My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Staging, ...how many successes? |
 Oct 12 2003, 06:33 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 24-September 03 From: Albany, OR Member No.: 5,643  |
That we are. =) |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Oct 12 2003, 07:55 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 227 Joined: 18-August 03 Member No.: 5,513 |
Uhmmm, I'm not contesting that, but someone else seemed to be under the mis-apprehension that if the attacker had 0 successes, the target wouldn't be damaged. This is in fact only the case if the attacker missed outright. :wobble: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 12 2003, 07:56 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Or if it was dodge test successes that moved the total number of successes to zero.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 07:57 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Because a combat turn is only 3 seconds, and unless you're being very destructive, it'll take at least that long for his body to fully stop functioning. A single shot can cause some very nasty, and possibly permanent damage; but if help arrives within 3 seconds, his chances of survival are much better. Oh, and don't forget-- it's possible to take a Light wound from a heavy pistol shot. Let's go back to the examples: Joe is shooting at an unfortunate by the name of Liam. Joe takes aim with his trusty Ares Predator (9M, no modifiers) and scores 5 successes. Liam spends 3 Combat Pool on a dodge, all of which succeed, but that's not enough. He then makes a Resistance roll, resulting in another 4 successes. Because Liam's Dodge test wasn't high enough, he was hit. Liam has a total of 7 successes to stage down the damage, but Joe scored 5 in staging it back up. The net result is that Joe's base damage (9M) is staged down once, to 9L. If Liam had scored two more successes, either Dodge or Soak, he would have taken no damage. This post has been edited by Cain: Oct 12 2003, 08:03 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 12 2003, 08:07 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Overdamage accrues at what, one/combat round? So a typical human (Body 3) with a gunshot wound to the head dies in nine seconds.
Sounds reasonable to me. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 08:07 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 227 Joined: 18-August 03 Member No.: 5,513 |
No, in fact pg 113 of Shadow Run Third Edition, a.k.a. the BBB, is pretty explicit. The Dodge test needs to have more successes than the shooter's number of successes, a tie goes to the person shooting, but dodge successes get to be used to stage down still. P.S. Don't you love/hate long weekends? :twirl: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 12 2003, 08:13 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Ok, then I'm wrong.
Pardon me while I now proceed to kill everywho who has viewed this thread in order to remove the evidence. Mmm, long weekends... :D ~J |
|
|
|
 Oct 12 2003, 08:29 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
The Sewer Jockey Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 857 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Kent, United Kingdom Member No.: 1,197 |
No, they take one box every (Body) rounds, don't they? So, by your example, wouldn't they die in 27 seconds? And thanks to the wonderful, amorphus "no hit location" damage rules, there are no head shots... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 12 2003, 08:31 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
A Deadly wound is whatever the GM says it is, including a headshot. It just isn't any different than ten light pistol shots to the left arm in a single turn.
~J [edit]And you're right. So it can be kinda silly if the GM decides that it was a headshot, but a troll with a sniper rifle round lodged in his aorta probably would take a really long time to actually die. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 09:04 PM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
I am not disputing that overflow damage exists. I AM disputing the mere idea that you can deal more than 10 boxes of damage in a single non-naval scale ranged attack under the standard damage staging rules. I'm going to just quote the entire section from page 126 for your benefit that pertains to this. This section is apparently not getting read. May the SR gods forgive me for posting this much out of the book.
Is anyone disputing that this is an optional rule? If you dispute this being an optional rule and therefore it is how combat normally works, then this conversation simply can't continue because we are reading the rules in a fundamentally different fashion. Edit: Minor clarification. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 12 2003, 09:44 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Optional and normal are not paralell, the rule may be optional, but if 99% of all GM's use it, then it is also normal, while not using it would be abnormal. Normal is subjective. I think it stands to reason that nearly everyone, if not everyone here that GM's uses that rule... If they didn't we wouldn't be talking about it like it's fact.
Text in context is a good thing in a conversation :D |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 09:59 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 24-September 03 From: Albany, OR Member No.: 5,643 |
Modesitt, since that IS an option, let's say I ignore it. Now its rules do not exist, the text is virtually erased from my SR3. With that in mind, I challenge you to find me other text that says over damage cannot be applied in one hit, from a fresh, no wound target.
You can't. While we have already noted that sometimes the rules do not make sense, there are also times where the rules are put in odd places. Personally, I think one bullet, no matter what its range of damage is, should be able to kill in one shot. Without reading that optional text I find suporting evidence for my theory in the standard section of the rules. The problem I am having right now is with combat defining text being inserted within optional rules. Why is it that the text that states "the standard damage rules prevent characters from certain death" is located outside of the MAIN OVERDAMAGE paragraph?!? It makes no sense and is what started all of this silly mess. So now, after reading all the text, I am going to stick by how I do things. I read the standard rules and came to my conclusion, you all say the OD is an option. Either way, it is the same effect in my games. =) So, I guess I run a more deadly game. Shhh... Don't tell my players... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 10:11 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Nindaru, because the rules do NOT address something is never a valid argument EVER. The rules do not say that you cannot lasso the moon with a rope, pull real hard and smash it into the bad guy's head.
The rules do not say a literally infinite number of things. This makes that an invalid argument. We are dealing with what the rules DO say, and with the exception of the optional rule on Deadlier Overdamage the rules never say that that is possible. They do not in fact mention it in any way shape or form. That makes it entirely a GM's call, and whatever he calls is by definition a house rule, since the rules do not address it. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 11:37 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
The Sewer Jockey Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 857 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Kent, United Kingdom Member No.: 1,197 |
But by that path of thinking, BitBasher, I equally challenge you to find for me, in the rules a means of accruing more than 10 boxes of thysical damage, from a single shot whilst avoiding the Deadlier Overdamage optional rule.
If you can, it's worth a :notworthy: to ya... ;) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2003, 11:45 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Again, naval damage. Barring that, I'll let someone else try to look if they want.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 12:08 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 24-September 03 From: Albany, OR Member No.: 5,643 |
You can't. I guess I am just pissed that the only place it is addressed is in an area that I would have disregarded due to it being part of the option text. Next time I will read the entire text. So, we have established that the rules do not say you can, nor do they say you cannot (outside of the optional text). Figures. LOL |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 13 2003, 12:16 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Righty-o it's only either naval damage or an option rule. Other than that it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 12:19 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 24-September 03 From: Albany, OR Member No.: 5,643 |
Where is this Naval Damage stuff located? (I just found it amusing because I and a few of my friends are Navy.)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 01:16 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 474 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 90 |
Naval Damage is in Rigger 3. It's a higher scale of damage used for rating POWERFUL weapons, like naval guns/cannons/railguns, anti-warship missiles and torpedos, and IIRC some heavy tank cannons/railguns.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 09:13 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
The Sewer Jockey Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 857 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Kent, United Kingdom Member No.: 1,197 |
Yes. It's just as silly, though, as imagining a tank's main weapon. You get shot with that and you're chunky salsa too...
Curse those Naval Weapons... they're too extreme! Why should they need rules for them in SR? I'm breaking into a research facility, damnit, who gives a monkey's nut about railguns? |
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 11:08 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 24-September 03 From: Albany, OR Member No.: 5,643 |
DB, forget rail guns, I want to see someone create a Coilgun a.k.a. Gauss Gun.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 11:30 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,451 Joined: 21-April 03 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 4,488 |
Because if your rigger is attempting to fly the tbird by the installation, they may have a nice pretty artillery gun waiting for him.
The Abstruse One |
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 12:05 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 24-September 03 From: Albany, OR Member No.: 5,643 |
Hehe... Give me initiative and a Gauss Gun and I ask you... What artillery...? =0
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 12:21 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Because they know runners get into crazy hijinks, and they wanted to have naval damage waiting for them on the other side.
Or because they know sometimes people play Desert Wars campaigns, in which this stuff makes rather a lot of sense. Also, I'll take a railgun over a gauss gun anyday, as a point of style if nothing else. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2003, 12:31 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 19-March 02 From: Sydney Arcology, United Brotherhood Offices. Member No.: 2,417 |
Lets not forget the ever popular, "I shoot them with the super secret research project that we are stealing"
so it's good to know how much damage they take when it backfires. :dead: :twirl: :eek: |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 06:29 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.