Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Binding Power
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
MikeKozar
In my last two games, I've tried to change the opposition up by mixing in some critters - ghouls, stalkers, and a homebrew Great Bear. However, one of my players is a summoner, and likes to order his Earth Elementals to use the binding power on enemies. He always phrases it so as to require the spirit to recast the spell should it be escaped.

The mechanics of the Binding spell are absolutely murder on a Melee critter.

QUOTE
Binding
Type: P • Action: Complex • Range: LOS • Duration: Instant
The critter can make its victim “stick” to any surface he is touching
(or to the being itself ). The victim may attempt to break free with a
Complex Action, rolling Strength + Body against the critter’s Magic +
Willpower. If the victim prevails, he has escaped.


There doesn't seem to be any test to apply this power - once the spirit decides to 'stick' somebody, they're automatically stuck. When the critter's turn comes around, he can spend his turn breaking free and take a move, but he cannot attack (since breaking free is a complex action). When the Elemental's turn comes up, he will recast the spell, starting the whole cycle over again. If the critter starts his turn within range of a target, he can elect to remain bound and take a swipe instead, but the players aren't stupid - they keep their distance and use guns.

Am I reading this right? Is there some trick I'm missing here? Or should I just accept that this party is never going to be threatened by anything without a gun?
Tech_Rat
Well, you can resist any spell being cast on you to see if it 'hits' or not. Even if it's just a willpower test. Or you could always add in with their enemies a mage that summons a spirit that tears the earth elemental to pieces. ^-^

*edit* The test would be a willpower+counterspelling+[magic resist/arcane arrester/etc... as applicable]

*edit again* If their enemies are chromed out... That applies a penalty to spells being cast on them, both positive and negative. You'd have to look up exactly how much, though.
Karoline
This power, like all powers, is going to require a test. I think it is force or force x 2 vs willpower or something like that, though I could be wrong. Magic isn't my strong point.

What exactly is his wording? There is almost always a way around the wording if the earth elementals feel that they are doing too much work for a single service.

Keep in mind that this will only affect a single opponent at a time, so unless you're only pitting them against single opponents, it is only going to slow one enemy down. And if they are only fighting one enemy at a time, well that enemy deserves to be turned into small chunky bits.

Also keep in mind the golden rule of shadowrun: If the PCs can do it, the NPCs can do it too. While they don't really need to move if they use guns, being stuck in the open when someone opens up cover fire on their position is going to suck (Especially as I'd think you're totally justified in lowering/eliminating dodge tests since they aren't Neo)
Ol' Scratch
Yes, you're reading it right for the most part. The only mistake you're making is the assumption that they cannot perform any action other than trying to break free. The power doesn't restrict a stuck character from doing anything other than (presumably) moving. It doesn't even say what part of the subject is stuck other than to what they're touching or the critter, nor does it apply any penalties whatsoever. It's just that if you need or want to move from where you are, you have to either pull off that test or otherwise incapacitate the critter.

Hooray for poorly worded and thought out rules!

Edit: No, there is no test for applying Binding. Powers that require an attack test state those rules in their description. You also have to love ohplease.gif how the critter power rules in particular tell you that they're just "guidelines" rather than actual rules to excuse nonsense like this one.
Adarael
Yeah, I'm with Funk on this one: you stick my ninja physad NPC to the wall, and then laugh and proceed to try to batter him to death, he's not gonna take a complex action to unstick himself, he's gonna punch the earth elemental. Stuck does not equal paralyzed.
Karoline
QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 4 2009, 05:14 PM) *
Yeah, I'm with Funk on this one: you stick my ninja physad NPC to the wall, and then laugh and proceed to try to batter him to death, he's not gonna take a complex action to unstick himself, he's gonna punch the earth elemental. Stuck does not equal paralyzed.


I think the problem is that stuck = out of melee range, and the PCs are smart enough to use guns when the enemy doesn't have them.

Yes, if the enemy is in melee range being stuck isn't an issue, but the whole problem the OP has is that the enemies aren't in melee range, and the PCs have no intention of allowing them to get into melee range (They can all do walking as free actions, and no one is going to be faster than anyone else, so everyone goes the same speed)
Kliko
Greater numbers of lesses cool critters (did I just say Devil Rats are not cool?)
Mercer
I think the point was if the elemental is binding someone, that someone would be in melee range to the spirit, although this, like most things, isn't 100% clear in the description.

Binding was written similarly in previous editions except it didn't specify an action to break free; there was a test (STR vs ESS), but it didn't bite into a character's actions for the phase. If you think Binding is broken that might fix it, but I'm basing this on my experience that no one every used Binding in previous editions so it couldn't have been that broken.

Rotbart van Dainig
Numbers will make the character invest in Invoking, allowing the spirit to target everyone he wants stuck in an area.
Karoline
QUOTE (Mercer @ Dec 4 2009, 05:50 PM) *
I think the point was if the elemental is binding someone, that someone would be in melee range to the spirit, although this, like most things, isn't 100% clear in the description.


It has a range of LOS, so no reason for the spirit to be closer than a thousand feet or so.
Shinobi Killfist
Like many critter powers and magic powers/spells they break upon closer review. A force 1 earth elemental could perma-bind a Juggernaut(who was a pile of suck in the critters book)
Ascalaphus
Well, never bring a bear to a gunfight? If he binds somethign that has no ranged attacks.. well, that's not such a bad idea. But if that bear is a biodrone with built-in machine gun...
Trigger
Use Barghests? Flame breath FTW smile.gif
BishopMcQ
Hellhounds are Flame Breath, Barghests have a Petrifying Howl. Both would be effective in different ways.

Remember that each time the spirit activates the power takes a Complex Action, if the spirit defends against any attacks or if the attacker has more than 2 IPs, the spirit won't be able to keep it locked down.
Glyph
But the duration of the power is Instant, not Sustained. Once the spirit binds someone, they are stuck until they break free.
Mercer
QUOTE (Karoline @ Dec 4 2009, 11:57 PM) *
It has a range of LOS, so no reason for the spirit to be closer than a thousand feet or so.


That's a good point.

Although, is Binding one service per use? If so, if you're fighting a group and they have no ranged attacks, you're going to burn through most of your spirit's services locking them down, and be slowing them down at one per action. (Basically, the spirit's action is used to deprive the target of it's action, unless the target fails to break free.)

Granted, as RvD pointed out, once they get Invoking this will be broken all over again.
Karoline
Well, OP said that the character worded it in such a way that he gets multiple uses out of a single service. It isn't that hard to do "Keep binding those ghouls until we kill them." would be a fairly easy way to have the spirit cast basically infinite times for only one service. That of course provides that you are on good standings with your earth spirits, because if the earth spirits are pissed at you, they could keep binding dead ghouls or already bound ghouls, and leave the rest free to charge.
Jaid
honestly, was one bear ever really going to be a problem for them anyways?

as has been said: use more than one creature. alternately, have the creatures surprise (if appropriate). use flying creatures. use creatures with ranged attacks. use creatures with some kind of support that would make it really handy to have the spirit doing something else.

but yes, it basically does mean that an opponent with no ranged capability, no stealth, and no allies is not likely to make an effective opponent. kinda like how it was already not an effective opponent, in all probability.
Cheshyr
I think the deeper question here is Spirit Powers in general. Binding + Movement Speed Increase powers pretty much guarantees the players will never get in melee range. A skilled magician could have multiple spirits in play, one giving movement, perhaps one giving concealment, and the rest repeatedly binding. The fact all of these powers effectively 'always hit' creates a sort of god-mode that feels a little unbalancing. I would think the target would have a means of resisting an ability before being forced to break free of the results of the effect, but the rules are mysteriously quiet on this topic. I'd hate to be the GM facing this situation, just as I'd hate to be the player receiving the same. It effectively creates a sniper scenario, except you're at the sniper's mercy until he runs out of bullets.
Ol' Scratch
That comes down to an issue with melee combat, not the powers in question. Movement and Binding doesn't do anything to stop someone from shooting a gun or casting a spell at you.
Manunancy
As someone has alrady said, if the PCs can play, so can the opposition. An especially vicious use of the power would be to stick a grenade to the PC's hand just as he readies to throw it. devil.gif

Also keep in mind that to use the power on the material plane, the spirit needs to be materialized, hence vulnerable to mundane attacks (A ruger warhawk with Hi-ex ammo is a decent banishing tool)

But basically the easiest way to counter this trick would be to swamp the PCs with a swarm of ennemies, or an ennemy with a ranged attack. Or make sure the mage is taken out first.
Mercer
I think this illustrates the larger point that unless you challenge SR groups in most of their arenas at once, the PC's tend to swamp the opposition.

Sending in opponents who lack both ranged attacks and decent magical defenses means they'll be ice cream for freaks. But that's the game. Challenging the PC's means making them fight multi-front battles, most of the time.
Mongoose
True that. Multi-front battles, or opponents they can't react to, or who use "divide and conquer" methods. The bear probably wasn't much of a threat because they all saw it coming. Now, one of those cyber-tooth tigers on its home turf, maybe with its own concealing spirit...
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Mercer @ Dec 5 2009, 06:55 AM) *
I think this illustrates the larger point that unless you challenge SR groups in most of their arenas at once, the PC's tend to swamp the opposition.

Sending in opponents who lack both ranged attacks and decent magical defenses means they'll be ice cream for freaks. But that's the game. Challenging the PC's means making them fight multi-front battles, most of the time.


For me it illustrates the "counter" style of the game. Its we can do this and to counter that I do this, and to counter that we have this etc. There are a ridiculous number of effects countered by specific things so characters and sites become almost farcical Boy Scout icons. The basics or discussion here seem to go "X is overpowered". No its not you can counter X with Y. If you like this style, you might call it tactical or something. If you don't you call it something less complimentary.
Mercer
(This is what happens when you fork a stranger in the alps. Although my favorite example of this was from "die Hard II" when Bruce Willis's voice changes several octaves during this exchange: "If you had gotten the lead out of your pencil we wouldn't be hip deep in snow right now!")

I think it's always a danger when you use One-Trick Ponies. I think the danger is more noticeable in SR than in other system, because there are a lot more tricks.
JoelHalpern
By the way, what is the penalty for a called shot to the head, so that a shifter doesn't regenerate? It is not the same as resist armor. It is not the same as a -4 penalty for +4 damage. If it were not for the fact that the critter description explicitly mentions it, I would say that it was simply against the rules, since the abstract nature of SR combat normally makes that meaningless.

Thanks,
Joel
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (JoelHalpern @ Dec 5 2009, 05:07 PM) *
By the way, want is the penalty for a called shot to the head, so that a shifter doesn't regenerate? [...] It is not the same as a -4 penalty for +4 damage.

It can be. You're aiming for a vulnerable spot, and you just need to declare that vulnerable spot as a head shot. Technically you could get away with doing that with -1/+1, but most GMs would prefer it if you went with the -4/+4 option. The other viable option is the fourth one which has no associated rules.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Dec 5 2009, 04:16 PM) *
It can be. You're aiming for a vulnerable spot, and you just need to declare that vulnerable spot as a head shot. Technically you could get away with doing that with -1/+1, but most GMs would prefer it if you went with the -4/+4 option. The other viable option is the fourth one which has no associated rules.


Actually, If you are going for the Headshot, in my book you are trying to avoid the armor of the target (Shapeshifters can wear armor you know) and therefore you need to use the called shot option for avoiding the Armor... this is generally in the -8 to -10 DP range for most of the armor worn by Shadowrunners, sometimes even higher)

The 4th option is for special effects that are not permanent... like knocking someone down, or slowing them down, or temporarily blinding them/deafening them, etc... not the same thing as applying massive damage to the head to negate regeneration...

Keep the Faith
Ol' Scratch
No.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Dec 6 2009, 12:27 PM) *
No.


Not Really... there are no explanations in the Regeneration power except that a headshot is an option... the 4th option for Called shot covers "Special Effects", under which I would not place Regeneration... if you want to actually damage the head with a called shot, the only other viable alternative is to use option 1, call a shot for the head, and take the armor penalty in dice to do so...

The option for extra damage is generally described as additional damage and is left to GM fiat as to where it actually impacted... you may not get what you want here wit that option, and the 3rd option is for removing things from extremities (such a a gun in a hand)

Just saying "NO" is not an answer, and makes you look like you are being confrontational for no reason...

If you do not agree, provide a mechanic that makes more sense than what I presented and we can discuss it in a manner that is conducive to problem resolution....

Keep the Faith
hahnsoo
Actually, Regeneration specifically states:
"Certain types of damage cannot be regenerated from this power. Damage to the brain or spinal cord (for example, from a called shot to the head) cannot be healed this way."

By that ruling, it can be ANY called shot to the head. Called shot to do damage (as long as you state the head). Called shot to bypass armor (as long as you bypass armor to hit the head). Called shot for knocking something out of a target's grasp (granted, this would only be a headshot if it was a chip in a delta-grade cyberware chipslot on the shapeshifter's head, but still). Called shot for "specific effect" (in this case, called shot for the specific effect of shooting the overgrown furry in the head).

Finally, the ruling is "When a shot is called, and pending the gamemaster's agreement". So the GM has to approve of it anyway. What goes at your table may not go for what is another person's table due to GM's fiat (I think that's dumb, personally, but there are a lot of dumb things in SR4. That's what you get when the system is brand new rather than a refinement of previous mechanics. SR4 will probably be a lot more solid in 10 years.).
Sturg
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 6 2009, 08:13 PM) *
Actually, If you are going for the Headshot, in my book you are trying to avoid the armor of the target (Shapeshifters can wear armor you know) and therefore you need to use the called shot option for avoiding the Armor... this is generally in the -8 to -10 DP range for most of the armor worn by Shadowrunners, sometimes even higher)

The 4th option is for special effects that are not permanent... like knocking someone down, or slowing them down, or temporarily blinding them/deafening them, etc... not the same thing as applying massive damage to the head to negate regeneration...

Keep the Faith


I completely disagree with this. Why do you need to completely bypass someones armor to damage them? Just like any other attack, you resist with armor + body. Why would their head not be damaged with a called shot to a vital area? (I consider the head to be a vital area.) They get to resist with any armor they are wearing normally. If said armor prevents the attack, he doesn't even have to try to regenerate it. However, any damage that does in fact bypass his armor simply due to the nature of the attack, should not be able to be regenerated. I fail to see why you should have to avoid the armor completely to damage a specific location.
JoelHalpern
Sturg, the concern I have is that there is no defined rule specifically for "called shot to head". There is not even a rule for called shot to vitals. There is a rule for called shot to do more damage. But the GM gets to decide what spot you were actually able to get.
Called shot for the head would seem to be harder than head + any other serious spot that you are able to get a bead on. Maybe not a lot harder, but harder. The developers have said multiple times that the SR combat rules are deliberately abstract, and we should not try to make them too specific. Unfortunately, in this situation, we need the specifics. (Heck, it would be helpful to the GM if he had some way of fairly deciding if a shot did hit the head, even if the shooter was not aiming there. But there is no mechanic specified for that, except "whatever makes good storytelling.")

Yours,
Joel
hahnsoo
The GM does not determine the spot where you actually hit. The GM either agrees or disagrees with the player's proposed called shot, and then determines the modifier based on guidelines. There's a difference. In your interpretation (taken to a hyperbolic extreme, of course... not trying to insult you or anything), the player says "I'm going to shoot him in a vital area, the head" and then the GM says "Nope. You hit him in the crotch." (This actually happened when I was playing an indie homebrew game a decade ago, and the game had detailed, but non-flexible, critical hit tables)

In the SR4A writeup, it says the player determines the shot, and the GM can agree to it or veto it. In this interpretation, the player says "I'm going to shoot him in a vital area, the head" and then the GM either says "Yes, there's a clear shot to the head, you have a -4 modifier" or "No, you can't hit the head from your position."
Sturg
According to page 150 of the BBB (I don't have SR4A on hand to verify) it lists the option to increase damage as "Target a vital area to increase damage." I very clearly see that as a called shot to a vital area. Considering that we've had no arguements that the head is in fact a vital area. We can then determine that it qualifys as a possable target. The player determines what vital area he is aiming at, and the GM determines the penalty/bonus.

My point however, was to point out that it makes no sence to be required to completely bypass armor to damage someone. It is certainly a useful tool in some situations. However it is by no means the only way to damage someone. Regeneration simply states that you canno't regenerate damage to that location, this includes stun damage.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Sturg @ Dec 6 2009, 03:09 PM) *
According to page 150 of the BBB (I don't have SR4A on hand to verify) it lists the option to increase damage as "Target a vital area to increase damage." I very clearly see that as a called shot to a vital area. Considering that we've had no arguements that the head is in fact a vital area. We can then determine that it qualifys as a possable target. The player determines what vital area he is aiming at, and the GM determines the penalty/bonus.

Exactly. Bypassing armor is a completely different use of a Called Shot. Especially if they're wearing a helmet.

QUOTE
My point however, was to point out that it makes no sence to be required to completely bypass armor to damage someone. It is certainly a useful tool in some situations. However it is by no means the only way to damage someone. Regeneration simply states that you canno't regenerate damage to that location, this includes stun damage.

Yep. And the fourth option is the ideal one (hey guess what, aiming for a window = aiming for a head = any other specific effect you're after not covered by the other three options). It's just ridiculous they didn't bother adding rules for it.
Sturg
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Dec 6 2009, 01:43 PM) *
Exactly. Bypassing armor is a completely different use of a Called Shot. Especially if they're wearing a helmet.

I was refering to the variable -1/+1 through -4/+4 for a called shot to a vital area to increase damage.

QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Dec 6 2009, 01:43 PM) *
Yep. And the fourth option is the ideal one (hey guess what, aiming for a window = aiming for a head = any other specific effect you're after not covered by the other three options). It's just ridiculous they didn't bother adding rules for it.


The fourth option is for trick shots. I don't see how that would be relivant for this situation.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Sturg @ Dec 6 2009, 03:57 PM) *
I was refering to the variable -1/+1 through -4/+4 for a called shot to a vital area to increase damage.

I know you were. I'm saying that's the second most appropriate option of the four. The one for bypassing armor has nothing at all to do with a headshot.

QUOTE
The fourth option is for trick shots. I don't see how that would be relivant for this situation.

No, it's for a specific effect. Their words. I think "shooting out a tire" is pretty damn similar to shooting someone in the head, especially if your goal is the specific effect of defeating regeneration.
JoelHalpern
Dr. Funkenstein, I agree with your reasoning.
Is there any hint in the books for the GM as to what he should set the penalty to? Or is every GM just stuck grabbing something from thin air, and hoping he remembers what he grabbed, the next time it comes up?

Thanks,
Joel
Glyph
I would probably use the -4 modifier. And this would be for only targeting a specific point (in this case, the head) - they would not get armor negation or extra damage on top of that. Keep in mind that aiming can reduce this penalty.
Karoline
Well, if you think about it for a moment, having to bypass armor makes alot of sense. Presuming that a person isn't wearing a helmet, the only place likely to lack armor on your normal target is the head (What with FFBA being so common). It seems very odd that a called shot to the head could either bypass all armor, or just do +4 damage, but at different difficulties.

I do admit however that it seems absurd that the amount of armor you wear would make it easier or harder for someone to hit your head. Personally, when playing a character (Such as a sniper) that makes called shots alot, I view it something like this:
A called shot to the head bypasses armor (except maybe helmet) and has a +4 damage mod (Being the most vital spot there is). If I'm just looking to bypass the armor, it isn't a specific spot called in advance, but instead wherever my character happens to notice a lack of armor and have a shot lined up (Like maybe hands or feet or legs or neck or something similar).

And when targeting 'vital' spots, I figure that it isn't "I'm aiming for his jugular" but instead just 'anywhere that is going to hurt him (+3)this much.' so maybe I get his jugular, maybe I get his privates, maybe I get a lung or kidney or whatever happens to present itself.

That's just how I think about it anyway. The real problem here is that the book is vague as usual. Regeneration states that a headshot will negate regeneration (Which indicates that all headshots cause brain damage, which indicates that all headshots should permanently put anyone out of commission because brain damage is basically impossible to heal), but then the book doesn't give an exact ruling for how to make a headshot, and there are multiple ways to interpret it. Certainly the head is a vital rule, and thus could in theory be managed by a simple +1/-1 called shot to a vital location, but it is also notably a place that lacks armor (except for a helmet) and thus also looks like it should fall under bypassing armor.

Finally the fourth option certainly seems to work as it is based on targeting specific things (Which I believe the head certainly falls under), but no modifiers at all are presented for this option.

Personally I just take it as yet another poorly written rule. It does however allow for people to drastically alter how powerful the regeneration power is, because you could allow called shots with as little as 0 or -1 DPs to negate the regeneration, or you could force -(armor + 4) DPs to pull off a headshot. This means that if you want Regeneration to be pointless then you can, and if you want it to be a very powerful tool against many enemies (As the devs seem to think it should be given the high BP costs of races that have it and the high power cost for Free Spirits) then you can make it that too.

I do however suggest we move any more discussion about the regeneration power to another thread, as it really has nothing to do with the OP, and I'm not even sure how exactly we got on the topic.
Stahlseele
tl;dr.
is this a spirit that creates spiderman?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Sturg @ Dec 6 2009, 01:48 PM) *
I completely disagree with this. Why do you need to completely bypass someones armor to damage them? Just like any other attack, you resist with armor + body. Why would their head not be damaged with a called shot to a vital area? (I consider the head to be a vital area.) They get to resist with any armor they are wearing normally. If said armor prevents the attack, he doesn't even have to try to regenerate it. However, any damage that does in fact bypass his armor simply due to the nature of the attack, should not be able to be regenerated. I fail to see why you should have to avoid the armor completely to damage a specific location.



The point is to try to damage the area... if you allow worn armor to apply, even if there is no armor on the head, then it becomes a bit ludicrous, thus my ruling that you would need to bypass that armor rating... otherwisae it is going for a special effect, of which negate Regeneration would not apply in my book... to general and with no penalties applied...

This interpretation happens to actually jibe with rules for called shots in my book so it would work with no additional rulings needed...

Keep the Faith

Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Sturg @ Dec 6 2009, 02:09 PM) *
My point however, was to point out that it makes no sence to be required to completely bypass armor to damage someone. It is certainly a useful tool in some situations. However it is by no means the only way to damage someone. Regeneration simply states that you canno't regenerate damage to that location, this includes stun damage.



Not the only means, no, bit the only one where you can get an instant I win if not adjudicated... look at the options for Called SHot... there are 4 of them and they each have very specific effects... increasing damage is arbitrary in that you do not have to specify actual hit locations (there are none in Shadowrun)... just somethign Vital... Regeneration specifically states a Head SHot to bypass the regeneration, and I have an issue with a nick to the ear stopping Regeneration... does not make any sense after all...

The other option (4) for Called Shots allows specific targets, but not for any damage increase...

However, Option 1, Bypass Armor allows one to completely bypass the worn armor of a target, and allows you to actually place a shot where you want it (option 32 allows this for some things)... this is the optimal choince of the 4 choices provided...

Of course, you can do what you want, but as for me and mine, we use option 1 for such purposes (including bypassing the regeneration of a creature that has it) as If you hit this area, it will generally not be a scratch, a and will most likely inflict a significant amount of damage... maybe even enough to qualify as significant to forestall Regeneration...

Of course, all tables are different, so...

Keep the Faith
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Dec 6 2009, 03:06 PM) *
I know you were. I'm saying that's the second most appropriate option of the four. The one for bypassing armor has nothing at all to do with a headshot.


No, it's for a specific effect. Their words. I think "shooting out a tire" is pretty damn similar to shooting someone in the head, especially if your goal is the specific effect of defeating regeneration.



But the effect (of Callesd Shot Option 4) has no additional benefit except incidentals... of which the negation of Regeneration is not... Incidental I mean...

As for Option 1, it removes any possibility of avoiding the damage from a head shot except for a Body Roll... this alone would fit the descriptive of Damage to the brain or spinal cord... it would require significnat damge to obtain such an effect, especially in a similation of actual combat where damage can span from nil to outrageous in a single roll...

Allowing a point of Stun from a nick to the ear to halt regeneration is about ludicrous, and results in the complete de-powering of regenration that everyone seems to be complaining about (on other threads and this one)... and I would say that this was not the intention of the developers...

Anyways...

Keep the Faith
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 6 2009, 06:42 PM) *
But the effect (of Callesd Shot Option 4) has no additional benefit except incidentals... of which the negation of Regeneration is not... Incidental I mean...
This is untrue. Look at the examples in the rules:
"For example, you could use called shots to knock an opponent over a ledge, shoot out a tire, temporarily blind an opponent, etc."

All of these are not trivial and incidental. Knocking an opponent over a ledge does additional falling damage (which can instantly kill if the ledge is high enough). Shooting out a tire will at least cause a Crash test, and in Tactical Vehicle Combat it will pretty much end pursuit. Temporarily Blinding an opponent is a -6 Modifier in combat, possibly higher.

The rules specifically state that the GM may allow or veto any specific effect. The player can elect what effect they want (in this case, shooting in the head to cause damage to the central nervous system, preventing Regeneration), and the GM can choose to veto it. It's not a house rule, it's RAW, too. Literally as written. Nowhere does it say that the 4th option is "special effects that are incidental, like trick shots". Each of the examples are painful ways to make Called Shots deadlier than a regular shot.

If your group doesn't like it, then your GM can veto it by RAW, in other words.
Karoline
I am curios as to how someone can be temporarily blinded by any form of called shot with a gun. Or with any weapon really. I mean maybe slashing the forehead with a blade to cause blood to get into the eyes... but otherwise it seems kinda odd to me.

Nothing against it, as it does provide a nice way to disable people without killing them if you forgot to pack SnS or DSMO + Narcojet rounds, but just seems odd. Still, I think regeneration has once again derailed a thread that had nothing to do with it, so I suggest making another new regeneration thread if you want to keep discussing the issue.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Dec 6 2009, 04:56 PM) *
This is untrue. Look at the examples in the rules:
"For example, you could use called shots to knock an opponent over a ledge, shoot out a tire, temporarily blind an opponent, etc."

All of these are not trivial and incidental. Knocking an opponent over a ledge does additional falling damage (which can instantly kill if the ledge is high enough). Shooting out a tire will at least cause a Crash test, and in Tactical Vehicle Combat it will pretty much end pursuit. Temporarily Blinding an opponent is a -6 Modifier in combat, possibly higher.

The rules specifically state that the GM may allow or veto any specific effect. The player can elect what effect they want (in this case, shooting in the head to cause damage to the central nervous system, preventing Regeneration), and the GM can choose to veto it. It's not a house rule, it's RAW, too. Literally as written. Nowhere does it say that the 4th option is "special effects that are incidental, like trick shots". Each of the examples are painful ways to make Called Shots deadlier than a regular shot.

If your group doesn't like it, then your GM can veto it by RAW, in other words.


Sure, they are secondary effects, and yes, they might have a tremendous impact on the way the fight turns out... but relying upon the GM to arbitrate the situation does not have to be the end result... If I use option 1, State that I am aiming for the head, and then subtract the armor dice from the roll and then attack, the decision for the effect of negating Regeneration no longer has to be in the hands of the GM... I have taken steps to, in good faith, attempt to bring the drawbacks of regeneration into play... I do not know any GM who would then say No, sorry, I don't like it... Sure it could happen, but it is probably a lot less likely than just saying I am going to use option 4, with the target being the head, and the effect I want is to negate Regeneration and oh, by the way, there is no negative to trying this, so I should just succeed... In this I call Foul... use the penalties in good faith and you will probably be rewarded... use a philosophical loophole and I will shut you down every single time because you are trying to obviously metagame the system...

As for the use of the word Incidental, maybe it was a poor choice of words, but the fact is that you are looking to obtain a secondary effect that is not based in actual damage from the shot itself... any damage incurred from the application of the "special effect" you were looking for is in that case incidental in nature... the reward is the special effect itself... my biggest problem is that there is absolutely no penalty for trying something like this, and so it is generally disallowed on that principle; now, if you care to penalize that action, then it becomes more palatable... after all, have you ever tried to shoot out a tire from a speeding car... it is not as easy as the movies make it look... there is a reason that there are spike strips, they are a lot more reliable than trying to use bullets... there is a reason for that...

Of course, Your opinion may vary, so there it is...

Keep the Faith
JoelHalpern
Tymeaus,
I have a basic problem with your proposal.
Why is it easier to hit the shifter in the head if he is wearing no armor? For that matter, why is it easier if he is wearing armored clothes than an armored jacket? I understand and like the idea that you are trying to provide a well-defined penalty. But I can not see that "avoid armor" is the right basis.

Yours,
Joel
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Dec 6 2009, 11:07 PM) *
Sure it could happen, but it is probably a lot less likely than just saying I am going to use option 4, with the target being the head, and the effect I want is to negate Regeneration and oh, by the way, there is no negative to trying this, so I should just succeed... In this I call Foul... use the penalties in good faith and you will probably be rewarded... use a philosophical loophole and I will shut you down every single time because you are trying to obviously metagame the system...
No one has ever said that there's no penalty to use Option 4. In fact, the GM needs to set the penalty if a player wants to use option 4. It's not a philosophical loophole. It's part of the Regeneration rules as written. Just like shooting a tire or shooting someone to knock them off a ledge. The GM has full rights to veto it, and it probably will run smoother if the player volunteers a penalty ("I'll try to hit his head, and since it's a humanoid target, that's a -4, right?"). It's not metagaming unless the character has no idea that a headshot will work well against a regenerating target but the player does. Even then, if shots in other body parts don't work, the PC can try a headshot as a "well, here goes nothing" situation.

The game doesn't explicitly say "don't apply a penalty for option 4". In fact, all of the uses of option 4 in canon so far indicate that you must apply a penalty. There is no evidence that the penalty can be equal to zero (although the tables indicate -variable), although there is no evidence that it cannot be zero either (again, the table). You still burn a Free Action to do it, and although that's the smallest possible action cost, it's still a cost. You can't use that Free Action for anything else, like dropping prone, ejecting a smartgun clip, swear, etc. Remember, you don't get an unlimited amount of Free Actions any more or Free Actions for every phase as in previous editions (you only get one Free Action per Initiative Pass in which you have an action, SR4A p 65).

Off-topic: God damn, One Roll Engine (the other RPG my group plays) is looking so much better than SR4. At least in One Roll Engine, you know when you get a headshot.
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