Hi folks,
Since our group is not all that familiar yet with SR4, we've been using the Called shot for negating armor a bit wrong.
Full Version: Called shot on Armor
| QUOTE (BBB for reference) |
| Target an area not protected by armor. The attacking character receives a negative dice pool modifier equal to the target’s armor (better armor is more diffi cult to bypass). If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body. |
We've been playing it like this:
| QUOTE (Us) |
| Target an area less protected by armor. The attacking character can choose to ignore any number of armor points the defending character may have, but receives an equivalent dice pool modifier equal to this amount. So a character that wants to decrease its target's armor by 5 also rolls 5 less dice on its attack. |
So, what do you guys think? More realistic? More abusable? Utterly ridiculous?
I was skimming across the boards and found the usual complaints about spirits again... would this particular houserule help any with that? Hardened armor only ignores the full attack if the dv does not exceed the armor... and though not all characters can afford to lose 10 dice to ignore all of a spirit's armor, losing 5 and trusting the DV of your holdout is higher than the soft spot in that earth elemental's thigh could prove quite effective...
(quick side question, a called shot MUST follow a take aim action and is then considered a free action, correct? If so, a player can only make one called shot per IP? One called shot and one additional (regular) shot? Since we only get one free action per round?)
I wouldn't allow it in my game, but each to his own.
Giving players the option to lower the armor value of a foe by whatever they want in exchange for giving up dice pool just seems too munchkin-esque to me. I can see players spending far too much time trying to figure out if they hit the goon in the armpit how that will affect their roll, and what's the best modifier trade off...
Giving players the option to lower the armor value of a foe by whatever they want in exchange for giving up dice pool just seems too munchkin-esque to me. I can see players spending far too much time trying to figure out if they hit the goon in the armpit how that will affect their roll, and what's the best modifier trade off...
It's not bad, I'll try it out and see how it works.
I think that the armor system in SR4 could use some adjusting; I'm not really satisfied with it now. An example of why: It's easier to bypass the armor on a lined coat (which covers you neck to knee) than to bypass the armor on an armored jacket (which presumably stops at the waist). Maybe this system you have can clear this up.
I think that the armor system in SR4 could use some adjusting; I'm not really satisfied with it now. An example of why: It's easier to bypass the armor on a lined coat (which covers you neck to knee) than to bypass the armor on an armored jacket (which presumably stops at the waist). Maybe this system you have can clear this up.
My house rule on that is to use it as written for partial armor (like an armor jacket) i.e. ignore the full armor value and take the full penalty. For full armor (like a citymaster or full body armor) then it becomes ignore 1/2 the armor for an equal penalty. i.e. If they have 12 armor then you can ignore 6 of it for a -6 penalty. There are still "vulnerable spots", but nothing completely unarmored.
| QUOTE (PH3NOmenon) |
| quick side question, a called shot MUST follow a take aim action and is then considered a free action, correct? |
Wrong there.
The take aim action is optional, you don't have to.
| QUOTE (PH3NOmenon) |
| If so, a player can only make one called shot per IP? One called shot and one additional (regular) shot? Since we only get one free action per round?) |
Right here.
Apart from that, your way would be a viable houserule. I don't consider it more munchkin than the other option for called shots, trading dice for +DV.
Personally, I think the damage houserule should be +2DV for -4dice, but I haven't gone so far as to houserule it.....yet.
| QUOTE (PH3NOmenon @ Aug 10 2006, 11:20 AM) |
| I was skimming across the boards and found the usual complaints about spirits again... |
Problem being that the spirit appears to be all armor, all the time. So there really doesn't appear to be a place 'less protected by armor'. What appears to be eyes aren't really eyes, they don't need legs to stand on, and so on as they don't really have an anatomy that we think of. Even if there was such a spot on the spirit locating it on the nigh infinite number of alien spirit forms seems unreasonable. At least without Assensing.
For other applications though with more a discernable armor weakness it certainly does make more sense than +1DV per -1 die, and about the same as +1 DV per -2 die. On first pass I like it.
Shameless bump, cause i'd like more input.
Also, i fail to see how it would be munchkinny, as noted by Teux. It even added (or adds, depending on how i rule next game) an extra tactical guessing game for my players. How much armor would they have? How many dice would be enough to fully hit? If you want to ignore it all, how do i know if i'm not spending too much dice....
Also, Moon-hawk, do you flat out disallow ignoring all armor when they're wearing full-body stuff? Or am i misreading you here?
Also, i fail to see how it would be munchkinny, as noted by Teux. It even added (or adds, depending on how i rule next game) an extra tactical guessing game for my players. How much armor would they have? How many dice would be enough to fully hit? If you want to ignore it all, how do i know if i'm not spending too much dice....
Also, Moon-hawk, do you flat out disallow ignoring all armor when they're wearing full-body stuff? Or am i misreading you here?
The thing that would be annoying for me is the degree to which my players would say "okay... if I shave off 4 points of armor, this damage would be physical with the minimum 1 net success. Now, you're sure he's got 9 Ballistic? Okay, where are those dice..."
Anything that reduces the amount of math players will do prior to allowing the game to move forwards is a good thing, IMO.
Anything that reduces the amount of math players will do prior to allowing the game to move forwards is a good thing, IMO.
that's a player problem, not a mechanics problem.
that being said, the addition/subtraction can't take all that long, really... we're talking about math skills that should have been mastered quite thoroughly by the average player, i would imagine. and why do they know how much armor the target is wearing, anyways? they would have to perform an observe in detail action IMO if they want to know, and even then various types of cyber, or adept powers, or spells, could throw them off unless they have proper gear to detect that.
that being said, the addition/subtraction can't take all that long, really... we're talking about math skills that should have been mastered quite thoroughly by the average player, i would imagine. and why do they know how much armor the target is wearing, anyways? they would have to perform an observe in detail action IMO if they want to know, and even then various types of cyber, or adept powers, or spells, could throw them off unless they have proper gear to detect that.
basic subtraction is too much math? i mean... huh?
Yeah, that's what I said. I allow players to bypass armor (as per the rules) for partial body armor like armor jackets and the like. For something that has no unarmored spots (such as full body armor or a tank) then I allow them to use the rule, but only ignoring 1/2 the armor, and with a penalty of -1/armor point ignored. (i.e. the same ratio as normal) I fully support that FBA and tanks have weak points, but I don't like the idea of bypassing all armor with a longshot test in those cases.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| basic subtraction is too much math? i mean... huh? |
It is for the dyslexic
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.