IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Guesses to how combat might work
Vuron
post Apr 7 2005, 02:51 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



Based on the stated dice mechanic how do you see combat in SR4 being determined?

Using SR3 combat as a template these are my guesses.

1) Initiative and Surprise- Honestly without knowing the basics of how reaction and initiative might be determined (is it open ended or is it a test versus TN5 etc) this is pretty much useless. Further without knowing the basics of how reaction enhancing cyberware works it's impossible to say how many actions combatants will be looking at each turn.


2) Ranged Combat Test (to hit)- Personally I figure they will go with both number of successes needed and dicepool modifications to determine the complexity of shots.

Example 1: Ganger 1 takes a potshot at ganger 2 at short distance in decent conditions (yeah I know how often would that actually happen) thus the difficulty is one success. Ganger rolls 3 dice for quickness and 3 dice for pistols (or firearms whatever) and acchieves 2 success vs TN of 5.

Example 2: Street Samurai shoots at corp security goon while running and in poor visibility at medium range. Normally a medium range shot requires 2 successes to hit and visibility and running modifiers remove 2 dice from the street samurai's pool. However he has a smartlink which adds 1 die to the dice pool. He rolls his quickness of 4 and pistols of 5 - 1 for one negative modifier and acchieves 3 successes.

3) Dodge Test- I'm going to assume some sort of active dodging is going to be included in the system rather than manuvers for a set round (like evasive manuvers removes 2 dice from opponents ranged combat test while removing 2 from your own). For the sake of argument I figure the dodge test will be based on straight quickness and can only be done when not surprised. Maybe you can only dodge a number of attacks equal to your quickness or some fraction thereof in a round

Example 1: Ganger 2 wants to avoid being shot by ganger 1 as he doesn't have much in the way of armor. He rolls his quickness of 3 vs TN 5 acchieving 1 success.

Example 2: Security Goon figures he better avoid the samurai's handcannon so rolls his quickness vs TN 5. However his heavy armor reduces his quickness by 1 so he rolls 2 dice vs TN 5 and acchieves no successes.

4) Result Test- Going to go out on a limb and say that rather than power codes indicating the TN of the test that power codes might indicate the damage plus the number of successes required to stage the damage down. If you want added complexity you could probably assume that there might be modifiers to dice rolled based on penetration and stopping power.

Example 1: Ganger 2 needs to take a damage test vs a code of 2M for ganger 1s pistol. He rolls his body 3 + his armor rating of 2 for 5 dice. He manages to roll two successes and stages the damage from the pistol down to L.

Example 2: Corp Goon needs to take a damage test vs a code of 2M for Samurai's pistol. However the pistol is firing AP ammo and has impressive stopping power removing 2 from his body pool. Fortunately he his wearing heavy armor (+5 dice) so gets to roll 7 dice vs TN 5. He rolls poorly unfortunately and only gets 1 success so he still takes a medium wound.

With this sort of system I'd say burst fire should increase you chances of rolling a hit rather than increasing damage code (it's hard to keep a tight grouping with BF) so a Submachinegun on burst fire might add +2 dice to a samurai's dice pool. This would allow crazy gangers with submachineguns to be far more threatening than thier base skill would allow because spraying all that lead is bound to hit something.

So what do you think doable or am I totally off base ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blitzen
post Apr 7 2005, 05:07 PM
Post #2


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20-March 05
Member No.: 7,193



What if instead of having a dodge roll, if combat ends up more like melee 3rd style. Meaning a character uses an opposed test. For example a character uses some sort of martial combat skill like unarmed to attack and the defender uses his/her marial combat armed (clubs) to defend or counter, Likewise a character in ranged combat uses some sort of ballistic combat skill like pistols versus the defenders SMG skill allowing him/her to dodge, take cover, or some sort of maneuver. This would however, imply that all ballistic combat skills are more than just gun skills, but rather combat skills similar to that of swat, military and other armed forces use.

I don't know maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I like 3rd melee to much being my character is an over grown Elf hating German (elf) with muscle replacement and a str of 14 plus a set of cyberspurs to boot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Apr 7 2005, 04:08 PM
Post #3


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



I'll take a stab and guess Initiative will probably result in successes allowing certain actions either per a fixed number of Combat Phases (say maybe 3) or spanning the whole Combat Turn.

Free, Simple, Complex and Exclusive type actions would require a certain number of successes and would elimnate the need for whole Free-Simple-Complex naming convention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CradleWorm
post Apr 7 2005, 05:44 PM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 22-March 05
From: Milwaukee
Member No.: 7,210



I would not expect initiative to change. It already did not follow the basic rules for rolling dice because it used a nD6 roll.

For ranged combat, here is what I expect.

Attacker rolls Dice Pool equal to Quickness + Skill reduced by modifiers. -1 per range band, -1 per recoil, +1 per burst, ect...

Target rolls Dice Pool equal to Body + Armor.

Net successes for attacker result in boxes of damage.

I bet weapons add or subtract dice from this pool based on how effective they are. Light pistols -2, Medium Pistols -1, Heavy Pistols 0, SMG's 0, Rifles and Assault Rifles +3, Shotguns +2, HMG's +6... ect...

Melee combat may remain opposed tests. Both characters roll Strength + Skill with modifiers for friends and reach.

Winner rolls damage dice for weapon and adds net successes. Looser rolls Body + Armor.

Net successes for winner equate to boxes of damage.

The other way to go that I can see is weapons do a base damage in boxes (L,M,S,D) and the power is converted to a Dice Pool Reduction for the target. Example: An assault rifle might have a 3M damage code. When someone gets shot they roll damage reistance equal to Body + Armor - Power.

Net successes can add or reduce boxes of damage, either by 1 per success or by staging as in SR3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 7 2005, 05:16 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298



I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction. It's complicated. Most games don't make a distinction between the two, and any distinction adds complexity. The mechanic is boring but rapid then:

Person A rolls firearm skill, needs N successes to hit.
Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!)
Person B rolls damage resist, with the weapon adding a number of successes to Person A's attack if it hit, and armor adding dice to the resist roll.
Person B takes damage depending on how many successes are left.

I don't really like this, as it removes any tactics necessary for choosing an appropriate weapon for your target. But it fits the dice system they've announced, and it fits the goal of simplicity they've announced.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 7 2005, 06:37 PM
Post #6


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Ellery)
Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!)

I have to agree with you here: I would not like this, at all, and I feel it'd be a mindnumbingly boring mechanic. But it sure would be simple.

QUOTE (Ellery)
I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction.

Considering how most people tend to think along the lines of "Pistol = little damage, assault rifle = quite a lot of damage, shotgun = even more damage, sniper rifle = bucketloads of damage", I don't think the general gaming population will mind. And it'd be fine by me as well, because I could house rule all that right back in there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 7 2005, 06:44 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



I thought about tthe possibility of having a new quickness linked dodge skill as it would replicate the uncanny knack some people have for avoiding attacks. Further by having it seperate from a ranged combat skill it would allow some characters to be extremely defensive without needing to be extremely lethal. Initially i decided against it because it would be very new to the game but I see points for and against it.

Under such a system dodge test would be quickness + dodge vs TN5. If you wanted to factor in how experience and training can improve your odds of finding good cover etc then I would say if the dodging character has a Small Unit Tactics skill of 3-4 then they recieve +1 Die to thier dodge pool and SUT 5-6 +2 Dice etc. That way you could represent how experienced tacticians can improve the combat worthiness of thier team.

Personally I figure having the number of successes neccasary for each range band (1 success for short, 2 successes, for medium, 3 successes for long range, 4 successes for extreme range) would be the most likely thing rather than adjusting the dice pool rolled. Of course magnification would reduce the number of successes needed (granted that would make magnification even more potent than it already is probably neccesitating increased cost). Environmental penalties and bonuses would be factored into the number of dice rolled, low light might be -1 or -2 die. Called shots would be something like adding 2 to the difficulty of the shot (thus a long range called shot might require 5 successes).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 7 2005, 05:45 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



QUOTE (Ellery)
I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction. It's complicated. Most games don't make a distinction between the two, and any distinction adds complexity. The mechanic is boring but rapid then:

Person A rolls firearm skill, needs N successes to hit.
Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!)
Person B rolls damage resist, with the weapon adding a number of successes to Person A's attack if it hit, and armor adding dice to the resist roll.
Person B takes damage depending on how many successes are left.

I don't really like this, as it removes any tactics necessary for choosing an appropriate weapon for your target. But it fits the dice system they've announced, and it fits the goal of simplicity they've announced.

I tend to agree that at it's most potentially simple power/damage isn't required.

However I do think they will realize that people might want a fairly tactical game so I assumed that a new damage code might be either 2 variables (wound code taken and number of successes needed to stage down rather than a default 1 stage per 2 successes) or three variables (same as above +/- dice from the body test based on penetration for armor etc)

Within each basic class of weapons Heavy and Light Handgun the base 2 variables (wound code and staging information would be the same) while addining in the third variable would allow you to have unique characteristics for weapons within a class.

For instance
Heavy Pistols would be base of 2M meaning they do a base damage code of M wounds to an opponent and that people need 2 successes to stage each success up or down.
Really big handcannons might have a code of 2M(-1) meaning that they do base damage of a heavy pistol but that they subtract 1 die from body resistance tests.
AP ammo might subtract -2 from bonus dice given from armor etc.

This way you could still have unique weapons characteristics (on top of ammo capacity, cost, components, etc) and still keep with a fixed TN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 7 2005, 05:48 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298



Keep in mind that one extra success needed is equivalent to three extra dice rolled (counting only the mean result, not the variance). So to maintain the severity of light modifiers, you'd need a lot more than -2 dice to be equivalent to +2 successes needed for a called shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Apr 7 2005, 05:49 PM
Post #10


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Ellery)
I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction.  It's complicated. 

I really like the damage code vs. "2d6 +x" method. I'd like to see the wound level replaced with instead the number of boxes of damage as a base damage.

So 5M = 5-3, 9S = 9-6, 18D = 18-10. This would allow for finer weapon damage assignments like "5-2", "9-4", "10-5", etc. to help represent weapon difference, perhaps ammunition types.

QUOTE
Most games don't make a distinction between the two, and any distinction adds complexity.  The mechanic is boring but rapid then:

I don't think they could do away with current mechanics (using a success based system) without switching to a more "d20" hit-type system.

With most d20, you either hit or you don't. If you do, damage is randomized per weapon, aka "2d6+x" damage and targets can do little to mitigate damage at that point.

With SR, varied degrees of hitting and then damage are a possibility. SR allows for your "degree of success" to influence the damage. This also gives the target a chance to do something other than just take the damage.

Changing this mechanic would really alter SR in a profound way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 7 2005, 07:02 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298



Three variables per weapon? Goodness, that's even more complicated than the current pair of variables. Maybe they'll do that, but it's hardly in keeping with the stated goal.

Given the changes to the dice system, does it really look like they're trying to build a tactical game? That's why I think it's likely that there will be only one variable, damage, which will be the number of automatic successes you get if you hit with that weapon. That roughly corresponds to the damage levels now, and all weapons will have a power of 5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 7 2005, 07:10 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



QUOTE (Ellery)
Three variables per weapon? Goodness, that's even more complicated than the current pair of variables. Maybe they'll do that, but it's hardly in keeping with the stated goal.

Given the changes to the dice system, does it really look like they're trying to build a tactical game? That's why I think it's likely that there will be only one variable, damage, which will be the number of automatic successes you get if you hit with that weapon. That roughly corresponds to the damage levels now, and all weapons will have a power of 5.

I just don't see it as variable weapons are pretty much part and parcel of tabletop roleplaying and especially Shadowrun. As far as I know the only system which has all weapons doing equal damage is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

As for 3 variables that mainly so you can have enough variance between the classes of weapons (besides range and capacity of course) to accomodate the gunfiends that so populate the userbase.

Further since only one variable actually matters in regards to numbe rof dice rolled it's simple for the user to learn. Further I'd tend to only see that variable be used for extreme ammunition types rather than as general.

As for complexity vs the fixed TN system just because a system uses a fairly simple dice resolution mechanic does not mean that the rules around that mechanic also have to be simplistic. Some of the playtester seem to have intimated that while the base mechanic might be similar to say the nWoD mechanic that there are definitely significant (probably crunchy bits) different.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 7 2005, 07:18 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298



But weapons are variable in what I proposed. A damage 0 weapon--maybe a holdout pistol--will be easy to stage down, after body and armor and dodge. A damage 3 weapon--maybe a combat shotgun--will require 9 more resist dice, on average, to bring it to the same level of damage as the holdout pistol.

I would like to see more to the system than that, but I spend way more time looking up damage power and level and so on for everyone than I do keeping track of pool dice. And you can get, what, maybe 60% of the meaningful diversity out of a single number.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vuron
post Apr 7 2005, 06:19 PM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: 17-March 05
Member No.: 7,185



QUOTE (Ellery)
But weapons are variable in what I proposed. A damage 0 weapon--maybe a holdout pistol--will be easy to stage down, after body and armor and dodge. A damage 3 weapon--maybe a combat shotgun--will require 9 more resist dice, on average, to bring it to the same level of damage as the holdout pistol.

I would like to see more to the system than that, but I spend way more time looking up damage power and level and so on for everyone than I do keeping track of pool dice. And you can get, what, maybe 60% of the meaningful diversity out of a single number.

Very true which brings up a good point if something can handle 90% of the circumstances without adding in another mechanic is it worth adding to the overall complexity by generating a rule to cover that 10%. Often I tend to err on the side of crunchiness (I know it's strange considering I like the idea of a fixed TN system) but that yes if a basic system can be acchieved without adding complexity it might be a good thing.

Especially if the advanced system allows you to sell an additional book down the road (there I go thinking like a salesman ;)).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Apr 7 2005, 08:39 PM
Post #15


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



Alot of what makes SR cool to me is how different the rules where. If all your successes will do it determine "a hit", then we might as well play d20.

As for my suggestion about changing damage codes, It's not adding any additional variables than currently exist. The change would be to replace "L", "M", "S" and "D" with numbers (representing boxes of damage).

I suppose the reality is, with all TN=5 (Attack Test then Dodge and Soak), net successes will probably be used to stage damage up or down (i'd guess +/- 2 damage per). No power level, just damage. The more leathel, the close to "D" the weapon starts at. This would definitely lend itself better to just "a number" type damage rating.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phantom Runner
post Apr 8 2005, 03:59 AM
Post #16


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 12-April 02
From: the shadows....
Member No.: 2,548



I'm hoping that an attacker will never need a set number of successes for combat. If I'm thinking correctly, there will be two types of tests "static" and "dynamic" (just descriptors to use for conversation sake). Static would mean that a set number of successes is needed ie breaking a maglock 5 would need 5 successes. Dynamic would come into play when two characters are facing off and success is determined by who rolled more.

- Combat should always be dynamic. So needing a set number of successes for range would be, in my opinion, a bad idea. Rather dice should be subtracted for range.

- Damage staging should also require two successes. This mechanic has always been a unique property of SR and I would be really pissed if it went away. In older editions of SR they had a variable staging number (code written like 9M2) but they wisely did away with that. Bringing it back would be a bad idea.

- Also, added to the "hope it stays" catagory would be two separate tracks for Stun and Physical damage, again something SR has that I have not seen done anywhere near as good anywhere else, and 10 boxes for each track with L, M, S, D still in place. But now instead of having increased TNs for being at L, M, etc, you would have negatives to your dice pool.

- Initiative will remain relatively unchanged (my hope is that it remains completely unchanged). As stated by others, it was already different, so the change to the basic mechanic should not affect it.

- I believe they will keep the two part damage code, ie 2M, but the function of the number part will of course change. Either it will be the number of dice the attacker adds to his roll or it will be the number of dice the defender subtracts from his soak roll (if soak is still in the game that is)

- Attack rolls will most likely be Att + Skill +/- situational modifiers. It is of course entirely possible that the attacker may add things like a number of dice equal to gun damage rating (see above) or may even subtract dice equal to the defenders armor, which is the case in nWoD, it works there but I'm not sure if I would like to see it here. It has been stated that there will be signifacant differences...so we shall see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Apr 8 2005, 04:25 PM
Post #17


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Phantom Runner)
- I believe they will keep the two part damage code, ie 2M, but the function of the number part will of course change. Either it will be the number of dice the attacker adds to his roll or it will be the number of dice the defender subtracts from his soak roll (if soak is still in the game that is)

Oh I like this line of thinking, I hadn't thought of it that way!

The developers have talked about not completely dismantling "the game they love" so I hope that goes beyond background storyline which we know is rather "safe", at least until 2064.

All this talk of change has my head spinning and I am really trying to remain optimistic. I guess August can't get here fast enough. :cyber:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spookymonster
post Apr 8 2005, 05:31 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 22-April 02
Member No.: 2,638



I seem to remember someone commenting that weapons now used '2 numbers'. The role each number played (attack power/staging? attack bonus dice/damage bonus dice?) remains to be seen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 8 2005, 05:34 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298



Oi, I think August can't get here slow enough. I'm sure they have a lot to do--the more time they have, the better it will be (one would hope).

I don't think it's a good idea to have weapons add dice to an attack roll, because that means that every weapon that hits harder also makes it easier for you to hit at all. Subtracting dice from soak is more reasonable (if simply granting automatic successes upon a hit is not fine-grained enough).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 8 2005, 09:34 PM
Post #20


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Ellery)
I don't think it's a good idea to have weapons add dice to an attack roll, because that means that every weapon that hits harder also makes it easier for you to hit at all. Subtracting dice from soak is more reasonable [...]

Agreed. How easy it is to hit with a weapon should have nothing at all to do with the weapon's Damage Code.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 8 2005, 10:09 PM
Post #21


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



what would be interesting is if they dropped the L/M/S/D progression completely, and went with a simple 1-10 scale. every 3 boxes of damage would impose a the SR4 equivalent of the SR3 +/-1 modifer.

weapons would then have a two-part damage code: a "minimum hit" number, and a wound number. the wound number is simple--it's how many boxes of damage the weapon does by default. the minimum hit would be subtracted from the target's successes when the target attempts to soak a hit from that weapon.

shooter's successes add boxes of damage on a 1-for-1 progression; target's soak successes reduce damage using the same progression, but the target's soak successes would be automatically reduced by the minimum hit number. if i shoot someone with a 3/5 rifle (minimum hit 3, wound 5), and get 3 successes, then the target is looking at 8 boxes of damage. the target then rolls his soak, and gets 5 successes (he's a badass). reduce those 5 success by the minimum hit number, and he ends up with 2 successes; compare them to my attack successes, and i end up with 1 net success, for a total damage to the target of 6 boxes. (obviously, this concept needs to be rebalanced, but i think the basis is sound.)

armor would add dice to the soak test; hardened armor might reduce the minimum hit number. armor-piercing ammo would reduce the number of armor dice a target gets. high-deformation ammo ("EX", hollowpoint, glaser) would reduce the number of soak dice a target gets.

for added realism (and also complexity), you could have different weapon types be partially armor-piercing. for instance, anything using pistol rounds works normally; anything that uses rifle rounds subtracts two dice from the target's armor; anything that uses rifle rounds really well (sniper rifles, basically) reduces the target's armor dice by three; and so on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phantom Runner
post Apr 8 2005, 10:21 PM
Post #22


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 12-April 02
From: the shadows....
Member No.: 2,548



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (Ellery)
I don't think it's a good idea to have weapons add dice to an attack roll, because that means that every weapon that hits harder also makes it easier for you to hit at all. Subtracting dice from soak is more reasonable [...]

Agreed. How easy it is to hit with a weapon should have nothing at all to do with the weapon's Damage Code.

I would think the same thing, especially if they keep the damage codes that we are used to in SR (ie a number with either L, M, S, D). If the damage number added to the number of dice that would mean that part of the damage code was put onto the attacker while the other part would be put onto the defender. As it currently is in SR3 both parts of the damage code are something the defender has to worry about, and I hope that does't change.

Of course, with what little we truly know about the system changes there are a lot of permutations that are possible.

Take armor for instance. It could be used in many different ways:

- It could subtract dice from attackers roll. I really hope that this isn't the case. Yes, it can be very easy to figure out, but it would take away a good deal of the tactical advantage the GM can levy against players (and thus keep things interesting), as players would know exactly how much armor the target is wearing.

- It could add dice to the defenders soak/defense roll. I think this would be more appropriate...but who knows.

- It could be a number of successes needed to damage the target. Example: Armor of rating 3 means that in order for the attacker to actually penetrate the armor he would need 3 "hits". Any "hits" above 3 would give extra damage (which of course this is me hoping that damage staging is still in the game). This is an....ok....idea, but it sort of has the d20 feel of Armor Class and I personally would hate it....unless perhaps "hits" below the armor "threshhold" would instead be convered to stun damage....eh...on second thought that kind of sucks too...

Drek. There are just too many possibilities right now.... the mind... :wobble:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phantom Runner
post Apr 8 2005, 10:25 PM
Post #23


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 12-April 02
From: the shadows....
Member No.: 2,548



QUOTE

what would be interesting is if they dropped the L/M/S/D progression completely, and went with a simple 1-10 scale. every 3 boxes of damage would impose a the SR4 equivalent of the SR3 +/-1 modifer.

I don't thing that wold be very interesting at all. I really fell in love with SR's LMSD progression and for me it is one of the defining traits that makes Shadowrun...well, Shadowrun. Of course, anything is possible at this point, but I take heart in the fact that it has been stated that old players will still be able to recognize SR as SR and for me this is a top distinguisher....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ellery
post Apr 9 2005, 12:41 AM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298



Variable TNs have been a hallmark of SR for plenty long enough and those are gone. What makes you think LMSD is marked for any sort of preservation? I like the mechanic too, but switching from that is a much smaller change than going to a fixed TN.

In fact, the fixed TN change might make LMSD unworkable--it may be too easy to fluctuate wildly over that range, making it anyone's guess as whether you'll be barely scratched or splattered over a ten meter radius. I could see them moving to a "one net success = 1 box of damage" system, with maybe six boxes, on the theory that the conversion from successes to damage is too complicated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 9 2005, 12:53 AM
Post #25


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i think LMSD is neat, but the 1-10 progression allows for two things: a) simpler play; b) greater flexibility and detail. i mean, that's good, right? that's one of the things people are worried about--that SR will be oversimplified and undetailed. this reduces complexity and increaces detail. everybody wins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:34 PM

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.