[X] My Assistant

[Draco18s]

Accuracy vs precision. Accuracy is the ability to hit a target. Precision is how close together multiple samples hit. A high accuracy low precision weapon would be a shotgun (you're probably going to hit with some of the shot). A high accuracy high precision weapon would be a sniper rifle. It's a poorly named stat.

And a low accuracy, high precision weapon is one that needs its sight adjusted. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Epicedion]

Accuracy vs precision. Accuracy is the ability to hit a target. Precision is how close together multiple samples hit. A high accuracy low precision weapon would be a shotgun (you're probably going to hit with some of the shot). A high accuracy high precision weapon would be a sniper rifle. It's a poorly named stat.

Sure, but even a weapon that throws bullets upwards of 30 degrees off the barrel axis isn't going to do less damage if the bullet somehow manages to strike someone in the temple.

The combat system is already fairly abstract. Previously Accuracy has been modeled by some weapons as being more/less accurate at range (treat this light pistol as a heavy pistol for range, since it's more accurate, and so on). Modeling Accuracy in such a way that it means "X gun can do a max of Y damage no matter how skilled you are" is just kind of.. weird, and unpleasant. It makes the abstraction uncomfortable, but it doesn't do anything to promote simulation/realism.

[Umidori]

While for the most part, I don't mind the new Accuracy stat on weapons, I do have to say that while the accuracy of the gun does play a role, a skilled marksman can compensate for an inaccurate weapon with their skill.

To a point, yes, but some inaccuracy is too great to predictably account for. Take a flintlock pistol, for example. I don't care how straight and true you level the barrel, the aerodynamics of spherical ball ammunition fired from a smoothbore barrel makes for a very strong tendency to tumble and fly off course. Beyond a certain range it's anyone's guess where the ball will land, and you certainly aren't going to be getting tight, consistant shot groups.

Basically it boils down to the quality of the weapon and ammo, and the distance over which you are firing. A precision machined professional sniper rifle should pretty much always hit where you point it (up to a certain distance where gravity and wind start significantly messing with the trajectory). But a homebrew zip-gun sniper rifle is going to be a lot less accurate. Likewise, a precision pistol should do the same at short distances, but suffer at longer ones. (I imagine they'll represent this in the new system by having Range Categories modify Accuracy rather than Dice Pool.)

And if you're stuck using a Barrens Special that looks like someone's been using it to hammer nails into concrete, the accuracy of that weapon is probably so bad that even a world class marksman is going to have trouble hitting a moving target at any significant distance (and that's assuming it doesn't just blow up in your hand when fired).

~Umi

[Epicedion]

(I imagine they'll represent this in the new system by having Range Categories modify Accuracy rather than Dice Pool.)

I don't know if this is overboard, but that's a goddamn brilliant idea that I think could solve the shotgun vs SMG vs assault rifle problem. Give short-range weapons very high limits, but have them fall off faster at range (so an SMG at long range might be down to like Accuracy/whatever 2). Then the damage limit would make more sense -- longarms would retain higher accuracy/damage at longer ranges, whereas SMGs and shotguns could do high damage close up but decline at range. That'd give you a real reason to switch to a shotgun or pistol when clearing hallways in a building, but make you want a rifle outside.

[StealthSigma]

I don't know if this is overboard, but that's a goddamn brilliant idea that I think could solve the shotgun vs SMG vs assault rifle problem. Give short-range weapons very high limits, but have them fall off faster at range (so an SMG at long range might be down to like Accuracy/whatever 2). Then the damage limit would make more sense -- longarms would retain higher accuracy/damage at longer ranges, whereas SMGs and shotguns could do high damage close up but decline at range. That'd give you a real reason to switch to a shotgun or pistol when clearing hallways in a building, but make you want a rifle outside.

The reason you use a shotgun/PDW over an assault rifle in an indoor environment has nothing to do with damage and more to do with who quickly you can bring the weapon to lethal bearing on a sudden target.

[Epicedion]

The reason you use a shotgun/PDW over an assault rifle in an indoor environment has nothing to do with damage and more to do with who quickly you can bring the weapon to lethal bearing on a sudden target.

Yes, but try to model that in Shadowrun. In an abstract combat system, modifying the damage potentials in different range categories still roughly brings you to the same place -- more bullets on target close up with close up guns, so close up guns are more desirable close up. If you wanted to get crunchy, you could put each category of gun on its own skewed bell curve, so a sniper rifle might be awful at close range, so-so at medium range, and really good at long range (and back down to so-so/decent at extreme range).

EDIT: This would also allow for some cool weapon mods and effects: various range sights (ACOG, etc) to skew the accuracy curve, heavy attachments (grenade launchers) could screw up accuracy at close range, or other attachments (gas vent, silencer) could screw up accuracy at long range, or even adjustable stocks to make a carbine/assault rifle more suitable to a particular range with an action.

[Lionhearted]

I'll just throw in some food for thought, what if they amp up all the DV's and have accuracy be the throttle...
So a Heavy pistol would do 8P but only have accuracy 1 or 2, for example.


Increasing lethality, bit by bit.

[Umidori]

Yes, but try to model that in Shadowrun.

Exactly. If we tried to model firearms realistically, all guns would be just about equally likely to kill if you hit your target. The abstraction of dealing more damage with shotguns instead of assault rifles suits the needs of the game while still making sense as an abstraction of reality.

I'll just throw in some food for thought, what if they amp up all the DV's and have accuracy be the throttle...
So a Heavy pistol would do 8P but only have accuracy 1 or 2, for example.


Increasing lethality, bit by bit.

I'm actually hoping for exactly this sort of thing. A heavy pistol might have a much higher base damage than a light pistol, but a light pistol should be much more accurate.

~Umi

[thorya]

Regarding accuracy limiting the hits and preventing bullet from being deadly and eliminating the possibility of pistols killing trolls, I feel like the adding net hit rules already does this in reverse. Why is it that simply because you're inexperienced with a weapon it is literally impossible to kill someone with it?

Example, Joe average defaulting on using a pistol even with an above average agility of 5, he's rolling 4 dice. With a heavy pistol, the most damage he can do is 9 DV, if he rolls all hits and the defender doesn't have any successes on the defense test and they have no successes on the soak test it's still only going to knock out them out, not kill a low body human or elf. Because the shooter is inexperienced, the bullet can never hit the temple. I'm not saying I want it to be a frequent occurrence, but it's not possible under the current rules and it would be nice if it was. But it's a game, you have to sacrifice realism for play.

I don't think we're losing anymore realism by limiting hits to damage than we are losing right now by not letting low end users have any chance at those levels of hits to damage. And I will be happy to see a game where the damage from a light pistol doesn't magically triple in the hands of an expert. How often the expert hits, sure, but damage? a lot of what the bullet hits in the body and what it does is chance. Even a well placed shot has a chance to avoid major organs regardless of how good the shooter is. Light pistols shouldn't regularly be more deadly than a high explosive grenade exploding at your feet.

I would also like to see an complete change on called shots. I'll never understand why aiming at a spot their vest doesn't cover makes it completely impossible for me to hit their vest or any other part of them.

[_Pax._]

Yes, but try to model that in Shadowrun. In an abstract combat system, modifying the damage potentials in different range categories still roughly brings you to the same place -- more bullets on target close up with close up guns, so close up guns are more desirable close up. If you wanted to get crunchy, you could put each category of gun on its own skewed bell curve, so a sniper rifle might be awful at close range, so-so at medium range, and really good at long range (and back down to so-so/decent at extreme range).

EDIT: This would also allow for some cool weapon mods and effects: various range sights (ACOG, etc) to skew the accuracy curve, heavy attachments (grenade launchers) could screw up accuracy at close range, or other attachments (gas vent, silencer) could screw up accuracy at long range, or even adjustable stocks to make a carbine/assault rifle more suitable to a particular range with an action.

I would sacrifice my neighbors to see SR5 do this. Both of them (neighbors, I mean).






SUDDEN EPIPHANY .... what if Recoil stops being a DP modifier, and becomes an accuracy modifier?

[thorya]

I would sacrifice my neighbors to see SR5 do this. Both of them (neighbors, I mean).






SUDDEN EPIPHANY .... what if Recoil stops being a DP modifier, and becomes an accuracy modifier?

Wasn't that mentioned a few pages back?

[All4BigGuns]

Well, since there's going to be fewer positive dice pool modifiers from equipment, there really should be a commensurate reduction in negative ones as well.

[_Pax._]

Wasn't that mentioned a few pages back?

Maybe. If there was, I missed it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

Well, since there's going to be fewer positive dice pool modifiers from equipment, there really should be a commensurate reduction in negative ones as well.

There probably will be.

[Glyph]

Example, Joe average defaulting on using a pistol even with an above average agility of 5, he's rolling 4 dice. With a heavy pistol, the most damage he can do is 9 DV, if he rolls all hits and the defender doesn't have any successes on the defense test and they have no successes on the soak test it's still only going to knock out them out, not kill a low body human or elf. Because the shooter is inexperienced, the bullet can never hit the temple. I'm not saying I want it to be a frequent occurrence, but it's not possible under the current rules and it would be nice if it was. But it's a game, you have to sacrifice realism for play.

To me, those kind of fluke, one-in-a-million shots are represented by the Edge Attribute. Assuming that Edge in SR5 still uncaps the maximum possible hits.

[Warlordtheft]

Just to add a few more thoughts. While I like the concept, I'm not sure I'll like the execution. Here's what I found when using the matrix + attribute in SR4:

1. Certain rules interactions become stupidly broken. Threading up a program, means you can take your CF of 4 an thread it up to an 8 (or higher, AFB). Meanwile your opposition hacker can get at most 4 hits (with a rating 4 program to me being standard jo blow security software).

2. Barring incompetancy, say enough to get 6 to 8 dice, skill did not matter as much as the limits did.

3. Agents were wither stupid good or a cakewalk, balancing for a challenge was difficult for me.


For 5th Edition:

1. They will have to rework the matrix rules to better handle infiltrating a site. As it stands now a Techno can waltz right in to most systems.
2. Agents/IC should just be a single number ranging in rating from 3-18+.Keep it simple, and an agent can have its rating in programs.
3. Go back to a security tally for deckers! One of the things I miss from 2nd ed.

OT:Guns
1. Range should reduce accuracy--it does not need to be linear. Ex shooting a sniper rifle at a target within point blank and short range modifies the rifle's to a 3, while at medium range and longer it jumps up to an 8 and then drops to a 6 at extreme.
2. Wide bursts should just be a negative to the persons dodge roll as it is. Narrow should still increase the damage.
3. Recoil should reduce accuracy as well.
4. Cover should limit the dodge roll.

[Draco18s]

1. Certain rules interactions become stupidly broken. Threading up a program, means you can take your CF of 4 an thread it up to an 8 (or higher, AFB). Meanwile your opposition hacker can get at most 4 hits (with a rating 4 program to me being standard jo blow security software).

Because clearly the matrix isn't getting an overhaul. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

[Epicedion]

Regarding accuracy limiting the hits and preventing bullet from being deadly and eliminating the possibility of pistols killing trolls, I feel like the adding net hit rules already does this in reverse. Why is it that simply because you're inexperienced with a weapon it is literally impossible to kill someone with it?

Example, Joe average defaulting on using a pistol even with an above average agility of 5, he's rolling 4 dice. With a heavy pistol, the most damage he can do is 9 DV, if he rolls all hits and the defender doesn't have any successes on the defense test and they have no successes on the soak test it's still only going to knock out them out, not kill a low body human or elf. Because the shooter is inexperienced, the bullet can never hit the temple. I'm not saying I want it to be a frequent occurrence, but it's not possible under the current rules and it would be nice if it was. But it's a game, you have to sacrifice realism for play.

I don't think we're losing anymore realism by limiting hits to damage than we are losing right now by not letting low end users have any chance at those levels of hits to damage. And I will be happy to see a game where the damage from a light pistol doesn't magically triple in the hands of an expert. How often the expert hits, sure, but damage? a lot of what the bullet hits in the body and what it does is chance. Even a well placed shot has a chance to avoid major organs regardless of how good the shooter is. Light pistols shouldn't regularly be more deadly than a high explosive grenade exploding at your feet.

I would also like to see an complete change on called shots. I'll never understand why aiming at a spot their vest doesn't cover makes it completely impossible for me to hit their vest or any other part of them.

My thought is that weapons could be restricted to a damage maximum (say 50% above their base damage). Extra hits above that would still affect the damage resistance test and have to be negated.

So you shoot a guy with a weapon that's Accuracy 5 and Damage 6. You get your 5 hits, bringing the weapon damage up to 11. The target only soaks one damage, bringing the damage down to 10. Since the weapon max damage is 9, he actually takes 9 damage (not 10).

There, that makes a lucky amateur able to do the same amount of damage as a sharpshooter, but the sharpshooter is still doing more damage in general because people have to soak more in order to reduce his damage.

[UmaroVI]

To me, those kind of fluke, one-in-a-million shots are represented by the Edge Attribute. Assuming that Edge in SR5 still uncaps the maximum possible hits.

One ordinary dude being able to murder another ordinary dude with a gun really shouldn't be a fluke one in a million shot.

[Draco18s]

One ordinary dude being able to murder another ordinary dude with a gun really shouldn't be a fluke one in a million shot.

One ordinary dude murdering another ordinary dude with a gun and a single bullet. Yeah, it should be. Anyone can double-tap for a kill.

Or at least, on average, the injured guy isn't going to die from the initial wound.

[O'Ryan]

To put it back in perspective...

The same average Joe with 5AGI goes to shoot a guy from ten feet away. (4 dice, +2 for point blank. 6 dice.)
He knows Ganger McGangerson has to die, so he aims for the head. (-4 dice, called shot head. +4 damage. 2 dice.)
He steadies himself for a second. (Take aim, +1 dice. 3 dice.)

He shoots and, on average, does 10P with the potential of 12, enough to kill a low body enemy.
Random people CAN one hit kill other random people. A single shot to the chest? Survivable. To the head? It still depends on if they hit you between the eyes or take an ear off, but it's doable.

[sk8bcn]

The combat system is already fairly abstract. Previously Accuracy has been modeled by some weapons as being more/less accurate at range (treat this light pistol as a heavy pistol for range, since it's more accurate, and so on). Modeling Accuracy in such a way that it means "X gun can do a max of Y damage no matter how skilled you are" is just kind of.. weird, and unpleasant. It makes the abstraction uncomfortable, but it doesn't do anything to promote simulation/realism.

You still should make it into persepective. When I play DD, no matter if I roll 5 or 18, my sword still deals 1d8+Strength in damages. In Call of Cthulhu, nigh the same.

Heck, many games doesn't offer any success mesurement.

I'm willing to see the outcome. I've got my 4th and 4A books but still didn't read them as I'm playing all the old adventures I bought. However, from what I've seen here, equipement's effect was mmmm lack luster? Like +1 die/+2 dices (+0.33 succes, +0.66 successes?). While adding equiment to highten the cap feels, IMO, stronger.
Well, 'kay, the stranger point about such a system it is that a lower dice pool character wouldn't benefit at all from equipment.


And btw, if I understood that, you still can uncap the roll with edge.

[_Pax._]

NEW BLOG ENTRY ... relevant to this thread:

http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2013/02/s...exceeding-them/

Seems Edge is one way to exceed those Limits - including, AFTER the roll; if you get an awesoem roll, just blow a point of Edge to ignore whatever Limit there was. Or if you spent the edge beforehand, to gain dice ... you also ignore the Limit.

I actually like that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ChromeZephyr]

I'll be damned, I guessed right. It seemed like a common sense thing to me, so I'm glad it's in there.

The refreshing edge thing instead of karma seems like something you'll want to talk about with your players as a GM if it's an either/or thing. I can see some players saying "Nope, I'd rather have the karma. If I run out of luck in the middle of the run, well the world is a cold place and agricultural property is cheap."

[DMiller]

I agree with ChromeZephyr. If the karma costs stay about the same as they are now, I would much rather have the karma than the luck.

A GM could also rule that the down-time required to regain (at least some of) your edge could be shorter so that you can gain back edge during the mission. We do this already at our table.

-D