Shadowrun 5 Errata, Let's stay focused here Options

[binarywraith]

An explosive’s Damage Value is calculated
as its Rating (modified by the Demolitions Test,
if you made one) times the square root of the
number of kilograms used (rounded down). The
Blast value for a circular explosion is –2 per meter,
while the Blast value for a directional explosion
(up to 60 degrees in a specific direction)
is –1 per meter. When explosives are attached
directly to a target, the target’s armor is halved;
otherwise the explosive has an AP value of –2.
If an explosion destroys a barrier, it creates a
cloud of deadly shrapnel that threatens an area
far bigger than the actual blast—the shrapnel blast
has a DV equal to the explosive’s DV minus the
Structure rating of the barrier, with a Blast of –1/m.

Seriously? This can't be intentional, nobody would willingly put a mechanic that clunky into a finished game.

[DrZaius]

Seriously? This can't be intentional, nobody would willingly put a mechanic that clunky into a finished game.

I don't see any grammatical errors, or omissions. It would appear that they wrote it and intended it to be used as such. I know it's fun to dig at the game, but I'd actually like them to make useful changes to the ruleset (correcting errors, fixing references, that sort of thing). I get that you're frustrated but this type of comment doesn't really aid the discussion any. Not for nothing, it looks similar to previous editions.

/rant over.

-DrZ

[Draco18s]

I don't see any grammatical errors, or omissions. It would appear that they wrote it and intended it to be used as such. I know it's fun to dig at the game, but I'd actually like them to make useful changes to the ruleset (correcting errors, fixing references, that sort of thing). I get that you're frustrated but this type of comment doesn't really aid the discussion any. Not for nothing, it looks similar to previous editions.

Uh:

An explosive’s Damage Value is calculated
as its Rating (modified by the Demolitions Test,
if you made one) times the square root of the
number of kilograms used (rounded down).

[Jaid]

Uh:

An explosive’s Damage Value is calculated
as its Rating (modified by the Demolitions Test,
if you made one) times the square root of the
number of kilograms used (rounded down).

yup. what's your point? square roots are not exactly super-advanced math. you should know up to 10 by the time you're out of high school, and anything beyond that should be planned for anyways. for example, you'll most likely have to actually find someone who will sell you more than 100 kilograms of explosives in the first place, because that's the kind of thing that pretty much screams "we're going to make the front page news (or equivalent) and draw a lot of heat for whatever it is that we plan to do with this stuff".

[DrZaius]

Uh:

An explosive’s Damage Value is calculated
as its Rating (modified by the Demolitions Test,
if you made one) times the square root of the
number of kilograms used (rounded down).

So, for Commercial Explosives, Rating 5:

1 kg = 5 DV
4 kg = 10 DV
9 kg = 15 DV
16 kg = 20 DV

etc.

Like I said; there are no grammatical errors. This is how they intended it. You want a bigger bang, you're going to need to purchase explosives, and the amount you need increases exponentially.

There are hundreds of threads to complain about the game system, this one is to correct errors so when I end up buying a dead tree copy they get the pages labeled correctly. I don't really care if you don't like how the rule works, a passive aggressive, "well surely they didn't mean it to be THIS complicated" doesn't advance the discussion any.

[binarywraith]

yup. what's your point? square roots are not exactly super-advanced math. you should know up to 10 by the time you're out of high school, and anything beyond that should be planned for anyways. for example, you'll most likely have to actually find someone who will sell you more than 100 kilograms of explosives in the first place, because that's the kind of thing that pretty much screams "we're going to make the front page news (or equivalent) and draw a lot of heat for whatever it is that we plan to do with this stuff".

Note the 'modified by Demolitions test' bit.

It is an absurdity that I can only assume is unintentional to put a damage code in that must be calculated on the fly with each use, especially when requires more advanced math than simple arithmetic.

I mean, seriously, the damage code is :

Rating + (Successes on Demolitions + Logic) x sqrt(number of kilograms of explosive)

Then modify for blast shape and location :

An explosive’s Damage Value is calculated
as its Rating (modified by the Demolitions Test,
if you made one) times the square root of the
number of kilograms used (rounded down). The
Blast value for a circular explosion is –2 per meter,
while the Blast value for a directional explosion
(up to 60 degrees in a specific direction)
is –1 per meter. When explosives are attached
directly to a target, the target’s armor is halved;
otherwise the explosive has an AP value of –2.
If an explosion destroys a barrier, it creates a
cloud of deadly shrapnel that threatens an area
far bigger than the actual blast—the shrapnel blast
has a DV equal to the explosive’s DV minus the
Structure rating of the barrier, with a Blast of –1/m.

That's not even going into actually getting through a barrier.

So, say you slap a quarter kilo of minimum rating plastique in a shaped charge onto an apartment door to blow it in. Logic + Demolitions scores four successes. So our equation looks like this :

[6 + 4] x sqrt(.25) = 10 x .5 = 5

So we've got a DV 5 explosion.


Now then, onto what happens when it goes boom.

First, the barrier gets to roll a damage resistance test, with structure + armor. Given this is a standard door, it has Structure 2 and Armor 4 per the chart on pg 197. However, since this is an explosive placed up against the door, we're not done with the math and ready to roll yet. Per the 'Damaging Barriers' chart on page 198, explosives in contact with the barrier get to use Base DV times two. As this section quotes a completely different method of blowing up a door than the one under Demolitions :

If a character intends to destroy a barrier (or knock a hole
in it), resolve the attack normally. Since barriers can’t
dodge, the attack test is unopposed. The purpose of the
attack test is to generate extra hits to add to the Damage
Value. If a character got no hits, then only apply the base
Damage Value. The only way a character could “miss”
is if he got a critical glitch on the attack test, thus proving
themselves literally unable to hit the broad side of a
barn. A character may use Demolitions as the attack skill
if he has the proper materials and time to set charges.

We're going to go with the one under Demolitions on Page 436 as that's what we're illustrating.

We're going to assume the Base DV of this explosive is the one calculated above, despite it having the results of a demolitions + logic roll added in, for sake of brevity here. So the next roll is as follows :

2 (structure) + 4 (armor) dice rolled vs 5 (base DV) x 2 (per damaging barriers chart)

So 6 dice vs DV 10.

Assuming average roll, the barrier gets 4 successes. This leaves 6 DV unsoaked, which is more than the 2 structure the door has, and thus the door has been damaged!

Per 'Damaging A Barrier', page 197-198, The remaining 6 successes are divided by the door's structure to determine the extent of the damage. 1 square meter of hole is generated per multiple of the structure left over in DV. Thus here, a 3 square meter hole would be generated.

We'll assume most apartments don't have a 3 square meter door. Now back to page 436!

If an explosion destroys a barrier, it creates a
cloud of deadly shrapnel that threatens an area
far bigger than the actual blast—the shrapnel blast
has a DV equal to the explosive’s DV minus the
Structure rating of the barrier, with a Blast of –1/m.

The penetrating a barrier section on page 197-8 doesn't actually have any specifics at all as to how you actually destroy a barrier, only how to punch a hole in one. In this case, I'm going to go with the assumption that if the hole is larger than the object, that object is destroyed.

This door has clearly been destroyed!

Therefore, anyone on the other side of this door needs to soak :

The 5 DV (AP-2) (Minus 1 DV per meter as this is a directional explosion) explosion/blast effect itself.

-AND-

The secondary shrapnel explosion, at :

5 (Explosion DV) - 2 (structure rating of the door) with a Blast of -1 per meter.

So the door is gone, and the guy standing behind it is soaking two hits, one at 5DV (AP-2) and one at 3 DV.

As this is a shaped explosion, the people on the outside of the door do not have to soak it as well. If this was a standard spherical explosion, they would have to soak 5 DV (AP-2) -2 per meter from the door.

I have intentionally assumed this apartment is big enough that we don't have to calculate the chunky salsa effects, as well.


Now we move on to the next combat turn. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)


You see the number of assumptions I had to make up there? This is why I'm asking if this is an errata point, because there are details missing and conflicting rules in these two sections that need clarification. Also, there's a typo in the earlier part of that same rule on page 436. The rules for barriers are not on page 194 as quoted, they're on page 197.

[RHat]

[snip]

Again, you're free to suggest that it's overcomplicated (and you certainly have basis), but it is not something for the errata thread - and is in fact the same method used in SR4. This is a discussion that needs to take place outside of this thread.

[Diaghilev]

(Legitimate concerns about the complexity of demolitions)

While I agree that the rules are (perhaps needlessly) complex, I have created a spreadsheet that will calculate the relevant numbers for any given rating of explosives, demolitions + logic skill pool, and kilograms of compound used.

Click here to view it: http://goo.gl/96Dacq

You will need to make a copy to edit/use it.

If my math is correct, the sheet will accurately provide both a rounded and unrounded value of the explosion DV (for both arbitrary explosions and explosions set off in contact with a surface) as well as display the average size of a hole blasted into various barriers and the resultant shrapnel cloud DV and radius.

[Chrome Head]

1 kg = 5 DV
4 kg = 10 DV
9 kg = 15 DV
16 kg = 20 DV

etc.

Like I said; there are no grammatical errors. This is how they intended it. You want a bigger bang, you're going to need to purchase explosives, and the amount you need increases exponentially.

I'm sorry I just have to nitpick here because this makes me cringe. You describe a quadratic function as being exponential: they are not equivalent. An exponential function here would grow ridiculously too fast, whereas the quadratic function is actually manageable.

[xsansara]

I'm sorry I just have to nitpick here because this makes me cringe. You describe a quadratic function as being exponential: they are not equivalent. An exponential function here would grow ridiculously too fast, whereas the quadratic function is actually manageable.

Thank you for not being the only one who cringes at stuff like that. The quadratic (or even more precisely the root function) is not only somewhat simple, it is also astonishingly realistical in its boundaries. A really big blast needs a lot of explosives, while even little stuff does some damage. This is also consistent with the damage of grenades and rockets. The only problem I have with that personally, is that it is actually too realistic compared to the rest of the game (and chunky-salsa, of course).

[Epicedion]

Thank you for not being the only one who cringes at stuff like that. The quadratic (or even more precisely the root function) is not only somewhat simple, it is also astonishingly realistical in its boundaries. A really big blast needs a lot of explosives, while even little stuff does some damage. This is also consistent with the damage of grenades and rockets. The only problem I have with that personally, is that it is actually too realistic compared to the rest of the game (and chunky-salsa, of course).

Both rules are holdovers from when damage level and power weren't intrisically connected.

[Sendaz]

And everyone loves salsa. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And everyone loves salsa. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I prefer Picante.... But will definitely enjoy me some Salsa. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[binarywraith]

Thank you for not being the only one who cringes at stuff like that. The quadratic (or even more precisely the root function) is not only somewhat simple, it is also astonishingly realistical in its boundaries. A really big blast needs a lot of explosives, while even little stuff does some damage. This is also consistent with the damage of grenades and rockets. The only problem I have with that personally, is that it is actually too realistic compared to the rest of the game (and chunky-salsa, of course).

I'm not sure where you get that. A HE grenade has a damage code of 16P for 100 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , roughly equivalent to a kilogram of rating 16 plastique for 1600 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) or ~9.5 kilos of rating 5 Commercial explosives, which would run you 9500 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) .

Note the massive increases in cost and bulk to come anywhere near the same level of damage. Apparently someone's putting very, very high quality explosives in those little grenades, and somehow got them exceedingly cheap. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)


I'd very much agree with this being more than a touch too realistic to work with the rest of the combat rules, though.

[Jaid]

I'm not sure where you get that. A HE grenade has a damage code of 16P for 100 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , roughly equivalent to a kilogram of rating 16 plastique for 1600 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) or ~9.5 kilos of rating 5 Commercial explosives, which would run you 9500 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) .

Note the massive increases in cost and bulk to come anywhere near the same level of damage. Apparently someone's putting very, very high quality explosives in those little grenades, and somehow got them exceedingly cheap. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

or they're just scoring an awful lot of hits on their demolitions test.

[pragma]

p. 184 -- "if a vehicle breaks contact a new target lock must be acquired. This can be done by using an action to evade detection ...'
p. 189 -- Defender Unaware of Attack -- "if the defender is behind cover, the defense dice pool is determined by the cover according to the defense modifiers table (187)." No such numbers in the defense modifiers table on 189. The melee modifiers table on 187 is also lacking them.

[xsansara]

I'm not sure where you get that. A HE grenade has a damage code of 16P for 100 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , roughly equivalent to a kilogram of rating 16 plastique for 1600 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) or ~9.5 kilos of rating 5 Commercial explosives, which would run you 9500 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) .

OK. Challenge accepted. A RGD-5 grenade (picked randomly from Wikipedia) contains 110 g of TNT. It is the equivalent of a fragmentation grenade. I am modeling the fragments as debris with a structure rating of 0, so the damage is -1/meter. So you got a blast DV of 1/3 rating + hits at -1/meter. The fragmentation grenade in the book has a DV of 16 and costs 100 Nuyen. For 99 Nuyen, I can buy 110g of rating 9 foam and would need 13 hits on my Demo to make up the difference. Not that unrealistical, considering the team work and effort that flows into building a highly-specialized and mass-produced product such as a grenade. More hits obviously increase my winning span.

Now, if I were a rule-book writer, I would rule that the grenade just gets its natural DV from the blast at a maximum of 8 for the highest rating explosives available and replace the Demo test with a Throwing test, which would be deadly enough, in my opinion. The price would then be around 300 per grenade. Probably less, given the higher availability of grenades, due to military campaigns in which selling of your equipment is part of your pay check. But I am not and my opinion does not count.

Still, my point holds: the explosive rules are consistent with themselves and the rest of the rulebook.

[binarywraith]

Take ten seconds and remember this is SR5. What would your Limit have to be in order to be able to make 13 usable hits on that test. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) 6/6/6 still only gets you a Mental Limit of 8.

The scenario you're laying out makes sense, the rules as written just don't support it. The demolitions rules call out that each hit on a Demolitions + Logic [Mental] Test
adds 1 to the explosive’s effective rating. This is not listed as an extended test, so your Mental limit is as far as you can really go on it.

[Chrome Head]

Take ten seconds and remember this is SR5. What would your Limit have to be in order to be able to make 13 usable hits on that test. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) 6/6/6 still only gets you a Mental Limit of 8.

The scenario you're laying out makes sense, the rules as written just don't support it. The demolitions rules call out that each hit on a Demolitions + Logic [Mental] Test
adds 1 to the explosive’s effective rating. This is not listed as an extended test, so your Mental limit is as far as you can really go on it.

He did mention that this test would be equivalent to a teamwork test (and I agree). As soon as 6 people were involved in the fabrication, your 6/6/6 guy's limit has gone up to 13.

I think you really wanted to disagree without really reading what was said.

And to be fair, the rules already don't support a "mass-production test".

[binarywraith]

He did mention that this test would be equivalent to a teamwork test (and I agree). As soon as 6 people were involved in the fabrication, your 6/6/6 guy's limit has gone up to 13.

I think you really wanted to disagree without really reading what was said.

And to be fair, the rules already don't support a "mass-production test".

You can project whatever motivations you like, it's the internet after all. But at the same time, 'the rules make sense if you add assumptions that the rules don't support' is about as far from a good argument for the rules as written being consistent as you can get.

[Jaid]

honestly, i consider the dice pool that consistently generates 13 net hits to be a bigger anomaly than the limit being 13. there's probably some highly advanced piece of industrial equipment that can trivially give you at least a few points to your limit in the setting, and teamwork tests make raising the limit fairly easy regardless. but a dicepool to generate 13 hits consistently, you're looking at 52-55 dice (to get consistent, you need to use the 1:4 ratio that lets you skip rolling). that's quite a bit (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Sendaz]

honestly, i consider the dice pool that consistently generates 13 net hits to be a bigger anomaly than the limit being 13. there's probably some highly advanced piece of industrial equipment that can trivially give you at least a few points to your limit in the setting, and teamwork tests make raising the limit fairly easy regardless. but a dicepool to generate 13 hits consistently, you're looking at 52-55 dice (to get consistent, you need to use the 1:4 ratio that lets you skip rolling). that's quite a bit (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Bet TJ can do it with 26. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Chrome Head]

But who cares really? The rules don't tell you how machines that mass produce grenades are made. They don't tell you what kind of test to make in that scenario. You are trying to apply rules to a part of the world not covered by rules. Of course it seems a bit off. The assumptions are not from me, they're from you. Where in the rule does it say that grenades have 110g of explosives anyway? Why would the industry buy explosives at street value? Why wouldn't there be some kind of extended test to build machines that build grenades? WOuldn't that "test" be made by engineers working on the blueprint? So then why would you need to make that "test" "consistently"?

I think you are all looking at a problem that doesn't exist at all. It's not inconsistency in the rules if the rules just plain don't cover it.

[binarywraith]

But who cares really? The rules don't tell you how machines that mass produce grenades are made. They don't tell you what kind of test to make in that scenario. You are trying to apply rules to a part of the world not covered by rules. Of course it seems a bit off. The assumptions are not from me, they're from you. Where in the rule does it say that grenades have 110g of explosives anyway? Why would the industry buy explosives at street value? Why wouldn't there be some kind of extended test to build machines that build grenades? WOuldn't that "test" be made by engineers working on the blueprint? So then why would you need to make that "test" "consistently"?

I think you are all looking at a problem that doesn't exist at all. It's not inconsistency in the rules if the rules just plain don't cover it.

It is a bit of an inconsistency if the greatest explosives expert in the world is, per the rules, incapable of replicating a bog-standard and inexpensive mass produced product without resorting to using incredibly high-rating and thus massively expensive base materials, but that's just me being picky.

[DrZaius]

again though, not a typo, so why not debate this in a separate thread?

Apologies for exponential / quadratic malarky. Words can hurt- I know more than most.

-DrZ