![]() ![]() |
Jul 3 2005, 09:49 PM
Post
#176
|
|||||
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
Then, for the sake of SR3 Revised, let us find a middle-ground, no? Not quite as retarded (for lack of a better word) as SR3, not quite as 'hardcore' (I use tha word loosely; I know the things you propose are, for the most part, mostly simple... but it's just too much 'change' as you stated) as Raygun's firearm rules. |
||||
|
|
|||||
Jul 3 2005, 10:17 PM
Post
#177
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Given that that's the only reason to even glance at the heavy pistol rules, I'm obviously all for at least looking at the possibility (the light pistols are broken enough to be useless, but the heavy pistols are generally decently balanced). That being said, Raygun has reminded me of another rule to propose: 4) Armor-defeating rounds of all shapes and sizes Standard armor-piercing rounds are only available in Heavy Pistol and heavier varieties. Antivehicular rounds are only available in rifle-class or larger weapons, and do not have bronze cores. While this generally does allow rounds to show up in weapons that might benefit from them in real life, it does avoid some ridiculous situations (like the famous hold-out with AV rounds wielded by an adept taking down APCs). Opinions? ~J |
||
|
|
|||
Jul 4 2005, 10:49 PM
Post
#178
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
If you make assault rifle fire APDS by default, then what do you intend to do about the hardened military grade armor? It's obvious that the hardened military grade armor should be able to stop most standard assault rifle ammunition, yes?
I guess make it halve non-hardened armor? This would have the extra bonus of making gel-packs more useful; as it stands right now, you can only muster enough armor in gel-pack form to stop holdout pistols and the weakest light pistols. That's not very valuable. But if rifle rounds halve all non-hardened armor, all of the sudden, gel-packs make a lot more sense. You can probably reasonably layer as much as 7-8 ballistic without gel-packs, and maybe 5-6 with gel-packs. Normally, the 7-8 sounds better, but if assault rifle rounds halve the regular armor, but not the gel-pack, then it makes a LOT more sense to get the gel-packs. Obviously APDS rounds should behave as normal against hardened armor. Also, regarding APDS/AV rounds, perhaps they're the same type of round; however, in the 0-7 power range, they count as only APDS rounds, but in the 8+ range, they count as AV rounds? Not sure if that's realistic, but it seems reasonable to my unexpert mind. |
|
|
|
Jul 5 2005, 12:41 AM
Post
#179
|
|||
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
I don't have a problem with them being available for everything. But AP ammunition in anything not a rifle isn't going to get too much more than a +1 or 2 power against armor, and no AV ammunition except for heavy rifles and shotguns. About as simple, and a decent bit more sensible. Though, that said, it isn't much more complicated to just go with Raygun's suggestions on this, which really tend to get shit on for being far more complicated than they actually are. The one thing I really do want to say is this: don't compromise. I'm not saying you absolutely have to stay with the asinine silliness of SR3 now, nor do you have to go with Raygun's website, but you do need to find a clear vision for what kind of action you have in mind. Don't mess things up by trying to compromise between realism and Wooism, etc. That, honestly, is what results in something like SR3 to begin with. |
||
|
|
|||
Jul 5 2005, 01:38 AM
Post
#180
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mostly Harmless ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
That's fine. I personally don't like playing a game like a John Woo movie. No one is saying you have to like my suggestions. But I do appreciate the fact that you're bothering to listen to them, whether you like them or not. :)
It's a more simplified version of what I'm trying to get across, I guess. Definitely an improvement over canon, IMO. The only issue I have with it basically comes down to semantics. I personally don't like APDS and AV being treated as seperate ammunition types. It's solely a convolution of Shadowrun that something called "AV ammunition" exists at all. In reality, APDS was developed specifically for anti-vehicular (armor) applications. Therefore, if you plan on changing things, it makes perfect sense to simply get rid of the Shadowrun-contrived "AV ammo" and give APDS those effects. But I suppose if you leave it the way it is, you cut down on confusion. I'd just rather fix it, I guess.
Let me make this clear: Assault rifles would not fire APDS by default. In fact, they wouldn't even be allowed to use APDS. Regular ammo in assault rifles, as well as all other rifle and machine gun classes, would be treated as having the same effect that APDS has in canon. APDS would then be treated as another available ammunition type with an effect more like "AV" ammunition.
Military grade armor would be hardened. What's more, the armor would likely have a higher rating that an assault rifle (don't have my books), which would in effect completely defeat an assault rifle attack unless it were a successful full-auto attack (by canon rules).
Rifles would, by default, halve soft (read: non-hardened) body armor ratings. Using AP ammunition would cut soft armor ratings down by three-quarters (5 x0.25 = 1.25 round down = 1). Soft body armor would have no = zero = nada effect against APDS, no matter how much of it you layer.
Unfortunately, I don't have my books with me. I can't recall whether Gel Packs are treated as hardened, but there's certainly a good argument for treating them that way. Especially considering the recent advancements in STF armor. I would probably treat them as hardened.
Right. APDS should behave exactly like canon "regular" ammo, that is, no additional effects at all, when used against hardened armor.
Well, again, I think APDS should have the AV ammo effects (actually better, as it should completely ignore soft body armor rather than just halving it) and AV should disappear. I also wouldn't bother to classify its use by Power Rating, rather by weapon class. Shotgun, Machine Gun, Sport/Sniper Rifle, and AMR/Assault Cannon should be the only classes allowed to use APDS, IMO. Pistols and SMGs simply cannot use APDS. However, they can use AP (which IMO should only get a x0.5 effect when used with those classes). So my suggestions go like this (so far): When Regular Ammunition is used in Assault Rifle, Sport Rifle, Sniper Rifle, Machine Gun, and Assault Cannon class weapons, it automatically halves all non-hardened Ballistic Armor Ratings. Hardened Armor negates this effect completely and the Damage Level of the attack is automatically staged down one level (9S becomes 9M). Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition consists of a conventional jacketed bullet with a hardened steel core. It automatically halves (x0.5) all non-hardened Ballistic Armor Ratings when used in any Pistol or Submachine Gun class weapon. When used in Shotgun, Assault Rifle, Sport Rifle, Sniper Rifle, Machine Gun, and Assault Cannon class weapons, Armor Piercing ammunition reduces all non-hardened Ballistic Armor Ratings by three-quarters (x0.25). Hardened Armor negates these effects completely and the Damage Level of the attack is automatically staged down one level (9S becomes 9M). Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) ammunition consists of a sub-caliber tungsten carbide penetrator held inside of a plastic sabot that is discarded when the projectile leaves the weapon's barrel. APDS can only be used in Shotgun, Sport Rifle, Sniper Rifle, Machine Gun, and Assault Cannon class weapons. APDS completely ignores all non-hardened Ballistic Armor Ratings. Hardened Armor negates this effect. However, the Damage level of the attack does not change. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jul 5 2005, 02:53 AM
Post
#181
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
FWIW, gel packs turn regular armor into hardened armor at their normal value, but add some additional penalties related to the added bulk.
And thanks for clearing it all up in one place, it makes it easier to understand. And, for what it's worth, hardened armor will defeat an attack if its BASE power does not exceed the rating; that means that you don't count power increase from burst or full auto fire (by canon, cc.51). |
|
|
|
Jul 5 2005, 03:15 AM
Post
#182
|
|
|
Mostly Harmless ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten about that. Cool with the Gel Packs, too. Works out just about perfectly, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2005, 04:15 PM
Post
#183
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
Dragging this back up to the top because I was visited by a muse and have a number of ideas. Some of these ideas/suggestions are more equipment-related then anything, but the changes they cause would impact how we're debating how to change weapon power ratings and such.
1. Assault Rifles still do 8M. However, ARs and other rifle-type weapons are better at shooting through armor and barriers. Refer to the Barrier/Armor Reduction table(below). The first number is how much you reduce the rating of any barrier you are shooting through, the second is how much you reduce the armor of any target you are shooting at LMG/ARs: -2/-1 MMG/Rifle: -3/-2 HMG/SR: -4/-3 Special: -5/-4 Verra Special: -6/-5 Why a flat reduction? First is my general dislike of multiplying or dividing things except when I know what I'm up to. The second is that I like the idea that some barriers wont even slow a round down. So if you shoot through a normal window with an AR(BR 2), your round doesn't even slow down as it goes through. 2. The following is the list of ammunition types -
The Whys: AP rounds serve a role but are not for gunning down unarmored civilians. Antipersonell rounds exist because there are 4 different rounds in Shadowrun for shooting unarmored people and there is no reason for that. Stun rounds are changed for...I don't know why, you could go back to the standard way, this way just felt right. MAD-immune rounds need to exist. High-power rounds are fun but ex-explosive are not. Tracers work almost the same as in canon. 3. It's time to clear up all of that Smartlink, laser, rangefinder, and scope business once and for all.
4. Shock pads, customized grips, and high strength no longer grant recoil compensation. Foregrips, underbarrel weights, gas vents, foot anchors, stocks, and gyro mounts are the only things that grant recoil compensation. The reason for this is to help reign in some of the crazy recoil compensation characters can get without even trying. This allows characters to get by with less armor. I favor taking the Ares Alpha out back and putting it down like old yeller, by the way. I also favor murdering the gun design system in its sleep. 5. The Gunnery skill is banished to a deep dark pit and is never coming back. When a weapon is turret mounted, you use whatever the normal skill for it is. You may specialize in Turret Operations for any weapon. It completely shatters immersion for the worlds best machine gunner to lose all of his skill the moment he mounts his machine gun on a turret. 6. FFBA no longer provides any special bonus for layering. I don't like Shadowrun Underoos. *********** Some of you may have noticed that I didn't mention AV rounds at all when listing off ammunition types. The reason is that we can't and wont know how AV ammunition will work or if it needs to exist at all until we get around to the rigger rules. The entire system of damaging vehicles will need to be rethought whenever we get around to fixing that. The crux of the issue is that vehicles should not be treated like big, armored characters. They should be treated more like portable walls and be damaged accordingly. |
|
|
|
Jul 12 2005, 05:34 AM
Post
#184
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Draft Proposal:
The Power of weapons is unchanged. Only Rifle-class or heavier weapons may use armor-defeating or antivehicular rounds. Light pistols retain their power but the damage code is increased to M. Hold-Out Pistols wait until we address the next question, as follows: 5) Flechette Rounds: what do we do with them? Do we change them? Remove them entirely? Leave them as is? Leave them as is but rename them? Open for suggestions on both halves. ~J |
|
|
|
Jul 13 2005, 05:07 AM
Post
#185
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Proposal: leave hold-out pistols exactly the way they are. Flechette ammo stays the way it is, though I'm still considering renaming it.
Another suggestion given was giving Shotguns another ammo type, real flechettes, that would essentially combine the abilities of shot with the armor-piercing capability of AP rounds (namely, it would go against .5x Ballistic or 1x Impact, whichever is greater). The question then becomes does it get its staging against armored targets? If the answer is yes, it becomes significantly more powerful and dangerous (and thus needs to be expensive and rare). If not, it's not all that differentiated from AP ammo—it's the sort of thing you'd load if you didn't know if the target was armored or not and needed to cover both sides well. Opinions? Also, we need a modifier to dodge TN for the new shotgun rules. Is +1 enough? ~J |
|
|
|
Jul 13 2005, 01:02 PM
Post
#186
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
1) The problem with lookup tables like this is that while they may be more... "accurate" in a sense, they increase the complexity and decrease streamlining. You may not like simply diviging by two, but it's easier to remember than a table.
2) About AP rounds, what if your weapon is not on the table? 3) New Smartlink rules... no thank you. Just, thanks for the effort, but I have absolutely no love for this system. OK, I do kind of like that there's a way to make SL work with dual-firing (which makes sense) and a coressponding Adept power, but the rest of it... Too complicated for one, although not more so than the totally cybered vs. merely part cybered distinction from SR3 and M&M. Also, I will miss the idea that a called shot bonus can be conferred by cyberware. 4) I would argue that higher Strength for recoil comp can stay, in a modified form. It's not a passive effect, you need to declare that you're "using" it when firing the gun. Roll STR vs. twice the unmodified recoil, every success acts as -1 to recoil. The Ares Alpha can be marked up in price and availability. The gun creation system Must Die. 5) Fine. 6) I'd say the layering rules need to come in for a look-see. Currently, if you're wearing, say, a full suit of plate mail (which has got to be Hardened B2 I9) and have QCK 2 and STR 2, you suffer no penalty. It's insane for the dual reason that Impact armor doesn't count for armor penalties, and STR makes no difference (except in the carrying weight of the armor, but who follows those daft rules either?) Next post: Not happy with AP ammo being reserved for rifles and up. Aren't there AP rounds for pistols now? Light Pistol proposal is good. Next: Hold-outs I'd give the same upgrade as Light: same power, higher DL. As for flechettes, definately limited to shotguns. There should be two versions: Light flechettes, which fire many small darts, have the scattering effects and DL upgrade of Shot, but treat armor normally (and are thus more expensive and higher in avail.) Haevy flechettes, which scatter like Shot and increase DL and are AP (very high cost, very high avail.) I feel comfortable having these two special shotgun rounds given that shotguns should play a bigger role in future CQB. Wouldn't the dodge penalty be related to choke, or did those rules get sutffed? |
|
|
|
Jul 13 2005, 02:23 PM
Post
#187
|
|||
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
I'm not aware of AP rounds for off the shelf pistols - though there are some, like the FN Five-Seven, that were specifically deisgned to use armor piercing ammo, but those all trade higher velocity for much lower caliber, and are hardly "heavy" pistols in the SR sense. Regardless of that, I think getting rid of pistol (and SMG) AP ammo (and certainly AV ammo) is a step in the right direction when it comes to differentiating between pistols and ARs/rifles. As far as flechettes go, the more I think about it, the more I too think that they should be reserved for shotguns. When it comes to "real" flechettes... Having thought about it, having them increase the DL even against armor seems to be the way to go if we want them to be a meaningful option - but availability just needs to be set appropriately. The "light flechettes" seem like a good way to round out shotgun ammo and fill the gap between normal buckshot and the heavy AP stuff. Oh, and chokes are gone, now. The new shot rules are on the previous page, IIRC. Holdout pistols I frankly don't care about... They're nearly useless, true - we can call that our concession to realism in the SR firearm system. ;) |
||
|
|
|||
Jul 13 2005, 02:33 PM
Post
#188
|
|||
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
Fair enough, but we oughtn't limit ourselves to what's possible now. The game does take place 60 years in the future. I think they'd be reasonable for pistols and SMGs if they only upgraded said weapons to the first slot on the table. |
||
|
|
|||
Jul 13 2005, 02:32 PM
Post
#189
|
|||
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Well, there are the Russian 7N21 and 7N31 armor piercing 9x19mm rounds, and that's about it. Those have a subcaliber steel core inside a jacket which is stripped off when it hits. The terminal effects are almost identical with an APDS design (smaller wound cavity, zero deformation, better penetration of rigid objects), except range is likely to be worse. Armor piercing pistol ammunition is certainly possible right now IRL, it's just pointless for the most part, so people don't design/manufacture any. |
||
|
|
|||
Jul 13 2005, 02:54 PM
Post
#190
|
|||||
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Again, we're getting into what's realistically possible, and not how to balance out the game... ;) Still, arguing is fun, so... No one is going to make AP rounds for SMGs (aside from ammo for specialized weapons like certain PDWs, which seem mostly like a solution in search of a problem to me) when carbine versions of assault rifles are the same size and do the same job. For pistols... There needs to be a market for AP handgun rounds, and while there really isn't one now, SR might be another story. Still, what it comes down to is that AP rounds are either 1. High velocity and lower caliber or 2. Use a smaller-caliber penetrator - which, all other things being equal, reduces their peformance against unarmored or lightly armored targets significantly. |
||||
|
|
|||||
Jul 13 2005, 04:41 PM
Post
#191
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
GunnerJ -
1. My idea was that this table would be very easy to memorize. Start at AR/LMG at -2/-1, then just add one to each of the numbers as you go up. But Kage has made a decision, so it's probably not in(It was designed as a compromise between the half-armor for ARs that Raygun advocated and saner things). 2. It'd be as if an MMG(None->AR/LMG->MMG), unless we were inclined to do something crazy like REDUCE the penetration of certain weapons. Which we aren't. Otherwise, see #1. 3. Beyond just fixing what's actively broken, I think one goal of the project was to clear up things that are not clear. What does/does not/ stack with smartlinks has always been a long-running argument on dumpshock. It's no "Hey, I just found these called shots rules in M&M, can I use them to bypass the armor on a tank?" or "Do elves suck or what?", but it's up there. 4. I'm not sure how much I like the idea of another roll in combat. I really, really don't like the Ares Alpha. That POS is chosen by 90% of Sammys because it's just BETTER than every single option out there. 5. W00t! 6. Yes. My issue with the current armor laying rules isn't that they're broken(Although they kinda are), it's that they result in characters that look stupid. I've got a dwarven samurai in one of my groups with a quickness of 9. He wears -FOUR- layers of armor. I don't like rules that encourage characters to look stupid. --------- I advocate taking every single one of those unarmored personnel rounds, from shot to flechette to everything in between, and lumping them into one "Anti-personnel" round. You can describe your anti-personnel rounds however you want, but from the standpoint of the game, they're all the same. We could probably make some sort rule for "Combo Rounds" like your heavy flechettes. Maybe add together the price of both then double that, with an increased SI and availability to boot. |
|
|
|
Jul 13 2005, 05:09 PM
Post
#192
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Though it should probably be in a different topic, proposed layering rules: as canon, but explicitly only the highest two layers count. This may not be the same two layers for both ballistic and impact armor.
Regarding Smartlinks: Smartlinks stack with Shot/Shotgun Flechette/etc. (but have their effectiveness reduced by 1, so it isn't really an additional benefit). They do not stack with laser sights or magnification. Suggestion: remove the ability of magnification to stack with laser sights. This closes the hole whereby a laser sight+vismag is better than a smartlink at Long and greater range. Incidentally, I don't entirely agree with you about turret-mounting, but at the least it should probably be defaultable. That will be covered more thoroughly probably when we get to vehicles (or if and when I have particular inspiration about it) ~J |
|
|
|
Jul 13 2005, 05:45 PM
Post
#193
|
|||
|
Running, running, running ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
I wanna chime in and say i'm not a fan of that, i can't conceptualize that, if you're being shot at, a middle layer of armor has no effect (say, FFBA, custom armored shirt, and a custom long coat), while if you're being punched, the shirt and the FFBA protect you, but not the coat. or whatever other combination it would come in. I think, IMO, a better way to do it would be to say whichever peices have the highest average ratings, are what counts. |
||
|
|
|||
Jul 14 2005, 01:20 AM
Post
#194
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
The thing is, a table with four entries and two variations is many times more complex than just halving armor. Now, I think your idea makes a good amount of sense, but it is difficult, for me at least, to keep the progression of classes and benefits straight. I would prefer to not have more tables, if possible.
I have to be honest here; in 3+ years of playing SR I have never, ever had any of these issues with SL come up. So I guess I'll have to take your word for it, but the rules you present are like asking me to change the whole way I think (about one subject, at least). Like re-learning arithmetic.
Note that it is an optional roll; like using Strength as a pool for recoil reduction.
Frequency of seeing a weapon is inversely proportional to its availability.
My other issue is, the sorts of balances we see make no damn sense. Like, why, exactly, does wearing one piece of armor under another make it half as effective? Why would a third layer under that be half as effective (or under Kat's proposal, do nothing at all)? There's absolutely no reason outside "we need a quick and dirty game balance." In fact, I'd wager it works exactly the opposite way in reality: stacked layers are as effective as the sum of their protection. The thing is, to make that work in SR there'd need to be really big penalties to stacking armor, but they're just not very defined or easy to pin down or remember. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Aug 17 2005, 05:03 PM
Post
#195
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
One of the problems with addressing armor stacking is that I'd prefer not to make wearing light armor overly punishing, but by the same token would like to preserve the practical upper limit of about six points ballistic that currently exists.
Any proposals for how to go about this? I'll be muddling it over during Abnormal Psych… ~J |
|
|
|
Aug 17 2005, 05:32 PM
Post
#196
|
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
I think designing a sensible encumberance system and then simply enforcing "realistic" armor weights would be one way of addressing this problem.
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2005, 07:00 PM
Post
#197
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 404 Joined: 22-June 05 From: Canada eh! Member No.: 7,455 |
You should have something relating to body and strength (which generally reflect mass). After all larger people (which are usually reflected by having a larger body or more dense, are less encumbered by weight.) If you have more weight than str + body in kg's then you suffer from encumbrance. -tn's for dodge and combat pool.
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2005, 08:44 PM
Post
#198
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That all makes sense. However, it dramatically increases bookkeeping—in my experience no matter the system encumbrance is usually among the first things to get dropped by groups, and there's a reason for that. That said, any thoughts on a good encumbrance system?
The other problem is that we'd have to completely redo the masses of just about everything, as well as making some up where they currently don't exist… ~J |
|
|
|
Aug 17 2005, 08:57 PM
Post
#199
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 404 Joined: 22-June 05 From: Canada eh! Member No.: 7,455 |
it would be really cool if we just added a stat for encumbrance index for objects.
It would also be something that we could put into gear.... ie, webbing. Something that is often overlooked. say 4 pockets have the following encumbrance allowances. 1,1,2,5. It would prevent the troll from carrying the backpack of many things. Some objects do not weigh alot but are a pain to carry, ie a plastic table. and it just simplifies things. Clothing would also have a capacity. Valid point about groups dropping encumbrance first. But it helps with characters that try and carry everything, and stuff panther assault cannons into their backpacks. |
|
|
|
Aug 18 2005, 07:52 AM
Post
#200
|
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
Just typing off the top of my head here...
How about having layering cause a detrimental effect on Combat Pool, to reflect the clumsiness inherent in wearing lots of stuff? I know when I'm wearing my motorcycle jacket, the one with the plastic armour in it, I lose some mobility. This could come in one of two ways. In the first, for every piece of armour after the first, you lose X Combat Pool dice (probably 1, but that could be open to negotiation). The second would be to have an automatic Combat Pool reduction for wearing armour, and just total it up for wearing more than one piece. So FFBA and an Armour Jacket might reduce CP by 1 dice each, whereas Heavy Security armour could penalise it by up to 3 dice. Optionally, you could assign an arbitrary "encumbrance value" to each armour piece, and reduce CP by one for every Y that this value exceeds the characters Strength (maybe averaged Body and Strength?). In either variation, the pros and cons scale in what looks like a decent way; there would come a point where more armour, despite lowering target numbers for soaks, no longer helps because Combat Pool has decreased to the point where you can't reliably soak much more, or else you use the CP for soaking and don't hit as reliably. Ironically, I think you'd see high-Body characters (trolls, orks, cybered samurai of most kinds) wearing more armour as they have the Body to withstand the CP hit, and that kind of works for me, that the big walking walls wear loads of armour while the smaller agile types tend to rely on their reflexes. |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th February 2026 - 10:58 AM |
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.