IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Revised Ranged Combat Rules, An attempt to fix some stuff that bothers me.
Runner Smurf
post Aug 16 2011, 09:29 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 13-July 02
From: Waltham, MA
Member No.: 2,969



A couple of things have really bothered me about the ranged combat rules in Shadowrun 4th Edition. The chief amongst them being that sniping is way too easy. A barely-trained sniper with a scope shooting at a moving, unaware target at 1 mile distance can pretty much never miss. The sniper has no penalties at all, and the target does’t get to roll any dice in defense. This is silly. There are very few people in the world that can make 1-mile shots against static targets, let alone against moving ones without ever missing. In trying to fix this, I think I’ve got a way to make the cover and called shot systems work better as well.

In addition, the scatter rules don’t make sense when it comes to rockets and missiles. The justification for the random scatter is that grenades skitter and bounce when they land, which makes sense. Rockets and missiles aren’t known for skittering and bouncing on impact, and yet their scatter is large enough to make them largely useless. Plus, things like RPGs rarely miss by a few meters: they either hit or go zooming past the target when fired from the ground. So I’ve attempted to make the scatter rules more realistic, faster and (hopefully) easy to work with.

So I've put together a revised set of ranged combat rules to try and fix some of these problems. I'm getting ready to test them with my table-top group, and I thought I'd post them here to share my ideas, get some feedback, and (probably) get flamed by people outraged with my suggestions.

The short summary:
  • Ranges are reduced by half, with the “extreme” range’s far end left as is.
  • Target range, motion and size are handled as thresholds.
  • Hindrances/aids to the shooter are handled as modifiers to the shooter’s dice pool.
  • Take-Aim actions reduce thresholds.
  • Scatter is reflected in a threshold modifier, with the final scatter being the number of hits below the threshold on the attack test.
  • Firing guided munitions requires a lock-on test with a threshold of 2.
Anyway, you can find the rules in a PDF form here. Other versions can be found on my website (see the signature) - can't vouch for the Word export.

Comments welcome - desired even!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Aug 16 2011, 09:42 PM
Post #2


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



Sound like admirable objectives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seerow
post Aug 16 2011, 09:52 PM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 705
Joined: 3-April 11
Member No.: 26,658



Sounds interesting. Basically you're saying instead of auto-hit unless the target dodges, you have a threshold of successes you must hit to succeed, but there is no dodge test? At least for an unaware target, but honestly, the concept seems like it would work just as well applying to all shots (with things like dodge adding to the threshold)


Edit: Didn't see the PDF link, reading through that now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Aug 16 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



I think these are mostly amazing - although a few things may need to be tuned.

You have to be clear about the propabilities you are creating. A +1 threshold is about 3 dice, etc. You could do a matrix in more detail.

I like that it gives ranged combat a measure of consistency, like it used to have in SR3.

There are certain things I dislike, I'll have to go over everything again in detail to get those straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DMiller
post Aug 16 2011, 11:08 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 681
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 18,343



QUOTE (Runner Smurf @ Aug 17 2011, 06:29 AM) *
A couple of things have really bothered me about the ranged combat rules in Shadowrun 4th Edition. The chief amongst them being that sniping is way too easy. A barely-trained sniper with a scope shooting at a moving, unaware target at 1 mile distance can pretty much never miss. The sniper has no penalties at all, and the target does’t get to roll any dice in defense. <snip>

Sorry but the scope and moving target don't work well together...

QUOTE (SR4 p141 Attacker Using Image Magnification)
Image magnification equipment allows the character to “zoom in” on the target, reducing the Range category to Short, and thus eliminating any range modifiers. The character must take a Take Aim action (p. 137) to “lock onto” the target (the Take Aim does not apply a +1 aiming bonus for this purpose, unless additional Take Aim actions are made). As long as the target and attacker do not move, the attacker remains locked on and may continue to get the image magnification bonus on subsequent actions without further Take Aim actions. Image mag can be used in conjunction with a laser sight or smartlinked
weapon (but not both).


Emphisis mine. Reading this the sniper couldn't "lock onto" a moving target so he will take the -6 range modifier as a minimum (for extreme range). Even if the defender is casually strolling across an open area.

Just my 2¥

-D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mardrax
post Aug 16 2011, 11:23 PM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,083
Joined: 13-December 10
From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Member No.: 19,228



QUOTE (DMiller @ Aug 17 2011, 01:08 AM) *
Emphisis mine. Reading this the sniper couldn't "lock onto" a moving target so he will take the -6 range modifier as a minimum (for extreme range). Even if the defender is casually strolling across an open area.

Take Aim is a Simple action, so is firing a weapon.
You can Take Aim to use the scope, and fire, ignoring the range modifier in a single turn. The target will not have moved in that time.
If you have 4 passes while the target has one you could Take Aim, pick your nose, play some Sudoku for two passes, Take Aim again for a +1, then fire without the target having moved in the mean time, assuming you stall taking your first IP until the target took his.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Faelan
post Aug 16 2011, 11:34 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 584
Joined: 15-April 06
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 8,466



QUOTE (Runner Smurf @ Aug 16 2011, 04:29 PM) *
A couple of things have really bothered me about the ranged combat rules in Shadowrun 4th Edition. The chief amongst them being that sniping is way too easy. A barely-trained sniper with a scope shooting at a moving, unaware target at 1 mile distance can pretty much never miss. The sniper has no penalties at all, and the target does’t get to roll any dice in defense. This is silly. There are very few people in the world that can make 1-mile shots against static targets, let alone against moving ones without ever missing. In trying to fix this, I think I’ve got a way to make the cover and called shot systems work better as well.


Just a couple of thoughts and questions.
1) What is a barely trained sniper? IRL a sniper is already a highly trained marksman receiving additional training in spotting, camouflage techniques (urban and rural), and ancillary training in escape and evasion techniques. So when you say a barely trained sniper I have to ask what do you mean?
2) Image magnification/scopes don't work on moving targets, neither does the Enhance Aim spell. So your sniper is automatically starting with an extreme range penalty of -6 if that target 1 mile away even takes a step.
3) The reason you don't see people take these kinds of shots is simply because you almost never get a clear shot that far away, which means...
4) Use visibility modifiers, and remember if it is a sun shiny beautiful day in "I can take a one mile shot land", the likelihood of being spotted would be higher particularly if you are not firing from cover...
5) Speaking of cover and concealment firing from it is an automatic -2 modifier...
6) and if you are going through all the trouble to snipe a target you might as well make it count by making a called shot.

Essentially there are a ton of penalties for shooting under the conditions described so I don't really see a need to adjust anything.

QUOTE
In addition, the scatter rules don’t make sense when it comes to rockets and missiles. The justification for the random scatter is that grenades skitter and bounce when they land, which makes sense. Rockets and missiles aren’t known for skittering and bouncing on impact, and yet their scatter is large enough to make them largely useless. Plus, things like RPGs rarely miss by a few meters: they either hit or go zooming past the target when fired from the ground. So I’ve attempted to make the scatter rules more realistic, faster and (hopefully) easy to work with.


Yep scatter rules are screwed up which is why I don't use them. Even grenades generally go where you want them to if you throw them correctly.

QUOTE
So I've put together a revised set of ranged combat rules to try and fix some of these problems. I'm getting ready to test them with my table-top group, and I thought I'd post them here to share my ideas, get some feedback, and (probably) get flamed by people outraged with my suggestions.

The short summary:
  • Ranges are reduced by half, with the “extreme” range’s far end left as is.
  • Target range, motion and size are handled as thresholds.
  • Hindrances/aids to the shooter are handled as modifiers to the shooter’s dice pool.
  • Take-Aim actions reduce thresholds.
  • Scatter is reflected in a threshold modifier, with the final scatter being the number of hits below the threshold on the attack test.
  • Firing guided munitions requires a lock-on test with a threshold of 2.
Anyway, you can find the rules in a PDF form here. Other versions can be found on my website (see the signature) - can't vouch for the Word export.

Comments welcome - desired even!


Guess I will take a look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DMiller
post Aug 16 2011, 11:39 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 681
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 18,343



QUOTE (Mardrax @ Aug 17 2011, 08:23 AM) *
Take Aim is a Simple action, so is firing a weapon.
You can Take Aim to use the scope, and fire, ignoring the range modifier in a single turn. The target will not have moved in that time.
If you have 4 passes while the target has one you could Take Aim, pick your nose, play some Sudoku for two passes, Take Aim again for a +1, then fire without the target having moved in the mean time, assuming you stall taking your first IP until the target took his.

Movement takes place at a constant rate throughout the turn, if you "lock on to" a target as a simple action, by the time you have pulled the trigger the target has moved and you have missed your shot as both locking on and pulling the trigger are simple actions and the target hasn't stopped moving between each simple action. This is of course the strictest possible interpretation of the rules.

-D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mardrax
post Aug 16 2011, 11:47 PM
Post #9


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,083
Joined: 13-December 10
From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Member No.: 19,228



QUOTE (DMiller @ Aug 17 2011, 01:39 AM) *
This is of course the strictest possible interpretation of the rules.

This is the way a turn-based system makes the world work. To do anything else would incur nightmare scenarios in other places.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seerow
post Aug 16 2011, 11:52 PM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 705
Joined: 3-April 11
Member No.: 26,658



Okay having actually read the PDF now, comments:

-I do like it, all told. However, your pdf doesn't mention anywhere how it interracts with firearm damage or reaction/dodge rolls. Do those still apply under this system? Do you gain damage based off net hits or total hits? Since nothing is mentioned, I would assume that dodge rolls still apply normally, and damage is based off net hits, which makes firearms in general FAR less deadly. Like at point blank range you'd almost never hit anyone, because after you succeed on your threshold 3 test to hit them behind cover at a medium range (which will be far more likely now with your reduced ranges), the vast majority of people don't have any hits left, if they could have hit that at all. Personally I'd argue in favor of straight reaction tests being removed, with full defense/dodge being a test that raises the threshold to hit you, and damage being based off net hits.

-Speaking of net hits. Let the shot succeed if you meet the threshold. Needing one higher than the threshold means you're effectively increasing the threshold by one, and I'm pretty sure most threshold based tests don't work that way. (Though I could be mistaken on that point)

-I don't like the called shots rules you have here. What determines the difference between a security vehicle and a regular vehicle? If my rigger modifies his truck to have as much armor as a tank, do you still get to bypass all of the armor because it's not security or military? I'd set the threshold rather than based on the vehicle type, the amount of armor the target has, and let it apply to both vehicles and body armor, to make it more consistent. Something along the lines of:

0-8 Armor: +1 Threshold, ignore all armor
9-16 Armor: +2 Threshold, ignore 75% of armor
9-16 Armor: +3 Threshold, ignore 100% of armor
16-24 Armor: +3 Threshold, ignore 75% of armor
16-24 Armor: +4 Threshold, ignore 100% of armor
25+ Armor: +4 Threshold, ignore 50% of armor
25+ Armor: +5 Threshold, ignore 75% of armor
25+ Armor: +6 Threshold, ignore 100% of armor


And allowing a called shot for +2/+5 damage for +1/+2 threshold (this is slightly weaker statistically than current +dv called shot, but current +dv called shot is pretty strong).

-Take Aim seems inconsistent now. Is there really a problem with letting take aim reduce the threshold once per use up to half your skill? This would still keep a meh sniper away from making those really hard shots you described, but could allow a awesome sniper (remember rank 6 in a skill is amazing world class once in a generation sniper) to make those hard shots more reliably.

For example the extreme range walking human sized target with a threshold 5 base. The sniper needs to take him out in one shot, so goes for the called shot +damage, increasing threshold to 7. With a smartlink it's threshold 6. At this point you have two possibilities: The dextrous guy with low sniping skill (say 2) takes aim, reducing the threshold to 5, and has 9+2+2 = 13 dice to make those 5 hits. A possible shot, but statistically he's more likely to fail than to succeed. Compared to the sniping specialist with his rank 6 longarms and specialization in sniping, who is up to 19 dice. I don't know the exact odds here, except that it is favorable and likely the sniper will make the shot at threshold 5, but still having a decent (my guess is about 30%, but I'm not sure) chance of failing. Being able to use take aim to reduce that threshold 2 further however makes his success all but certain.

Anyway the point of that example is that allowing the take aim to continue reducing threshold makes character skill matter that much more, which seems to me to be in line with the goals of your project.

-Target sizes, I'd avoid using body as a determinant as that has weird side effects. (For example my cripple rigger with body 1 suddenly has a +2 threshold to be hit unless the GM says otherwise), and I'd also avoid penalizing trolls for their size, they already pay more than enough bp for what they get, without getting penalized further. Instead I'd recommend just listing sizes in meters (/centimeters when appropriate) for thresholds, with the medium size being between 1 and 3 meters, which should cover pretty much all metahumans.

-Smartlinks become even more 100% necessary with this. Not that I mind, since everyone should have smartlink anyway, but you should be aware anyone going anywhere with a nonsmartlinked gun is losing effectively 5 dice. That's a pretty big deal.




I won't comment on the exploding stuff because I'm not particularly familiar with the base rules for those things, let alone the rammifications of any changes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Socinus
post Aug 17 2011, 12:08 AM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 582
Joined: 13-April 08
Member No.: 15,881



As a quick note, the scatter rules for rockets or missiles dont reflect "scatter" per say, but rather the fact that rockets and missiles dont work like they do in videogames.

They wobble and weave in-flight, especially if they're un-guided. So you're probably not going to strike the target you were aiming for, even if that target was a spot on the ground.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Faelan
post Aug 17 2011, 12:16 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 584
Joined: 15-April 06
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 8,466



QUOTE (Socinus @ Aug 16 2011, 08:08 PM) *
As a quick note, the scatter rules for rockets or missiles dont reflect "scatter" per say, but rather the fact that rockets and missiles dont work like they do in videogames.

They wobble and weave in-flight, especially if they're un-guided. So you're probably not going to strike the target you were aiming for, even if that target was a spot on the ground.


Well in my experience the only ones that "wobble and weave" are wire guided missiles since a human is essentially the guidance system. An AT-4 or SMAW are unguided and essentially make a straight line to the target. Javelin and Stinger missiles make in flight correction to keep pace with the targets current location and in the case of the Javelin it rises and then plummets on the target to hit the weakest armor it can. So while they don't work the way they do in a video game they sure as hell don't go bouncing along because well they tend to just go boom at that point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irion
post Aug 17 2011, 12:18 AM
Post #13


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,236
Joined: 27-July 10
Member No.: 18,860



I haven't read the scater rule jet, but the rules for ranged combat are great.
Yes, they are a bit more complicated but much more intuitiv.
Introducing thresholds adds a mechanic but it makes much more sense than adding dices to the defenders test..

Only point would be, that smartlink is now very, very good...

(So a stripper with smartlink is able to take on seals without on a regular basis...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suoq
post Aug 17 2011, 12:36 AM
Post #14


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,272
Joined: 22-June 10
From: Omaha. NE
Member No.: 18,746



QUOTE (Faelan @ Aug 16 2011, 06:34 PM) *
1) What is a barely trained sniper? IRL a sniper is already a highly trained marksman receiving additional training in spotting, camouflage techniques (urban and rural), and ancillary training in escape and evasion techniques. So when you say a barely trained sniper I have to ask what do you mean?

I'm not sure if you caught last week's episode of Top Shot, but it was obvious to me that many of them were either unfamiliar with a spotting scope or forgot to use it to help their teammate. These people could all be considered "barely trained snipers" from a Shadowrun perspective. They're expected to perform with a variety of firearms, including sniper rifles.

http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/vide...-3-the-gauntlet is you want to see the episode. 17:14 is where the section starts. One could argue that at that range, spotting should not have been necessary, but some of the contestants clearly made the effort.

Edit: Wanted to rewatch that section. It looked to me like everyone who worked as a spotter was the person doing the 100Y shot. The 75 yard shooters just stood there and cheered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Runner Smurf
post Aug 17 2011, 03:33 AM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 13-July 02
From: Waltham, MA
Member No.: 2,969



Thanks for the feedback and comments. I'll try and give some of my responses:

1. "Untrained Sniper Problem". A shorthand expression which has caused some confusion. Basically, take an average schmo (Agility 2) with a modicum of experience firing a rifle (Longarms 2). 4 dice. Take aim (+1) for a total of 5 dice. Firing at a target 1,500 meters away (~1 mile) with a rating 3 scope. The scope eliminates all range penalties, so he rolls 5 dice. Probability of no hits is only 13%. So he's going to hit roughly 9 out of 10 times. That's what I call the "untrained sniper problem" - the rules break in this case. There are very few people that can consistently make that kind of a shot, and even they aren't getting 90% hit rates. Depending on how you read the rules he can hit a moving target just as easily.

Dmiller/Faelan: The whole take-aim/moving target thing is a bit of a grey area - RAW is open to debate. I've read the rules as per Mardrax's interpretation, largely as I think that's what they intended, but your mileage may vary. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) I think the problem still stands, even with static targets. People that can make those kind of long shots are highly trained experts, and by SR4a, you don't have to be an expert. You can be a bit of schlub and have a fairly high hit percentage.

2. Smartlinks. Yeap, they are definitely made bad-ass. The description of what a smartlink does I think justifies it: an automatic ballistic computer that automatically adjusts for range and projects the impact point on your eyeball? +2 dice pool really doesn't quite cut it. In older editions of SR, a smartlink was seriously scary: it changed the base target number from a 4 to a 2. Statistically, it was about equivalent to doubling your hit rate (though, comparing SR1-3 to SR4 stats is a hairy business). Based on that, I think the -1 threshold makes a lot of sense. I was tempted to with -2, but it seemed overkill. The +2 dice pool is to counter the effect of "firing from the hip", which I think is a reasonable interpretation of what they can do.

3. Dodge and Damage Resistance. I didn't state it explicitly in the rules, but dodge, full-defense and damage resistance tests are left "as is." This means that the overall miss rate is going to be a bit higher, particularly at range. Again, I think this is entirely reasonable, considering the statistics on weapon accuracy in real-world shootouts. Plus, it should reduce the "street samurai goes on full-defense until everyone else runs out of passes and then shoots" loop that I see happen a lot. My hope is that with the cover/size rules, players will be more inclined to use cover and use less full-defense, making gun battles a bit more exciting. The examples in the writeup have folks rolling defense.

4. Take Aim (SeeRow). I thought real hard about having "take aim" reduce the threshold by 1 per action up to 1/2 of skill, rather than the dice pool modifier. I see your point, but I think it makes Take Aim too powerful. Again with the long-distance snipe being an edge-case, a skilled sniper would be able to reduce his miss rate to something less than 20%, which I honestly think is too easy a shot. Plus, from a stylistic perspective, I want the players thinking hard about taking aim once, but not just sitting there and aiming for pass after pass. Making take aim too powerful will tend to make combat more static, which I'm trying to avoid. This may take some playtesting to work out.

5. Called Shots (SeeRow). Not a bad idea, but I like my solution better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) My thinking is that a military/security vehicle is going to have its armor integrated into the structure much better than something done after-market. Sure, a rigger could put a few tons of armor on a vehicle, but he's going to have to cut corners and compromise around the existing vehicle frame. Plus, I wanted the rule to combine vehicle and personal armor in a single table, and emphasize the difference between security, military and civilian. Like with vehicle armor, there's going to be a big difference in vulnerability between a heavily lined long coat, and a full-body armor suit with a helmet. My system, I hope, also gives the GM plenty of wiggle room to say things like your rigger's tank is so heavily armored it counts as a security vehicle, etc.

6. Total Net Hits of 0. Ack! I need to think about this. You may be right, Seerow. I think changing it to a zero net hits is still a hit may be a serious headache, so I'll need to noodle. My reflex is to say no, but I'll have to run some scenarios in my head, and it's too late at night for me to do that.

7. Body for Target Size. Yeah, it's a bit messy and body isn't always a good indicator of size. And the difference between critter and vehicle body scales is pretty large, but it's a good first-order approximation. As the note says, the body stat should be used to give you an idea of the size, but in some cases it may be way out of whack. The thing with trolls being easier to hits a twitchy one for me. They are a lot bigger, so I think they should be easier to hit from a simulation perspective, but from a game perspective it is a big penalty. It kind of depends on which you value more: simulation vs. game. And how many trolls you have in your team.

8. Scatter. I agree that rockets and missiles shouldn't work like regular guns (or like they do in videogames), but I think the SR4A solution is bad. It means that anti-vehicle rockets are pointless. They do no damage if they are more than 4 meters away from the target...and the scatter is 4d6 -1 per net hit. That's a 14m base scatter on average. On average, that means you need at least 11 hits (33 dice!) to damage your target at all. From point blank range, no less. Hell, HE isn't much better - it has to be within 7 meters to do any damage at all, so 7 hits on average (21 dice!).

Even a rating 6 missile isn't much better: you still need an average of 5 hits (15 dice!) to do any damage with an AV missile.

Now, my proposed system may go to far in making them too accurate, but at least it makes them useful. And I hope it isn't any more broken than the SR4A rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seerow
post Aug 17 2011, 04:12 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 705
Joined: 3-April 11
Member No.: 26,658



QUOTE
3. Dodge and Damage Resistance.


That ruling is going to make firefights even in close quarters brutal, unless everyone is standing out in the open firing blindly at each other 5 meters apart. Especially with your current ruling of needing 1 net hit to succeed. Let's run a hypothetical scenario:

You have a medium target within short range, who is in cover. You are firing from cover yourself. You are an above average shooter, but no street sammy, with 5 agility, 3 gun skill, and a smartlink, but -1 penalty for firing from cover. You roll 9 dice, for an average 3 hits. The target gets his dodge with 6 reaction, leaving you with a single net hit on average.

Now, let's switch it up to your system. That short range? It's now medium range. The target is behind cover, so they are considered a small target, and have the cover bonus, for a total threshold of 3. You have your smartlink, so that goes down to 2. So now you roll your 9 dice against a threshold 2, succeeding with a net of 1. The guy now gets his dodge roll, and on average leaves you at -1 net hit.

Just for reference, you can't actually reliably hit this guy with a dice pool less than 18. If you maintain close range with the range modifications, then you can manage with 15 dice. But 15-18 dice pool is pretty much the realm of a dedicated street sammy, everyone else is going to be missing a whole lot. and this is without even considering other negative modifiers, and NOBODY has the dice pool to try to called shot or anything else like that. They're just too likely to miss.

With my suggestion, only getting a bonus to threshold when a full defense action is taken, you can choose to make yourself damn near impossible to hit as described above, but at the cost of your next action, which is a pretty fair tradeoff. Additionally, if you make it so you don't need a net hit to succeed, and rather just hit the threshold, the shot in question is doable with minimal skill, just as it is now.

However, if your intent is to slow down the game and make firefights a flurry of misses until someone jumps out from behind cover, you'll succeed though.

QUOTE
4. Take Aim (SeeRow).


It still takes 3 simple actions of aiming to lower the threshold by 3. In 90% of situations, it won't be used. In situations where a highly trained (4-6 skill) sniper is sniping, it makes a difference, but that is rewarding that person for having their skill high as opposed to just relying on a high agility and other modifiers.

QUOTE
5. Called Shots (SeeRow)


First, that's making a huge assumption. There is nothing that says vehicle mods are in any way less robust than military issue vehicles. When they modify a vehicle, it isn't just slapping something on, it's incorporating something new into the vehicle's structure. B Mechanically there is no difference between a 20 armor 16 body security vehicle, and a Bulldog modified to have 20 armor. Making an arbitrary distinction is disingenuous, and a needless extra complication.

As for wanting to combine vehicle armor and body armor into the same table, my solution does the same, without the arbitrary distinctions between who made the armor, and instead distinguishing by the amount of armor the target actually has. So using called shot to bypass the guy's lined cloak is easy (+1), while bypassing the guy with military grade armor is hard (+4-6)

QUOTE
7. Body for Target Size.


If you really want to insist on making trolls easier to hit, you could balance it out by upping their body or armor bonus, and/or reducing their bp cost. But honestly, I'd just avoid that bag of worms altogether. Consider you're making the difference between hitting a building and a medium person a difference in 3 threshold. If a difference in around 100 meter only makes a difference of 3, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say the 1 meter height difference between trolls and humans isn't going to make the difference of a full threshold rating. Remember, while you are making it a bit more simulation focused, it IS still an abstraction.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem_2006
post Aug 17 2011, 07:26 AM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 245
Joined: 17-August 10
Member No.: 18,943



QUOTE (Mardrax @ Aug 17 2011, 12:47 AM) *
This is the way a turn-based system makes the world work. To do anything else would incur nightmare scenarios in other places.


By that definition there are never any moving targets ever.

To me, that strongly suggests that such an interpretation is wrong.

YMMV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mardrax
post Aug 17 2011, 10:56 AM
Post #18


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,083
Joined: 13-December 10
From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Member No.: 19,228



QUOTE (Mayhem_2006 @ Aug 17 2011, 09:26 AM) *
By that definition there are never any moving targets ever.

To me, that strongly suggests that such an interpretation is wrong.

YMMV.

I tend to consider a target as moving if he ended his last turn moving, and is even slightly likely to continue that movement on his next turn, meaning he didn't do something as dropping prone, dropping behind cover or whatnot.
This still doesn't mean he ever moves in between the end of his last turn, and the start of his next one.

Movement is not a continuum, spread out evenly across all IPs. It only is for those who have more than one.
When you and your wired up, 4 IP sammy mate want to charge up to a ganger at the limit of your movement range, odds are in your favour for getting the first hit in.
When the both of you are dashing from cover to cover, there's a good chance he'll have to soak up some bullets, as he moves far less in one turn, so is more likely to be out in the open at the end of his turns.
When you're the 4 IP sammy being charged at by a 1 IP ganger from 20 meters -if he wins Initiative- you can shoot him an exact 0 times before he reaches you, while you could shoot him 3 times while charging towards him, while he shoots you once, and still gets punched in the face after.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Runner Smurf
post Aug 17 2011, 12:39 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 13-July 02
From: Waltham, MA
Member No.: 2,969



More responses:
1. Moving Target issue. I think I straddle the middle ground - targets in motion are in motion, and you break up the distance per pass by the number of passes the character has. The question is does Take Aim simple action followed by a Shoot simple action give the scope bonus as the rules are written. I think it does, largely because scopes should be effective against moving targets. RAW are open to interpretation on this - one way makes scopes overly effective, and the other makes them overly ineffective and breaks simulation. Shooting a moving target at long range is extremely hard, but a guy with iron sights shouldn't be just as effective as a guy with a scope. My system attempts to find a middle ground that is a bit more realistic.

2. Dodge (Seerow). I see your point, but your example is a bit off. An average schmo isn't going to have a reaction of 6. He's probably going to have a reaction of 2-3, so he's looking at (on average) only 1 hit.

Let's go with a Lone Star Squaddie vs. a Red Samurai (from SR4A). The LS has an agility of 4, pistols 3 and a reaction of 4. The RS has an agility of 7, Firearms of 5 and a Reaction of 7. Let's put the Lonestar squad die behind the door of his cop car for some cover, shooting at the RS in the open at a range of 20 meters.

The LS's threshold is 2 for the (revised) range. Assuming he has a smartlink, that reduces is to 1, and his dice pool is 4 (Ag) + 3 (Pistols) + 2 (SL) - 2 (Firing from Cover): 7 dice total. On average he's going to get ~2 hits. That's one net. The Samurai is rolling 7 dice on reaction and is going to get at least 1 hit 94% of the time. So yeah, the LS guy is boned - he's going to hit about one time in 20. If he uses a single take aim action, he's going to hit approximately 80% of the time.

The RS, on the other hand, is using an assault rifle. That puts him in short range (0 threshold), but the target is using cover (+1) and it's pretty good cover so the GM says it's a +2, for a total threshold of 3. He has a smartlink (presumably), so he's rolling 14 dice. That's ~4 hits on average, so he has 1 net hit. The LS has a reaction of 4, so he's going to get 1 hit ~80% of the time. So, the RS is going to hit ~1 time in 5. If the RS takes aim, he's going to have 2 net hits on average, and the cop is going to successfully duck ~half the time. If the RS goes with a wide short burst instead, the poor cop is only going to roll 2 dice, so his chance of not getting hit is ~50%. Take Aim & Wide Short Burst means the cop is boned: 2 net hits, 2 dice on Rx: 10% chance of ducking.

Your mileage may vary, but I think this is pretty realistic, and gives the LS a real incentive to get cover. And the relative range penalties makes sense to me: an assault rifle should be much more effective than a pistol. Plus, when you look at stats from actual shootouts, most shots do indeed miss, so its a win on simulation. Plus, the RS is, in general, going to wax the floor with the poor squaddie, which again makes sense to me.

On the other hand, you are correct that it will seriously extend the lengths of fights, especially in cover situations. Again, from a simulation perspective I think this works, but it may lose some on gameplay as shootouts may last too bloody long. Again, your mileage may vary.

3. Hitting on 0 Net Hits. Using the above example.
The LS squaddie shot. The RS now needs 2 hits in the baseline (no take aim) case to drop the net hits to -1. He's going to get that on 7 dice ~75% of the time, so the LS is going to hit 1 in 4 times. If the LS takes aim, the RS now needs 3 hits, and that's only going to happen half the time.

The RS shot: Baseline (no take aim), the squad die is going to need 2 hits on 4 dice, which is 40% of the time: 2 in 5 chance of ducking. If the RS does a take aim action, he needs 3 hits on 4 dice: ~11% duck chance. With a short wide burst, the LS pool is reduced to 2, so he's only got an 11% duck chance. Take Aim + Short Wide Burst: 0% chance of getting 3 hits on 2 dice.

Dang it, I think you may be correct. Having the attacker still hit on 0 net hits (after the reaction roll) is going to make things more lethal - it's not quite as accurate simulation-wise (I think), but increases the gameplay value quite a bit.

4. Called Shots vs. Armor. (Seerow). Yeah, it's an assumption that rigger-installed vehicle armor isn't going to be as good as a military or security designed vehicle, but I think it's a more than reasonable assumption. Adding armor isn't just welding on plates of metal, it's got a lot to do with protecting key components, layout of internal components, using dedicated periscopes, etc. Never mind glacis fronts, weld lines, impact angles and rebuilding the suspension to handle the weight. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one and say that military/security-sourced armor should be harder to bypass than civilian or improvised stuff. Again, it also leaves some wiggle room for the GM, which is a plus in my book.

5. Size and Trolls. I entirely see, and agree with your point. Dang it, I just think there needs to be some sort of downside for how freaking huge a troll is! Simulation vs. Gameplay is always a delicate balance, and one you can haggle on about endlessly. There's no right answer, so I think if you choose to use these rules, you can decide to not do the troll thing or not. I'm going to have to play a few sessions with this to see if it works or not. I think if I don't go with the size penalty, I'm definitely going to make finding adequate cover a lot harder.

One other thought - I think I may split out the "Firing from Cover" penalty a bit. Say -1 dice pool if you are only getting +1 to the attack threshold to reflect situations where you have cover, but you're prioritizing shooting over the cover.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Aug 17 2011, 12:55 PM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



Alright, I'll also try a detailed investigation/commentary.

0) Weapon ranges:

I would NOT do this. Keep the ranges, you are not adding anything to the game by changing them, except adding more misses. The weapon ranges are fine in a moderately sci-fi setting. Unless you want to go back to a checkerboard pattern tactical map like in D&D, where it's a problem when ranges don't fit on the map, you don't really need people to go into point-blank range all the time.

1) Threshold, and attacker vs defender wins:

The threshold system is a very good addition, as it finally provides a distinction between how hard the shot really is, and what thing are modifying the chance to hit based on a given situation. This is GOOD.

Meeting Threshold vs passing threshold: Now this is a tricky one. Basically, if you have to exceed the threshold, then you always have one net hit - i.e. weapons never even do their base damage, they always do one more. This is the defensive option. If you have to meet the threshold, then the "attacker wins", so it's a more lethal option. However, you are already making just hitting a LOT more difficult in this scenario.

So, overall, I would favour setting the new to default to MEETING the threshold, and simply doing that for the entire game.

2) Target size: A system like D&D would be more advisable, with fixed size categories. Basing it on body is... questionable, but possible. I don't think making trolls easier to hit is totally out of the line - they ARE. However, their advantages in that area aren't big enough - they need actual I/B armour for their thick skin.

3) Called Shots:
I think this is a fishy system, and completely removes the consistency you've just been trying to create. In a GAME environment, keeping this simple is important. You want exactly ONE mechanic to work in all cases. So I would use a simple calculatory system: For each +1 Threshold you circumvent X armour, or simply use the alternate system that was suggested here.

Now do understand how the numbers work, here:
+1 Threshold is -3 dice to the shooter, -1 armour is +0.33 DV. If you remove the numerical relation between them, (by basing the effect of a called shot completely on target armour) then the system is prone to become unbalanced.

I also think the division into regular/security/military doesn't work. If anything you have to base this on a recognized value within SR4 - which is device rating. So an R6 rigger vehicles is clearly security, if not military, while an R2 or R3 regular car is civilian. However, this does not translate to worn armour at all, which makes the system less consistent.

If you want a more detailed armour/called shot system, you have to use hit locations, armour based on aspect for vehicles, etc., and that's just a completely different game.

4) Attacker modifiers
These are mostly fine. Making vision magnification worse is a break from the way SR used to work, and SR4 already started this trend. You are now taking that to the next level. Now I think what SR always missed was a more detailed look at vision magnification:

Vision mag via a scope should be good vs stationary + slow-moving targets, but bad vs a running target.
Vision mag in cybereyes or googles alone shouldn't be useful for shooting at all, because you can now use neither iron-sights nor aim-dots.
Vision mag in cybereyes or googles connected to a smartlink system should be the best, because you can now follow targets as quickly as you can move your eyes, and you know exactly where you are shooting.

So I would differentiate those cases:
Scope: +1 per range category after a take aim action, and you lose lock when the target moves more than a meter or two in one IP(essentially, you can shoot once per IP).
Cyber/googles: nothing for shooting
Cyber/goggle+smart: negates range penalties (or gives at least +2 per range category) after a take aim action. You can maintain lock even on a moving target.

Bad stance: I have always disliked the penalty for shooting from cover. Seriously, most cover actually improves your shooting, because you can steady the weapon on whatever it is you are hiding behind. So the only downside to cover might be a reduced field of view, but then, that's a LOS thing - either you have it, or you don't. I would even go so far as to give +1 Recoil compensation (in addition to a possible bipod) to a shooter from cover, and +2 to a shooter from prone.
The other penalties for bad stance are ok, although I would go so far as to actually increase the maximum penalty to -6, with a few guidelines as to when they apply.

Recoil is missing. For simplicity's sake I would keep it as a normal dice pool modifier as before.

5) Take Aim and Smartlink are fine, I believe.

6) Revised scatter rules: these are a very good addition, and make a lot more sense than those from vanilla SR4, without adding TOO much complexity. I would add the following aspects:

Dropping prone next to ground-exploding weapons (such as timed grenades, impact grenades that explode on the ground, mortar bombs and artillery shells that explodes on the ground) effectively doubles scatter for that target alone. Being in a foxhole or trench quadrubles effective scatter if the weapon explodes outside of that entrenchment.

Airburst linked grenades or other munitions do not have this disadvantage.

Dodging and Thresholds

If you can always dodge AND the attacker has to hit a high threshold, then lethality of the game just went down significantly - to the point where a couple of poor shooters with heavy armour could shoot at each other for ages without doing any signicant damage, since net hits will be very low.

So I propose a simple solution: Dodging needs to meet a threshold, too.
Single fire weapons or narrow bursts create a threshold of 1
Short Wide Burst fire creates a threshold of 2
Long Wide bursts imcrease threshold to 3
Full-auto Wide bursts increase threshold to 4
Dodging explosive weapons can occur at a threshold of 2

Only NET hits over the threshold increase the shooter's threshold/remove net hits from the shooter. (But remember that I suggest letting 0 net hits be a hit.)

This means that wide bursts effectively drains 3 dice from the dodge test per increment.

Burst fire rules These could be revised as well in conjunction with the thresholds.

As a means of letting burst fire be less binary, I suggest the following:

Narrow bursts add one die to the attack test per round above the first, and increase DV by +1/three rounds
Wide bursts add no dice, but make dodging harder, as above.

Spirits and stuff

ItNW is now a KILLER. Spirits need to be toned down in force, or else the reduced net hits will mean guns are lately useless against them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Aug 17 2011, 01:40 PM
Post #21


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



Isn't threshold+1 how the game already works, incidentally? That is, the guns never do their base damage, because you always have at least one net hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seerow
post Aug 17 2011, 01:42 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 705
Joined: 3-April 11
Member No.: 26,658



QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Aug 17 2011, 02:40 PM) *
Isn't threshold+1 how the game already works, incidentally? That is, the guns never do their base damage, because you always have at least one net hit.


Yes, but guns are currently an opposed test, not a threshold based test, which is the difference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Aug 17 2011, 02:02 PM
Post #23


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



I haven't had the time to read through this closely enough, but I thought this was still an opposed tests, with thresholds (they're not actually incompatible, though it does get complex). Just checking. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Runner Smurf
post Aug 17 2011, 05:05 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 13-July 02
From: Waltham, MA
Member No.: 2,969



Brainpiercing - Great stuff!

1. Weapon Ranges
I think you take or leave this bit - YMMV. My own thinking is that the ranges are simply too freaking long, and it generally means that range never comes up. By shortening the ranges, it makes range a little more realistic and more of a factor in shootouts. But that's largely an issue of style. Heck, I don't care if you shorten the ranges are not - it's your game!

2. Threshold
Glad you like it. And you've (and Seerow) have convinced me: hit should be on meeting the threshold, not exceeding it. I will revise shortly.

3. Target Size
My intent is to go purely off target size categories, with the body ratings intended to provide a guideline for GMs. I obviously failed to communicate that.

4. Trolls
Yeah, the -1 threshold thing is a bit severe. Again, you and Seerow have convinced me. I think I'll make a note for GMs that cover should be a bit less...forgiving...for trolls. Maybe that will be a good balance.

5. Called Shots
I agree that a +X threshold for +X DV is a good gameplay compromise. My intent with the table was to provide a little extra simulation and cover those situations where the player is trying to find a weak spot on a tank vs. on a taxi. I was trying to get some element of weak-spot consideration with a little more fidelity, but not going to the armor facings level of detail. I'll have to noodle this some more. I don't like "dial-a-yield" called shot systems much, simply because in a lot of cases, there isn't a weak spot to aim for. I don't care how carefully you aim, and M1 Abrams is going to have a lot of armor between you and it's insides.

6. Scopes
My intention has been to make scopes and vision magnification quite a bit less useful than the baseline rules - I think they are seriously overpowered. Perhaps I've gone too far. Splitting out by magnification type (eyes vs. scope vs. goggles) is not a bad idea, but it's more simulation complexity than I think it's worth (and I'd think scopes would be more effective than eyes, but that's a purely theoretical debate). Perhaps +2 per range category overall?

7. Bad Stance and Cover
You know, I don't like the shooting from cover thing either. I think I'm going to get rid of it entirely, and leave it as a purely GM's call if the cover is such that a bad stance penalty should be applied.

8. Recoil & Bursts
I've not mentioned recoil, as I think the existing rules work just fine. Ditto for automatic weapons fire. I should mention that explicitly.

9. Scatter
Glad you like them. Good idea on the dropping prone thing against grenades on the ground. A simple rule, and provides a good level of simulation.

10. Dodging and Thresholds
Yeap, it does make the game a lot less lethal...or, there's a lot more lead in the air per dead body. Which, again, is an improvement in simulation, in my opinion. Most real-world shoot-outs have a lot more misses than hits, from what I've read.

On the hand, dang it! I should have thought to do Reaction/Dodge thresholds! I'm going to have to add that in. Mind if I steal your work as a starting point? I think I might go with single shots/narrow bursts have no threshold, wide shorts have 1, wide longs have 2 and wide full autos have 3. That works out to 0, 3, 6 and 9 die penalties, which is close to SR4A. Excess hits reduce the net hits of the attacker, who still succeeds on 0 net hits.

11. Magic
One thing I like about this system is that it works for direct and indirect combat spells as well. It's always bothered me that range isn't an issue at all for mages, and this could at least make it something of a problem. Use sporting rifle ranges or some such and voila! I'll have to add that in.

12. Spirits
Good point. Mind you, ItNW is already killer strong, and results in a brittleness problem (once you manage to pierce the Hardened Armor rating, they tend to take massive damage) - but that's another new house rule to think about. I think it might be as simple as saying the value is only 1.5x the magic rating.

Good stuff! Revised version in a couple of days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Aug 18 2011, 09:16 AM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



I see your point on the weak point idea for called shots. Hmmm...

I've always found the normal vanilla called shot for +4DV to be enough to justify the "weak point" requirement - after all, that's the only logical explanation, and it works throughout the game. It's a very lethal option, because you gain a huge amount of DV for a comparatively small cut to your DP, but... at least with near parity of attacker vs defender dice pools, there is an increased chance of missing added in - and it takes an important, limited type of action.

I'm not sure, I would have to think more about this. As it is, you can already target specific systems on vehicles - for instance, wheels, windows, sensors, etc. Also, simply spraying a vehicle with full-auto narrow bursts is likely to kill everyone inside, due to the weird system of vehicle combat. Which leads me to... the next thing that desperately needs revision, in my opinion (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 09:39 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.