20 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

This has to be the most absurdly obtuse and stubborn I've seen you act so far. Congrats! Have you played "every game out there" to confirm your claims? Because your claims uh, aren't true in the slightest.

And using real life as a point of comparison for a magical space fantasy setting with physics defying laser guns is a bit ridiculous.

Can confirm. Every other game out there. No exceptions. And there are no laser guns in star wars, don't be ridiculous. No invisible laser pew pew in star wars

2 hours ago, SanguineAngel said:

Hey Skyjedi, I realise this thread's a little tense but I didn't spot anyone addressing this and wanted to chime in as I noticed the way you talk about specific shots.

Autofire is naturally meant to provide an approximation for full-automatic weapons and I can understand your view that you feel each additional shot should incur some form of additional risk every time, although I don't feel it's warrented from a narrative stand point. (Mechanical satisfaction may be another matter for you. I also understand that some people just love house-ruling stuff and tweaking their game.)

You might already know this but I'm not certain from your comments and I apologise if this is teaching you to suck eggs. Hopefully I might save you some effort: There is not set number of shots fired or time taken for any action or maneuver in this game. It is not the case that an attack with a pistol = 1 shot and an attack with autofire tirggered twice = 3 shots.

In reality each attack is supposed to represent a full exchange of fire or blows. That pistol may be firing half a dozen times or more (or less) in a single attack and it's down to you and the players to narrate this in the context of the situation and the results of the rolls. For example, you might have a miss with advantage and declare that the player fires a barrage of shots, forcing the opponent to keep their heads down, adding a setback to their next check. Heck, you might incur Threat (and there's more chance of that with increased difficulty, of course) and so narrate nagative effects of return fire.

A successful hit also doesn't indictate a specific single shot or blow but simply that the attacker has managed to cause some level of superficial damage or fatigue to their opponent in order to increase their wounds. Personally, I tend to stear clear of direct hits unless it's a critical hit or fatal shot, as Wounds are minor wear & tear, with critical hits being where the real damage is done.

How this relates to Autofire is that you need not consider an Autofire activation, narratively speaking, be exposing the player for any specific length of time - just as you need not consider any attack to take a specific length of time. The purpose of the Autofire rule is to approximate the effects of the volume of fire from such a weapon and it could just as easily take less time (perhaps a handful of lucky shots) than a single pistol attack (perhaps a prolonged exchange of fire). It's down to the results of the dice and your interpretation to indicate context such as being exposed with shooting

Is this any use?

Thanks for the info, I do tend to exam combat with a narrow focus. I am using the narrative excuse a little too broadly and its really muddying the discussion, I apologize for that. Breaking combat down into mechanical turns and then using narrative is very tricky and I am not good at that.

Mostly I'm just trying to find a way to reign in the insane multi-triggers of auto-fire without nerfing it too harshly. Personally I don't like the Brawn hard limit (agility or skill rank maybe?), but placing a hard cap on it takes away the potential for the awesome " Bayes kills all the stormtroopers" moments. Again its fine if thats what you use, To each his own.

I just wanted to tweak the talent so the current exploit of lowering activation cost and generating large amount of advantages while only adding 1 purple to generate 5+ activations can't be used. A practice which i really think can breaks combat. In this case, to challenge the player the GM has to introduce more baddies of much greater strength/defense making it impossible for players who don't exploit auto-fire to participate in combat in any meaningful way. Again if that how you wanna play, thats fine to each his own, but then this thread probably isn't for you. I trying to tell how to play your game.

I guess my point is, if you think autofire is being abused in your game here is a option to curtail it, feel free to use it or one of the many other options that have been presented, to each his own. If autofire isn't being abused in your game, awesome, carry on.

I don't think it's Auto-fire that you need to nerf, so much as the players at your table. Auto-fire alone is fine, is when they start throwing in jury-rigged, gambler, mods, etc that min-max and exploit the rules that seem to be the bigger issue for you. So focus on the situationally extreme jury-rigging murder-hobo and how to scale them back without making the rules more complicated.

A combination of the suggestions given would work. And if they don't agree, then they are more interested in video game dps stats than RP fun.

In my game we use the normal auto-fire rules with one narrative included. Yes you can autofire all you want but if you are say on a starship, in a space with anything of value in it, or in a small room with flammable/explosive items be ready to reap the whirlwind.

You kill all the minons... But in the process you destroy the data pad you were trying to find... You hit one of the tanks full of volatile chemicals and a solid wall of flames engulf you... You are able to clear out the starships engine room but stray shots hit vital equipment (hyperdrive, man the Star Destroyer is right on top of us. Punch it...nothing happens... What its not my fault...)

Yes you succeeded but due to common since you have done something to hurt yourself in the process. This doesn't always have to be threats and disrepairs. If the players want to do something potentially cool but that would have consequences then as the GM I activate common since mode.

another quick fix but an unpopular one is destroy their weapon and all they have or can get is non-auto-fire. Drastic and always should be a last resort after you have tried EVERYTHING else. Talking to the player is far better and much easier but sometimes you have to spend the dice.

I had to do that to a Wookiee bowcaster once. Player mod to the max and lots of Ranged Heavy.

Player rolled to Despairs.

Time for a new weapon. Not fun for either the player or the GM... but it is part of the game.

16 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

I limit Auto-fire to one hit per target per attack because all attacks already represent multiple shots/swings at a target. This way Auto-fire becomes the ranged equivalent of Sarlaac Sweep.

When you limit to one hit per target per attack, do you run 1 hit per minion, or 1 hit per minion group?

duplicate

duplicate

22 minutes ago, Edgookin said:

When you limit to one hit per target per attack, do you run 1 hit per minion, or 1 hit per minion group?

One per minion. Yes, it can cut through minion group's quickly, but I have no issue with that. What does bother me is using Auto-fire to simply pour multiple hits from a single attack into a rival or nemesis (or PC) until they inevitably fall.

1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

One per minion. Yes, it can cut through minion group's quickly, but I have no issue with that. What does bother me is using Auto-fire to simply pour multiple hits from a single attack into a rival or nemesis (or PC) until they inevitably fall.

However, that is actually quite realistic and possible. It really isn't that hard to unload an entire clip into a single person using a fully automatic weapon.

On 7/4/2017 at 11:06 AM, SkyJedi said:

Alright I think I see where your coming from. If Auto fire is used for the 1-2 extra shots the RAW are great. It introduces extra risk for that extra shot or two.

The problem comes in when characters start making jury-rigged/advgen builds when you can start triggering it higher amount of times every turn with a relative minor bumb in risk.

Some people have the brawn limit and some have the ascending adv trigger to stem this.

My idea was just a thought to have it scale where you could still make that 5 shot roll but it would be a lot harder than a 2 shot roll

Yeah, I mean—your game, your rules, of course—I would just address it if it ever became a problem. The old axiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," can help us here. Like, if it's not normally broken, but I can break it, doesn't mean I need to try and and make it unbreakable from the start. I just fix it when it does break. The primary concern seems to be Jury Rigged, since AdvGen doesn't affect the autofire quality itself, but will just give you an easier job activating it once.

If the breaking point is Jury Rigged, then fix that breaking point. There have been some good suggestions here. Nerf it down to only allowing it to be used once per attack, or nerf the damage output with Jury-Rigged autofire blasters, or limit it to a number of uses equal to skill ranks or something. But again, only if you find that it's broke—that is, only if it's actually a problem. Mine is a rare player who will even think to jury-rig their autofire blaster, but I've had it happen a couple times, once on play-by-post, and I welcomed the ability to send in hoards of minions so they could wipe the floor with them. If it's all done in good fun and good taste, I don't have a problem with it. I can see how it might get out of hand, but have yet to feel that it has done so.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, that is actually quite realistic and possible. It really isn't that hard to unload an entire clip into a single person using a fully automatic weapon.

And in this system, unloading a full mag can be done without Auto-fire as that one attack roll can represent a multitude of shots. I see no reason to allow Auto-fire to magically increase this.

Also, this system, per RAW, allows long-range sniping with Auto-fire. You can absolutely devastate one guy with almost no risk of hitting people standing near them (within Short range). That's hardly realistic in any way.

2 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

And in this system, unloading a full mag can be done without Auto-fire as that one attack roll can represent a multitude of shots. I see no reason to allow Auto-fire to magically increase this.

Autofire doesn't "magically" do anything. All it does in increase the number of hits the target(s) take. This is also in line with other systems, such as Cyberpunk , where when using aufotfire, each additional point above the requirement to hit means one additional round hit the target (and in Cyberpunk , each hit equals a single bullet , so you roll damage for each round hitting the target. ) That's a lot of damage. Cyberpunk is a very lethal game.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Autofire doesn't "magically" do anything. All it does in increase the number of hits the target(s) take. This is also in line with other systems, such as Cyberpunk , where when using aufotfire, each additional point above the requirement to hit means one additional round hit the target (and in Cyberpunk , each hit equals a single bullet , so you roll damage for each round hitting the target. ) That's a lot of damage. Cyberpunk is a very lethal game.

I know CP. It is irrelevant.

I don't see allowing multiple hits on individuals to be a benefit.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

I know CP. It is irrelevant.

I don't see allowing multiple hits on individuals to be a benefit.

It's not irrelevant when we're discussing how balanced something common in many RPGs is, including Star Wars. It's also not a matter of how much of a "benefit" you personally think it is. It's a matter of how autofire actually works .

On 7/3/2017 at 3:06 PM, 2P51 said:

I just use total number of shots possible with an unsupported weapon = PC Brawn. Elegant imo and can't remember whose idea it was on these forums but I stole it and I like it. I had considered the ascending order thing as well, but in the end I like the Brawn thingy. Vehicle mounted weapons, game on, if you're dumb enough to stand in front of an A-10 you should be dead.

I agree. Simple. However, it does seem to tread, if just a little a bit, on how Cumbersome works. Cumbersome weapons are meant for large, unwieldy, awkward or heavy weapons (unsupported). And increase the difficulty to hit for deficient Brawn to Cumbersome scores. Which as a result reduce the amount of possible auto fire hits.

Even though I would like to recommend using Cumbersome over Brawn for the "unsupported weapon = PC Brawn" rule, it is hard. Mainly because Brawn scores go up, which makes it way easier tracking the amount of max shots. While Cumbersome goes down; making me relive ThAC0 nightmares but this time with autofire. Plus not all autofire weapons have a Cumbersome rating, as not all of the autofire weapons are large, unwieldy, awkward or heavy (unsupported).

My only grip, and it is a really small one, is that it can lead to MAD. Which in of itself is not a bad thing, just something to be considerate of.

Although I have a question. How does the attachment like "Weapon Harness" and talents like "Burley" (Solider/Hired Gun: Heavy) work? In those instances, are the weapons considered "Supported"?

I only allowed a tripod to equal supported. It's a houserule so GMs taste.

Another thought I had bandied about was just not allowing Aim on Autofire. That takes away a couple Boosts and takes True Aim off the board.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's not irrelevant when we're discussing how balanced something common in many RPGs is, including Star Wars. It's also not a matter of how much of a "benefit" you personally think it is. It's a matter of how autofire actually works .

You're really a special kind of idiot, aren't you? I'm done being nice to you and trying to engage with you like you're a rational human being. You keep trying to have arguments that no one else is actually making.

10 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

You're really a special kind of idiot, aren't you? I'm done being nice to you and trying to engage with you like you're a rational human being. You keep trying to have arguments that no one else is actually making.

Excuse me, but when someone says they think something doesn't seem realistic or is potentially "broken" that is actually how it really works, and works similarly in other game systems , then using examples from those systems, which set such precedences is perfectly relevant. The fact that it pokes holes in how you think it "should" work, is not my concern. And, yes, the realism of Autofire and how games apply it is the argument that the OP was making.

26 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Yeah, I mean—your game, your rules, of course—I would just address it if it ever became a problem. The old axiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," can help us here. Like, if it's not normally broken, but I can break it, doesn't mean I need to try and and make it unbreakable from the start. I just fix it when it does break. The primary concern seems to be Jury Rigged, since AdvGen doesn't affect the autofire quality itself, but will just give you an easier job activating it once.

If the breaking point is Jury Rigged, then fix that breaking point. There have been some good suggestions here. Nerf it down to only allowing it to be used once per attack, or nerf the damage output with Jury-Rigged autofire blasters, or limit it to a number of uses equal to skill ranks or something. But again, only if you find that it's broke—that is, only if it's actually a problem. Mine is a rare player who will even think to jury-rig their autofire blaster, but I've had it happen a couple times, once on play-by-post, and I welcomed the ability to send in hoards of minions so they could wipe the floor with them. If it's all done in good fun and good taste, I don't have a problem with it. I can see how it might get out of hand, but have yet to feel that it has done so.

Jury rig is fine, I don't see that as the problem. and nerfing jury rig would effect a massive amount of other talents. In my head It broken part is the non escalating risk/reward on autofire.

I get you don't agree with me, thats abundantly clear. You've made your point. Whats your end game? am I suppose to agree with you unconditionally and bow down before your vastly superior intelligent?

"your ideas are better than mine?" are ya happy now?

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Excuse me, but when someone says they think something doesn't seem realistic or is potentially "broken" that is actually how it really works, and works similarly in other game systems , then using examples from those systems, which set such precedences is perfectly relevant. The fact that it pokes holes in how you think it "should" work, is not my concern. And, yes, the realism of Autofire and how games apply it is the argument that the OP was making.

nope here was my original point

Quote

Autofire is one of the bits I've always felt that breaks the game and needs a nerf. Its to easily exploited and influences the game in ways that I feel that weren't intended.

Just now, SkyJedi said:

nope here was my original point

I'm talking later in the discussion.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm talking later in the discussion.

you're twisting words rather than having a civil discussion. and you've made you point, you don't like my idea. thats ok, please stop attacking other in this thread. Be the bigger man and walk away

Just now, SkyJedi said:

you're twisting words rather than having a civil discussion. and you've made you point, you don't like my idea. thats ok, please stop attacking other in this thread. Be the bigger man and walk away

I'm not attacking anyone, Skyjedi.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm not attacking anyone, Skyjedi.

i see you're not the bigger man, then Seriously do you have to convince everyone how terrible my idea is, doe it keep you up at night? do you need help? I've got some numbers you can call.