Why do Modern WPs not use PP bonuses but Ancient WP do?

[Killer Cyborg]

My point was that guns are not simply point and shoot,

They pretty much are, though.
Certainly a lot more so than bows and arrows.

that guns are not intuitive,

More so than a bow and arrow.

Say you're somebody who's never seen either weapon before.
Somebody shows up, shows you how to fire a revolver, then shows you how to fire a bow and arrow.
Which one are you going to be better with when you first fire them?

and that guns are more potentially more dangerous in untrained hands.

And I think that this is where you're getting distracted from the conversation and indulging in a tangent about gun safety that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand, which is about whether or not physical dexterity plays a role in aiming guns, in aiming bows & arrows, and to what degrees.

[livewire]

boy has this debate took off lol. well i will say that from personal experience that natural aptitude does play a role in firing a gun i have seen it in real life and believe it should be represented in the gaming context now perhaps my half of the pp bonus is too high and out weights the training bonus to much esp at the lower levels but to counter this it never changes and the training bonus does as you get more training and experience under your belt it does begin to count more than the pp bonus. perhaps an adjustment needs made but so far through play testing is is working quite well but i may see if something else works better. but i do feel it needs to be represented somehow

[Jerell]

I suppose some people do pick up firing a lot faster than others.

Yes, perhaps we can come up with a new stat... Call it Ballistic Skill (BS) or something, take (PP+ME+IQ+3D6)/4 = x. This should help us determine if you shoot like Simo Hayha (greatest sniper ever, fought in the Winter War), Gomer, or anywhere in between. But if you do shoot like Simo Hayha, than I would say bonuses for training do not apply. The little bugger got over 300 kills with his rifle, he was a back woods hunter though I believe, and I don't think military training would help someone like Simo improve.

here's an alternative off the cuff, on the fly (shooting from the hip so to speak, lol): x=balistic skill, then create a chart with bonuses... Players like charts with bonuses. So as not to be too one sided, we should include negative modifiers as well (The GM tend to like that). If training bonuses are greater than BS bonus, use training bonuses. If not, use Ballistic skill bonuses. Ballistic skill and training bonuses do not stack.

And just for fun, here's a quote a buddy of mine likes to say, "It's time to see who can shoot, and who can shoot their mouths" - SSG C. Shelton, CMXLVIII Auxilia

[Natasha]

I have no doubt that guns are dangerous in untrained hands. Heck, if not properly taken care of, I imagine they're a touch dangerous when used regularly even in trained hands.
Even so, it really does sound like you (Natasha) don't feel any natural talent has a place in a roleplaying game except when illustrated by an OCC; that training with a weapon, mathematics, computers, etc. is the only way to get any bonus and that the stats don't make a difference in these skills.

Although you also stated the game needs more and increasingly specific stats. The two statements seem at odds with eachother.

That's because I'm not opposed to stats giving bonuses. I'm opposed to stats giving the wrong bonuses.

[Natasha]

I'm not disinclined to try out the half-PP bonus to most modern weapon strike rolls. I'm finding the debate too enlightening to throw my vote on the easy solution, though.

Well I think I'll say it again.

If you're armed with a gun take your P.P. bonus and apply it to Initiative.
The more reflexive character is going to shoot first, not necessarily better.

[livewire]

I suppose some people do pick up firing a lot faster than others.

Yes, perhaps we can come up with a new stat... Call it Ballistic Skill (BS) or something, take (PP+ME+IQ+3D6)/4 = x. This should help us determine if you shoot like Simo Hayha (greatest sniper ever, fought in the Winter War), Gomer, or anywhere in between. But if you do shoot like Simo Hayha, than I would say bonuses for training do not apply. The little bugger got over 300 kills with his rifle, he was a back woods hunter though I believe, and I don't think military training would help someone like Simo improve.

here's an alternative off the cuff, on the fly (shooting from the hip so to speak, lol): x=balistic skill, then create a chart with bonuses... Players like charts with bonuses. So as not to be too one sided, we should include negative modifiers as well (The GM tend to like that). If training bonuses are greater than BS bonus, use training bonuses. If not, use Ballistic skill bonuses. Ballistic skill and training bonuses do not stack.

And just for fun, here's a quote a buddy of mine likes to say, "It's time to see who can shoot, and who can shoot their mouths" - SSG C. Shelton, CMXLVIII Auxilia

i love the quote btw lol but i think the formula you have there of (PP+ME+IQ+3d6/4=x) is a bit too excessive just with base stats of 12 and a low ball roll of 4 you get a 10 i could see that getting out of hand with even one exceptional role in one of those attributes or the 3D6 and heaven forbid you have more that one exceptional attribute. i think deriving it from one attribute would work and as far as the game is concerned PP is what your general dexterity and hand eye coordination is generally based on which is why i use it though with alot of gamers this is always one of their highest attributes which is why i am play testing it as i may end up using one of the other attributes

[Natasha]

My point was that guns are not simply point and shoot,

They pretty much are, though.
Certainly a lot more so than bows and arrows.

I think it depends on range. Unless you're not interested in the Strike aspect of using a weapon - but then they're both just point and shoot, letting projectiles fly as they will.

that guns are not intuitive,

More so than a bow and arrow.

Ok, we're clear on each other's opinions now.

Say you're somebody who's never seen either weapon before.
Somebody shows up, shows you how to fire a revolver, then shows you how to fire a bow and arrow.
Which one are you going to be better with when you first fire them?

I don't know. I am somebody that never seen either weapon before. And when somebody showed up and showed me how to fire them I was average with both.

and that guns are more potentially more dangerous in untrained hands.

And I think that this is where you're getting distracted from the conversation and indulging in a tangent about gun safety that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand, which is about whether or not physical dexterity plays a role in aiming guns, in aiming bows & arrows, and to what degrees.

It's also a conversation about training and the role it plays in aiming guns because dexterity alone isn't going to stop you from hurting somebody including yourself because you don't know how to aim a gun.

[livewire]

I'm not disinclined to try out the half-PP bonus to most modern weapon strike rolls. I'm finding the debate too enlightening to throw my vote on the easy solution, though.

Well I think I'll say it again.

If you're armed with a gun take your P.P. bonus and apply it to Initiative.
The more reflexive character is going to shoot first, not necessarily better.

this would be true if PP was solely an attribute about speed and reflex but its not. PP is a statistical representation of your characters dexterity and hand/eye coordination if it was not you would not get any bonuses to strike for hand to hand or anything else from it

[Natasha]

I'm not disinclined to try out the half-PP bonus to most modern weapon strike rolls. I'm finding the debate too enlightening to throw my vote on the easy solution, though.

Well I think I'll say it again.

If you're armed with a gun take your P.P. bonus and apply it to Initiative.
The more reflexive character is going to shoot first, not necessarily better.

this would be true if PP was solely an attribute about speed and reflex but its not. PP is a statistical representation of your characters dexterity and hand/eye coordination if it was not you would not get any bonuses to strike for hand to hand or anything else from it

Just dexterity, how well you move.

Systems Failure (only book I have with modern combat at the moment) describes it in the glossary as a measure of reflex when defining attributes; the attribute itself just speaks about agility.

In hand to hand the bonuses are not necessarily due to hand-eye. Rather due to your ability to exploit openings in the defense; in other words, just like the rules say, how well you move. If you've trained, you know that sometimes you can't see what you're striking; training and situational awareness tells you it's there. Good dexterity helps you hit it.

[livewire]

I'm not disinclined to try out the half-PP bonus to most modern weapon strike rolls. I'm finding the debate too enlightening to throw my vote on the easy solution, though.

well just an fyi as part of this house rule i also got rid of the negatives to dodge weapons fire except when over a certain range as at the closer ranges i believe you are dodging where the barrel is pointed in the instant before firing rather than the shot itself which becomes much more difficult at longer ranges as it harder to tell when the shot will be fired

[livewire]

I'm not disinclined to try out the half-PP bonus to most modern weapon strike rolls. I'm finding the debate too enlightening to throw my vote on the easy solution, though.

Well I think I'll say it again.

If you're armed with a gun take your P.P. bonus and apply it to Initiative.
The more reflexive character is going to shoot first, not necessarily better.

this would be true if PP was solely an attribute about speed and reflex but its not. PP is a statistical representation of your characters dexterity and hand/eye coordination if it was not you would not get any bonuses to strike for hand to hand or anything else from it

Just dexterity, how well you move.

Systems Failure (only book I have with modern combat at the moment) describes it in the glossary as a measure of reflex when defining attributes; the attribute itself just speaks about agility.

In hand to hand the bonuses are not necessarily due to hand-eye. Rather due to your ability to exploit openings in the defense; in other words, just like the rules say, how well you move. If you've trained, you know that sometimes you can't see what you're striking; training and situational awareness tells you it's there. Good dexterity helps you hit it.

the training part is true and yes in the description it does not say hand eye coordination but it is implied in the bonuses as a strike bonus because if your eye can't correctly tell your hand via your brain where something is correctly as far as distance etc. then you don't tend to hit except by dumb luck

[Natasha]

I'm not disinclined to try out the half-PP bonus to most modern weapon strike rolls. I'm finding the debate too enlightening to throw my vote on the easy solution, though.

Well I think I'll say it again.

If you're armed with a gun take your P.P. bonus and apply it to Initiative.
The more reflexive character is going to shoot first, not necessarily better.

this would be true if PP was solely an attribute about speed and reflex but its not. PP is a statistical representation of your characters dexterity and hand/eye coordination if it was not you would not get any bonuses to strike for hand to hand or anything else from it

Just dexterity, how well you move.

Systems Failure (only book I have with modern combat at the moment) describes it in the glossary as a measure of reflex when defining attributes; the attribute itself just speaks about agility.

In hand to hand the bonuses are not necessarily due to hand-eye. Rather due to your ability to exploit openings in the defense; in other words, just like the rules say, how well you move. If you've trained, you know that sometimes you can't see what you're striking; training and situational awareness tells you it's there. Good dexterity helps you hit it.

the training part is true and yes in the description it does not say hand eye coordination but it is implied in the bonuses as a strike bonus because if your eye can't correctly tell your hand via your brain where something is correctly as far as distance etc. then you don't tend to hit except by dumb luck

That maybe so and I can't really say it isn't. I mean, the rules do indicate as much and it's logical step. But it's not one I make. And I don't think I'm being wrong; I don't think it's necessary to make this step. I can, at least to myself, explain why.

I read it strictly as agility. Agility does not require hand-eye. And how I read it agrees with my own life experience. For me, that's good enough. The simple fact that hand-eye doesn't play a role always but agility does, is the reason why I read Physical Prowess as purely a measure of agility.

I put so much emphasis on training because that's what my experience tells me is most important in combat especially when dealing with weapons.

Side note: it's an interesting topic hand-eye vs muscle memory under stress though. I'd like to do more research on it. Our bodies do things under stress, which may not be as helpful as they could: tunnel vision, selective hearing, loss of fine motor skills; training controls that. Muscle memory means that even if you can't see clearly you can still do the same thing every time.

[Natasha]

This will take some digestion later, but first I'll say that Palladium doesn't have anything at this time which indicates how likely the wielder is to hurt him/herself. It just doesn't seem to be covered.

It's not completely covered at least. I'd suggest that Weapon Proficiency makes you competent enough that you don't hurt yourself.

[Dog_O_War]

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club.

I don't see how clubbing somebody with a gun requires more skill than stabbing somebody with an arrow.
In fact, if anything, I'd say it's the reverse, simply because stabbing is not as natural a movement as clubbing.

The point of this was that the person with the arrow is atleast performing the type of attack that the arrow performs (re: bow puts pointy shaft into target; using the arrow as a dagger accomplishes the same desired result) versus the gun.

Also, our very evolution has dictated what was to develop naturally; the bow came first and has been around for more than 2000 years, versus the gun. We've developed the gun into a more natural weapon, but look at the very history of it; from the first basic models (which most everyone will have trouble figuring out) and the bow in comparison. Unfortunately the bow has reached its evolutionary "peak" so to speak. As for ease of use; that is an entirely different matter.

Sure the modern gun may have that "pick up and pull the trigger" quality, but so does a sword - except that you can tell the difference right away between the noob and the expert.

The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon. But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Hell, I'd say guns are a lot easier either way: they're just point and shoot.
Far more intuitive than trying to screw around with pulling an arrow towards you in order to launch it in an arc at the target.

As I said, that is after major advances in the technology of the gun. Can you say the early bow and the early gun still compare in which is easier to use?

Here's something else to contemplate; if the gun were not such a superior weapon, would not the bow have seen additional evolutionary advances in both ease of use (like and automatic pull and auto-loader), and power - such as well, I guess they have put bombs on the end of them now (Wyle E. Coyote had something I guess).

[Natasha]

Shall I dig up quotes? I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm really trying to get a handle on your message.

Then I think quotes would be helpful.

[Damian Magecraft]

personally i just utilize full PP bonuses and ignore the -10 rule

this "balances" nicely for my needs.
the firing wild et al rules still apply as well

[Natasha]

1.

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

I would have it that all ranged weapons are treated like the "modern" Weapon Proficiencies.
You only get bonuses of he training/W.P.

Or are you just arguing that NO weapons should use PP bonuses?
Or what?

I'm not opposed to it. I'm not arguing it though.

2. "I am not opposed to stats giving bonsues but stats do not reflect aptitude in my opinion."
Emphasis indicates clarification, I hope, that clears up the apparently opposing statements.

3. A system based on levels of experience can't really accommodate aptitude. If you use P.P. for aptitude you still plateau and step up the same as everybody else; you just got a few steps start with a high P.P. attribute.

[Killer Cyborg]

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club.

I don't see how clubbing somebody with a gun requires more skill than stabbing somebody with an arrow.
In fact, if anything, I'd say it's the reverse, simply because stabbing is not as natural a movement as clubbing.

The point of this was that the person with the arrow is atleast performing the type of attack that the arrow performs (re: bow puts pointy shaft into target; using the arrow as a dagger accomplishes the same desired result) versus the gun.

Irrelevant.

Also, our very evolution has dictated what was to develop naturally; the bow came first and has been around for more than 2000 years, versus the gun. We've developed the gun into a more natural weapon, but look at the very history of it; from the first basic models (which most everyone will have trouble figuring out) and the bow in comparison. Unfortunately the bow has reached its evolutionary "peak" so to speak. As for ease of use; that is an entirely different matter.

Also irrelevant.

Sure the modern gun may have that "pick up and pull the trigger" quality, but so does a sword - except that you can tell the difference right away between the noob and the expert.

I never said that you couldn't; just that guns are easier to use than bow.


(So are swords, for that matter)

Hell, I'd say guns are a lot easier either way: they're just point and shoot.
Far more intuitive than trying to screw around with pulling an arrow towards you in order to launch it in an arc at the target.

As I said, that is after major advances in the technology of the gun. Can you say the early bow and the early gun still compare in which is easier to use?

Again; doesn't matter, and doesn't really have jack to do with the discussion.

Here's something else to contemplate; if the gun were not such a superior weapon, would not the bow have seen additional evolutionary advances in both ease of use (like and automatic pull and auto-loader), and power - such as well, I guess they have put bombs on the end of them now (Wyle E. Coyote had something I guess).

Dynamite, ala the Dukes of Hazard.
But it would STILL be the more difficult weapon to aim and use.

[Killer Cyborg]

My point was that guns are not simply point and shoot,

They pretty much are, though.
Certainly a lot more so than bows and arrows.

I think it depends on range.

At what range do you believe that it's easier to shoot somebody with an arrow than with a bullet?

Unless you're not interested in the Strike aspect of using a weapon - but then they're both just point and shoot, letting projectiles fly as they will.

Except that arrows have a lot more drop, so you have to arc them a hell of a lot more.
And they're affected a lot more by wind, so you have to compensate for that a hell of a lot more.

Say you're somebody who's never seen either weapon before.
Somebody shows up, shows you how to fire a revolver, then shows you how to fire a bow and arrow.
Which one are you going to be better with when you first fire them?

I don't know. I am somebody that never seen either weapon before. And when somebody showed up and showed me how to fire them I was average with both.

I remember learning to use a gun, and I remember learning to use a bow, and I've always been better with a bow.
I did okay with a bow, and I did okay with a gun... but I was shooting at hay bales with the bow, and I was shooting at bottles with the gun.

And I think that's pretty standard, in that you're going to be shooting at larger targets with a bow than with a gun.
Because guns are easier to use.

and that guns are more potentially more dangerous in untrained hands.

And I think that this is where you're getting distracted from the conversation and indulging in a tangent about gun safety that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand, which is about whether or not physical dexterity plays a role in aiming guns, in aiming bows & arrows, and to what degrees.

It's also a conversation about training and the role it plays in aiming guns because dexterity alone isn't going to stop you from hurting somebody including yourself because you don't know how to aim a gun.

No, it's not.
Although you keep trying to make it one, for some reason, instead of focusing on the point of the thread.

Which was this:

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

[Natasha]

At what range do you believe that it's easier to shoot somebody with an arrow than with a bullet?

Depends on the situation.

Most handgun engagements are within 10 feet.

I don't think one's easier than the other at that range.

But I've seen only someone with a firearm miss at that range.

Unless you're not interested in the Strike aspect of using a weapon - but then they're both just point and shoot, letting projectiles fly as they will.

Except that arrows have a lot more drop, so you have to arc them a hell of a lot more.
And they're affected a lot more by wind, so you have to compensate for that a hell of a lot more.

Yea, like I said, it's a range issue.

The shorter your barrel the more important getting those posts correct is as range increases.

And I think that's pretty standard, in that you're going to be shooting at larger targets with a bow than with a gun.
Because guns are easier to use.

Maybe for you.

For me the bigger bales make it easier to retrieve my arrows when I miss the target. I don't really care about retrieving the bullet when I miss with a gun.

That's why I don't golf.

No, it's not.
Although you keep trying to make it one, for some reason, instead of focusing on the point of the thread.

Which was this:

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

The rationalisation is that bonuses to strike with guns come from training not P.P.

[Natasha]

1. Sorta makes sense, but...
2. ...aptitude implies regardless of a level system that some will simply plateau higher or lower than others, and that training, while crucial and in many systems the decisive factor, does top out and is not in lieu of but rather is supplemented by a "knack."
In other words, if I just plain suck with bows, a great deal of training will put me on par with... other folks who don't suck and have trained less. However, if I were otherwise statistically insignificant with bows, the same amount of training would plateau at a higher level of ability. What's more, if there's a saturation point to training (as I'm sure there is with aptitude), differing levels of "knack" should cause differing amounts of proficiency even at that saturation point rather than a knack simply proving to be a shortcut to the same plateau.

Whereas
a. I'm not inclined to disagree that being untrained and unknowledgable leaves most people, regardless of knack, on fairly even ground...
b. ... I also know that no matter how hard I try I'm just not a great juggler. I've spent far too long training at tasks, years and years, with very little improvement in a few tasks while my training on other tasks has, in fact, been augmented and eased by aptitude in those fields.

Too much micromanaging once you are toying with aptitude. Suddenly your ability in one field has to grow separate from the rest, and that's not really possible in Palladium - not without some sort of O.C.C. type thing going on to express "knack".

Take the aptitude in Mathematics example. The I.Q. bonus applies to everything; not just what you have a lot of aptitude in. So you're a stud at maths and singing, even if you're aptitude lies only in maths. With the current Palladium system you really need something O.C.C.'ish for your solution. BtS lets parapsychs dump a few extra %'s into a skill to reflect their speciality, for example.

[Natasha]

The rationalisation is that bonuses to strike with guns come from training not P.P.

That's... not a rationalization, that's a repetition.
In answer to the original question, I really don't think there is much of a rationalization to be made for why crossbows and firearms have different bonus schedules, but the jury's still out on bows.
Now back to the argument.

It's rationalisation I just can't find the formulation in English to express it. Maybe I should just say there's no rationalisation because guns work just fine and I've explained why they do. shrug

Crossbows can have a different schedule; that's not the problem. They just shouldn't be tied to P.P. just because they're among the so-called "ancient" W.P.s.

[Killer Cyborg]

At what range do you believe that it's easier to shoot somebody with an arrow than with a bullet?

Depends on the situation.

Most handgun engagements are within 10 feet.

I don't think one's easier than the other at that range.

But I've seen only someone with a firearm miss at that range.

And most engagements with rifles...?

And I think that's pretty standard, in that you're going to be shooting at larger targets with a bow than with a gun.
Because guns are easier to use.

Maybe for you.

For me the bigger bales make it easier to retrieve my arrows when I miss the target. I don't really care about retrieving the bullet when I miss with a gun.

I was just worried about hitting the bale at all.

No, it's not.
Although you keep trying to make it one, for some reason, instead of focusing on the point of the thread.

Which was this:

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

The rationalisation is that bonuses to strike with guns come from training not P.P.

And I can see that as an argument for not including PP bonuses with ANY ranged weapons.
What I can't see is how you think that aiming and firing guns relies more on training than aiming and firing arrows does.
Or, for that matter, how hand-eye coordination matters more with a bow and arrow than it does with a gun.

[Natasha]

It's rationalisation I just can't find the formulation in English to express it. Maybe I should just say there's no rationalisation because guns work just fine and I've explained why they do. shrug

Fair enough, but you must admit that your sentence as it stood was not a rationalization. Your other posts might.

Sure I admit it.

Crossbows can have a different schedule; that's not the problem. They just shouldn't be tied to P.P. just because they're among the so-called "ancient" W.P.s.

Fair enough, I'll entertain this possibility, but why not?
More importantly, if you can answer this, you've got half the answer to the original question. That being, there is no justification for crossbows to have a PP bonus for x reason.

I'm a little confused what you're asking. They shouldn't be tied to P.P. for the same reasons firearms shouldn't since they aim much like firearms do.

Too much micromanaging once you are toying with aptitude. Suddenly your ability in one field has to grow separate from the rest, and that's not really possible in Palladium - not without some sort of O.C.C. type thing going on to express "knack".

And yet, if a gun has different stat bonuses (assuming having none is different from having some), isn't that also micromanagement? You do seem to feel this degree of such is okay.

No, because much of this already in place, and getting it where I think it should requires almost no effort.

All ranged weapons get not P.P. bonus.

I'll grant you, many of the singers I know aren't the best mathematicians. Some of the better mathematicians I know are pretty good singers, though, and all of the skilled musicians I know are, regardless of math training, very intelligent.

My point wasn't that high I.Q. ought not provide bonuses to all skills, just that it, like P.P., doesn't measure aptitude.

[Natasha]

At what range do you believe that it's easier to shoot somebody with an arrow than with a bullet?

Depends on the situation.

Most handgun engagements are within 10 feet.

I don't think one's easier than the other at that range.

But I've seen only someone with a firearm miss at that range.

And most engagements with rifles...?

I don't know the numbers for that. And a lot harder to measure. Handguns are fairly easy to measure. Rifles pull in submachineguns, machineguns, assault rifles.

And I can see that as an argument for not including PP bonuses with ANY ranged weapons.
What I can't see is how you think that aiming and firing guns relies more on training than aiming and firing arrows does.
Or, for that matter, how hand-eye coordination matters more with a bow and arrow than it does with a gun.

I think that realising what you're doing wrong with bows is easier. With a gun you don't know necessarily what you doing wrong, especially if you're not even hitting the paper to see where the bullet strikes it- the puffs of dirt behind the target don't really tell you much except in very big misses.

With a bow you can see the arrow in flight and that helps with the adjustments and the realisation of what needs adjustment. Tracer rounds might help a little but in my experience they don't. A spotter watching the vapour trail can help but you, the shooter, can't see it. That is the primary reason. The secondary reason is if I give you a bow and an arrow, and then a bullet and a gun, I'm pretty sure you're going to find the bow more straight forward than the gun, especially if it's an automatic.

You being some hypothetical person never experienced with either.

I don't think hand-eye coordination matters more with a bow and arrow that with a gun.

[Natasha]

As of HU2, though, PP is defined as "the degree of dexterity and agility of the character." Is that not a measure of aptitude in the fields of moving gracefully and with precision?

No, it's a measure of ability.

Even granted that, unless you take it as a super power, it doesn't actually get reflected as bonuses to Gymnastics and Acrobatics?

The first time I seen those skills were as O.C.C. skills, so they bumped up P.P., not the other way round.

There's a lot that don't make sense as they bolt stuff on more or less at random.

[Killer Cyborg]

At what range do you believe that it's easier to shoot somebody with an arrow than with a bullet?

Depends on the situation.

Most handgun engagements are within 10 feet.

I don't think one's easier than the other at that range.

But I've seen only someone with a firearm miss at that range.

And most engagements with rifles...?

I don't know the numbers for that. And a lot harder to measure. Handguns are fairly easy to measure. Rifles pull in submachineguns, machineguns, assault rifles.

I think it's a safe bet that it's farther away than 10'.
Hm.
Same with bows, come to think of it.

And I can see that as an argument for not including PP bonuses with ANY ranged weapons.
What I can't see is how you think that aiming and firing guns relies more on training than aiming and firing arrows does.
Or, for that matter, how hand-eye coordination matters more with a bow and arrow than it does with a gun.

I think that realising what you're doing wrong with bows is easier. With a gun you don't know necessarily what you doing wrong, especially if you're not even hitting the paper to see where the bullet strikes it- the puffs of dirt behind the target don't really tell you much except in very big misses.

With a bow you can see the arrow in flight and that helps with the adjustments and the realisation of what needs adjustment. Tracer rounds might help a little but in my experience they don't. A spotter watching the vapour trail can help but you, the shooter, can't see it. That is the primary reason.

That's a pretty good point about the differences, but it doesn't matter much in the game, since there aren't any rules for zoning in on your target from previous shots (though that could make for a hell of an interesting house rule).

The secondary reason is if I give you a bow and an arrow, and then a bullet and a gun, I'm pretty sure you're going to find the bow more straight forward than the gun, especially if it's an automatic.

You being some hypothetical person never experienced with either.

As far as loading, cleaning, and repairing, I agree.
But none of those affect simply firing the weapon, which is where the PP bonus comes in.

I don't think hand-eye coordination matters more with a bow and arrow that with a gun.

So why would there be a PP bonus for bows, but not for guns?

[demos606]

[quote=Previous excghange edited for quote limiter of 5 :/ ]Sure it might be a different type of prowess than with a sword or club, but there are only so many attributes in the game. It has to fall under one of em, or at least it should.[
If you say so.
He does and in this isolated instance is right.
Indeed.

It's a totally different prowess.

So no bonus.
Where is that prowess measured then?
If it's anywhere it's in the Weapon Proficiency.[/quote]
Guns would most properly get bonuses based on some combination of ME and IQ. Physical strength and dexterity have NO bearing on the ability to fire the vast majority of small arms and even less on mounted/supported weapons. This also accounts for what everyone has been calling natural aptitude with firearms as the entire process is an exercise in mental gymnastics via breathing control, trigger pressure and aiming. The goal being to keep the weapon as styill as possible tends to negate the idea that PP would be the proper stat to base bonuses upon. Look at the military sometime - on average your best shooters aren't the strongest/fastest/most graceful, they'd more accurately be described as nerds than jocks.

[Nemo235]

Pulling back a bow takes more fine musle control than aiming a gun. You've got to make sure you have the right pull for the range and trajectory you need. So that's at least one more control factor than a gun where the range is pretty much a constant in typical situations.

That's about the only rationalization I can think of why a character gets the PP bonus to bows and not modern weapons.
Crossbows...I'm not so sure about.

[Natasha]

The secondary reason is if I give you a bow and an arrow, and then a bullet and a gun, I'm pretty sure you're going to find the bow more straight forward than the gun, especially if it's an automatic.

You being some hypothetical person never experienced with either.

As far as loading, cleaning, and repairing, I agree.
But none of those affect simply firing the weapon, which is where the PP bonus comes in.

It's not relevant to aiming, but I think that (re)loading is something P.P. should affect.

I don't think hand-eye coordination matters more with a bow and arrow that with a gun.

So why would there be a PP bonus for bows, but not for guns?

By mistake. The mistake is to give it to bows; it's correct not to give to guns.
In my opinion.

[Natasha]

Guns would most properly get bonuses based on some combination of ME and IQ. Physical strength and dexterity have NO bearing on the ability to fire the vast majority of small arms and even less on mounted/supported weapons. This also accounts for what everyone has been calling natural aptitude with firearms as the entire process is an exercise in mental gymnastics via breathing control, trigger pressure and aiming. The goal being to keep the weapon as styill as possible tends to negate the idea that PP would be the proper stat to base bonuses upon. Look at the military sometime - on average your best shooters aren't the strongest/fastest/most graceful, they'd more accurately be described as nerds than jocks.

Snipers use mounts, breath control, etc. A soldier kicking in a door uses something else entirely. But I agree with your overall idea that it's not really straight forward.

[Natasha]

Pulling back a bow takes more fine musle control than aiming a gun. You've got to make sure you have the right pull for the range and trajectory you need. So that's at least one more control factor than a gun where the range is pretty much a constant in typical situations.

That's about the only rationalization I can think of why a character gets the PP bonus to bows and not modern weapons.
Crossbows...I'm not so sure about.

Muscle memory can give you right draw, too.
Though I don't think that's a bad rationalisation.

[Dog_O_War]

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club.

I don't see how clubbing somebody with a gun requires more skill than stabbing somebody with an arrow.
In fact, if anything, I'd say it's the reverse, simply because stabbing is not as natural a movement as clubbing.

The point of this was that the person with the arrow is atleast performing the type of attack that the arrow performs (re: bow puts pointy shaft into target; using the arrow as a dagger accomplishes the same desired result) versus the gun.

Irrelevant.

Hardly.
Offer an unloaded gun (bullets on the side) with the safety on to someone that has never seen one and he will never figure it out. Do the same with a bow and he'll have gotten it in a couple of hours. Offer one of the first guns to a common guy on the street (powder, wadding, ball all seperate) and tell him to figure it out, then offer him a bow and arrow an count the seconds before he puts two and two together.

The gun if far more complicated than the average person would like to believe; if a bow breaks, it is immediately apparent where and how and what is needed to fix it. But you bust a spring on a gun and the average person will spend hours trying to decern the problem.

The ease of use firearms perport now is also an illusion. Put a gun infront of a person that has only seen them used on tv with a dozen different bullets, all slightly different and as him to fire the gun by choosing one and pulling the trigger - won't get it in the first try. Meanwhile I could carve an arrow out of a broomstick and fire it from any bow - it won't work well, but it will work. Ease of use and simplicity of design. The only reason the average person today can really even work a gun is because our society is rife with them.

Also, our very evolution has dictated what was to develop naturally; the bow came first and has been around for more than 2000 years, versus the gun. We've developed the gun into a more natural weapon, but look at the very history of it; from the first basic models (which most everyone will have trouble figuring out) and the bow in comparison. Unfortunately the bow has reached its evolutionary "peak" so to speak. As for ease of use; that is an entirely different matter.

Also irrelevant.

Again, if the gun were the more simple tool between it and the bow, then it would have developed first. Naturally. This is also relevant, just like the above.

Sure the modern gun may have that "pick up and pull the trigger" quality, but so does a sword - except that you can tell the difference right away between the noob and the expert.

I never said that you couldn't; just that guns are easier to use than bow.

So you know how to assemble a muzzle-loader from parts? How about a bow? Can you say the same for the average person?
Once assembled, does the average person just pull the trigger and bullets come out? Or do they have to figure out how that works too? Is the bow easier to figure out yet?
Why is this relevant? One of these tools has had to become more complicated to become "easy to use". The other has remained basically unchanged for thousands of years. The reason (I'm betting) is ease of use.

Hell, I'd say guns are a lot easier either way: they're just point and shoot.
Far more intuitive than trying to screw around with pulling an arrow towards you in order to launch it in an arc at the target.

As I said, that is after major advances in the technology of the gun. Can you say the early bow and the early gun still compare in which is easier to use?

Again; doesn't matter, and doesn't really have jack to do with the discussion.

It has everything to do with the discussion; no gun type, model, year, etc... were designated. You assume a modern pistol; this only makes you wrong and inaccurate in the statement that "guns are just point and shoot". I can say that bows are exactly the same way and you will find no error in my summary. But when you break the two down, guns are far more than "just point and shoot" while bows are barely more than that statement. The bow is the simple weapon.

Here's something else to contemplate; if the gun were not such a superior weapon, would not the bow have seen additional evolutionary advances in both ease of use (like and automatic pull and auto-loader), and power - such as well, I guess they have put bombs on the end of them now (Wyle E. Coyote had something I guess).

Dynamite, ala the Dukes of Hazard.
But it would STILL be the more difficult weapon to aim and use.

Aim, no. The principles between the two (gun and bow) are exactly the same. Arrow shaft becomes gun barrel, site down the shaft/line the iron-sites up, release/squeeze.
Use, no. One is quicker, but speed does not equal simplicity.

[Natasha]

It's irrelevant to him because it's not about just aiming and shooting and P.P. bonuses or lack of them.

Although we all digressed at some point or another.

[Dog_O_War]

Agreed. Sorry, WarDawg, but I can't see what loading, cleaning, repair, and the need for a mate there to touch the match to the hole in the breach have to do with "Why do Modern WPs not use PP bonuses but Ancient WP do?" and its derivative question, "what should impact strike bonuses?"

Ease of use is what KC was talking about. And you're talking sparking up flint or having a lit torch or something on hand (now yer holding two objects) to fire a weapon that gets a progressively smaller barrel due to powder build-up. So you have to carry several different types of ammo, which you have to load powder (pack it down), then load the wadding (and pack that down), then load the bullet (and pack it down).

Meanwhile the bow-user draws back his arrow, aims and releases. Repeat as neccessary. The gun is a complicated device; it has only recently been reduced to the easy loading that the bow has, and has been given an ammo capacity upgrade.

[Dog_O_War]

So what you say is that until the aiming process is reduced to holding a single item and pulling the trigger, some time around the advent of the flintlock I suppose, ancient guns should use a different stat from our as-yet-undetermined stat used with Henry rifles, Springfields and modern guns.
I gotta say, this still sounds like an unconstructive tangent.

Yes, that is true for the aiming. But given the amount of time spent reloading (say if you only had one arm), is the gun really "easier" or simply accomidating? Does it seem easier to reload and aim a bow with two hands any more so than a rifle?



Anyways..... I have to say that I have lost sight of the target here and have only been responding to questions apon questions about questions, etc...

Would someone please re-state the goal of this thread (I know it's in the first post, but a re-wording and re-stating is in order here).

[Natasha]

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

I see it as asking why all the so-called Ancient W.P.s (specifically bows and crossbows) get P.P. bonuses while the so-called Modern W.P.s does not?

My answer was that it's wrong to apply P.P. bonuses to bows and crossbows and it is correct to not apply P.P. bonuses to firearms.

[Damian Magecraft]

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

I see it as asking why all the so-called Ancient W.P.s (specifically bows and crossbows) get P.P. bonuses while the so-called Modern W.P.s does not?

My answer was that it's wrong to apply P.P. bonuses to bows and crossbows and it is correct to not apply P.P. bonuses to firearms.

actually ranged weapons (this includes bows) do not get PP bonuses AFIK. interestingly enough tho i can find no ruling in the books that states one way or the other.

[Natasha]

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

I see it as asking why all the so-called Ancient W.P.s (specifically bows and crossbows) get P.P. bonuses while the so-called Modern W.P.s does not?

My answer was that it's wrong to apply P.P. bonuses to bows and crossbows and it is correct to not apply P.P. bonuses to firearms.

actually ranged weapons (this includes bows) do not get PP bonuses AFIK. interestingly enough tho i can find no ruling in the books that states one way or the other.

I thought the same.
I can't find it either.

[Killer Cyborg]

So why would there be a PP bonus for bows, but not for guns?

By mistake. The mistake is to give it to bows; it's correct not to give to guns.
In my opinion.

You were so focused on that second part that if you ever mentioned the first part, I failed to notice it.
The clarification is appreciated.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's irrelevant to him because it's not about just aiming and shooting and P.P. bonuses or lack of them.

Exactly.
You don't get PP bonuses to all the other crap that Dog of War was trying to bring into the conversation, so it doesn't have any bearing on the actual topic of this thread.

[Killer Cyborg]

Agreed. Sorry, WarDawg, but I can't see what loading, cleaning, repair, and the need for a mate there to touch the match to the hole in the breach have to do with "Why do Modern WPs not use PP bonuses but Ancient WP do?" and its derivative question, "what should impact strike bonuses?"

Ease of use is what KC was talking about.

Ease of use in the act of aiming and firing.
Because that's where the PP bonuses matter.

And you're talking sparking up flint or having a lit torch or something on hand (now yer holding two objects) to fire a weapon that gets a progressively smaller barrel due to powder build-up. So you have to carry several different types of ammo, which you have to load powder (pack it down), then load the wadding (and pack that down), then load the bullet (and pack it down).

Meanwhile the bow-user draws back his arrow, aims and releases. Repeat as neccessary. The gun is a complicated device; it has only recently been reduced to the easy loading that the bow has, and has been given an ammo capacity upgrade.

IIRC, black powder weapons in PFRPGII do get the PP bonuses to strike.
It's only modern guns that don't.

[Natasha]

Wow. The black powder guns in Transdimensional TMNT are treated as modern weapons without burst fire, and with aimed shot bonuses ranging from +1 to +3 depending specifically on the era. For example, a matchlock has about a +1 to strike in the hands of a proficient user on an aimed shot; a Springfield rifle gets the full +3 accorded to modern WPs, and Henry rifles can be used either with WP Percussion Cap Rifle or WP Rifle (the modern version) as long as the modern user is given time to familiarize himself with the old Henry's quirks.
Very different treatment. PP bonuses?

Only if you're using them as clubs.

[glitterboy2098]

my basic thoughts:

PP represents a persons agility. their ability to move. high PP means fast reflexes and movements, low meaning poor reflexes and movements.

a sword requires you to use your agility, you have to swing it. a bow requires you to use your agility, you have to draw it and release it.

a gun does not require such gross motor control because using it is primarily small fine movements.

so ancient WP's use PP bonuses because they require gross motor control as well as fine motor control. modern WP don't use PP bonuses because they require only fine motor control.

all of them require skill to use well, thus the WP's. but a person with really good motor control and reflexes (PP) will have an edge in using a sword or a knife over someone who has poor motor control and reflexes.

but both could be taught to shoot a gun equally well...


this was part of the reason guns were so unbalancing on ancient battlefields. a knight or a samurai needed really good reflexes and motor control along with lots of trainign to improve said attributes, in order to get the most out of their swords and bows. but you could give a peasant with poor sword using attributes a musket and a few months of training and kill knights/samurai.

[Natasha]

I think that's really well said

[Natasha]

So why would there be a PP bonus for bows, but not for guns?

By mistake. The mistake is to give it to bows; it's correct not to give to guns.
In my opinion.

You were so focused on that second part that if you ever mentioned the first part, I failed to notice it.
The clarification is appreciated.

Yea. The first part is sprinkled here and there while I indeed mashed my thumb into the cake on the second part.
Sure thing.

[livewire]

ok for the sake of this thread that pp is only for dexterity even though thats not how it is represented in the game ie the bonuses to strike with swords,bows and thrown weapons woud seem to indicate hand eye coordination as well or there would not be a bonus there at all but we won't beat a dead horse as no one seems to agree with me on that. if not pp then what other possible attribute as i think this should be related in the game i have seen it heck i have done it i know for an absolute fact that it there that it is true otherwise there is no way that i having no formal training what so ever and only firing a gun 6 times (of which only 2 twice were hadguns) in my life and firing a hand gun i had never fired in a caliber i had never fired could have done better on the same firing test as police officer take then guys with formal training and years of handling and shooting handguns if a natural aptitude for firearms does not exsist then how did i do this? anyone want to take a stab at it? (no pun intended lol) i also managed to out shoot most of them on our drills too (think the police alley with the pop up targets ours was a bit more low tech but same principle)

[Natasha]

ok for the sake of this thread that pp is only for dexterity even though thats not how it is represented in the game ie the bonuses to strike with swords,bows and thrown weapons woud seem to indicate hand eye coordination as well or there would not be a bonus there at all but we won't beat a dead horse as no one seems to agree with me on that.

I've explained why I disagree, I think. If you'd like to have this conversation, start up a topic.

if not pp then what other possible attribute as i think this should be related in the game i have seen it heck i have done it i know for an absolute fact that it there that it is true otherwise there is no way that i having no formal training what so ever and only firing a gun 6 times (of which only 2 twice were hadguns) in my life and firing a hand gun i had never fired in a caliber i had never fired could have done better on the same firing test as police officer take then guys with formal training and years of handling and shooting handguns if a natural aptitude for firearms does not exsist then how did i do this? anyone want to take a stab at it? (no pun intended lol) i also managed to out shoot most of them on our drills too (think the police alley with the pop up targets ours was a bit more low tech but same principle)

Can you rephrase this with punctuation. I simply can't understand this at all. You experienced beginner's luck or what are you saying?

[livewire]

ok for the sake of this thread that pp is only for dexterity even though thats not how it is represented in the game ie the bonuses to strike with swords,bows and thrown weapons woud seem to indicate hand eye coordination as well or there would not be a bonus there at all but we won't beat a dead horse as no one seems to agree with me on that. if not pp then what other possible attribute as i think this should be related in the game. i have seen it heck i have done it i know for an absolute fact that it there that it is true. otherwise there is no way that i having no formal training what so ever and only firing a gun 6 times (of which only 2 twice were hadguns) in my life, and firing a hand gun i had never fired in a caliber i had never fired. could have done better on the same firing test as police officers take then guys with formal training and years of handling and shooting handguns. if a natural aptitude for firearms does not exsist then how did i do this? anyone want to take a stab at it? (no pun intended lol) i also managed to out shoot most of them on our drills too (think the police alley with the pop up targets ours was a bit more low tech but same principle)
sorry i was in a hurry before the baby woke up agian lol and when i hurry and type i forget little things like periods and such lol. and no its not beginners luck because i did it more than once and can still do it. if it was beginners luck it would only have happened at the begining lol.

[Natasha]

Well I've said that aptitude, in Palladium games, is handled by the Weapon Proficiency and/or the O.C.C., not the P.P. attribute.

My bad. I read you only fired a gun 6 times and thought you only fired a gun 6 times.