Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Stun Baton and Shock Gloves

Posted by: Johnson Oct 28 2004, 12:24 PM

I have some interesting questions.

First -- Stun Batons
I strike an opponent with a Stun baton. I yield 2 successes more than my opponent. Damage of stun baton is 8S does the stun damage stage up to 8D

Second -- Shock Gloves
I strike an opponent with a Shock Gloves. I yield 2 successes more than my opponent. Damage of shock glove is 8S does the stun damage stage up to 8D as above.(the later would not be pertinent if successes doesn't changes shock damage)
As your physical damage also would increase (str)M stun to (str)S stun

Third -- Stun batons and Trolls
To determine TN for a Human and Troll. Human get +1 Reach(Stun Baton), Troll gets +2 Reach (Stun Baton and Nat. Reach).

Point 1 ( I believe is correct )
In saying that the Troll would either make the TN greater by +1 for human, or -1 TN for himself.

Point 2 ( This is harder game Machanics )

Human decides on either making his TN -1 or the Trolls +1. Either easier for him to hit the Troll or harder for the troll to hit him.

Troll decides on either making his TN -2 or the humans +2. Either easier for him to hit the human or harder for the human to hit him.

Point 1
This is going to be a harder longer combat as the TN are higher giving the skilled combatant the upper hand. As TN 4 or more is harder to generate on limited number D6

Point 2
All this does is make a finer line of choice, in which case the Troll is going to give the human a beating because of reach reach modifiers of 2. ( Yea I know Pole arms add a Extra reach. That would make combat totally favour Troll)

Summary.
Would it not be better to use this formula. Troll reach +2 less the Human Reach +1 giving the Troll the favour of +1 Reach and TN. This make a fair way of combat.
(To be corrected this is how the rule book explains it)

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 12:37 PM

QUOTE

Would it not be better to use this formula. Troll reach +2 less the Human Reach +1 giving the Troll the favour of +1 Reach and TN. This make a fair way of combat.

Better? *shrug* I guess that depends on you and your groups prefferences.

However, the concept in the book is an issue of perspective.
A character may not always be trying to "beat" their opponent.
There are times they may wish to run, or they may wish to not hurt their opponent but rather sub-due them instead.
This is where the option to make it harder for them to hit you is nice rather than the option to make it easier for you to hit them.

Also, if you are facing said Troll and he has an outstanding Body, you might wish to take more of an agressive approach and choose to make it easier to hit him.
If said Troll has a fantastic Strength or a nasty weapon while you are unarmed, you might like the idea of making it harder for him to hit you.

Posted by: Luke Hardison Oct 28 2004, 12:44 PM

By canon, striking with a stun baton means your damage code is 8S Stun. So successes would modify that up or down, depending on the outcome.

Also by canon, the shock glove damage is (Str - 1) M Stun + 8S Stun. You can stage up the fist damage, but not the shock damage.

This, to me, is very odd. Therefore, in my games, they both work like the stun glove. The baton has a base damage code of (Str) M Stun just like a club, then + 8S Stun for the shock. Everyone has been happy with this so far ... they're still not widely popular except with the police.

I have no idea what you were trying to say with the rest of your post. Let me clarify. When figuring reach, the combatant with the greater reach gets to choose to either

1) add the difference in reaches to his opponent's target number (thus making himself harder to hit)

OR

2) subtract the difference in reaches from his own target number (making it easier for him to hit his opponent)

Either way, the person who controls reach for the combat has a huge advantage, especially when the difference is >1, like a troll with a combat axe.

Edit:

QUOTE (stumps)

However, the concept in the book is an issue of perspective.
A character may not always be trying to "beat" their opponent.
There are times they may wish to run, or they may wish to not hurt their opponent but rather sub-due them instead.
This is where the option to make it harder for them to hit you is nice rather than the option to make it easier for you to hit them.

Also, if you are facing said Troll and he has an outstanding Body, you might wish to take more of an agressive approach and choose to make it easier to hit him.
If said Troll has a fantastic Strength or a nasty weapon while you are unarmed, you might like the idea of making it harder for him to hit you.
Johnson Posted on Oct 28 2004, 07:24 AM

Actually, either choice makes it both easier to avoid being hit AND easier to hit your opponent, because in SR they are the same thing. Either you make it easier for you to get more successes, therefore hoping to get more successes than your opponent, or you make it harder for your opponent to get successes, hoping that your opponent gets fewer successes than you. How can anyone say there's a difference between getting more successes than your opponent and your opponent getting fewer successes than you?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 12:49 PM

perhaps the issue with the stun glove is one where the stun baton is the actual issue.
If the glove's stun doesn't stage and has a seperate rate for damage without stun, then perhaps the baton needs the same treatment of seperation to make a consistent concept that electroshock damage isn't really capable of being staged up because it has a volt setting. (unless you amp more volts out of it )

[edit]

QUOTE

Actually, either choice makes it both (1)easier to avoid being hit AND (2)easier to hit your opponent

QUOTE

Also, if you are facing said Troll and he has an outstanding Body, you might wish to take more of an agressive approach and choose to (2)make it easier to hit him.
If said Troll has a fantastic Strength or a nasty weapon while you are unarmed, you might like the idea of making it (1)harder for him to hit you.

We're saying the same thing.
[/edit]

Posted by: Johnson Oct 28 2004, 01:14 PM

QUOTE (Luke Hardison)

This, to me, is very odd. Therefore, in my games, they both work like the stun glove. The baton has a base damage code of (Str) M Stun just like a club, then + 8S Stun for the shock. Everyone has been happy with this so far ... they're still not widely popular except with the police.

You have to remember that a Stun Baton is not a bludgening weapon. It discharges apon contact. Not by smacking the oponents head off. More of the subdueing aspect, not brusing. Stun has a secondary effect.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 28 2004, 01:19 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

)

I agree you cannot stage damage stun damage as if you get shocked no matter where you are shocked its going to subdue.

Lets not go to the point to useing a cattle prodder on a humans neck as that can be fatal 60% plus of the time.

I see the point with reach. You use the difference to the advantage to the person with the higher reach.

In the case of Troll vs Human both using stun batons. The troll gets to choose where to use the + 1 bonus he gets.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (Johnson)

Summary.
Would it not be better to use this formula. Troll reach +2 less the Human Reach +1 giving the Troll the favour of +1 Reach and TN. This make a fair way of combat.
(To be corrected this is how the rule book explains it)

Instance 1: You’re in melee, you have a whip and they’re using a knife. You’ve got Serious Physical and Moderate Stun, and you’re still at +1 from being pepper-sprayed by a wageslave. You’re looking at a TN of 10 while your opponent is looking for 4s. In this case, it’s much better to make him or her look for 6s instead of dropping your own TN to a “mere” 8.

Instance 2: You’re fighting a Piasma. It hasn’t had a chance to use its Strength and Quickness boosts yet, but if you let it live, it will. You’re both looking for 4s. It’s better to look for 2s and go for raw volume of successes to knock it out of the fight fast.

Oh, and you get a 4 or greater half the time on a single die. That's hardly hard to generate.

~J

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Oct 28 2004, 02:54 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Instance 2: You’re fighting a Piasma. It hasn’t had a chance to use its Strength and Quickness boosts yet, but if you let it live, it will. You’re both looking for 4s. It’s better to look for 2s and go for raw volume of successes to knock it out of the fight fast.

Depends completely on the other modifiers in play and the amount of dice both are rolling. If there are no other modifiers except you have 2 net reach, it will be more profitable to raise the enemy's TN by 2 than to lower your own unless the enemy has less dice than you.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 28 2004, 02:56 PM

Your point is taken. But in the fact of Troll with stun baton and human with stun baton.
Troll has now +2 Reach, where as the Human has +1 reach.
Do both get to use thier reach modifiers, or the Troll just gets the +1 modifier and the Human +1 is negated by the Trolls other +1.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Oct 28 2004, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (Luke Hardison @ Oct 28 2004, 02:44 PM)

Let me clarify. When figuring reach, the combatant with the greater reach gets to choose to either

1) add the difference in reaches to his opponent's target number (thus making himself harder to hit)

OR

2) subtract the difference in reaches from his own target number (making it easier for him to hit his opponent)

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 03:01 PM

As was already stated, the combatant with the net Reach advantage (in this case the Troll) would have the choice of how to distribute the Reach bonus (in this case that is a net Reach of 1).

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (Luke Hardison @ Oct 28 2004, 06:44 AM)

Also by canon, the shock glove damage is (Str - 1) M Stun + 8S Stun. You can stage up the fist damage, but not the shock damage.

That's actually a house rule. Nowhere in the rules does it say staging only occurs to one side of the damage inflicted. By canon (SR3 p. 124 and 275), staging occurs to both Damage Codes since there's no listed exceptions to the staging rules..

Oh, and it's +7S Stun, not +8S Stun.

Posted by: mmu1 Oct 28 2004, 03:13 PM

QUOTE (Fortune @ Oct 28 2004, 10:01 AM)

As was already stated, the combatant with the net Reach advantage (in this case the Troll) would have the choice of how to distribute the Reach bonus (in this case that is a net Reach of 1).

That's misleading... He can choose to distribute the reach as if there was only a net +1 bonus, but he doesn't have to. If the enemy decides to lower his TN by 1, and the troll doesn't then allocate any of his reach towards increasing his enemy's TN, you end up with a different set of probabilities than if just +1 worth of reach had been distributed.

Posted by: blakkie Oct 28 2004, 03:15 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

QUOTE (Luke Hardison @ Oct 28 2004, 06:44 AM)

Also by canon, the shock glove damage is (Str - 1) M Stun + 8S Stun. You can stage up the fist damage, but not the shock damage.

There is the stated exception of staging chemical damage. Not sure exactly where the no-staging of the shock damage comes from, but it seems so common that I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least some basis for it. I can't point to a specific entry though.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 28 2004, 03:16 PM

7S Normal Stun baton
8S for AZ 150

formalities, I am trying to get the understanding why stage stun damage up. A shock is a shock.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

Piasma have Reaction 4 for a maximum of 8 dice rolled.

~J

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:20 PM

But a direct shock to a vulnerable area like the back of the neck is more shocking than a near-miss to a less vulnerable spot like your little finger or a naturally resist/armored spot like a troll's dermal deposit. Feel free to try it with a cattle prod sometime if you don't believe me.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (mmu1)

QUOTE (Fortune @ Oct 28 2004, 10:01 AM)

As was already stated, the combatant with the net Reach advantage (in this case the Troll) would have the choice of how to distribute the Reach bonus (in this case that is a net Reach of 1).

Except 'the enemy' does not have that choice. 'The enemy' does not have a net Reach bonus, so has absolutely no control over any part of the Reach assigment process. This is solely the right of the combatant with the higher net Reach, which in this case is the Troll.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Oct 28 2004, 03:21 PM

QUOTE (mmu1)

He can choose to distribute the reach as if there was only a net +1 bonus, but he doesn't have to. If the enemy decides to lower his TN by 1, and the troll doesn't then allocate any of his reach towards increasing his enemy's TN, you end up with a different set of probabilities than if just +1 worth of reach had been distributed.

Wrong. Read Reach, SR3 @ p. 121.

[Edit]This time Fortune was faster by a minute.

[/Edit]

Posted by: Nikoli Oct 28 2004, 03:22 PM

I'd allow for called shots with a stun weapon, but no other stage up.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:25 PM

(ignore at will)Bah! called shots are a broken concept anywhere.(/ignore at will)

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:27 PM

And to put it simply, if Stun Weapons were immune to staging, there'd be no way to knock someone out with one without sitting there zapping them repeatedly. With a Serious stun weapon, that means you'll do Deadly Stun Damage and two boxes of Physical Damage with two zaps. No changes allowed; you either resist it in full or you don't (staging works both ways afterall). No one will ever be stunned from a single hit, either. Ever. Not even a little girl with Body 1.

EDIT: Nope, called shots are only broken in abstract systems that already account for it in the standard mechanic. Shadowrun would be one such system.

Posted by: Nikoli Oct 28 2004, 03:37 PM

But with a called shot to raise the damage level to Deadly, you'd have the TKO you desire

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:38 PM

Assuming you'd ever hit. Which your average person wouldn't. (Modified TN 8, Skill 3.) It's not that hard to hit a good spot even against a struggling opponent... especially since staging accounts for "called shots" (aiming for vulnerable spots) to begin with.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

EDIT: Nope, called shots are only broken in abstract systems that already account for it in the standard mechanic. Shadowrun would be one such system.

Erata: should have read, "called shots are a broken concept anywhere in SR."

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 04:08 PM

Called shots for special effect are not broken.

~J

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:16 PM

glitter.

The idea of having Aimed Shot and Called Shot in the same game is odd to me

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:21 PM

I have no problem with the standard Called Shots rules for the most part; they serve their purpose as written. It's all the other ones, or house rules relying entirely on them in order to have any amount of staging, that I object to.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 04:22 PM

Why? Just because you’re going for the tires or the spotlight on a security van doesn’t mean you have any more time to devote to it.

Edit: that was to Stumps.

~J

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:23 PM

calling shots is mostly dumb to me.
why?
um...it's a general point area aim. Meaning, you aren't directly aiming, but you are calling your shot at a general location on their body...
When aren't you doing that?

As for the the vehicle...that's why there's an Aim rule

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:25 PM

In my opinion it represents a wild shot to a small and highly vulnerable area rather than sitting there for a few turns aiming. I know the rules for it include requiring an Aimed Shot, but the +4 target modifier represents the wild shot to a small area bit.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 04:27 PM

If you say “I shoot the van” it’s generally a given that you’re trying to damage the van. Calling a shot to the spotlight or tires results in a negligible chance of actually damaging the van, but accomplishes something that just firing to disable the van does not.

When aren’t you doing that? Quite a lot of the time, actually.

And the Aim rule is irrelevant, as the Doc points out.

~J

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:28 PM

QUOTE

In my opinion it represents a wild shot to a small and highly vulnerable area rather than sitting there for a few turns aiming. I know the rules for it include requiring an Aimed Shot, but the +4 target modifier represents the wild shot to a small area bit.

hence why it's not needed to me.

"I'm shooting at the CENTER of Johns TORSO aiming for his HEART"
sounds too much.

"I'm shooting at the CENTER of Johns TORSO" sounds rediculous

"I'm shooting at Johns TORSO" is an AIM and before anyone starts getting into things about whether that is an Aim or the Heart is an Aim, remember that SR dictates how GOOD your Aim was by how much Damage you deal, so it's an Aim.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 04:30 PM

That’s all well and good, but firing at John’s pistol (for the sake of example. Canon states that you can’t do this on smaller than vehicle-sized targets) in an attempt to knock it from his hand is quite dissociated from the normal act of firing at his center of mass.

~J

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:31 PM

Shooting at a tire is an Aim. I'm sorry. It will always be so.
Do it sometime. Tell me if you are Aiming or just generally shooting.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:31 PM

Standard Called Shots do not allow aiming for a specific portion of a metahuman-sized target, only vehicle-sized targets. When making a Called Shot against a metahuman, you're aiming at a *very* vulnerable spot, like the eye or neck. Whatever you percieve as being their most vulnerable spot the moment you pull the trigger... which you do as soon as you can rather than sitting there for a few phases, aiming, and waiting for the right moment.

A normal shot is aiming for a generally vulnerable area (the entire head, an unprotected part of his torso, whatever).

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 04:31 PM

If the vehicle in question is speeding away and I have under a second? It’s most definitely not going to be a Take Aim action, I can tell you that now.

~J

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:32 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

um...isn't that why they say you can't do that...as you just pointed out??

And I do need to redefine something...Called Shots makes sense in melee actions for reasons like hitting their punch. (which would be dumb to try)

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:38 PM

I don't think I'll ever like called shots....
perhaps it's the open-ended raping of it that has ruined it for me, but it's just so damn abused so easily when it comes to ranged weapons ESPECIALLY after the weapons are all decked out.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:43 PM

Smartlink-2's are broken as far as Called Shots go. No argument from me there.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Then replace with the van-and-spotlight example. My point is unaffected.

~J

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:49 PM

Kagetenshi: points up to post above yours where Doc says it all.

And I can't really say I've seen too many people out there without a SL2

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:52 PM

Oh yeah...my biggest reason for not liking Called Shots (sorry...it's late late late here)
There's no hit location system in SR...what are we doing screwing with general small point aims like that when the armor values are tallied off of the entire bodies worth of armor??

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:55 PM

Armor's abstract nature is preserved with the standard Called Shots rules.

Remember, you're still only trying to hit that super vulnerable spot. You're not guaranteed to hit it; your success is unknown until after you shoot, your target dodges, and your target soaks.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:55 PM

I never thought so...hmm...

yes, but why are my shin gaurds and helmet factoring in if the bullet ends up in my chest? And that's what I have the option for with Called Shots.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:59 PM

The thing is..for called shots to start working, you have to negate all armor not in the area being generally aimed at....
legs, leg armor
chest, chest armor...

problem is...all the armor together kinda determines if you hit them

my point is...it's always been a heavily shady area that seems to be almost broken

anyways...bedtime

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 28 2004, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Kagetenshi: points up to post above yours where Doc says it all.

And I can't really say I've seen too many people out there without a SL2

No, Doc does not say it all. He doesn’t even address my point except insofar as he points out that the example I used was non-canon (which I pointed out myself). I gave it to follow your string of examples, which in retrospect was a rhetorical error. The idea presented in the example is not undermined by the fact that that specific case is invalid, and I’ve presented valid cases of it before and since. An issue with the SL2 is not an issue with called shots themselves, much like an issue with a Smartlink-4 giving –20 to all firearms TNs wouldn’t be an issue with the preexisting ranged combat rules themselves.

~J

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (Stumps @ Oct 28 2004, 10:55 AM)

yes, but why are my shin gaurds and helmet factoring in if the bullet ends up in my chest? And that's what I have the option for with Called Shots.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Remember, you're still only trying to hit that super vulnerable spot. You're not guaranteed to hit it

That's the standard phenomenon under the abstract nature of the game, period. It's why Armor works no matter what part of your body it's covering... doesn't matter if it's a normal shot or a Called Shot or an Aimed Shot.

Posted by: ES_Riddle Oct 28 2004, 10:02 PM

So about those stun batons and trolls…

Stun baton troll with a riot shield is something every 'Star riot control effort shouldn't be without. The opponents are looking for 6's and the troll is looking for 2's. Unless the opponent can put more than quintuple the dice of the troll into the contest his odds are not looking good.

Posted by: durthang Oct 29 2004, 12:12 AM

Enough friends in melee, and that riot cop troll is in as much trouble as his human counter-parts.

Posted by: Luke Hardison Oct 29 2004, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (ES_Riddle)

WTH?

Assuming that there are no other mods than the troll w/stun baton and riot shield facing unarmed human, the TN's are:

Troll:4
Human:6

OR

Troll:6
Human:8

They both have a base TN of 4, each one gets +2 for the riot shield. Then the troll can either add his reach to the human's TN, or subtract his reach from his own TN.

I can only assume that you:
1) ignored the +2 that each combatant receives from the shield
and
2) incorrectly applied both the + and - mod for reach. Either way, the 2 points of reach are the only differences in TN. Personally, were I playing the troll, I would take the -2 mod to my own TN, so that I can crush my opponent in a wave of 4's.

Posted by: Cain Oct 29 2004, 02:58 AM

Anyone with reach of 2 or more can ignore the shield penalty (BBB, p 284). The troll remains at a base of 4, while the opposition is raised to a 6. Should the troll use his reach to lower his TN to 2, he'll crush his opposition.

And Friends in Melee isn't a big help, either; since that caps out at +4, they'll tie at a TN of 6. Given that said troll probably has a huge skill, and the unarmed humans probably don't, the crowd is going to be cleared the hard way.

If you want to get really nasty with this combo, have the troll take Off Hand Clubs with a specialization in Riot Shields. That's a potential 9 or 10 dice to start with, with skill alone. It can get much worse from there.

Posted by: ES_Riddle Oct 29 2004, 05:10 AM

Don't forget the other riot cops. I didn't figure in the friends in melee since they should both be maxed out in that particular situation, and would cancel out.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 06:52 AM

QUOTE (ES_Riddle)

This is the one of the points that have a problem with.
Human with stun baton doesn't get reach bonus.
Troll with stun baton get a +1 Reach bonus.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 06:56 AM

QUOTE (durthang)

Enough friends in melee, and that riot cop troll is in as much trouble as his human counter-parts.

That is very true. The fact that your impact armour is halved for stun.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 07:06 AM

QUOTE (Luke Hardison)

Assuming that there are no other mods than the troll w/stun baton and riot shield facing unarmed human, the TN's are:

Troll:4
Human:6

OR

Troll:6
Human:8

They both have a base TN of 4, each one gets +2 for the riot shield. Then the troll can either add his reach to the human's TN, or subtract his reach from his own TN.

I can only assume that you:
1) ignored the +2 that each combatant receives from the shield
and

Let look at this closely. wuth reach rules in SR3 pg 121.

Troll -- Stun Baton and Riot Shield

Human-- Stun Baton and riot shield.

Eg

TN for Troll
standard 4
Riot shield +2
Reach -1 (easier to hit)

Final TN 5

TN for Human

Standard 4
Riot Shield +2

Final TN 6

Please not that the reach for the troll is 1 point superior to the human.
There fore the troll gets to modify TN by that 1 point.

QUOTE

2) incorrectly applied both the + and - mod for reach. Either way, the 2 points of reach are the only differences in TN. Personally, were I playing the troll, I would take the -2 mod to my own TN, so that I can crush my opponent in a wave of 4's.

According to the rules you only get the -1. The difference between the reach modifiers.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 07:12 AM

QUOTE (Cain)

Okay I don't have BBB. So let look in context.

Yet again SR3 page 121

Troll
STD 4
Riot Shied - 0 (ignored because of reach of +2 Natural and Stun Baton)
Reach -1

final TN 3

Human
STD 4
Riot shield +2 (not ignored due to reach +1 Stun baton)
Final TN 6

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 07:17 AM

QUOTE (ES_Riddle)

Don't forget the other riot cops. I didn't figure in the friends in melee since they should both be maxed out in that particular situation, and would cancel out.

With what I have siad above
a troll could have 4 human opponents and have the same TN as the humans

As the troll would be surrounded by 3 extra human as the target number increase for the troll by 3
1 for every enemy beyond the first.

"So to say a troll riot squad is going to hurt the crowd pritty bad"

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 07:21 AM

QUOTE (Johnson)

Okay I don't have BBB. So let look in context.

Yet again SR3 page 121

Err, just so you know, BBB is the (lame) Dumpshock shorthand for the SR3 sourcebook. Why they still use it is beyond me. The proper and significantly less confusing shorthand is, not surprisingly, SR3 like you used.

Posted by: OurTeam Oct 29 2004, 08:10 AM

BBB is lame. I think some use it because it makes them feel superior because they are part of an exclusive group that uses a codeword for the most basic book in the game. It keeps people who don't know the codeword on the outside of their exclusive group.

I post on Dumpshock in order to communicate with people, and using abbreviations that interfere with the communication goes against what I'm trying to do.

Dr. Funk, I applaud you for saying it's lame.

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 09:38 AM

Well BBB (I have not read it). I will take your point that it is lame.

Here I am trying to get a SR3 point of view. Not a BBB point of view.

Doc and Ourteam, thank you for the advice that it is a Short Hand of SR3.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 10:23 AM

QUOTE (Johnson @ Oct 29 2004, 09:38 AM)

*slaps self*

ok, Johnson...he was saying that BBB=SR3. SR3=BBB.
SR3 is shorthand for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition Core Rule Book
BBB is shorhand for Big Black Book (which the Shadowrun 3rd Edition Core Rule Book is Big, Black and a Book.)
BBB and SR3 are the same book.

When Doc said that the BBB was lame, what he meant was that the abreviation (actually an acronym) "BBB" was lame...he wasn't saying that the book was lame because if he were to say that the book was lame while refering to the BBB he would be saying that the SR3 is lame.

Follow?

And personally...I've always wanted to make a BBB of rules made here on DSF and call that the (un)official BBB.
And the other part of me has always wanted to make a Satyrical Core Rule book for SR based on silly stuff that goes on here at DSF and call it:
BBB, The DSFSRHGCCOSSFODSF (The Dumpshock Forums Shadowrun Holy Grail Canon Companion of Stupid Shit Found On Dumpshock Forums)

The other working idea for the title is...
BBB, or "How to have your own AVS, Dikoted, Ally Spirit Sex"

Posted by: Johnson Oct 29 2004, 10:40 AM

Stumps, thank you for the clear up I appreciate it. I have only been on DSF for 3 months, still getting used to the acronyms.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 11:32 AM

Ignore BBB. It's silly.
Mainly because at this point there are 3 Shadowrun Core Rule Books and "BBB" only refers to "The" core rule book.
Which lets me know nothing of which version you are playing between (most likely) Edition 2 and Edition 3.

Besides...the Bible is also Big, Black, and a Book, so...

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 29 2004, 11:44 AM

QUOTE (OurTeam @ Oct 29 2004, 03:10 AM)

At least some use it because they're nigh-terminally lazy, and typing BBB involves a lot less movement than SR3.

Hell, with SR3 you even have to take your finger off the shift key mid-word. How lame is that?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 11:53 AM

ROTFL

Posted by: Erebus Oct 29 2004, 03:25 PM

QUOTE (OurTeam)

And some of us use it because it helps promote the atmosphere of running the shadows, and using slang where we don't have too...

OR

We just use it because someone else used it and little did they realize that the Meme for BBB is actually a viral construct and is the holy grail of the marketing world.... or maybe that was transhuman space....

Hmm... I honestly don't think that the folks here who use BBB are trying to maintain exclusivity or fluff their ego's with an acronym... more than likely someone used it in regards to a topic of theirs and it was explained to them, and it just caught on. M'kay... drugs are bad! Don't be overly paranoid.... dumpshock is your friend....

Posted by: Johnson Nov 1 2004, 07:39 AM

Why some use BBB and some use SR3. I would find SR3 more practical.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 1 2004, 07:41 AM

It is. It's also what the books themselves use.

Posted by: Stumps Nov 1 2004, 12:20 PM

ROTFLMAO!!

You mean SR3 is CANON but no one around here** want's to use the CANON acronym?? How ironic

**(not everyone...remember...this is a joke)

Posted by: Fortune Nov 1 2004, 01:19 PM

BBB has been the unofficial acronym of the current Shadowrun Core Rulebook since the First Edition, when it stood for Big Blue Book (SR1 would have been a bit presumptuous ). It came about with the inception of the ShadowRN and ShadowTK email lists and the various Usenet newsgroups, before even Deep Resonance existed.

Posted by: JaronK Nov 1 2004, 01:37 PM

I prefer BBB. Maybe it's because I'm used to warhammer (it's the BRB there... big red book), but BBB makes sense to me as the core rulebook. It's not that I'm snooty, I just like it.

JaronK

Posted by: Johnson Nov 1 2004, 01:48 PM

So when somebody say BBB it combines SR1 SR2 and SR3. I would say SR3 is mor logical. As BBB could mean SR 1 to 3.

The WHFB is BRB and 40K FKRB.

Posted by: JaronK Nov 1 2004, 01:51 PM

Not really. BBB means the current core rulebook. Everyone can reasonably assume as much. If you want to do an out of date edition, you'd specify... just like if I say "let's go back to the house" to my housemate, we can both assume I meant our house... if I meant another house, I'd specify.

JaronK

Posted by: toturi Nov 1 2004, 02:08 PM

When I use BBB, I mean the Shadowrun 3rd Edition rulebook. When I use SR3, I use it to contrast the editions.

SR3 to me means the whole SR 3rd Ed rules, not just the core rulebook(although it is Canon )

I like to keep both terms seperate.

Posted by: Critias Nov 1 2004, 05:32 PM

So, how 'bout them shock gloves?

Posted by: Stumps Nov 1 2004, 06:06 PM

They work great on a goons groin

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 1 2004, 06:08 PM

Shock kneepads?

~J

Posted by: Stumps Nov 1 2004, 06:21 PM

neat idea, but no. I just hit him by taking the initiative with a bonus from surprise and used my combat pool to make sure I hit him.
He was right in the middle of yelling at me and I knew where it was headed since his thugs were there with him (he was a gang leader and my character used to circle his area but had left a bad taste with him over his sister and my character dating)

Now...by Canon, he just took a wound.
By my GM...he passed out instantly.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 2 2004, 04:52 AM

QUOTE (JaronK @ Nov 1 2004, 07:51 AM)

Not really. BBB means the current core rulebook.

Only to a tiny little minority of net nerds.

QUOTE

Everyone can reasonably assume as much. If you want to do an out of date edition, you'd specify... just like if I say "let's go back to the house" to my housemate, we can both assume I meant our house... if I meant another house, I'd specify.

The abbreviations are supposed to act as a form of reference that everyone can take advantage of. BBB defeats the entire point of using an abbreviation when quoting material, especially when another more useful and well established acronym exists.

Posted by: Johnson Nov 2 2004, 06:59 AM

QUOTE (Critias)

So, how 'bout them shock gloves?

Well shock gloves have (str-1)M Stun plus the stun damage from the gloves.

Its easy to say successes increase the (str-1)M Stun. what happens to the shock gloves damage is it also increased or is it secondary damage that does not get increased by successes?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 2 2004, 07:03 AM

As far as I know the rules never specify, thus by default they both are staged. Most people I know only stage one or the other.

Posted by: JaronK Nov 2 2004, 01:41 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

QUOTE (JaronK @ Nov 1 2004, 07:51 AM)

Not really. BBB means the current core rulebook.

Only to a tiny little minority of net nerds.

If by a tiny little minority, you mean virtually everyone on this board. Those who don't know, can ask, be told, and know. I mean, it's not like it's some arcane code or anything, and it is easier to type. Various games use this notation (BRB, as above, from Warhammer. Go to pretty much any warhammer forum and ask what BRB means, and the answer will be Big Red Book). Some don't. Some do. That doesn't make it wrong. If you tried to write WH6 for Warhammer 6th edition, no one would know what you are talking about. In Shadowrun, there's two acceptable listings (BBB and SR3) and I fail to see why one is so much better than the other. SR3 may not be clear to some (it wasn't clear to me when I first read it, I thought it was a cyberware acronym!), BBB may not be to others (it was clear to me, due to warhammer experience).

If you don't know an acronym, ask. It doesn't make you stupid. It usually just means you haven't used a forum for the specific topic before, which is hardly a terrible thing.

JaronK

Posted by: Stumps Nov 2 2004, 02:51 PM

What I read in the book is that the Stun isn't staged but comes as an extra effect on top of any successful striking contact with the glove.
Here's where I'm getting my interpitation from.

SR3, p124, Shock Weapons:"A successful hit by a stun weapon stuns the target a number of Combat Turns equal to the Power of the attack, minus one-half (rounded down) any impact armor worn, and also minus the successes generated from Body or Willpower Test (whichever is greater) made against a Target Number 4."

Basically, what I'm seeing here is that it reads, "A (singular) successful hit" (meaning [/i]one[/i] success over your opponent).

Or rather,
If Any hit succeeds, then the stun duration is equal to the Power Rating of the attack, minus the successes generated from a Body or Willpower Test made against a TN 4.

SR3, p275, Shock Golves:"When striking with shock gloves, first damage is reduced to (Str-1)M, but the golves deliver an extra 7S Stun."

And what I'm walking away with from this is that they are looking at the hitting power and the shock power of this weapon seperately, by the use of the word "extra".

What is the Power of your fists attack?
(Str-1)M

What is the Power of a Stun Gloves Attack?
7S Stun

So the Stun will stay 7 Power and will stay a Serious Stun, but the successes generated will determine the amount of damage dealt by just the punch (Str-1)M.

So the final look in my mind is that you Roll your (Str-1)M stage up with your "Determine Damage" part of the Melee, and then you get to the "Damage Resist Test" part of the Melee where the target will stage down your (Str-1M) by aiming for a TN equal to your (Str-1)M's Power rating minus impact armor, and then because of the 7S Stun, the target will attempt to stage down the duration of the Stun (7 Combat Turns) by aiming for a TN 4 with their Body or Will.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 2 2004, 03:25 PM

QUOTE (JaronK)

If by a tiny little minority, you mean virtually everyone on this board. [...] I mean, it's not like it's some arcane code or anything

Yes, that would be a tiny little insignificant number of people, and yes it is some arcane code. No, virtually everyone on this board does not know what it means. At least once every other week or so someone has to ask what that stupid (and less than accurate) BBB crap means. I've never once seen anyone ask what SR3 stood for. Ever.

QUOTE

If you tried to write WH6 for Warhammer 6th edition, no one would know what you are talking about.

But guess what, no one's trying to make up a brand new acronym. It's a well-established acronym that the game itself uses. As far as I'm concerned, people who use BBB are either ignorant sods or the stuck-up elitists OurTeam was talking about.

It serves no purpose whatsoever, let alone the one it's supposed to serve -- a common frame of rerence for an oft-refered to sourcebook.

QUOTE

In Shadowrun, there's two acceptable listings (BBB and SR3) and I fail to see why one is so much better than the other.

Wrong. Find a single reference to BBB in any of the Shadowrun books (the only resource that can genuinelly be referred to as "in Shadowrun"). You won't. Because it's not an acceptable abbreviation for it outside of archaic net nerds who think it makes them look cool or who are so pathetic that using a SHIFT key for only two keys instead of three is apparently some Herculean effort of epic proportion.

Posted by: Critias Nov 2 2004, 08:16 PM

Boy howdy, this sure is worth arguin' over.

Posted by: Johnson Nov 3 2004, 07:18 AM

From a acronym list I found here at DSF. I found out what this all mean't. I think there should be a locked topic that has all the updates on the acronym that people could use as a reference.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 07:20 AM

Bleh! While that would help to some degree (especially if it "encouraged" the phasing out of that damnable BBB crap), "sticky" threads are bleeding annoyin especially when they get to the point that they force you to scroll down just to see the new topics.

Not that it's much of a problem here, but it has been a bitch on other boards.

Posted by: Stumps Nov 3 2004, 07:21 AM

So, uh...3 posts up I tried to continue the conversation on Shock Gloves...um...anyone still wanting to go about that conversation?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 07:29 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

You'll find similar wordings elsewhere in the book. "A successful hit" means precisely that. Stun weapons simply have an extra perk (determined by the fixed Power of the stun attack only) on top of their normal staging (which affects only the Damage Level). They're two seperate things entirely.

QUOTE

SR3, p275, Shock Golves:"When striking with shock gloves, first damage is reduced to (Str-1)M, but the golves deliver an extra 7S Stun."

And what I'm walking away with from this is that they are looking at the hitting power and the shock power of this weapon seperately, by the use of the word "extra".

That's because it does deliver an extra amount of damage. In no way does that imply let alone expressly rule that the 7S Stun is not affected by staging.

QUOTE

What is the Power of your fists attack?
(Str-1)M

What is the Power of a Stun Gloves Attack?
7S Stun

So the Stun will stay 7 Power and will stay a Serious Stun, but the successes generated will determine the amount of damage dealt by just the punch (Str-1)M.

That's nothing more than reading into the text. The text says nothing of the sort. That's like saying that because an Ares Predator has a 9M damage code complete with a fixed Power, it doesn't get staged, either.

QUOTE

So the final look in my mind is that you Roll your (Str-1)M stage up with your "Determine Damage" part of the Melee, and then you get to the "Damage Resist Test" part of the Melee where the target will stage down your (Str-1M) by aiming for a TN equal to your (Str-1)M's Power rating minus impact armor, and then because of the 7S Stun, the target will attempt to stage down the duration of the Stun (7 Combat Turns) by aiming for a TN 4 with their Body or Will.

That's how most people tend to house rule it. But as stated much earlier, the rules themselves say (by not saying otherwise) that both get staged.

Personally, I'd allow a compromise. You could choose to apply your successes to either Damage Code as you see fit. Either increase the Damage Level of your reduced unarmed damage or that of the electrical Stun. It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end, but the illusion that it does is there.

Posted by: Shadow Nov 3 2004, 06:16 PM

Is there anyother weapon with a damage code that isn't staged? Doesn't the stun baton do a fixed 8S without being staged?

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Nov 3 2004, 06:26 PM

Chemical attacks?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 3 2004, 07:40 PM

Chemical attacks specifically mention that they don't stage. Neither Stun Batons nor Stun Gloves nor Defiance Super Shocks make any such mention. Nor does SR3 page 124, "Shock Weapons." In fact, that page specifically mentions: "...is handled according to the normal rules for that type of weapon."

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Nov 3 2004, 07:43 PM

Right. But the question was, "Is there anyother weapon with a damage code that isn't staged?"
I think the damage should stage as normal, but I think it's unbalanced to apply attack successes twice. The attacker should apply the successes to whichever damage code they want, and the defender must resist both; in my opinion.

Posted by: Stumps Nov 3 2004, 11:07 PM

My reasons not in print, for not staging shock damage is this.

Other than turning up the voltage, nothing is going to increase the volatge on a taser or shock style weapon.

That's my understanding of every shock I've ever seen.

I could shock you in the throat, the arm, or the groin. It's all going to have the same relative effect.

Posted by: Johnson Nov 4 2004, 08:24 AM

That what I say, and most of my group says. IF you hit the successes don't count to the shock. As it has other effects.

1 Half impact armour.
1 Body(4) for the orientation effects

To stage the damage and have all the effects is a little over board.

Posted by: Kremlin KOA Nov 4 2004, 11:46 AM

actually stumps there are places where shocking someone will do more or less effect (eg leg is less effect and upper chest is one of the most likely places to incapacitate somebody)

Posted by: Johnson Nov 4 2004, 01:19 PM

That would be like a called shot. As that is going for a specific body part. the the damage will change.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 4 2004, 02:07 PM

It would only be like a called shot if they were going specifically for that part of the body. Trying to hit someone wherever you can get and doing really well would have the same effect.

~J

Posted by: TheScamp Nov 4 2004, 09:07 PM

QUOTE

That would be like a called shot.As that is going for a specific body part. the the damage will change.

Using that line of reasoning, no attacks should stage up at all.

The fact is that the SR game system uses successes to determine how well placed and/or damaging a particular attack is. By default characters are trying to get the most out of their weapons, because they'd be retarded not to.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 4 2004, 09:15 PM

As far as I see it, standard shots are you trying to hit a commonly vulnerable spot on the target; the head, heart, whatever. Called Shots are hasty aimed shots at a very specific and vulnerable spot; eyes, neck, etc. Aimed shots are you grabbing your gun with both hands, closing one eye, controlling your breathing, and lining up the shot until you have it.

Staging (noting that Called Shots give you a single free staging) determines how successful you are at hitting what you were going for. Target numbers determining how well you aimed; the better the aim, the lower the target number, the more successes you'll receive, the higher your staging.

All three of them rely on staging. Called Shots just give you a free stage in exchange for a crummy TN, and Aiming gives you a great TN and potential staging in exchange for time and personal risk.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Nov 4 2004, 09:33 PM

Should be mentioned that trying to hit a vulnerable spot is a completely different thing in melee and ranged combat. In ranged combat, 999 times out of 1000, you're just trying to hit center-mass, or perhaps slightly above or below it -- because it's both easiest to hit and a very vulnerable location. A lot of successes can certainly be described as a head shot, but actually aiming for the head should be much less common than hitting the head (I don't think even Smartlink-2s would change that).

In melee, you're going for any of a number of vulnerable areas, depending on how the fight goes. My understanding is that, apart from a few special cases, you don't have a particular spot on the enemy in mind as you attack, you'll just hit where ever you get an opening. A lot of successes still means you got to hit a vulnerable spot and hit it well, but it doesn't have to mean you were actually going after that spot, or that you hit where you intended to.

However, no matter how you'd describe successes and staging in RL terms, staging damage up should certainly mean you hit a more vulnerable spot in most cases, or at least hit the same spot better, even if you don't Call a Shot or Take Aim.

Posted by: Gyrox10 Nov 5 2004, 12:25 AM

Little question here: How does the reduced damage for the actual punch effect people with bone lacing?

With Titianium Bone Lacing, your unarmed attacks to (STR+4)M Stun damage, would that be reduced to (STR+3)M Stun damage or (STR-1)M Stun damage?

Posted by: Johnson Nov 5 2004, 07:13 AM

Bone Lacing damage in HTH (hand to Hand) is (Str+4)M Stun. This over rides the standard Unarmed (str-1)m Stun. Also with Titanium you can choose to do physical damage at (half STR+4)M

Just read bone lacing and it will tell you that unarmed is changed to the (STR+4)M Stun.

The next Issue.

So if I generate 4 Successes ove my apponent I can therefore raise the (X)S Stun damage accordingly. IE As per the Melee rules. Bearing in mind the Special rules from Stun weapons.
This is related to stun baton and Gloves.
So Glove proove to be superior to Batons.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Nov 5 2004, 03:46 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

In melee, you're going for any of a number of vulnerable areas, depending on how the fight goes. My understanding is that, apart from a few special cases, you don't have a particular spot on the enemy in mind as you attack, you'll just hit where ever you get an opening. A lot of successes still means you got to hit a vulnerable spot and hit it well, but it doesn't have to mean you were actually going after that spot, or that you hit where you intended to.

I would like to clarify what I think you're meaning to say. When you say "hit where ever you can get an opening", you're still striking a vulnerable spot in that area if you possibly can. The 'where ever' part read as kind of random, and without intention, to me.
But I agree that in melee combat you have a large selection of vulnerable spots and you're looking for any of them to be open, and taking advantage of one when you can. Other spots, even if they are open, just aren't worth the commitment. In a fistfight, I wouldn't waste the swing to punch someone in the shoulder. It won't hurt enough, and it'll leave me open. (if I did punch at a shoulder, it'd be a feint. Or, if I were an adept or somehow had 8+ strength it might be a worthwhile hit) I'll wait for a better opportunity and keep my guard up in the meantime. But there are still dozens of spots I'm waiting to get a good shot at, not just one.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Nov 5 2004, 03:50 PM

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was going for. Once you take weapons into the account, most spots will be worth a swing if openings aren't that available. You might not go after somebody's toes with a sword, but hands and fingers are just fine as a target if the opportunity presents itself, etc.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 5 2004, 04:43 PM

A good shot against someone's toes can seriously mess up their balance, not to mention being quite painful.

~J

Posted by: Jason Farlander Nov 5 2004, 04:51 PM

QUOTE (Johnson)

Actually, Johnson, the *standard* unarmed damage code is STR(M) stun, not (STR-1)M stun. Both the (STR+4)M and the (STR-1)M are nonstandard, specified damage codes. So its really not as cut-and-dry as you seem to claim. Simply reading the section on bone lacing does not indicate whether it replaces the modified damage code of shock gloves, nor does the description on shock gloves mention whether the damage code is modified by bone lacing, and there are reasonable arguments both ways. I,personally, say go ahead and include the bone lacing modified, so, for TBL, you would get ((STR+4)-1)M, or (STR+3)M

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 5 2004, 05:08 PM

Technically, since neither of them are modifiers (which is what they should have been) but are instead defined Damage Codes, the general rule of thumb is that you use the better of the two. Kind of like if you have two different Initiative boosts on you that aren't compatible.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Nov 5 2004, 05:43 PM

Well, thats press that the initiative boost analogy a bit farther. Lets say someone, because that someone is a moron, has both wired reflexes 1 AND a level 2 synaptic accelerator implanted. Do they get the +2 to reaction from the WR1 as well as the +2d6 initiative from the syn accel? Or do they only get to pick which packaged bonus they recieve?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 5 2004, 06:26 PM

Like I said, the general rule of thumb is that you get the better of multiple bonuses when they don't expressely stack. In that case, you'd have Reaction +2, Initiative +2D6. The Synaptic Acclerator is doing nothing for the character's Reaction, but the Initiative boost is superior.

It's not the implant, but the statistic in question. In the case of Synaptic Accelerators and Wired Reflexes, however, I think they expressly state that those implants don't work together. In those cases, you choose which one you want to take advantage of at any given time (just like how you have multiple options available when using a skill; use your skill, default to another skill, default to an attribute; use whichever one grants you the best advantage).

Thus if you're just making an Initiative roll to see who goes first, your best bet is to use your Synaptic Accelerator (averaging +7 vs. the Wired Reflexes average of 5.5). But if you have to make a Reaction Test for Surprise, a Quick Draw, or whatever, you're better off with the Wired Reflexes bonus (+2 vs. +0).

Posted by: OurTeam Nov 5 2004, 10:19 PM

Since Wired Reflexes and Synaptic Accelerator are incompatible, I would give the character problems for having both. Perhaps half the time he gets +2D6 and half the time he gets -2D6. That's incompatible.

Posted by: Johnson Nov 8 2004, 07:52 AM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

In a fistfight, I wouldn't waste the swing to punch someone in the shoulder. It won't hurt enough, and it'll leave me open. (if I did punch at a shoulder, it'd be a feint. Or, if I were an adept or somehow had 8+ strength it might be a worthwhile hit)

Well, whether I hit you in the shoulder or in the gut I am going to get the same effects.

In games turns..... I hit his body.

If some one puches me. I step role and punch the ball joint of the socket, (dislocation can occur) while turning my back into him, I elbow him just below the last rib cracking it.(Making breathing difficult if it is broken.)

In real life ... this is serious damage. But there again I don't expect my character to be a Martial Arts expert.

A punch is a punch. a kick is a kick in games terms.

SO
Troll attack human (Opposed Test) Troll wins his attack lands. If the Human wins his counter attack wins.

So in games terms he makes the shot count. Staging is how well he pulled it off.
it hitting that unknown sweet spot.

So going back to shock weapons this could become a lethal weapon.

Shock gloves can be leathel and batons can cause Physical damage.

Posted by: Johnson Nov 8 2004, 08:07 AM

QUOTE (Jason Farlander)

Point Taken Jason.
Unarmed combat (STR)M Stun Page 275
Unarmed with bone lacing (STR+4)M Stun Page 303

Page 300 Bodyware

Bone Lacing Entry, Last paragraph.
I quote

A character with bone lacing can also choose to have his unarmed blows do physical damage, but the power of the attack is halved(rounded up).

Page 275 Text Enry under shock gloves.
When striking with shock gloves, the fist damage is reduced to (Str-1), but the gloves deliever and extra 7S Stun.

Conclucion

Titaium Bone lacing and shock gloves.

(STR+3)M Stun plus 7S Stun from the shock the gloves deliver.

Now the staging of the gloves doesn't get staged. As I quote again page 275.
"but the gloves deliver an EXTRA 7S Stun."

Posted by: psykotisk_overlegen Nov 8 2004, 09:42 PM

I believe that most people would agree that counting successes twice, by staging up both the str-1M stun and the 7s stun damage with the same successes would be overpowering. Therefore any successes must be applied to one of the damage codes or divided among them in some way.

Therefore, the real question here is wether or not the 7s stun can be staged with successes at all. If you hit someone with 4 successes, being allowed to stage up the 7s stun would be the most efficient thing to do for most characters (except for trolls, or the aforementioned titanium bones).

However, since unarmed combat (or martial arts) is the skill being used here, I believe that the str-1Mstun is the damage code that should be staged, if positive staging were to be applied to the 7s stun, this would imply a hit in a location were shocks are the most effective (cattleprod to the neck etc.). However, the knowledge of, and skill to hit, areas that are vulnerable to electrical shocks is IMO not covered by the unarmed skill, therefore successes from an Unarmed skill test should not be used to stage up the 7s stun-
Besides, str-1M stun is the base damage code of the shock glove, while the 7s stun is described as being extra.

In short:
Str-1M is staged up by successes. 7s stun is flat, but can still be staged down by the targets body test. The extra penalties caused by stun weapons is based on the 7s stun only.

At least, this is how I GM.

Posted by: Stumps Nov 8 2004, 11:52 PM

I think the energizer bunny just died two posts back.
hmm...wow.

Posted by: Sabosect Nov 9 2004, 12:02 AM

I have a question: How much damage would a troll be doing if he were smacking you with a shock glove on one hand and a stun baton in the other?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Nov 9 2004, 12:07 AM

Depends on which one is determined to be his primary weapon. Whichever one it is, that's the damage code. The only change will be a higher Staging most likely.

Posted by: Stumps Nov 9 2004, 01:42 AM

If a Troll was smacking me with something, I don't think I'd care if it was a shock weapon. I think I'd be more worried about the broken bones

Posted by: Johnson Nov 9 2004, 07:58 AM

QUOTE (psykotisk_overlegen)

In short:
Str-1M is staged up by successes. 7s stun is flat, but can still be staged down by the targets body test. The extra penalties caused by stun weapons is based on the 7s stun only.

At least, this is how I GM.

I agree there with shock gloves. Explain how you would deal with Stun batons?

Posted by: Johnson Nov 9 2004, 08:03 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

If a Troll was smacking me with something, I don't think I'd care if it was a shock weapon. I think I'd be more worried about the broken bones

What ever you are striking with would be your primary. But it would depend on if you are right handed or left.

If striking with your off hand the its your secondary weapon. as you will get more modifiers.

Ambidexterity is not included here for total ambidex. in which case both hand can be primary.