IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why shoot grenades at people?
Ddays
post Jul 12 2007, 06:53 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 2-July 07
Member No.: 12,127



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Jul 12 2007, 06:59 AM
Post #2


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 07:10 AM
Post #3


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (mfb)
aiming the actual guy means that if you miss, the grenade goes flying off into the night.

Or off into the orphanage, if you angle it just right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ddays
post Jul 12 2007, 07:16 AM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 2-July 07
Member No.: 12,127



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 07:34 AM
Post #5


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (Ddays)
If that were the case, wouldn't it always be easier to just aim at the ground?

Yes. Which is why, for instance, that's how people do it in real life.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarantula
post Jul 12 2007, 08:14 AM
Post #6


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686



Note the FAQ says
QUOTE (FAQ http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/resources/faq.shtml)
Isn't tossing a grenade on the ground by someone's feet (a Success Test) easier than trying to hit them directly with a grenade (an Opposed Test)? Does everyone caught in the blast get a chance to dodge/react?

If the intent is to catch a target in the blast radius, then it should be an Opposed Test, whether the grenade is actually thrown at the target or thrown a few meters away.

If the intent is to catch a group of targets in the blast radius, the attacker still picks one as the primary target. The Opposed Test is made between the attacker and that target only, with scatter determined accordingly. Any targets caught in the blast radius make Damage Resistance Tests as normal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 09:36 AM
Post #7


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naysayer
post Jul 12 2007, 10:02 AM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 325
Joined: 9-December 06
From: the Maaatlock-Expressway!
Member No.: 10,326



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?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odinson
post Jul 12 2007, 10:05 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383



They should, but not according to rules. The grenade rules are sorta not good but they do keep things simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 10:33 AM
Post #10


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



Maybe people SHOULD go back to leaving deckers and riggers in their vans and bunkers !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Jul 12 2007, 10:39 AM
Post #11


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 11:29 AM
Post #12


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MaxHunter
post Jul 12 2007, 11:36 AM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 718
Joined: 10-September 05
From: Montevideo, in the elusive shadows of Latin America
Member No.: 7,727



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

Cheers,

Max
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serbitar
post Jul 12 2007, 11:38 AM
Post #14


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 4-August 05
From: ADL
Member No.: 7,534



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Jul 12 2007, 12:00 PM
Post #15


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,784
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Jul 12 2007, 02:08 PM
Post #16


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 02:17 PM
Post #17


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.

I think the problem is that as written (or at least as FAQ'ed or Errata'ed or whatever), you DON'T handle grenade attacks "per person." You target the slow guy, overwhelm his puny Reaction, and then everyone else in the blast radius has to suck up the damage (without getting to make an opposed test).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ravor
post Jul 12 2007, 02:20 PM
Post #18


Cybernetic Blood Mage
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 11-March 06
From: Northeastern Wyoming
Member No.: 8,361



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Jul 12 2007, 02:57 PM
Post #19


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,784
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.

I think the problem is that as written (or at least as FAQ'ed or Errata'ed or whatever), you DON'T handle grenade attacks "per person."

Ah, indeed. Scatter is determined after the target dodges. Ugh.

Well, for my games it's the other way round:

First, determine if you hit the inteded place at all: Determine Scatter.
Then, determine if and how you hit the target(s): Individual Dodge Tests.
Finally, individual Damage Resistance Tests.

Yes, that means even though you manage to zero in, your targets simply drop behind cover, etc. and evade the attack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 03:01 PM
Post #20


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (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.

Explosions don't care about "intent," and neither should game rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ravor
post Jul 12 2007, 03:06 PM
Post #21


Cybernetic Blood Mage
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,472
Joined: 11-March 06
From: Northeastern Wyoming
Member No.: 8,361



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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Jul 12 2007, 03:18 PM
Post #22


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,784
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



QUOTE (Ravor)
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.

But you do fancy the idea of making several addidional tests every fireball?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbangarth
post Jul 12 2007, 03:31 PM
Post #23


Old Man of the North
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,791
Joined: 14-August 03
From: Toronto - centre of the universe
Member No.: 5,463



QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (mfb @ Jul 12 2007, 01:59 AM)
aiming the actual guy means that if you miss, the grenade goes flying off into the night.

Or off into the orphanage, if you angle it just right.

Or, as in the case some years ago when the grenade my character hurled up onto the roof above us from which we were being sniped, a glitch brought the grenade back down on us.

The team was not happy with me. :S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 12 2007, 03:45 PM
Post #24


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (pbangarth)
Or, as in the case some years ago when the grenade my character hurled up onto the roof above us from which we were being sniped, a glitch brought the grenade back down on us.

The team was not happy with me. :S

Depending on the scatter, it doesn't even take a glitch to do that. My last big SR tabletop group was knocked out, to the man, when the troll decided to default to a grenade launchers test, indoors. He hit the wall in the center of a 't' intersection of hallways, where the group had taken cover from folks shooting at them from outside.

Chunky salsa, tight hallways, the group all nice and compact right there -- no glitch or critical failure required, he screwed the pooch into overflow physical damage with just the regular old failure he'd achieved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Big D
post Jul 12 2007, 04:45 PM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 12-April 06
Member No.: 8,455



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th August 2020 - 08:33 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.