RQ2 Modern

[Mixster]

So Dan True (from this forum) and I, have been talking about making a modern setting for Runequest.
We want to get the variety and tactical choice of runequest into Modern, and as such we've decided to make an attempt at converting the rules.

Since I have some experience working with a broad team, I've learned that the more help the better, as long as everybody is pulling in the same direction therefore I decided to sit down and formulate a series of design goals.

Design Goals:
Combat should be incredibly deadly. No-one should be able to stand up and take the hits. Evade is now the skill used to dive for cover. Shields are rare and only really used against handguns, everything else is too large to care.
Armour should make most minor weapons, Submachine guns and handguns into non-lethal attacks but still put you out of the fight (serious wounds). Some weapons only give serious wounds on the first shot.
Combat should be cover based, but shouldn't be static. There should be CMs to reward moving from cover to cover, and players should constantly think of where they move, where their enemies are and how they can see.
Skill use should be widened to better reflect a modern world, perhaps increase the amount of starting skills to compensate for the wider knowledge needed in a modern world. This would also illustrate the higher degree of education in a modern world.
A fight should, like in 'nilla runequest always be considered deadly, but the better warrior should be able to use his cover more effectively (by having higher evade) and move from cover to cover.
If including magic in this setting, it should expand on the options, not just cover the options already covered by guns (because then it simply becomes a choice of using what's best).

---
So that might sound a bit wavy. And it is not a finished design goal at all, everything could be changed but it is nice to know in which direction we are pulling.

From the design goal, we've deduced a few things:
Ride is now Ride (bike). Ride (animal) is an advanced skill. (it should probably default to Athletics in case it's untrained)
Computer use (int x2) is a new common skill, denoting common tasks on a computer, like searching for info cleaning memories and stuff like that. Computer use does not cover programming or hacking
Hacking (int x2) is an advanced skill that cover the part of computer use you need to hack and program software. It can sometimes but not always default to computer use.
Mechanisms can be used to fix hardware problems in a computer.

Combat:
We discussed that on one CA you can either duck up and shoot, or shoot and then duck back down. But not both.
Combat manoeuvres:
We are probably scrapping most of the old CMs for ranged combat. Tripping people with a pistol is hard. Here are the ones we have thought of.
We have discussed whether Semi and Full auto weapons should be chosen before or after rolling, but arrived at a standstill, anything to help us clear this "jam" would be wonderful.
CMs:



- duck back again after shooting. (offensive)

- Hit the deck, dive to nearest cover (defensive)

- Suppress (offensive) (requires full-auto)

- Move after firing (offensive)

- Maximise damage (offensive) (crit only)

- Solid Shot : better damage, minus to actions. Works as impale (offensive)

- Bypass Armour (offensive)

- Choose Location (offensive)

- Entangle (net guns) (offensive)

- Stun Location (stunguns and rubber bullets) (offensive)

- Sunder (offensive) (AP Rounds)

- Enhance Cover (defensive): takes greater effect of cover

- Regain Footing (defensive), spring up from prone.

- Stand Fast (defensive)
---

So anyone got any ideas? Any help is much appreciated, and will off course be noted in the credits

 

[Mixster]

Reserving this post

 

[Jujitsudave]

Martial Arts, particularly the sport/MMA variety should have some reasonably effective mechanics behind them for dealing with singular opponents.
Street combat, self defense oriented ones should be less effective in toe to toe combat but good for using melee weaponry and enabling escape from multiple foes.
Traditional martial arts should be only marginally effective yet comprise of a variety of lethal archaic weapons as well as moves that can facilitate a fast and initmidating defeat against a foe if it can be done before he has a chance to defend himself.
Martial arts should certainly be a part of it as they have proliferated as a hobby within modern society. Individual styles are not necessary unless in future supplements.

 

[Simulacrum]

a couple of suggestions:

1) Common skills

Suggest that Computer Use should not be a Common Skill in an RQ modern, rather an Advanced Skill that is gained by any character from a developed country (treat as a Lore skill) thru their cultural background

2) Education

I think how this is handled in a modern context is really important - in my experience lores and techs are an essential ingredient in shaping up a character. You might look at a (Common) skill for Education covering up to secondary school, with Lore or tech skills that represent higher learning and more specific subjects (nuclear physics, anthropology, electronics etc). But as with Computer Use, a character from a slum near Mombasa or the wilds of Borneo may not have even basic literacy - so once again I would err towards using an advanced skill and the cultural background table.

Alternatively Age of Treason introduces a SOC (Social Status) Characteristic. For a modern RQ I would look closely at the value of an EDU characteristic, with a score of 13+ representing various levels of higher education and being a component characteristic in any "academic" subject. It could be a core mechanism within the game.

3) CMs

Having heavily houseruled or homebrewed modern/cyberpunk rules in the past for using modern firearms - I think it's worth perhaps thinking thru use of SS (single shot) vs 3 round burst vs fully auto as possible means of attack. If using a 3RB, one CM may be used to get the second round to hit, a second to make all three rounds land on the target. Fully auto is more problematic - I like the suppression CM - but it must be possible to work out some mechanism for landing more hits. For example (off top of my head only!) one CM gets 1D4 rounds on the target, a second gets 1D6, in both cases modifier such as -1 hit per range bracket after point blank (short, medium, long, extreme).

If using a weapon with recoil, a CM could be used to prevent penalties to further attacks made with that weapon in the same round that would otherwise apply.

This may be too crunchy, but modern firearms are so effective, and such an important piece of kit in most modern games, they deserve close attention. Silencers, barrel extensions, bipods and scopes all need to be factored in somehow, adjusting effective range, shot difficulty, or allowing additional CMs that make customising your weapon of choice worthwhile and fun.

 

[Jujitsudave]

I would simply replace regional lore with primary education with bonuses based off background.

 

[Mixster]

First I wanna thank you for the quick responses.
here's what I think:

On Martial Arts

What if each Martial arts was a combat style, where some styles allowed for extra CMs or a bonus to some CMs dependant on the style.
A wrestling focused combat style could incorporate a penalty to your opponents opposed skill when choosing grip. While a style favoring few precise blows could allow you to stun location with your fists.
These styles could in some cases like Aikido include both fighting with weapons, and with bare fists. But others, like boxing, only involve fighting with your fists.
Self defense could perhaps be substituted for the Evade roll when running away from a combat, or grant a bonus when using the change distance manoeuvre.
Would you think that'd work?

1) Common skills

Suggest that Computer Use should not be a Common Skill in an RQ modern, rather an Advanced Skill that is gained by any character from a developed country (treat as a Lore skill) thru their cultural background

This is a great idea, although it would make the hacking skill a little weird seeing as both of them would be advanced but one of them would be plainly better than the other.
I was considering adding a new factor, advanced abilities (or specializations, the name is still pending). You buy them like advanced skills, for 2Improvement rolls or 10Freebie points. When you have them you can get new uses for an already known skill. Hacking would be such an advanced ability, which would allow computer use to be used to hack. What do you guys think?

Also, on the computer use thingie, actually I was thinking that the Cultures are more social class than actual culture, perhaps with added multi-cultural option if needed. The cultural backgrounds would look something like:
Western Lowest class (homeless people), Western Lower Class (untrained laborerers), Western Middle Class (wage earners), Western Upper Middle Class (lawyers, doctors etc.), Western Rich (Capitalists, People that've inherited stuff). Then there would be another option for Eastern Rich, and all that jazz.

2) Education

I'm not sure why, but I'm opposed to bringing in more abilities. I like the idea of a common skill for basic education, but I just think it should be a lore. Lore basic Education would make sense.

3) CMs

Good ideas all, Dan is very opposed to making Full auto good at all. While I'd like it to be an option, but not a no-brainer. Atm I was considering upping the damage (always max damage IIRC) for a penalty on the to hit roll. But your idea seems better.
I like the idea for a multiplying Recoil negative modifier on secondary CAs shots when firing Semi or Full auto. Perhaps have it a cumulative 10%/30% respectively, and also have some penalty to just shooting on it? That would require you to wait between some shots.

I agree that special equipment for your guns should give special CMs, Ammo as well IMO.

 

[Da Boss]

Design Goals:
Combat should be incredibly deadly. No-one should be able to stand up and take the hits. Evade is now the skill used to dive for cover. Shields are rare and only really used against handguns, everything else is too large to care.

a few initial thoughts...............

Don't SWAT and some military units use special moveable shields that are very effective - or would that be some form of mobile cover /armour?

No rules for Teminators then? - are you going for a vanilla world?

Martial Arts badly needs rules - hand to hand is very weak in present RQ2

How are you handling Combat Styles?

Dual wielding still getting a bonus CA?

Personally I think instead if you are going for the "24" style I think it might be worth having addiitonal compentance bonus Combat Action/s for having one or more combat skills at say 90%+?

 

[Loz]

Dual wielding still getting a bonus CA?

Personally I think instead if you are going for the "24" style I think it might be worth having addiitonal compentance bonus Combat Action/s for having one or more combat skills at say 90%+?

This is an interesting one and, I suppose, depends on if you're going for a John Woo feel or a realistic representation. I'd imagine that, in reality, shooting two handguns simulatenously would reduce your accuracy to some extent, and by quite a bit if going for different targets - but, you'd gain an additional CA as per melee weapon rules.

If the John Woo action hero style though, where normal rules around accuracy (ie, hitting dual targets with pin-point accuracy with dual pistols, held sideways, whilst hurtling horizontally through the air) go out the window, then you might want to ignore accuracy modifiers whilst still granting that CA.

 

[Make]

Interesting project, some thoughts of mine.

I would not allow sunder maneuver for AP rounds or for any bullet for that matter. Simply because of the small size of the bullet. And second because AP-rounds are designed to punch clear trough the armor quite neatly instead of actually damaging the armor. I would just give AP-rounds some number that they will ignore armor points.

If you really want to make firearms deadly do not make for example 9mm damage 2d6 but 1d6+6 and so on, its quite rare for the damage to vary greatly but on the other side its all about where you hit and it makes a hole lot of difference if you hit the lung or the heart of if it just hit the muscles, so maybe not.

I like the idea of making martial arts combat styles that grant different combat maneuvers.

Autofire I would make like this, You roll your combat style and for every 10 that is below your skill you hit with another bullet. I would probably limit this to 2 for short bursts and 3 for full auto. This is more of a game balance issue than reality based. You can hit with an assault rifle 10 shot burst form 50 meters and hit with 5 in relatively little training.

Recoil would probaly be something like if you shot with your last CA you take -5% to your shot for single shot -10% for short burst and -15% for full auto.

Dual wielding I would allow for a extra CA if used against the same target.

EDIT: On the Sunder topic I do not remember what they are called in English but a shotgun round that fires a solid block of metal could be used for sunder maybe even normal loads.

 

[Dan True]

3) CMs

Good ideas all, Dan is very opposed to making Full auto good at all. While I'd like it to be an option, but not a no-brainer.

I'm not opposed to making full-auto good for something, I just want it to used realistically - In almost all system for modern combat, the most effective weapon use is:

1. Take an assault rifle and blaze on full-auto all the time.
2. Take a sniper rifle and use it at close range...

Which is just such a bland way of handling modern combat.

This is more of a game balance issue than reality based. You can hit with an assault rifle 10 shot burst form 50 meters and hit with 5 in relatively little training.

... Not with the rifles I've used. If I fired my (former) service rifle (A Colt C7) on full-auto, I hit absolutely nothing and my magazine would empty in like 2½ seconds. If I was laying down, carefully compensating for recoil I might hit with the first 4 rounds or so. The weapons you built your experiences on might of course behave differently.
Of course, if you're fighting at ranges of 10-50 metres with submachines guns such as MP5, then you can hit something on full-auto, because that is what it's meant for. It's just not realistic on real combat-distances of 250-350 metres. But this of course depends on what kind of campaign you're playing - agents, detectives or soldiers will vary greatly in engagement distance.

My view on full-auto is that even though it can of course be used for killing (especially with weapons that are designed for that, while being ineffective at longer ranges), it is mainly used to forcing the enemy down. Full-auto burst should give some good combat manoeuvres, for suppressing fire or hitting a number of closely-packed enemies, while forfeiting the possibilities for steady and well-aimed shots against individual targets.

I just wan't each action to be good in certain circumstances - just like in reality.

As Mixster mentioned, we're designing the combat manoeuvres so they mainly give ways of allowing movement - as modern combat is as much about movement as about firepower. So ducking in and out of cover, forcing the enemy down, running between covers, diving heroically through windows while blasting -

Don't SWAT and some military units use special moveable shields that are very effective - or would that be some form of mobile cover /armour?

We've been meaning to use shields as mobile cover, since you don't really "parry" bullets - you're just lucky if you hold your shield the fight place. So rules for how many locations they can cover, and then if you are hit in those, the bullet needs to penetrate that first.

No rules for Teminators then? - are you going for a vanilla world?

We're going to design the rules for use with a vanilla world, and it is a goal for us that the rules should fit both Quartermain/Indiana style adventures, and near-future action. We are both gonna include a setting of our own design in the final book - but the ground rules will be for vanilla, with a magic system for people who wanna include occult stuff.
That doesn't mean however that we wont allow for some unrealistic stuff, to allow for heroism. It should still be action-packed and heroic, not dull.

Martial Arts badly needs rules - hand to hand is very weak in present RQ2

Yep, I agree. Some of the ideas mentioned above are great.

How are you handling Combat Styles?

Dual wielding still getting a bonus CA?

Perhaps, probably if it's close combat weapons... but it will need to come up in playtesting. I want people to be able to grab a Katana and Pistol if that's what they want, and still handle themselves properly (in close combat of course).

Personally I think instead if you are going for the "24" style I think it might be worth having addiitonal compentance bonus Combat Action/s for having one or more combat skills at say 90%+?

Not a bad idea...

- Dab

 

[Make]

3) CMs

Good ideas all, Dan is very opposed to making Full auto good at all. While I'd like it to be an option, but not a no-brainer.

This is more of a game balance issue than reality based. You can hit with an assault rifle 10 shot burst form 50 meters and hit with 5 in relatively little training.

... Not with the rifles I've used. If I fired my (former) service rifle (A Colt C7) on full-auto, I hit absolutely nothing and my magazine would empty in like 2½ seconds. If I was laying down, carefully compensating for recoil I might hit with the first 4 rounds or so. The weapons you built your experiences on might of course behave differently.
Of course, if you're fighting at ranges of 10-50 metres with submachines guns such as MP5, then you can hit something on full-auto, because that is what it's meant for. It's just not realistic on real combat-distances of 250-350 metres. But this of course depends on what kind of campaign you're playing - agents, detectives or soldiers will vary greatly in engagement distance.

My view on full-auto is that even though it can of course be used for killing (especially with weapons that are designed for that, while being ineffective at longer ranges), it is mainly used to forcing the enemy down. Full-auto burst should give some good combat manoeuvres, for suppressing fire or hitting a number of closely-packed enemies, while forfeiting the possibilities for steady and well-aimed shots against individual targets.

I just wan't each action to be good in certain circumstances - just like in reality.

As Mixster mentioned, we're designing the combat manoeuvres so they mainly give ways of allowing movement - as modern combat is as much about movement as about firepower. So ducking in and out of cover, forcing the enemy down, running between covers, diving heroically through windows while blasting -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_Tp

That's the weapon that I am used to, for short explanation it's an upgraded version of AK-47. I think the circumstances are the weight difference and rate of fire.

Well I served for 362 days before that I had shot 12 rounds with a hunting rifle and 10 with a shotgun. The score was pretty consistent with the others ranging from 2-7 with 3-5 being the most common, this was done in the range so no stress or other factors are involved even if the aiming time was rather short. I had shot with that weapon before that under 5 times with autofire with live ammo. (3-5 shot bursts more times) If my memory serves me correctly I fired live ammo with that weapon probably around 30 times during my service so I would call that relatively little practice. But then again those targets were immobile so...

Anyways I think you are on the right path combat maneuvers is probably the way to go for simplicity's and playability's sake. Although I wouldn't really be too worried about weapons capable of autofire dominating the game since at least in most of the world it isn't that easy to get hold of that kind of fire power. Not to mention the problems of carrying one around.

 

[ThatGuy]

Question:

Wouldn't body armor (bullet proof vest, tactical helmet) protect against all but an armor piercing round? I know it can leave a helluva bruise, but my understanding was it wouldn't leave what would constitute as a "serious wound", although the 1d3 combat round stun might still apply...

 

[Mixster]

Dual wielding still getting a bonus CA?

Personally I think instead if you are going for the "24" style I think it might be worth having addiitonal compentance bonus Combat Action/s for having one or more combat skills at say 90%+?

My ideas was intially that dual wielding granted a bonus CA, but I like your other idea as well.

The idea I have written down somewhere in my notes is that wielding a gun one handed gives -20% to the combat style to hit with that gun, and most of them require more strength, but gives an additional CA. If a player wants to use two pistols for a cool Matrix like look, I don't want to punish him overly.

The other idea is also immensely cool, giving extra combat manoeuvres with some weapons. I'm thinking combat styles rather broad. Handguns (pistols and revolvers), Assault Rifles, Rifles, shotgun, Sub Machine Guns and heavy Weaponry (perhaps require each heavy weapon to have it's own combat style), is what I'm thinking
In keeping with my specialisation idea from before, what if we allowed a person with >90% in his combat style the option to specialise in one type of weapon in his combat style for 2 improvement rolls (or 10 freebie points at startup). If he is using his specialised weapon, he gets +1 CA, 2 of his specialised doesn't mean +2CA.

I'm not opposed to making full-auto good for something, I just want it to used realistically - In almost all system for modern combat, the most effective weapon use is:

1. Take an assault rifle and blaze on full-auto all the time.
2. Take a sniper rifle and use it at close range...

Which is just such a bland way of handling modern combat.

I was pretty confused that I wrote that.
What I want auto-fire to be is the standard thing for firing when you are smack jab in the front of him, or when you are a rookie.

Wouldn't body armor (bullet proof vest, tactical helmet) protect against all but an armor piercing round? I know it can leave a helluva bruise, but my understanding was it wouldn't leave what would constitute as a "serious wound", although the 1d3 combat round stun might still apply...

You might be right, but I'm pretty sure this would screw with game balance, I've been wrong before though.
Also I'd assume that if you roll a very high damage, you have hit somewhere where the armour doesn't protect. A joint or a shoulder, or an eye. If you roll low damage the armour has absorbed most of the blow and only left a minor injury on the person.
Most of the time it would reduce something lethal to a serious, and serious to a minor injury I'd think though.

Another thing we've been discussing is changing the hit point system, an average bloke has around 4-5hp in his arm. If the average shot deals around 10 damage, one shot to his arm can kill him in Con minutes. While it will take multiple shots to his abdomen. This really doesn't make sense to me unless the entire arm is ripped off.

So what do you think?

 

[Dan True]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_Tp

That's the weapon that I am used to, for short explanation it's an upgraded version of AK-47. I think the circumstances are the weight difference and rate of fire.

Well I served for 362 days before that I had shot 12 rounds with a hunting rifle and 10 with a shotgun. The score was pretty consistent with the others ranging from 2-7 with 3-5 being the most common, this was done in the range so no stress or other factors are involved even if the aiming time was rather short. I had shot with that weapon before that under 5 times with autofire with live ammo. (3-5 shot bursts more times) If my memory serves me correctly I fired live ammo with that weapon probably around 30 times during my service so I would call that relatively little practice. But then again those targets were immobile so...

Well, my experience with full-auto is pretty limited. We were always taught to fire in short bursts, and preferably single shot each 2-3 seconds. That was a good tradeoff between ammo conservation and rate of fire. Granted that normal troopers in the field only carry around 120-150 rounds on them, and our rifles spat out 13 a second on full-auto .... you'd run out pretty soon.
I think I fired my weapon on full-auto around 2 times with loose ammo, and 5 times with live ammo. Of those 5 I think 3 was in the range and 2 in a live-action field range (where the targets pop up and move around). I don't really hit anything with it that was farther away than 30 metres... Once I got out farther, and especially to our standard fighting distance of 250 metres, anything more than short bursts completely ruined my sight... and depleted my ammo.

But, just giving realistic amounts and weights for ammo (and places to stick the magasines), should in itself give a pretty good ceiling on the amount of full-auto burst you can pull of.

Anyways I think you are on the right path combat maneuvers is probably the way to go for simplicity's and playability's sake. Although I wouldn't really be too worried about weapons capable of autofire dominating the game since at least in most of the world it isn't that easy to get hold of that kind of fire power. Not to mention the problems of carrying one around.

Well, it also needs to be able to handle troopers, special forces and so on. Besides, as far as I know you can buy automatic weapons with a permit in the US in some states. Uzis seem to be pretty common between gangs... So it needs to be well balanced.

But again, I think the main difference between single, semi-auto and full-auto is the combat actions you can use with them (spraying a large area and hitting multiple people can be a CM fx, so can spraying a single person completely). I just don't want it to end like Dark heresy where it's better to blast full-auto constantly with a Autogun, than pick up a bolt pistol or even a bolter...

 

[GamingGlen]

As a computer programmer, I take strong exception to calling my chosen career skill "hacking". I never hacked in my life, and neither has many other programmers. Please choose another name for that skill.

 

[Dan True]

As a computer programmer, I take strong exception to calling my chosen career skill "hacking". I never hacked in my life, and neither has many other programmers. Please choose another name for that skill.

I'm a programmer too.. and "hacking" is not really a term for a person who breaks into security system, it means "person who writes code in their free time". The term is often used about OpenSource programmers. Sadly this just proves that for many people "hacking" equals "cracking". So we might have to change it anyway...

As a second argument, what the skill will probably be used to most in the game is actually "cracking"... as few people spend their game time developing adds. But some might.

- Dan

 

[PhilHibbs]

I'm a programmer too.. and "hacking" is not really a term for a person who breaks into security system, it means "person who writes code in their free time". The term is often used about OpenSource programmers. Sadly this just proves that for many people "hacking" equals "cracking". So we might have to change it anyway...

I concur. I'm a hacker, I experiment and invent new programming techniques in my spare time. The term pre-dates computers, it was used to refer to an amateur tennis player. "I'm pretty good at tennis, but I'm just a hacker really".

 

[Make]

Question:

Wouldn't body armor (bullet proof vest, tactical helmet) protect against all but an armor piercing round? I know it can leave a helluva bruise, but my understanding was it wouldn't leave what would constitute as a "serious wound", although the 1d3 combat round stun might still apply...

It actually depends on the caliber of the weapon, or actually the force of the round but those two go pretty much hand in hand. Hte kind of vest that you can wear beneath your clothes will probably stop 9mm rounds pretty much every time and most pistols and revolvers. The military grade body-armor with extra plates is still going to be not so guaranteed about stopping rifle rounds.

I would probably use stun location to determine what happens when a bullet hits a vest.


@Dan TrueToo lazy to quote)

Yeah it was actually done to demonstrate the inferiority of full bursts vs. single shots and short bursts.

Those CM sound pretty good. I didn't thought about the pretty lax gun restriction around there, now that I think about it if my remember serves me correctly you can get a .50 caliber semi -automatic rifle for hunting purposes.(Don't know if this is the current law)

 

[Mixster]

As a computer programmer, I take strong exception to calling my chosen career skill "hacking". I never hacked in my life, and neither has many other programmers. Please choose another name for that skill.

I'm a programmer too.. and "hacking" is not really a term for a person who breaks into security system, it means "person who writes code in their free time". The term is often used about OpenSource programmers. Sadly this just proves that for many people "hacking" equals "cracking". So we might have to change it anyway...

As a second argument, what the skill will probably be used to most in the game is actually "cracking"... as few people spend their game time developing adds. But some might.

- Dan

I actually made the same point to Dan and got the same response, he knows more of it than I do, so I'm willing to call it whatever.
I agree with the second argument too.
I'm up for changing it to programming for ease.

It actually depends on the caliber of the weapon, or actually the force of the round but those two go pretty much hand in hand. Hte kind of vest that you can wear beneath your clothes will probably stop 9mm rounds pretty much every time and most pistols and revolvers. The military grade body-armor with extra plates is still going to be not so guaranteed about stopping rifle rounds.

I would probably use stun location to determine what happens when a bullet hits a vest.

Yeah I'd agree that most of the time such a hit (from a 9mm) would only inflict minor bruises, like 0-2 damage, but sometimes it would hit a point where the armour doesn't protect properly, like the lowest part of the abdomen, or the shoulder. And the effect would be much more severe (shoulder bleeding will kill you in an hour perhaps, lower abdomen can go pretty damned fast, since it can diverge inside and cause pretty severe internal bleeding).

If a 9mm dealt like 2d6 or 1d6+6 (I prefer 2d6, but I'm not entirely sure why), and a kevlar vest gives 6-8AP, then those hits would a lot of the times just be minor bruises, but sometimes they would be much more severe.

A new idea I got (which I mentioned before but would like comments on) is specialization:
Specialization costs as much as getting an advanced skill, and require different minimums of certain skills to acquire, once you have the specialization you get new uses of a skill you already have.
A specialization in a weapon would grant that extra CA for example, while a specialization in computer use would grant you programming.
Specialization in Athletics would allow for tricksy parkour stunts. While a specialization in Unarmed might allow for you to choose different Martial arts that can benefit you further. A specialization in evade might allow you to use your next CA to attack under some circumstances. So on and so forth.

Also, I forgot to comment on it, but I'd like shields as mobile cover.

 

[Dan True]

I actually made the same point to Dan and got the same response, he knows more of it than I do, so I'm willing to call it whatever.
I agree with the second argument too.
I'm up for changing it to programming for ease.

Sure, let's just call it programming... Just to avoid anyone thinking it can only be used for cracking security system. I don't really care what way or the other, for some reason "hacking" was just the first thing that came for my head ... Maybe environmental damage.

Yeah I'd agree that most of the time such a hit (from a 9mm) would only inflict minor bruises, like 0-2 damage, but sometimes it would hit a point where the armour doesn't protect properly, like the lowest part of the abdomen, or the shoulder. And the effect would be much more severe (shoulder bleeding will kill you in an hour perhaps, lower abdomen can go pretty damned fast, since it can diverge inside and cause pretty severe internal bleeding).

If a 9mm dealt like 2d6 or 1d6+6 (I prefer 2d6, but I'm not entirely sure why), and a kevlar vest gives 6-8AP, then those hits would a lot of the times just be minor bruises, but sometimes they would be much more severe.

Well, I like the idea of using stun location in some way to handle this. If a bullet penetrates your armor - you take the damage (along with any CMs, such as Solid shot or some bleed effect). If it deals more than half your AP (or something similar), it affects the location as with a Stun location CM - Due to the force of the attack.

That is the main reason for using 2d6 instead of 1d6+6 (I also held to the 1d6+6 at first). If you roll 3 it means you were not really hit by the bullet in itself (or perhaps it just strafed you), but perhaps by a fragment of it when it shattered against the wall or something like it.
Though I still think 1d6+6 has some validity.... Will probably be decided by playtesting or mock battles.

- Dan