 Serbitars Packages, due to popular demand |
  |
 Feb 22 2006, 04:54 PM
Post
#76
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706  |
Here's the original from a thread about two years old:
Your house rules propose:
I would honestly rather see:
I dislike the 3rd initiative pass occuring first because pretty much every character expecting to see combat has 3 IP. If you want to keep mundanes slower, you might consider going with:
Now you have three tiers of acting. You have the mundane 1 IP which is at a disadvantage, you have the normal augmented 2 and 3 IP which are similar in terms of power level (3 IP still has a clear advantage over 2 IP), and then you have the super fast 4 IP. This has a lot of advantages, including giving combat characters a real reason to lust over that 4 IP. On the other stuff, if I were going to start house ruling things, I'd probably start with the rigger attribute things. It's kind of silly to have those things based on physical attributes. There should really be a "matrix attributes" table like they do with the astral. In fact, I don't see why you shouldn't just use the Astral Attributes table on p184 while in the Matrix as well. I also like the concept of a system where character creation and advancement are more closely tied together, however I'm not sure I like your system enough to go with it. Here's hoping that they put out a karma-type system in one of the future books. |
||||||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||||||
|
Feb 22 2006, 05:21 PM
Post
#77
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Curious, last time I can see you mentioning it and the APDS AP is. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...=75#entry357439 The magnitude of the problem you are creating isn't quite as large, but it is still there because it instead is giving up to a 60% boost dice in the resist pool instead of the firm 100% in damage to resist. All this continuing to try address a problem in the RAW that does not exist in any significant way. Where it does exist it is putting a slight diminishing returns on large amounts of armor roughly in the low-teens and up, meaning it isn't actually a problem but a solution helping to curtain a power spiral.
This is not about flechette only. It is a problem with regular ammo, and you have suggested using APDS to remedy it. Although ironically you have now given the same face to the problem with your flechette by changing to the same + Impact. I guess now you have them rolling triple Impact when the flechette DV is at or below double -2 the Impact rating?
I don't recall mentioning the -5 for a while. Did you mention that you had changed the AP of APDS? See my link above. Unfortunately many of the same the criticisms are still quite applicable. :( But there has been some progress, even if you would rather not acknowledge it. :)
You shouldn't be so quick to pronounce that. :(
How about cutting the stuff that doesn't need to be there then, the stuff that makes unnessasary changes? A great start would be the change in the multiplier from 3 karma to 5 karma for Attributes, although the Combat: Damage section would certainly be easier because you just cut the 4 paragraphs. I'm not sure how much of your justification text clutter you removed already, but I do still see sizable portions. It certainly makes trying to figure out what has changed difficult, and it makes it more difficult to deploy. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 22 2006, 05:48 PM
Post
#78
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Look two posts beyond that. Thats where I made the desicion. The rest is Brahm-turning-in-circles clutter. I wont comment that. Rule changes are marked with bold and a dot before it. Everybody with eyes can easily spot them. And Im not going to cut any justification text, as well as I wont cut anything that I think is a good addition to the package. You can go ahead and compile your personal version if you feel the need to. Ill even provide you with a .doc file if you cant copy from .pdf. But you might be glad to hear that Im going to introduce relevancy ratings for each rule in one of the next updates. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 06:22 PM
Post
#79
|
|||||||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Ah, missed it because there was no mention of APDS. But you didn't change the drop to a fixed number? At least that would be a bit better than the doubled and tripled armor because it wouldn't go so far in the wrong way.
Strange, it looks to me a lot more like you clinging to your patently misleading superstitious mathematics.
You just did comment. :P
You are suggesting people should go through the PDF, copy the text, paste, and reformat? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of putting it into the PDF? |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Feb 22 2006, 06:55 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
No, I suggest YOU do it.
Would also stop you from posting the same things over and over again. . . |
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 06:58 PM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019 |
How do you read the speed charts? I'm confused.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 07:04 PM
Post
#82
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Not really, this is about helping you help others. As opposed to weighing them down with what appears to be nearly 7 extra pages of justification text and extra rules based on suspect logic and erroneous conclusions. The justification text could be put somewhere else out of the way since they are not actually part of the rules themselves. Even save a tree or three in case someone actually uses the rules and prints them out. Consider me your selfappointed editor. Sure some writers may not want an editor, but they can be the ones that could most sorely use one. http://www.signalstation.com/archives/001190.html ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 07:04 PM
Post
#83
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
I think I've decided that I like this one best (EDIT: Now with better labels):
How you read it is thus, the rows are established by your number of IP. Thus, if you have two IP, you'd get the - x - x row. The columns are segments of time. You go through them from left to right. So, let's say you've got two characters, one with IP 1 and one with IP 2. During combat, you'd go through four initiative passes. First pass, no one has an x, so no one acts. Second pass, the one with IP 2 has an x and gets to act. Then you're on pass 3 and the character with IP 1 gets to act. Finally, pass 4 where the character with IP 2 gets to act again. If two characters both have xs, you go off initiative scores. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 22 2006, 07:14 PM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019 |
I get it. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 07:29 PM
Post
#85
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
@TinkerGnome
So if I read that chart correctly a 4 IP character will always act first, and will act at least twice, and often three times before the 1 IP character acts? Aye Kurumba! What about spending a point of Edge, do you see that allowing any of the others act in the first Initiative Pass. Or in the second IP for the 1 IP characters? |
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 08:05 PM
Post
#86
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Yep. The chart was originally presented as part of a discussion of rules changes from SR2 to SR3. In SR2, a character with an initiative of 31 would act three times before a character with an intiative of 10. SR3 changed it to be that everyone would act and then you go on with diminishing numbers of actions. Taking the editions, you'd have this (for four actions, though in older editions there could be more than 4): SR2:
SR3 & SR4 RAW:
As you can see, the version I was throwing around is somewhere between the two versions. I don't think I'll be playing with this as a house rule, but I throw it out there because Serbitar proposes something similar in his rules package. Edge would be a perfect equalizer for allowing movement on the chart, as well, if you were to use it. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 22 2006, 08:25 PM
Post
#87
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
No way I'd play it because it is way too close to the SR2 model. SR3 might have pushed it a touch hard the other way, but allowing someone 3 actions before another character acts means a death sentence or bordom to the 1 IP character, depending on whether he is on the winning or losing side. Having only 1 IP, and even 2 IP alreadys puts you at a serious disadvantage because the Dodge penalties increase for each time you are attacked until you get to act. Pushing off the ability to get a shot or spell off or take cover until other people get multiple actions strikes me as piling on. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 08:55 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Well, you are talking about an unwired mundane in a firefight with dedicated combat specialists who have massive parts of their neural structural replaced to make them move faster than any human has a right to. As far as realism (and that's a loaded word here) goes, I find it hard to believe that the mundane should have a good shot at being able to dive behind cover before the wired-to-the-max sam can act (it's possible they'll have similar initiative scores).
Unwired mundanes would still be able to take on wired folks, but they'd need to be careful and be the instigator. Don't ignore combat drugs as being viable for a character that knows what he's about to get into. As far as moving into cover goes, unless there is some near to hand, the IP 1 character may be exposed for multiple passes, anyway. Movement is spaced out over an entire turn. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 10:10 PM
Post
#89
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
To put it very bluntly; Realism can bite my trouser cobra if it is heavily screwing with the fun at the table. Besides unless the 1 IP character is somehow otherwise augmented, or spend Edge, they likely have a decidedly less than good shot at diving for cover before the IP 4 character has a chance to humberize them. An unwired mundane is not the only instance. Most Technomancers will have 1 IP when not plugged into VR and many magicians will until they can afford the cost and danger of carrying around a Sustaining Focus dedicated to increasing their IP, they want to risk draining a spirit to sustain the spell, or they take the -2 die penalty to sustain the spell themselves.
Stop, drop, and roll! :) There is another thing, this 1 IP character does he effectively have his movement rate cut by 50%, can he start walking 2 Passes before he has his Complex Action, or once he does get going in the 3rd Pass does he move twice as fast as the 4 IP characters and 50% faster than 2 and 3 IP characters? The first is truely brutal. The last seems to toss out the window this notion of Realism. The middle isn't a whole lot better, but it is the least screw over the 1 IP guy option. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 10:25 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
I think, more IPs are that much better than in SR3, that i don't even want an additional boost. The 1 IP guy is screwed enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 10:36 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019 |
Dude, they spend, like, 5 essence or 5 magic to get 4 IP's. At that point, he's sacrificed enough of his god-given body to deserve to take on the Maker himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 10:46 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
I would only use that type of rule in a more deadly than standard game, but it makes a bit more sense than the "everyone acts then the fast guys get to go more". The 1 IP character would start moving on his pass and then keep moving until his next pass. He'd move 50% less on the first round and then the normal amount from then on.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 10:54 PM
Post
#93
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
I'd use that rule if I hated my mages, Technomancers, and anyone that hadn't tweaked out their character such as many VR riggers when they aren't driving. :( I'd also use it in a game where I wanted to either tweak out NPCs or have them be punching bags for the tweaked characters while the players of the non-tweaked characters were busy in the kitchen fixing up vittles. Welcome to SR2? BTW even if the 1 IP character managed to ambush the higher IP characters the higher IP characters would likely be long gone or heavily fortified before the 1 IP character got to act. That is assuming that you would force the 4 IP to take 3 actions of not attacking the ambushing character. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 11:08 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
On surprise, I'd simply start the combat round at the pass where the first ambusher gets to act. It'd work out about the same in the end, though you'd have to divorce yourself from the concept of "combat turns" as clearly defined 3 second blocks (they're still 3 seconds, just what starts and stops a turn is different).
Unless your characters regularly face foes with 4 IP, it really isn't that big an effect. The IP 1 character against an IP 2 character simply goes last. The IP 1 character against an IP 3 character goes last for one pass and then goes in initiative order on the next pass. The IP 4 character is the scary one, I agree, but that's something out of the reach of starting characters and most established characters (in fact, mages are the only ones who can easily reach 4 IP). IP 4 should be scary. However, I get a very distinct feeling that you don't want to have any kind of rational discussion about this, so I'm dropping it. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2006, 11:28 PM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Mages should never complain of having only 1 IP. They are gods incarnate in almost everything else. Hackers, at least in my universe where almost everything can be found and controlled in the matrix, come as a close second. Technomancers, using balanced rules, are comparable to hackers. Reflex monsters should shine somewhere, armoured trolls should shine somewhere. Hence my rules.
Thats what I've been saying for days . . . |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 11:38 PM
Post
#96
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Then you got the wrong impression. But the deeper I dig, the more questions that come up. The only good news I found so far I how you see implementing flat out denying the higher IP actions during an ambushing. Perhaps this would be tolerable in a high powered game where 1 IP was very rare, and those 1 IP were backdrop characters, less than fodder. It doesn't really matter as much because the 4 IP character is only going 1 for sure, and likely 2 actions ahead first. So I guess where it isn't making as much difference is where I could see it being ok. :) Short of that Butterblume summed it up the best. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 22 2006, 11:40 PM
Post
#97
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Sure, but you've been parroting a lot of things for days that make little or no sense. :P |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 23 2006, 01:40 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
No way in hell would I use the "fast guy goes first five times" rules in my game. Not only would it mean killing slower guys off more, it'd kill off the fun for anyone not playing a combat drone.
Then there's the fact that if I instituted something like that in my group, they'd just all play jacked up combat drones. That's so much fun. So much variety. If that's your bag, cool, but not I said the eidolon. I now return you to your regularly scheduled "I'm right" "Nuh-u, I'm right", already in progress. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Feb 23 2006, 02:06 AM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
come on guys, we've gotten WAY too serious with this thread, i need some more double-speak
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 23 2006, 02:26 AM
Post
#100
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Or go the opposite extreme, where 4IP characters either sacrificed 83% or more of their available resourced to reaction-enhancing 'ware, or have accumulated enough karma that in the old days they'd have karma pools of 20 or more. In this direction 4IP characters would be terrifying monsters, inspiring the mage's level of "Geek that guy first!" mentality. Which is, well, where Shadowrun seems to be already. How many characters are there that can get that magic 4th IP without essentially crippling every other aspect of their character? TinkerGnome's got a good point that surprise and ambushes would need to be changed as well to properly implement this rule. I think it's viable, but it would need a bit more serious discussion before it could ever be properly implemented. Another possible path to take is to just take the HERO system outline above and remove the last two rows. This would add in a virtual fifth pass, but more evenly space out actions, ergo:
In this case the guy with four IPs would certainly go twice, but definately not three times, before the 1IP guy would get to act. Anyway, it's all theory at this point; none of this is official, so it's not like you're "forced" to implement anything. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th March 2025 - 01:56 PM |
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.