Well I am not all that concerned with the minutia. What I am concerned with, and if that blog is correct it supports this, is that there is no rational system for the firearm damage figures in CoC. Which is a concern for me because I would like to see firearms expanded in scope in future supplements. I don't want to see future supplements making changes that contradict the core rules for something as ubiquitous as firearms. Or worse more than one supplement giving different views on it.
In 3G3 Greg Porter lays out a method for creating a conversion rule for any system. You need three data points, preferably of firearms that have large differences in their damage. You compare them to the same weapons in 3G3 or its big sister More 3G3. Do some math and you should start seeing some glimmering of a formula such as every doubling of 3G3 damage value equates to another D6 of damage in your system. Well it looks like CoC doesn't do that. Damage is all over the place and CoC may be one of those systems where the designers assigned values on a 'looks good' basis.
Badcat's example is a good one in that it shows that guns in CoC are lethal enough for humans. But there are things that don't make sense in CoC- the elephant rifle and the Barret .50 do the same avg damage. Other systems have the Barret at nearly double the damage of the elephant gun. In Superworld an M2 .50 cal machine gun does 5d6. In CoC a 75mm shell does 10d6. Is a 75 really only twice as powerful as a machine gun round?
If, as has been asserted, there is no rationale for the damages assigned to firearms in CoC then now would have been a good time to make a change, pick a base line, and bite the bullet on this.
Joseph Paul
|