IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Serbitars Packages, due to popular demand
Brahm
post Feb 21 2006, 08:14 PM
Post #51


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



Or you didn't realize that was the outcome shown by my post? It is no wonder I am getting on your nerves if you cannot follow my posts even when I start putting hard numbers to the concepts I've been talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serbitar
post Feb 21 2006, 08:18 PM
Post #52


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 4-August 05
From: ADL
Member No.: 7,534



http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...pic=11725&st=45

turning in circles, getting severe braindamage . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 21 2006, 08:28 PM
Post #53


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Serbitar @ Feb 21 2006, 03:18 PM)
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...pic=11725&st=45

turning in circles, getting severe braindamage . . .

What, are you trying to say you are not wrong in your assertion of this supposed effeciency? You gave an example of where you suggest it exists, I even tilt the example more to your favour, and I still show that the effeciency you speak of typically does not exist in a meaningful way outside of situations where the damage is so outclassed by the armor that they are nearly immune to physical attack.

EDIT Until you arm their opponents with firepower that either wipes out the team, or the team defeats the opponents, loot the fallen, and raise the ante another notch. Monty Haul, not just a gameshow anymore.

In short, just like with fragmentation grendes and rockets, you are rebuilding a problem that SR4 helped addressed. Heavily armored, high Body targets that can wade through combat unscathed.

Shorter yet.
You.
Are.
Wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serbitar
post Feb 21 2006, 08:39 PM
Post #54


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 4-August 05
From: ADL
Member No.: 7,534



Yes, heavily armored trolls can wade through tons of framentation rockes, grenades and ammo. Flechette is not supposed to work against heavy armour. Use normal stuff (non flechette),or even APDS which was made for killing heavily armored targets, and you are OK. Everything you try to point out as an error is intentional and works exactly the way it is supposed to work. Look at the ammocheck.xls, everything is in it.

Thats my final say in this thread as I have to recover from severe brain damage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 21 2006, 08:49 PM
Post #55


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Serbitar @ Feb 21 2006, 03:39 PM)
Yes, heavily armored trolls can wade through tons of framentation rockes, grenades and ammo. Flechette is not supposed to work against heavy armour. Use normal stuff (non flechette),or even APDS which was made for kill heavily armored targets, and you are OK. Everything you try to point out as an error is intentional and works exactly the way it is supposed to work.

Not just fragmentation weapons.

Pretty much everything up until you start creating a lot of PC deaths. By making a sharper break and closing the gap between no harm and death you make it harder for the GM to create a challenge and threaten the team with weapons while not killing them. Even when the GM finds the lower end of weapon threat zone the margin of error has shrunk where it is more likely that a bad die roll will kill the character.

EDIT I guess we need to work that into your marketing slogan. APDS and Rocket Jumping for everyone!

QUOTE
Thats my final say in this thread as I have to recover from severe brain damage.

Here is to hoping.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaos Kingpin
post Feb 21 2006, 11:22 PM
Post #56


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 28-January 06
Member No.: 8,206



Hey Brahm,

With all of the time you spend antagonizing Serbitar, you could be creating your own house rule package.

You are apparently SO talented with "the math", and knowledgable regarding ammo and armour etc. (perhaps due to your contractor experience?) that I am sure your ideas, once compiled and put to paper, would be very much appreciated.

Serbitar,

you have really put ALOT of work into this stuff! When do you have time for all of this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkness
post Feb 21 2006, 11:22 PM
Post #57


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 248



QUOTE (Serbitar)
@Darkness:

For the "rare events" (or was this ironic?):

It was meant ironic. I just forgot some smileys. :)

QUOTE (Brahm)
Somewhere along the way you dropped the word contrived. There isn't anyone using burstfire, other firearms, or weapons?

You seem to overlook, that burstfire (nor other modifiers, but net hits) isn't calculated if you compare modified damage value to modified armor rating.

Page 140, Compare Armor defines modified damage value as base damage value + net hits, and modified armor value as armor value modified by weapons AP.
And that's what is compared. Other modifiers don't apply, neither if you are determining the physical->stun conversion, nor if you check for the penetration of vehicular armor or the hardened armor critter power. It's always modified damage value against modified armor value. The rest comes in, if you determine how much damage you have to soak.

Ammunition, btw. as per page 312 modifies the weapons stats directly. So ammo determines the base damage.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 21 2006, 11:56 PM
Post #58


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Darkness @ Feb 21 2006, 06:22 PM)
You seem to overlook, that burstfire (nor other modifiers, but net hits) isn't  calculated if you compare modified damage value to modified armor rating.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Wide Burst which increases the odds of larger number of net hits, including hitting at all, anytime the shooter has more dice than the target.

That is an odd quirk of the ranged combat that I dislike. Spreading out the rounds over a larger area helps penetration, when normally having a very tight cluster of multiple hits would improve the chance of penetrating the armor because of damage to it by a prior round. Of course though there is no armor degredation either, so I guess that shouldn't be too surprising. :(

QUOTE
Other modifiers don't apply, neither if you are determining the physical->stun conversion, nor if you check for the penetration of vehicular armor or the hardened armor critter power.


I thought narrow bursts are the only modification to DV that is explicitly excluded from that comparison? It is somewhat debatable how that works with Hardened Armor, but that is out of scope here.


If the shooters are using Narrow bursts it should push the towards Stun the reason for a Knockout from 2 hits. Unfortunately it also increases the chance of straight out kill from a single P damage hit because that is now doing a minimum of 12P and they only have an 11 Physical box track. You'd need to use the actual numbers underlying those color charts in numeric detail to see if the net change swings towards Stun or Physical. Same for the change in the chances of the first two successful shots ending up as Stun or Physical.

It will also increase the chances of taking the target unconscious in two successful shots. Not sure whether it increases the overall odds of succeeding in a knockdown per a given number of actions spent shooting because it is also going to lower the chance of hitting at all.

At best it might lead to the conversion to Stun being equally effective in bringing the target down, whichever way, as oppose to having all the damage remain as Physical. Though I am guessing not given the sizable obstruction of that goal there is from the possibility of having the damage split out over the two tracks.


Keep in mind that while this example, although perhaps not the most favorable situation for the effectiveness of the Stun conversion to knock someone out, is likely about as favorable as you are going to see in practice. Also if someone is toddling around with a 1 or 2 Willpower, 12 Body monster with 16 points of armor I will shed not a single tear if two hits from a Panther Assault Cannon knocks him out on the Stun track. Which it likely won't. :( But at least forcing him to resist the 11 Stun damage there is a chance it will do something to him. Resisting 6 Stun is no real challenge at all, explicitly so if the GM lets him buy resisting hits at 1:4.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkness
post Feb 22 2006, 12:44 AM
Post #59


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 248



QUOTE (Brahm)
I was thinking more along the lines of a Wide Burst which increases the odds of larger number of net hits, including hitting at all, anytime the shooter has more dice than the target.

Ah yes. My apologies then.
QUOTE ("Brahm")
That is an odd quirk of the ranged combat that I dislike.  Spreading out the rounds over a larger area helps penetration, when normally having a very tight cluster of multiple hits would improve the chance of penetrating the armor because of damage to it by a prior round. Of course though there is no armor degredation either, so I guess that shouldn't be too surprising. :(

Indeed, that is strange. And i haven't thought about that until now....
I will have to think that through (and discuss it with my group).
QUOTE ("Brahm")
I thought narrow bursts are the only modification to DV that is explicitly excluded from that comparison? It is somewhat debatable how that works with Hardened Armor, but that is out of scope here.

Let me explain my thoughts on this. It is true, that narrow bursts are explicitly excluded. But then again, it is only written so for narrow bursts in burst fire mode. Narrow long bursts or narrow full bursts don't mention that they don't count at all. I assumed, that it wouldn't be in the spirit of the rules, and so, in my games, they don't count either.
Everywhere where DV vs. Armor is compared, it mentiones "modified armor value" and "modified damage value" (that's the case on p. 158 "Vehicle Armor" and p.288 "Hardened Armor"), so i looked for a definition of those terms, which i found on page 140, Compare Armor. That is the only place, that defines those two. And i found it a simple and elegant solution, by not calculating other factors in. Unfortunately, no other rule exists, that confirms or denies my POV on this. So a debate would most likely end in a bunch of personal POVs thrown at each other until a flame war erupts :D . So i would likely point out the option, and call it a GM descision.

On the rest i agree. While i, on the same time, see Serbitars point, in my personal experience, it doesn't unbalance the game (so far). But i thank S. for bringing this possible deficiency to my notice. As i thank you for the wide burst issue.
But my idea of game balance mustn't fit with anybody else on this, so i mostly keep out of those discussions, while following them with interest looking for eventual solutions and sometimes even commiting one ;).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aristotle
post Feb 22 2006, 12:56 AM
Post #60


Slacker Extraordinaire
**

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 337
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ashburn, VA
Member No.: 997



QUOTE (Chaos Kingpin)
With all of the time you spend antagonizing Serbitar, you could be creating your own house rule package.

While there has been a little hostility back and forth, I appreciate attempts to maintain the conversation to the topic at hand. Remember, debate the rules and not the flaws of the other members of the forum.

I'm sure Serbitar is aware that feedback, even negative or hostile feedback that isn't wanted, is part of the package whenever you publish something (especially something relating to a topic that others are passionate about). I hope that Serbitar is able to take some of that feedback in stride and maybe even see that some of those people are questioning his decisions because they want to help improve the quality of his product rather than create competing products.

Serbitar, thanks for your work. I'm sticking with the RAW for most everything, but it's always nice to see someone else's thoughts. I also concur that tastefully sized links in your signature, a single post in the Community Projects forum, and maybe a small website or mailing list for your more dedicated users would be the best way to handle future updates to your product.

Thanks :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post Feb 22 2006, 02:00 AM
Post #61


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



You know the "5 points per complex form rule?" I concur that it would equalize technomancers and hackers, but the thing is, technomancers are supposed to be good in their ability to raise their ceiling beyond what the SOTA could ever be, and 5 points per complex form is WAY too cheap. Then again, with the RAW complex form rules, it would take 5 years in real-time to level up your technomancer well.

As for the super-expensive physical stats, I think that the "successes limited by the number of skill points" suffices to control the awesomeness of stat points.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 22 2006, 02:09 AM
Post #62


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Chaos Kingpin @ Feb 21 2006, 06:22 PM)
Hey Brahm,

With all of the time you spend antagonizing Serbitar, you could be creating your own house rule package. 

You are apparently SO talented with "the math", and knowledgable regarding ammo and armour etc. (perhaps due to your contractor experience?) that I am sure your ideas, once compiled and put to paper, would be very much appreciated.

- I am not GMing at the momment, and through 5 sessions my current character has not yet fired a weapon or even drawn a weapon. Nor thrown a punch. So designating firm house rules are not an immediate priority for me, although my GM has suggested entirely removing Dodge skill so I'm currently mulling that over. Initially I am not in favor of just removing it entirely, although it doesn't really affect my character directly because Slim doesn't have the skill. He has already changed Smartlink to improve Initiative, but I'm not sure how that works because Slim doesn't have that either.

- I think that the requirement for house rules is mostly overstated. My tendancy is to first determine if the precieved problem exists at all or if the solutions to the problem already exists in RAW. I actively fight kneejerk reactions to fix something with a house rule. My first reaction to the Stun damage conversion was indeed also OMFG, they are so screwing Trolls. Then I looked closer, setting aside the initial emotional response. When a more thorough analysis was applied the illusion of that problem fell away.

- I would not have a package of Sebitars magnitude simply because I see little to no need for many of the changes he lists. Smaller is typically better. Easier to implement, easier for players to learn and track what is different from RAW, and the parts tend to be less dependant on each other so partial implementation is easier. All issues I take with Sebitar's rules package.

- I also did state that of any change to RAW it would make more sense to convert only 1/2 the damage to Stun and leave the remainder as Physical. Which boxes are removed by the resisting roll hits would be up to the player making the resisting roll. I am not convinced that would be enough of an improvement in results to justify the hassle of a house rule involving a slightly more complicated proccess.

- I have already posted my current thoughts on the ammo situation. I do not agree that APDS is currently without use, but its cost and Availability are not in line with ExEx. Also in the situations where it is most useful it does not have a clear enough advantage over ExEx to justify having both on hand. ExEx covers off adequately the situation where you would use APDS, and is superior is so many more.

It is buried in another thread, and I've reflected and tweaked it a bit since, so I'll repost here. Keep in mind that part of my goal is to have a solid niche for each class of ammunition, and that those niches line up approximately with their RealLife niche.

QUOTE (Direction So Far)
Buckshot (Shotguns) 0DV (-1DV per extra range increment)/ +2AP (+2AP per extra range increment), +2 die per extra range increment for a net gain of +1 die per range increment (versus higher of Impact or Balistic)

Narrow (Full Choke) only 1 target at a time
Medium (Modified Choke) -1DV, 2 adjacent targets by spliting the dice pool
Wide (No Choke) -2DV, 3 adjacent targets by splitting the dice pool, middle target must have highest (or tied for highest) number of dice allocated

Gel 0/+2AP (versus higher of Impact or Balistic)

Flechette (only available for weapons specifically named in RAW and weapons with a 10mm or larger bore; basically limited to Raecor Sting, Ares Sliver, shotguns, and maybe the PJSS) -1DV/0, +1 die (versus Balistic)

Hollowpoint +1DV/+3AP
Explosive +1DV/+1AP
ExEx (maybe uses the bimetal tech mfb mentioned? so damage like hollowpoint without compromising AP) +1DV/0AP


Armour Piercing, Steel 0/-2AP
Armour Piercing, Tungsten 0/-3AP
Armour Piercing, DU 0/-4AP (+1DV if Hardened Armour is successfully penetrated), may cause secondary burning or toxic effects as per depleted uranium discussion


Fragmenting Handgrenades 12DV/+2AP
Fragmenting Missles, Rockets 16DV/+3AP


I am not crazy about the complexity of the buckshot rules relative to the other ammo, although in fairness they do replace a short section in the ranged combat chapter that is about equally muddled itself. I also have a tweak for the Gel rounds in mind, but I'm not sure of it yet. I currently have not firmed up what to do with Stick'nShock, although there are a few ideas tumbling in my head. Mostly related to shortening ranges and making damage roughly dependant on caliber size. Not certain about the fragmentation explosives yet, I still have to make sure those numbers come down in the best spot. I am cautious of weaking them too much, and at this point I have slightly weakened them.

I also haven't set down availability or costs. As a GM I tend to just wing those and gouge the PCs for all they will bear. :vegm: Plus each class of ammunition is intended to have merits without relying on costs. It has been my experience that relying heavily on money to give incentive ultimately fails without using cost differences of orders of magnitude.

EDIT

The depleted uranium discussion referenced in there can be found spread around in here. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...opic=11675&st=0
Abandon all hope ye tortured souls that dare enter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post Feb 22 2006, 03:54 AM
Post #63


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



I like the modification of initiative passes, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 22 2006, 05:11 AM
Post #64


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (emo samurai @ Feb 21 2006, 10:54 PM)
I like the modification of initiative passes, though.

I found the idea interesting. Looking back to the past of SR, I'm not sure it is that desirable to have characters that are normally getting 2 Complex Actions or 4 Simple Actions before others get to act at all. But I haven't really looked at it any closer than noting that it could use rewording so it is clear how it works with the Delay action that normally allows any character to act within any of the 4 Initiatve Passes, and how it interacts with spending a point of Edge to go first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TinkerGnome
post Feb 22 2006, 05:20 AM
Post #65


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 10-June 03
From: Tennessee
Member No.: 4,706



I like the initiative thing... of course, I suggested the idea back in SR3. It's pretty much just a port of the HERO system's initiative grid to the (much smaller) SR4 mechanic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 22 2006, 05:57 AM
Post #66


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



I don't know how HERO works, but in SR4 you are not allowed to even turtle before you act in the first turn of combat. This makes it that much easier for a 3 IP character to have even a 2 IP character, or two, flat on their back before the 2 IP characters got act at all. Wound penalties also tend to give the advantage to the first one to pull the trigger.

Its interaction with Surprise brings up an oddity as well. If the 3 IP character is surprised by a 1 IP character does the 3 IP character have to wait until the 1 IP character acts, or just wait until their second action phase?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Horror
post Feb 22 2006, 07:11 AM
Post #67


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 28-March 05
Member No.: 7,251




QUOTE (Brahm)

I don't know how HERO works, but in SR4 you are not allowed to even turtle before you act in the first turn of combat. This makes it that much easier for a 3 IP character to have even a 2 IP character, or two, flat on their back before the 2 IP characters got act at all. Wound penalties also tend to give the advantage to the first one to pull the trigger.

Its interaction with Surprise brings up an oddity as well. If the 3 IP character is surprised by a 1 IP character does the 3 IP character have to wait until the 1 IP character acts, or just wait until their second action phase?



I thought that everyone had their first IP, then those with a second action would have their second IP, etc. So even if you are uncybered you get to act right after the cybered up monster had their first IP.

HERO works on a staggered system. So the guy with 3 IP might get to act twice before the guy with 1 IP even moves, then the slow guy moves, then the cyber monster finishes his last action. More complication and something that is not really nescessary IMO, though it does model wired up characters a little bit better so I can see why a lot of people would like it.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post Feb 22 2006, 07:35 AM
Post #68


jacked in
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 8,915
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



QUOTE (The Horror)
HERO works on a staggered system. So the guy with 3 IP might get to act twice before the guy with 1 IP even moves, then the slow guy moves, then the cyber monster finishes his last action. More complication and something that is not really nescessary IMO, though it does model wired up characters a little bit better so I can see why a lot of people would like it.

In SR2 I had a intiative house rule based losely on the Champions/HERO initiative table. Worked very well. :)

Anyways... in SR4 it's technically even possible, that the 1 IP character acts *before* the 3 IP character (in the first IP). The 1 IP actually could even have the higher initiative value (not very likely, tho ;)).

Bye
Thanee
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post Feb 22 2006, 07:39 AM
Post #69


jacked in
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 8,915
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



QUOTE (Serbitar @ Feb 21 2006, 08:39 PM)
Flechette is not supposed to work against heavy armour.


Speaking of Flechette... I also thought, that something like doubling the Impact Armor would work right to model the lack of armor penetration. A simple plus doesn't cut it there, it should be a factor.

Bye
Thanee
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Horror
post Feb 22 2006, 07:47 AM
Post #70


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 28-March 05
Member No.: 7,251




I like Serbitars ammo rules. I think they are as perfect as you can get with this new system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 22 2006, 09:41 AM
Post #71


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Thanee @ Feb 22 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (Serbitar @ Feb 21 2006, 08:39 PM)
Flechette is not supposed to work against heavy armour.


Speaking of Flechette... I also thought, that something like doubling the Impact Armor would work right to model the lack of armor penetration. A simple plus doesn't cut it there, it should be a factor.

Bye
Thanee

The Shadowrun idea of what flechette does seems to be based solely on the extremely dubious text in Neuromancer surrounding Molly's weapon. :(

Flechette actually penetrates personal armor reasonably well because the projectiles have a small cross-section versus their mass. It just does crappy damage, even to unarmored targets. The SR bonus to DV is pure insanity.

The benefit of flechette is that it improves your ability to hit the target because shortly after exiting the muzzle it spreads out into a scatter pattern like buckshot. But unlike buckshot that pattern then becomes mostly stable out to the end of it's effective range, which is typically at least 2 to 3 times further than buckshot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 22 2006, 10:22 AM
Post #72


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (Darkness @ Feb 21 2006, 07:44 PM)
It is true, that narrow bursts are explicitly excluded.  But then again, it is only written so for narrow bursts in burst fire mode. Narrow long bursts or narrow full bursts don't mention that they don't count at all. I assumed, that it wouldn't be in the spirit of the rules, and so, in my games, they don't count either.

I assumed this too, although truth is I never even considered the matter. I just took all Narrow bursts, short, long, and full, to act the same way.

QUOTE
On the rest i agree. While i, on the same time, see Serbitars point, in my personal experience, it doesn't unbalance the game (so far). But i thank S. for bringing this possible deficiency to my notice. As i thank you for the wide burst issue.


There are three things that are getting mixed together. First is whether or not the RAW conversion to Stun rules gives a large boost to effectiveness in knocking down an armored target. My post was showing that it does not where Serbitar assumed it did. What it does do is give some diminishing returns in improvement for taking your armor out to and past the point where nearly all damage becomes Stun. You still gain benefit from that extra armor, it just isn't quite as much.

The second thing is Serbitar's remedy for that precieved problem. A remedy which I find far worse than the Stun conversion and even worse that simply removing the Stun conversion altogether and keeping Physical damage as Physical damage. He halves the damage boxes when the Stun is converted. Unfortunately the effect of this is making the target immune or nearly immune until the point where the armor rating is breeched. In the example the target would be resisting only 4 or 5 boxes Stun boxes with 14 dice. It would be rare that they would take more than 2 boxes of stun, often only 1 or even none. Until they took Physical damage, when they would likely be unconcious and dead or dieing within in two strikes. For even more heavily armored targets it gets much worse as they will usually become immune to the Stun and breeching the armor rating becomes much rarer.

Serbitar's responce when this is pointed out is to have the shooter load out APDS. Unfortunately this creates an extremely deadly situation back down with the moderately armored characters. A character wearing an armored vest is not only taking Physical damage, but has 5 of his 6 armor dice taken away. So he is left resisting 7 or more boxes of damage with 1 armor die and his Body. Even if he has 3 or 4 Body, after the second successful strike there is a good chance his teammates won't even have a chance to stablize his body. Even with Edge the situation is bleak because he doesn't have many dice to leverage the exploding 6's of making the resist roll with the Edge dice included.

The third thing is the ammo and explosives DV/AP modifiers, which I haven't really posted much about in this thread other than to post up my own current working list in response to Chaos Kingpin.

Post Script

To Serbitar's credit it appears he has dropped the -5 AP for APDS his last version had back down to the -4 AP RAW. I had lambasted the -5 AP as exagerating a problem already in the RAW where APDS turns even small sidearms armor penetrating marvels. Not sure why he dropped it back to -4 AP, I didn't notice him say anywhere. I did notice also that he upped the AP to +2 for ExEx.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryu
post Feb 22 2006, 12:28 PM
Post #73


Awakened Asset
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,464
Joined: 9-April 05
From: AGS, North German League
Member No.: 7,309



An "I agree" to brahms armor issue. Iīd like to add that trolls have higer body and will take less stun, more than one box per hit on average.

Further:
- the karma system can be done by simply using the character advancement costs - Metahumans get modifiers after buying base up. Resulting changes in power level are accepted.

- "stealthy" pool reduction has issues with well-rolling GMs - positive mods are ok, as the event horizon is unchanged

- rigger attributes usage is not a change as the riggers attributes in VR are well defined

- I donīt get what your fix to cyberware scanners does. Just make cyberware more common so that cyberware!=criminal. Or make armored clothing hinder the scanners.

- The called shot rules are only of a continuous advantage to high-pool-characters. Even with a pool of 12 dice dodging is an issue. Your fix is a minor nerf to powerful characters, while weak ones take it in the shorts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkness
post Feb 22 2006, 01:35 PM
Post #74


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 248



@Brahm: I agree.
We stick with the RAW so far, btw, and hadn't had any issues with this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serbitar
post Feb 22 2006, 01:56 PM
Post #75


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 4-August 05
From: ADL
Member No.: 7,534



QUOTE (Aristotele)

Serbitar, thanks for your work. I'm sticking with the RAW for most everything, but it's always nice to see someone else's thoughts. I also concur that tastefully sized links in your signature, a single post in the Community Projects forum, and maybe a small website or mailing list for your more dedicated users would be the best way to handle future updates to your product.


Thanks for the hint.

QUOTE (emo samurai)

You know the "5 points per complex form rule?" I concur that it would equalize technomancers and hackers, but the thing is, technomancers are supposed to be good in their ability to raise their ceiling beyond what the SOTA could ever be, and 5 points per complex form is WAY too cheap. Then again, with the RAW complex form rules, it would take 5 years in real-time to level up your technomancer well.

As for the super-expensive physical stats, I think that the "successes limited by the number of skill points" suffices to control the awesomeness of stat points.


The 5 might still be subject to tweaking. I took 5 because it matches the cost of spells for mages. Any reason why it should be different? A mage has even much more flexibility and more special fields (summoning, astral space) so spells aren't that important for a mage as complex forms are for a technomancer. Thus spells should even be more expensive than complex forms.
10 Karma per complex form is definately too expensive, and other numbers seem too odd for me.
Note, that I have increased the cost for Technomancers to balance it a little.
I think I will have to calculate a little more to fully judge this change.

The "limited by skill number" points does not really affect a lot of skills. Especially most of the agility skills are "skill uncritical". And I dont want the super high agility elf to be as effective as he is in RAW.
And furthermore, I kind of want attributes to be expensive and less changeable than skills. It just kind of feels right that way (see the explanation in SHP I gave).

Thanks for the feedback.

QUOTE (TinkerGnome)

I like the initiative thing... of course, I suggested the idea back in SR3. It's pretty much just a port of the HERO system's initiative grid to the (much smaller) SR4 mechanic.


Thanks for the statement. I've never heared of the HERO system. The whole thing was worked out by two others and me in the German SR forums. Seems like good ideas alwayscome up multiple times.

QUOTE (The Horror)


I like Serbitars ammo rules. I think they are as perfect as you can get with this new system.


Thanks.

QUOTE (Brahm)

He halves the damage boxes when the Stun is converted.


No, I am adding Impact. The halving thing was changed from 1.4 to 1.5, after some feedback from some guy in this forum (forgot the name, sorry). The result is mostly the same, so your criticismis unaffected.

QUOTE (Brahm)

Serbitar's responce when this is pointed out is to have the shooter load out APDS.


My response was to use normal ammo, not flechette. Furthermore, everybody can see himself how things change by looking at my ammocheck.xls.


QUOTE (Brahm)

To Serbitar's credit it appears he has dropped the -5 AP for APDS his last version had back down to the -4 AP RAW. I had lambasted the -5 AP as exagerating a problem already in the RAW where APDS turns even small sidearms armor penetrating marvels. Not sure why he dropped it back to -4 AP, I didn't notice him say anywhere. I did notice also that he upped the AP to +2 for ExEx.


That was done after your first comment from 1.3 to 1.4. Though, since then, you are always criticising the same point, which I already said is intentionally so. Thats why I consider your feedback unwanted.

QUOTE (Ruy)

- the karma system can be done by simply using the character advancement costs - Metahumans get modifiers after buying base up. Resulting changes in power level are accepted.

- "stealthy" pool reduction has issues with well-rolling GMs - positive mods are ok, as the event horizon is unchanged

- rigger attributes usage is not a change as the riggers attributes in VR are well defined

- I donīt get what your fix to cyberware scanners does. Just make cyberware more common so that cyberware!=criminal. Or make armored clothing hinder the scanners.

- The called shot rules are only of a continuous advantage to high-pool-characters. Even with a pool of 12 dice dodging is an issue. Your fix is a minor nerf to powerful characters, while weak ones take it in the shorts.


-of course this could be done. A troll would have to pay 90 Karma to go from strength 8 to 10, though. Same for body. At least for me, thats not acceptable.

- well rolling GMs are amatter of superstition. My calculations are not based on superstition

- rigger use agility for gunnery test and reaction for driving test, while jumped in under RAW. Both are physical attributes, though he is in the matrix and has no physical attributes. So it IS a change.

- illegal cyberware is marked with F. If you have it, you are either a military person, or a criminal. Nothing changes that.

- the average SAM in my calculations has agility 6, skill 5, smartgun, specialization for his weapon = 15 dice. the average target has reaction 5 (if not 4). = 10 net dice. the average situation has a modifier of 2. = 8 net dice. statistically he can sacrifice 4 of them and still hit with more than 70% probability.
Low level example: agility 3, skill 3, smartgun vs reaction 3. modifier 2 = 3 net dice. statistically it is better to sacrifice 1 die and try to hit with the 2 net dice.
Conclusion: in 80% of the cases it is better to at least trade 1 die for 1 DV. This makes combat MUCH more dangerous and punishes those who do NOT know of this rule, or do not use it. Using this rule becomes the standard, not the exception.

Of course the average ratings are subject to personal power level.

Furthermore,as you can read in lots of threads in this forum, vehicle armour gets totally unbalanced (=useless) by this rule in RAW, especially in the case of drones.

Thanks for your input.

QUOTE (Darkness)

@Brahm: I agree.
We stick with the RAW so far, btw, and hadn't had any issues with this.


Most of the rules in my package arent critical,and are mostly donce, because it was easy to adjust them a little. But at least StickNShock, the +1DV/die, and the agility monster are very serious problems.

Somebody with agility 8 (no problem with cyberware, very cheap), smartgun, specialization, StickNshock, a reflex recorder and the +1DV/die rule is simply much better (and no, this is no one-trick-pony, thats a pretty standard character) than those who do not max agility, do not use the DV rule and do not use StickNshock. And I do not want to punish those for making believable characters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 11:07 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.