This led me to the conclusion that logically, not all calibers of weapons should have the same base damage. A weapons base damage should be based on the mass of a round, while a weapons maximum damage should be based on its velocity. Thus, damage becomes something relational to the ft-lb that takes more than just the ft-lb into account (which is what Coyote Guns source says it should do). So, I started thinking about how to do this. The basic idea seemed obvious. More damage dice. As each weapon increased in damage at a rate of about 4 points of maximum damage (until damage reached 2d12), I decided I should change the progression of basic damage dice for all firearms into a set number of 4 sided dice. Let me begin by showing the extended damage table I have been using for fire-arms. This damage table matches the damage of all weapons in the RAW.
ftlb=Ratio=Damage Dice
200:1000 = 1:5 = (2d6:2d8)
1000:3000 = 1:3 = (2d8:2d10)
3000:12000 = 1:4 = (2d10:2d12)
12000:36000 = 1:3 = (2d12:3d12)
36000:144000 = 1:4 = (3d12:4d12)
144000:432000 = 1:3 = (4d12:6d12)
432000:1728000 = 1:4 = (6d12:8d12)
1728000:5184000 = 1:3 = (8d12:12d12)
Now, when switching it to 4 sided damage dice, my first thoughts were that I should increase damage according to the standard set of dice increased ala standard d20 mechanics. This means that dice increase according to the following table of progression:
That said, I have started giving Vehicle's HD instead of just HP's after all, many of today's vehicles have a very low AI and should be treated more as an Animated Object than an object. They Derive their HP's from their HD instead of just a base number. Like right now The Abrams in my campaign looks something like this :
M1A2 Abrams
15d10 +60 (135 hp average).
I've also been thinking about doing away with hardness and instead having something like DR 15/HEAT rounds or whatever. Haven't implemented it yet because I rarely have heavily armed vehicles combating PC's ya know.
I actually like using hardness and not damage resistance. But, I usually change explosive damage from "fire" type damage to "blast" type damage. IE: I don't make explosives deal 1/2 damage to tanks.
Also, I am actually working on a HD calculation for vehicles as well. I like the numbers for vehicle HP in the RAW (until d20 Future), but I find that creating vehicles using those numbers can be a bit of a headache. What I am currently doing is streamlining my starship armor rules with all vehicle creation rules. Pretty much, I want to have "unarmored" HD which end up giving you a number similar to that found in the RAW. Then, if you add armor to your vehicle, the amount of HP granted per HD increases, and your vehicle gains hardness.
that being said, the 15 hit dice for a large vehicle seems a bit high by my calculations. :P But my calculations also assume that the Abrams still has only 60 HP.
Also, here is a question. Did I handle sliver weapons the right way? I actually upped the dice on those weapons, because the idea is that the projectile is more massive. However, because the projectile is not actually larger, just more massive (it weighs a lot more), would that in fact mean that the crush cavity is not made larger either? I know it would have more kinetic energy, but is the size of the crush cavity based on a projectiles size or weight (I know, technically both. But what affects the size of a crush cavity more)? Should I instead keep the Sliver gun using the same number of dice as electromagnetic acceleration gun and increase the die type of sliver weapons to d10 (and the die type of kinetic weapons to d12)? Of course, number wise, it would actually work better as listed than it would if I simply changing sliver to d10 and kinetic to d12. If I did that, then sliver and kinetic weapons would be a lot worse then they currently are...
I vote for the lower-damage option, rather than HP inflation.
but we have a m14/g3 .308 ball ammo that can 1 bullet blow a 1/4"-thick steel blast door off it's hinges. That seems excessive. But it is how we break a sheet of plywood with just one 9mm slug.
the RAW use of Hardness without thickness, relying on HP of the thick object is plain whacked. To assign the same HP to break a 1/2" steel bar, as to disintegrate a walk-in vault... folly. Just shoot the 50bmg once to break the steel armor and then the rest of the team can shoot the APC with 9mm & 22lr cause the armor was broken by the first shot?
Now, please help me figure out if option B is a good idea, and if it works for future weapon damage ranges. :D
Option A:
I got to thinking. If a weapons minimum damage is based on mass, wouldn't that mean I would have to change all melee damage also? A greataxe has more mass than a dagger after all... so why can both do a minimum of 1 damage? But, what if you only scratch a guy with a greataxe? What if not all of the mass of the greataxe hits the target? Then, being able to roll a minimum of 1 with each weapon makes sense. But, what about bullet grazes then? Isn't it possible for a 9mm bullet and a .50 to both leave the same mark on a target if neither round actually makes full contact, but rather travels within a certain distance of a target? Of course, on average, that is not what is going to happen. On average, the weapon with the larger amount of mass is going to deal more damage, but isn't that already represented via average damage? Which got me to thinking, perhaps this is a bad idea.
But, shotguns should still have a higher amount of average damage than other weapons with the same ft-lb, as their shot has more mass, and is likely to leave larger permanent cavity damage. So, perhaps this change makes sense, but only for shotguns. I would leave damage as written in the RAW, but a 2d8 shotgun would now deal 4d4, and a 2d10 shotgun would now deal 5d4. This would mean that a shotgun with enough kinetic energy to warrant a potential damage of 16 would deal an average damage of 10 instead of 9, and a shotgun with a potential damage of 20 would deal an average damage of 12 instead of 11. Basically, it would have the average damage of a weapon of one die size higher than normal...
Thoughts?
So is that a vote for option A or B Dark? :P
B. Mostly because I'm not an expert on future weaponry.
the 15 hit dice for a large vehicle seems a bit high by my calculations. :P But my calculations also assume that the Abrams still has only 60 HP.
It's an arbitrary number I came to. I also calculated it as being a gargantuan vehicle I believe. I also use a higher Damage dealing variant for Tank buster's and bombs, which would kill a PC outright, but may or may not damage a tank to much.
This would mean that a shotgun with enough kinetic energy to warrant a potential damage of 16 would deal an average damage of 10 instead of 9, and a shotgun with a potential damage of 20 would deal an average damage of 12 instead of 11. Basically, it would have the average damage of a weapon of one die size higher than normal...
actually, it'd be smack dab in the middle of the two die sizes' average damage. which i think is what you were going for in the first place.
Anyways, any thoughts on if switching to a multi-die vareint or sticking to a 2 dice variant is preferable in light of my recent ramblings on this thread? I'm having trouble deciding.
Really, the reason why I started this is because I got to thinking about how at higher velocities bullets of the same caliber as contemporary weapons would have higher minimum damage as well as maximum damage (because basically, such weapons just get moved up a single table of weapon damage). Based on what Coyote Gun's source was saying, that might not be the best mechanic to indicate faster velocity weapons. Such weapons will cause a larger temporary cavity due to their higher kinetic energy, but their permanent cavity (minimum damage) will be virtually the same... but then I got to thinking that perhaps it really didn't matter much, because at the point where you have a 2 dice weapon dealing multiple dice of damage, the velocity is SO much higher, perhaps the permanent crush cavity would be a little larger anyway...
And so now, I'm sitting there mulling over if I want to make this change at all. I don't think something that isn't broken should be "fixed". And, honestly, existing damage works fairly well. So, the real question, is how "logically broken" is it? Does it make sense that sometimes super high velocities (and thus MUCH higher kinetic damage) would in fact increase the side of the permanent crush cavity created by a round a bit? Does it make sense that two rounds (of different sizes) can both graze a target and leave about the same amount of damage despite the fact that one would leave a much larger permanent crush cavity on an average hit? If the answer to these questions is yes, then things should be left as they are.
A 12-gauge shotgun should not have more consistent stopping power than an antimaterial rifle.
Going over the math again, 5d4 does 10 or more damage a lot more than 75% of the time. It's a slightly lower average, but a much narrower bell curve, and that means it sticks very closely to that average.
Guns that do consistent damage are dangerous for game balance because they reduce randomness, which makes things safer for the PCs. They will rarely have to worry about a hit not being a kill.
It also makes it so that there's no way a 1st level Smart, Dedicated, or Charismatic hero with average Con can remain conscious after a single grazing hit from someone with a 10-gauge and Point Blank Shot. 2d12 will come up 7 or less about one time in seven; 5d4 will come up 7 or less about one time in 50. Nobody likes unstoppable one-hit kills, especially at low levels with civilian-legal weapons.
Thoughts?
And I am still looking for peoples opinions on the answers to these questions:
Does it make sense that sometimes super high velocities (and thus MUCH higher kinetic damage) would in fact increase the side of the permanent crush cavity created by a round a bit? Does it make sense that two rounds (of different sizes) can both graze a target and leave about the same amount of damage despite the fact that one would leave a much larger permanent crush cavity on an average hit?
With Point Blank Shot, it works at that same 98% level on most (Con 13 or lower) Fast and Strong heroes too, and nerds with Con below 18.
One more point: 5d4 is within half a point of the average damage of a 2d12. That's rounding error for most folks, and the feat you save by getting a Personal weapon rather than a Heavy Machine Gun can be used to increase that damage.
If you really want to keep the average, max, and minimum damage for the shotgun where they are with 5d4, I'd be happier if it was 3d6+2 instead. D6s are easier to find, anyway.
Other than that, does 3d6+2 really make that much of a curve difference from 5d4? I'd figure it would be about the same. Part of the reason why I hesitate to use to use a +2 mechanic is because I don't like to use bonuses as base damage. I prefer to use clean dice if I can... That, and I would still be left with 4d4 damage for the 2d8 shotgun. That would mean that the two shotguns deal damage at different bell curves, and that I don't like logically. And d6's are not as pointy as d4s :P .
I still like the idea of having DR and hardness be a per die penalty, for aesthetic reasons. That balances shotgun damage right away. Your double DR rule does the same. However, in a game where armor doesn't grant DR, that damage might be a little high.
In my game, I might make a shotgun lose a die per range increment instead of the normal rules. I don't know. I would also want double tap to do + half the base dice of the weapon (and burst + the base dice). I think you're already doing something similar in your game.
One more point: 5d4 is within half a point of the average damage of a 2d12. That's rounding error for most folks, and the feat you save by getting a Personal weapon rather than a Heavy Machine Gun can be used to increase that damage.
Yeah, but shotguns have a range increment of at most 30ft. That's well within melee range. The heavy machine gun has a range of 110ft, as well as the ability to make Burst Fire attacks. That makes it well worth the feat, in my opinion.
Yeah, but shotguns have a range increment of at most 30ft. That's well within melee range. The heavy machine gun has a range of 110ft, as well as the ability to make Burst Fire attacks. That makes it well worth the feat, in my opinion.
Believe it or not, I think that Range increments are more of a problem than damage. I shoot a shotgun at 25 yards on a range, not 10 yards. At 10 yards you'd leave a spread roughly the size of a small saucer dish, at 25 yards, the spread is about the size of a plate, assuming you use a full length barrel.
Though I do like the damages for rifles and all, I think shotguns should be upped, and the range increments of all weapons should be as well, just my opinion.
As for the cavity theory or whatever, Shotguns leave 9+ of those, each roughly what a .38 caliber would leave, assuming buckshot, instead of just 1.
So, I am just trying to figure out what page everyone is on here.
Though I do like the damages for rifles and all.
In the RAW, or as posted here?
I think shotguns should be upped
Agreed, average damage of shotguns should be higher than it is (without raising its max damage).
As for the cavity theory or whatever, Shotguns leave 9+ of those, each roughly what a .38 caliber would leave, assuming buckshot, instead of just 1.
That is why I am saying shotguns should work on a different curve than other guns. Even if I don't change the damage dice of other guns, a 2d8 shotgun should instead be 4d4, and a 2d10 shotgun should instead be 5d4.
Tivdell, I agree with everything you said. I don't subtract 1 die per range increment, what I do for shotguns is -2 to damage per range increment instead of -2 to hit per range increment (which helps to explain why you use your shotgun at range Dark). Actually, my current wording says -1 point of damage per die rolled per range increment, but with change I would have to make it -1 point of damage per 1/2 the dice rolled (which would end up giving shotguns the same penalty to damage at range). Basically, if you roll 1 with a die, you actually deal less than 1 die of damage. If you roll 2, you lose 1 die of damage. If you roll 3 or 4, you still gain a point or 2 from the die.
And yes, I did something SIMILAR with double tap and burst fire. I actually incorporate double tap and burst fire as extra hits, and not extra dice. Its the same effective change, but with more potential damage (hardness from armor sort of evens things out though. It essentially makes burst fire more deadly against unarmored targets, but less deadly against armored ones).
Also, strange person, I'm not sure how you came up with your math but it does not seem to be right. First of all, with 3d6+2 the average damage is higher than a 2d12 weapon. You get 13.5 damage, which is actually .5 higher than a 2d12 weapon. Second of all, with 4d4 or 5d4 it is possible to roll every number between 4 and 16 or 5 and 20. For example, 4 1's and 1 2 equals 6 damage with a 5d4 shotgun. Can you please explain how you came up with your math to find the % chances of rolling a specific number of damage? I'm sure its something obvious that will make me feel stupid once you explain it. Either way, all the calculations I am doing/hearing make me believe that 4d4 and 5d4 are the best so far... but I would like the math on your calculations so I can run it myself and see what I think.
P.S. Everyone: I just want to make sure I am hearing people right. What I am hearing is that changing the damage on most firearms seems like a bad idea (in light of everything that has been brought up in this thread so far), they should be left as is. But the damage on shotguns should in fact be changed in this way, which helps place their damage where it should be. Am I right?
Also, strange person, I'm not sure how you came up with your math but it does not seem to be right. First of all, with 3d6+2 the average damage is higher than a 2d12 weapon. You get 13.5 damage, which is actually .5 higher than a 2d12 weapon.
i thought 3d6+2 averaged to 12.5.
And AAB I officially nominate you the editor of the board.
Ok, so, let me begin with the story behind why I started trying to create a set of rules like this that would work.
(...)
Do knives and daggers still do 1d4 damage?
I ask because people who shift the damage rules around tend to focus solely on firearms and forget that there are other types of weapons out there.
-K
2d12 has 144 (12 squared) possibilities. One of these totals to 2, two of them total to 3, three of them total to 4, and so on, until twelve of them total to 13. 36 possibilities total to 9 or less; that's 25% of 144, so the other 75% come out to 10 or more.
21 total possibilities total 7 or less; that's 14.6%. 15% is three twentieths, so 14.6% is about 3/21, or one time in seven, so the other six times total to 8 or more.
5d4 has 1024 (4 to the fifth power) possibilities. One of these totals to 5, five of them total to 6, and fifteen total to 7. Twenty-one possibilites out of a thousand and twenty-four is about two in a hundred, or one in fifty. The other fourty-nine times, it totals to 8 or more.
For 2d8 shotguns, if you want a wider bell curve but the same numbers as 4d4, you could roll 3d5+1. I know, I know, a fair d5 is geometrically impossible, but you can just repaint d10s with duplicate numbers.
6.66% chance of rolling any 1 single number between 5 and 20 (66.6% chance of rolling over 10 damage with 5d4).
4.54% chance of rolling any 1 single number between 2 and 24 (62.3% chance of rolling over 10 damage with 2d12).
My method was as follows:
12 to the power of 12 = 144
1% of 144 = 1.44
144 divided by 22 = 6.5454545454.....
6.54545454545.... divided by 1.44 = 4.54
This means there is a 4.54% chance of rolling any of the options between 2 and 24.
24-10=14
4.45*14= 62.3
This means there is a 62.3% chance to roll over 10 points of damage. There is also a 35.6% chance that the weapon will roll 10 points of damage or lower.
4 to the power of 5 equals = 1024
1% of 1024 = 10.24
1024 divided by 15 = 68.26666666666.....
68.266666666.... divided by 10.24 = 6.6666666....
This means there is about a 6.66% chance of rolling any single given number between 5 and 15.
20-10 = 10
10-5 = 5
5*6.66= 33.3
There is a 33.3% chance to roll between 5 and 10.
There is about a 66.6% chance to roll between 10 and 20 points of damage.
Honestly, these are about the numbers I was looking at for shotguns. It seems to match the stories I have heard about the performance of the two. Many people (on these boards) have claimed that their hunting experience is that a 12 gauge should be more damaging than a 2d8 rifle. In fact, they have argued that 2d10 rifles are a better comparison. Johanixxx has even stated that a 12 gauge rifle should actually do more damage than a 7.62 NATO (2d10 gun)! The same argument is made between 10 gauge guns, and higher powered rifles. The argument I have heard is that a dead on perfect hit with either will pretty much destroy your target. But you hit a target a bit off with a 10 gauge, they are still going down in a bloody mess. You graze a target (we are talking about big targets, as in, a bear) with the high powered rifle in a location like the leg, and it might survive the shot. From the point of view of kinetic energy, however, we know that the potential damage of a 12 gauge should be more in line with a 5.56 NATO, and a 10 gauge should be more in line with a 7.62 NATO. Their kinetic energy is the same. Its just that shotguns create much bigger permanent cavities than guns with similar kinetic energy, and thus should in fact usually be dealing more damage. Usually, from the stories I have heard, a 12 gauge should be compared to a 7.62 in actual damage done, and is often more lethal when hunting. If these stories are true, then the math I showed above seems to perfectly represent this, no? What is it I am missing strange person?
Kjakan: Read the whole post. You will find your answer in it. In fact, the point you brought up is the reason I ended up deciding that changing most weapons damage is NOT in order. Only a shotguns damage should be changed (and that is all we are discussing now).
EDIT: Ok, I see where I made my mistake. I am not factoring in the fact that each number does not have the same percentile chance. I'll run the proper numbers and have a summation up here later today. The math in this post is VERY flawed.
For example, lets look at 2d6. To get roll a 2 on 2d6, you have to roll a one on both dice. There is only one combinations. That means that you get a 2 1/36th of the time. However, to roll a seven, there are 6 combinations: 1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 4 and 3, 5 and 2, and 6 and 1. That means that there is a 1/6 chance of rolling a seven. You are six times more likely to roll a 7 on 2d6 than you are to roll a two. On a 12 sided die, you are equally likely to roll any two numbers.
The more dice you roll, the more likely you are to get a result on or near the average.
strange_person is right about the distribution of damage for 5d4. There are 21 different rolls that will sum to 7 or less damage. Out of 1024 total possible rolls, only about a 2% chance.
In case it will help, here is a chart that shows every combination of 5d4 that will result in a sum of 7 or lower:
EDIT: Ok, I see where I made my mistake. I am not factoring in the fact that each number does not have the same percentile chance. I'll run the proper numbers and have a summation up here later today. The math in this post is VERY flawed.
Working out the percentile possibilities for 2 dice is easy. For 4 dice and it starts to become a headache. :/
2 = 1.5625% (1/64)
3 = 3.125% (2/64)
4 = 4.6875% (3/64)
5 = 6.25% (4/64)
6 = 7.8125% (5/64)
7 = 9.375% (6/64)
8 = 10.9375% (7/64)
9 = 12.5% (8/64)
10 = 10.9375% (7/64)
11 = 9.375% (6/64)
12 = 7.8125% (5/64)
13 = 6.25% (4/64)
14 = 4.6875% (3/64)
15 = 3.125% (2/64)
16 = 1.5625% (1/64)
If someone could post a table like this for the % possibilities between 4 and 16 on 4d4 and 5 and 20 on 5d4 I would love them forever!
Tivdell, thank you VERY, VERY much again! I REALLY appreciate it.
After comparing the percentages I see here, I think 4d4 for a 12 gauge, and 5d4 for a 10 gauge, looks just about perfect.
I also make them lose one damage die per range increment instead of the normal penalties. Not only does this reduce the average damage, it also widens the bell curve, making grazing shots more likely. With a 4d4 shotgun at point blank range, you have less than a 1% chance of dealing 4 damage. After one range increment, you're just as likely to hit, but you have about a 6% chance of doing 4 or fewer damage.
As far as your corrections go, I like them. They seem more in line with the actual physics involved with shotguns and rifles. Thanks; I think that I'll be using these in my next game.
The reason I like my method is that not only does the damage go down with range, it also gets more random.
Of course, mine has problems too. It effectively give 12 gage shotguns a max range of 4 increments and 10 gage a max range of 5 increments. Haven't decided yet how to fix that.
The internet is a wonderful tool. Here's a link to a site containing a dice probability generator, to help you with your calculations Cyber-Dave: http://www.vrtisworks.com/kiki/fun/cdice.htm
As far as your corrections go, I like them. They seem more in line with the actual physics involved with shotguns and rifles. Thanks; I think that I'll be using these in my next game.
Make sure you are only using the shotgun damage changes. As we noticed in the course of this thread, changing the damage of rifles seems to be counter-productive. They should be left as is. I have a full list of my changes to guns and armor in my Semi-Realistic Guns and Armor Rule (found in my sig) if you are at all interested in seeing what else I have done to guns and armor. And thank you very much for the probability generator!
Yes, but you have to remember that there are a LOT Of feats to up the range increment of a weapon TheDarkLord. You, in real life, might very well possess a few of those. :P
I might, but then again I might be a 3rd level ordinary ;).
As far as RAW or your Houserules, Yours of course.
And I think a 12 guage should be around 2d10 damage and a 10 gauge 2d12.
A 12 gauge slug is a .72 caliber round. A sabot for a 12 gauge is a .50 caliber round. I'm just sayin, ya know, that punches a big hole in anybody.
When you say my rules over the RAW, are you saying that you like the new column of weapon damage over the original column of weapon damage as listed here:
That said, I like the D4 method myself. Higher average damage and it gives me a reason to use the multitude of D4's available to me.
As far as shotguns are concerned though I don't have much other than personal experience due to the years I've hunted with them and rifles. And since you want to be semi-realistic, I thought you should take into account field experience.
Shotguns are, at closer ranges, Far more lethal than rifle rounds on average. Three years ago I shot a deer with a .308 rifle from about 25 yards away. I hit him in the shoulder with it, and normally I drop a deer with a shot like this, instead, I tracked this deer 6 miles through a forest and into a swamp and never found him. Now given a shotgun in this situation, I believe I would have dropped him where he stood.
I just think their damage should be upped in both average and maximum damage dealing capability but take a severe range increment penalty like removing one dice of damage for every range increment 'till it reaches 0 dice.
Slugs fired from a shotgun on the other hand are different. My 12 gauge rifled slug gun is zeroed in at 50 yards, but at 100 yards it is still very lethal. It has a quick change smooth bore barrel that I can use to fire shot out of it as well. I use this gun to hunt large game such as bear in the Appalachian mountains. And Elk and Moose in the Northern and western states. I have dropped bear in one shot to the chest with a slug round. Like I said, it fires a standard .72 caliber slug out of a 3-1/2 in shell. While not delivering the FPS of my 7mm ultra mag, It creates a very, very large hole in a target. I have aimed at small trees, 6-10in diameter and blew them in half from 25 yards with a slug.
Then you have the Sabot round for the 12 gauge slug. It is a .50 caliber slug that acts more like a rifle round except for range and FPS. When it hits a target it mushrooms to a very large size. It doesn't penetrate as deep as a large rifle would, but it leaves a massive hole in the target.
I guess what I'm trying to say, a shotgun gives you a better chance to hit a vital organ or something than a rifle does. And a slug doesn't have to hit a vital organ, it just punches that big of a hole into the target and causes massive trauma and blood loss.
Shotguns are my biggest problem with the gun system. I half the time can't make up my mind whether I want to increase base damage or increase the Crit multiplier. But either way, I have different range increments for the Slug and Shot. Shot deals less damage as the range increment gets' longer, while the slug get's less accurate.
Edit: There is also the case of the 2 3/4 in shell vs the 3 in and the 3 1/2 in shell. Almost to the point I think they should be treated as different calibers for the same gauge.
That said, I like the D4 method myself. Higher average damage and it gives me a reason to use the multitude of D4's available to me.
Conceptually, I liked it also. But, it creates too many problems. It leads to the question "why should firearm damage be restated and not melee damage"? It also leads to the question "what about the case of two slugs both dealing the same physical body damage via a graze, in other words, what about damage from slugs that don't fully impact a target? Shouldn't two slugs, under such a situation, potentially deal the same damage despite different caliber size"? It also leads to a vast problem of balance issues in regards to vehicles, vehicle hit points, and other such factors. The more I looked at the numbers, the more I started to feel that average damage already pretty much took permanent cavity damage into account. There was no solid reason to change average weapon damage... but for many reasons that you listed, there WAS a reason to change average shotgun damage.
Now, I use ultramodern firearms (great book by the way), so most of the various factors you described are already taken into account via my rules. That book has rules for SC, birdshot, dragon, riot, slug, and slug penetrator shells. The book also has rules for standard choke, full choke, and open choke shotgun variants. For example, open choke halves the range but gives a +1 to hit. It suffers standard choke penalties to damage per range increment instead of penalties to hit per range increment (see bellow). Full choke causes a -1 to hit and a -1 to damage per range increment (or, according to my rules, -1 to hit and -1/4th a shotguns damage dice rounded down. The 1/4 takes into account the change to shotgun damage dice listed here). Standard choke causes a -2 to damage per range increment (or according to my rules, -1/2 a shotguns hit dice to hit, and this again takes into account the damage change I am making to shotguns listed here). Slugs use the standard -2 to hit per range increment rules. These rules cover most of your issues with range and damage over range.
What few other issues I had in regards to shotguns (and you named a bunch in that post) I fixed with the rules listed in my semi-realistic gun and armor rules. IE: Shotguns receive a +1 to their critical threat range (making them score criticals on 19-20 instead of 20), and targets with hardness or damage reduction are treated as having double their actual hardness or damage reduction against a shotgun (but not against slugs... I should actually add that stipulation to my rules, as it is not currently in them. Thank you for making me think about that when I wrote this post).
But, there is one more issue that you describe (in regards to shotguns) that must be addressed. Their base damage. This damage, plain and simply, is not right. While rifle rounds have comparable mass to FPS, the ft-lb of shotguns comes primarily from slug mass. Since I DO want to take into account field experience, comments made by hunters such as yourself, as well as field data I have been reading recently from one Dr. Fackler, suggests that a weapons mass is just as important to the tissue damage done as a weapons total ft-lb. The mass of a weapon has a greater impact on a weapons permanent cavity then a weapons velocity. This does not, however, mean that the laws of kinetic energy transfer are invalid. What it means is that while the ft-lb indicates the potential for a weapon to penetrate or deal damage, a weapon with a larger projectile mass will more typically deal larger damage to tissue. This is because it deals a larger amount of permanent cavity damage, and while permanent cavity damage is ALWAYS seriously traumatic to a target, temporary cavity damage is more or less traumatic depending on the location of the body hit. This leads to the following observation by most hunters:
Shotguns are, at closer ranges, Far more lethal than rifle rounds on average. Three years ago I shot a deer with a .308 rifle from about 25 yards away. I hit him in the shoulder with it, and normally I drop a deer with a shot like this, instead, I tracked this deer 6 miles through a forest and into a swamp and never found him. Now given a shotgun in this situation, I believe I would have dropped him where he stood.
So, based on these facts, while rifles might not need to be re-stated (as re-stating a rifle seems to be fairly counter productive) shotguns do need a re-stat in damage. They cannot be left dealing the same amount of damage as a rifle round of the same ft-lb. But, scientifically speaking, ft-lb DIRECTLY relates to a rifles ability to penetrate, and its ability to deal potential damage. As potential damage, and the ability to penetrate a material, is based on a weapons maximum damage, this means that a weapons max damage must still be based on a weapons ft-lb. As a 12 gauge shotgun has an ft-lb that is closer to a 5.56 NATO round than a 7.62 NATO round, its maximum damage must still be 16 (2d8 = 16 damage max). The same argument holds true to a 10 gauge shotgun in regards to its maximum damage being 20. But this does not change the fact, such weapons should deal higher average damage than a weapon with the same ft-lb. The question then becomes, how do we change average damage without changing maximum damage (so that the game rules will reflect both the scientific laws of kinetic energy transfer and on the field experience)? The answer is, we increase the damage dice of shotguns.
By making a 12 gauge shotgun 4d4 instead of 2d8, while its maximum damage is still 16, its average damage will be more in line with a 2d10 weapon. The same is true of a 5d4 shotgun when compared to a 2d12 weapon. If you want to compare the math, you can do so yourself on this table.
Conceptually, I liked it also. But, it creates too many problems. It leads to the question "why should firearm damage be restated and not melee damage"?
Because a Melee weapon can add strength from the user to damage. If you hold a sword up and drop it, it wouldn't do as much damage as say, striking the firepin of a bullet and the bullet hitting a person. I don't see a problem.
It also leads to the question "what about the case of two slugs both dealing the same physical body damage via a graze, in other words, what about damage from slugs that don't fully impact a target? Shouldn't two slugs, under such a situation, potentially deal the same damage despite different caliber size"?
I think the Abstract nature of HP damage falls under these rules. A graze is a graze (as long is it isn't from some 120mm tank cannon that explodes right behind ya you know).
It also leads to a vast problem of balance issues in regards to vehicles, vehicle hit points, and other such factors.
I've already gone through and just gave Vehicles Hit Die instead of just HP's. As stated in another thread I'm also thinking about giving vehicle's a DR to go along with hardness. Most vehicle's the players come in contact with have more HP's than the standard Vehicles. Like my abrams has 130+ HP's, not just 55-60 as in standard games. As well, unless you are firing a 20 mm HEAT round or something, your doing no damage to an abrams. I think I can justify this using the "You can't cut a rope with a Club" clause ported over from DnD.
Now, I use ultramodern firearms (great book by the way), so most of the various factors you described are already taken into account via my rules. That book has rules for SC, birdshot, dragon, riot, slug, and slug penetrator shells. The book also has rules for standard choke, full choke, and open choke shotgun variants. For example, open choke halves the range but gives a +1 to hit. It suffers standard choke penalties to damage per range increment instead of penalties to hit per range increment (see bellow). Full choke causes a -1 to hit and a -1 to damage per range increment (or, according to my rules, -1 to hit and -1/4th a shotguns damage dice rounded down. The 1/4 takes into account the change to shotgun damage dice listed here). Standard choke causes a -2 to damage per range increment (or according to my rules, -1/2 a shotguns hit dice to hit, and this again takes into account the damage change I am making to shotguns listed here). Slugs use the standard -2 to hit per range increment rules. These rules cover most of your issues with range and damage over range.
I love the book too. But in reality a Slug does way more damage than your standard shot. Enough to warrant an Increase in Damage Dice or at least more than a +2 or whatever. It's kinda hard to explain since I am not a mathmatician and can only go on personal experience.
If a 300 lb bear charges you in the woods, do you want a 5.56 nato round? Or do you want a .50-.72 caliber slug to shoot the thing with? Either might kill it, only one would reliably stop it in it's tracks.
What few other issues I had in regards to shotguns (and you named a bunch in that post) I fixed with the rules listed in my semi-realistic gun and armor rules. IE: Shotguns receive a +1 to their critical threat range (making them score criticals on 19-20 instead of 20), and targets with hardness or damage reduction are treated as having double their actual hardness or damage reduction against a shotgun (but not against slugs... I should actually add that stipulation to my rules, as it is not currently in them. Thank you for making me think about that when I wrote this post).
I was thinking about doing something along the line, that Shot does not penetrate anything with a hardness of 5 or greater. I'd have to look up some hardness' to get the correct number, because I know a shotgun point blank will go through a thick wooden door.
Are we now on the same page Dark?
We are on the same page, and this is pretty much where I disagree. I don't doubt your numbers or anything, but the fact of the matter is this. A 12 gauge is more lethal/powerful than the 5.56 nato round, and probably more lethal than the .30 caliber 7.62 round. That is, as long as you keep range in mind. And the only way I can represent that is to give it a higher damage dice that falls off each range increment.
I don't know how body armor works on a shotgun, but I imagine if it did stop it you'd have to get up off your back after being hit. I guess I need to research more on how kevlar stops shot to the body and all.
P.S. I am not touching on this issue:
I'm just saying. Their is a very large difference 1/2 in to 1 inch of extra gunpowder in the shell. That should add significantly to the Ft-lbs and whatever.
you could totally ignore Cyber-Daves "semi-realist camp" and instead come to the "quasi-realist" dark side with 12-gauge damage at 2d10 :P
Heh. I like Dave's Idea with the D4's to much to let slide. I might implement it this sunday when the group get's together. Though I probably will use the 5d4 for a 12 gauge. Though I have no idea what kind of power a 10 gauge packs because I have yet to fire one. Though I might try this Saturday.
Because a Melee weapon can add strength from the user to damage. If you hold a sword up and drop it, it wouldn't do as much damage as say, striking the firepin of a bullet and the bullet hitting a person. I don't see a problem.
Fire-arms already do more damage than weapons. This is already taken into account in the base rules. However, if you start making the mass of a weapon give it a higher base damage, you have to do it across the board. You can't have all melee weapons have the same min damage on the argument that "you might cause the same damage via a graze with a knife or a great sword" without having the same min damage between firearms on the same argument.
I think the Abstract nature of HP damage falls under these rules. A graze is a graze (as long is it isn't from some 120mm tank cannon that explodes right behind ya you know).
Right, which is why firearms should be able to do the same min damage. Thats a point to my argument, not yours :P.
I've already gone through and just gave Vehicles Hit Die instead of just HP's. As stated in another thread I'm also thinking about giving vehicle's a DR to go along with hardness. Most vehicle's the players come in contact with have more HP's than the standard Vehicles. Like my abrams has 130+ HP's, not just 55-60 as in standard games. As well, unless you are firing a 20 mm HEAT round or something, your doing no damage to an abrams. I think I can justify this using the "You can't cut a rope with a Club" clause ported over from DnD.
I don't think any change to damage should rely on such a change to vehicular HP to keep things balanced. I don't think this for two reasons, 1) not everyone wants to change vehicular stats. 2) I'm actually working on a set of semi-realistic vehicle creation rules (sort of a mix between GoO mecha and vehicle creation rules mixed with fixed d20 Future Starship Creation rules) that uses HP much closer to the RAW. I honestly think the amount of HP you are trying to give to a tank is way to high. I also don't like the idea of adding more DR to a tank. Add more HP AND more DR to a tank, and I think you are starting to make it way too hard to take one out. Keep in mind, there are currently hand held weapons (certain types of rocket launchers) that can reliably be used to take out an Abrams with 1 single hit. As I don't want to up vehicular HP I don't want to up average damage as much as it was getting raised. I am looking at keeping vehicle HP a little more in line with vehicles in the RAW and listed starship HP (for PL 5 vehicles and structural materials), and want weapons with damages that work against vehicles with those listed hit points. I like creating special types of ammunition that cut through hardness better then others, and special types of materials that have a higher hardness against some types of damage over others, instead of the changes to vehicles you are proposing.
Enough to warrant an Increase in Damage Dice or at least more than a +2 or whatever.
Please note that a +2 to damage does increase (average) damage as much as an increase in damage die size. Please note that my proposed changes to shotgun damage does more than this.
If a 300 lb bear charges you in the woods, do you want a 5.56 nato round? Or do you want a .50-.72 caliber slug to shoot the thing with? Either might kill it, only one would reliably stop it in it's tracks.
I completely agree with this statement. And, using the rules above, my rules reflect this. You are still comparing a 12 gauge to a 5.56 NATO. A 4d4 shotgun does a LOT more damage than a 2d8 weapon. It doesn't do more maximum damage, but its actual damage dealt with any given attack is allot more likely to be allot higher. In fact, as I showed with the table above, a 4d4 12 gauge shotgun is very comparable to the damage dealt with a 2d10 weapon. To be honest, I might prefer to use a 4d4 weapon rather than a 2d10 weapon in many circumstances.
I was thinking about doing something along the line, that Shot does not penetrate anything with a hardness of 5 or greater. I'd have to look up some hardness' to get the correct number, because I know a shotgun point blank will go through a thick wooden door.
In my opinion, a bad rule. Artificially stopping weapons from penetrating anything with a a particular hardness, even if the weapon rolls higher than the damage of the hardness, will create a host of problems. The d20 system is not designed to work with such a mechanic. Your problems will be created by such facts as when a door gets thicker, its hardness does not go up, its HP does. A ratio between HP and hardness directly correlates to penetrative and damaging power. That is why I designed my over-penetration rules to work based on a weapons max damage compared to an objects hit points. Its why objects with higher damage dice can more reliably damage over a certain hardness or DR in the RAW.
We are on the same page, and this is pretty much where I disagree. I don't doubt your numbers or anything, but the fact of the matter is this. A 12 gauge is more lethal/powerful than the 5.56 nato round, and probably more lethal than the .30 caliber 7.62 round.
Then this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I agree, a 12 gauge SHOULD be much more dangerous than a 5.56 NATO, and very comparable/often more lethal than a 7.62 NATO round. By changing changing a 12 gauges damage to 4d4, you make this statement true.
That is, as long as you keep range in mind. And the only way I can represent that is to give it a higher damage dice that falls off each range increment.
This is where you get shortsighted. You have to look at much more than just maximum damage. You have to look at the bell curve of damage dealt. You have to look at the percentages that co-relate to rolling any particular number of damage. I really think you are not looking at my numbers carefully enough. A 12 gauge shotgun has a about an 83% chance of doing between 8 and 16 damage. A 2d10 round has about a 69% chance of rolling between 8 and 16 damage. If that does not make a 12 gauge comparable to a 7.62 NATO round, and often even more lethal, I don't know what does. I didn't post a comparison of a 12 gauge to a 5.56 NATO up above, I posted a comparison of a 12 gauge (under my new damage dice) to a 7.62 NATO. Think of the numbers I am talking about. Look at how much more likely a 12 gauge will be to deal between 8 and 16 damage than a 7.62 NATO! 4d4 will be MUCH more lethal than 2d8 due to the bell curve of the damage rolled on the dice. But upping the maximum damage of a shotgun is 100% not the way to go. By doing so, you make the exact same mistake the RAW makes, but in the other direction. Where the RAW looks ONLY at the ft-lb of the shotgun, you are looking ONLY at your own personal experience. You need to keep in mind the math of kinetic energy, AND personal experience. The math of kinetic energy says that the 12 gauge has potential damage capability that is closer to a 5.56 NATO than to a 7.62 NATO. Personal experience says that a 12 gauge is more lethal than a 5.62 NATO by far, and maybe should even be considered more lethal than a 7.62 NATO. A good game mechanic is one that reflects this, while also reflecting the math of kinetic energy. 4d4 damage for a 12 gauge shotgun does this. The bell curve of these dice makes the gun much more deadly than a 5.62 NATO round, and maybe even more deadly than a 7.62 NATO round (though its very hard to judge). However, the potential damage (maximum damage) of the round is in line with the 5.56 NATO, and the 7.62 NATO has the potential to outstripe the weapon with its maximum damage (which mathematically it should).
If you insist on using the multi-die 4 method with all of your damage dice (its a really bad idea in my opinion by the way), what you should do with shotguns is not up the damage dice by once step. You should make the weapon roll double the damage dice, but decrease the damage die size to d2 instead of d4 (and that was my plan for shotguns under the multi-die 4 damage method before a little number crunching proved the method to be totally broken).
However, interesting factoid (and AAB is going to love this one), while the ft-lb of shot shells is not high enough to warrant higher damage dice (but should get more damage dice) I did not like the fact that slugs were dealing more than 2 damage dice (as slugs for other weapons deal 2 damage dice). So, I got to searching for the ft-lb of slugs on the net. It seems, if my research is correct (it might not be), than the ft-lb of a 12 gauge SLUG should in fact be 2d10, in which case I would be forced to stat a 10 gauge SLUG at 2d12. But, I have another question... I could not find any websites that listed 10 gauge slugs as existing. Do slugs at this gauge exist?
Anyways, I'm currently looking at saying a 12 gauge shot shell does 4d4, and a 12 gauge slug does 2d10, and a 10 gauge shot shell does 5d4, and a 10 gauge slug does 5d4.
I don't think any change to damage should rely on such a change to vehicular HP to keep things balanced. I don't think this for two reasons, 1) not everyone wants to change vehicular stats. 2) I'm actually working on a set of semi-realistic vehicle creation rules (sort of a mix between GoO mecha and vehicle creation rules mixed with fixed d20 Future Starship Creation rules) that uses HP much closer to the RAW. I honestly think the amount of HP you are trying to give to a tank is way to high. I also don't like the idea of adding more DR to a tank. Add more HP AND more DR to a tank, and I think you are starting to make it way too hard to take one out. Keep in mind, there are currently hand held weapons (certain types of rocket launchers) that can reliably be used to take out an Abrams with 1 single hit. As I don't want to up vehicular HP I don't want to up average damage as much as it was getting raised. I am looking at keeping vehicle HP a little more in line with vehicles in the RAW and listed starship HP (for PL 5 vehicles and structural materials), and want weapons with damages that work against vehicles with those listed hit points. I like creating special types of ammunition that cut through hardness better then others, and special types of materials that have a higher hardness against some types of damage over others, instead of the changes to vehicles you are proposing.
The rocket launchers and Hand held tank busters I use can do that much damage in 2 hits, one if it's a good one. My problem was, if it hit a PC, that PC could live from a direct hit, to stop this, I upped the damage on them after I upped the damage on my vehicles. Not everyone is going to change I understand that, I wanted to change it though and I did.
Please note that a +2 to damage does increase (average) damage as much as an increase in damage die size. Please note that my proposed changes to shotgun damage does more than this.
I understand. I think the Max damage should be upped as well, not just average.
I completely agree with this statement. And, using the rules above, my rules reflect this. You are still comparing a 12 gauge to a 5.56 NATO. A 4d4 shotgun does a LOT more damage than a 2d8 weapon. It doesn't do more maximum damage, but its actual damage dealt with any given attack is allot more likely to be allot higher. In fact, as I showed with the table above, a 4d4 12 gauge shotgun is very comparable to the damage dealt with a 2d10 weapon. To be honest, I might prefer to use a 4d4 weapon rather than a 2d10 weapon in many circumstances.
Even comparing it with the 7.62, I think that a 12 gauge Might be just as powerful or even moreso. I can't use numbers to back this up other than my experiences in dealing with alot of different .30 caliber rifles (.30-.30, .30-06, .308, and the .300) and multiple shotguns.
In my opinion, a bad rule. Artificially stopping weapons from penetrating anything with a a particular hardness, even if the weapon rolls higher than the damage of the hardness, will create a host of problems. The d20 system is not designed to work with such a mechanic. Your problems will be created by such facts as when a door gets thicker, its hardness does not go up, its HP does. A ratio between HP and hardness directly correlates to penetrative and damaging power. That is why I designed my over-penetration rules to work based on a weapons max damage compared to an objects hit points. Its why objects with higher damage dice can more reliably damage over a certain hardness or DR in the RAW.
Your probably right. I haven't thought to much on the issue.
Then this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I agree, a 12 gauge SHOULD be much more dangerous than a 5.56 NATO, and very comparable/often more lethal than a 7.62 NATO round. By changing changing a 12 gauges damage to 4d4, you make this statement true.
This is where you get shortsighted. You have to look at much more than just maximum damage. You have to look at the bell curve of damage dealt. You have to look at the percentages that co-relate to rolling any particular number of damage. I really think you are not looking at my numbers carefully enough. A 12 gauge shotgun has a about an 83% chance of doing between 8 and 16 damage. A 2d10 round has about a 69% chance of rolling between 8 and 16 damage. If that does not make a 12 gauge comparable to a 7.62 NATO round, and often even more lethal, I don't know what does. I didn't post a comparison of a 12 gauge to a 5.56 NATO up above, I posted a comparison of a 12 gauge (under my new damage dice) to a 7.62 NATO. Think of the numbers I am talking about. Look at how much more likely a 12 gauge will be to deal between 8 and 16 damage than a 7.62 NATO! 4d4 will be MUCH more lethal than 2d8 due to the bell curve of the damage rolled on the dice. But upping the maximum damage of a shotgun is 100% not the way to go. By doing so, you make the exact same mistake the RAW makes, but in the other direction. Where the RAW looks ONLY at the ft-lb of the shotgun, you are looking ONLY at your own personal experience. You need to keep in mind the math of kinetic energy, AND personal experience. The math of kinetic energy says that the 12 gauge has potential damage capability that is closer to a 5.56 NATO than to a 7.62 NATO. Personal experience says that a 12 gauge is more lethal than a 5.62 NATO by far, and maybe should even be considered more lethal than a 7.62 NATO. A good game mechanic is one that reflects this, while also reflecting the math of kinetic energy. 4d4 damage for a 12 gauge shotgun does this. The bell curve of these dice makes the gun much more deadly than a 5.62 NATO round, and maybe even more deadly than a 7.62 NATO round (though its very hard to judge). However, the potential damage (maximum damage) of the round is in line with the 5.56 NATO, and the 7.62 NATO has the potential to outstripe the weapon with its maximum damage (which mathematically it should).
Hmm, true it is more powerful On Average than the Nato rounds the way you have it, but I just think it's more powerful on a whole in both average and max damage in it's first range increment. I know the numbers don't seem to back this up, but Experience in the field does. At close range, a shotgun is infinitly more useful and powerful than a rifle. Especially when that shotgun is semi-automatic and perhaps has a clip.
And as far as balancing Issues, the Shotgun is great at short ranges so take into account dropping 1 dice of damage for each range increment it would give a maximum of 5 range increments, and as short ranged as the shotgun is I don't think it's a problem.
If you insist on using the multi-die 4 method with all of your damage dice (its a really bad idea in my opinion by the way), what you should do with shotguns is not up the damage dice by once step. You should make the weapon roll double the damage dice, but decrease the damage die size to d2 instead of d4 (and that was my plan for shotguns under the multi-die 4 damage method before a little number crunching proved the method to be totally broken).
I'm going to use the d4 method for shotguns for sure. I probably won't switch over to the Rifles and whatnot. As far as melee weapons, I don't have a single person in my group that uses them (outside of a bowie knife). Even giving shotguns the 2d10 in my campaign they really aren't taken that much because of it's shorter range increment and rifles in the D20 mechanic are better on a whole.
after all this, I still like my method of figuring how much hurt one pellet does, then determine how many of them pellets hit the target: If a 00buck does a d4, then 0 to 9 of them will hit depending on stuff (whick happens to fall close to what Dave was having with his 4d4 base)
Well 12 gauge 00 buckshot is roughly a .38 caliber bullet. So nine of those and you have 9x2d6, which I agree with Dave, is way overpowered.
The only other issue I have is with doubletap and the multiple D4 method, what would you consider the extra dice of damage to be? Add a d8-10 or a couple of d4?
Even comparing it with the 7.62, I think that a 12 gauge Might be just as powerful or even moreso. I can't use numbers to back this up other than my experiences in dealing with alot of different .30 caliber rifles (.30-.30, .30-06, .308, and the .300) and multiple shotguns.
Like I said, you are making the same mistake as the RAW, but taking it in the opposite direction. You are making a judgment based purely on experience (which is subjective) and not science. A good rule takes field data, science, and experience (which ties into field data) into account. Keep in mind, in regards to shot shells, a character shooting 4d4 shot shells will regularly see their damage as comparing and more often than not out striping a 2d10 gun. Assume, for a second, that such a character does not know that a weapon does 4d4 damage. Rather, what he hears is that the math behind what a gun can potential deal is some abstract number (ft-lb). What this character is going to see is just the damage he deals. As I pointed out, each time a character shoots that gun, there is a 15% (give or take) chance that the 4d4 shotgun will result in greater damage than a 2d10 rifle (and this is assuming that the 2d10 rifle is being used against something larger than a human sized target, because against a human sized target such a rifle will suffer -1 point of damage according to my over-penetration rules, dropping its damage that much lower than the shotguns). Most of the time, he is going to see a lot more damage from his 12 gauge shotgun than his 7.62 NATO round. Such a character might even come to believe that his 12 gauge can deal more potential damage than his 7.62 NATO round because he usually sees it dealing more damage. In fact, it is just that statistically a 12 gauge will deal more damage more often because it deals a larger permanent cavity. If a 7.62 NATO round were to hit an area of the body where its permanent cavity and temporary cavity could deal its maximum potential kinetic damage, then the damage potential of the 7.62 NATO is directly relational to the mathematical equation that states that it does in fact have higher potential damage. This is why a 7.62 NATO round should deal 2d10 damage, and the 12 gauge shot shell should deal 4d4 damage. The bell curve of damage done compared to maximum potential damage is much higher. Shotguns will usually deal much more damage! Statistically, a 4d4 gun will usually deal more damage than a 2d10 gun. But, mathematically, a 7.62 NATO round has more ft-lb and thus a higher potential damage than a 12 gauge shotgun. Mathematically, 2d10 ends up with 20, and 4d4 ends up with 16. Thus, by changing the 12 gauge shot to 4d4, you get a semi-realistic scenario. Damage dealt will often be higher than a 2d10 gun due to the bell curve of the number rolled on the dice, but the maximum damage of a 2d10 rifle is higher. Keep in mind, after checking the ft-lb of rounds, this argument is in regards to 12 gauge shot. I seem to have found that a 12 gauge slug should deal 2d10 (and not 5d4) points of damage (according to its ft-lb).
The only other issue I have is with doubletap and the multiple D4 method, what would you consider the extra dice of damage to be? Add a d8-10 or a couple of d4?
Are you using my semi-realistic rules for double tap, or RAW double tap rules?
P.S. you should check up my Semi-Realistic Gun and Armor rules thread and go to the shotgun section. After reading all the changes I have made, I am pretty sure you will like the new version of shotguns I have up there. This thread was more brainstorming and mathematical aid rather than finished product. I have a finished product for shotguns up in that thread.
And also, where is the article you are gaining your numbers from? The only way I can see a 12 gauge doing less damage in it's maximum potential is if it's using the 2 3/4 shell. The 3 in and the 3 1/2 in mag have got to be equal to anything a 7.62 mm can do.
As far as double tap, what would you suggest using RAW? And also what would you suggest using your system. I'm going to give my players the link and have them tell me what they think of it.
My system is explained in my signature.
Using the raw, 1/2 the dice of a normal weapon equals a double tap. If you make the change I am proposing to shotgun shot shells, still 1/2 the dice actually. A normal double tap would add +1 die, which would normally be 1/2 the dice of a normal attack. A burst fire would add +2 dice, which would normally be double the dice of a normal attack.
And also, where is the article you are gaining your numbers from? The only way I can see a 12 gauge doing less damage in it's maximum potential is if it's using the 2 3/4 shell. The 3 in and the 3 1/2 in mag have got to be equal to anything a 7.62 mm can do.
The ft-lb/kinetic energy equals potential damage is a function written about in every single forensic medical journal in existence. The fact that ft-lb and kinetic energy does not equal regular damage, and the way mass equals a larger permanent cavity, is a function I have primarily been reading about in articles by Dr. Fackler.
Even a True Strike and a natural 20 against a flat-footed target would have a hard time landing getting all 9 pellets to hit. Most of the time it's going to be 2d6 or 4d6, which between them average out about the same as what you've already got, and the '4d6' result doubles hardness or DR without requiring a special rule. Occasionally you'll get a 6d6, which is the 'your head a splode' result for soft targets, or the 'square in the chest, knocks the wind out of you' result for folks with armor.