SHP 1.3 |
SHP 1.3 |
Jan 26 2006, 11:34 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
|
|
|
Jan 27 2006, 04:50 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
Very nice. VERY nice.
If nothing else, its a decent guide to some of the rules-holes in the SR4 core. ;-) I hope my players never see this thread. In my next game, I'll probably attempt to incorporate these rules, but I think that switching now (while we're all still just learnign the new edition) would be a little bit like yanking the rug out from under them. |
|
|
Jan 27 2006, 09:14 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 718 Joined: 10-September 05 From: Montevideo, in the elusive shadows of Latin America Member No.: 7,727 |
Very nice indeed, good organization too.
Cheers, Max |
|
|
Jan 28 2006, 01:14 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 20-January 06 Member No.: 8,185 |
One thing I would say - the change where you make Logic part of Matrix actions. Wouldn't the impact of Logic be your writing the program?
|
|
|
Jan 28 2006, 02:47 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
There are a couple places where these rules make changes that may make a larger difference in flavor than you might have expected:
1.) You have mtahumans with attribute penalties pay for the value not including the penalty. This causes these attributes to be massively more expensive than they ever were before (both at chargen and during character advancement), and makes logic or charisma dependant Orcs and Trolls vastly harder to build. 2.) Having logic apply to computer tests is great, but having the program rating limit successes prevents exceptional success on any computer test. It ends up being similar to a "no more than half your dice may be successes" rule, completely throwing off the probability curve of computer tests. I'd suggest eithor standardizing on program ratings from 1 - 12, or saying that successes are limited to 2x program rating. |
|
|
Jan 28 2006, 12:23 PM
Post
#6
|
|||||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
That is supposed to be so. On the other hand, strength and body become much cheaper. The point is, that the average rating in an attribute costs humans as much as trolls. And I thinks this is what the "meaning" of "average attribute" in a char creation system should be.
You might want to look at the propability calculations made in this thread. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...9734&hl=hacking BTW: Due to popular demand, SHP 1.4 is in testing at the moment, which includes revised cyberlimb rules and SINcheckers |
||||
|
|||||
Jan 29 2006, 06:04 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
About the flechette ammo fix:
the +2dv bonus requires 6 points of armour to be balanced, if you then consider that the impact rating is usually 2 points lower than the ballistic rating the only armour that fares as well againts flechette than standard armour under the flechette is resisted by double impact rule is a full body armour (10 for standard ammo vs 8*2-6 for "normalised" flechette). Now this might be intended but full body armour is as heavy as you can get, I'd think flechette should be fairly ineffective againts armour vests already (where under your suggested fix you have 6 for standard ammo vs 4*2-6 for "normalised" flechette). Wouldn't it much esier to say that againts armoured opponents flechette loses the +2 DV (keeping the +2AP and resisted by impact) making it identical to standard ammo? Or even better againts armour it has -2DV, 0AP and resisted by impact, finally making it all around worse against armoured opponents without introducing weird side effects of multiplicative effects. Or is the double armour designed to ensure that flechette will almost always stun armoured opponents instead of doing physical damage? My second proposed change should have similar effects. |
|
|
Jan 29 2006, 07:01 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
The karma costs for metahumans thing is actually not too bad an idea. One thing that you're missing is something to make the Increase Reflexes spell force dependant in some way. That's something that's always bothered me since SR3, and it's slightly better but not quite there yet.
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 07:38 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
Regarding the stun damage is better than physical, what about having the stun track based off either body or will, whichever is higher (it's just wrong that a troll is just as easy to knock out as a human and easier than a dwarf).
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 08:21 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 |
Except it isn't "just as easy to knock out a Troll" - you still have to overcome that ungodly soak roll they have.
So what if they have one less box of stun damage if they routinely take 1/3 the number of boxes of damage compared to a human? |
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 08:26 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
I'd rather it was something like:
[*] The number of boxes you have is based on your body. [*] You pass out when you've filled in a number of boxes based on your willpower. That way Trolls would go down quite a bit before they were close to death, unless they had pain resistance. -Frank |
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 08:38 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 829 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 770 |
Er....it's not unlike that in SR4...
There isn't a reference to "unconscious or dying" on the mental track anymore (at least that I've seen) like there was in SR3. You're just ko'd. So you still have the full physical track to go through. |
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 08:40 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
That is a good point. Stun damage is still a much better option all around though, since there's less stun boxes than physical ones on most characters (weedy mages might have more stun, but at cap everybody has at least as much physical as stun). Given all the advantages of just stunning someone I've listed above this seems wrong. Frank Trollman, I don't see what your post is saying, unless you are advocating unification of the 2 tracks. |
||
|
|||
Jan 30 2006, 09:22 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
My idea is to put the point at which you go unconcious in a potentially different place from the point at which your track ends.
You go down when you have 8+1/2 Willpower boxes that count for damage penalties filled in on either track. The track is actually 8+1/2 Body boxes long. So if you have a Body of 8 and a Will of 4, your Stun and physical tracks are 12 boxes long. But you'll drop when 10 boxes get filled in on either track. So if you get 10 Stun you go down, but it takes 13 Stun before you start overflowing into physical. That way Willpower and Body are both important, but neither Stun nor physical damage is "better" at dropping any particular enemy. -Frank |
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 09:30 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
I like that idea, although I think at that point you should raise the limit on passing out a bit, eg 8+will, leaving a full stun track as passing out too.
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 11:44 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
It is, as physical damage transformed to stun is halved after damage resistance in my house rule system.
It would be easier, but it would mean a sudden step from armor 0 (flechette works) to amor 1 (flechette) doesnt worl. I hate sudden steps like this. Furthermore, the 0/1 transition is arbitrary, a 1/2 oder 2/3 transition is no too bad, too. I like smooth transitions and thus my rule.
Yes, thats right. See my reasoning above. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Jan 31 2006, 12:05 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
I find the half stun damage due armour rule to be a bit too arbitrary.
At present all damage works in the same way (take effective DV, resist with armour, add to rack). Introducing that rule adds a unique special case to damage, which kinda clashes with the rest of the system. I do agree that at the moment stun seems a much better choice of damage compared to physical (especially considering it does last for quite a bit) but I'd rather see a more "seamless" solution. |
|
|
Jan 31 2006, 09:04 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
The conversion from physical to stun is also not very seamless and a very unique rule, so I think it doesnt matter if you make it a little more special, I think.
But here is another solution. Maybe this is better: Physical damage transformed to stun is resisted with both ballistic and impact armor. Sounds even logical. |
|
|
Jan 31 2006, 12:54 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
That's a mighty nice tweak. Alhtough it does need some consideration for flechette ammo and melee weapons.
A more general statemement might be "physical damage reduced to stun is resited both by the normal armour used againts it and impact armour (2*impact if it is normally resisted by impact armour and ballistic+imact if it applies to ballistic) |
|
|
Jan 31 2006, 03:24 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Paris, France Member No.: 6,074 |
And what about the mental attributes? |
||
|
|||
Jan 31 2006, 04:08 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
@ ankh: I consider all 8 attributes physical, in opposition to edge, magic and resonance, which are non-physical. I think the rulebook refers to all the 8 attributes as "physical attributes", too, including willpower, logic, intuition and charisma.
@Siegfired: Thats a good addition. I'll include this in the next version. |
|
|
Jan 31 2006, 04:31 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Very interesting. How does this interact with AP? For instance, a pred (5P/-1) hits a guy in an armor jacket (8/6). It's stun, so he resists with body + x where x is:
|
||
|
|||
Jan 31 2006, 04:49 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Physical Attributes are B A R S
Mental Attributes are C I L W Special Attributes are Ess Edg Mag Res -Frank |
|
|
Jan 31 2006, 04:52 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 248 |
Incorrect. Three different types of attributes exist: Physical; including agility, body reaction and strength, Mental; including charisma, intuition, logic and willpower, and Special; representing essence, edge, initiative (as derived attribute) magic and resonance. Definition can be found on page 60ff. [Edit]Darn, too slow.[/edit] |
||
|
|||
Feb 1 2006, 12:09 AM
Post
#25
|
|||||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
keep it simple. If it doesnt breach your (ballistic) armor, you can resist it with impact. allways the full ammount of impact. So my answer would be 13. In my house rules, where flechette is resisted with 2xImpact, it would be resisted with 3x impact when the DV is not higher than 2xImpact. And thats exactly the way flechette is supposed to work. The break even point of flechette/regular with a Predator would be a lined coat (6/4) or something. Above, regular ammo is better, beyond, flechette is better. @frank et al. Thanks for the correction. |
||||
|
|||||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 03:44 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.