Grenade Damage Values, Scatter. No seriously Grenade! Options

[Yerameyahu]

I think the rockets would be fine (balance-wise) if they had much higher AP, and possibly a much smaller blast. Their purpose is to wreck armored things. That's fine. You don't have to 'one shot' an armored thing; it'd be fine if the LAW could get through the armor and then just *hurt* it (higher AP than DV, roughly). There aren't really any weapons that make use of this kind of DV:AP ratio (and good reason for that, usually). They're too expensive to use against people anyway.

Grenades, on the other hand, simply *are* very powerful (= should be). And with great power comes great numbers of authorities looking for you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I think the rockets would be fine (balance-wise) if they had much higher AP, and possibly a much smaller blast. Their purpose is to wreck armored things. That's fine. You don't have to 'one shot' an armored thing; it'd be fine if the LAW could get through the armor and then just *hurt* it (higher AP than DV, roughly). There aren't really any weapons that make use of this kind of DV:AP ratio (and good reason for that, usually).

Grenades, on the other hand, simply *are* very powerful (= should be). And with great power comes great numbers of authorities looking for you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

They're too expensive to use against people anyway.

I can agree with that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[kzt]

But the best advice I can give you... is if you are relying on grenades... your best friend will be chunky salsa... and demolitions booby traps... Example.. hallway is 4m wide... you duct tape a HE grenade to the wall with a tripwire by the door. Sec comes through down the center of the hallway... sets off grenade 2m away... grenade primary damage from wall (and secondary wave bounces immediately off the wall). So effectively the blast is 20P (ap-2) with -4/m. It travels 2m to the guard... hitting him once/twice for 12p... travels to the other side and bounces back... and stops short of reaching center of hallway again. Hitting guard for 12p (ap-2) impact... reasonably scary... enough to knock him into overflow and maybe kill him.

Very few walls and ceiling are able to handle explosive charges. You'll blow out the walls, destroy the doors, and drop the ceiling. Oh, and you'll blow out the lights, so it's a dark debris filled area choked with dust and fumes.

[Yerameyahu]

Ha, your quote reminded me that I wrote that post out of order, so I fixed it. It's *rockets* that are too expensive, obviously.

[3278]

I think the rockets would be fine (balance-wise) if they had much higher AP, and possibly a much smaller blast. Their purpose is to wreck armored things. That's fine.

AV, at least, should be that way. HE and AP shouldn't, but they also should be doing significantly more damage.

By "should," in this case, what I really mean is, "I would personally prefer if..." Everyone wants a different game, but for me, personally - and presumably for Yerameyahu as well - I don't see a reason to nerf grenades rockets and missiles. I want them to be deadly. I want their in-game balance to be similar to their out-of-game balance: they're comparatively costly to obtain, they're not commonly available, and the police response to their ownership or use can be reasonably described as "apocalyptic." I want a LAW in Shadowrun to be more-or-less like a LAW in real life: you could get one, although it'd set you back a little, and if you knew what you were doing, you could certainly blow up a car or perforate some people or do serious damage to an armored vehicle. And then the world would fall on you, because you bought and fired a rocket filled with high explosives at something, and that makes people cross.

[Rockets are] too expensive to use against people anyway.

That return-on-investment analysis depends heavily on the financial return one gains from the use of the rocket. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Or, I suppose, the benefit to survival.

[Yerameyahu]

Right, AV. And their stats halfheartedly reflect that intent. Such weapons even already have weird 'against vehicles, use different numbers' clauses, so I feel like my proposal's a good fit. I think firearms in general could benefit from higher AP:DV ratios as well, but that's another story. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I guess, but guns can handle most people much cheaper, that's all.

[3278]

I guess, but guns can handle most people much cheaper, that's all.

Yeah, they're definitely niche weapons! The only benefits I can think of - for, say, a rocket - would be area effect, range, and single-shot damage. Sometimes that makes them indispensable, but usually you're better off with an LMG. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Particularly since you have to weight all that against the fact that you can fire a rocket from 60 feet away, "hit," and still miss the target by 30 feet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[edit: With the exception of some 5k range missiles, basically this makes rocket launchers area-effect sniper rifles with slightly better damage, different ammo choices, and many fewer customization options. By and large, I'll take the sniper rifle.]

[Loch]

*bookmarks thread to point to his GM later*

[Udoshi]

Right, AV. And their stats halfheartedly reflect that intent. Such weapons even already have weird 'against vehicles, use different numbers' clauses, so I feel like my proposal's a good fit.

This post kind of inspired me to put my thoughts on missile balance down in text. Just so you know. They are kind of like this.

They should get + hits to damage, like EVERYTHING ELSE in the game.
I think the trend set with AV rockets and AV ammo is a good one ( they get extra ap against vehicles), but isn't enough: Dedicated AV weapons need AP half. This is the main reason gauss rifles, laser weapon, and most elemental-damage weapons(tasers, flamers) are attractive: a high ap value is nice, but AP half is just SO much better. Thus, dedicated anti-tank weapons, like missiles and rockets, should get AP half against they targets they are meant to take out. (this is the big one. Ap Half on big explosives puts them suddenly back into 'dangerous to big targets' range)
With the state of technology in shadowrun, and smartguns being so prevalent, missiles should REALLY come with a stock sensor rating out of the box, at no additional price. It doesn't have to be large, just there: Rockets are there as more of a low-tech alternative. (as a GM, I also tend to assume Device Rating supercedes Sensor rating on drones. It makes bookeeping stock enemy drones easier, as they aren't literally blind half the time. This is part of that, and a bit of guided sensor on a military missile makes some sense.)
Grenades should get a price increase to about 2-3 times what they are now. Right now they are -cheap-, and it shouldn't be more cost effective to grab a grenade as opposed to filling up your gun with bullets. Make them a little more expensive, but not unreasonably so, so people are less tempted to fling them around - and make 'refillable' grenades, like splash and gas, more attractive. Maybe changing ammo prices to be per 20 or 25 instead of 10. At current prices, 'do i want 20 bullets for two full bursts, OR a high explosive grenade' is a valid question, since they're the same price. Grenades SHOULD be deadly, just not as cheap and available as they are now.
Chunky Salsa: Realistic but kind of OP. I feel that half the reason damage falloffs are in the game is just to slightly counteract the rule. Both are also more book keeping that can bog a game down. If grenades have a potential to lose damage(falloff), then they definitely need a way to gain it back due to a good shot(net hits).
Given the opportunity to run my own game, I would probably use the middle ground for scatter distances: 4A's higher dice values, but 4th's better decreases-per-hit. Also moving any 4d6 scatter down to 3d6, like most others, because that's just way too much for a guided missile strike. Also: Allowing Airburst as a common use software package for smartlinks at the same cost, instead of JUST an accessory, which makes a bit more sense.

[Jhaiisiin]

Perhaps a way to resolve this favorably would be to increase the DV of the varied explosives, or allow the increase of damage after scatter is pulled to zero. Additionally, limit the amount of increased damage on a bullet to 2x the base value of the weapon. So standard heavy pistol would cap out at 10-12 damage. After all, no matter where you place the bullet, there is a finite amount of damage you can do to a target. A .22 isn't going to blow someone's arm completely off, after all. Increased damage from called shots would still apply, and not be affected by that cap. You should be able to get credit for putting the gun to the target's head.

[Falconer]

I've noticed it appears both ways in SR4a, delightfully. We've chosen 1D6; the other appears to be an error. Can't speak to SR4 without walking too far and leafing too much. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Get an updated PDF... you have the old one. My printed copy of the book has both pages agree on 2d6. (and even explicitly says rockets and missiles reduce from 4d6 or 3d6 down to 2d6).

You're using either a pirated or old copy of the book PDF.



Quite frankly... I wonder how ANYTHING in SR deals with moderately armored vehicles (20'ish... when heaviest tanks are in the 30's) given that the heaviest common weapons have a lot of trouble with it. And the rare stuff like gauss/lasers aren't common enough. And the scatter rules pretty much stop the heaviest anti-tank missiles dead in their tracks. (let alone the need for anti-troll missiles for the non-awakened among us staring at the occasional 40 die damage soak pool troll).

[kzt]

Part of the issue is that SR has pistol ammo costing 2 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) per and Anti-tank rockets 1000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) . Standard pistol ammo is about $0.25 per round or less in quantities of 50 and the absolute cheapest AT rocket I can think of (the cool for 1965 M-72 LAW) is $2250 per in quantities of many thousands. An AT missile, which in SR costs something like 4000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) costs more like $65,000 per.

So yeah, they made the cool toys really cheap and affordable, then bitch when the players use them.

Of course, the price I can find on M67 frag grenades say they cost $27.64 per in quantities of many, many thousands vs 35 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , so it's backwards there. But they are pretty tightly controlled, the street price is enormously higher than what the DoD pays. Which again points to SR making a cool toy too easily obtained, then bitching about them being widely used.

[kzt]

Quite frankly... I wonder how ANYTHING in SR deals with moderately armored vehicles (20'ish... when heaviest tanks are in the 30's) given that the heaviest common weapons have a lot of trouble with it.

It doesn't. The mechanics make heavy armored vehicles either immune to attack or turned into a pile of burning debris depending on whether you exceed the armor by one point or not. That part of the rules are totally broken and the devs apparently made a decision that it requires too drastic a change to make it work. Which it likely does. But it means that if you have heavy armor in your game you get stupid results using the rules or you have to make up stuff that makes at least a little sense.

[Manunancy]

Quite frankly... I wonder how ANYTHING in SR deals with moderately armored vehicles (20'ish... when heaviest tanks are in the 30's) given that the heaviest common weapons have a lot of trouble with it. And the rare stuff like gauss/lasers aren't common enough. And the scatter rules pretty much stop the heaviest anti-tank missiles dead in their tracks. (let alone the need for anti-troll missiles for the non-awakened among us staring at the occasional 40 die damage soak pool troll).

IRL modern tanks are fairly resistant to even reasonably modern antitank weapons - the two Gulf Wars and the israeli visit into Lebanon have shown it, it takes a lot to knock one out. If anything, Shadowrun's tanks aren't armored enough with barely twice the armor of an armored car/truck - when now it's more ten times the armor and more.

But those armor levels are only to the front rather than all-around like in the SR rules - an M1 is about immune to anything you can throw at it from the front, but shoot it in the back and a cheap RPG-7 (though probably with some good ammo) has a good chance to take it out of action.

but in most runs, MBTs aren't opposition, they're scenery. Which means getting realistic rules for them is a minor concern.

[Yerameyahu]

I still don't see the need to do +hits, but it shouldn't matter too much if you're also eating hits for scatter (rebalanced, obviously). *shrug* It does, again, add an extra step of complexity as you calculate the target's damage separately from the blast damage. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

Yes, I agree that the prices are all crazy.

I honestly can't see any situation where chunky salsa is *not* more trouble than it's worth. Maybe give the base DV a single flat boost if it's a 'confined space', and define that as one thing; clearly, trading realism for simplicity. Unless they're in an *armored* hallway, or you drop the grenade under a tank's hatch, just be happy with the normal DV (rebalanced to reflect how utterly deadly they are).

[Udoshi]

I still don't see the need to do +hits, but it shouldn't matter too much if you're also eating hits for scatter (rebalanced, obviously). *shrug* It does, again, add an extra step of complexity as you calculate the target's damage separately from the blast damage. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

Emphasis mine.Uh, this is how it USED to work.

No need to rebalance, just reset to the more sense-makey system. Hits on the attack reduce scatter to zero, past that they increase damage. not having surpus net hits add to damage just doesn't fit with the rest of the system, and also leads to (bad) cases where explosives aren't able to damage anything at all.

Just so you know.

[Falconer]

Udoshi:

For rockets and missiles it always struck me that using a range dependent scatter worked much better.

Firing a rocket at short range... only 1d6 scatter. Medium 2d6. long 3d6, extreme 4d6... use this to replace the normal -dice modifier for range. Airburst link reduces scatter by -1d6. Or maybe just have airburst link reduce scatter by an additional meter per success.

Or alternatively since missiles are guided... they ignore the range penalty on the attack roll. Rockets don't... then you don't need to worry about sensor grades in the missiles... Another idea is to reduce scatter by 1 per success, with a bonus based on the sensor... (IE: firing a rating 6 sensor missile at something means serious business as each success reduces scatter by (1+6) each...).

There's a lot of potential ideas in there all of which would work better than the current mess.

[Yerameyahu]

I don't care how it used to work or not. *Either way*, I don't see the need, the logic, or the point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Explosives are not the same as bullets. You can fix explosive damage without net hits. Just so you know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Yeah, Falconer, I've seen something like that, and it seems possible.

[Falconer]

Yera:
I guess there's no point to the demolitions skill then... since the same amount of explosive should do the same amount of damage no matter how well it's placed.... Same goes for all bullets from guns... placement doesn't matter.

The point is that placement DOES matter.

Under the older rules in order to stage up damage against 1 target (and not other targets in the AOE), you had to attack that target and it got reaction roll reducing your successes (and still having to deal with scatter). Exactly the same as if you were firing at them with a gun. On the other hand a lot of people just went for collateral damage... I'm attacking this square that couch/chair whatever... because they didn't want the chair to 'dodge' the attack so they could place the grenade where it would do good damage to the real targets... (yeah that shouldn't stage up).

Also, only the target got a reaction roll... all secondary targets didn't suffer the damage staging but they didn't get reaction rolls either. (I don't think that's right either... I think everyone in the AOE should have gotten a 'soak' roll of reaction (ducking behind a desk/cover..) + armor + body.

[Yerameyahu]

That's apples and oranges, Falconer. 'Set' explosives are completely distinct, and indeed have their own rules for it.

It *is* kind of ridiculous how significant the +net hits is for the Advanced Demo rules, now that you mention it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As for the Reaction/+net hits issue, you'll find I specifically said 'it's probably okay, even though it doesn't really make sense'. I said it isn't totally unworkable. But, as you clearly described, it's definitely an extra annoying layer of complexity.

[Blade]

The thing about vehicle armor is that the same ruleset is used for minidrones and tanks (and 30 foot tall mechs).