Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Enhanced Aim + Dual Wielding Guns
Posted by: Fonitrus Oct 21 2003, 05:31 AM
One of my players raised an issue about whether the -#TN benefit from an Enhance Aim spell works with dual wielding guns.
I know SLs,scopes,lazers and other gunmods dont help when dual wielding and u get ur +2 TN for dual wielding plus damages plus vision mods..
But what if a mage cast a lvl 6 Enhance Aim with 6 successes riding behind it..so thats -3TN to the guy with dual guns.
Does that -3TN apply to:
A. Both attack tests (-3TN per gun)
B.1. Only the first or the second (shooter choses)
B.2. Only the first or the second (caster choses)
C. Shooter choses to split the -3 inot maybe -2 and -1 or such?
the spell isnt quite specific on this matter, so ... please help.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 05:52 AM
I though it said every ranged attack... Ouch: That is nice.
Posted by: FlakJacket Oct 21 2003, 05:55 AM
Yeah, I'd say since it was a spell that's always on, you'd get the boonus for all your attacks. Although it's pretty hard getting enough sucesses on the casting to get a -3TN to begin with. Plus, just remember that as a spell it has an effective range that it doesn't work past IIRC.
Posted by: Fortune Oct 21 2003, 06:15 AM
| QUOTE (FlakJacket) |
| Plus, just remember that as a spell it has an effective range that it doesn't work past IIRC. |
That's why you always use the Extended variation. Balance that increase out with the Personal modification if you aren't planning on casting it on others.
Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 06:26 AM
Note also that this spell is resisted by the people you're shooting at, which can reduce your bonus.
I house rule that away, though. I imagine plenty of others do as well.
Posted by: El_Machinae Oct 21 2003, 07:19 AM
Wha-? Why?
Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 07:26 AM
it's a detection spell. detection spells are resisted.
Posted by: El_Machinae Oct 21 2003, 07:37 AM
Crikey, you learn something new every day. We've just been using the higher target numbers, based on the difficulty.
Posted by: FlakJacket Oct 21 2003, 10:12 AM
| QUOTE (El_Machinae) |
| Crikey, you learn something new every day. |
Did you just use the word crikey as an exclamation in a proper sentence? Oh I am so showing this to Jes. Bwack-ack-ack.
Posted by: El_Machinae Oct 21 2003, 11:14 AM
Yes, yes I did. But you seem to be implying more information than I am understanding.
What is wrong with what I did? According to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: cri·key
Function: interjection
Etymology: euphemism for Christ
-- used as a mild oath
Looks like I'm in the clear.
And what does Bwack-ack-ack mean?
Posted by: Reaver Oct 21 2003, 02:26 PM
Crikey was something Penfold always said to Danger Mouse. If you've ever watched the cartoons.
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 21 2003, 02:54 PM
Yeah, the Enhance Aim is very weak unless you have a good 6 Karma Pool and some Quickening under your sleeve. My friend recently pulled it off and tattoo'd/quickened a Force 6 on himself with 30 dice and 3 rerolls for 15 successes and went from the local detection/weakling to pretty bad-ass with a gun. -7, but took him almost 150ish karma to get to that point.
Sphynx
Posted by: Cochise Oct 21 2003, 03:10 PM
Interesting considering tha fact that the maximum negative modifier for Enhance Aim is half the spell's actual force (not the one used for purposes of dispelling when tattooed or quickened) .. In this case Force 6 / 2 = 3 ...
Not to mention those somewhat high numbers of dice / successes .. But as I recall these are pretty standard in your games ...
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 21 2003, 04:22 PM
Sheeze... forgot we House ruled that one to a max of Force. Sorry. 
BTW, Cochise, you can roll as often as you like and wait til you get a good roll to quicken (even with a tattoo, the description only states that once the tattoo is ready you can quicken as above). He tried repeatedly til he got 12+, which took 3 rolls and ended in 15. Though, I imgine that's considered munchkin in most games, we call it fun factor.
Sphynx
Posted by: Cain Oct 21 2003, 05:28 PM
I wouldn't call it munchkin; but if he tried it multiple times in a row, I'd apply the +2 repeating-a-failed-task modifier.
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 05:40 PM
I was just typing that cain.
Posted by: Cochise Oct 21 2003, 05:52 PM
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| Sheeze... forgot we House ruled that one to a max of Force. Sorry. |
That would still require a Force 7 spell anyway to accomplish what described above ... not Force 6 ...
| QUOTE |
| BTW, Cochise, you can roll as often as you like and wait til you get a good roll to quicken (even with a tattoo, the description only states that once the tattoo is ready you can quicken as above). He tried repeatedly til he got 12+, which took 3 rolls and ended in 15. |
I know ... But it still is not very common to have spellcasters sling 30 dice (I know it's possible, but to me that's still not standard. No matter what you say (or Polaris would, considering his *must take every thing to the extreme*-attitude).
And characters with the possibility to take consecutive 3 re-rolls need a karma pool of at least 1+2+4 = 7 => Something that isn't extraordinary when looking at the 150 karma he obviously spent on it.
But in my games players tend to burn karma pool every once in a while. So my players usually don't have that much karma pool availible ...
| QUOTE |
| Though, I imgine that's considered munchkin in most games, we call it fun factor. |
I won't call it munchkin, since that is not my judgement to make. If it pleases you and your group that's fine with me.
But I still don't consider you or your gaming group as being "standard"
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 21 2003, 05:59 PM
Not a Force 7 cause he uses Laser Sights.
The +2 is for repeating failed attempts, not for recasting it at a later time for more successes. That'd be a stupid time to add a +2.
Sphynx
Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 21 2003, 07:07 PM
Heh. He Used Centering, of course, right?
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 21 2003, 07:36 PM
Center against what? Centering reduces penalties, not base TN's.
Sphynx
Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 21 2003, 07:40 PM
You can also Center for extra successes, I believe?
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 21 2003, 08:32 PM
Ah, good point, but I don't think he did. Centering is too expensive and the only artistic skill he has (that I know of) is tattooing, which I don't iamgine he could center with. However, I honestly don't know, that was between him and the GM, I just know he gets -7 (-1 from Laser Sight) and rolled 30 dice.
Sphynx
Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 21 2003, 08:58 PM
I'd definitely allow centering with art, even with (hell, especially with) tattooing. It all ties together, after all.
Posted by: OurTeam Oct 21 2003, 09:14 PM
| QUOTE (Cochise) |
| 3 re-rolls need a karma pool of at least 1+2+4 = 7 |
Posted by: Cochise Oct 21 2003, 09:35 PM
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| For rerolls our team uses 1+2+3 = 6, as per SR3 p. 246. |
You're right of course ...
Doesn't change what is "common" in my group(s) though ...
Posted by: Wireknight Oct 21 2003, 10:16 PM
I ruled that Enhanced Aim doesn't need to be resisted, since otherwise you'd just about need a supercomputer to dynamically calculate resistance results of all targets(organic and inorganic) within a certain base radius of the subject of the spell. I can't even imagine extended range; imagine running through a crowd. The number-crunching would approach large-scale algorithmic levels.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 10:51 PM
I just roll once for the masses, and once again for special targets (like Adepts with Spell Shroud).
Two rolls per Enhanced Aim, no problems.
Inorgantic things do not make resistance tests.
Posted by: Cain Oct 21 2003, 10:55 PM
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| The +2 is for repeating failed attempts, not for recasting it at a later time for more successes. That'd be a stupid time to add a +2. |
The +2 is for representing the frustration of not doing what you wanted. If he managed to pull it all off with one roll + karma rerolls, then he's not subject to it. However, if he tries and rolls 8 successes, then if he dropped the spell and started again immediately; I'd rule it applied on the grounds that he didn't manage to do what he was going for.
If he tried, didn't score enough successes, dropped the spell and went off for a cup of coffee to contemplate matters, that would be different than what you described.
Posted by: Lilt Oct 21 2003, 10:56 PM
Except that you only ever need to bother if you shoot someone. Inorganic objects can't resist either. The first time you attempt to shoot someone; you roll for resistance. It's slightly more complex but you don't need a supercomputer. The computational complexity doesn't increase either, it's linear which is almost as good as it gets complexity-wise.
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 11:30 PM
Or Cain, make em pay karma during the casting before the dice roll. Issue solved. I have never had this issue. After having a dual natured PC once no players ever wanted to deal with the hassle of anything like it again. They also didn't like the fact that it could be "nuked from orbit" via projecting mage.
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 22 2003, 06:53 AM
So Cain, you adding +2 TN to your 2nd Mana Bolt against a target? That's a dumb idea. For one, he's having to wait for Karma Pool refreshes (which isn't as common in our games as in others), so the frustration of having to try a failed attempt isn't even there.
Bitbasher, what issue? Unlike the sounds of your games, our GM is a partner in a storytelling, not our adversary (obviously, we get -6 for 12 successes).
Anyhows, paying the Quickening Karma before the casting is just as dumb because you immediately create a Player vs. GM atmosphere.
Sphynx
Posted by: Zazen Oct 22 2003, 03:21 PM
There's no problem if you don't house rule Enhance Aim to be super powerful. I don't think there's a need to penalize repeated attempts.
Posted by: Cain Oct 23 2003, 02:42 AM
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| So Cain, you adding +2 TN to your 2nd Mana Bolt against a target? That's a dumb idea. |
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what the rules say. If you try to accomplish X and fail, most repeated tests will add to your TN.
Let's look at the manabolt case. If you want that guy dead, so you throw a 6D manabolt at him. However, he resists, which means he takes zero damage. You've failed, and the +2 TN applies to your next hit.
What you're describing is more if you're throwing a 6M manabolt. You want him hurt, and for preference dead, but you'll clearly settle for hurt. If the other guy takes any damage, you've succeded and the +2TN doesn't apply on your next manabolt.
In the case you describe, the mage wants Enhance Aim with 12 successes, and won't settle for anything less. If he tries repeatedly for that, and fails, then the modifier does apply.
So, please keep the comments like: "That's stupid" to yourself, all right?
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 23 2003, 03:05 AM
Cain is entirely right on the TN thing by canon....
and as far as:
| QUOTE |
| Bitbasher, what issue? Unlike the sounds of your games, our GM is a partner in a storytelling, not our adversary (obviously, we get -6 for 12 successes). |
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 23 2003, 06:57 AM
Ok Cain, I'll pretend for a moment that what you're saying is not stupid. You're saying that if my first manabolt doesn't hit, the 2nd is at +2TN. I suppose the same applies to firearm shots, miss the first shot and the 2nd is at +2TN, interesting. Guess that'd also apply to melee, miss the 1st attack, and +2 to the next attack. So basically, what you're saying is that if I ever miss on the first pass, I lose the entire scene... but wait, no, you said that my casting, though happening days later gets the +2, so you're not at +2 for the scene, you're at +2 for anytime you later decide to shoot at that same guy, thus almost assuring a failed attack for another +2.
Ok, I'll try to keep an open mind here and figure out what part of stupid that isn't.
Sphynx
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 23 2003, 09:18 AM
Actually, on retrospect, my apologies to being insulting Cain. You're right, I shouldn't call it stupid that you have a different viewpoint than my own and will keep any further discussion a bit more objective.
I do think though, that it is a bad idea to give a +2TN to the recasting of a non-failed test. At least in the ManaBolt example, the test failed, but not in the casting of the Enhance Aim. Waiting until you get a ton of successes is just smart. Often I Quickened, not because I was planning to, but because I had a spell I was sustaining that I just couldn't beleive I rolled as many successes as I did. The idea of Quickening is that you do it to a Sustained spell, not necessarily at the moment you cast it. So insisting on pay-karma-first would be an obvious 'pick on the player' causing the GM vs Player atmosphere, not something that enhances the 'fun' but rather something that makes a Polaris out of people.
Sphynx
Posted by: Cain Oct 23 2003, 07:02 PM
Well, the +2 is by scene. Really, I apply it anytime people keep trying the same thing repeatedly-- one definition of stupidity is doing the exact same thing and expecting different results. Really, it only applies within a scene, as long as the situation doesn't change.
I did add that if he tried, failed, and dropped the spell to go off for a cup of coffee, that would be a different matter. That represents time spent reconsidering what he may have done wrong. But if you try the same thing over and over and over without taking a moment to reconsider or figure out something new to try-- quite frankly, IMO you deserve what you get.
So, let's look at the mage in your example, facing an opponent with no magical protection. "I know!" he thinks. "I'll manabolt him!" Well, that manabolt fails. Knowing this, what does the mage in your example do again? Another manabolt! And since that one failed, what will he try next? Yet another manabolt! The sheer Darwinian logic of the situation means that mage deserves to die.
On the other hand, if the guy had Spell Defense/Shielding, and the mage cast a low-force manabolt to strip it off, and followed it with a more powerful one-- that would be trying something different. The penalty is for repeating the exact same action that didn't work in the first place. Or if the mage cast a manabolt, saw that it didn't work, and responded with a different spell; or if the mage decided to shoot the opponent, or decided he was too rough to tangle with and sent in a spirit... all of these are intelligent choices, and don't incur the penalty.
Here's another example. Remember, the +2 applies when the situation doesn't change. So, you've got a guy standing in the open, not dodging, and you're ready to shoot him. You roll, and get zero successes-- not a botch, thank heavens, but zero successes. You're going to be extremely frustrated as you go for the second shot, and the third, and so on. If you pull the trigger once, and miss, what makes you think you'll hit the second time if you don't change something? Generally, most players will use their next action for an Aim/Shoot combination, or will switch firing modes and rain lead downrange. Those all count as "tryng something different".
Or let's look at melee combat. I actually had this happen with my rigger character, who was learning Aikido. I instigated a melee attack on someone in order to subdue him, and failed. Luckily, I didn't get hurt; but it was clear that he was better than I was, and trying basic attacks would not get me anywhere. But luckily, there's lots of options, all of which could change the situation. First of all, I activated my Evasion maneuver, and went full defensive. Because of it, I evaded his next attack; the +2 didn't apply since I wasn't doing the same thing as before. After that, I couldn't instigate a melee attack, so I tried something different-- I triggered my Superflash eyes. My opponent scored no successes against me, and was affected fully. When my turn next came around, I then switched back over to normal attacks and proceeded to beat the crap out of him. This wasn't the same as before, since last time I was facing a wary opponent and this time I was beating up a blind guy; so the +2 didn't apply.
See how that works?
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 23 2003, 07:07 PM
As long as we both agree that a 'breather space' between attempts doesn't cause a +2TN, then we seem to completely agree. I just couldn't believe that someone would apply the +2 for casting the same spell at a later date because he didn't get as many successes as he wanted on this date.
Sphynx
Posted by: Zazen Oct 23 2003, 07:15 PM
| QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 23 2003, 02:02 PM) |
| Here's another example. Remember, the +2 applies when the situation doesn't change. So, you've got a guy standing in the open, not dodging, and you're ready to shoot him. You roll, and get zero successes-- not a botch, thank heavens, but zero successes. You're going to be extremely frustrated as you go for the second shot, and the third, and so on. If you pull the trigger once, and miss, what makes you think you'll hit the second time if you don't change something? |
I'm curious, do you actually apply a +2 for shots fired after a miss (under identical conditions, as you've said) in your game?
Posted by: Cochise Oct 23 2003, 08:01 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| Cain is entirely right on the TN thing by canon.... |
Really? Could you provide a page reference?
Because the only rule that comes to my mind is the cumulative +2 on subsequent trials of assensing someone ...
Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 23 2003, 08:11 PM
Out of curiosity, what is the "Enhanced Aim" spell, and which SB is it in?
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 23 2003, 08:17 PM
Man, I did NOT want to ask that question cause it was so rapidly double posted that I thought it was one of those House Rules I had that I didn't know I had to ignore that rule. Glad someone else asked, thought I'd look stupid if I asked (at least now we'll both look dumb, eh?).
Sphynx
Posted by: Cochise Oct 23 2003, 08:21 PM
@ ialdabaoth
p. 141 Magic in the Shadows ... A detection spell that allows to reduce TNs for ranged attacks ...
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 23 2003, 08:21 PM
| QUOTE (ialdabaoth) |
| Out of curiosity, what is the "Enhanced Aim" spell, and which SB is it in? |
Magic in the Shadows
Posted by: Cochise Oct 23 2003, 08:24 PM
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| (at least now we'll both look dumb, eh?). |
Dumb? No ... I'd account it to my personal version of Alzheimer's disease ...
Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 23 2003, 08:36 PM
Nice. So you could make an orichalcum bow/sustaining focus that had a force 6 Enhance Aim spell built into it?
Posted by: Zazen Oct 23 2003, 08:40 PM
Even better, an orichalcum penis ring so that writing ones name in the snow becomes like fine calligraphy.
Posted by: Siege Oct 23 2003, 08:44 PM
Uh oh, I'll head off the inevitable: adept with guns?
Ok, please continue.
-Siege
Posted by: Lilt Oct 23 2003, 09:07 PM
The focus must be kept in contact with the spell, the spell is cast on the character. A sustaiming-focus weapon would deactivate if it ever left your person thus there is a serious flaw with that plan.
I agree that extra attempts can apply a +2 modifier to subsequent tests, but if you are going to apply it to spellcasting then why not firearms or rigging? It is by no means cannon that a +2 is applied to all tests after any failed attempts that scene.
In any case; the character in question succeeds at casting the spell but, under scrutinization of the spell, decides that he can do better and tries again. I don't believe you'll find anywhrer that it says you get a +2 to subsequent tests if you succeed at a test.
Posted by: Cain Oct 24 2003, 01:19 AM
| QUOTE |
| I'm curious, do you actually apply a +2 for shots fired after a miss (under identical conditions, as you've said) in your game? |
Considering that identical situations don't happen all that often, yes. If you're shooting at a guy who's not moving, but is under cover, if you shoot and miss you can assume that the "reflexive" shots just won't be good enough unless you're lucky. If he moves, or if you take a moment to aim, that changes the situation enough to where the +2 doesn't apply.
Very few situations are static enough to warrant the +2 modifier. Generally, only B/R tests during combat are worthy of it.
Posted by: Zazen Oct 24 2003, 01:32 AM
| QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 23 2003, 08:19 PM) |
| Considering that identical situations don't happen all that often, yes. |
It happens every time someone uses two simple actions to fire a weapon with SA or BF firing mode and misses the first shot. That happens all the time in my games.
When that happens in your game, is the +2 modifier applied? Did it happen during your last game, or the game before?
Posted by: mfb Oct 24 2003, 01:49 AM
well, in that case, the +2 for the manabolt also only applies if the guy doesn't move after you cast it. personally, i don't see the modifier ever applying in combat, because combat is too inherently chaotic for there to be situations static enough for it to apply.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 24 2003, 01:54 AM
| QUOTE |
| When that happens in your game, is the +2 modifier applied? Did it happen during your last game, or the game before? |
No, because your second shot has recoil. Totally different situation.
Posted by: Cain Oct 24 2003, 06:12 AM
| QUOTE (Zazen) | ||
It happens every time someone uses two simple actions to fire a weapon with SA or BF firing mode and misses the first shot. That happens all the time in my games. When that happens in your game, is the +2 modifier applied? Did it happen during your last game, or the game before? |
It hasn't happened recently, because it's rare that the opponent won't try and dodge the first shot at all. If he dodges, then the situation has changed.
What you're describing is when a PC shoots at a target, who succesfully dodges; but since he's moved a bit, the PC now corrects for the way the target moves and fires again. I'd wager the characters would consider the first shot a kind-of feint, and the second as a kill shot.
If you somehow managed to score zero successes, and the guy doesn't dodge, drop prone, or otherwise go for cover, I'd apply the +2 but add an additional -2 as a stupidity modifier on the target's part. However, it's not really likely that you'll shoot at a guy and get zero successes, unless you completely botch, by rolling all ones. And if you botch, applying a +2 to the next shot is being generous.
Posted by: Zazen Oct 24 2003, 07:04 AM
It seems to me that you've never actually implemented this +2 "frustration penalty" for missing a shot.
Which, IMO, is a good thing
Posted by: Sphynx Oct 24 2003, 08:55 AM
So.... did anyone find this reference in the books about the +2TN since it's still being suggested for other facets? Or is the +2TN just a House Rule for Cain and BitB?
Sphynx
Posted by: Fortune Oct 24 2003, 10:37 AM
It is in the books as a canon rule. No quote though, as I am away from my books at the moment.
Posted by: Cochise Oct 24 2003, 10:51 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| It is in the books as a canon rule. No quote though, as I am away from my books at the moment. |
Then may I request with due respect that you provide it, once you have access to your books again ? ...
Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 24 2003, 01:05 PM
I scoured the BBB for a mention of a frustration modifier, and didn't find one. The Assensing modifier isn't even mentioned as being due to frustration (realisticly, I believe it's more of a "gradually learn more" type thing than a retry penalty...).
Posted by: spotlite Oct 24 2003, 04:50 PM
| QUOTE (Reaver) |
| Crikey was something Penfold always said to Danger Mouse. If you've ever watched the cartoons. |
He actually used to say 'cor lumme DM' way more.
So i'm a hopeless dangermouse fan. I can't help it. The episode with the Pink Hole and the Custard Imp just won me over when I was little, what can I say...
Anyway. The topic at hand. My thoughts. Agree with them or not, I just try to be sensible, not a rules lawyer, so sorry if I'm not as good at this as some of you!
The +2 rule was certainly in effect in SR2. I generally apply it in SR3 although i dont' know if its an official rule. I expect it is because it made sense to me. But I don't apply it where someone misses, unless the target is stationery and incapable of reacting. Why? Because as soon as they've reacted in *any* way the situation has changed and its a new test. Eg, they jump out of the way, or dodge. They are no longer in the same place/position etc as they once were so the shot is different. With magic its the same - if its a combat spell you are attuning with someone's aura at the instant of casting and auras change ALL the time because thoughts, emotions etc change. Therefore even a split second later it is a slightly different aural alignment. Not different enough to change the over all pattern which is what a ritual spell or something like that works on, but enough to change the instant on the fly skill tests which relate - when you assense someone, you dont' continue to know their state of mind as you look at them, you know during the period you assense them only.
If its a damaging manipulation spell then see firearms - has the target moved, ducked - has the caster moved or changed position? Yes? Then new skill test, modifier not required.
The Enhance Aim spell - its detection which supposedly means it only works in a small radius. Well, yeeeees, if you want to limit your players that much. I suppose technically you're right. in fact, there's no supposing about it. You are.
But I'd still be inclined to rule that its improving the natural ability of your hand detecting what you see and pointing in that direction, so therefore if you are holding the gun with the spell on you it just works, range not important. To my mind its allowing your hand to detect with greater accuracy the signals your brain is sending it and then guiding your hand better, just like a reflexes spell might improve how fast your brain interacts with the rest of you. Well, that's my fluff/flange reasoning anyway, which is obviously pure conjecture, and by that explanation it could well make a better Health Spell than detection.
By canon it works as described, within a very limited area which makes shooting with it pointless unless its extended area effect. However, doing it the way I do it makes for less math-induced headaches. But you have to be careful that people don't abuse it with quickening, high force and massive target number reductions. I would keep it at half the force of the spell max reduction and if someone can actually cast a force 10 spell, have made the rolls to learn it in the first place (TN 20 remember), had the spare karma, metaplane quest notwithstanding, get the successes and THEN have the karma free to quicken or Anchor it, then I say let 'em. And the next time a bad guy mage runs into them, he'll spot the force 10 bonded item and go 'I don't care what that it is its POWERFUL and therefore has to go...' and the player finds his item gets attacked all the time. Not because I'm mean, but because if they didn't just run away in terror at the power of the thing that's how the NPCs would generally react, especially a trained one or another runner. Well, in my opinion, anyway.
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 24 2003, 04:57 PM
I admit it's entirely possible that this rule was removed in 3rd, I know it was in 2nd and I am real nob about assuming t
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 24 2003, 05:07 PM
I admit it's entirely possible that this rule was removed in 3rd, I know it was in 2nd and I am real nob about assuming things like this
Posted by: Shadow Oct 24 2003, 05:09 PM
That's a cool way at looking at that rule Cain, and I like it. If I ever get the chance to run again I will be implamenting it. Thanks!
Posted by: spotlite Oct 24 2003, 05:18 PM
I think tinkergnome is right. the +2 rule still exists, but only for specific things and it doesn't really represent frustration so much as overcoming perhaps a mental block you put in after that initial failure. Which I suppose is a kind of frustration...
I'll just shut up, shall I?
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 24 2003, 05:21 PM
| QUOTE |
| However, it's not really likely that you'll shoot at a guy and get zero successes, unless you completely botch, by rolling all ones. And if you botch, applying a +2 to the next shot is being generous. |
Posted by: spotlite Oct 24 2003, 05:24 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) | ||
Really?!? that happens fairly often what with cover, darkness, glare, target movement, attacker movement, weather, recoil, wounds and so on target numbers are often high enough to warrant a miss. |
Yeah, but then you got smartlinks or zoom vision, vision mods, enhanced articulation, heavy Barrel mods on the guns... it soon brings it back down again to a reasonable level, promise!
Posted by: Cain Oct 24 2003, 05:35 PM
And in those cases, the other guy is still likely to attempt a dodge. I mean, how often is your target completely motionless, *and* your TN is that high?
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 24 2003, 09:04 PM
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, but then you got smartlinks or zoom vision |
| QUOTE |
| vision mods, enhanced articulation, heavy Barrel mods on the guns... it soon brings it back down again to a reasonable level, promise! |
[in Bitty's World]
A typical shot in most less than perfect secnarios in my games ends up being. minimal light, targets have 4-6 points of cover, players have 4-6 points of cover (for a +2, +3 for thir own shot) probably with rain, fog or smoke, but possibly indoors without any weather.
Cover alone counting PC and Target that's +5 to +9 not even accounting for movement, atmosphere, recoil or lighting. With a smartlink at close range that's a TN of 7 to 11 or at medium range it's 8 to 12 before other modifiers, which are likely to throw an extra point or 2 at least on top of that.
I don't see how any normal TN's can get less than 6 or so unless the PC wants to stand out in the open in a well lit room and get shot to death. badly. Maybe in ambush situations or playing russion roulette with the surprise rules and hoping to kill the targets... I dunno... It'd definitely be rare to see a TN under 6 IMHO.
[/in Bitty's world]
[edit]
Any gunfight with no cover indoors in a well lit area is ruthlessly lethal in SR, and avoided like the plague by my players. There's just too good a chance their combat pool witll gut run out and they will take a trip to the street doc or the morgue.
is this abnormal? its all right from the book.
What do TN's look like in your games, with a brief breakdown of why.
[/edit]
Posted by: Fortune Oct 25 2003, 12:49 AM
| QUOTE (Cochise) |
| Then may I request with due respect that you provide it, once you have access to your books again ? ... |
Sure, but you'll probably be waiting quite a while, considering that they are on the other side of the planet. Possibly BitBasher could find the quote in question.
It was definitely a canon rule in Shadowrun, but may very well be that it was a rule in SR1 and 2, and was pulled from SR3 for some reason, although I can't imagine why this would be the case.
Posted by: Shadow Oct 25 2003, 01:01 AM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) | ||
which aren't compatible with each other, |
Your right there not, that's why he said or
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 25 2003, 04:06 AM
Yes I know, I wasn't arguing, just reiterating.
Posted by: Cochise Oct 25 2003, 07:14 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Sure, but you'll probably be waiting quite a while, considering that they are on the other side of the planet. Possibly BitBasher could find the quote in question. |
I have more than enough time ...
And so far nobody could provide that rule within the SR3 sources ..
| QUOTE |
| It was definitely a canon rule in Shadowrun, but may very well be that it was a rule in SR1 and 2, and was pulled from SR3 for some reason, although I can't imagine why this would be the case. |
Even if is was removed by coincidence that would mean that this rule is no longer canon under SR3. Would you agree?
Posted by: spotlite Oct 25 2003, 11:40 PM
| QUOTE (Shadow) | ||||
Your right there not, that's why he said or |
Shadow - thanks. that IS what I meant. I deliberately put the comma's in after that for a reason. Never mind, perhaps I should be more careful.
Anyway, just because recoil mods aren't into play that often, doesn't mean they aren't a valid target number reducer. I obviously only meant you only use them when there's recoil to counter, but perhaps I shouldn't have included it - if all the recoil's countered then the modifier for recoil is 0 and doesn't reduce any of the others.
Still, I find target numbers on sammies tend to average at around 4 or 5. sometimes its much lower, others higher (like called shot: barrel, which is a favorite, and generally spectacular depending on what the bad guy's holding...).
However, having looked at the rules and modifiers again, I am again reminded what I let my players get away with. So I take it all back.
In the new and improved Spotlite's world (which hopefully isn't too different from everyone elses now!):
In rooms or corridors. range generally not greater than medium, usually short. So base Tn 4 for short range in this example.
Unless the lights are off, its generally normal light. But lets say they are off. The ambient light (from street outside, low power emergency lights etc) provides minimal light, possibly partial light, but I doubt it. With cybered or normal low light that's +4 TN#. So TN#8
Runner freezes as Corp Goon comes round corner running, having picked them up on the cameras (let assume the team's incompetant), that's another +2. So TN#10
Runner has smartlink 2, and is for the sake of argument not surprised. He aims for a simple action though that means he only gets one shot. His gun has the heavy barrel mod. That's -4 in total. TN#6
If i worked it out properly that would be a final tgt# of six. If he aimed. I can't think of anything else which really reduces the number. And that means my sammies have been living it up. I tend only to start really applying all the mods if I want a fight to seem more lethal than normal. When you're used to tgt 4-6 and you suddenly get thrown into an area where you need to re-roll every six you ever get just to hit someone, the players really start getting twitchy!
But I still don't think the aim spell is game breaky unless you let it be. If they can take the drain for a spell to give them -7 to hit and not sweat it, then your game is probably already broken!
though I take the point about anchoring or quickening. Considering the stuff I let my players get away with though, I suspect low target numbers are the least of my worries...
Posted by: spotlite Oct 25 2003, 11:46 PM
Also, with regard the idea of a F10 enhance aim spell - they have to get a formula, or design one themselves, no mean feat in either case, and learn it (needing 20 on the learning test), and then cast it/bond it/whatever and be able to use it anywhere without becoming an even more wanted criminal than they no doubt already are. You jander into a corp compound flashing that thing off, and don't kill all the mages onsite who might've seen it, and every security agency in the biz will have your description and vital statistics so fast it'll make your foci spin. Never mind what happens if you forget and wander round downtown with it. Active item over force 3? Highly illegal, chummer. Face the car and put your hands on the hood...
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 26 2003, 02:13 AM
| QUOTE |
| Runner has smartlink 2, and is for the sake of argument not surprised. He aims for a simple action though that means he only gets one shot. His gun has the heavy barrel mod. That's -4 in total. TN#6 |
Also in your example in my game the sec guard that saw them on camera would definitely be taking cover at the corner he walked around, further adding 4 to that target number. Cover is always damn beneficial unless you know youre going to kill the target before he can go.
Posted by: Siege Oct 26 2003, 03:52 AM
Idle question Bit -- do you use the 3rd edition Initiative pass system or the 1st/2nd edition version?
-Siege
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 26 2003, 05:06 AM
3rd edition initiative pass system since a little while after it was released. It makes the game much more even in my opinion, I can not cyber every guard (it's unrealistic to do so cost wise) and still have them be a deterrant with competent tactics and numbers, whereas they get freight trained horribly in 2nd ed rules. Also, my mages stopped being bored waiting forever for their pass, same with low reaction chars. The players liked it.
Posted by: spotlite Oct 26 2003, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE=BitBasher,Oct 26 2003, 03:13 AM] [QUOTE]...The heavy barrel would cancel the point of recoil from the shot, but it isn't going to give a negative to the target number. No recoil mod lowers the target number, they just prevent recoil from raising the target number any. at best you end up with 0 recoil aded, at worse the target numbr goes up.
Also in your example in my game the sec guard that saw them on camera would definitely be taking cover at the corner he walked around, further adding 4 to that target number. Cover is always damn beneficial unless you know youre going to kill the target before he can go. [/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. I had read it wrong. I was working on the assumption that the heavy barrel might make the weapon more balanced and therefore more accurate in terms of how easy it is physically to aim it. Having just re-read it I was wrong. So it was final TN7. Question - in your games, do you round up to 8 or down to six when you get a TN7 (on the basis that a six is an automatic success cos you will then roll at least a 1). The success table leaps from 6 to 8 but I can't find anything specific about it. I haven't looked too hard cos rounding up is generally the way to go in shadowrun so i have always gone to 8. Am I right or wrong?
Also, I was just assuming the guard was dumb hence no cover. He didn't even bring any other guards with him for chrissakes!
With regard initiative - I use 3rd Ed for the same reasons as Bit. Move by Wire is that much more impressive under that system as well. Shadowrun Team's worst nightmare since very few players in my game even aspire to own such tech - they're too busy paying medical bills!
Posted by: BitBasher Oct 26 2003, 05:40 PM
You don't round anywhere by canon rules, 7's are free and I never really had it be a problem. 6 and 7 are both hit just by rolling a 6, because the reroll cannot be less than a 1.
Yeah, MBW is absolutely ruthess in 3rd, because of the extra actions. Great way to send a party running for their lives
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)