Non shiva-arms trollBow, I felt bad about the Uber Troll Bow topic, so here's a better one& Options

[longbowrocks]

No, the unupdated version of the pdf says rating 12. This isn't some discrepancy in sources - it's deliberately picking a pre-eratta version of something.

Ah, I had assumed that the pdf was more up to date than the book, but I guess my GM could have a later copy.

[toturi]

Yeah because nothing more fun than building a metagamed, overpowerd, game killing character thats more about stats, numbers and loopholing rules, then personality and authenticity.

Ah, but then the real challenge is to put personality and authencity to such a character. First you build the mechanics of the character than you wrap it up in a plausible cover story.
I do not think that it is impossible that an arrow could plausibly damage an armored vehicle, it is just that most people are unable to wrap their heads around such an occurance.

[Method]

I don't get how you're doubling the damage. Does the MRSI software do that? Really? If it does, then War! is even more incredibly unbalanced than I've been hearing.

My playtest group actually warned against this because we thought it was a little too powerful. They took our feedback in part on Overlapping Grenade Blasts (we also suggested that the base damage for a single grenade be used to determine hardened armor penetration but...). We made the same suggestions for MRSI.

Mind you, the MRSI concept is used in real life but it's based on additive effects of explosive artillery shells. I don't think it's intended for game-breaking troll archers.

[longbowrocks]

Not the point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Even if 45 wasn't significantly more than 36 (because they're both just examples), one big hit is better than 6 small hits. It matters against armored metahumans, but it matters *a ton* against vehicles and spirits.

People don't like the idea of a bow tearing open a tank or a spirit, when most firearms will do literally nothing against the same enemy. You made this point yourself in the first post, man.

"Assuming your hits cancel out the defender's reflex roll to dodge, and his resistance test afterwards"
And actually, if the total damage dealt (after resistance) is near (not even equal to) the single hit, then the small hits are better since they allow you to spread your damage. In my experience, GMs tend to swarm you rather than send one big enemy. And you can't hide from/maneuver around the swarm nearly as easily.

Here's a better example off the top of my head:
Barret 121 = 9 DV -4 AP
add AV rounds for -4/-6 AP
12 AGI
6 EDGE
8 longarms
+2 sniper rifle
+2 smartgun
= 30 Dice pool

I wasn't rolling for the tank correctly before, so here are the new results:
Tank has 66 dice pool vs bow, and buys 16 hits.
Tank has 56 dice pool vs rifle, and buys 14 hits.

Bow gets modified DV 45 for 1 attack = (45-16) = 29 Damage vs Tank's 26 boxes
Rifle gets modified DV 19 for 6 attacks = (19-14)*6 = 30 Damage vs Tank's 26 boxes

The Bow has been powergamed to the limit to kill this tank. That is all it can do.
Rifle can outdo the bow, AND kill six enemies per combat turn.

[Yerameyahu]

I did read that part, longbowrocks. Did you read mine? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's a question of beating armor, not merely dealing with multiple dodge and soak tests. You do understand that 19 DV against that tank's 36 armor does literally 0 damage, right?

And even against targets with less than 19 armor, when you use the single most overpowered rifle (literally assault cannon power) in super-optimal conditions, you just hide the issue. It's like saying Superman isn't too strong, because God can beat him. And you're right: the bow isn't better at multiple small enemies… but that's not what we're talking about at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I just don't see why you're arguing against yourself. Your own posts already said that it's a game-wrecking 'numerical exercise' that can kill anything in 3 seconds.

[longbowrocks]

My playtest group actually warned against this because we thought it was a little too powerful. They took our feedback in part on Overlapping Grenade Blasts (we also suggested that the base damage for a single grenade be used to determine hardened armor penetration but...). We made the same suggestions for MRSI.

Mind you, the MRSI concept is used in real life but it's based on additive effects of explosive artillery shells. I don't think it's intended for game-breaking troll archers.

Actually, I was starting to get tired of struggling against the rules. My next aim was to build a game breaking grenadier. Firing selection change from arsenal allows Full auto grenade launchers, enabling full auto narrow or wide bursts. This can Attack. Multiple. Targets. And still do serious damage to a tank.

Again, you can one shot enemies with pretty much any weapon in the game. The bow just makes it the ONLY shot you can make.

[Draco18s]

Going down that road only leads to Pun-Pun. A thought exercise and not a legitimate character.

[toturi]

Going down that road only leads to Pun-Pun. A thought exercise and not a legitimate character.

A thought exercise is only one player away from being a legitimate character. Remove the player from any legitimate character and it is only a though exercise.

[longbowrocks]

I did read that part, longbowrocks. Did you read mine? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's a question of beating armor, not merely dealing with multiple dodge and soak tests. You do understand that 19 DV against that tank's 36 armor does literally 0 damage, right?

And even against targets with less than 19 armor, when you use the single most overpowered rifle (literally assault cannon power) in super-optimal conditions, you just hide the issue. It's like saying Superman isn't too strong, because God can beat him. And you're right: the bow isn't better at multiple small enemies… but that's not what we're talking about at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I just don't see why you're arguing against yourself. Your own posts already said that it's a game-wrecking 'numerical exercise' that can kill anything in 3 seconds.

I fail to understand what you're saying here. The rules in 4e dictate that you roll your armor + body for the damage resistance test, so... Ah, I know what you're referencing. I almost lost my head there man, give a guy a hint. Anyway, sorry about missing what you meant before about the armor. The combat rules in this game are a mess. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
If the attack's modified DV does not exceed the armor's modified rating, the attack automatically fails.
However, the modified Armor rating is 20 (30-10) and the modified DV of the attack is 19 average. You'll still get a hit about half the time, so maybe two combat turns to destroy it?
If that isn't strong enough, you can always get the Panther XXL (which can be fitted with Firing Selection Change) or the Ares Thunderstruck gauss (which probably can't, but I can wish).

And what do you mean "super optimal conditions"? The bow needed much more restrictive conditions (example: target can't move after first shot is fired. Kind of a game breaker unless the tank forgot what makes it a tank).

[Method]

A thought exercise is only one player away from being a legitimate character. Remove the player from any legitimate character and it is only a though exercise.

The difference is that a rational character can exist in balance with the game world (I.e.- legitimate). Actually playing this character would require everyone at the table and all opposition to be equally as ridiculous. That's great if you like to play "Troll Bow" and hope the opposition doesn't get the first shot.

Me, I like to play Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[K1ll5w1tch]

The difference is that a rational character can exist in balance with the game world (I.e.- legitimate). Actually playing this character would require everyone at the table and all opposition to be equally as ridiculous. That's great if you like to play "Troll Bow" and hope the opposition doesn't get the first shot.

Me, I like to play Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Exactly but with all that massiveness of the mighty troll bow I'm sure his Will is all of about 2 or 3 so I'll have my metagamed mega mage control mind on him and make him shoot himself with that silly bow of his.

[toturi]

The difference is that a rational character can exist in balance with the game world (I.e.- legitimate). Actually playing this character would require everyone at the table and all opposition to be equally as ridiculous. That's great if you like to play "Troll Bow" and hope the opposition doesn't get the first shot.

Me, I like to play Shadowrun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

A rational character need not exist in balance with the game world. That rational character can be a force majuere and still be rational. Playing this character does not require everyone at the table and all opposition to be equally ridiculous (to use your words, not that I think that such a character is ridiculous at all).

Playing Troll Bow is playing Shadowrun.

[longbowrocks]

A rational character need not exist in balance with the game world. That rational character can be a force majuere and still be rational. Playing this character does not require everyone at the table and all opposition to be equally ridiculous (to use your words, not that I think that such a character is ridiculous at all).

Playing Troll Bow is playing Shadowrun.

I feel strong kinship. TrollBros for life.

[longbowrocks]

Exactly but with all that massiveness of the mighty troll bow I'm sure his Will is all of about 2 or 3 so I'll have my metagamed mega mage control mind on him and make him shoot himself with that silly bow of his.

That WILL guess was on the button.
I wasn't even thinking of that aspect of balance. Instead I took 60 pts of negative qualities (don't worry, I only credited myself 35, and they fit well with my roleplay).

[Method]

A rational character need not exist in balance with the game world. That rational character can be a force majuere and still be rational.

Sure if that's what you enjoy.

Playing this character does not require everyone at the table and all opposition to be equally ridiculous (to use your words, not that I think that such a character is ridiculous at all).

It does if you want to challenge this PC without killing everyone with him. There arent many ways to do that that aren't contrived. Thus you either change the whole world or... change the whole world.

Playing Troll Bow is playing Shadowrun.

. Only in so far as trolls and bows both exist in the system and a troll can use a bow within the rules. Beyond that we clearly disagree.

[Irion]

How I love things like this. This is always the time for a GM to smile.
Players tend to forget so much, if using such builds.
"You know, you are in a building?"
"You know you are in a narrow street with neon signs everywhere?"
Etc....

[toturi]

It does if you want to challenge this PC without killing everyone with him. There arent many ways to do that that aren't contrived. Thus you either change the whole world or... change the whole world.

That is correct. If you want to challenge this PC. When the whole point of the PC is probably not to be challenged. No need to change the whole world at all.

[Yerameyahu]

longbowrocks, I read your post as specifying 36 armor. If it's less than that, then the Barrett might indeed hurt it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Sometimes. Remember that you have to *exceed* the armor.

My point about optimal was that the Barrett in the configuration shown is perhaps the *only* firearm that could beat the armor and do more than literally zero damage. Using unimaginably high stats and Edge. So it's hardly a general point about bows vs. firearms. You did indeed optimize the bow, but you don't need 45DV to crack a tank. You only need 30 or 36 (whichever the armor is), and every target in the game is weaker than that. You could kill a Boston-class attack sub.

It's arguable that any of the assault cannons can have Firing Selection Change; it doesn't matter, because Burst fire doesn't help against armor. The only proviso is that Wide Bursts *can* help you eke out an extra hit or two against targets who are already dodging well.

The Gauss is *designed* specifically to pierce hard armor, so it's not a problem for it to be good at it.

[KarmaInferno]

This is kinda why I miss the "damage reduction" aspect of armor in previous editions.

Currently, the Resistance Test is a test to negate the damage if successful. Which is also what the Dodge/Reaction test is for. Why two different tests to do basically the same thing? And it results in tanks that can withstand massive amounts of fire, but ANY fire that penetrates the armor tends to instantly reduce the tank to scrap metal.

Previously, the Dodge test was to negate damage (by avoiding it), and the Resistance Test merely attempted to REDUCE the damage, and could result in variable lower amounts of damage rather than a binary result.




-k

[Yerameyahu]

It is a little odd. They are different, though, and it's nice to have options. Dodge is boosted by skill and reduced by Wide Bursts; soak is boosted by Body and armor, and reduced by AP. Extra AP doesn't affect dodge.

You can fully dodge things, but I'm kinda glad that you can also partially dodge. For one thing, an almost dodge isn't nothing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I fully agreed that the system creates all-or-nothing attacks (esp. for vehicles), and that's a problem. In theory, it's kind of okay: bullet bounce off, but that AT rocket wrecks it. Still, an issue.

I've been toying with the idea of dramatically increasing AP for most weapons. All the weapons have DV much higher than their AP, and I can't think of a good reason for that for some cases. Haven't done the numbers at all, though, so maybe it's a flawed idea.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This comes up a lot, but it's meatbook vs. pdf. The pdf says rating 12.

My PDF says 8... *shrug*

[longbowrocks]

longbowrocks, I read your post as specifying 36 armor. If it's less than that, then the Barrett might indeed hurt it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Sometimes. Remember that you have to *exceed* the armor.

"Aztechnology Cuanmitztli which has 36 body 30 armor, Would last 3 seconds against a guy with a bow."
36 -> body and 30 -> armor. Sorry about that, I really should have used a conjunction or separator or something.

My point about optimal was that the Barrett in the configuration shown is perhaps the *only* firearm that could beat the armor and do more than literally zero damage. Using unimaginably high stats and Edge. So it's hardly a general point about bows vs. firearms. You did indeed optimize the bow, but you don't need 45DV to crack a tank. You only need 30 or 36 (whichever the armor is), and every target in the game is weaker than that. You could kill a Boston-class attack sub.

More or less. There are a few other firearms that could perform similarly to (or better than, more on that next) the Barret. I also want to point out that that is the strongest vehicle I could find in the game, so the tank had super-optimal conditions as well. I think the next tier down is a large drop in armor, and the weapons capable of damaging vehicles skyrocket as armor decreases.
As for the attack sub, I was going to use a naval vehicle in my example, but the sinking rules made it less cut and dry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

It's arguable that any of the assault cannons can have Firing Selection Change; it doesn't matter, because Burst fire doesn't help against armor. The only proviso is that Wide Bursts *can* help you eke out an extra hit or two against targets who are already dodging well.

Yeah, burst fire can be nice that way, but I just meant to add SA mode to assault cannons, for all intents and purposes turning them into sniper rifles. The Panther XXL outclasses the Barret in both DV and AP, so with SA it would hit much more often than the Barret (those two points take it from less than half the time to over half the time).

The Gauss is *designed* specifically to pierce hard armor, so it's not a problem for it to be good at it.

You got me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

You see my point, though. Most firearms can't *ever* hope to scratch the 16+ armor vehicles in the game, whereas a bow in this configuration can. It's a stark difference.

[longbowrocks]

You see my point, though. Most firearms can't *ever* hope to scratch the 16+ armor vehicles in the game, whereas a bow in this configuration can. It's a stark difference.

Kind of. With the stats I gave for the sniper man, even a pea shooter (6 DV) can hit a 16 armor vehicle about half the time , and thats without AP. Most reasonably good weapons (sport rifles, snipers, heavy pistols, and assault cannons) can expect to hit armor 20 vehicles with a little modification (the stats and/or the AV bullets).

I really want to expand on that sniper now though. All my reading so far has been dedicated to those confounded troll archers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Stahlseele]

*snickers*
you do your handle proud ^^