I'm not seeing any real problems here. Success on the dodge reduce the DV of the attack, representing the character hitting the deck, ducking behind something, etc. Dodging a grenade can't influence where it lands, that makes no sense.
Step 1: Attacker makes attack roll to toss the grenade to the right spot.
Step 2: Determine scatter.
Step 3: Everyone inside the blast radius rolls their resistance checks.
Step 4: Damage is rolled for everyone in the blast, each person takes Grenade DV-their dodge hits damage. The attacker's hits shouldn't increase the DV here; hits on the attack roll increase damage by having the grenade closer to the target(s). As the old saying goes, accuracy with a grenade doesn't count for anything.
If a grenade goes off five feet away from you, it's not a hit or miss proposition, it's a 'how badly did I get hit' deal. The only real defense is not to be near it when it blows.
Full Version: Dodging grenades
Valatar: that's an excellent way to run it, I was just hoping for some official backing other than a modifier on a table that isn't backed up in the rules for the weapon.
So far as I've been able to determine from the book, there is no such thing, sadly. The book only offers two scenarios:
1. You try to hit someone with a grenade (what's the point?) They get to resist, and their dodge hits reduces the grenade's accuracy. Grenade then explodes.
2. You toss a grenade at a location. Nobody gets to resist to hamper your aim. This then makes it far more intelligent to declare that you're aiming the grenade for the floor next to your target. Same result at #1, but without them interfering.
In reality, if you're anywhere near a grenade when it goes off, you're really screwed. There's no real dodging a spray of shrapnel in every direction, even if you drop prone. But I'd be more inclined to mercy in a game of turn-based combat, as it has no provisions for doing something like leaping behind a pillar at the last second when you see a grenade come smashing through the window. So I'd let my players make a Reaction roll against the damage to represent that kind of scrabble for cover that real people would do if confronted by a grenade in their lap.
1. You try to hit someone with a grenade (what's the point?) They get to resist, and their dodge hits reduces the grenade's accuracy. Grenade then explodes.
2. You toss a grenade at a location. Nobody gets to resist to hamper your aim. This then makes it far more intelligent to declare that you're aiming the grenade for the floor next to your target. Same result at #1, but without them interfering.
In reality, if you're anywhere near a grenade when it goes off, you're really screwed. There's no real dodging a spray of shrapnel in every direction, even if you drop prone. But I'd be more inclined to mercy in a game of turn-based combat, as it has no provisions for doing something like leaping behind a pillar at the last second when you see a grenade come smashing through the window. So I'd let my players make a Reaction roll against the damage to represent that kind of scrabble for cover that real people would do if confronted by a grenade in their lap.
| QUOTE (Valatar @ Apr 18 2006, 09:27 AM) |
| 1. You try to hit someone with a grenade (what's the point?). |
The point is to get the grenade as close to the target (which tries to get away from it, or kick it away, or whatever to not be too close to it). Remember: It's an abstraction!
As said above (a few times already
), I believe, that you cannot or should not (when using the official rules, which are not so great here, anyways) throw a grenade to a location near a target (Success Test), but rather use the throw the grenade 'at' a target (Opposed Test) instead.There are some obvious holes in the rules, when there are multiple targets for the grenade.
Your above idea certainly works well enough (and prolly better than the written rules), but it's a house rule (just like my house rule somewhere above).
@James: What's so hard to understand about the -2 modifier being used in the Opposed Test? That's obviously what it is meant for. If you discount the possibility of an Opposed Test, since you just use the other option, then the modifier simply never comes into play, but that's what it's good for. I would even go so far to say, that this is what it is intended for, because it's intended to use the Opposed Test rather than the Success Test in this situation (throwing grenade near a target).
Bye
Thanee
It's not that it's hard to understand, it's that it would have been easier had they actually stated it somewhere.
They did with 'standard ranged attack test' and 'opposed by the target'.
Bye
Thanee
Bye
Thanee
good reason to not shoot the ground
have you SEEN Gaia's Stat line?
have you SEEN Gaia's Stat line?
| QUOTE (Valatar @ Apr 18 2006, 03:27 AM) |
| In reality, if you're anywhere near a grenade when it goes off, you're really screwed. There's no real dodging a spray of shrapnel in every direction, even if you drop prone. But I'd be more inclined to mercy in a game of turn-based combat, as it has no provisions for doing something like leaping behind a pillar at the last second when you see a grenade come smashing through the window. So I'd let my players make a Reaction roll against the damage to represent that kind of scrabble for cover that real people would do if confronted by a grenade in their lap. |
I agree. Normally, people think of dodging as an all or nothing thing. You either dodge a dodgeball, or you don't. But that is due to an oversimplification of a verb. One may not completely dodge a throw, but one may be able to get hit in the arm instead of the head. This partial success is the essense of "dodging" a grenade.
1. Maximize distance between you and the bomb.
2. Maximize obstructions between you and the bomb.
3. Minimize exposure of your body to the blast spray by changing profile.
Dropping prone is part of #3 because you reduce the surface area of the body that is liable to be hit by shrapnel. Leaping for cover handles #1, #2, and often #3. Given the high damage of grenades it is highly unlikely that someone dodges a grenade in SR4. However we should not handicap characters by thinking it is implausible to partially mitigate the effect of a blast.
Airburst complicates things, though, because it detonates the grenade in the same *action* as it is fired, rather than waiting for an entire IP to cycle through.
Unfortunately, the impact of that on the rolls isn't covered anywhere at all.
Unfortunately, the impact of that on the rolls isn't covered anywhere at all.
It has no impact on the rolls at all, asides from modifying what scatter framework you use. It does, however, prevent a character from using, say, his move action during his IP to get out of the way.
I still don't see what the problem is. You're shooting, you see a grenade launcher fire at you, you take an advance on your next action (just like you can with a normal incoming attack) to Full Dodge in an attempt to get some protection, and then bang... airburst grenade goes off.
If players can dodge or full-dodge bullets, which travel a hell of a lot faster than even launched grenades, I really don't have a problem with them doing it with explosives. For simplicity's sake, though, I'd probably just go with Valatar's option #2 as being the only way to use grenades... you have to launch them at a location. Then, the character's choice of cover becomes very important.
Honestly, folks, we're talking about a firefight where people are throwing/launching explosives at each other. It's already gotten out of hand.
I still don't see what the problem is. You're shooting, you see a grenade launcher fire at you, you take an advance on your next action (just like you can with a normal incoming attack) to Full Dodge in an attempt to get some protection, and then bang... airburst grenade goes off.
If players can dodge or full-dodge bullets, which travel a hell of a lot faster than even launched grenades, I really don't have a problem with them doing it with explosives. For simplicity's sake, though, I'd probably just go with Valatar's option #2 as being the only way to use grenades... you have to launch them at a location. Then, the character's choice of cover becomes very important.
Honestly, folks, we're talking about a firefight where people are throwing/launching explosives at each other. It's already gotten out of hand.
It isn't a matter of speed, it's a amtter of burst radius. Dodging a bullet means just not being in front of the barrel when the trigger is pulled. Dodging an explosion means not being in the blast radius. Some folks have given good interpreatations on how to work that aspect though.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Dodging an explosion means not being in the blast radius. Some folks have given good interpreatations on how to work that aspect though. |
Some folks have also given good examples of how you can minimize damage from explosions without getting outside of the blast radius. Plenty of people have been within a few meters of a hand grenade going off with no cover at all, and haven't sustained any serious injury.
| QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Apr 18 2006, 03:14 PM) |
| I still don't see what the problem is. You're shooting, you see a grenade launcher fire at you, you take an advance on your next action (just like you can with a normal incoming attack) to Full Dodge in an attempt to get some protection, and then bang... airburst grenade goes off. |
I believe you can take your Free Action at any point, including someone else's turn prior to yours. This isn't Full Defense, where you'd give up your next Complex Action; this is just taking your Free Action normally.
If that's the case, the moment you see an incoming grenade you should be able to take a move (Free Action) away from it -- hopefully behind cover -- to minimize its damage against you. That's your "jump for your life" kinda move there.
If you're outside of its effective blast radius at that point, there's no need to take your Full Defense too. If you're still within its damaging area of effect, then it may be a different story.
I'm just now noting the comparison between defenses against grenades and indirect AoE combat spells. Hrm.
AE: Thanks for reiterating my post. 
I misinterpreted it, then.
That's what I figured.
D20 has that fun class ability of evasion. From what I recall from the starwars d20 version that was discussed in the Jedi Counseling columns/faqs, evasion was an ability that had a tag on it that sorta read, if you make your reflex save but the situation requires you'd actually have to move out of the area to avoid dmg (such as when a big iron slab half the size of the hallway drops from the ceiling, you immediately move as far as necessary to get to a safezone, this has the effect of expending your next move action for the next round to cover it.
I suppose you could houserule full defense as a quasi-evasion abil. That would be the only time you could use your dodge to try and cut down DV, but you would also have to move at least 1 m for every hit you cut down. This also has the side effect of burning your move action for the next pass.
I suppose you could houserule full defense as a quasi-evasion abil. That would be the only time you could use your dodge to try and cut down DV, but you would also have to move at least 1 m for every hit you cut down. This also has the side effect of burning your move action for the next pass.
Nah, there's no movement necessary in evasion unless it's been house ruled. You just avoid the damage, and it's up to you or the GM to decide why.
Which is the same thing as the fluff you need to make up to justify dodge in SR, no?
Yep.
I've been reading about grenades and dodging in a ton of old threads...I can't say I am anymore clear with how RAW works...but there are plenty of examples of how I could houserule to make sense of things. I still have a problem with dodging when there are areas of effect to consider, but anyways, I will deal with that on my own.
My question is, what happens when the attacker (with a thrown grenade), aims at a location, then does not get a single hit on a success test?
The grenade doesn't stay in the thrower's hand or drop at his feet (maybe on a glitch or critical glitch). Using the scatter table, the max scatter with no hits is still going to be pretty effective at damaging someone.
Does the grenade that misses get over/underthrown that no one is in the blast radius? I guess I am wondering how other people handle a thrown grenade that misses...
My question is, what happens when the attacker (with a thrown grenade), aims at a location, then does not get a single hit on a success test?
The grenade doesn't stay in the thrower's hand or drop at his feet (maybe on a glitch or critical glitch). Using the scatter table, the max scatter with no hits is still going to be pretty effective at damaging someone.
Does the grenade that misses get over/underthrown that no one is in the blast radius? I guess I am wondering how other people handle a thrown grenade that misses...
| QUOTE (deek) |
| Using the scatter table, the max scatter with no hits is still going to be pretty effective at damaging someone. |
I go with this as the answer.
The FAQ deals with it. The FAQ itself is pretty damn unclear, it almost seems to say that you must pick a primary target who takes their defense test, and nobody else in the area gets to defend... I dunno.
Way to resurrect a dead thread, btw
Way to resurrect a dead thread, btw
| QUOTE (deek) |
| My question is, what happens when the attacker (with a thrown grenade), aims at a location, then does not get a single hit on a success test? |
Aiming at a location does not remove the targets dodge roll.
If the grenade is thrown into the hallway the target is in, the target still gets a dodge roll.
Effectively all this means is that a grenade can't have a lower effect then it's base damage at the location it's in to start with.
| QUOTE (ixombie) |
| Way to resurrect a dead thread, btw |
Honestly, I didn't intend to resurrect it...I spent half my morning searching on grenade dodging and scatter diagrams...and I eventually got down to this one...it seemed the most appropriate from all the reading...
I guess the thing I have done in my games, which brought up my question was, when I had an NPC throw a grenade, targeting a spot on the grid, and he got no hits, I just rolled on the scatter diagram. I rolled low on that d6 and it ended up in a pretty good place for the explosion on the next IP.
After the game, I thought about it and it just didn't seem fair that "missing" could still be a good throw and cause a bunch of damage.
I never remember reading a thing about net hits upping the DV after they reduce scatter, so I am going to have to do some rereading on that. Basically the way I had been running it was that net hits only affected the scatter amount. The DV was always the DV, no increases or decreases and the only way for opponents to do anything from a grenade was to get further away from the epicenter or take some cover...
What do other GMs do with 0 hits on a grenade?
on a simple 0-hit toss, i wouldn't do anything special. if they glitch, you could roll scatter twice, or even just rule (fiat!) that the grenade lands wherever you decide it lands. grenades really can go anywhere, if you screw up.
Hm.
In an open space, a 0-hit toss wouldn't mean more that you missed.
But when you try to throw the grenade into a doorway, a window or such, scatter could go really wrong, even without a glitch.
In an open space, a 0-hit toss wouldn't mean more that you missed.
But when you try to throw the grenade into a doorway, a window or such, scatter could go really wrong, even without a glitch.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.