Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 5th Ed. Open Design & Playtest
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Seerow
Okay, I'm taking a step back and looking in broad at the things that bug me and making a list. It may not include everything, as I may have forgotten a few things, but it covers a lot regardless.

[ Spoiler ]







Major things in there that I don't think have been covered exhaustively here so far:
-Limiting Summons/Drones in a meaningful way for runners. Having them as challenges is nice, but runners who have an army of drones/summons to throw at a problem trivializes the existence of actual characters.

-Magic should be more about doing cool things than big numbers. Especially true in the case of Adepts. What annoys me most about adepts is they're basically there because anyone not below 1 essence would be better off with Latent Awakening, getting adept, and picking up 2-3 ranks in improved ____ ability. Adepts should not grant bonuses to skills, and should instead provide new options. So mundanes are more likely to have higher skill (due to having nothing else to sink karma into), while adepts are getting neat tricks that let them do new things a mundane couldn't justify doing.

-Combat Skills are heavily overpriced, and need to be condensed to be more in line with the skills available to others.

-Runners should start with baseline competency you'd expect everyone to have. The average person has 3s in all stats, at least a little social skills, and at least some matrix skill. All runners should have this as well. There can be negative qualities to buy these down for people who have it as a part of their character concept that they are bad at those things, but your average person should have them. With the system as is, it's almost certain a new player won't be aware of the importance of these skills, and won't grab them. A veteran might be aware and choose to ignore them in favor of heavy specialization. I would argue in favor of giving 1 free social skill level per point of charisma, with the ability to spend 1 point for a specialization (so a ganger being built with 3 charisma could start with Etiquette (Ganger) 2(4), and at least roll a few dice on social tests.
Trillinon
I personally believe it was a mistake to give the players that much choice with Edge in the first place. But I like my mechanics to represent things, and to do so in a consistent way.

In Shadowrun, things that help you out or make you better, regardless of source, are represented by bonus dice.

Sure, you'd lose some of the effectiveness of things like going first in initiative or being able to make a long shot test no matter what. But, you could still add dice to your initiative roll, and adding dice to a pool of 0 or less would likely raise that pool above 0. So, Edge is weaker, but still effective in these cases.

Dead Man's Trigger can be made to work without spending edge.

Personally, as a GM, I like when glitches happen, especially critical glitches. I don't want players getting out of them. Though, adding a few extra dice to the roll is likely to negate a glitch anyway.

Extra initiative passes is a nice use, I'll admit, though perhaps we should start discussing initiative soon.


Anyway, this is probably the last I'll say on the subject. I usually like reroll mechanics, but it doesn't feel right with a dice pool system. Something about extra dice being tangible.
Yerameyahu
I disagree, Lurker. I think there are too many Edge choices (including some of Trillinon's points), that they're poorly balanced, and that the exponential Edge issues are evident at every level. Edge 2 is already roughly 4 times as good as Edge 1
LurkerOutThere
I guess my question is, so?

Edge two is better then edge 1 sure, but so is Agility 2 over agility 1, and they have like utility, in fact depending on what your doing in your games and how often edge is refreshing agility 2 is just a flat better way to spend the points. No one has yet made a compelling case for taking the extra edge expendatures away, no one has actually shown how it will improve the game.

As a GM Trillinon likes crit glitches, personally I think their right abotu where they are if you can spend an edge to negate them and then have to live with the glitch as is and failure on the roll. I don't have any particular jollies in telling people their highly competent character threw the pin instead of the grenade.

Here is the salient test you have to pass:

What is the actual benefit to reducing the utility to edge? What problems exist that it corrects? How woudl reducing the ability to spend edge before a test improve the game?

It seems like your only goal is to shut down the extreme Mr. Lucky builds, other then that your taking a tool out of the toolbox to kill one specific build.
Yerameyahu
Like I've said over and over, Edge is exponential. Agility is not. Edge is good for everything. People who don't get at least 3 or so Edge are at a substantial disadvantage, and it only gets worse. Edge 4 is still twice as good as Edge 3. It's not about Mr. Lucky, which is merely the extreme end of a smooth curve.

A number of example Edge changes have been given, which are neither the only possibilities, nor do they significantly infringe on your apparent preferences. We're just discussing, and we're discussing a number of aspects, not just reducing the Edge options.

I'm hardly alone in considering the something like 10 different Edge functions to be uneven, excessive, and overcomplicated. Perhaps that's wrong. *shrug* That one aspect is not the only one, nor even the most important.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Edge is a finite resource, while other attributes are not. *shrug*
LurkerOutThere
Agreed, if your only calling for four tests between edge refreshes then yes, edge is a good value, but if your calling for more then four tests then it's use goes down significantly.
Yerameyahu
That's true, which is why we're also talking about refresh rates.
Trillinon
QUOTE (LurkerOutThere @ Aug 31 2011, 06:52 PM) *
What is the actual benefit to reducing the utility to edge? What problems exist that it corrects? How woudl reducing the ability to spend edge before a test improve the game?


1. Edge is a fairly complicated, disconnected set of rules.
2. Edge doesn't consistently represent anything in the fluff.
3. Edge doesn't encourage behavior.

Edge replaced the Karma Pool from previous editions. Karma pool was part of every character's advancement and awarded for good deeds. It was supposed to encourage the players to play good characters by giving them a benefit that could use when they needed it. It represented the actual concept of karma, which is a real thing in the Shadowrun world.

I'd like to find a system that gets back to that, and works with a single, straightforward mechanic.

Draco18s
QUOTE (LurkerOutThere @ Aug 31 2011, 09:52 PM) *
Edge two is better then edge 1 sure, but so is Agility 2 over agility 1


Agility 2 is only +1 better than Agility 1. Edge 2 on the other hand is +3 better than Edge 1.

Likewise Agl 3 is +1 better than Agl 2, but Edge 3 is +5 better than Edge 2 minimum!

QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 31 2011, 07:27 PM) *
but once you hit 10,


This looks like an incomplete
Seerow
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Sep 1 2011, 03:41 AM) *
This looks like an incomplete


Thanks for pointing that out. I updated that to finish the section, and also made it not have 50 billion random extra lines. Apparently copy/pasting from notepad messed up my post.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 31 2011, 06:27 PM) *
Okay, I'm taking a step back and looking in broad at the things that bug me and making a list. It may not include everything, as I may have forgotten a few things, but it covers a lot regardless.


I think I agreed with everything you put in those spoiler tags.
suoq
QUOTE (LurkerOutThere @ Aug 31 2011, 07:52 PM) *
What is the actual benefit to reducing the utility to edge?
Simplification of the game and reduction of metagaming.
QUOTE
What problems exist that it corrects?

Balance issues. As shown (above) the reroll function means that a player can pass a TR number as if they had a much larger dice pool. One point of any other attribute is only a single die in a case where that attribute comes into play. One point of edge is worth a dice pool in and of itself to ANY roll.

My goal would be to return some form of unluck to the game. Right now, edge is so valuable that I don't understand why someone wouldn't soft-cap it. Edge means reducing failure to under 4% for 12 dice on a TR4. With the larger dice pools available through expansion escalation, it's even more abusive.
Ascalaphus
We've had discussions about Mr. Lucky Human vs. Cheap Stats Orkdude before. The big reason it's hard to compare Edge to other Attributes is that the rules don't say how often Edge refreshes, and how many dice rolls you make.

If you make 10 Agility rolls in a period between Edge refreshes, then 1 -> 2 Agility is way better than 1 -> 2 Edge.

If you only make 2 Agility rolls in a period between Edge refreshes, then 1 -> 2 Agility is much worse than 1 -> 2 Edge.

So it really depends on the refresh rate - maybe that should be codified in the rules?
suoq
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Sep 1 2011, 05:03 AM) *
the rules don't say how often Edge refreshes, and how many dice rolls you make.

While this is true to a degree. a common ground can be found in the game's official campaign, aka. Missions.

Missions is very clear on how often edge refreshes, every module, and since all modules are designed to fit within 4 hours, they all contain roughly the same amount of dice rolling.

While your table or my table may have our own edge refresh rate, Catalyst is VERY clear on their expected refresh rate for a Shadowrun game.
Ascalaphus
QUOTE (suoq @ Sep 1 2011, 01:00 PM) *
While this is true to a degree. a common ground can be found in the game's official campaign, aka. Missions.

Missions is very clear on how often edge refreshes, every module, and since all modules are designed to fit within 4 hours, they all contain roughly the same amount of dice rolling.

While your table or my table may have our own edge refresh rate, Catalyst is VERY clear on their expected refresh rate for a Shadowrun game.


I suppose that's a reasonable starting point, but how well can you extend that to normal home games? For example a mission that lasts more than one game session?
suoq
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Sep 1 2011, 07:45 AM) *
I suppose that's a reasonable starting point, but how well can you extend that to normal home games? For example a mission that lasts more than one game session?

First you would have to convince me that there is such a thing as a "normal home game". My experience here is that there is no such animal. Every group seems to have their own house rules, their own interpretation, their own level on the mohawk/trenchcoat scale, and their own style of play.

When trying to find common ground or a consensual rules set with dumpshock, I prefer to refer to the two "official" sets of rules, RAW preferred, and Missions where necessary, even if my group doesn't use those rules or if I would prefer not to use those rules.

---------------------------------

Next on the list of things that need a baseball bat taken to them:
Contacts need "Competency". Connection is great, Loyalty is great. But is the street doc Henry Rollins' character in Johnny Mnemonic or Jean-Pierre (the minutes painter) in Ronin?
Ascalaphus
Well, if you don't define when Edge gets refreshed, basically any discussion about if it's overpowered or underpowered is meaningless, because you can't compare it to anything.
Seerow
I made a post a page or so ago about changing the edge refresh mechanic to be set on when you get a critical success (with critical success redefined to make it occur on a somewhat reliable basis), would something along those lines work?
Yerameyahu
I agree with your point, but let me also just reiterate that it's not comparing 1->2 Edge, but also 3->4 Edge, 6->7 Edge, etc., and those are all *different*. Agility 6->7 is worth vastly less than Edge 6->7. Also, Edge works on *everything*, not just those Agility rolls. And Agility is just a Muscle Toner away. It's indeed hard to quantify the various uses of Edge at various levels of Edge, but we know it's a lot. We've seen it.

As I said before, I really think some of this issue is addressed by karmagen, but not all. In karmagen, Edge would have to cost at least slightly more than Agility, or it's still the same relative problem.

Refresh is certainly the issue, we all agree. I never play Missions (refresh per session), and I don't particularly consider Missions to be RAW or 'real SR4A'. I know that my group never finishes a 'mission' in a session. I know that the number of dice rolls varies wildly. I know that the length of a 'run' can be several sessions, but also varies wildly. Is this typical? If so, we can't really peg refresh to 'runs' or anything like that (unless longer runs are just plain harder, Edge-wise). I think I've heard some people say 'refresh any time they get to rest'; that's not an awful idea, but it does again sort of penalize in campaigns where that more rarely happens. Refresh keyed to a number of dice rolls might actually work, but it sounds like a big pain…

Anyway, here's the 'RAW':
QUOTE
We recommend refreshing Edge at the beginning of each game session, though in some cases it may be more interesting or challenging to only refresh Edge when a full adventure has ended, or when specific goals have been met. One possibility is to refresh 1 point of Edge for each achieved goal, and the rest when the scenario is completed. Alternately, Edge can simply refresh every day.
So. Basically the GM decides how strong Edge is, or quite possibly the players vote at the beginning. (Honestly, I still think that the exponential Edge issue exists for any refresh scheme, and that fixes for it don't ruin any refresh scheme.) I think per-session is the norm and expectation, while the other variants are more or less 'gritty options'. We should probably assume per-session to start.
suoq
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Sep 1 2011, 08:36 AM) *
Well, if you don't define when Edge gets refreshed, basically any discussion about if it's overpowered or underpowered is meaningless, because you can't compare it to anything.

1) I do define it as missions defines it, simply because that's the closest thing to an "official" definition of refresh vs rolls that I can find. I'm not going to define it by how someone's table happens to refresh it, no matter how attached they are to that idea.

2) I believe it to be overpowered regardless, simply because one use of it is capable of turning a 12 dice pool against a TN4 target into a 21 dice pool against a TN4 target. (see above for the math) and it works for ANY dice pool. Even magic, in it's most broken state against a non-magical opponent has nothing on edge vs an opponent without edge.
tete
QUOTE (Seerow @ Aug 31 2011, 11:27 PM) *
Okay, I'm taking a step back...


Great list! The only thing I would add is vehicle combat and chase need to be the same system and part of the normal combat system.

QUOTE (suoq @ Sep 1 2011, 02:52 PM) *
1) I do define it as missions defines it, simply because that's the closest thing to an "official" definition of refresh vs rolls that I can find. I'm not going to define it by how someone's table happens to refresh it, no matter how attached they are to that idea.

2) I believe it to be overpowered regardless, simply because one use of it is capable of turning a 12 dice pool against a TN4 target into a 21 dice pool against a TN4 target. (see above for the math) and it works for ANY dice pool. Even magic, in it's most broken state against a non-magical opponent has nothing on edge vs an opponent without edge.


it reminds me alot of nWOD willpower in that if you want to succeed your going to use edge, if you only would like to succeed your not going to bother.
Trillinon
Here's a thought. What if edge doesn't refresh? Perhaps it's always earned over the course of the game, like Karma, and when it's spent, it's gone.

The Edge stat then just affects how effective edge is when you do spend a point, and the GM can give out points at a rate, and for the reasons, he wants. He can use it to encourage behavior, whether it's doing good deeds or telling a funny joke, depending on the tone of his game.
Seerow
So here's a random thought I have: What if we toned down the benefit of automatics? I mean right now, unless you're up against a cyberzombie, tank, or spirit, with a ton of hardened armor, your go to is an automatic weapon. Automatics are just straight up better. Firing a weapon on full auto literally doubles your damage. Not only does this make automatics way stronger than non automatics, it also contributes to the obsolescence of melee attacks. Getting hit by a narrow burst pretty much directly equals dead.


That's pretty realistic. But is it good? Now I'm not suggesting that we start giving out hit points like a D&D game and can get shot up all day without feeling any pain... but not having automatics automatically destroy anyone without 20 armor would be nice.

I was thinking something simple: Reduce the benefit of automatics to 1 per 3 bullets, instead of 1 to 1. Narrow burst works as normal (+damage), wide burst reduces the threshold to hit the target (remember, the dodge part of this would be adding to the threshold).

Now your short burst is +1 dv or -1 threshold. Long burst is +2/-2. Full Auto is +3/-3. High Velocity is +4/-4. Minigun is +5/-5. That actually has a pretty nice granularity that makes sense, without straight up granting +14 damage as it currently can.
Yerameyahu
That's more or less the nWOD method, right? It still doesn't really solve the 'standard refresh' issue, but it's an alternative (like the 'specific goal' RAW variant). I'm not against it, and it encourages RP/good play… and gives the GM even more of a 'giver of gifts' position, which I'm not wild about. :/

I dunno, Seerow: automatics *are* better, right? If you're willing to throw more money at it, you're going to hit better, harder, etc. ('Sniping' is the exception, of course). That said, I do have my own burst fire house rules that do much less damage, yet are more likely to hit (basically, merges Narrow and Wide bursts). It is somewhat similar to what you described. I do agree that the power of automatics is mostly in not missing, at least against armored targets.
Seerow
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Sep 1 2011, 05:27 PM) *
I dunno, Seerow: automatics *are* better, right? If you're willing to throw more money at it, you're going to hit better, harder, etc. ('Sniping' is the exception, of course). That said, I do have my own burst fire house rules that do much less damage, yet are more likely to hit (basically, merges Narrow and Wide bursts).


Having some extra damage is still better. A guy with a machine gun is doing 3 more damage per round than the guy without, and mechanically that is enough of an advantage to be worth it. You could maybe make recoil comp a bit easier to get since the advantage is less now, but I don't like the idea of a gun even on full auto being able to do more than twice the damage necessary to kill a person. I also don't like non-automatics being completely nonviable.

There's also that a badass using pistols and being more effective than the guys with machine guns is a pretty cool trope that doesn't play out in Shadowrun.
Yerameyahu
Right, I'm not saying 'no extra damage'. Just less. Recoil is pretty trivial already.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 1 2011, 09:38 AM) *
Having some extra damage is still better. A guy with a machine gun is doing 3 more damage per round than the guy without, and mechanically that is enough of an advantage to be worth it. You could maybe make recoil comp a bit easier to get since the advantage is less now, but I don't like the idea of a gun even on full auto being able to do more than twice the damage necessary to kill a person. I also don't like non-automatics being completely nonviable.

There's also that a badass using pistols and being more effective than the guys with machine guns is a pretty cool trope that doesn't play out in Shadowrun.


I think that that is table dependant, though. The character I play is often (almost always, in fact) much more effective with the Pistol he carries, than the Street Sam with the Automatic Weapon. Automatic Weapon fire is almost always the worst way to go in a run. It attracts WAY too much attention, and the response to an Automatic Weapon is generally much harsher. Besides, it is damn hard to suppress automatic weapons fire, while it is easy to suppress the single shot from the pistol.

That said, I generally have a Fall back to an SMG or Assault Rifle if I think it might be needed on the run. 90% of the time, the fall back is an SMG. I think I have actually used an AR maybe twice (same amount of times I have used the SNiper rifle too) in 3+ years of the campaign.

Yerameyahu
It's not hard to suppress, and it doesn't draw much more attention. :/ In terms of non-fluffy actual effectiveness, they're incredibly much better, and we know the skill is much more flexible.
Seerow
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Sep 1 2011, 05:48 PM) *
Right, I'm not saying 'no extra damage'. Just less. Recoil is pretty trivial already.


So what are you saying? Like you mentioned combining wide and narrow burst... so like a lower damage mod combined with a threshold reduction? Something like:


Short Burst: +1/-0
Long Burst: +2/-1
Full Auto: +2/-2
High Velocity: +3/-2
Minigun: +3/-3


And limit called shots to only Short Burst and SS/SA. Called Shot increases threshold by +1/+2 for a +2/+3 damage mod.



End result?

Called Shot SA: +3/+2
Called Shot Short Burst: +4/+2
Long Burst: +2/-1
Full Auto: +2/-2
High Velocity: +3/-2
Minigun: +3/-3


So SA and Short Bursts can actually do more base damage due to higher accuracy, but have a higher threshold to hit, which will result in probably roughly the same or lower overall damage, and a lower accuracy.
suoq
I'm going to leave the corner case that is your table out of it and simply focus on the rules.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Sep 1 2011, 10:52 AM) *
Besides, it is damn hard to suppress automatic weapons fire, while it is easy to suppress the single shot from the pistol.
Both the Sound Suppressor and Silencer are -4 to perception. PG 322 SR4A. They are equally good. The only disadvantage of a Sound Suppressor is replacing it every now and again.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (suoq @ Sep 1 2011, 10:07 AM) *
I'm going to leave the corner case that is your table out of it and simply focus on the rules.
Both the Sound Suppressor and Silencer are -4 to perception. PG 322 SR4A. They are equally good. The only disadvantage of a Sound Suppressor is replacing it every now and again.


You do realize a SILENCER can get a modifier as High as -7/-9 (with Subsonic Ammunition) right, while a Sound Suppressor is restricted to that peasly -4/-6, right?
Yerameyahu
Yes, you can make a single shot a bit quieter with optimized extra parts. That's not the same as saying that sound suppression is 'damn hard'.

Seerow, I can find the link for you. It's SR4A rules, so no threshold mods; but yes, you get a bonus to hit and a small bonus to damage.
suoq
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Sep 1 2011, 12:09 PM) *
You do realize a SILENCER can get a modifier as High as -7/-9 (with Subsonic Ammunition) right, while a Sound Suppressor is restricted to that peasly -4/-6, right?

I don't see how.
AR pg 35
QUOTE
Subsonic ammunition applies a –1 dice pool modifier on all Perception Tests to notice the weapon’s use or locate the firing position. This dice pool modifier increases to –2 if a silencer (see p. 322, SR4A) or sound suppressor (see p. 322, SR4A) is used. Reduce the weapon’s range by 20%.

Again, the silencer and the sound suppressor are identical.

I'm sure there's some part of this equation I'm missing, but whatever it is, a -4 to perception with APDS or -6 to perception with subsonic and still having burst fire seems advantageous to me.

---------

I need someone to do the math for me on "How do you even hurt someone with subsonic ammo and a pistol?".
Yerameyahu
He may be comparing the mod silencer against the accessory suppressor. I forget how it works out precisely. I do know that it's not 'damn hard', and they should be equivalent if you don't cheat.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (suoq @ Sep 1 2011, 11:14 AM) *
I don't see how.
AR pg 35

Again, the silencer and the sound suppressor are identical.


Internal Silencers/Suppressors provide a 6 point modifier to Detection not a 4 point one (and it was 6/8, not 7/9, got a bot crazy there for a minute, becuase I was including Electronic Firing for some reason). As for the mechanics, you will burn out that Suppressor right quickly if you are using Automatic Weapons fire. When is the last time you actually had a character replace that suppressor in game, especially an INTERNAL one? My guess is that it does not happen, unless it is handwaved. Because of the used capacity for an Internal Sound Suppressor, I have yet to see one actually in play; it is so much easier to just pull and replace the accessory. Because the Suppressor burns out and the Silencer does not (by the mechanics), they are NOT identical. Sucks to hit your Ammunition threshold for that suppressor in the middle of that run you are on (or do you bother actually treacking such things), don't you think? With a Silenced Pistol, that never happens.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Sep 1 2011, 11:17 AM) *
He may be comparing the mod silencer against the accessory suppressor. I forget how it works out precisely. I do know that it's not 'damn hard', and they should be equivalent if you don't cheat.


Well, a Suppressor must be replaced. And when they quit working, they really quit working. Does not take that many rounds for it to happen either (only 300 by the mechanics).

And yes... Accessory vs. Internal Modification. To be fair, the internal Suppressor is the same mod (-6) as the internal Silencer. It is MUCH harder to replace, though, when it really matters, as opposed to the External Accessory.
Seerow
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Sep 1 2011, 06:29 PM) *
Well, a Suppressor must be replaced. And when they quit working, they really quit working. Does not take that many rounds for it to happen either (only 300 by the mechanics).

And yes... Accessory vs. Internal Modification. To be fair, the internal Suppressor is the same mod (-6) as the internal Silencer. It is MUCH harder to replace, though, when it really matters, as opposed to the External Accessory.


300 rounds is actually quite a bit. That's 30 instances of full auto fire. I typically go through maybe 50-60 on a run where an automatic can be used. Needing to have someone take a look at your gun every 4 or 5 missions isn't that big a deal.



But really, even with the accessory plus ammo, I'd argue "good enough" for most cases. It'd be one thing if automatics were easier to detect by default or something, but as it is the difference isn't big enough to be meaningful.


And even if that difference did become meaningful, I still don't see where that's a big enough deterrent to make a full auto burst able to deal twice the damage necessary to kill a person. The more I think about it the more I like the combine Wide and Narrow burst, where instead of having that option just using a burst both makes it easier to hit and increases damage slightly.
Ascalaphus
It seems to me that it's okay if automatics are the best guns for a straight-up fight, where it doesn't really matter how you got there or who notices.

Pistols should be "good" because you're able to take them to places that you can't smuggle a rifle into, or because they can (in SR5) be far quieter than automatics, or because somehow big-sized automatics are inconvenient (tricky to express in rules, I suppose).

But it's okay if automatics are best in certain cases, such as the frontal assault approach. As long as they're not best in almost all cases.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 1 2011, 10:35 AM) *
300 rounds is actually quite a bit. That's 30 instances of full auto fire. I typically go through maybe 50-60 on a run where an automatic can be used. Needing to have someone take a look at your gun every 4 or 5 missions isn't that big a deal.

But really, even with the accessory plus ammo, I'd argue "good enough" for most cases. It'd be one thing if automatics were easier to detect by default or something, but as it is the difference isn't big enough to be meaningful.

And even if that difference did become meaningful, I still don't see where that's a big enough deterrent to make a full auto burst able to deal twice the damage necessary to kill a person. The more I think about it the more I like the combine Wide and Narrow burst, where instead of having that option just using a burst both makes it easier to hit and increases damage slightly.


Well... Silenced is not the same as Suppressed on the Perception Table. Only SILENCED weapons get the Threshold 2 (vs. the threshold 1 of normal gunfire, which I would use for Suppressed). Yes, they both provide negative modifiers for the tech, but Silenced is better than Suppressed (Always has been, even in the real world). Also, I would also use the "Stands Out" modifier of +2 for Automatic Weapons fire. It cannot really sound like anything else, really. So, in the end, A Silencer is harder to detect by RAW, even if you do not use the "Stands Out" modifier for automatic weapons fire (which I would).

Now, that being said, yes, the Accessory for automatic weapons is far preferable, and is generally, like you said, "good enough" for most things. I don't know about you, but a few minutes to change out the Accessory vs. a Threshold 16, 2 Hour Interval test for the Internal one. Hmmm, let me think.

Sorry for the deviation from the main toipic. wobble.gif
Seerow
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Sep 1 2011, 06:35 PM) *
It seems to me that it's okay if automatics are the best guns for a straight-up fight, where it doesn't really matter how you got there or who notices.

Pistols should be "good" because you're able to take them to places that you can't smuggle a rifle into, or because they can (in SR5) be far quieter than automatics, or because somehow big-sized automatics are inconvenient (tricky to express in rules, I suppose).

But it's okay if automatics are best in certain cases, such as the frontal assault approach. As long as they're not best in almost all cases.


I'm fine with them being better in open combat. My problem is the degree to which they are better. Let's consider TN4, average dicepool of say 14, and a threshold 5 for shooting at the guy behind cover after taking his dodge roll into account adding to threshold.

Your basic shot is going to have 2 net successes, for +2 damage.
Your guy with a pistol doing a called shot will have no net successes, but hit the threshold, and have +3 damage.
Your guy doing full auto can't called shot, but his threshold drops to 3, giving him 4 net successes, and +2 damage on top of that, for a total +6 damage.


So your full auto guy is clearly better, and is much more easily capable of tougher shots (for example bump that TN up to 7, and now the pistol guy can't called shot without an exceptional roll, while the full auto guy can make that threshold pretty comfortably still). But now instead of your pistol shot hitting for say 10-12 damage with a full called shot, you're looking at more like 7-8. Instead of your full auto looking at 15-20 damage, you're looking at more like 10-12.


I guess really it's just bringing the numbers across the board down rather than fundamentally changing the balance (the full auto shot is still about 50% better). But my main problem was really Full Auto shots being capable of 15-20 damage, so that even someone with a fair bit of body/armor had very little chance of surviving.
suoq
For clarity sake, a HK-227X with extended clip AND additional clip will only hold 70 rounds. You can empty, reload both clips, empty, reload both clips, empty, reload both clips, and empty and then you should probably take your gun in to have it serviced if you haven't already.

You may also want to have your mohawk redyed at that point as well.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 1 2011, 10:48 AM) *
I guess really it's just bringing the numbers across the board down rather than fundamentally changing the balance (the full auto shot is still about 50% better). But my main problem was really Full Auto shots being capable of 15-20 damage, so that even someone with a fair bit of body/armor had very little chance of surviving.


I trhink that it SHOULD be the case, though. Ever seen someone get shot with an automatic weapon? It ain't all that pretty. I have a problem with someone actually surviving that shot that you describe. If they survive, something is actually very, very wrong with the system.
Seerow
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Sep 1 2011, 06:52 PM) *
I trhink that it SHOULD be the case, though. Ever seen someone get shot with an automatic weapon? It ain't all that pretty. I have a problem with someone actually surviving that shot that you describe. If they survive, something is actually very, very wrong with the system.


Someone unarmored, with unaugmented body? Sure. They should get chopped up. In fact, they will! The example I gave would end in such a person even though behind cover and dodging some portion of the bullets still taking about 12P damage, which will leave them dead or dying.



A guy running around with say 10-12 armor on and a moderate or even augmented body? He should be able to survive a round or two of fire like that. He may be beat up and hurting after, but getting targetted with a full auto shot should not spell instant death for any character. That's not fun. And for that reason I doubt that you actually run up against automatic weaponry often in your games.


Figure it this way: When you're full autoing, most of your bullets are getting spread, making it harder to avoid. However, your bullets aren't being placed very precisely, so while the 2-3 of your 10 bullets that actually connect will look messy and do some damage, they most likely won't be hitting the vitals. So it still does a fair bit of damage, but is survivable by a trained person wearing armor. But not for long.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 1 2011, 12:01 PM) *
Someone unarmored, with unaugmented body? Sure. They should get chopped up. In fact, they will! The example I gave would end in such a person even though behind cover and dodging some portion of the bullets still taking about 12P damage, which will leave them dead or dying.



A guy running around with say 10-12 armor on and a moderate or even augmented body? He should be able to survive a round or two of fire like that. He may be beat up and hurting after, but getting targetted with a full auto shot should not spell instant death for any character. That's not fun. And for that reason I doubt that you actually run up against automatic weaponry often in your games.


Figure it this way: When you're full autoing, most of your bullets are getting spread, making it harder to avoid. However, your bullets aren't being placed very precisely, so while the 2-3 of your 10 bullets that actually connect will look messy and do some damage, they most likely won't be hitting the vitals. So it still does a fair bit of damage, but is survivable by a trained person wearing armor. But not for long.


We actually run into Automatic Weapons a lot. We do the smart thing, though, and get behind cover. Tactics will tell, if you use them. And we use the hell out of them. Typical Combat Drones that we run into have lead hoses attached to them, and because they rarely have recoil issues, we often face FA (or suppressive) fire. In SR3, this was no big deal, as you could generally ignore them with enough armor. In SR4, it is less certain, and anyone who stands against FA Weapons deserves to get killed. It has happened more than a time or two in our games. Players learn quickly.

There really is not enough "Wearable" armor available to keep you reliably alive in such a scenario, and I am okay with that, as that is how it should be. You might survive one hit, and are damn lucky to survive 2 hits. But in the end, that is what your Edge is for. You either minimize/avoid the situation or spend your edge to survive it. I'm okay with that.
Seerow
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Sep 1 2011, 07:39 PM) *
We actually run into Automatic Weapons a lot. We do the smart thing, though, and get behind cover. Tactics will tell, if you use them. And we use the hell out of them. Typical Combat Drones that we run into have lead hoses attached to them, and because they rarely have recoil issues, we often face FA (or suppressive) fire. In SR3, this was no big deal, as you could generally ignore them with enough armor. In SR4, it is less certain, and anyone who stands against FA Weapons deserves to get killed. It has happened more than a time or two in our games. Players learn quickly.



My example was of a guy hiding behind cover to increase the threshold for him to be hit though.... If you take the guy out from behind cover, he's probably looking at damage several points higher, which can make the difference in life or death.

Hell, in the current system, ducking behind cover only gives the person attacking you a penalty to attack.


Also there's a huge difference between taking a shot from full auto narrow burst (going to kill who it targets) and surpressive fire (will injure anyone not ducking behind cover).

QUOTE
There really is not enough "Wearable" armor available to keep you reliably alive in such a scenario, and I am okay with that, as that is how it should be. You might survive one hit, and are damn lucky to survive 2 hits. But in the end, that is what your Edge is for. You either minimize/avoid the situation or spend your edge to survive it. I'm okay with that.


In present day? No. In the future where you can get the equivalent of an armored vest built into regular street clothes? I don't see why not.




And most importantly-It's a game. Yes, a game will feel bad when your typical character straight up dies from one guy shooting you with an assault rifle. High lethality is one thing, one hit you're dead is another. Your typical person should be able to take a couple hits before being down permanently. Your big tank characters should be able to take a couple more hits.
Traul
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 1 2011, 06:48 PM) *
I guess really it's just bringing the numbers across the board down rather than fundamentally changing the balance (the full auto shot is still about 50% better). But my main problem was really Full Auto shots being capable of 15-20 damage, so that even someone with a fair bit of body/armor had very little chance of surviving.
Actually, he will survive. Don't forget that the Burst bonus damage is not counted when checking for Stun or Physical. Even if he cannot soak all of it, a well armored target will likely take only Stun and end up on the ground with a few broken ribs, not dead or dying.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 1 2011, 12:57 PM) *
My example was of a guy hiding behind cover to increase the threshold for him to be hit though.... If you take the guy out from behind cover, he's probably looking at damage several points higher, which can make the difference in life or death.

Hell, in the current system, ducking behind cover only gives the person attacking you a penalty to attack.


Also there's a huge difference between taking a shot from full auto narrow burst (going to kill who it targets) and surpressive fire (will injure anyone not ducking behind cover).


Of course there is, no question about it. Suppressive fire is only designed to get your head down. Never forget that cover adds armor if you are just shooting through it.


QUOTE
In present day? No. In the future where you can get the equivalent of an armored vest built into regular street clothes? I don't see why not.

And most importantly-It's a game. Yes, a game will feel bad when your typical character straight up dies from one guy shooting you with an assault rifle. High lethality is one thing, one hit you're dead is another. Your typical person should be able to take a couple hits before being down permanently. Your big tank characters should be able to take a couple more hits.


Which is how it works in play, at least at our table. Again, I see no issues with the rules you are discussing in play. In a white room, they have issues, as do all systems, but in play, these things even out, assuming that you take the time to make it so. You don't even really need to change the rules to do so. Just use everything that is currently there to keep things balanced.

Now, that said, I can agree that my table is probably a rarity. We have no one who actively tries to game the system, and everyone agrees on the fluff (for the most part), so most of the complaints I see here on Dumpshock rarely, if ever, come up at the table. It is my opinion that the game breaks when players try to actively game the system, instead of playing within the confines of what is in the books (And yes, there will always be things that need to be addressed, regardless). When you go outside of those confines, well, expect things to break. When all you deal with is outlying edge cases, your game will be continue to be broken.

Sorry... Did not mean to rant... smile.gif
Ascalaphus
Sure, future armor will be better, but so will guns, so that could even out. I think armor R&D is mostly driven by the need to keep pace with guns, and vice versa.

Curiously, in RPGs, those future guns will be mysteriously not all that much better against unarmored opponents. Because naked flesh doesn't keep up with the SOTA, but it still takes a lot of skill to kill someone with a holdout.



Okay, should one full burst from an automatic be deadly to someone in combat armor? Two bursts? Three? That's a very fundamental question, it determines a significant part of what your game will be like. I don't think we all want the same things in that matter.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Sep 1 2011, 02:45 PM) *
Sure, future armor will be better, but so will guns, so that could even out. I think armor R&D is mostly driven by the need to keep pace with guns, and vice versa.

Curiously, in RPGs, those future guns will be mysteriously not all that much better against unarmored opponents. Because naked flesh doesn't keep up with the SOTA, but it still takes a lot of skill to kill someone with a holdout.

Okay, should one full burst from an automatic be deadly to someone in combat armor? Two bursts? Three? That's a very fundamental question, it determines a significant part of what your game will be like. I don't think we all want the same things in that matter.


Very True...
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