 Buying Hits |
  |
 Dec 2 2005, 06:20 PM
Post
#1
|
|||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker  Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50  |
Not to pick on MFB, but I've seen people mention stuff like this regarding buying hits, and his was just the most recent example. And honestly? He's wrong. p55, SR4 Buying Hits If the gamemaster allows it, a character may trade in 4 dice fron her dice pool in exchange for an automatic hit. Gamemasters should only allow this when the character has an exceptionally large dice pool (and is unlikely to fail) or when the situation is non-threatening and non-stressful. If the character might suffer bad consequences from failing the test, then the gamemaster should require her to roll the test rather than buying hits. Buying hits is an alll-or-nothing affair; you cannot spend part of your pool to buy hits and then make a test with the rest. Now this says to me several things (And this was the intention behind this rule when we playtested it, at least as far as I know). Number one, 4 dice is not an exceptionally large dice pool. Sure, you had a ton of dice before hand, but not anymore after modifiers. And the final dice tally is what should count here. You're not likely to roll zero failures on 13 or 15 dice, it's somewhat likely on only 4. Number two, and this is the most important thing people overlook, is that the situation is supposed to be non-threatening and non-stressful. This means you can't do it to pick a lock when there are sec guards wandering around, you can't use it to stealth past a Lone Star patrol, and you certainly can't use it in any sort of combat situation. Especially in combination with the "character might suffer bad consequences from failing the test" part of it. The example in the book is for searching a room. Other examples would be while making a casual minor reapir on a vehicle, or while... you know, there really aren't many situations that I can see this rule really applying to, that aren't almost 100% Roleplay oriented, when you want to avoid getting bogged down with rules and rolling dice. Which was the entire point of the rule. Instead folks seem determined to use this as an example of how the game is broken and caters to power gamers. The only reason this rule might do that is if the GM allows it. And if the GM is allowing it, and you feel it's a problem, well... That's a problem with the GM and both his and your fellow RPG group members play styles, and not a fault of the rules. Bull |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Dec 2 2005, 06:37 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 932 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando, Florida Member No.: 1,042 |
This rule just struck me as useless. Like Bull says, it applies to almost nothing. "If the outcome doesn't matter and success is 95% certain anyway, you can buy a small number of successes - but you might as well roll the dice, because you've got a good chance of getting more hits that way anyway."
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 06:39 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
ah. i'd heard that the buying success thing was limited, but i didn't know the wording. regardless, the example in the other thread still stands (50/50 is about as bad as 100/0, in this case).
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 06:40 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
It's in there to mitigate an additional roll of the dice.
Like, if all you need is 1 hit to open a lock when you have plenty of time to work on it, then you can just tell the GM "Okay, I have 4+ dice in my pool, I unlock it. Now what happens?" |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 06:44 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
Exactly, as I said, it's really there to speed up roleplay (And rollplay :)). Bull |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:23 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Or, as per the other thread, you're blindfolded and a half mile away from your target (can you imagine a *less* distracting environment?) then you can just tell the GM "Okay, after penalties I have 4+ dice in my pool, I shoot it. Hell, I shoot it seven times, just to be sure. Now what happens?" |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:25 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Heh. I'd be all, "Well, it's quiet."
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:32 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
On the flip side, even if you insisted on rolling for it, you only have a 19.75% chance of missing the target ( 2/3 ^4 ). Hitting 80% of the time is certainly less than 100%, but considering the conditions that's still pretty insane.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:32 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 203 Joined: 18-November 05 Member No.: 7,978 |
Doesn't four dice give you better than fifty fifty odds?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:38 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yes. Like I said, it gives you an 80.25% chance of hitting (no hits in only ~19.75% of possible dice rolls.) So much better than even odds.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 07:59 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,168 Joined: 15-April 05 From: Helsinki, Finland Member No.: 7,337 |
Not to mention, if they were a half mile away, they would probably be surprised...thus negating the dodge roll.
And if you are firing from a half mile away, chances are that weapon you have has a healthy damage code. You may not kill them with one shot from that far, but you'll hurt 'em. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 11:40 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 565 Joined: 7-January 04 Member No.: 5,965 |
its a simple rule to say someone with X dice can do a task in Y time, without any risk of failure, or he can try to do it faster and maybe have a glitch.
You could use it in combat, if you have good reaction/dodge vs a very poor hit by an enemy. but its generaly to resolve downtime issues swiftly- maintaining your gear, writing software, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 12:07 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
Personally I would make the characters roll anytime something critical is on the line examples would be crash tests or combat tests. I would use the buy success rule for things that would have been Build/Repair tests under SR3 or for low criticality perception checks, particularly if stopping to make the test would be disruptive to game narative or scene setting.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 12:15 AM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
That's an excellent use for the rule, btw: if, for example, an adventure said that a character would need 3 hits on a test to notice something, and the GM knows that he has enough dice to buy those 3 hits, the GM can just proceed as if the character noticed it, no tests necessary, no need to let the players know that there may have been a test. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:24 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 129 Joined: 3-November 05 Member No.: 7,923 |
this is similar to taking 10 in d20, which can't be done while stressed.
I'd be tempted to say, you'd need at least 12 dice to do this. and, it's always up to the GM to allow it, or not |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 01:36 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
question already asked and replied to.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 02:46 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Keep in mind that although that passage suggests that it be used primarily in low-stress situations, other parts of the books explicitly suggest the use of that rule in combat (for damage resistance, see sr4.158 under "vehicle armor.")
Mind you, whether or not armor holds is really not related to whether the situation is combat or not, so maybe you could argue that this passage is not relavant. Point is, the book does endorse it's use in combat in certain situations. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 06:39 AM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 4-September 05 From: Metaplane GEPLK136 (The one with the lizards. You remember the lizards, don't you?) Member No.: 7,684 |
Yea, I was going to mention this too. I had assumed, originally, that buying hits was for "non-stressful" situations as well; but that example changed my mind. Now I'm not sure which to believe. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 07:22 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I highly doubt that a vehicle's armour is fretting about how well it rolls on the test (even though the driver and/or Pilot might be). ;) That might be how it was seen falling into "no stress" catagory. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 10:03 AM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
I can see that, but in that case, does character armor in the 15+ range also get automatic hits? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 10:08 AM
Post
#21
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Normally they don't roll Armor alone, usually the pool includes their Body. Beside personal armour tending to move around a lot with the wearer's different body poses. *shrug* But no, it's not a perfect explaination by any stretch. They might have just thought it made more sense to avoid wild swings in damage avoidance by vehicle armour. *shrug* |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 3 2005, 10:20 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Unless you happen to have your unlucky day, buying hits is usually much worse in results than to roll, anyway.
So, if you want to use it in damage resistance... why not? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 11:27 AM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
No argument. However, there are cases where buying is preferable because you know exactly what you're going to get. If you have just enough armor to buy off all of the damage, then it's obviously preferable not to risk the die roll, for example. In any case, I'm not advocating that you should generally do so, I'm just saying that the book is slightly inconsistent on when you can buy hits. (slightly) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2005, 06:23 AM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 5-January 05 From: Wherever this piece of meat rests. Member No.: 6,937 |
I think the suggestion for "buying hits" on vehicle armor tests was more to keep people from having to roll 36 dice for the City Master. But since weapons now do the same damage to vehicles as they do to people (unless I missed that!), it seems a that the structural integrity argument has some validity to it as well. I know I've seen fifteen dice get rolled and only two or three hits come up. I've noticed too no mention of vehicle armor being "Hardened" like the critter power. I know it pissed people off a lot in my 3rd Ed game, but I liked being able to bounce off small arms fire if your armor was strong enough. Nobody is taking out a T-72 with their M-16 in real life (IF they have , I HAVE to see that)
:S :nuyen: :nuyen: :nuyen: |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 07:29 AM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
But then again, that's a very good example of 'an exceptionally large dice pool (and is unlikely to fail)', isn't it? ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16th June 2025 - 09:04 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.