 Rules question about comparing DV to armor, will a called shot do physical or stun? |
  |
 Jan 31 2008, 09:46 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 21-October 04 Member No.: 6,778  |
I have a rules question about Shadowrun 4th edition:
When a weapon is supposed to do Physical damage, I understand that you must compare a weapon's modified DV to a target's modified armor value to determine whether it does Physical or Stun damage. Hits you rolled add to the DV. I also understand that DV added on to the base DV of the weapon by using any kind of narrow burst does not count towards determining whether an attack does physical or stun damage. My question is this: When you make a Called Shot to add to the DV of your attack (page 150), does the additional DV you get for this kind of Called Shot count towards determining if an attack does physical or stun damage? |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 31 2008, 11:18 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2008, 01:38 PM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 777 Joined: 22-November 06 Member No.: 9,934 |
it modifies the DV, instead of counting at base DV for examples of why that is important see "hardened armor" on a side note could you point me in the direction that shows burst fire doesn't count against modified DV? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 31 2008, 02:07 PM
Post
#4
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,755 Joined: 5-September 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 9,313 |
Page 143 BBB top of page is only mention burst fire not effecting DV vs. Armor. This is obviously in need of clarification but I think has been well established on boards here. Additional rounds fired don'nt count towards DV when compareng it too armor. I think there should be a clear difference. Modifiers to DV and additions to DV, with modifiers not counting towards armor comparisons. Makes sense if you consider its a penetration issue, if first round is'nt powerful enough to pierce your armor, why would the others be? Edit: That might need some clarification the check vs armor is simply to determine if damage is physical or stun or if it will penetrate hardened armor not against damage resistance checks. That make sense? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 31 2008, 02:34 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Page 141, the black box on ranged combat?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2008, 02:42 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 777 Joined: 22-November 06 Member No.: 9,934 |
it could be less penetration damage and more internal bleeding and contusion broken bones, torn ligaments etc... even if you are completely armored it still REALLY hurts. thanks for the reference btw, the reference on 141 I took to mean full bursts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 31 2008, 02:59 PM
Post
#7
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,755 Joined: 5-September 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 9,313 |
I think this is why you still resist the full modified DV and take stun damage even if armor beats the unmodified DV. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 31 2008, 08:35 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 21-October 04 Member No.: 6,778 |
That's the other thing I was wondering about: if using a called shot to add to the DV of a weapon counts towards penetrating hardened/vehicle armor. But I assumed that since it's compared the same way like normal armor is to check for stun damage instead of physical, then the same modifiers would be used to check to see if you damage a target with hardened/vehicle armor or not. That is, everything that increases DV counts except narrow burst fire. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 31 2008, 09:27 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
That's my take on it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd December 2024 - 01:30 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.