Full Version: NPC effectivness cannot be measured by BP cost
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Also, there is absolutely no rule that says that you cannot affect the vehcicle while targeting a passenger |
SR4, 162. "Attacks must specifically target either the passengers (in which case, the vehicle is unaffected) or the vehicle itself (in which case, the passengers are not affected). The exceptions to this rule are ramming, full-automatic bursts and area-effect weapon attacks like grenades and rockets—these attacks affect both passengers and vehicles."
Yes, there is.
Edit: Whoops - I posted on the wrong thread. Dammit.
And yet the rule (that I quoted above) is quite clear on just how the vehicle's armor is added to a passenger if and/or when they are targeted.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
again, it's not stupid to make a 900bp gimp unless you're intending to use him to challenge a group of runners. which is the whole point of the thread--should a character count as a superhuman prime runner simply because he's got the requisite amount of BPs, even if they're all spent on learning dead languages? or should there be some other qualifying criteria?
1) There's nothing that has happened which will cause a crash test, unless the pilot was in the middle of a maneuver that might cause a crash. 2) Sorry I forgot to mention the obvious inclusion of a Maneuver autosoft. I assumed that it would be clear to anyone reading that the owner of a Banshee would also give it the 2,000  autosoft. That and the +1 handling gives it 11 dice. Even if the GM rules it has to make a crash test, it is unlikely to fail.3) I'm curious where you pulled the difficulty 3 for the test from. It looks like you looked at the Crash heading, but that only deals with when a vehicle takes damage. Unless the pilot was in the middle of a difficult maneuver when he had a heart attack from laughing so hard at the bullets bouncing off his windshield, the difficulty is at worst 1 for normal straight line flying. |
Yep, he counts as a prime runner. But he's not going to be getting a lot of jobs outside his area of expertise. The term "prime runner" is a bit of a misnomer, since nothing says these NPCs should actually be runners.
One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall.
Could this be applied to the argument in question? Mebbe.
Could this be applied to the argument in question? Mebbe.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| By that logic, then characters take reaction penalties for being in a vehicle, since the vehicle armor counts as part of the targets armor. And almost all vehicle armor would encumber a character. |
actually not true, since the armor and encumbrance section does specify that it applies to armor that the character is wearing.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| PS: I didn't bring it up this time. Everyone else on Dumpshock has discovered how broken called shots are; someday, you'll realize how obvious it is. |
If you took as much time reading my posts as you do trying to make cute attacks, you'd realize that I've said several times that in a group with someone who is intent on abusing the rules and a GM who refuses to follow the rule which states that he determines what is appropriate, the longshot test combined with the called shot rules are broken. So you see, I'm actually on your side on this one, you just fail to realize it because (I assume) you're still living in the past and retreading conversations we had years ago.
| QUOTE (Orient) |
| One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall. |
Presumably this is why the called shot rules require the GM's ok before the dice are rolled, so that each GM can determine how vulnerable he wants GMC Banshee passengers to be on their own.
Me, I'd opt for "not vulnerable at all" but I could see where "made of paper" could fit in a Golgo 13 style campaign.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Yep, he counts as a prime runner. But he's not going to be getting a lot of jobs outside his area of expertise. The term "prime runner" is a bit of a misnomer, since nothing says these NPCs should actually be runners. |
except that he can't fulfill the role as outlined in the book. he can't "take on the entire PC group single-handedly and win", unless they're in some sort of bizarre scenario the likely sole purpose of which is justifying the NPC as a superhuman prime runner.
moreover, i don't think the rules really say that any NPC with X number of BPs is automatically a prime runner of category Y. all they say is you should use X number of BPs if you want to build a prime runner of category Y.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| And yet the rule (that I quoted above) is quite clear on just how the vehicle's armor is added to a passenger if and/or when they are targeted. |
| QUOTE (SR4 @ 162) |
| Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the Armor of the vehicle to any personal armor the characters are wearing. |
| QUOTE (SR4 @ 149) |
| Too much armor, however, can slow a character down. If either of a character’s armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body is exceeded. |
Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. Since vehicular armor adds to the characters armor, almost any character is unable to move once entering a T-Bird. Because their agility and reaction is reduced so much.
| QUOTE (Orient) |
| One should note that the "Called shot to bypass (all) armor" thing breaks down if the target is, say, hiding behind full cover. It seems pretty obvious that you can't call a shot to negate penalties incurred by a target hiding behind a concrete wall. |
And it might be that in that case, the Called Shot is actually a planned ricochet that hits it's mark. I say it depends on the situation ... and a good GM.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||||||
Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. Since vehicular armor adds to the characters armor, almost any character is unable to move once entering a T-Bird. Because their agility and reaction is reduced so much. |
I gotta say, my (admittedly low) acrobatic ability is somewhat limited when I climb into a car.
Come on, guys. Barriers and armor aren't the same thing across every aspect of the rules. A character doesn't suddenly get clumsy if his mage friend casts Physical Barrier around a mutual opponent.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
And it might be that in that case, the Called Shot is actually a planned ricochet that hits it's mark. I say it depends on the situation ... and a good GM. |
Easier to ricochet around plywood than around concrete, hmn?
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||
Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. Since vehicular armor adds to the characters armor, almost any character is unable to move once entering a T-Bird. Because their agility and reaction is reduced so much. |
Tarantula, is that the section on Armor and Encumbrance on p. 149 that starts with the phrase "If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time..."?
I certainly agree with you that if a character is wearing a vehicle they may be encumbered.
However, I doubt this is the case when working in conjunction with the Damage and Passengers section on p. 162.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Yes, it is, and the armor encumbrance section doesn't say worn armor, just that if the armor rating exceeds body x 2. |
You are right. The thing is though that the vehicle section clearly outlines where an exception to these rules (or even a variation if you prefer) is made. Instead of adding penalties for the entirety of the vehicle's armor, you instead only suffer a -2 because there is still some room to move around.
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily advocating the entirety of Cain's Called Shot scenario. Don't read more into my posts than I actually write.
I heard the Devil quotes Scripture....
While this doesn't fix the called shot to characters inside a vehicle, it does fix the called shot to destroy vehicles outright.
| QUOTE (SR4 @ 150) |
| If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body. |
The armor is only ignored for the damage resistance test. As long as the modified damage is less than the vehicles armor modified by AP, the attack has no effect, and there is no damage resistance test.
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) |
| Tarantula, is that the section on Armor and Encumbrance on p. 149 that starts with the phrase "If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time..."? I certainly agree with you that if a character is wearing a vehicle they may be encumbered. However, I doubt this is the case when working in conjunction with the Damage and Passengers section on p. 162. |
It does start with "If If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time" which deals with stacking armor. That isn't the case, as characters are only wearing 1 piece of armor, plus being in a vehicle. The next paragraph is what I quoted. Dealing only with amounts of too much armor.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| except that he can't fulfill the role as outlined in the book. he can't "take on the entire PC group single-handedly and win" |
Sure he can, if they're acting within his sphere of expertise: dead languages.
Again, common sense is needed. If you're taking the time to stat up Uber-Linguistics Man, presumably it's because you need stats for Uber-Linguistics Man, not Shoots Big Holes In Things Guy. And so, for the purpose to which he was designed, the NPC is a Prime Runner.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||
It does start with "If If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time" which deals with stacking armor. That isn't the case, as characters are only wearing 1 piece of armor, plus being in a vehicle. The next paragraph is what I quoted. Dealing only with amounts of too much armor. |
You mean the second paragraph of this section
"Armor and Encumbrance
If a character is wearing more
than one piece of armor at a time,
only the highest value (for either
Ballistic or Impact) applies. Note
that some armor items, like helmets
and shields, provide a modifi
er to the worn armor rating and
so do not count as stacked armor.
Too much armor, however,
can slow a character down. If either
of a character’s armor ratings
exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1
modifi er to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction
thereof ) that his Body is exceeded. Note that this may aff ect
Initiative as well. If a character is wearing multiple armor items,
add their ratings together before comparing to Body."
Is a completely independent rule not to be provided the same context as the preceding paragraph?
Shouldn't it be in a separate section header or something?
indeed. even in the section Tarantula is limiting his argument to, it says "If a character is wearing multiple armor items, add their ratings together before comparing to Body."
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| And so, for the purpose to which he was designed, the NPC is a Prime Runner. |
that's what i've been trying to say the whole time--it's not a prime runner if the GM isn't sitting down and saying "i want to make a prime runner". NPC + 900 BP != prime runner.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||
Sure he can, if they're acting within his sphere of expertise: dead languages. Again, common sense is needed. If you're taking the time to stat up Uber-Linguistics Man, presumably it's because you need stats for Uber-Linguistics Man, not Shoots Big Holes In Things Guy. And so, for the purpose to which he was designed, the NPC is a Prime Runner. |
Lauguage skills aren't exactly dangerous or deadly, unless you're playing a campaign based on The Evil Dead.
Wearing more than once piece of armor just says that if you do that, only the best applies. Helmets and shields are modifiers, and don't count as seperate armor.
It then goes on to say if the rating is too high, then you take penalties. This implies that you take penalties from both helmets and shields as well as worn armor, which is why it is phrased the way it is. Consequently, this also makes characters take penalties for being in a vehicle. To fix it, just tag a line at the characters in vehicle section saying "vehicular armor added in this way doesn't effect a characters encumbrance".
It then goes on to say if the rating is too high, then you take penalties. This implies that you take penalties from both helmets and shields as well as worn armor, which is why it is phrased the way it is. Consequently, this also makes characters take penalties for being in a vehicle. To fix it, just tag a line at the characters in vehicle section saying "vehicular armor added in this way doesn't effect a characters encumbrance".
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| not to mention the fact that even in the section Tarantula is limiting his argument to, it says "If a character is wearing multiple armor items, add their ratings together before comparing to Body." |
Tarantula is claiming the second paragraph has no relation to the first, therefore the "wearing" bit is irrelevant to the argument.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| not to mention the fact that even in the section Tarantula is limiting his argument to, it says "If a character is wearing multiple armor items, add their ratings together before comparing to Body." |
No, you don't add them together. Only the highest counts for armor, and you use that rating. Read your book.
It discusses armor and encumbrance. First, it addresses that you can't wear more than one piece of armor and have it count. Then, it addresses what it actually is about, encumbrance due to armor.
i just did my book. SR4 page 149, second paragraph under Armor and Encumbrance, last sentence: "If a character is wearing multiple armor items, add their ratings together before comparing to Body." the same paragraph you've been quoting as not applying to worn armor says that it applies to worn armor.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i just did my book. SR4 page 149, second paragraph under Armor and Encumbrance, last sentence: "If a character is wearing multiple armor items, add their ratings together before comparing to Body." |
You're right. Didn't check the very bottom of the section. So, since you don't wear a shield, would you say that it doesn't apply to encumbrance?
why would you say you don't wear a shield? you strap it right onto your arm.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||
You're right. Didn't check the very bottom of the section. So, since you don't wear a shield, would you say that it doesn't apply to encumbrance? |
Are you asking in relation to armor stacking? In which case, paragraph one on Armor and Encumbrance p. 149.
"Note
that some armor items, like helmets
and shields, provide a modifi
er to the worn armor rating and
so do not count as stacked armor."
Or are you asking about carrying capacity type of encumbrance?
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| why would you say you don't wear a shield? you strap it right onto your arm. |
Going by the descriptions of the ballistic shield, I'd say its a bit more involved than strapping it on your arm.
Here is an example of the ballistic shield as described in the book. I'd say its more carried than it is worn.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| that's what i've been trying to say the whole time--it's not a prime runner if the GM isn't sitting down and saying "i want to make a prime runner". NPC + 900 BP != prime runner. |
It looks like we're just arguing semantics. I'm saying that he's a prime runner in the field of dead languages, you're saying he's not a prime runner at all. In both cases though, we agree that he's not a danger to the PCs, nor should he be.
| QUOTE ("hyzmarca") |
| Lauguage skills aren't exactly dangerous or deadly, unless you're playing a campaign based on The Evil Dead. |
That's true. I don't recall ever saying that they were.
Yup, that's the sticking point that I noticed. One of you is basically saying that the only thing that matters when judging Prime Runner status is combat capability. I disagree entirely, since you could easily stat up a PC that was absolutely useless in combat, but incredibly useful/powerful in other ways.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||||
It looks like we're just arguing semantics. I'm saying that he's a prime runner in the field of dead languages, you're saying he's not a prime runner at all. In both cases though, we agree that he's not a danger to the PCs, nor should he be.
That's true. I don't recall ever saying that they were. |
I fully agree with you. He is a prime runner of dead languages/mechanics. In the world of shadowrun, he probably isn't a huge threat to combat monsters. He would be a threat to a history professor/shop owner though.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Going by the descriptions of the ballistic shield, I'd say its a bit more involved than strapping it on your arm. Here is an example of the ballistic shield as described in the book. I'd say its more carried than it is worn. |
well, then, in your game, shields shouldn't apply to encumbrance. in my game, assuming i ever ran an SR4 game, they would, because i've played around with SCA folks enough to have actually worn a shield.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| It looks like we're just arguing semantics. |
we're not arguing semantics, we're arguing definitions! (alternatively: you're just anti-semantic, like Hitler!)
I'm also an anti-Dentite.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
well, then, in your game, shields shouldn't apply to encumbrance. in my game, assuming i ever ran an SR4 game, they would, because i've played around with SCA folks enough to have actually worn a shield. |
And have you seen someone "wear" a tower shield? Last I checked, no one used them in SCA.
Anecdotal, invalid. One of the local SCA guys here uses a tower shield. Doesn't prove anything.
Use of word "wear" acceptable. Some have straps, arm loops, what have you.
Just finished Watchmen. Typing like Rorschach.
Use of word "wear" acceptable. Some have straps, arm loops, what have you.
Just finished Watchmen. Typing like Rorschach.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| And have you seen someone "wear" a tower shield? Last I checked, no one used them in SCA. |
what is it with you and ridiculous nitpicking? "oh, you may wear a regular shield, but you don't wear a tower shield--at least, as far as you can prove! therefore, i am the victor!"
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Here is an example of the ballistic shield as described in the book. |
Sweet link. I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I picture anyone but a troll trying to use one of those things in combat.
well, hold the phone. that's hardly the only sort of ballistic shield out there. my mental picture is closer to this, which is much lighter.
That one doesn't seem to have a built in ladder like the one in the rulebook. I used to picture that kind of shield too, until this thread made me reread it and notice that it's also useful for climbing.
hm, yeah, plus the fact that there's no listing for using a ballistic shield as a weapon. crazy. there's apparently no listing for... well, to be honest? i've played a lot of Crisis Zone, and that's mainly what i think of when i think of ballistic shields.
...maybe a bit less resistant to rockets and MBT cannonfire.
...maybe a bit less resistant to rockets and MBT cannonfire.
I see that as being more like the riot shield listed. Its smaller and lighter (thus easier for use as a weapon) and has less of a bonus.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Me, I'd opt for "not vulnerable at all" but I could see where "made of paper" could fit in a Golgo 13 style campaign. |
I think it's important that we mention Golgo 13 as much as possible. People really aren't exposed to Golgo 13 enough today. I'll be that a lot of people think of One Piece and Pokemon instead of hoary 70s delicacies like Golgo 13 when you say "anime" or "manga" in the US.
If I were a millionare philanthropist I'd run national televised ads saying "Golgo 13: Your Anime Sucks". And I'd have HBO run all night Japanese pulp grindhouse specials or something.
We probably need a physad power that lets you disable large metal machines with a single well placed round of 5.56x39, where the armor and power rating and what have you are totally irrelevant. Maybe you accept a +8 TN penalty or something, or you are required to spend a full combat turn just using uninterrupted consecutive Take Aim actions in order for the power to activate.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| We probably need a physad power that lets you disable large metal machines with a single well placed round of 5.56x39, where the armor and power rating and what have you are totally irrelevant. Maybe you accept a +8 TN penalty or something, or you are required to spend a full combat turn just using uninterrupted consecutive Take Aim actions in order for the power to activate. |
or you could just use the longshot rules without modification =P
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Oct 15 2007, 02:20 PM) |
| Anecdotal, invalid. One of the local SCA guys here uses a tower shield. Doesn't prove anything. Use of word "wear" acceptable. Some have straps, arm loops, what have you. Just finished Watchmen. Typing like Rorschach. |
My Comedian smiley face shirt without all the movie advertisement bs on it is one of my prized possessions.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.