NPC effectivness cannot be measured by BP cost

NPC effectivness cannot be measured by BP cost, A Rant

Options

Tarantula

Oct 15 2007, 05:39 PM

Post #51

Dragon

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

QUOTE (Cain)

Also, there is absolutely no rule that says that you cannot affect the vehcicle while targeting a passenger

SR4, 162. "Attacks must specifically target either the passengers (in which case, the vehicle is unaffected) or the vehicle itself (in which case, the passengers are not affected). The exceptions to this rule are ramming, full-automatic bursts and area-effect weapon attacks like grenades and rockets—these attacks affect both passengers and vehicles."

Yes, there is.

Orient View Member Profile	Oct 15 2007, 05:46 PM Post #52
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 184 Joined: 29-August 03 Member No.: 5,553	Edit: Whoops - I posted on the wrong thread. Dammit.

Fortune View Member Profile	Oct 15 2007, 05:48 PM Post #53
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	And yet the rule (that I quoted above) is quite clear on just how the vehicle's armor is added to a passenger if and/or when they are targeted.

James McMurray

Oct 15 2007, 05:49 PM

Post #54

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (mfb)

again, it's not stupid to make a 900bp gimp unless you're intending to use him to challenge a group of runners. which is the whole point of the thread--should a character count as a superhuman prime runner simply because he's got the requisite amount of BPs, even if they're all spent on learning dead languages? or should there be some other qualifying criteria?

QUOTE

Except even with a Pilot 6, it has to make a Crast test with a threshold of 3. Given 6 dice, that's 2 successes. The banshee crashes into your ego, scattering it into little pieces.

1) There's nothing that has happened which will cause a crash test, unless the pilot was in the middle of a maneuver that might cause a crash.

2) Sorry I forgot to mention the obvious inclusion of a Maneuver autosoft. I assumed that it would be clear to anyone reading that the owner of a Banshee would also give it the 2,000 :nuyen: autosoft. That and the +1 handling gives it 11 dice. Even if the GM rules it has to make a crash test, it is unlikely to fail.

3) I'm curious where you pulled the difficulty 3 for the test from. It looks like you looked at the Crash heading, but that only deals with when a vehicle takes damage. Unless the pilot was in the middle of a difficult maneuver when he had a heart attack from laughing so hard at the bullets bouncing off his windshield, the difficulty is at worst 1 for normal straight line flying.

Yep, he counts as a prime runner. But he's not going to be getting a lot of jobs outside his area of expertise. The term "prime runner" is a bit of a misnomer, since nothing says these NPCs should actually be runners.

Orient View Member Profile	Oct 15 2007, 05:53 PM Post #55
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 184 Joined: 29-August 03 Member No.: 5,553	One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall. Could this be applied to the argument in question? Mebbe.

mfb

Oct 15 2007, 05:57 PM

Post #56

Immortal Elf

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

QUOTE (Tarantula)

By that logic, then characters take reaction penalties for being in a vehicle, since the vehicle armor counts as part of the targets armor. And almost all vehicle armor would encumber a character.

actually not true, since the armor and encumbrance section does specify that it applies to armor that the character is wearing.

James McMurray

Oct 15 2007, 05:59 PM

Post #57

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (Cain)

PS: I didn't bring it up this time. Everyone else on Dumpshock has discovered how broken called shots are; someday, you'll realize how obvious it is.

If you took as much time reading my posts as you do trying to make cute attacks, you'd realize that I've said several times that in a group with someone who is intent on abusing the rules and a GM who refuses to follow the rule which states that he determines what is appropriate, the longshot test combined with the called shot rules are broken. So you see, I'm actually on your side on this one, you just fail to realize it because (I assume) you're still living in the past and retreading conversations we had years ago.

James McMurray

Oct 15 2007, 06:02 PM

Post #58

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (Orient)

One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall.

Presumably this is why the called shot rules require the GM's ok before the dice are rolled, so that each GM can determine how vulnerable he wants GMC Banshee passengers to be on their own.

Me, I'd opt for "not vulnerable at all" but I could see where "made of paper" could fit in a Golgo 13 style campaign.

mfb

Oct 15 2007, 06:10 PM

Post #59

Immortal Elf

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

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Yep, he counts as a prime runner. But he's not going to be getting a lot of jobs outside his area of expertise. The term "prime runner" is a bit of a misnomer, since nothing says these NPCs should actually be runners.

except that he can't fulfill the role as outlined in the book. he can't "take on the entire PC group single-handedly and win", unless they're in some sort of bizarre scenario the likely sole purpose of which is justifying the NPC as a superhuman prime runner.

moreover, i don't think the rules really say that any NPC with X number of BPs is automatically a prime runner of category Y. all they say is you should use X number of BPs if you want to build a prime runner of category Y.

Tarantula

Oct 15 2007, 06:13 PM

Post #60

Dragon

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

QUOTE (Fortune)

And yet the rule (that I quoted above) is quite clear on just how the vehicle's armor is added to a passenger if and/or when they are targeted.

QUOTE (SR4 @ 162)

Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the Armor of the vehicle to any personal armor the characters are wearing.

QUOTE (SR4 @ 149)

Too much armor, however, can slow a character down. If either of a character’s armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body is exceeded.

Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. Since vehicular armor adds to the characters armor, almost any character is unable to move once entering a T-Bird. Because their agility and reaction is reduced so much.

Fortune

Oct 15 2007, 06:14 PM

Post #61

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (Orient)

One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall.

And it might be that in that case, the Called Shot is actually a planned ricochet that hits it's mark. I say it depends on the situation ... and a good GM.

Orient

Oct 15 2007, 06:16 PM

Post #62

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 29-August 03
Member No.: 5,553

QUOTE (Tarantula)

QUOTE (Fortune @ Oct 15 2007, 11:48 AM)

And yet the rule (that I quoted above) is quite clear on just how the vehicle's armor is added to a passenger if and/or when they are targeted.

QUOTE (SR4 @ 162)

Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the Armor of the vehicle to any personal armor the characters are wearing.

QUOTE (SR4 @ 149)

Too much armor, however, can slow a character down. If either of a character’s armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body is exceeded.

Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. Since vehicular armor adds to the characters armor, almost any character is unable to move once entering a T-Bird. Because their agility and reaction is reduced so much.

I gotta say, my (admittedly low) acrobatic ability is somewhat limited when I climb into a car.

Come on, guys. Barriers and armor aren't the same thing across every aspect of the rules. A character doesn't suddenly get clumsy if his mage friend casts Physical Barrier around a mutual opponent.

Orient

Oct 15 2007, 06:17 PM

Post #63

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 29-August 03
Member No.: 5,553

QUOTE (Fortune)

QUOTE (Orient @ Oct 16 2007, 03:53 AM)

One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall.

And it might be that in that case, the Called Shot is actually a planned ricochet that hits it's mark. I say it depends on the situation ... and a good GM.

Easier to ricochet around plywood than around concrete, hmn? :P

DireRadiant

Oct 15 2007, 06:19 PM

Post #64

The Dragon Never Sleeps

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,924
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,667

QUOTE (Tarantula)

QUOTE (SR4 @ 149)

Too much armor, however, can slow a character down. If either of a character’s armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body is exceeded.

Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. Since vehicular armor adds to the characters armor, almost any character is unable to move once entering a T-Bird. Because their agility and reaction is reduced so much.

Tarantula, is that the section on Armor and Encumbrance on p. 149 that starts with the phrase "If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time..."?

I certainly agree with you that if a character is wearing a vehicle they may be encumbered.

However, I doubt this is the case when working in conjunction with the Damage and Passengers section on p. 162.

Fortune

Oct 15 2007, 06:19 PM

Post #65

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (Tarantula)

Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2.

You are right. The thing is though that the vehicle section clearly outlines where an exception to these rules (or even a variation if you prefer) is made. Instead of adding penalties for the entirety of the vehicle's armor, you instead only suffer a -2 because there is still some room to move around.

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily advocating the entirety of Cain's Called Shot scenario. Don't read more into my posts than I actually write. :D

DireRadiant View Member Profile	Oct 15 2007, 06:21 PM Post #66
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667	I heard the Devil quotes Scripture....

Tarantula

Oct 15 2007, 06:24 PM

Post #67

Dragon

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

While this doesn't fix the called shot to characters inside a vehicle, it does fix the called shot to destroy vehicles outright.

QUOTE (SR4 @ 150)

If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body.

The armor is only ignored for the damage resistance test. As long as the modified damage is less than the vehicles armor modified by AP, the attack has no effect, and there is no damage resistance test.

Tarantula

Oct 15 2007, 06:27 PM

Post #68

Dragon

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

QUOTE (DireRadiant)

Tarantula, is that the section on Armor and Encumbrance on p. 149 that starts with the phrase "If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time..."?

I certainly agree with you that if a character is wearing a vehicle they may be encumbered.

However, I doubt this is the case when working in conjunction with the Damage and Passengers section on p. 162.

It does start with "If If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time" which deals with stacking armor. That isn't the case, as characters are only wearing 1 piece of armor, plus being in a vehicle. The next paragraph is what I quoted. Dealing only with amounts of too much armor.

James McMurray

Oct 15 2007, 06:30 PM

Post #69

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957

QUOTE (mfb)

except that he can't fulfill the role as outlined in the book. he can't "take on the entire PC group single-handedly and win"

Sure he can, if they're acting within his sphere of expertise: dead languages.

Again, common sense is needed. If you're taking the time to stat up Uber-Linguistics Man, presumably it's because you need stats for Uber-Linguistics Man, not Shoots Big Holes In Things Guy. And so, for the purpose to which he was designed, the NPC is a Prime Runner.

DireRadiant

Oct 15 2007, 06:31 PM

Post #70

The Dragon Never Sleeps

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,924
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,667

QUOTE (Tarantula)

QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Oct 15 2007, 12:19 PM)

Tarantula, is that the section on Armor and Encumbrance on p. 149 that starts with the phrase "If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time..."?

I certainly agree with you that if a character is wearing a vehicle they may be encumbered.

However, I doubt this is the case when working in conjunction with the Damage and Passengers section on p. 162.

It does start with "If If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time" which deals with stacking armor. That isn't the case, as characters are only wearing 1 piece of armor, plus being in a vehicle. The next paragraph is what I quoted. Dealing only with amounts of too much armor.

You mean the second paragraph of this section

"Armor and Encumbrance

If a character is wearing more
than one piece of armor at a time,
only the highest value (for either
Ballistic or Impact) applies. Note
that some armor items, like helmets
and shields, provide a modifi
er to the worn armor rating and
so do not count as stacked armor.

Too much armor, however,
can slow a character down. If either
of a character’s armor ratings
exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1
modifi er to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction
thereof ) that his Body is exceeded. Note that this may aff ect
Initiative as well. If a character is wearing multiple armor items,
add their ratings together before comparing to Body."

Is a completely independent rule not to be provided the same context as the preceding paragraph?

Shouldn't it be in a separate section header or something?

mfb

Oct 15 2007, 06:41 PM

Post #71

Immortal Elf

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

indeed. even in the section Tarantula is limiting his argument to, it says "If a character is wearing multiple armor items, add their ratings together before comparing to Body."

QUOTE (James McMurray)

And so, for the purpose to which he was designed, the NPC is a Prime Runner.

that's what i've been trying to say the whole time--it's not a prime runner if the GM isn't sitting down and saying "i want to make a prime runner". NPC + 900 BP != prime runner.

hyzmarca

Oct 15 2007, 06:41 PM

Post #72

Midnight Toker

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456

QUOTE (James McMurray)

QUOTE (mfb @ Oct 15 2007, 01:10 PM)

except that he can't fulfill the role as outlined in the book. he can't "take on the entire PC group single-handedly and win"

Sure he can, if they're acting within his sphere of expertise: dead languages.

Again, common sense is needed. If you're taking the time to stat up Uber-Linguistics Man, presumably it's because you need stats for Uber-Linguistics Man, not Shoots Big Holes In Things Guy. And so, for the purpose to which he was designed, the NPC is a Prime Runner.

Lauguage skills aren't exactly dangerous or deadly, unless you're playing a campaign based on The Evil Dead.

Tarantula View Member Profile	Oct 15 2007, 06:42 PM Post #73
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686	Wearing more than once piece of armor just says that if you do that, only the best applies. Helmets and shields are modifiers, and don't count as seperate armor. It then goes on to say if the rating is too high, then you take penalties. This implies that you take penalties from both helmets and shields as well as worn armor, which is why it is phrased the way it is. Consequently, this also makes characters take penalties for being in a vehicle. To fix it, just tag a line at the characters in vehicle section saying "vehicular armor added in this way doesn't effect a characters encumbrance".

DireRadiant

Oct 15 2007, 06:43 PM

Post #74

The Dragon Never Sleeps

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,924
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,667

QUOTE (mfb)

not to mention the fact that even in the section Tarantula is limiting his argument to, it says "If a character is wearing multiple armor items,
add their ratings together before comparing to Body."

Tarantula is claiming the second paragraph has no relation to the first, therefore the "wearing" bit is irrelevant to the argument.

Tarantula

Oct 15 2007, 06:44 PM

Post #75

Dragon

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

QUOTE (mfb)

not to mention the fact that even in the section Tarantula is limiting his argument to, it says "If a character is wearing multiple armor items,
add their ratings together before comparing to Body."

No, you don't add them together. Only the highest counts for armor, and you use that rating. Read your book.

It discusses armor and encumbrance. First, it addresses that you can't wear more than one piece of armor and have it count. Then, it addresses what it actually is about, encumbrance due to armor.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »