QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Jan 23 2010, 03:57 PM)
The point of the Threshold based on range is to remove the Opposed test (it says so right on the alternate combat rules section). Thus, you would remove the dodge rolls, if you were going this route.
I just looked at that section in my SR4 book, and here is what I found:
QUOTE (SR4 @ PG 69)
Alternate Combat
While the advanced Shadowrun rules will explore a variety of combat options, you can also consider one of
these methods:
• Rather than handling all combat as an Opposed Test, you can handle ranged combat as a Success Test with
a threshold based on range (1 Short, 2 Medium, 3 Long, 4 Extreme). Some situational modifers will affect
threshold rather than dice pool, such as blind fi re, cover, etc.
• To cut down on dice rolling during combat, you could drop Damage Resistance Tests entirely, reducing combat
to a single Opposed Test. In this case, Armor would deduct directly from the attack’s DV.
I can see how you would read the intent there as removing the dodge test since you are "replacing" the opposed test with a success test. However, if you use those rules exactly as written on page 69, I would AT LEAST allow a dodge test if the target is on full defense. Otherwise, you nullify the "Full Defense" option and the Dodge Skill when it comes to ranged combat.
QUOTE
All you are doing in your version is replacing the negative dice pool penalties for range with an increased threshold needed for hits, essentially giving defenders auto-hits on their dodge rolls. You would get a statistically similar effect by upping the range penalties to -3 for Medium, -6 for Long, and -9 for Extreme range. It seems to me that the point of that alternate rule is to remove the dodge test (in other words, it's for people who don't like humans who can dodge bullets). Not that I'd ever tell someone that they are playing their own game incorrectly, but why add the threshold if you aren't going to remove the Opposed test?
Well, for starters, I use slightly different range thresholds than what is listed in the book. Secondly, it's not a straight trade-off. One of the problems I have with the dice penalties system in the book is how easy it is to make a shot completely impossible without the use of Edge. I think most SR4 players are fine with that, but it really rubs me the wrong way. Look at it this way...if I have a 12 dice pool, and the penalties add up to -12, then I automatically miss the shot if I don't use edge. However, if i'm using thresholds, and the threshold is 12, I still have a chance. A VERY slim chance, but a chance nonetheless. It's like in the older versions of SR when your Samurai had only 6 dice, and the Target Number was something like 21. SUPER unlikely, for sure, but certainly not an automatic miss.
In general (in my games, at least) threshold numbers almost never exceed dicepools, at least for those people who are particularly skilled at the task. So, you have REALLY, REALLY difficult shots, but almost no shots that are impossible without Edge (if you have a reasonable dice pool).
Something else it changes, at least it FEELS like a change, is the inevitability of a hit. Think about this...statistically, having 3 dice on a test pretty much guarantees a single hit. So, even if start with 18 dice, but penalties put you down to 3, you still will technically get a hit. Now the target might nullify that hit by successes on a dodge test, but otherwise, you still technically hit. What this does, IMO is generate a feel that all extra dice do is really increase the amount of damage you do when you actually do hit. Even penalties only REALLY end up reducing how much damage you do...either that, or the shot just goes almost straight to impossible (0 dice after penalties).
I'm sure someone's done the math, and it probably doesn't happen EXACTLY like I described, but that was the feeling my group and I got after running SR4 for a few months. Changing over to thresholds has made a huge difference for us, and really upped our enjoyment level. Plus it creates opportunities like flanking maneuvers and other such tactics that take time to pull off.
QUOTE
The gunbunnies in my group regularly roll 20 dice plus, with an improved rangefinder and scopes to reduce range penalties, so this rule (in TheOneRonin's version or the SR4A version) really wouldn't change their lethality much.
That's a LOT of dice. But in my rules, it actually WOULD change things, especially since I have house rules for Scopes/Image Mag and use different thresholds than the book suggests for range. Heck, with 20 dice, you can expect about what...6 - 7 hits on average? Yeah, it's not outlandish to have thresholds that high or higher in my games, especially if you are trying to do something silly like move laterally while trying to fire a scoped sniper rifle from the shoulder at a moving target.
QUOTE
It makes all Rifle-class-and-higher weapons more powerful compared to other firearms because range matters much more.
Funny how it's like that in real life too.
QUOTE
I've rarely run a combat beyond the 50 meter short range of an Assault Rifle.
In my games, I've changed pretty much all of the range categories, but yes, most combat in my games usually takes place with the opponents less than 50m away. But there is enough combat that occurs at much greater ranges to make a big difference.
Also, look at it this way...with a target at 50M, the pistol shooter is dealing with an Extreme Range threshold (4 if you use the numbers on Page 69), while the AR shooter is still at short range.
If both shooters have 15 dice with their respective weapons, the pistol shooter will likely end up with 1 hit beyond the 4 needed for the threshold, while the AR shooter will end up with 4 hits beyond the 1 needed to connect at short range. That alone is a pretty substantial deal.