be visible to at least three senses. For a nornal gun that is Sight (looks like a gun and the muzzle flash), hearing (the bang) and smell (gun powder). Just because one puts on a 'disad' doesn't mean the power also miraculously gains a potentially expensive Advantage as well. 

 

That also seems to be a generally accepted standard in the fiction as well. Thanos's and others gems of power are IAF because until they are used there isn't much to indicate to a laymen that they are special. Once used, though, it is understood who the source is and generally what on their person is the source. But to a keen eye, the gems are obviously powerful items, the cane is obviously a gun, and the small gun is obviously hidden in the duster's pocket. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

 

[dsatow]

4 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

I am totally with Doc on this. The difference between OAF and IAF is a quarter lim. That point increase is more than reasonable to simulate that greater utility for a specific class of weapons. 

 

Just a minor correction there. 6e1p380 the difference between OAF and IAF is a half lim.

 

OAF = -1

OIF = -1/2

IAF = -1/2

IIF = -1/4

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

 

Just a minor correction there. 6e1p380 the difference between OAF and IAF is a half lim.

 

OAF = -1

OIF = -1/2

IAF = -1/2

IIF = -1/4

 

Good catch!

 

La Rose. 

 

[Brian Stanfield]

It seems like the semantics of hidden, concealed, and disguised raise a lot of problems when dealing with a firearm. A briefcase gun fired in a public place is very different than a pistol fired in the same place, while a gun in a trench coat pocket may or may not be detected by bystanders. This gets messy quick. 

 

After looking at all the rules on perception modifiers and concealment modifiers, I like the idea of a specially designed blaster (from the OP) giving a bonus to a conceal roll or giving a perception modifier. But how would this be done? I can’t find a way for a power to modify a skill roll without getting into complicated Drain rules or something. 

[薔薇語]

41 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

It seems like the semantics of hidden, concealed, and disguised raise a lot of problems when dealing with a firearm. A briefcase gun fired in a public place is very different than a pistol fired in the same place, while a gun in a trench coat pocket may or may not be detected by bystanders. This gets messy quick. 

 

After looking at all the rules on perception modifiers and concealment modifiers, I like Ike the idea of a specially designed blaster (from the OP) giving a bonus to a conceal roll or giving a perception modifier. But how would this be done? I can’t find a way for a power to modify a skill roll without getting into complicated Drain rules or something. 

To create a gun that is also concealable in a manner reflecting better concealment rolls mechanically, you would simply build a compound power. Part 1 of the compound power would be the range killing attack with all the appropriate limitations, then part two would be a +1/2 with concealment for 2 to 4 points. This means anyone using this weapon, when trying to conceal it, would be able to have a bonus to their role. I would be wary about putting any limitations on it that probably wouldn't make any sense such as Focus. One limitation that does seem appropriate though is "self only", with the self being the weapon.

 

La Rose. 

[Brian Stanfield]

The part I’m having trouble with is the “concealment for 2 to 4 points” part of the build. What is this, exactly? Is it a naked advantage for the skill Concealment?

[IndianaJoe3]

11 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

The part I’m having trouble with is the “concealment for 2 to 4 points” part of the build. What is this, exactly? Is it a naked advantage for the skill Concealment?

 

Skill Levels with Concealment, probably. 

[massey]

+2 with Concealment -- 4 points

OAF (-1), because when you see the gun, it's obvious it was made small on purpose so it can be hidden.  You also aren't just across the board better at concealment, like you would be without the limitation

Self only (-1/2), because having the gun doesn't make you better at hiding other stuff

Real Cost: 1.6 points, rounded up to 2

[薔薇語]

20 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

The part I’m having trouble with is the “concealment for 2 to 4 points” part of the build. What is this, exactly? Is it a naked advantage for the skill Concealment?

 

8 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

Skill Levels with Concealment, probably. 

 

Yes, Indiana is correct. You may buy skills and skill bonuses as powers. 

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

Concealment with OBVIOUS on it is self defeating. 

 

Just because a lim belongs on one power doesn't mean it goes on everything in a compound power. We wouldn't put BEAM on both the RKA and Concealment. 

 

La Rose. 

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, massey said:

+2 with Concealment -- 4 points

 

I thought you could only put limitations on 5 pt. skill levels. Or did that change? Or am I remembering wrong?