Additional attack actions?

[CosmicGamer]

You can, of course, make up any rules you wish about 'snapshots', however, none of what you propose is in the RAW, so they'd just be house rules. :wink:

So true. But some concepts can be massaged into the rules - if you want. Others, like GM assigning situational DMs are something the rules allow for. And there are things totally not covered by the rules - it's part of role playing and up to the GM to decide how they want to handle it.

Even the proposed snapshot is a bit of a shoehorn.

For example, one could even go so far as to allow a snapshot with no -DM!

The Referee may permit a character to perform a skill check or other
action as a minor action if the use of the skill does not require the
character’s full attention or complex physical actions.

So why not a snapshot attack as a minor action skill check? Certainly lpulling a trigger is less full attention and complex physical action than the minor action example of bending down and

Picking something up off the ground

or say there is no such thing as a snapshot because

The most common significant action is an attack. The basic attack
action is trying to injure a foe with a melee attack or a ranged weapon.

The already basic attack action is clearly designated as a significant action.
As far as timing - the rules on timing already put both the minor and major action in the 1-6 second time frame so you are not really changing timing per the rules as written.

I'm not attacking your snapshot - I do like your reasoning, but I feel there needs to be some balance.

 

[mr31337]

It seems pretty clear to me a little lower down on pp61 "Attack" that an attack is meant to take a significant action by default.

However, I can see you could interpret certain attacks that "do not require the full attention" as only taking a minor action and thus not having to suffer a going faster -1 DM. In fact, I quite like the idea and it goes to show the flexibility of the rules to fit many situations. I will in future use these in special situations like rapidly punching somebody who is unable to defend themselves or something.

 

[Fovean]

I have always made each additional target in a combat round suffer a cumulative DM-1 to hit, in addition to everything else. So if you "go faster" as mr3 pointed out above you suffer DM-1 to hit Thug 1, DM-2 to hit Thug 2 and DM-3 to hit Thug 3. I also apply this to auto fire if the additional targets are outside the 6m rule. The shooter can do nothing but shoot, no dodging, evading, speaking, etc.

But I do like the idea of the second shot/burst taking place later in the initiative queue... So if the shooter's initiative is 12 they shoot on 12, 10 and 8... Going to try that one out next firefight

 

[mr31337]

But I do like the idea of the second shot/burst taking place later in the initiative queue... So if the shooter's initiative is 12 they shoot on 12, 10 and 8... Going to try that one out next firefight

That's seems like it's going to be quite a lot of book keeping. Let us know how you get on.

 

[Easterner]

Don't forget the Hastening rule. +2 initiative, -1 Action.

 

[Easterner]

You can, of course, make up any rules you wish about 'snapshots', however, none of what you propose is in the RAW, so they'd just be house rules. :wink:

No one here knew that using different rules isn't RAW?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6dvthwpiSk

Watch what a gunbunny can do. In 1st ROUND he draws, got off 5 shots and opened a door. In all told he burns 4 hi-cap mags off in 10 Rounds.

When RAW are stupid or unrealistic you change them. The point of this entire thread. No one here says you have to use them. Anyone can feel free to fire 1 shot every 6 seconds, just please don't tell everyone how realistic the rules are, because they are RAW!.

Gunbunny on steroids using mouse caliber .38 and 19th century weapons for good measure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw

Duplicate that in RAW!

 

[mr31337]

No one here knew that using different rules isn't RAW?

Of course they did, what we're distinguishing here is between what additional combat actions are actually within the rules and those which people are just making up.

When RAW are stupid or unrealistic you change them. The point of this entire thread. No one here says you have to use them. Anyone can feel free to fire 1 shot every 6 seconds, just please don't tell everyone how realistic the rules are, because they are RAW!.

I don't think anybody is trying to say how realistic the rules are, but they are perhaps saying there can be more realistic ways to interpret them which are not immediately apparent to everybody. Huge difference.

Gunbunny on steroids using mouse caliber .38 and 19th century weapons for good measure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw

Duplicate that in RAW!

I think most here would agree Cowboy Action Shooting isn't a realistic representation of combat. Certainly, the shooter in that video was not in combat, so combat rounds & actions do not apply. And since that is the case in Traveller you can keep using a faster time frame for such actions...exactly as it says in MRB pp50. So it seems it is very easily duplicated by RAW. :wink:

However, if you have a lot of Cowboy Action Shooting in your Traveller game, and you prefer to invent house rules to cover these types of non-combat shooting displays, then good luck to you.

 

[Easterner]

No one here knew that using different rules isn't RAW?

Of course they did, what we're distinguishing here is between what additional combat actions are actually within the rules and those which people are just making up.

That would be utterly incorrect. The original question was:

I had no immediate response, apart from "well, that's the rules" but it got me thinking.

Would it be fair to allow one additional attack per round but in return place a -2DM on everything the character does that round? A character can thus fire two single shots (2d6-2 + 2d6-2, I think they'd have to be rolled separately and not according to the full-auto rules), two bursts, or add +2d6 to a full-auto attack (turning auto 4 into auto 6, auto 6 into auto 8 and so on, each pair would then suffer -2dm).

i.e. He wanted to do something outside RAW because RAW don't get it done.

So this was a 'home brew' question from the get go of post #1. Personally I took your post as insulting and ad hominem attack upon those who responded to post #1. Not because you used harsh language or were rude (you weren't) but because you had a near ex catheda attitude of speaking for Mongoose. So you'll have to forgive me if I took umbrage where none was implied.

 

[mr31337]

So this was a 'home brew' question from the get go of post #1. Personally I took your post as insulting and ad hominem attack upon those who responded to post #1. Not because you used harsh language or were rude (you weren't) but because you had a near ex catheda attitude of speaking for Mongoose. So you'll have to forgive me if I took umbrage where none was implied.

You've clearly assumed some meaning in my words that simply isn't there. There was nothing personal or ad hominem or attacking at all. So yes, I forgive you.

I'm going to have to disagree that the OP is a home brew question. The OP indicates he is trying to resolve the question of additional attack actions by observing the rules as we can see here...

Greetings,
One of my players asked why there seems to be nothing between "I fire one shot" and "I empty my clip in that general direction, hopefully producing up to two attacks".

I had no immediate response, apart from "well, that's the rules"

Hence a solution based on RAW might well be optimal, which is supported by the OP's later reply to my RAW based suggestion...

If you wish to stick to the MRB then technically you can "go faster" [MRB pp50]...

Since two minor actions are the equivalent of one significant action it's obviously a faster time frame; hence characters may go faster and attack once per minor action and suffer a -1DM, exactly as the rules indicate. Let's call it a snapshot. I considered recoil & heft to be cumulative.

This is balanced, since an aiming action is a minor action, so add one aiming action to a snapshot and you have an attack that takes two minor actions (1 significant action) and has a DM of +0....exactly the same as a normal attack. Simple.

We've just given this a good work out in my own campaign and it worked really well. Combat felt more alive, plausible and a lot more exciting & edgy, and more options for players too. Highly recommended.

So, broadly speaking, more or less the same as mentioned above, but better explained to be more in line with official rules?

I like it! Looking forward to giving it a try next time!

Clearly the OP is approving of a RAW based solution. I hope this is now cleared up and you would like to resume an on topic discussion as I would.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Nice to see the discussion still going!

First of all, I should mention that the campaign we're running, in which I got the question, is an action-based one. We're using the Judge Dredd setting, so the characters are indeed skilled gunslingers.

As for how much houserule vs RAW I'm looking for, hopefully I can end that discussion for you

As far as my understanding of the rules go, the only strictly official way of shooting twice is autofire. With a bit of creative reading, one could possily argue that "doing two things at once (and thus suffer -2DM to both)" is applicable to attacking + attacking, and further creative interpretation gives us hastening as a way to convert a minor action into a major one.

If I wanted to, I could easily say "screw the rules, you may fire any number of shots" but... I'd like to keep any houserules I introduce to the game a) based on the rules, and b) balanced. Two very vague and perhaps a bit weird statements since I walk into "do what you want"-land simply by discussing expanding rules/creative interpretation, but I hope the point gets across.

I want a houserule to feel like it belongs with the other rules, and I don't want it to slow down or oer-complicate the game. Suffering - initiative for every snapshot is an interresting way of blancing it, but I fear it will lead to too much book-keeping. The penalty to hit could increase with every snapshot, and the recoil too, but quick and easy is always good.

I thank everyone for their contributions so far, and I will for our next game see what happens if I allow the players to snapfire/hasten for multiple shots, whether it's preferred to see it as splitting the attack action into aim + shoot, or hasten makes it minor with -1DM to hit is up to the observer I guess I will require the targets are all within approx 2 meters of each other (haven't decided exactly yet) and if they wanna target someone further away an aim action is needed. The ability to snapfire will probably be either limited to short range, or negative range mods increased. For this campaign it doesn't matter either way since the players will mostly be using their Lawgiver pistols and thus suffer greatly at medium range without aiming, but I wanna have it useable in other situations too.