Railroad
Mar 4 2004, 05:35 PM
It seems like it's too easy for a rigger to survive a collision with a wall, or other barrier. The way I read the rules in SR3, if a rigger simply makes a ramming attempt against the wall, he'll likely take no damage to his vehicle. Am I misreading the way the rules are supposed to work? If so, how?
For example, if a vehicle is moving at 140 meters per turn, and "rams" a barrier rating 6 barrier, the collision rules indicate that the vehicle will slow by 120 meters per turn. This leaves the barrier destroyed, and the vehicle moving at 20 meters per turn. When you incorporate the "ramming" rules, though, it's a simple task for any rigger to reduce the damage to his vehicle to nothing. Sorry, but any impact that slows a vehicle that much ought to be doing some damage to the vehicle. How should a situation like this be handled?
===Railroad===
Kagetenshi
Mar 4 2004, 06:06 PM
Ah, but you see, the rigger does his rigger magic and...
I'll look up the applicable rules and see what I can find. I hadn't noticed this.
~J
RedmondLarry
Mar 4 2004, 06:14 PM
I think of a Rigger using pool to reduce damage to mean that he's maneuvering his vehicle in such a way as to avoid a large impact. When he deliberately causes a large impact, I allow no pool to reduce damage.
Nikoli
Mar 4 2004, 06:23 PM
Also keep in mind, just because there is not damage marked ont he sheet doesn't mean the vehicle is still pristine, the paint could be obviously gouged, the fender mighgt be bent in such a way as to not impair anything, but it's still obvious this thing swapped paint with a wall.
Railroad
Mar 4 2004, 06:41 PM
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| I think of a Rigger using pool to reduce damage to mean that he's maneuvering his vehicle in such a way as to avoid a large impact. When he deliberately causes a large impact, I allow no pool to reduce damage. |
Ahh... If the Rigger is simply using pool to reduce the damage, then I don't think the results will come out too broken. But the "ramming" test reduces damage as well, and in such a dramatic way that the rigger should be able to completely avoid the damage.
I originally started thinking about this when I came up with an idea for a mage character of mine... What if I cast a Physical Barrier spell right in front of a moving vehicle? If it's close enough, then the vehicle should be unable to avoid it (a wall several meters in width, probably crossing an entire city street, or a hemisphere around the vehicle, as the situation might warrant). Because the vehicle won't move again until the rigger's next action, the rigger's action could, perhaps, be a ramming test, which is where the system seems to break down. If, on the other hand, it is assumed that he hits the barrier and the simple collision rules are used, then it works well. He might be given an opportunity to make a deceleration test prior to hitting the wall, in order to reduce the damage by reducing the speed of the collision.
Just wondering how people think this situation should be handled....
Fahr
Mar 4 2004, 07:18 PM
while being a little odd to stage it down to nothing, the Idea behind a ramming test reducing damage I think would be to use the part of your vehicle that either is not needed for function, or is strong enough to take it. that is how you reduce the "damage" the vehicle takes...
like nikoli said, it's gonna still have superficial damage, just not anything that impedes it's use...
ex:
mage pops barrier in fron of moving car, rigger ramms wall by sliding car into it, this casues the doors and sides, maybe a mirror to get smashed up, but the car is still completely operable, if a little ugly.
-Mike R.
Austere Emancipator
Mar 4 2004, 07:25 PM
To decide whether the rigger gets to act before hitting the Physical Barrier, you might go for a Reaction test, with the mage rolling against 2 and rigger against 4. Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10 the rigger will get to act anyway, but a non-rigger, or just a very poor rigger, might not.
I probably wouldn't allow the ramming attack against barriers, only vehicles and pedestrians -- not canon, whatever -- reasoning being that, unlike a vehicle, a barrier usually doesn't have weak points, at least not of the sort that a rigger can make use of, and the vehicle will, 99% of the time, hit the barrier straight on.
[Edit]As for sliding sideways into a barrier: I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a very good idea. While the damage sustained by the vehicle might be less significant that way, it would probably be a very bad way of trying to break through the barrier.[/Edit]
Fahr
Mar 4 2004, 07:28 PM
I would agree with you in the case of a magical barrier...
but the head on thing I disagree with, only in the cases where a rigger gets an action before the impact, if they get to act, they can try and manuever to mitigate the damage, which is part of the ramming test...
but really, this sounds like a GM call anyway...
-Mike R.
edit: that is true, additionally, unless the rigger intends to destroy the barrier by ramming it, it should be treated as a plain onld collision, at least from the example he gave, The rigger was not intending to ram anything until the barrier magically appeared... So I retract my previos example, as that is more of a collision test than a ramming test...
Austere Emancipator
Mar 4 2004, 07:32 PM
The 99% only really holds for situations where someone tries to break through a significant barrier with a vehicle while attempting to keep the vehicle "in the game". Which is how I'd picture the Physical Barrier vs Car situation.
But I've never driven a car in my life, and certainly don't make a habit of trying to break through walls with them, so I'm just talking out of my ass.
Seidaku
Mar 4 2004, 10:06 PM
Yeah, well, the vehicle/barrier rules aren't realistic. Take this as an example:
| QUOTE |
p. 148, BBB
To determine what happens in such collisions, compare the Barrier Rating of the wall or barrier with the vehicle's speed at the time of the collision (Barrier Ratings are listed on p. 124) If the vehicle's speed is less than or equal to the Barrier Rating multiplied by 20, the vehicle comes to a halt. Use the standard crash rules to resolve vehicle and passenger damage in such cases. |
The barrier rating of standard glass is 2. So, ANY vehicle going at a speed of 40 or less (2 x 20 = 40) automatically comes to a halt when it collides with a pane of glass. Converting this to miles per hour, (speed x .75) this means that any vehicle moving at a speed of 30 mph or less will be completely stopped by a pane of glass. Yeah.
Austere Emancipator
Mar 4 2004, 10:14 PM
I'd say it's a Barrier Rating problem more than a Vehicle problem. That same pane of glass won't mind much if you slap 1kg of TNT on it and blow it up -- as long as you aren't a skilled demo-guy, it will only reduce the BR to 1.
Of course, use of common sense is allowed. And the Barrier Ratings work better for the heavier stuff, at BR 6 and higher. Why that BR 2 for Standard Glass is there in the first place is a good question, though. Unless glass in the 2060s is about as hard as iron.
Modesitt
Mar 5 2004, 02:35 AM
Sadly, the way the barrier rules work, a rigger is often times better off trying to accelerate if he knows he is going to hit a wall. You don't take damage if you break through the wall(20 x barrier rating IIRC is the speed you have to go) and are wearing a seat belt. Well, the vehicle gets totaled but the rigger and any passengers are quite unharmed.
I keep procrastinating completely rewriting the rigger rules, but I usually throw my hands up in desperation upon realizing just how many drugs I'd have to do to even begin to comprehend what they were thinking at times, much less make any progress on de-drugging them.
John Campbell
Mar 5 2004, 02:48 AM
I've contemplated, on more than one occasion, adapting the Car Wars rules to Shadowrun. I'm entirely too lazy, though.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.