 Shadowrun 4: Combat & Gear |
  |
 Aug 29 2005, 07:45 AM
Post
#251
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 25-August 05 Member No.: 7,621  |
Basicly, the Idea is to wieght the number of dice so that your rolling your best attack versus their weakest defense. On the first simple action, what it really boils down to, is "Im spending twice as much ammo, and losing one die off of my attack pool, to make you lose one die off of your (much smaller, assuming they are not using total defense) defense pool.
On the second simple action, it becomes "Im spending twice as much ammo, and losing one die off of my attack pool to make you lose three dice from your defense pool" Even if they avoid all your shots by making a full defense, thats ok, because your target is suppressed. Now, of course if you have burst fire weapons, and your already penalizing their defense roll, all the better :) |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 29 2005, 10:11 AM
Post
#252
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 23-August 05 Member No.: 7,590 |
Yeah, I understand the strategy you propose. I'm just not entirely sure why the defense penalty would make sense if you're attempting to get out of the line of fire of a single guy who happens to be shooting 4 rounds at you in the same initiative pass. As I said, defense penalties for more rounds in full-auto or burst-fire make sense because you're only rolling one test for a group of rounds. With 4 shots from a SA, you already get 4 attack test, so I think the defense penalty might be a bit too big. The same 4 rounds from 4 different opponents though, I'd make it tougher to dodge since it's not as easy to find a way out of 4 different lines of fire as it is to get your ass out of one. What you said is 100% consistent with what I read of the rules on this board. I just think I'd apply the 1-die defense penalty only when a second opponent starts shooting at you, and then a 2-dice penalty for a third, and so on. The 1-die penalty every defense test looks to me like it might make pistols too powerful relative to burst-fire and full-auto weapon.
I'm not trying to ruin your fun, by the way, Knarfy: I play an ambidextrous adept and I love using two pistols for those special situations when you have more goons than is healthy all trying to give you some tough love. I'm just trying to find rules - or interpretations of the rules - that make sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2005, 04:20 PM
Post
#253
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 16-April 02 From: DC Member No.: 2,605 |
I noticed that Wired Reflexes gives +1 to initiative and +1 initiative pass per level in SR4. What are the new effects of Reaction Enhancers? Since they go up to level 6 in SR3, or will they just go up to level 3 in SR4 at +1 initiative per level? Also, do you know how the essence costs are in SR4? I'm curious because I know several characters in my group have maxed out bio and cyber and have no room at all left. Maybe they'll just have to drop a piece or two when converting.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2005, 08:43 PM
Post
#254
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
well 6th, from what i've HEARD, it seems like MOST things are atleast slightly cheaper or the same in essence cost, so they may actually wind up with a slightly renewed spirit...
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2005, 09:07 PM
Post
#255
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
i wonder, is this realy the right thread to have a discussion on two weapon ranged combat and how to twink it?
i thought this was a Q&A thread :P |
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2005, 12:11 AM
Post
#256
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 23-August 05 Member No.: 7,590 |
Yeah, hob, you're right. I usually start with a question, but I can sometimes get carried away. ;-) I'll start another thread for that when I have some more time (unless someone else does it in the meantime).
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 31 2005, 03:37 AM
Post
#257
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 28-August 05 Member No.: 7,631 |
What's the penalty to default to a related skill?
In other words, if I have Automatics 5 but no Pistols and want to fire an Ares Predator, what do I roll? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 31 2005, 07:42 PM
Post
#258
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
You can't. There is no defaulting to a related skill (You should have bought the skill group); you can only default to an attribute, at a -1 penalty. I suppose some GMs can be lenient and let you waive the -1 defaulting penalty for certain tasks if you have a related skill. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 1 2005, 01:12 AM
Post
#259
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 28-August 05 Member No.: 7,631 |
Ouch. Harsh. :( And here I was all happy that Unarmed Combat finally got to be in the same group with the other melee skills. It seems a bit silly to me to not have some sort of defaulting option: there's definitely basic principles from unarmed combat that can be applied to a knife fight, even if you won't be as good at it as people who trained in knife fighting. And now we suddenly have people with "SWAT team member" level training in automatic weapons who can't use a pistol with any competence? But I guess they felt it was necessary to avoid people saying, "Why bother with the skill group when I can just get one skill in the group at a slightly higher level?" Still... damn. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 1 2005, 11:31 AM
Post
#260
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, so baseing a char on pure stats are out :P but getting high stats and a baseline of skills and presto ;) for some reason i find it kinda realistic as some people have a bad habbit of training and training while others just get the basics down and then fly from there :P but this belongs in a diffrent thread so ill shut up now and go look for that thread ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 3 2005, 03:34 PM
Post
#261
|
|
|
Knight Templar Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 212 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens Member No.: 6,424 |
Is there any new nanoware in the SR4 book?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 3 2005, 03:41 PM
Post
#262
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Yes and No.
There is only NanoTech (NanoPaste Trodes, Disguise, etc.), no NanoWare. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 06:39 AM
Post
#263
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
A couple of things I noticed in passing ...
and ...
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 4 2005, 11:54 AM
Post
#264
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
Fortune, on the first one, arent there crossbows in the Sr4 book didnt the elf chicky have one from that cover art?) if so, than it would use bolts, and the arrows are for the "regular" bows.
if you're not saying it shouldnt be there, then i donno what you're pointing out :) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 12:47 PM
Post
#265
|
|
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
I think what he's pointing out is that Ballistic armor idoesn't really protect against slashing and piercing damage. If it protects against arrows and crossbow bolts, it should likewise protect against swords and knives.
Bull |
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 01:50 PM
Post
#266
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Yeah, Bull got it.
In previous editions of SR, arrows and bolts were opposed by Impact Armor. I almost missed the change in SR4, since I wasn't expecting it. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 02:27 PM
Post
#267
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
well, could it be a typo? do weapons still have damage types? if so, check the weapons entry ands ee what sort of damage they do, wouldnt that fix it?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 02:42 PM
Post
#268
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
All it mentions is that arrows and bolts do physical (P) damage.
I don't see how it could be a typo. I copied the entry for Ballistic Armor above, and I can't find any other mention (so far) that contradicts it. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 03:59 PM
Post
#269
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
ok, so how big a diffrence is there in terms of stopping a sword vs a arrow?
its allmost as if it would better if they classified the weapons as cutting or blunt. with cutting being resisted by ballistic armor vs implact resisting blunt. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 04:11 PM
Post
#270
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
A significant one (if you compare velocity and impulse), but arguably not as big as between stopping a deforming bullet and a broadhead arrow. Although, if we're talking about an actual medieval cut-and-thrust sword instead of the "razor-sharp" crap you often see in fiction, the sword is extremely unlikely to do any cutting and the point is likely too wide to stab through the weave either. All this is making some assumptions about how common forms of soft body armor in the 2060s and 2070s works. Even now IRL you've got plenty of armored vests available which are rated against stabbing and cutting as well as handgun threats, a major development over the past 5-10 years AFAIK. However, that balance could shift massively in 60 years. On the other hand, the technological developments that would have to happen for such shifts to occur would necessarily mean that new body armor will provide better and better protection against muscle-powered weaponry which has strict design restrictions (i.e. melee weapons). This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 4 2005, 04:15 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 4 2005, 04:57 PM
Post
#271
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 775 Joined: 31-March 05 From: florida Member No.: 7,273 |
anyone know anything about layering armor, i know it doesnt layer like SR3, but how does layering work for SR4
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 05:00 PM
Post
#272
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 119 Joined: 17-August 05 Member No.: 7,566 |
Doesn't really. If you layer armor, only the HIGHER of the Impact or Ballistic rating works. And when determining penalties, you add the totals for Impact together and the totals of Ballistic together and take the higher.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 06:57 PM
Post
#273
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 775 Joined: 31-March 05 From: florida Member No.: 7,273 |
please tell me your joking.....this is something they had finally gotten right in SR3, i mean please, layering armor, the way SR3 is is realistic, to much and your slowed down, but you do it right and you can still move and be pretty well protected against anything normal that they throw at you,
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 4 2005, 07:16 PM
Post
#274
|
|||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
That may be WHY they went to this. Well, that and because of how the new armor rules work for both damage resistance and possible converting physical to stun damage. In SR3 it was ridiculoously easy to be bulletproof. Hell, an armor jacket and soome decent form fitting, and you could get shot with a Predator point blank and laugh, and that was some basic armor. Bull |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 5 2005, 02:41 AM
Post
#275
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 2-September 05 Member No.: 7,673 |
except SR3 based whether you were slowed by armour layering on quickness which was stoopid. It meant that your bog standard elf could wear more armour than an orc or troll! Whilst a quick and agile person (eg high quickness in SR3) may still be quicker than a lumbering oaf (low quickness in SR3) whilst wearing the same amount of armour it is only because they were starting from a higher mark. For a real world example compare myself and my best friend (in SR3 terms). me: 5'10" 105Kgs Str 4 Qui 3 friend: 6" 72Kgs Str 4 Qui 5 (possibly 6) We are both historical re-enactment nuts and have some very similar armour: me: Chain Maille Hauberk + Scale Cuirass + Spangenhelm with chain aventail (about 20Kgs all up) friend: Chain Maille Hauberk + Metal Lamellar + Spangenhelm + Chain Coif (about 18Kgs all up simply due to the fact his chain hauberk is smaller) Now lets say this equates to wearing an armour jacket + a lined coat. Now according to SR3 rules I would hardly be able to move with that lot whereas my friend would only be slowed down a little bit. Whereas if we used Strength as the determining factor in layering armour both myself and my friend would be slowed down equally by the armour we carry because we are of a similar strength. He would still be quicker than me but no more than mormal. It looks like they have simplified the armour which may or may not help the min-maxers |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th April 2026 - 10:09 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.