Why shoot grenades at people? Options

[Ddays]

Isn't it strictly better to shoot grenades at the ground? Grenades never miss, and their opposed dodge check might actually increase scatter. Why not just aim it at their feet or where they're going to end up?

[mfb]

because that's what you're doing already. when you try to blow someone up with a grenade, you don't aim the grenade to hit them, you aim it at a surface near them--the ground just in front of them, generally. aiming the actual guy means that if you miss, the grenade goes flying off into the night.

[Critias]

[Ddays]

But there are rules to attack ground with grenade launchers on page 145, it's a success test instead of an opposed test.

If that were the case, wouldn't it always be easier to just aim at the ground? I suppose your GM could rule that if you at the ground, there's a chance that a moving person might have gone out of the blast radius, but that's not really an issue with airburst link.

[Critias]

[Tarantula]

Note the FAQ says

[Critias]

I guess that's a good reason for the quick guys to not stand too close to the slow guys, huh?

Since you can just lob your grenade specifically at the gimp of a rigger in his spiffy wheelchair, beat his ass in the opposed test, and then all the super ninja Reaction eight million adepts and sammies still have to make damage resistance tests against it.

[Naysayer]

Hmmm...
But shouldn't the super-fast crowd be like, fast? Be able to see that grenade tumble towards their velocitically challenged friend? And realistically be allowed to, I don't know, go on full defense with an interrupt-action or I don't know, run for cover - and leave their pal out in the lof to die alone, like we's do in tha shadows?

[odinson]

They should, but not according to rules. The grenade rules are sorta not good but they do keep things simple.

[Critias]

Maybe people SHOULD go back to leaving deckers and riggers in their vans and bunkers !!

[ShadowDragon8685]

I hate to say it, but mighten't it be simpler to just make a success test on an area, and then have everyone make reaction against a set threshold based on the grenade and whether or not you have airburst link?

[Critias]

Well, yes. That would be simpler, and make more sense. In fact, to me, rather than even setting a threshold the simplest solution might be to say you move 1 meter per success on that reaction/dodge check -- and then calculate damage from there (based on the targeted spot, and your location in relation to it at the start of the attack).

Those nearest the targeted point still get punished for being, well, nearest the targeted point. Everyone involved gets to try and ditch the blast, and you don't see someone just doing a cartwheel and being inexplicably untouched by a grenade exploding at their feet (IE, you only get away from the blast if you get away from the blast).

[MaxHunter]

... and that is exactly how we have been doing it! Of course I agree with you there, critias.

Cheers,

Max

[Serbitar]

simple rule:

Opposed test (attack target): You can stage damage up using net hits in your opposed test on this target only

success test (attack ground): damage does not stage up

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.

[Aaron]

I suspect the problem with the grenade rules is the "legacy code," if you will, from previous editions. In those rules, there was no opposed test for attacks, and so an attack roll with a grenade could determine where a grenade landed independently of the abilities of the target(s). With the implementation of opposed tests, it suddenly matters how quick the target is, which is a concept that is incompatible with the idea of absolute positioning.

I don't blame anybody for wanting to keep grenade positioning. Without it, we lose the scatter diagram and associated table, along with the chunky salsa effect.

I've been allowing characters to try to put the grenades where they want, using the scatter diagram and table, and then since the exploding grenade creates a field of high-velocity bits of metal, I use the same rules for another situation involving a field of high-velocity bits of metal: suppressive fire. So, I roll for scatter, compare the attacker's hits with each defenders' Reaction + Edge (I think -- no rules here at work).

[Critias]

[Ravor]

Which as why I wouldn't allow the "slow guy" to be singled out if the primary target was intended to be the group as a whole.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Critias]

[Ravor]

You're right, they shouldn't, however the problem is that RAW doesn't work if you allow everyone to drop a fireball on top of 'the slow guy'.

Add to the fact that I don't fancy the idea of making several additional tests everytime grenades, ect are used and I think a nice midddle ground can be achieved.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[pbangarth]

[Critias]

[Big D]

The "intent" comes into play because you don't want to just put a grenade onto a patch of ground, you want to put it onto a patch of ground really close to a particular target. Think about the realtime process--you aim, target's moving, you have to track it or it'll get out of the blast radius.

In other cases, however, you want to target a specific point in space, and if the targets clear out while you're aiming, that's just too bad.

The problem is, since gameplay is based on IP and not realtime, it opens up a disparity in how those two cases work. Original RAW allowed the latter case to be used as an excuse to nail agile targets, bypassing half their defense rolls. Currently, it's the other way around--you can't really place a grenade "halfway between those two guys", which kinda makes sense if if they're moving, but tends to fall apart if they're staying put.

The best solution in theory is to divide up the cases--as mentioned, aiming at a point in space is an awful lot like suppression fire. However, I think that still allows a loophole to develop that players can exploit.