Agile Reposte
-Becomes an at-will, reaction power that uses a free action.
-Dex vs AC.
-Trigger: An opponent's melee attack misses you.
Brawl
-Becomes an at-will power that uses a standard action.
-Str +1 vs AC.
-Deals 1d6 + Strength modifier damage.
Improved Brawl
-Becomes an at-will power that uses a standard action.
-Str +2 vs AC.
-Deals 1d8 + Strength modifier damage.
Knockout Punch
-Becomes an at-will power that uses a standard action.
-Str +2 vs AC.
-Deals 1d8 + Strength modifier damage. Add an additional 1d8 damage if the target grants combat advantage.
Double Tap
-Becomes an at-will power that uses a standard action.
-Dex -2 vs AC.
-Deals [w] damage + 1 damage die.
-Uses 2 bullets.
Burst Fire
-Becomes an at-will power that uses a standard action.
-Dex -4 vs AC.
-Deals [w] + 2 damage dice.
-Uses 5 bullets. Uses only 3 if weapon has a "3 round burst" setting.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1136799 the Modern 4e skin, or "Modern4skin"
check the work in progress PDF
It talks about converting Modern feats to 4e class abilities and powers
Have you read the thread on reskinning the 4e System to use those mechanics with Modern stuff?
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1136799 the Modern 4e skin, or "Modern4skin"
check the work in progress PDF
It talks about converting Modern feats to 4e class abilities and powers
I did not know there was such a thing. tyvm.
you cant fix stuff with blinders on.
But I know some 4e proponents may take offense at that kind of talk,
and I surely dont want to rile folks up,
so I dont post it in the 4e boards but here on the boards for a game that is not D&D 4e.
Of course it points out the problems with D&D 4e that it attempts to correct,
you cant fix stuff with blinders on.
Or, apparently, realize that there are no problems, that something does not need "fixing," because it is not broke, just built under a different paradigm for a different audience. An audience that MechaPilot seems to be part of.
In any case MechaPilot, I'm a huge fan of d20 Modern (though I find its system a little dated), Star Wars Saga, and 4e. I can't really give an opinion on your feats-> talents yet. I would need to see some other "4e Modern" work in order to judge it in comparison. However, I would suggest that you take a look at Dias Ex Machina's Amethyst and NeuroSpasta work. They are 4e Modern/Future products. They are not out yet, but they have put out a bunch of teasers on the work. Once those 3rd party books come out (later this year) they give you a nice starting point for creating a 4e Modern game. They might offer the beginning of something against which to compare your work.
I hope I was of some help.
Or, apparently, realize that there are no problems, that something does not need "fixing," because it is not broke
What does D&D use for ranged weapon stats?
How is aAK47 stat block different than a Longbow stat block?
AK47 is a D&D Ranged Weapon, Large, Damage 2d10
If D&D has powers/abilities to fire more than 1 arrow per attack from a bow, in an amazing co-incidence the AK47 also can fire more than one projectile per attack. Just declare that a SemiAuto Rifle is a subtype of BOW, and all Bow & Ranged Weapon D&D4e powers/abilities apply.
Play the ball where it lies,
if D&D 4e ranged weapon rules aint broken then dont rewrite them. If D&D guys can launch more than 1 ammo per attack, dont get hung up on needing to reinvent the 4e ranged wheel. If you dont want to fix the 4e ranged weapon rules, ok, DONT fix them and use the AK47 as a Bow for Ranged/Bow powers.
Plain & simple.
If it aint broke then there is nothing for you to do to fix AK47 as 4e ranged weapon.
What is the reasoning to NOT have AK47 simply treated as a 4e Bow?
Or, apparently, realize that there are no problems, that something does not need "fixing," because it is not broke, just built under a different paradigm for a different audience. An audience that MechaPilot seems to be part of.
In any case MechaPilot, I'm a huge fan of d20 Modern (though I find its system a little dated), Star Wars Saga, and 4e. I can't really give an opinion on your feats-> talents yet. I would need to see some other "4e Modern" work in order to judge it in comparison. However, I would suggest that you take a look at Dias Ex Machina's Amethyst and NeuroSpasta work. They are 4e Modern/Future products. They are not out yet, but they have put out a bunch of teasers on the work. Once those 3rd party books come out (later this year) they give you a nice starting point for creating a 4e Modern game. They might offer the beginning of something against which to compare your work.
I hope I was of some help.
Thank you very much for your constructive input. I will check those out, and probably leaf through them as soon as they become available.
How is aAK47 stat block different than a Longbow stat block?
AK47 is a D&D Ranged Weapon, Large, Damage 2d10
What is the reasoning to NOT have AK47 simply treated as a 4e Bow?
If you really wanna go there, we can. I love firearms in rpgs, and happen to be a hobbyist shooter irl, but they do too much damage in game. Oh yeah, i finally said it.Show me how a gun is any more lethal than being impaled by an arrow. And don't give me this 2-pointed boradhead crap. The D&D world has been using bows for hundreds or thousands of years. Chances are good that if we've come up with 4-pointed broadheads, they have too.
As for high-velocity firearms (like military firearms), most of the energy is intended to be used up punching through body armor or other intervening surfaces (ie. window glass, cinderblocks, light vehicle armor, etc). The end result is to hit with the equivalent force of a hunting firearm. Remember that any time a bullets exits a body, it's just wasting energy.
The truth is, you could probably make firearm damage a lot more realistic if you cut the damage by 1 die, upped it to the next dice value, and added a bonus to hit armored foes. Like this:
Ranged Weapon
AK47, Large, 1d12, armor penetrating*
*+2 to strike foes wearing armor or possessing natural armor.
but more to the point...
I think many feats would make fine at-will powers, and many modern talents would make great encounter powers. Anything that resembles a spell or psionic ability should probably be a daily power. Incantations should be treated as rituals.
That's about all I can think of from the top of my head... I'd have to really look at both rule-sets to get specific...
What does D&D use for ranged weapon stats?
How is aAK47 stat block different than a Longbow stat block?
We don't know yet. No 4e AK47's have been stated out... but:
AK47 is a D&D Ranged Weapon, Large, Damage 2d10
This would not work well with 4e rule set. Depending on what flavor you are trying to catch, an AK 47 should probably be stated out as:
Two Handed, Military Ranged, Rifle Group, +2 proficiency bonus to hit, 1d10, and some sort of "special quality" to make it more gun like (just like all 4e weapons get some sort of special quality to differentiate them from other weapons).
If D&D has powers/abilities to fire more than 1 arrow per attack from a bow, in an amazing co-incidence the AK47 also can fire more than one projectile per attack. Just declare that a SemiAuto Rifle is a subtype of BOW, and all Bow & Ranged Weapon D&D4e powers/abilities apply.
The game is already ahead of you. Ranger powers work with any ranged weapon. If one was to add rifles or pistols to the game, the ranger powers would already work with such a weapon. Indeed, many of its multiple shot powers work well as "double taps." There is nothing that really does what a burst fire or autofire would do... but once Amethyst is released.
Play the ball where it lies,
if D&D 4e ranged weapon rules aint broken then dont rewrite them. If D&D guys can launch more than 1 ammo per attack, dont get hung up on needing to reinvent the 4e ranged wheel. If you dont want to fix the 4e ranged weapon rules, ok, DONT fix them and use the AK47 as a Bow for Ranged/Bow powers.
Plain & simple.
If it aint broke then there is nothing for you to do to fix AK47 as 4e ranged weapon.
I agree. There really is no need to re-write anything. Renaming some ranger powers would work. All one really needs to do is write the stats for guns.
But, in 4e only one class really gets ranged powers, the ranger. The rogue gets them as well, but they only work with crossbows. Saying that they work with pistols as well is more than easy enough to do. But that leaves rogues using pistols, rangers using pistols and rifles, and fighters gaining the pistols and rifles proficiency, but no powers to use with them (so they will only work as a back up weapon). Almost everyone will be plugged into a melee character. Probably not the flavor someone trying to run a modern game is looking for...
Which is why I can't wait for Amethyst comes out. Between Amethyst's 4 new classes, all modern, all designed to work with modern firearms, and their 4e stats for firearms, and the martial classes in the core D&D book, some house multiclassing rules, and there is the makings of a fairly decent 4e Modern game (for high combat/heavy action oriented games. I would probably still use Saga for something a little less combat heavy).
In any case, if it was me, and I was designing a 4e Modern, this is the only thing I know I would do for sure. Pistols would be one weapon group/proficiency type. Rifles would be another. Pistols would be simple ranged. Rifles would be military ranged.
Pistols would probably do 1d4-1d8 damage. The 1d8 damage pistols would require a superior weapon proficiency. The 1d4 pistols would be +3 proficiency bonus to hit weapons. The 1d6 pistols would be +2 proficiency to hit weapons. The 1d8 superior pistols would be +2 proficiency to hit weapons. Rifles would do between 1d8-1d12 damage. The 1d8 rifles would be +3 proficiency to hit weapons. The 1d10 rifles would be +2 proficiency to hit weapons. The 1d12 superior rifles would be +2 proficiency to hit. The assumption would be that all pistols are not autofire (though some superior versions would have autofire capability). The assumption would be that all rifles are autofire weapons (though some rifles will not gain autofire, and will instead gain something like a scope/some weapon property that makes them better as sniper rifles. Maybe extended range or something. And all firearms would need some sort of "firearm" property that defined the flavor of the weapon as a gun. I don't know exactly what that property would be.
I'd love to hear the opinion of an ER surgeon on the differences between an arrow wound and a variety of bullet wounds... I think that would give us an interesting perspective on the relative damage of arrows vs bullets...
but more to the point...
I think many feats would make fine at-will powers, and many modern talents would make great encounter powers. Anything that resembles a spell or psionic ability should probably be a daily power. Incantations should be treated as rituals.
That's about all I can think of from the top of my head... I'd have to really look at both rule-sets to get specific...
Thank you for your ideas Waylan. As for the incantations to rituals, you are definitely reading my mind. I agree about many talents being encounter/daily powers, but some of them might lean more toward class features. I think the healing knack of the dedicated class would likely fall into the class feature category, as might the speed bonus for the fast hero. Clearly some of them, or the higher levels of some of them could be class feets enhancing class features, but i'm still figuring out the class talent conversions.
And thanks again Cyber-Dave. Your deconstruction of how firearms might fall into 4e categories was quite helpful. Also, i did forget the need for a firearms weapon property. Not a small mistake on my part. I'm glad you pointed it out.
I suppose all that really means is that all modern military and police forces should be statted as Rangers (or possibly Rogues). That's one of the limitations of the 4E system.
To overcome this limitation, you could make certain Ranger (or Rogue) powers into special qualities for some (or all) firearms.
But again without really looking at the rules, I can't get into specifics... just something to think about.
It is an interesting point Cyber-Dave brings up about Rangers (and to a lesser extent Rogues) being the only classes with ranged attack powers.
I suppose all that really means is that all modern military and police forces should be statted as Rangers (or possibly Rogues). That's one of the limitations of the 4E system.
To overcome this limitation, you could make certain Ranger (or Rogue) powers into special qualities for some (or all) firearms.
But again without really looking at the rules, I can't get into specifics... just something to think about.
I like the thought you two have put into this, but is that really the case (military/police => rangers/rogues)? It occurs to me that most of modern warfare (from the standard soldier's perspective) is really just ranged basic attacks, movement, and skill checks.
Using the 4e notion that medieval soldiers are not classed fighters, but rather npcs w/o class templates, it seems likely to me that only special forces, SWAT (and other specially trained groups) would be equivalent to a classed character. And to that effect, i see no problem with a U.S. Army Ranger being a U.S. Army Ranger.
Dave
since you seem to have to mangle all the guns damages to fit the new rules,
could you tell us what damages guns will have?
32/38
9/40/45
357/10
44/50
Superpistols 475/500
AR
AK
m14/m1/7mag
375/416/460
600/12x99
20x102
25x137
30x173 (warthog TankBuster)
40Bofor
57Bofor
76 Sherman
88 Panzer
105 AP/HE
120 Abrams
140 Rhinemetall
oh, and the coresponding Hardnesses of Gavin/Bradley/Sherman/Tiger/Patton/Abrams
if the gun systems are gonna get all discombobulated... can a 7.26 gun ever scratch a 1/8" steel plate (10 Hardness?) that it should cut like butter?
I like the thought you two have put into this, but is that really the case (military/police => rangers/rogues)? It occurs to me that most of modern warfare (from the standard soldier's perspective) is really just ranged basic attacks, movement, and skill checks.
Using the 4e notion that medieval soldiers are not classed fighters, but rather npcs w/o class templates, it seems likely to me that only special forces, SWAT (and other specially trained groups) would be equivalent to a classed character. And to that effect, i see no problem with a U.S. Army Ranger being a U.S. Army Ranger.
Well the issue I am looking at is that modern firearms are designed with the intrinsic ability to fire multiple shots in rapid succession. Unless we address this issue, only Rangers and Rogues will be able to make full use of a weapons inherent abilities.
I think this is just wrong.
An M-60 machine gun has a rate of fire of ~600 rounds per minute. That's 60 bullets per round or 10 bullets for a 1 second pull of the trigger. That gun is going to operate the same no matter who pulls the trigger, whether its a Ranger with all sorts of multi-shot powers or a Cleric with none.
That's why I suggested the thought that perhaps certain Ranger powers should be special qualities inherent to certain firearms.
Dave
since you seem to have to mangle all the guns damages to fit the new rules,
could you tell us what damages guns will have?
32/38
9/40/45
357/10
44/50
Superpistols 475/500
AR
AK
m14/m1/7mag
375/416/460
600/12x99
20x102
25x137
30x173 (warthog TankBuster)
40Bofor
57Bofor
76 Sherman
88 Panzer
105 AP/HE
120 Abrams
140 Rhinemetall
oh, and the coresponding Hardnesses of Gavin/Bradley/Sherman/Tiger/Patton/Abrams
if the gun systems are gonna get all discombobulated... can a 7.26 gun ever scratch a 1/8" steel plate (10 Hardness?) that it should cut like butter?
Wow, that's going to be pretty subjective...
Does 4E even use hardness (or DR)? I suppose you'd have to know what sort of AC bonus 1/8 inch of steel grants, and then make sure that the 7.62 ignores at least that amount of AC bonus against armored targets.
It certainly seems like a big job to make 4E into a Modern friendly game.
Well the issue I am looking at is that modern firearms are designed with the intrinsic ability to fire multiple shots in rapid succession. Unless we address this issue, only Rangers and Rogues will be able to make full use of a weapons inherent abilities.
I think this is just wrong.
An M-60 machine gun has a rate of fire of ~600 rounds per minute. That's 60 bullets per round or 10 bullets for a 1 second pull of the trigger. That gun is going to operate the same no matter who pulls the trigger, whether its a Ranger with all sorts of multi-shot powers or a Cleric with none.
That's why I suggested the thought that perhaps certain Ranger powers should be special qualities inherent to certain firearms.
I think that's easily handled by the existing autofire rules. Which would have to be made into an at-will power granted by fully-automatic weapons.
Dave
since you seem to have to mangle all the guns damages to fit the new rules,
could you tell us what damages guns will have?
32/38
9/40/45
357/10
44/50
Superpistols 475/500
AR
AK
m14/m1/7mag
375/416/460
600/12x99
20x102
25x137
30x173 (warthog TankBuster)
40Bofor
57Bofor
76 Sherman
88 Panzer
105 AP/HE
120 Abrams
140 Rhinemetall
oh, and the coresponding Hardnesses of Gavin/Bradley/Sherman/Tiger/Patton/Abrams
if the gun systems are gonna get all discombobulated... can a 7.26 gun ever scratch a 1/8" steel plate (10 Hardness?) that it should cut like butter?
Mangle? Please. No more or less mangled then they are already in d20 Modern. Why do you think there were so many threads on house rules trying to iron out the kinks created by the meeting of an abstract d20 system with an attempt to simulate reality in the d20 Modern RAW?
That being said, you can answer your own question based on the gun damage of any given weapon. Any 2d4 gun will do 1d4. Any 2d6 gun will do 1d6. Any 2d8 gun will do 1d8. Any 2d10 gun will do 1d10. Any 2d12 gun will do 1d12. Any larger vehicular weapon, such as the tank cannon of an Abrams tank, could only be stated after some sort of Modern friendly vehicular rules were drafted. The question then becomes, will such rules be based on a Star Wars Saga vehicular combat system, a 4e vehicular combat system, or a d20 Modern vehicular combat system? Will weapons gain hardness, or will they gain a defense bonus, or some combination?
In any case, vehicular weapons would operate as per alchemical items. That is to say, they are not usable with powers, and they do flat damage. If an Abrams tank would be stated out in a manner similar to the way it is stated in the current d20 Modern game, its tank cannon would still do 10d12 damage. You just would not be able to use that tank cannon with any of your powers, thus the game does not need to worry about balancing that damage against weapon powers that multiply damage.
Additionally, it should be noted that all weapon powers have a target line. Since target lines specifically mention "creatures targeted," weapon powers will not necessarily be usable against vehicles. No current weapon power is (without DMs permission, but that is use of rule zero). Thus, all firearms can have a special quality that allows them to deal extra damage against vehicular targets with basic ranged attacks.
So, if rules for vehicles similar to those used in d20 Modern RAW are used, then firearms might have a quality that makes them deal 2[w] damage with a basic attack against a vehicular target. Now the ratio of gun damage, vehicular hit points, and vehicular hardness, is totally unchanged from the d20 Modern RAW. Not that the numbers in d20 Modern RAW worked particularly well....
I think that's easily handled by the existing autofire rules. Which would have to be made into an at-will power granted by fully-automatic weapons.
that sounds like a good solution to me.
Well the issue I am looking at is that modern firearms are designed with the intrinsic ability to fire multiple shots in rapid succession. Unless we address this issue, only Rangers and Rogues will be able to make full use of a weapons inherent abilities.
I think this is just wrong.
An M-60 machine gun has a rate of fire of ~600 rounds per minute. That's 60 bullets per round or 10 bullets for a 1 second pull of the trigger. That gun is going to operate the same no matter who pulls the trigger, whether its a Ranger with all sorts of multi-shot powers or a Cleric with none.
That's why I suggested the thought that perhaps certain Ranger powers should be special qualities inherent to certain firearms.
To be honest, I would use the ranger powers not as qualities of the firearm, but as abilities that represent double tap powers. Not everyone can double tap. Being able to double tap requires powers. However, autofire should certainly be a weapon quality. Perhaps an "at-will power" granted by any weapon with the autofire keyword. Something that, for example, does a ranged burst 1 for 1[W] damage at will. Then new powers, that work only with weapons with the autofire keyword, could be written.
I'm curious to see how Amethyst handles it. They stated that double tap will be based off class powers. They then have a feat for Burst Fire that, I think, allows you to add +1[w] damage to any power with the "autofire" keyword (which can only be used with a weapon with the autofire quality). And one class gets a lot of powers with the autofire keyword. At least, that is how I think they did it. Its not out yet, so I can't be 100% certain as of yet.
To be honest, I would use the ranger powers not as qualities of the firearm, but as abilities that represent double tap powers. Not everyone can double tap. Being able to double tap requires powers. However, autofire should certainly be a weapon quality. Perhaps an "at-will power" granted by any weapon with the autofire keyword. Something that, for example, does a ranged burst 1 for 1[W] damage at will. Then new powers, that work only with weapons with the autofire keyword, could be written.
I'm curious to see how Amethyst handles it. They stated that double tap will be based off class powers. They then have a feat for Burst Fire that, I think, allows you to add +1[w] damage to any power with the "autofire" keyword (which can only be used with a weapon with the autofire quality). And one class gets a lot of powers with the autofire keyword. At least, that is how I think they did it. Its not out yet, so I can't be 100% certain as of yet.
sounds interesting, but I'm not talking about double tap... I'm talking about full auto and burst fire... or even just being able to pull the trigger as fast as you can flex your index finger... the rate of fire for modern Firearms is far greater than the rules for 4E are intended to handle.
To be honest, I would use the ranger powers not as qualities of the firearm, but as abilities that represent double tap powers. Not everyone can double tap. Being able to double tap requires powers. However, autofire should certainly be a weapon quality. Perhaps an "at-will power" granted by any weapon with the autofire keyword. Something that, for example, does a ranged burst 1 for 1[W] damage at will. Then new powers, that work only with weapons with the autofire keyword, could be written.
I'm curious to see how Amethyst handles it. They stated that double tap will be based off class powers. They then have a feat for Burst Fire that, I think, allows you to add +1[w] damage to any power with the "autofire" keyword (which can only be used with a weapon with the autofire quality). And one class gets a lot of powers with the autofire keyword. At least, that is how I think they did it. Its not out yet, so I can't be 100% certain as of yet.
I like the ranged burst for autofire. I hadn't gotten far enough yet to consider how to do that one. I'll likely use that one. Crediting you appropriately on player printouts of couse.
sounds interesting, but I'm not talking about double tap... I'm talking about full auto and burst fire... or even just being able to pull the trigger as fast as you can flex your index finger... the rate of fire for modern Firearms is far greater than the rules for 4E are intended to handle.
Not really. In real life you can swing your arms wildly, swinging many times per minute. Yet, in 4e, you can only make one attack action per round. Its not that people can't pull the trigger multiple times wasting as many bullets as they like per round, its that you can only use an attack action once per round to reliably hit something.
However, a full auto "at will" power is as easy to work into the 4e power system as it was into the 3.5 D&D system. Like I said, an at-will power usable by anyone wielding a weapon with the autofire quality that is a ranged burst 1 1[w] damage power. 2[w] damage at 21st level. Boom, done. Its a quality of the weapon. It expends 10 bullets. Its the exact same thing as the ability to autofire in d20 Modern. A burst fire feat that makes you expend 5 bullets (instead of 1) per autofire attack power used, but grants you +1[w] damage on the power. There you go, a burst fire that works just as well as the burst fire in the d20 Modern RAW system. And then you can create a new class (or a new build for an existing class) that specializes in autofire attacks. This class could get a set of weapon powers, all of which require autofire weapons, and which allow you to make progressively more powerful attacks that utilize high rates of fire. These would probably be area of effect attacks. Maybe a couple concentrated fire attacks that deal high damage. I don't know, whatever.
So, basically, what mecha-pilot said, which you already said sounded like a good solution. :P
So, basically, what mecha-pilot said, which you already said sounded like a good solution. :P
Then it sounds like we are in agreement.:D
Now what about the point Backstabbist brings up about vehicles, hardness and the superior penetration of modern firearms vs medieval weapons? I think he points out some valid issues that need to be addressed.
can actually be killed with an average Abrams120 shot to the chest
if we just drop gunpowder weapon damages by 50% for AGB?
d20 10d12 drops to 4e CD style 5d12, averages out to ~33
... so the average 2nd or 3rd level fighter shouldnt be too concerned about getting hit by a main battle tank cannon?
Does the average shot from a 25mm Bushmaster
Will the 120Abrams get a bonus tohit naked people
because it is so good at penetrating armor it deserves a tohit bonus?
Mostly we dont address that too much in Modern, cause we dont rewrite the damages to subtract out penetration & add it back in as something else, as is done with all those other 4e weapons (although, no particular 4e mundane weapon comes to mind as doing that).
If we look at the Abrams120 as 12d10 rather than 10d12,
and 25mm as 5d10(50) in lieu of 4d12(48),
and 20mm 12 d10
105mm A d10
88mm B d10
76mm C d10
57mm D d10
40mm E d10
30mm F d10
25mm 5 d10
20mm 3 d10
10mm 2(?) d10 <.416barret>
7.5mm 1.5 (?) d10
5mm 1(?) d10 <.223 m16>
Now just cut those in half for the 4e Gun Nerf, and we have
120mm cannon d10 x6
25mm cannon d10 x 2.5
20mm cannon d10 x 1.5
416 / 50bmg d10 x 1
m14 / Garand d10 x 0.75 (1d8)
m16 / hk93 d10 x 0.5 (1d5)
Should a newb 1st level fighter be worried about taking a 20mm canon to the chest?
Or is that handled by Crits: only 1 in 20 shots from a 20mm cannon can kill a newbie if damage rolled is in the upper 90%
(but maybe not even then, thanx to -HP and Surge)
"What kind of noob rookie brings a 20mm cannon to greatsword fight"
If we have to fit A-F below 10 but above 5, how does that work with a 2 die jump from 20mm to 25mm?
I cant wait to hear about the 5.7 4e
cause it has nothing but penetration
But here's where we get back to the issue that in just about every game system (except RCR Starwars) characters can survive hits from anti-vehicular weapons that should by all accounts turn them into a Fine Red Mist(TM)
What level 4e CombatClass guy
can actually be killed with an average Abrams120 shot to the chest
if we just drop gunpowder weapon damages by 50% for AGB?
d20 10d12 drops to 4e CD style 5d12, averages out to ~33
... so the average 2nd or 3rd level fighter shouldnt be too concerned about getting hit by a main battle tank cannon?
Does the average shot from a 25mm Bushmaster4d122d12 penetrate a 15 hardness Bradley? How many shots from a 25mm to kill a 10hardness Gavin when you do an average of 3 damage per.
Will the 120Abrams get a bonus tohit naked people
because it is so good at penetrating armor it deserves a tohit bonus?
Mostly we dont address that too much in Modern, cause we dont rewrite the damages to subtract out penetration & add it back in as something else, as is done with all those other 4e weapons (although, no particular 4e mundane weapon comes to mind as doing that).
If we look at the Abrams120 as 12d10 rather than 10d12,
and 25mm as 5d10(50) in lieu of 4d12(48),
and 20mm 12 d10
105mm A d10
88mm B d10
76mm C d10
57mm D d10
40mm E d10
30mm F d10
25mm 5 d10
20mm 3 d10
10mm 2(?) d10 <.416barret>
7.5mm 1.5 (?) d10
5mm 1(?) d10 <.223 m16>
Now just cut those in half for the 4e Gun Nerf, and we have
120mm cannon d10 x6
25mm cannon d10 x 2.5
20mm cannon d10 x 1.5
416 / 50bmg d10 x 1
m14 / Garand d10 x 0.75 (1d8)
m16 / hk93 d10 x 0.5 (1d5)
Should a newb 1st level fighter be worried about taking a 20mm canon to the chest?
Or is that handled by Crits: only 1 in 20 shots from a 20mm cannon can kill a newbie if damage rolled is in the upper 90%
(but maybe not even then, thanx to -HP and Surge)
"What kind of noob rookie brings a 20mm cannon to greatsword fight"
If we have to fit A-F below 10 but above 5, how does that work with a 2 die jump from 20mm to 25mm?
I cant wait to hear about the 5.7 4e
cause it has nothing but penetration
That was nice. Now lets try another take without the sarcasm.
"artificial game balance"?! Seriously?! You're gonna apply that label to 4e but not to modern? Whatever gets ya off.
And i agree with waylan. There really should be no need for damage for certain things. If you get shot by a tank and are not in a tank (or mecha), poof! A pretty red cloud.
That is one of the things i still love about palladium games system. M.D.C. vs S.D.C. For the uninitiated, M.D.C. is hp for mecha and starships. A character that takes M.D.C. damage has it multiplied by 100 before affecting his S.D.C. Which is always lethal.
That was nice. Now lets try another take without the sarcasm.
sorry, but I dont do "without sarcasm".
"artificial game balance"?! Seriously?! You're gonna apply that label to 4e but not to modern?
AGB is something we try to eliminate in our Modern games,
but it seems to be a goal in the 4e D&D With Nerfed Guns in this thread
I leave you guys to continue this thread without further interuption
...stuff...
Wow. What an absolutely worthless post backstabbist. You are way behind the bell curve on this one. Please try and actually respond to what other people say. Nothing in your last post is based on anything anyone else actually said. Cutting vehicular weapon damage in half is a bad idea. Everyone agreed that was a bad idea from the start. That is why I stated, right off the bat, that vehicular weapon damage would have to be based off vehicular hit points, and if vehicles have hit points and hardness similar to what they have in d20 Modern RAW then they would do the same damage as they do in d20 Modern RAW. Vehicular weapons simply would not be classified as "weapons," but rather as something akin to 4e "alchemical items." This means that they can not be used with weapon powers, and thus their damage is never multiplied.
So, as has already been stated, assuming vehicles in a 4e d20 Modern look something like vehicles in 3e d20 Modern, then an Abrams tank cannon would do 10d12 damage (just like it currently does), not 5d12 (which you inexplicably claimed in to would in my 4e system, despite my claims to the contrary).
Moreover, as a 10d12 weapon, it would actually be more threatening to high level 4e characters then the Abrams tank cannon is to high level d20 Modern characters, because high level 4e characters have less hit points then high level d20 Modern characters. They start out with more hit points, but they don't gain nearly as many. In fact, lets look at a 20th level Fighter. 15 hit points + its Constitution score. +6 hit points per level. Lets assume a Constitution of 20 (this is a TOUGH character). So, we have 149 hit points. Meanwhile, the tough d20 Modern hero, with a Con of 20, would have 214.5 hit points on average. So, we can already see which character the Abrams tank cannon is more of a threat against. Now lets look at the characters at 10th level. 89 hit points for the 4e character. 109.5 hit points for the d20 Modern character. Once again, at 10th level, the 4e character will be more threatened by the Abrams tank cannon then the d20 Modern RAW character will.
Add in some sort of "4e damage threshold rules," something like, "if an attack deals more damage then your healing surge value you have to make a saving throw or drop to 0 hit points, and are considered to be dying," and the 4e character is REALLY threatened by the Abrams tank cannon. Since it does 10d12, that's 55 damage average. The above 4e 10th level character would have a healing surge value of 22. The above 20th level 4e character would have a healing surge value of 37. A rule like the one I just wrote would cause both characters to have to make a saving throw or be dying against an average shot from an Abrams tank cannon. And, what is more, they would actually have a 45% chance of failing that saving throw. And we are only talking average damage. Max damage will kill the 10th level character outright. Meanwhile, the d20 Modern character above will only fail a massive damage save on a natural roll of 1 (5% chance), and has more hit points then the 4e character did. Put plain and simply, d20 Modern characters would have a better chance to survive against an Abrams tank than 4e characters would.
See backstabbist, you like to make arguments about the weakness of 4e, but you choose to ignore that this supposed "weakness" not only exists in the 3e d20 Modern system, but is more prevalent. Only at the earliest levels of play would the 4e characters have mor hit points. And at these levels of play, it really doesn't matter whether you are playing a 4e system or a 3e system. A 10d12 weapon will still kill both characters outright. And, while the 4e character starts with more hit points, it will also be taking more damage from attacks. At first level, 4e characters will already face opponents that can do 3, occasionally 4, [w] damage. That's 3 or 4 dice of damage. Meanwhile, the 3e d20 Modern characters only ever need to deal with 2 dice of damage from any gun attack.
I leave you guys to continue this thread without further interuption
"And there was much rejoicing"Getting back to the subjest of vehicle weapons, i can clearly see how some of them really shouldn't do anything less than kill a character. In D20 Past, some of the cannons (not the anti-personnell ones the pirates used, but the anti-ship guns and the field pieces) have damages that are entirely survivable.
The problem is that it just doesn't work. I'm not gonna catch a cannonball like a dodgeball (taking the hp damage), then tell the cannoneer that he's out. 4e is heroic but that is beyond heroic. It's comical.
So far, my thought on this is that vehicle and artillery weapons can't target characters. They can target vehicles and squares. A vehicle that's hit takes normal weapon damage. A group of squares that's hit does some amount of damage to every character in those squares.
I think they already suggested that vehicle mounted weapons like the 25mm bushmaster and the 120mm cannon wouldn't change... instead they'd use the rules for... alchemy?... I'm not familiar with those rules
They are from Adventurers Vault. They are items that use their own attack rating, not the attack rating of a character (of course, this is because all the listed items are explosives. If the item is actually aimed, and is not explosive, its easy to create rules for such an item that uses a characters attack bonus. But, to be honest, most large weapons, such as a Abrams tank shell, probably should be stated as "explosive" weapons). Likewise, they have fixed damage. As they are not technically a "weapon," they are not usable with weapon powers.
But here's where we get back to the issue that in just about every game system (except RCR Starwars) characters can survive hits from anti-vehicular weapons that should by all accounts turn them into a Fine Red Mist(TM)
Saga is actually pretty good with that also. anti-vehicular weapons in Saga often do so much damage, they will kill even 20th level characters with a single hit.
And, while I don't pretend this 4e system would be quite as realistic, if you add in some sort of damage threshold rule it would not be so bad. It would be a site better than d20 Modern RAW, for example.
... fuel for the fire...
Honestly, I can understand Backstabbist's frustration with artificial game balance, and I think that's what he's really venting about.
I think if he could let go of his frustration, he could provide some very helpful insight into this process... but blasting him over a post that was made out of frustration is just going to make things worse...
Lets all take a deep breath and try to focus on overcoming these issues instead of railing against them...
I mean we're making these rules up anyway, who says we have to make the same old mistakes that Modern did?
Why does a 120mm cannon have to do 10d12 points of damage? because it did in Modern? well a long bow did 1d8 in modern, and in 4E it does 1d10... if the long bow can get new damage why not a tank cannon?
I suggest we forget the d20 modern stats for modern weapons and make up new ones to more accurately reflect the devastating nature of modern technology.
Lets all take a deep breath and try to focus on overcoming these issues instead of railing against them...
All right. Fair enough. Deep breath.
I mean we're making these rules up anyway, who says we have to make the same old mistakes that Modern did?
Why does a 120mm cannon have to do 10d12 points of damage? because it did in Modern? well a long bow did 1d8 in modern, and in 4E it does 1d10... if the long bow can get new damage why not a tank cannon?
I suggest we forget the d20 modern stats for modern weapons and make up new ones to more accurately reflect the devastating nature of modern technology.
All right, so, I am looking through the Adventurers Vault book right now. Personally, I think I prefer the Star Wars Saga vehicle rules, but we are working in the 4e medium so lets play with those style of rules.
Turns out the president for vehicular weapons is set for us. Vehicles receive "at will powers" usable by operators. These powers are attacks with vehicular weapons. As they are powers, and not technically "weapons," it would be impossible to use other weapon powers with vehicular weapons.
No vehicle in 4e has hardness. They have only an AC, fortitude defense, and a reflex defense. So, when choosing our weapon damage for vehicular weapons, we should take into account that vehicles don't have a hardness.
Next we need to figure out hit points based on size.
Looking through the large sized vehicles, they have between 40-200 hp. The gargantuan vehicles have between 250-400 hp. There is only one medium vehicles listed, and it has 30 hp.
Here are the difficulties that I find right off the bat. its hard to tell how size should effect AC. Players can only play small or medium characters, and neither gets a modifier to their Reflex/AC. And, when constructing monsters, you don't really take its size into consideration when discovering its defenses. Or rather, defenses are chosen in order to fluff out the "feel" of a creature as needed, without hard and fast rules that codify how this is done in relation to size. That being said, the AC and Reflex defense of the larger vehicles does seem to be lower.
So, I guess what we need to decide first is: what should HP ranges be based on size? And next, how will we decide what defense a vehicle should have? Once those rules are chosen, it should be fairly easy to create decent vehicular weapon rules.
In a certain campaign setting/system that we're not allowed to mention by name on this forum due to copywrite issues, there are two classifications of damage: one on the realistic small-scale and one on the fantasy massive scale. The first was the standard, and the second translated into being 100 times more potent.
Perhaps you can have a system for personal and vehicle damage (1 to 10?), where vehicles have vehicle HP - which goes down by 1 for every 10 personal damage dealt (excess non-tens-place damage rounded down)?
Makes it difficult to damage vehicles, but isn't that how things should be?
That system might only work for armored vehicles, though... but I do think that sort of mechanic has the 4E spirit of simple to it.
Just chiming in (without my anti-4e comments) 'cause I'm interested in helping.
In a certain campaign setting/system that we're not allowed to mention by name on this forum due to copywrite issues, there are two classifications of damage: one on the realistic small-scale and one on the fantasy massive scale. The first was the standard, and the second translated into being 100 times more potent.
Perhaps you can have a system for personal and vehicle damage (1 to 10?), where vehicles have vehicle HP - which goes down by 1 for every 10 personal damage dealt (excess non-tens-place damage rounded down)?
Makes it difficult to damage vehicles, but isn't that how things should be?
That system might only work for armored vehicles, though... but I do think that sort of mechanic has the 4E spirit of simple to it.
I like it. I like it allot. I was actually really bothered by the fact that in 4e, as vehicles don't have hardness, they could eventually be destroyed by shots from stuff like 9mm guns. The 10 points of personal damage equals one shot of vehicular damage would fix that. And, there would be no need to include rules that cause firearms to deal 2[w] damage against vehicles. This rule would already make it so that only 1d10 and 1d12 weapons could hurt armored vehicles... which is, I think, how we want it?
Now as to the size modifiers...
I don't think size should affect AC... just reflex defense.
large
huge
gargantuan
4e did away with the colossal size. Except, as gargantuan is anything that is 4 by 4 squares or larger, It sort of leaves a large gap in modern vehicular sizes. I mean, a lot of vehicles are more than 20 by 20 feet... so maybe we should include a "colossal" size just for vehicles? I don't know.
Do we want something like 1, 2, 5, 10 (penalty to reflex, bonus to fortitude)?
Thoughts?
Just chiming in (without my anti-4e comments) 'cause I'm interested in helping.
In a certain campaign setting/system that we're not allowed to mention by name on this forum due to copywrite issues, there are two classifications of damage: one on the realistic small-scale and one on the fantasy massive scale. The first was the standard, and the second translated into being 100 times more potent.
Is that what happened to my post about that? Lol. didn't know we couldn't mention that.
@Cyber-Dave: In one of the Core 4e books, it mentions HP, AC, Reflex Defense and such for objects of differing materials. They suggest a multiplier based on the object's fragility. Thus a bronze pocket-watch would have less hp than a bronze key.
I would suggest that piloted objects (ie. vehicles) should get some kind of bonus from the character. Perhaps using the character's Dex bonus for the Reflex Defense instead of assuming a score of zero for the object.
Honestly, I can understand Backstabbist's frustration with artificial game balance, and I think that's what he's really venting about.
I think if he could let go of his frustration, he could provide some very helpful insight into this process... but blasting him over a post that was made out of frustration is just going to make things worse...
Lets all take a deep breath and try to focus on overcoming these issues instead of railing against them...
Honestly, i was cheering the absence of sarcasm and non-constructive criticism. I'm sure Backstabbist has some good ideas, his previous posts here have nuggets that inspire some thought. I just don't want to sift through anti-4e text to find them.
The biggest problem is that too many people make the solution way too difficult. D&D 4th Edition was designed to be easy and the solution should be as well. Powers, a few feats, and poof...problem solved.
Agreed. Definitely. But the details of the powers and feats is where one gets bogged down.
Here's a question, though, if we're going with normal and vehicle damage/hp types, how much Vhp does a T-72 have? How about an M1A1 Abrams? If it's still at ~300-400, what kind of damage does a Javelin missile (1 hit kill on most older tanks, definite kill against light armored vehicles) do?
40 VHP=400 normal HP, and even then, most 9mm shots won't actually do anything to them (assuming a 9mm is 1d10-12 normally and at least on par with a longbow... though it really does mess you up worse inside with H-points or self-defense rounds [of course, h-points and self-defense rounds would suck against tanks]).
Anyhow, assuming a tank has 40VHP, a javelin missile could then only need to deal 4d10-ish Vdamage to have the potential to take down an abrams. On a 30VHP tank, it at least hurts a lot and has a higher chance of taking it out in one hit.
ALSO: In this and most tank-busting munitions' cases, you avoid having to deal with "Oh noez! 4d10V-damage = 400 regular damage! that's OP!" because tank-buster missiles tend to need to lock on prior to launch... meaning dumbfire vs infantry won't ever happen.
I like the jumping size category penalties/bonuses (as opposed to +1/-1, +2/-2, etc...), Dave.
Please explain this sentence. I just didn't get whether you were saying you liked or did not like the 1, 2, 5, (and a gargantuan oversized 10?) idea or not.
Here's a question, though, if we're going with normal and vehicle damage/hp types, how much Vhp does a T-72 have? How about an M1A1 Abrams? If it's still at ~300-400, what kind of damage does a Javelin missile (1 hit kill on most older tanks, definite kill against light armored vehicles) do?
Well, I would asume that a vehicle with vehicular HP would have its normal amount of HP divided by 10. As for how many would be the "normal amount"... well, first we have to figure out what HP ranges different size categories should have.
40 VHP=400 normal HP, and even then, most 9mm shots won't actually do anything to them (assuming a 9mm is 1d10-12 normally and at least on par with a longbow... though it really does mess you up worse inside with H-points or self-defense rounds [of course, h-points and self-defense rounds would suck against tanks]).
As 9mm rounds do 2d6 in d20 Modern, they would actually only do 1d6 damage in this system. Of course, that 1d6 will actually deal anywhere between 1d6 to 9d6 (I think 9[w] damage is the most I have seen, though I might be overestimating a little here. I know I have seen a 7[w] damage power), depending on what power you are using with it.
Anyhow, assuming a tank has 40VHP, a javelin missile could then only need to deal 4d10-ish Vdamage to have the potential to take down an abrams. On a 30VHP tank, it at least hurts a lot and has a higher chance of taking it out in one hit.
Sounds about right.
ALSO: In this and most tank-busting munitions' cases, you avoid having to deal with "Oh noez! 4d10V-damage = 400 regular damage! that's OP!" because tank-buster missiles tend to need to lock on prior to launch... meaning dumbfire vs infantry won't ever happen.
Which should be easy enough to work into the rules. In the "target" line of the "at-will" (or per encounter, for vehicular weapons with slow reload times) equipment power of the vehicular weapon all one needs to write down is "one vehicle" and problem solved. The weapon can not be used to target PCs, only vehicles.
Please explain this sentence. I just didn't get whether you were saying you liked or did not like the 1, 2, 5, (and a gargantuan oversized 10?) idea or not.
I did like it.
Well, I would asume that a vehicle with vehicular HP would have its normal amount of HP divided by 10. As for how many would be the "normal amount"... well, first we have to figure out what HP ranges different size categories should have.
Okay, I suppose I'll have to wait for that to design weaponry for destroying vehicles. :P
As 9mm rounds do 2d6 in d20 Modern, they would actually only do 1d6 damage in this system. Of course, that 1d6 will actually deal anywhere between 1d6 to 9d6 (I think 9[w] damage is the most I have seen, though I might be overestimating a little here. I know I have seen a 7[w] damage power), depending on what power you are using with it.
I guess I missed the conversion system, but didn't longbows go from 1d8 to 1d10 from 3.5 to 4E? I mean, I don't really want to play a 4E Modern (I'm just interested in helping because I like helping/making mechanics), but that difference kinda seems screwy. Are longbows nerfed from their normal 4E status, or is there an inexplicable reason why they do more damage than handguns?
Also - 9d6 with a handgun? That's an amazing shot...
Sounds about right.
Good. Just checking.
Which should be easy enough to work into the rules. In the "target" line of the "at-will" (or per encounter, for vehicular weapons with slow reload times) equipment power of the vehicular weapon all one needs to write down is "one vehicle" and problem solved. The weapon can not be used to target PCs, only vehicles.
Excellent. Now for tank guns... which can target infantry, though I suppose that, you know, the means for acquiring a friggin' tank are balance enough for the power of that gun... Not to mention you're burning a lot of money every shot.
I guess I should probably butt out of this until you guys have agreed on some of the more important things like the association with HP and size - and of course how wealth should work in a 4E-version of modern.
The biggest problem is that too many people make the solution way too difficult. D&D 4th Edition was designed to be easy and the solution should be as well. Powers, a few feats, and poof...problem solved.
Agreed. We are just fooling around with ideas on how to build 4e style Modern vehicles. The hardest thing to work out is how to work in Modern style vehicular body armor... and I think the idea of certain armored vehicles using "vehicular hit points" works well. The thing with Modern military vehicles is that they are pretty much immune to small arms fire. How do you work that in without including a hardness?
Of course, I suppose the alternate solution would simply be to add in a damage resistance of 10 to modern vehicles. Now, if only I could remember what DR is in 4e... so few things get it, that off hand, I cant remember the proper terminology right now...
P.S. I looked up objects inside the DMG.
Large, Huge, and Gargantuan objects get a base AC and Reflex Defense of 4, 3, 2. They get a base Fortitude Defense of 12, 15, 20. They get a base HP of 40, 100, 200. Those hit points assume that something is pretty much made of wood. Something made of the hardness of stone gains x2 HP. Something made of the hardness of Iron or steel gains a hardness of x3 HP. Something made of the hardness of "adamentine" gains x5 HP. So, that should start us out with some vehicular base numbers for HP. Also, with rules like these, there is no need for a modifier to reflex Defense or Fortitude Defense based on size. These rules already incorporate those qualities into the reflex defense and fortitude defense of objects.
So, now all we need to figure out is how to add AC based on a vehicles armor plating (should be easy enough). Lets just assume all vehicles wear "heavy armor," and then figure out what sort of "heavy armor quality" they are wearing.
And I agree, the operator of a vehicle really should be able to add AC (not reflex defense or fortitude defense) based on their level. After all, the higher level someone is, the easier a time they will have hitting vehicles. It only makes sense that a higher level character in a vehicle would make it harder to damage said vehicle.
So, lets say that a vehicle gets a base AC based on its size (4, 3, or 2), and this number replaces 10 in the AC calculation arithmetic. It then gets is AC bonus from armor plating. And it then gets to add 1/2 an operator/driver's level to its armor class, if the character has a vehicular combat feat. Sounds about right, no?
P.P.S. Ok, so, I really like the vehicular hit points idea, but Serena Dawn is probably right. Its probably against the spirit of 4e. Looking through the rules, there is a very simply/easy way avoid having small arms damage vehicles is simply to give vehicles "Damage Resistance (unspecified type) 10." Then nothing but .50 AE rounds will be able to damage vehicles, and even then only by 2 points. Likewise, this quality would only be given to something like tanks. Armored cars might get a DR of 5. Most normal vehicles would not have a DR at all.
So, we now have vehicle creation rules...
Who wants to try their hand at stating out the first vehicle?
As for vehicular weapons... well, the Abrams tank in d20 Modern has 64 hp, a hardness of 20, , and its cannon does 10d12 damage. That's an average of 65 hit points per hit. So, 65 average hits. Of course, 1 roll of a 20 (critical hit) pretty much destroys the tank, as does a lucky high damage roll. So, assuming an Abrams is made of "adamentite" quality hardness, we are talking 1000 hit points. So, how much damage should a vehicular weapon do? I am thinking something around 10d12 x 2 sounds about right. Alternatively, 5d12 x 5 would work well too. Yes, I am using Star Wars style multiplied vehicular damage. I really like that mechanic. :P
I guess I missed the conversion system, but didn't longbows go from 1d8 to 1d10 from 3.5 to 4E? I mean, I don't really want to play a 4E Modern (I'm just interested in helping because I like helping/making mechanics), but that difference kinda seems screwy. Are longbows nerfed from their normal 4E status, or is there an inexplicable reason why they do more damage than handguns?
Also - 9d6 with a handgun? That's an amazing shot...
A 9d6 weapon power would be something like a daily highest level epic attack power for a high damage striker class. So, yes, its an amazing shot. :P
As for the rest... huh... good point. I just looked at my Renaissance firearms rules. I balanced them very carefully against existing 4e ranged weapons. This is what I got:
Firearms
You don't need to add in "hardness" just, perhaps, resist rules, which are present in 4ed. Throw in an AP value for weapons and the problem is solved without having to break the system by making a missile launcher that does 3d10 at 2nd level and 12d10 after at 15th.
You are on the right track, Cyber-D. This works for basic weapons. With a few additional ne keywords (yup), you can expand this to any type of weapon you want. That's the secret folks. keywords...
I am very impressed with all the great ideas. You guys should really be proud of yourselves. that is fatastic work.
As for a first shot at a vehicle with your ideas, here goes:
Grandma's Buick
Large Automobile
1 crew, 4 passengers
Speed: 10 (tactical speed, not overland travel speed)
HP: 120, AC: 8 (+4 from flimsy metal body), Fort: 12, Reflex: 4
Ram
at-will power, uses a move and a standard action.
Move into a square occupied by an enemy
Attack: Dexterity vs Reflex
Hit: Deals 1d10 damage and pushes the enemy 1 square. The enemy is knocked prone in that square.
Miss: You move past the enemy until no part of the vehicle occupies the enemie's square.
Just a few notes while working on this:
*There are certain powers that target reflex, notably some area-affect powers, so i think the driver should have some effect on the Reflex speed of the vehicle.
*In order for the driver to affect the vehicle's AC and Reflex, i think we are in agreement that the vehicle is somehow in motion. Perhaps the vehicle uses its base defenses if it hasn't moved that round (or maybe they last until the end of the turn when the vehicle started standing still, so for 1 round after it stops).
*I used Large for the vehicle's size, but i think huge is actually more true to form. That puts 4 spaces inside the vehicle for 4 characters to occupy.
*I like the idea of vehicle combat feats. I was thinking a character might add half their level to the Reflex and AC of the vehicle. A vehicle combat feat would likely allow the character to add his Dexterity modifer to those two defenses.
I used Large for the vehicle's size, but i think huge is actually more true to form. That puts 4 spaces inside the vehicle for 4 characters to occupy.
A larger care already has 4 squares inside it... its 2 by 2 squares, which makes it a total of 4 squares large.
In any case, in d20 Modern they have both large and huge sized cars. Though, to be honest, I can't think of a real life car which is bigger then 10 feet by 10 feet in size.
A larger care already has 4 squares inside it... its 2 by 2 squares, which makes it a total of 4 squares large.
In any case, in d20 Modern they have both large and huge sized cars. Though, to be honest, I can't think of a real life car which is bigger then 10 feet by 10 feet in size.
my 1986 cadillac is almost 5 feet wide and over 15 feet long.
Not to sound like a 4E basher here, but getting hit by a car does the same damage as getting hit by a long bow? maybe at 10mph...
my 1986 cadillac is almost 5 feet wide and over 15 feet long.
Not to sound like a 4E basher here, but getting hit by a car does the same damage as getting hit by a long bow? maybe at 10mph...
Yea... that damage dealt should really be based on the speed at which the car is moving...
I was assuming the vehicle was travelling at tactical speed. Tactical speed is (to me) the speed at which the vehicle moves but does not inflict any penalties on it's passengers' ability to shoot at others, or other's abilities to shoot at passengers.
If you look at the stats (10 squares tactical speed), i was assuming that speed to be 2 sqaures faster than a person with the average 6 squares can run (run increases speed by 2 squares).
Translating that into real world speed, i believe that's in the range of 16-20 mph. I also felt it was alright to mitigate some of the actual damage by having the target get knocked prone.
Although i am perfectly willing to accept an increase in damage. If you want to add 1d6 for every 2 squares the vehicle travels in a straight line to the target, that would be appropriate. i was just trying to start with simple, then hone it from there.
if you change the wording from "pushes" to "shifts" the target 1 square that makes more sense (and the damage is fine).
I was thinking of something more like being run over by a car, or being hit by a city bus... sorry.
as far as the construction rules go... I like them...
ok I re-read the ram power and i see where I went wrong.
if you change the wording from "pushes" to "shifts" the target 1 square that makes more sense (and the damage is fine).
I was thinking of something more like being run over by a car, or being hit by a city bus... sorry.
as far as the construction rules go... I like them...
No apology neccessary. Shift is a kind of voluntary movement, for forced movement i believe the proper term is "slide", but i don't wanna get hung up on semantics.
I do think a ram is likely to throw the target in the direction the car was traveling, but people can roll off a car in almost any direction, so i'm not wedded to the concept.