Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why shoot grenades at people?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Ddays
Isn't it strictly better to shoot grenades at the ground? Grenades never miss, and their opposed dodge check might actually increase scatter. Why not just aim it at their feet or where they're going to end up?
mfb
because that's what you're doing already. when you try to blow someone up with a grenade, you don't aim the grenade to hit them, you aim it at a surface near them--the ground just in front of them, generally. aiming the actual guy means that if you miss, the grenade goes flying off into the night.
Critias
QUOTE (mfb)
aiming the actual guy means that if you miss, the grenade goes flying off into the night.

Or off into the orphanage, if you angle it just right.
Ddays
But there are rules to attack ground with grenade launchers on page 145, it's a success test instead of an opposed test.

If that were the case, wouldn't it always be easier to just aim at the ground? I suppose your GM could rule that if you at the ground, there's a chance that a moving person might have gone out of the blast radius, but that's not really an issue with airburst link.
Critias
QUOTE (Ddays)
If that were the case, wouldn't it always be easier to just aim at the ground?

Yes. Which is why, for instance, that's how people do it in real life.
Tarantula
Note the FAQ says
QUOTE (FAQ http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/resources/faq.shtml)
Isn't tossing a grenade on the ground by someone's feet (a Success Test) easier than trying to hit them directly with a grenade (an Opposed Test)? Does everyone caught in the blast get a chance to dodge/react?

If the intent is to catch a target in the blast radius, then it should be an Opposed Test, whether the grenade is actually thrown at the target or thrown a few meters away.

If the intent is to catch a group of targets in the blast radius, the attacker still picks one as the primary target. The Opposed Test is made between the attacker and that target only, with scatter determined accordingly. Any targets caught in the blast radius make Damage Resistance Tests as normal.
Critias
I guess that's a good reason for the quick guys to not stand too close to the slow guys, huh?

Since you can just lob your grenade specifically at the gimp of a rigger in his spiffy wheelchair, beat his ass in the opposed test, and then all the super ninja Reaction eight million adepts and sammies still have to make damage resistance tests against it.
Naysayer
Hmmm...
But shouldn't the super-fast crowd be like, fast? Be able to see that grenade tumble towards their velocitically challenged friend? And realistically be allowed to, I don't know, go on full defense with an interrupt-action or I don't know, run for cover - and leave their pal out in the lof to die alone, like we's do in tha shadows?

odinson
They should, but not according to rules. The grenade rules are sorta not good but they do keep things simple.
Critias
Maybe people SHOULD go back to leaving deckers and riggers in their vans and bunkers !!
ShadowDragon8685
I hate to say it, but mighten't it be simpler to just make a success test on an area, and then have everyone make reaction against a set threshold based on the grenade and whether or not you have airburst link?
Critias
Well, yes. That would be simpler, and make more sense. In fact, to me, rather than even setting a threshold the simplest solution might be to say you move 1 meter per success on that reaction/dodge check -- and then calculate damage from there (based on the targeted spot, and your location in relation to it at the start of the attack).

Those nearest the targeted point still get punished for being, well, nearest the targeted point. Everyone involved gets to try and ditch the blast, and you don't see someone just doing a cartwheel and being inexplicably untouched by a grenade exploding at their feet (IE, you only get away from the blast if you get away from the blast).
MaxHunter
... and that is exactly how we have been doing it! Of course I agree with you there, critias.

Cheers,

Max
Serbitar
simple rule:

Opposed test (attack target): You can stage damage up using net hits in your opposed test on this target only

success test (attack ground): damage does not stage up
Rotbart van Dainig
Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.
Aaron
I suspect the problem with the grenade rules is the "legacy code," if you will, from previous editions. In those rules, there was no opposed test for attacks, and so an attack roll with a grenade could determine where a grenade landed independently of the abilities of the target(s). With the implementation of opposed tests, it suddenly matters how quick the target is, which is a concept that is incompatible with the idea of absolute positioning.

I don't blame anybody for wanting to keep grenade positioning. Without it, we lose the scatter diagram and associated table, along with the chunky salsa effect.

I've been allowing characters to try to put the grenades where they want, using the scatter diagram and table, and then since the exploding grenade creates a field of high-velocity bits of metal, I use the same rules for another situation involving a field of high-velocity bits of metal: suppressive fire. So, I roll for scatter, compare the attacker's hits with each defenders' Reaction + Edge (I think -- no rules here at work).
Critias
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.

I think the problem is that as written (or at least as FAQ'ed or Errata'ed or whatever), you DON'T handle grenade attacks "per person." You target the slow guy, overwhelm his puny Reaction, and then everyone else in the blast radius has to suck up the damage (without getting to make an opposed test).
Ravor
Which as why I wouldn't allow the "slow guy" to be singled out if the primary target was intended to be the group as a whole.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Never understood the problem.
People can handle spell defense tests per person, too.

I think the problem is that as written (or at least as FAQ'ed or Errata'ed or whatever), you DON'T handle grenade attacks "per person."

Ah, indeed. Scatter is determined after the target dodges. Ugh.

Well, for my games it's the other way round:

First, determine if you hit the inteded place at all: Determine Scatter.
Then, determine if and how you hit the target(s): Individual Dodge Tests.
Finally, individual Damage Resistance Tests.

Yes, that means even though you manage to zero in, your targets simply drop behind cover, etc. and evade the attack.
Critias
QUOTE (Ravor)
Which as why I wouldn't allow the "slow guy" to be singled out if the primary target was intended to be the group as a whole.

Explosions don't care about "intent," and neither should game rules.
Ravor
You're right, they shouldn't, however the problem is that RAW doesn't work if you allow everyone to drop a fireball on top of 'the slow guy'.

Add to the fact that I don't fancy the idea of making several additional tests everytime grenades, ect are used and I think a nice midddle ground can be achieved.


Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Ravor)
Add to the fact that I don't fancy the idea of making several additional tests everytime grenades, ect are used and I think a nice midddle ground can be achieved.

But you do fancy the idea of making several addidional tests every fireball?
pbangarth
QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (mfb @ Jul 12 2007, 01:59 AM)
aiming the actual guy means that if you miss, the grenade goes flying off into the night.

Or off into the orphanage, if you angle it just right.

Or, as in the case some years ago when the grenade my character hurled up onto the roof above us from which we were being sniped, a glitch brought the grenade back down on us.

The team was not happy with me. sarcastic.gif
Critias
QUOTE (pbangarth)
Or, as in the case some years ago when the grenade my character hurled up onto the roof above us from which we were being sniped, a glitch brought the grenade back down on us.

The team was not happy with me. sarcastic.gif

Depending on the scatter, it doesn't even take a glitch to do that. My last big SR tabletop group was knocked out, to the man, when the troll decided to default to a grenade launchers test, indoors. He hit the wall in the center of a 't' intersection of hallways, where the group had taken cover from folks shooting at them from outside.

Chunky salsa, tight hallways, the group all nice and compact right there -- no glitch or critical failure required, he screwed the pooch into overflow physical damage with just the regular old failure he'd achieved.
Big D
The "intent" comes into play because you don't want to just put a grenade onto a patch of ground, you want to put it onto a patch of ground really close to a particular target. Think about the realtime process--you aim, target's moving, you have to track it or it'll get out of the blast radius.

In other cases, however, you want to target a specific point in space, and if the targets clear out while you're aiming, that's just too bad.

The problem is, since gameplay is based on IP and not realtime, it opens up a disparity in how those two cases work. Original RAW allowed the latter case to be used as an excuse to nail agile targets, bypassing half their defense rolls. Currently, it's the other way around--you can't really place a grenade "halfway between those two guys", which kinda makes sense if if they're moving, but tends to fall apart if they're staying put.

The best solution in theory is to divide up the cases--as mentioned, aiming at a point in space is an awful lot like suppression fire. However, I think that still allows a loophole to develop that players can exploit.
Tarantula
As to why intent matters. Why do people get an opposed roll when you shoot guns at them? What if you just wanna shoot the window behind them, and they just happen to be in the way. Should you remove their opposed test then?
Mr. Unpronounceable
QUOTE (Naysayer)
Hmmm...
But shouldn't the super-fast crowd be like, fast? Be able to see that grenade tumble towards their velocitically challenged friend? And realistically be allowed to, I don't know, go on full defense with an interrupt-action or I don't know, run for cover - and leave their pal out in the lof to die alone, like we's do in tha shadows?

Since by the RAW, thrown grenade goes off on the thrower's next action phase..even the slow people should often have plenty of time to get out of the way.

Unless the thrower has 2 or more actions, then he can just wait till his second one to throw the grenade.

Which is probably the main reason everyone I've played with seems to have a 'grenades go off instantly' houserule.
kzt
QUOTE (Tarantula)
As to why intent matters. Why do people get an opposed roll when you shoot guns at them? What if you just wanna shoot the window behind them, and they just happen to be in the way. Should you remove their opposed test then?

I'd still like to see someone dodge bullets. I'll even arrange for a whole bunch of them, if I can get volunteers. Then the survivors can try to dodge the cloud of fragments from a grenade going off at their feet.
FrankTrollman
To get a grenade to go off at the right time you want to delay your action until the end of one IP after everyone has gone, and then throw it and have your next IP go off at its regular scheduled time.

In short, to get a grenade to go off how you want, pull the pin, wait, then throw.

-Frank
Aaron
Nah. The RAW also mentions that grenades have wireless fuses available, too. So you toss the grenade and use the Free Action to trigger the fuse, either via AR or by thought, as appropriate.
Mr. Unpronounceable
Wireless fuses + hacker/technomancer = no, thanks!
Jaid
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable)
Wireless fuses + hacker/technomancer = no, thanks!

don't turn on the wireless until the grenade is activated (the pin is pulled, or whatever)

throw some basic encryption on your grenades, and a nice high rating firewall. sure, that's not gonna keep it from being hacked, but it *will* keep it from being hacked in the 1 second that the wireless link is active, after which i think it's safe to say that the antenna is destroyed (as is the response chip) and that even if it wasn't, hacking the already detonated grenade is largely meaningless biggrin.gif
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable @ Jul 12 2007, 02:10 PM)
Wireless fuses + hacker/technomancer = no, thanks!

Well that's why the wireless antenna isn't even powered until after you pull the pin. In the amount of time between the pin pull and the throw the hacker has to locate the hidden node, hack in with admin access, and give confusing commands. Unlikely, I claim.
And if you're holding it for more than a couple seconds in that state then you deserve what you get.

edit: Damn it! Why do I even bother posting today? I'm getting beaten every time. AND I forgot to mention encryption. I suck. dead.gif
WearzManySkins
Well get together with your hacker. Have him copy the software out of a grenade link, modified somewhat.

End result using the laser ranger finder in your smartgun link, based upon the average throwing times for that character, you can throw a grenade, and wirelessly have it programmed to detonate at the distance the laser range finder from the smartgun link gave the software. smile.gif

End results grenade go Boom when it reaches the target distance, not waiting until the next round. Also if you activate the wireless ability keep them in a bag that is also a Faraday Cage. ie Hacker Proof.
Fortune
Just chuck Skinlinks on the grenades to avoid the hacker problems.

This also can go a long way towards avoiding the 'Mage pulls the pin with Magic Fingers' scenario as well. wink.gif
Big D
Yeah, the 1-IP (rather than 3-second) standard fuse does make things confusing.

That's why I prefer airburst (OICW/OCSW FTW!) smile.gif
Critias
QUOTE (Tarantula)
As to why intent matters. Why do people get an opposed roll when you shoot guns at them? What if you just wanna shoot the window behind them, and they just happen to be in the way. Should you remove their opposed test then?

The problem with "intent" changing how things work in-game is that it's retarded. It's like in previous editions when bullets (and other attacks) did different amounts of damage (and affected armor differently) if you were shooting a door instead trying to shoot THROUGH a door (to hit someone behind it), ditto with shooting a car versus shooting someone IN the car, etc, etc.

Bullets and explosives don't know, or care, what you're shooting them at. They should do the same base damage, and have the same base effect, either way.

If a player says "I shoot the big slow troll with a grenade," the blast radius should be just as deadly and just as large as if he says "I shoot the big slow troll with a grenade, because he's the guy standing in the middle of the security team," which should be the same as "I plant a grenade in the middle of the security team, hey, look, a big slow troll is standing there."

In each case, it's the same grenade being launched at the same place by the same person with the same die pool and same lighting conditions. How a sentence is phrased should not affect the difficulty of a task, or the ability of potential targets to attempt a dodge roll. Right now, with the rules as written, and as some people are proposing fixes for those rules, sentence structure changes how effective a grenade is. That's silly.
Tarantula
Not really. If someone is going to be caught in the blast radius, they get an opposed roll unless they're suprised. If you're just shooting grenades around for fun, then theres no one getting hit by them, and thus no opposed roll.

If you're shooting your gun off you just could do a success test and see how well you hit that window. If you're shooting it and someone will be hit by it (and they're not suprised) they get an opposed roll to try to avoid getting shot.

It works the same with the grenades, at least, I think it should, and thats how I play it because its more consistent with how guns work as well. Basically, if someone is going to end up damaged from it, they get to oppose it with their roll unless they are unaware/unable to do so (unconcious, suprised, etc.)
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Tarantula)
...If you're just shooting grenades around for fun...

...ahh, you've heard about my merc, Gracie I see. grinbig.gif
Dashifen
QUOTE (Tarantula)
It works the same with the grenades, at least, I think it should, and thats how I play it because its more consistent with how guns work as well. Basically, if someone is going to end up damaged from it, they get to oppose it with their roll unless they are unaware/unable to do so (unconcious, suprised, etc.)

How do you handle scatter if everyone in the blast gets a roll? The RAW seem to indicate that you roll Agility + [Skill] vs. Reaction (+ [Skill] if full defense), the net hits on that test reducing the scatter of the grenade. If more than one person is "dodging" the grenade, what do you do with scatter?

Also, how do you resolve the fact that to get out of a blast radius, a person must move. But, you can only declare a change to your movement on your phase? I suppose you could say that a held Free action could taken to start running, but do you rule that a person who can't act any more in a phase (or in the turn) cannot make this opposed test because, technically, they can't declare a new action?

I think I'm misunderstanding something.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Dashifen)
Also, how do you resolve the fact that to get out of a blast radius, a person must move. But, you can only declare a change to your movement on your phase?

I would resolve that by saying that a grenade at one's feet is an excellent motivator, and therefore wouldn't devote much time to worrying about movement modes, rates, etc.
If anyone tried to "propel" themselves beyond their normal movement rate by dodging a series of their own grenades, we would sit down and have an OOC talk about gaming.
kzt
It's more that the rules don't make sense.
Dashifen
That's more what I was getting at, kzt, though I also wanted to make it non-confrontational so that no one got pissed.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jul 12 2007, 04:57 PM)
Ah, indeed. Scatter is determined after the target dodges. Ugh.

Well, for my games it's the other way round:

First, determine if you hit the inteded place at all: Determine Scatter.
Then, determine if and how you hit the target(s): Individual Dodge Tests.
Finally, individual Damage Resistance Tests.

Yes, that means even though you manage to zero in, your targets simply drop behind cover, etc. and evade the attack.

QUOTE (Dashifen)
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Jul 13 2007, 12:06 PM)
It works the same with the grenades, at least, I think it should, and thats how I play it because its more consistent with how guns work as well.  Basically, if someone is going to end up damaged from it, they get to oppose it with their roll unless they are unaware/unable to do so (unconcious, suprised, etc.)

How do you handle scatter if everyone in the blast gets a roll?


That way.
Dashifen
Unless I've always miss understood a Dodge test, there's no actual movement taking place, just some bobbing and weaving making it hard for a bullet to hit you. Dodging a blast, though, requires actual motion away from ground zero of upto 12 meters. How do you account for movement during the individual dodge tests, Rotbart?
mfb
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Ah, indeed. Scatter is determined after the target dodges. Ugh.

but the dodge-then-scatter rules make more sense! the fact that the target of the grenade is trying to dodge means that he has observed its velocity, which means that the final location of the grenade cannot be known, ergo you roll scatter after dodge!

QUOTE (Dashifen)
Unless I've always miss understood a Dodge test, there's no actual movement taking place, just some bobbing and weaving making it hard for a bullet to hit you.

the real problem with that is that ducking and weaving in place is a great way to not dodge bullets at all. Neo aside, if you want to dodge bullets, you need to vacate your current location.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Dashifen)
Unless I've always miss understood a Dodge test, there's no actual movement taking place, just some bobbing and weaving making it hard for a bullet to hit you. Dodging a blast, though, requires actual motion away from ground zero of upto 12 meters. How do you account for movement during the individual dodge tests, Rotbart?

Not at all. It's the same for supressive fire.

Dodge is Dodge, Movement is Movement.
If you desire, you can rule that base damage is always done.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Ah, indeed. Scatter is determined after the target dodges. Ugh.

but the dodge-then-scatter rules make more sense! the fact that the target of the grenade is trying to dodge means that he has observed its velocity, which means that the final location of the grenade cannot be known, ergo you roll scatter after dodge!

No, it means that trough waving your hands around, you can make the grenade miss you more... you know, pushing it aside with sheer willpower.
mfb
hey, Edge is everyman magic.
Rotbart van Dainig
..and as Sprites have Edge they are magical, too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012