 Shadowrun 3rd Revised, our backs turned, looking down the path |
  |
 May 26 2005, 12:17 PM
Post
#101
|
|||
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058  |
Perhaps, but like it's been said a couple of times, realism is not the only issue here. The question is, does it make sense (given the way the game plays) for some of these weapons (which can bypass armor) to be more disabling than firearms? My feeling is no, which is why I bring it up. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
May 26 2005, 01:22 PM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
If it did make sense, then every military officer in the world would train with pepper spray instead of a sidearm, no cop in the world would carry a firearm (they could have two cans of pepper spray, instead!), and the National Pepper Spray Association would sweep the nation and scoop up all the people who used to like firearms for hunting.
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 01:27 PM
Post
#103
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Except that pepper spray has absolutely no range, but basically, yeah - it makes little real world or game sense. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 26 2005, 03:27 PM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Knight Templar Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 212 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens Member No.: 6,424 |
Good points all!
From the game-play perspective I agree that the weapons in mmb's point #3 should be adjusted. As for #2, yes please make shot firing shotguns easier to GM! #4, it should be very difficult IMO to gas or poison someone in sealed armour but not impossible. My 0.02 :nuyen: |
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 04:02 PM
Post
#105
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Shot-firing shotguns are very easy to GM as it stands. First you find out who is in the area of effect, and then you just declare them dead because not even Bubba the Love Troll has enough body to soak.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2005, 05:13 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
I always just declared all armor hardened versus shot rounds. So if you are wearing even armored clothing at 90 meters you laugh at the idiot and return fire with your assault rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2005, 03:33 PM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
Page Requests and Topic Suggestions:
Magic -Spells for which Force is (nearly) irrelevent -Spells for which successes are irrelevent -The anomaly of Spell Defense (the one and only situation in which one use of a skill is as a pool, and the trouble it causes) -Make psionics useful, and yeah, I guess voodoo too -Why can't my aspected Fire Elementalist cast Flamethrower, but his aspected Earth Elementalist can? -A suggestion of my own devising I will bring up there (involves both making the base Drain TN for spellcasting equal to Force and ways of making it hurt less that make magic more interesting) Cyberware -Look at the costs (Essense and nuyen) to see if some are just whacked -Make cyberlimbs useful as more than suitcases -Sort of related, but can we have surgery rules that don't make my eyes bleed? I'm sure I had more topics, but they've all flown from my mind now... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2005, 06:12 PM
Post
#108
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
While we've got a fair bit more I want to do with Ranged Combat before I open up another topic, I want opinions on what people think the next one should be. My personal inclination is Rigging and Vehicles, but Magic or Cyberware are also high on the list. Any thoughts?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2005, 06:41 PM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 164 Joined: 7-July 03 Member No.: 4,891 |
I vote Magic. Rigging/vehicles is going to be a huge topic, laden with rules invention. Cyberware is going to be mostly a matter of fixing individual pieces, rather than fixing system-level problems with the rules (unless I'm wrong. Are there system-level problems with the way cyberware is handled? I don't mean surgery; the only fix for those rules is a bullet to the face).
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 5 2005, 08:12 PM
Post
#110
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
Exactly. But, with all due respect, shouldn't the current issues be hammered out completely (or at least something akin to 'completely'... remotely?) before delving into other aspects? Especially the quagmire that will be Rigging... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 5 2005, 08:25 PM
Post
#111
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'd say so, yes :) (I didn't mention Decking, but there's more I want to do there before branching out as well—I figure two active sections plus the main thread are about what I can juggle in my attention) ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 6 2005, 03:34 AM
Post
#112
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Magic.
For starters you should scrap the 'splitting' of the Sorcery skill, and make Spell Defence solely a function of Spell Pool. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2005, 05:29 AM
Post
#113
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
Ahhh... foot, meet mouth. I didn't see that at first. Sorry. Unlike what Fortune said above me... I do think Sorcery needs to be split up, at least a tad. Or maybe his version could work out fine-- I'm slightly biased on it, heh. I also believe that Decking should be split into smaller skills, as well. I don't know if anybody brought this up in the Decking thread... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 6 2005, 09:44 AM
Post
#114
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 90 |
I've offered my magician player some options ideas to playtest in the upcoming SR game (shoud it ever happen).
Amongst them is using Spell Defense as a simple use of the Sorcery skill (no Sorcery as pool bullshit) working like this. Spell Pool dice is allocated to spell defense and can't be used for other magical tests. When using spell defense the magician rolls their Sorcery skill (plus allocated Spell Pool dice, minimum 1, up to Sorcery skill) to defend against the incomming spell as normal. Allocated Spell Pool dice can be divided up against multiple incomming spells. Once all the spell defense-allocated Spell Pool dice have been used, spell defense is not available until the Spell Pool refreshes next action and dice can be allocated to spell defence again. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2005, 03:11 PM
Post
#115
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I have no problem if you want to design a new skill called Spell Defence. What I am refering to is the current mechanic that requires you 'remove' dice from your 'effective' Sorcery skill in order to use Spell Defence (or Astral Combat). As far as the last is concerned, I'm all for scrapping the Sorcery = Astral Combat rule as well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 6 2005, 06:51 PM
Post
#116
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
Skills: Sorcery, Conjuring, Astral Combat, Spell Defence? I don't know. Firearms is split up, but you don't NEED 'Assault Rifles' to survive. 'Pistols' is fine. But a Magic user without one of the above... well, I can imagine him to be somewhat weaker. Or maybe that's a good thing? Like I said: biased. I'm a decker/gun guy. :please: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 6 2005, 10:19 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
Ok. I have two points to bring up, both of which will influence to a significant degree all of the other portions of the project.
1. We should avoid division and multiplication whenever we can. Things tend to break or become highly illogical when you start to multiply and divide things. We also need to establish what Order of Operations are in SR. Will we be using PEMDAS? Ex. I'd prefer it if cyberware did NOT work based on multiplying essence. I'd prefer it just give a flat reduction. Like "For every 1 essence it normally costs, reduce its cost by .2" for alphaware. 2. Rounding. We need to establish one way in which rounding goes. It might be to the nearest whole number, up, or down, whatever. We just need to pick how we're going to round and make every single mechanic round in that same way, no exceptions. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2005, 10:24 PM
Post
#118
|
|||||||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I disagree completely. We should check how things look across the entire reasonable spectrum of play (I must admit, I have no objections to a rule that breaks down for skills over 30 or somesuch), but multiplication and division are not, to my mind, to be avoided in and of themselves. You actually give a perfect example of how things break down when you start removing them:
So what happens when cyberware costs 1.5 Esssence? 1.7? .1? Either you're making the rule break places or you're just having the player figure out the division on their own.
I'm inclined to use PEMDAS, since it's what most people will be familiar with.
That's probably a good idea. We'll see if that can't be implemented. Any thoughts, at the moment, which way to round? ~J |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jul 6 2005, 10:54 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
In regards to Modesitt:
1) Better to keep multiplication and division, and just not throw them in for no reason, or with unusual values. Keep it nice and simply (1, 2, 3, 5, 10). Most people can handle multiplying or dividing by those values. PEDMAS: Best to be consistent with other mathematics. Fewer headaches. 2) Preferable to just use ordinary rounding rules, I think. Nearest value to the appropriate degree. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2005, 11:33 PM
Post
#120
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
Ok. Here's my reasoning why - When we start multiplying things, we can easily create situations where things get much bigger bonuses than they ought to. While just being careful of it all can work, I think a general policy of "Avoid multiplication and division except when actually necessary" is a good one. Examples of where multiplication and division for bonuses or penalties makes people cry - Adept Geasa: Since you multiply by .75 and round up(more on that in a second), you will never geas something that costs less than 1 PP. The Wallhacker: Everyone know what this is? It involves applying multipliers to your strength bonus a few times. Explosive Ammunition: It cuts barrier ratings in half. Do the math some time on how tough a barrier an Ares Predator loaded with ex-explosive rounds can shoot holes in and how many shots that takes.
In my defense, it was an off-the-cuff thought, not a fully-formed idea. Anyways, the way I thought of it was "For 1 or less essence, you get -.2. For between 1 and 2, you get -.4", etc. Yeah, it creates some break points, but since every single piece of cyberware has a fairly static essence price tag, you can build the rest of the system around that concept. You'd either end up with some cyberware not getting the full benefits or else some cyberware would be Essence-free if of high enough quality. I don't necesarily consider the latter thing to be a bad thing, maybe couple it with something like "Awakened calculate the magic cost of cyberware as if it were not upgraded" to prevent abuse. How exactly it worked tie into rounding rules.
Always round up. Shadowrun's dice system already rounds the TN up to 2 if it goes below that, so it'd somewhat follow the pattern. Plus, I think it fits the idea of the Shadowrun world that the corps are always screwing you out of that last nuyen. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 7 2005, 07:51 AM
Post
#121
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I don't think there's a need for an Astral Combat skill at all. It is only an option to duplicate other Melee skills on the Astral, and I think using the appropriate Melee skill works just fine. If the character doesn't have a Melee skill, then he is stuck using magic or defaulting, just as he would do in normal melee combat. As for a Spell Defence skill, I think that is a better option than the current SR3 mechanics of splitting the Sorcery skill. I still prefer to just make Spell Defence solely a function of Spell Pool, but I could live with a separate skill as a compromise. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 7 2005, 08:38 AM
Post
#122
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 6-July 05 Member No.: 7,485 |
Sort out the vehical rules, they're a real nightmare! You have crash tests and maneuver scores to sort out, trying to convert speed into distance covered per combat turn. My group is missing out on epic car chases because it's just soooo much effort to do all the maths and figure out modifiers ect. Perhaps a "lite" version of the rules, where a simple skill test is made.
Downgrade magic - I'm getting sick of mages in the party centering then casting massive spells with no effort or drain. Personally speaking I'd scrap the half force for drain thingy. Then again I might be talking utter rubbish and deserve to be flamed mercylessly! |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2005, 01:42 PM
Post
#123
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
No conversion necessary with Speed, as it's already listed in meters per combat turn. I'll let others kick around the rest of the ideas at the moment, though.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2005, 02:03 PM
Post
#124
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Crippling mages to reduce the power of initiate mages would be a mistake, I think. Retooling the things that make them "too powerful" would be a better move. I know I'd hate to have to take a metamagic not to be useless after 3-4 spells.
What I'd rather see with magic is clarity and consistency. I don't actually have a problem with the power of mages, just that specific things aren't clear. example: Sustained area spells like chaotic world -- does leaving the area free you of the spell? Does entering it subject you to the spell? I say yes to both -- it's a spell centred on an area, that's what makes sense. Other people say no, it's treated like chaos being hit on everyone within the area at the same time, with the same roll and only one drain test. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2005, 05:25 PM
Post
#125
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
I don't think using the appopriate melee skill makes sense, unless I am way behind on my Astral Plane trivia. How about Charisma, or something like that? It makes sense to me, anyway. :| As said: maybe I'm behind on my 'magical' knowledge, though. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th November 2024 - 02:22 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.