Aim for the kill?
- Thread starter Rerednaw
- Start date
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
Sounds familiar... I wanna say Mercenary, but I couldn’t find it in the 2nd edition book... I’ll see if I can find the first book later tonight, could be there!
Edit: beaten by arcador while typing
Edit: beaten by arcador while typing
For those who don't have it, it's basically Aim but a +2 to damage instead of the +1 to hit. Which is less unbalanced than I expected it would be, I should actually add that.
I also like the implementation of Suppression Fire from the same chapter, I may add that as well.
I also like the implementation of Suppression Fire from the same chapter, I may add that as well.
While not exactly the same, I think the suppression fire rule is redundant.
The reaction mechanism in the core book already covers a similar penalty. Each reaction inflicts -1 DM. Someone auto-firing at their target will most likely inflict sufficient -DM to make their target fail their round. i.e. Auto 4 = -4 DM, considering the target reacts. The 2nd edition also added the "dive for cover" which grants the cover DM, and the armor of the cover (if Ref allows).
In effect, both resolutions result in the target being suppressed. It somewhat matches this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire, but (thankfully) I have been in real-life firefights, thus I have no idea how accurate is that.
The reaction mechanism in the core book already covers a similar penalty. Each reaction inflicts -1 DM. Someone auto-firing at their target will most likely inflict sufficient -DM to make their target fail their round. i.e. Auto 4 = -4 DM, considering the target reacts. The 2nd edition also added the "dive for cover" which grants the cover DM, and the armor of the cover (if Ref allows).
In effect, both resolutions result in the target being suppressed. It somewhat matches this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire, but (thankfully) I have been in real-life firefights, thus I have no idea how accurate is that.
