If you use a called shot to increase your DV by 4 (SR4A p.161), does this count as the "modified DV" and therefore count toward exceeding hardened armor values (like for spirits with immunity to normal weapons), or is the increased damage like a narrow burst, where it doesn't add towards the "modified" DV...?
If it does add, this is a pretty good way for a mundane to beat a spirit isn't it? Heavy pistol, ex-explosive ammo, called shot to add another 3 or 4 DV (downside losing 3 or 4 attack dice, but that's not too bad with a decent starting pool of say 12? Esp if use edge too) - then assuming a hit, gives a much better chance of beating the ITNW hardened armour?
Full Version: Called shots - increase DV
QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 13 2012, 06:31 AM) 
If you use a called shot to increase your DV by 4 (SR4A p.161), does this count as the "modified DV" and therefore count toward exceeding hardened armor values (like for spirits with immunity to normal weapons), or is the increased damage like a narrow burst, where it doesn't add towards the "modified" DV...?
If it does add, this is a pretty good way for a mundane to beat a spirit isn't it? Heavy pistol, ex-explosive ammo, called shot to add another 3 or 4 DV (downside losing 3 or 4 attack dice, but that's not too bad with a decent starting pool of say 12? Esp if use edge too) - then assuming a hit, gives a much better chance of beating the ITNW hardened armour?
If it does add, this is a pretty good way for a mundane to beat a spirit isn't it? Heavy pistol, ex-explosive ammo, called shot to add another 3 or 4 DV (downside losing 3 or 4 attack dice, but that's not too bad with a decent starting pool of say 12? Esp if use edge too) - then assuming a hit, gives a much better chance of beating the ITNW hardened armour?
Simple Answer: Yes, it counts as Modified DV...
Yea, I could see going along with that. Or maybe let them take the -12 to bypass the armor on a rating 6 spirit. Shoot them in the eye or something. It would still put even medium sized spirits beyond the capabilities of even professional shooters, but the world class types, like shadowrunners, could do it.
usually the one with the big gun doesn't have a clue about Spirit anatomy and the GM doesn't grant this choice. I agree and will remember to get an appropriate knowledge skill for my next gunner.
Agreed: the shooter (the *character*) should have a reasonable 'weak spot' he's aiming for. The GM has to decide if that suggestion is correct. If it's incorrect, the shooter should still aim, lose 4 dice, etc., but there's just no bonus effect. (OOC vs. IC knowledge can hurt you, oh well.) In most cases, this isn't too hard to manage, though. In the shadows, people figure out where most *normal* things are weak.
Yeah, if the target is a spirit the shooter better have a suitable knowledge skill at about the same rating as he tries to add DV, or he'll just waste dice.
Player: "I aim for it's heart!"
GM: "Do you know where that is?"
Player: "Left side of it's chest, I guess?"
GM: "It doesn't have a chest, it's a walking dumpster."
Player: "Oh."
Player: "I aim for it's heart!"
GM: "Do you know where that is?"
Player: "Left side of it's chest, I guess?"
GM: "It doesn't have a chest, it's a walking dumpster."
Player: "Oh."
It never made sense to me that you can't make an Attack of Will with a ranged weapon.
If the power of your attack isn't coming from how hard you swing, but rather from your force of will and the strength of your belief, then what difference does it make if you believe that your baseball bat can knock a spirit silly rather than believing that you can blow it away with a full clip from your uzi? If you can convince yourself that your katana is going to slice the spirit in half, why can't you convince yourself that your shotgun is going to blow it's head / leg / mass of plant matter / central blob of water / biggest glowing orb of light / etc. to kingdom come?
If the power of your attack isn't coming from how hard you swing, but rather from your force of will and the strength of your belief, then what difference does it make if you believe that your baseball bat can knock a spirit silly rather than believing that you can blow it away with a full clip from your uzi? If you can convince yourself that your katana is going to slice the spirit in half, why can't you convince yourself that your shotgun is going to blow it's head / leg / mass of plant matter / central blob of water / biggest glowing orb of light / etc. to kingdom come?
Attack of Will ranged would be considerably better (and actually useful) than melee.
Melee: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force x 2
Ranged: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force
By now AoW if pure fluff, unless you happen to have double digit willpower
Melee: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force x 2
Ranged: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force
By now AoW if pure fluff
, unless you happen to have double digit willpower
I'm kind of dubious about requiring a special knowledge skill simply to use a normal combat mechanic against a spirit. Especially since spirits, even of the exact same type, can appear completely different (a water spirit, for example, could either look like a mermaid, or an amorphous glob of water). I have always seen called shot for the +4 damage mainly as going for accuracy at the expense of the easier task of just shooting at the main body mass, so either spirits have vulnerable areas when they are materialized, or they don't, being nothing but whatever-shaped undifferentiated energy constructs.
If the latter, then called shots wouldn't work; otherwise, they should work, and without any special knowledge skill required. My personal opinion is that if spirits had some special immunity to called shots, or if making a called shot required a special knowledge skill regarding the possible target(s), then it would have been stated in the rules. Still, I probably wouldn't allow called shots to bypass armor - you have to have an unarmored spot to aim for, and spirit "armor" is a property of manifesting, so it would cover it completely.
If the latter, then called shots wouldn't work; otherwise, they should work, and without any special knowledge skill required. My personal opinion is that if spirits had some special immunity to called shots, or if making a called shot required a special knowledge skill regarding the possible target(s), then it would have been stated in the rules. Still, I probably wouldn't allow called shots to bypass armor - you have to have an unarmored spot to aim for, and spirit "armor" is a property of manifesting, so it would cover it completely.
QUOTE (Makki @ Apr 14 2012, 02:53 AM)
Attack of Will ranged would be considerably better (and actually useful) than melee.
Melee: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force x 2
Ranged: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force
By now AoW if pure fluff, unless you happen to have double digit willpower
Melee: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force x 2
Ranged: (Banishing) + Willpower vs ~Force
By now AoW if pure fluff
, unless you happen to have double digit willpowerWhy?
Leaving aside Force 7+ craziness (Which should be exceedingly rare in my opinion), If your common Spirit is in the 3-4 Range, then the AOW is not all that bad, if you actually build for it. And I do not mean that you optimize for it. Decent Willpower (Already going to have that as a Magician, likely) and either Conjuring Group 3-4 or Banishing 3-4 with AOW Specialty. In my opinion, Competant mages should have conjuring and Sorcery Groups at 3, so, not all that difficult, in my opinion.
Of course there are other ways to make it better, but... *Shrug*
AFAIK, there's something special about forming a physical connection, Umidori.
That might work, Glyph, except it doesn't make sense. The fluff is that it's a weak spot:
You already have mechanics for 'I aim harder'; a Called Shot actually reduces your pool, so you're kinda *not* going for accuracy (unless 'accuracy' means 'hitting a specific weak spot'). What's the fluff for 'I trade increased miss chance (-4 dice) in order to do significantly more damage' otherwise?
As far as I'm concerned, spirits logically *should* be immune to called shots, or at least if they're not copying a form that has weak spots (humanoid, animal-shape, etc.). This is apart from balance issues, though.
That might work, Glyph, except it doesn't make sense. The fluff is that it's a weak spot:
QUOTE
A character may “call a shot” (aim for a vulnerable portion of a target) with this Free Action.
[…]
Calling a shot means that the character is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target, such as a person’s head, the tires or windows of a vehicle, and so on. The gamemaster decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible.
[…]
Target a vital area in order to increase damage.
[…]
Calling a shot means that the character is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target, such as a person’s head, the tires or windows of a vehicle, and so on. The gamemaster decides if such a vulnerable spot is accessible.
[…]
Target a vital area in order to increase damage.
You already have mechanics for 'I aim harder'; a Called Shot actually reduces your pool, so you're kinda *not* going for accuracy (unless 'accuracy' means 'hitting a specific weak spot'). What's the fluff for 'I trade increased miss chance (-4 dice) in order to do significantly more damage' otherwise?
As far as I'm concerned, spirits logically *should* be immune to called shots, or at least if they're not copying a form that has weak spots (humanoid, animal-shape, etc.). This is apart from balance issues, though.
I agree.. you don't need knowledge/anatomy to make a called shot on a person.
Similarly, I've always seen it as just going for a solid hit as opposed to catching a guy in the arm. The difference between a snap shot and an aimed shot (for those who know the difference). It's not as if spirits aren't OP enough already that they need the extra help.
The third use of called shot has always been the most problematic I've found... I aim for the tires... or the radiator (he won't chase us for long when he's overheating badly!). Another good target is exposed external weapon mounts. Then you have to be a bit more creative with adjudicating the effects.
Just saw yera's post... I STRONGLY disagree... just because they're magical doesn't mean they don't have anatomy or no weak spots. I agree with the no shots to bypass armor, but not that you can't utilize the rule to try and hurt them. Any spirit you're going to need to use it against is already going to have a high reaction pool... making the dice trade off hurt a bit more. Just because a spirit decides to materialize as some amorphous amoeba doesn't mean they magically gain some advantage over others of their type. For real fun, see the rules twinks who get it in their head that spirits gain the immunities of their host when they possess vehicles and the like... (the vehicle doesn't take stun damage but the spirit does).
Similarly, I've always seen it as just going for a solid hit as opposed to catching a guy in the arm. The difference between a snap shot and an aimed shot (for those who know the difference). It's not as if spirits aren't OP enough already that they need the extra help.
The third use of called shot has always been the most problematic I've found... I aim for the tires... or the radiator (he won't chase us for long when he's overheating badly!). Another good target is exposed external weapon mounts. Then you have to be a bit more creative with adjudicating the effects.
Just saw yera's post... I STRONGLY disagree... just because they're magical doesn't mean they don't have anatomy or no weak spots. I agree with the no shots to bypass armor, but not that you can't utilize the rule to try and hurt them. Any spirit you're going to need to use it against is already going to have a high reaction pool... making the dice trade off hurt a bit more. Just because a spirit decides to materialize as some amorphous amoeba doesn't mean they magically gain some advantage over others of their type. For real fun, see the rules twinks who get it in their head that spirits gain the immunities of their host when they possess vehicles and the like... (the vehicle doesn't take stun damage but the spirit does).
But you're always trying for center of mass, and Aiming is already a separate thing. In what sense would aiming for the heart *hurt* your chance of an arm hit, for example? (That is, the sum probability of a non-heart hit.) Aiming for something like the *head* is what makes you more likely to miss. Again, the rules specifically and repeatedly say 'vulnerable spot'.
… They don't have anatomy, unless they do (meaning they materialize as a animal-shape; and that, at best, is some kind of psychosomatic effect). That's exactly what I said.
I also specifically said 'balance issues aside'; I'm only talking about what makes sense, not what helps weaken spirits in a metagame sense. I further also said (before) that the GM is the one who decides if and where a given spirit has a weak spot; 'no called shots on spirits' is just my opinion, not my interpretation of RAW.
It's not a question of 'magically gaining some advantage'—you're assuming humanoid-with-weaknesses is the baseline. You might better say *those* spirits are magically gaining a weakness.
… They don't have anatomy, unless they do (meaning they materialize as a animal-shape; and that, at best, is some kind of psychosomatic effect). That's exactly what I said.
I also specifically said 'balance issues aside'; I'm only talking about what makes sense, not what helps weaken spirits in a metagame sense. I further also said (before) that the GM is the one who decides if and where a given spirit has a weak spot; 'no called shots on spirits' is just my opinion, not my interpretation of RAW.It's not a question of 'magically gaining some advantage'—you're assuming humanoid-with-weaknesses is the baseline. You might better say *those* spirits are magically gaining a weakness.
IF spirits have vulnerable spots that can be targeted, it doesn't make sense for them to be instinctively known by everyone.
Humans and other mammals, as well as most other animals, have anatomical features that are commonly known as vulnerable or even instincticvelty known to be vulnerable to damage. Not only is it part of common knowledge that stuff like heart, throat, eyes, brain, spinal cord, genitals, guts, kidneys, knees, and lungs are good things to damage on an opponent - a lot of that is instinctive knowledge.
It is neither common knowledge, nor inherited instinct, nor immediately obvious, where to aim to inflict the most damage on a walking tree, lizard-shaped flame, mermaid-horse, animated lightpost, pile of rock and dirt, wheel covered in glowing eyes, etc, etc. Even a spirit shaped as a metahuman or animal may not have the same vulnerable spots (at least not unless it has Realistic Form).
As mentioned above, they may not even have vulnerable spots to target (does the astral form of a magician, for instance?)
Humans and other mammals, as well as most other animals, have anatomical features that are commonly known as vulnerable or even instincticvelty known to be vulnerable to damage. Not only is it part of common knowledge that stuff like heart, throat, eyes, brain, spinal cord, genitals, guts, kidneys, knees, and lungs are good things to damage on an opponent - a lot of that is instinctive knowledge.
It is neither common knowledge, nor inherited instinct, nor immediately obvious, where to aim to inflict the most damage on a walking tree, lizard-shaped flame, mermaid-horse, animated lightpost, pile of rock and dirt, wheel covered in glowing eyes, etc, etc. Even a spirit shaped as a metahuman or animal may not have the same vulnerable spots (at least not unless it has Realistic Form).
As mentioned above, they may not even have vulnerable spots to target (does the astral form of a magician, for instance?)
Reading over called shots again, it does say you can for example aim for vulnerable spots and it's subject to GM discretion.
In our campaign, we're happy for called shots to apply to spirits most of the time, whether or not someone has spirit knowledge skill, or whatever (I would make it more likely if you had spirit knowledge for spirits that it might be harder to pick a vulnerable spot on for some reason, eg amorphous water blob spirit).... Spirits are very powerful, making them immune to called shots just makes things worse. And there;s no reason why, fluff wise, they should not be vulnerable to say head shots, cut off limb attacks, "hinge attacks" on a dumpster spirit for instance, or a dead eye shot to the "focus spot" of a water spirit - just where the water happens to be darkest at that exact moment, etc and so on.... I think its a good way to try and balance our spirits a bit.
Re tree spirit, fire lizard etc - I would accept all the usual called shot examples as being application - shooting the tree's arm off, or targetting it's roots, for fire lizard head shot, or shot where the heart ought to be , etc... the fluff can work any way you like.
Still, it's all subject to GM discretion, and a case by case basis.
In our campaign, we're happy for called shots to apply to spirits most of the time, whether or not someone has spirit knowledge skill, or whatever (I would make it more likely if you had spirit knowledge for spirits that it might be harder to pick a vulnerable spot on for some reason, eg amorphous water blob spirit).... Spirits are very powerful, making them immune to called shots just makes things worse. And there;s no reason why, fluff wise, they should not be vulnerable to say head shots, cut off limb attacks, "hinge attacks" on a dumpster spirit for instance, or a dead eye shot to the "focus spot" of a water spirit - just where the water happens to be darkest at that exact moment, etc and so on.... I think its a good way to try and balance our spirits a bit.
Re tree spirit, fire lizard etc - I would accept all the usual called shot examples as being application - shooting the tree's arm off, or targetting it's roots, for fire lizard head shot, or shot where the heart ought to be , etc... the fluff can work any way you like.
Still, it's all subject to GM discretion, and a case by case basis.
There's also no reason, fluff-wise, that they *should*. That's all. I'm certainly not saying everyone has to say 'no called shots for any spirits'. I just said that, ignoring metagame balance concerns, you shouldn't blindly assume that everything has a convenient +4 DV weak spot… that every character is aware of. Especially a homogenous pile of mana. (I'm all for nerfing spirits, but there are plenty of ways.)
I'm certainly not saying everyone has to say 'no called shots for any spirits'. I just said that, ignoring metagame balance concerns, you shouldn't blindly assume that everything has a convenient +4 DV weak spot… that every character is aware of. Especially a homogenous pile of mana. (I'm all for nerfing spirits, but there are plenty of ways.)
I don't allow it to work vs armor for two reasons:
1. There IS already a called shot to ignore armor. If you want to overcome/bypass armor, use that. Why would you ever want to take -8 to bypass an armor jacket, if you can take -4 to increase damage anyway, thus inflicting full lethal damage?
2. Automatic fire doesn't either.
On another note I would usually not allow called shots on spirits either, unless to target any (actual) items it is wearing.
1. There IS already a called shot to ignore armor. If you want to overcome/bypass armor, use that. Why would you ever want to take -8 to bypass an armor jacket, if you can take -4 to increase damage anyway, thus inflicting full lethal damage?
2. Automatic fire doesn't either.
On another note I would usually not allow called shots on spirits either, unless to target any (actual) items it is wearing.
There is that: it's an unresolved balance issue for the +DV called shot vs. the bypass armor called shot. A separate issue, but certainly one to be dealt with. :/
I would only disallow armor bypassing on spirits for the same reason I would disallow it on someone wearing a full suit of armor with a helmet - because there is no "unarmored" part to aim for; it is full-form coverage.
Called shot for increased DV, I see as more carefully aiming to damage the target, rather than simply taking any hit that you can get on it. I would let it work on metahumans, spirits, drones, or anything else. "Vulnerable area" could simply mean a more solid shot at the center mass.
Called shot for increased DV, I see as more carefully aiming to damage the target, rather than simply taking any hit that you can get on it. I would let it work on metahumans, spirits, drones, or anything else. "Vulnerable area" could simply mean a more solid shot at the center mass.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Apr 15 2012, 03:41 AM)
I would only disallow armor bypassing on spirits for the same reason I would disallow it on someone wearing a full suit of armor with a helmet - because there is no "unarmored" part to aim for; it is full-form coverage.
Called shot for increased DV, I see as more carefully aiming to damage the target, rather than simply taking any hit that you can get on it. I would let it work on metahumans, spirits, drones, or anything else. "Vulnerable area" could simply mean a more solid shot at the center mass.
Called shot for increased DV, I see as more carefully aiming to damage the target, rather than simply taking any hit that you can get on it. I would let it work on metahumans, spirits, drones, or anything else. "Vulnerable area" could simply mean a more solid shot at the center mass.
Yes, in which case increased DV is added after armor is checked for penetration. Following your logic, and mine.
Can you explain that better, Glyph? I still don't understand how aiming 'center of mass' is a) different from any other shot, b) reflected by a -4 DP, c) is a vulnerable area (even for unarmored animals, there's the ribcage). How do you make a shot more 'solid'?
As far as I can tell, Called Shot for +DV basically means headshots: it's a smaller target that's likely to make you miss entirely, and definitely a weak spot. Even aiming 'for the heart' is more acceptable than just saying 'center of mass'. :/
As far as I can tell, Called Shot for +DV basically means headshots: it's a smaller target that's likely to make you miss entirely, and definitely a weak spot. Even aiming 'for the heart' is more acceptable than just saying 'center of mass'. :/
QUOTE (FriendoftheDork @ Apr 14 2012, 06:48 PM)
Yes, in which case increased DV is added after armor is checked for penetration. Following your logic, and mine.
Why would you think that? That is only the case for narrow bursts, which are a special exception to the normal rules. The DV should be added before checking for armor penetration, as normal.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 14 2012, 07:02 PM)
Can you explain that better, Glyph? I still don't understand how aiming 'center of mass' is a) different from any other shot, b) reflected by a -4 DP, c) is a vulnerable area (even for unarmored animals, there's the ribcage). How do you make a shot more 'solid'?
As far as I can tell, Called Shot for +DV basically means headshots: it's a smaller target that's likely to make you miss entirely, and definitely a weak spot. Even aiming 'for the heart' is more acceptable than just saying 'center of mass'. :/
As far as I can tell, Called Shot for +DV basically means headshots: it's a smaller target that's likely to make you miss entirely, and definitely a weak spot. Even aiming 'for the heart' is more acceptable than just saying 'center of mass'. :/
I consider normal shooting to be snapping off a shot, and a called shot for extra DV to be trying to be a bit more effective (hitting them solidly instead of winging them), at the cost of an increased difficulty in pulling it off. I guess part of it is how I treat mechanics vs. fluff - I tend to prefer to use the mechanics, then describe what happens around them, without worrying about how exactly simulationist the mechanics are.
In other words, I don't worry about how someone can barehanded "parry" a monofilament whip without taking damage, or how someone can parry with a monofilament whip. I would describe the first as a combination of evasion, batting away the tip, etc. and I would describe the second as the whip-wielder slashing the whip around in a defensive arc.
As I said in my original post, spirits won't really be vulnerable to called shots if you think that materialization only creates an undifferentiated amorphous shell of temporarily solid matter. But I disagree with that interpretation. Materialized spirits do seem to have non-astral senses and perceptions, and some free spirits even become attached to some of the pleasures and sensations that can be found in the material world. Even a glob of an elemental should have eye spots or a gaping maw, or something.
At the risk of opening a can of worms: nowhere does it state that a spirits does not have a discernible anatomy, and it enjoys no special immunities (other than ItNW). It's susceptible to poison, explosives, elemental damage etc. Attack forms that cannot harm spirits specifically mention it in their entry (e.g. Nerve Strike), and Called Shots do not mention that.
QUOTE (Elfenlied @ Apr 15 2012, 09:03 AM)
At the risk of opening a can of worms: nowhere does it state that a spirits does not have a discernible anatomy, and it enjoys no special immunities (other than ItNW). It's susceptible to poison, explosives, elemental damage etc. Attack forms that cannot harm spirits specifically mention it in their entry (e.g. Nerve Strike), and Called Shots do not mention that.
I believe it's stated somewhere that spirits are beings of pure mana, or something to that effect.
Poisons do work strictly by RAW it seems, but logically: how can a nerve toxin affect something without a nerve system? To take things one step further - is there anything written in the RAW that prevents toxins from damaging vehicles and drones?
The problem is, that the called shot actually let you aim for a destinctive part of the body. But SR does not know destinctive parts. There is only one target area.
This put the whole called shot a total GM call. If you aim for the arm of the guy, so he drops the weapon, because you need him alive it is a dickish move to give you +4DV an let you kill the guy.
This put the whole called shot a total GM call. If you aim for the arm of the guy, so he drops the weapon, because you need him alive it is a dickish move to give you +4DV an let you kill the guy.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Apr 15 2012, 07:40 AM)
Why would you think that? That is only the case for narrow bursts, which are a special exception to the normal rules. The DV should be added before checking for armor penetration, as normal.
I consider normal shooting to be snapping off a shot, and a called shot for extra DV to be trying to be a bit more effective (hitting them solidly instead of winging them), at the cost of an increased difficulty in pulling it off. I guess part of it is how I treat mechanics vs. fluff - I tend to prefer to use the mechanics, then describe what happens around them, without worrying about how exactly simulationist the mechanics are.
I consider normal shooting to be snapping off a shot, and a called shot for extra DV to be trying to be a bit more effective (hitting them solidly instead of winging them), at the cost of an increased difficulty in pulling it off. I guess part of it is how I treat mechanics vs. fluff - I tend to prefer to use the mechanics, then describe what happens around them, without worrying about how exactly simulationist the mechanics are.
That doesn't really make sense...aiming at center mass is the norm, because it gives the greatest chance of a hit. You wouldn't be less likely to hit if you took the time to aim dead center as opposed to just shooting in the general direction of the target - you'd be more likely to hit. This mechanic exists - Take Aim.
Called Shots are trying to accomplish something special, at an increased risk of failure. Aiming for the heart doesn't make you 'much' less likely to hit the target because it's quite close to where you would aim anyway. However, when the target is running/leaping fighting I can accept it would make you less lilely to hit if you try and hit a specific portion of the chest. Otherwise, head shots are a very logical explanation.
The thing is, the combat system is abstract and aiming for the head specifically should be both aiming for a vulnerable spot AND aiming for an unarmored part if the target is wearing an armor jacket (-12 dice or so, which is an extrememly difficult shot).
Adding DV before looking for penetration doesn't make sense because you're not increasing the armor penetrating capabilities of the bullet, and vulnerable spots on the human body often have more protection if they are armored. If the potential for more damage was enough cause to increase chance of armor penetration, then bursts should increase DV before checking as well.
But by RAW, there's nothing stating that the DV modifier of called shots should be added after checking for penetration.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Apr 15 2012, 07:40 AM)
Why would you think that? That is only the case for narrow bursts, which are a special exception to the normal rules. The DV should be added before checking for armor penetration, as normal.
I consider normal shooting to be snapping off a shot, and a called shot for extra DV to be trying to be a bit more effective (hitting them solidly instead of winging them), at the cost of an increased difficulty in pulling it off. I guess part of it is how I treat mechanics vs. fluff - I tend to prefer to use the mechanics, then describe what happens around them, without w
In other words, I don't worry about how someone can barehanded "parry" a monofilament whip without taking damage, or how someone can parry with a monofilament whip. I would desorrying about how exactly simulationist the mechanics are.
cribe the first as a combination of evasion, batting away the tip, etc. and I would describe the second as the whip-wielder slashing the whip around in a defensive arc.
As I said in my original post, spirits won't really be vulnerable to called shots if you think that materialization only creates an undifferentiated amorphous shell of temporarily solid matter. But I disagree with that interpretation. Materialized spirits do seem to have non-astral senses and perceptions, and some free spirits even become attached to some of the pleasures and sensations that can be found in the material world. Even a glob of an elemental should have eye spots or a gaping maw, or something.
I consider normal shooting to be snapping off a shot, and a called shot for extra DV to be trying to be a bit more effective (hitting them solidly instead of winging them), at the cost of an increased difficulty in pulling it off. I guess part of it is how I treat mechanics vs. fluff - I tend to prefer to use the mechanics, then describe what happens around them, without w
In other words, I don't worry about how someone can barehanded "parry" a monofilament whip without taking damage, or how someone can parry with a monofilament whip. I would desorrying about how exactly simulationist the mechanics are.
cribe the first as a combination of evasion, batting away the tip, etc. and I would describe the second as the whip-wielder slashing the whip around in a defensive arc.
As I said in my original post, spirits won't really be vulnerable to called shots if you think that materialization only creates an undifferentiated amorphous shell of temporarily solid matter. But I disagree with that interpretation. Materialized spirits do seem to have non-astral senses and perceptions, and some free spirits even become attached to some of the pleasures and sensations that can be found in the material world. Even a glob of an elemental should have eye spots or a gaping maw, or something.
I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Seems I was mistaken :/
Ok, let me explain the lack of logic: First you claim that you can't bypass armor on someone wearing full-body armor. Fine, no problems there. But then you say that aiming for a "vulnerable part" is still an acceptable way to increase the DV in how it compares to armor, for the purpose of penetration! How does aiming for head, heart etc. has a greater chance of penetrating armor (as well as increasing damage whether you penetrate or not), if those areas are equally protected?
Having a call shot rule like this might not have been a good idea in the first place, as many games assume you are aiming to kill/disable anyway, and the system allows net hits to add to damage value (both for purpose of getting a more dangerous shot, and for hitting weaker and less armored spots.
Snap shot vs "trying to be more effective?" A snap shot is essentially one that is not aimed very well, I suppose it could be applied to all shots in SR where you don't spend a simple action or more to aim. A called shot requires a free action, but actually makes it harder to hit - which makes me thing you are aiming for smaller body parts (head, arms, weapon in hand, legs) for a specific purpose (increasing damage, maiming etc.).
The rules for call shot is very much in "GM discretion" land, which makes it almost an optional rule.
For ease of reference, I thought I'd put in some quotes on the forms of spirits - Rules:
...and Fluff:
This is the way I interpret the above:
Some questions to think about:
- Do you apply Fatigue damage to spirits?
- Do you allow Nausea Gas to affect spirits?
- Do you allow the Throw maneuver to work on a spirit?
- Do you apply the rules for hazardous enviroments to spirits:
- Dehydration?
- Impaired breathing?
- Frostbite?
- How about radiation and radition sickness?
- Drowning?
- Do you think a spirit can be suffocated?
[ Spoiler ]
...and Fluff:
[ Spoiler ]
This is the way I interpret the above:
[ Spoiler ]
Some questions to think about:
- Do you apply Fatigue damage to spirits?
- Do you allow Nausea Gas to affect spirits?
- Do you allow the Throw maneuver to work on a spirit?
- Do you apply the rules for hazardous enviroments to spirits:
- Dehydration?
- Impaired breathing?
- Frostbite?
- How about radiation and radition sickness?
- Drowning?
- Do you think a spirit can be suffocated?
Agreed: evidence that 'the rules don't *say* spirits are immune to poison/tasers/etc.' is only evidence those rules are bad, not that spirits actually aren't immune to that stuff. Not exactly convincing. There's also no (rules) evidence the other direction; I'm not saying there is. I'm saying it's a consistent and reasonable position in the fluff, that's all.
Will try them:
-No, the also do not need to sleep.
-No, they have no organic body. It does not affect drones either. And they also do not have any immunitie as far as I recall.
Do you apply the rules for hazardous envirnments to spirits:
-No, the do not need food or shelter.
-No, they have no metabolism
-Only cold damage as normal
-Radiation damage yes, sickness could be, because they also should react badly to radiation. (Same effects totally different reasons)
-No, they do not need air. Pressure would be a problem thought
-No, they do not breath. No metabolism.
QUOTE
Some questions to think about:
- Do you apply Fatigue damage to spirits?
- Do you allow Nausea Gas to affect spirits?
- Do you allow the Throw maneuver to work on a spirit?
- Do you apply the rules for hazardous enviroments to spirits:
- Dehydration?
- Impaired breathing?
- Frostbite?
- How about radiation and radition sickness?
- Drowning?
- Do you think a spirit can be suffocated?
- Do you apply Fatigue damage to spirits?
- Do you allow Nausea Gas to affect spirits?
- Do you allow the Throw maneuver to work on a spirit?
- Do you apply the rules for hazardous enviroments to spirits:
- Dehydration?
- Impaired breathing?
- Frostbite?
- How about radiation and radition sickness?
- Drowning?
- Do you think a spirit can be suffocated?
-No, the also do not need to sleep.
-No, they have no organic body. It does not affect drones either. And they also do not have any immunitie as far as I recall.
Do you apply the rules for hazardous envirnments to spirits:
-No, the do not need food or shelter.
-No, they have no metabolism
-Only cold damage as normal
-Radiation damage yes, sickness could be, because they also should react badly to radiation. (Same effects totally different reasons)
-No, they do not need air. Pressure would be a problem thought
-No, they do not breath. No metabolism.
Right, and that's probably a typical response. So, if you use thought instead of RAW, it's easy to see how (yes, non-RAW) ideas about spirits not taking 'vulnerable' hits arise.
The other subthread here is more interesting, I think: now that I actually think about it, it does make more sense for the +DV called shot to *not* affect the physical/stun armor comparison step. It should function exactly as a normal burst. This, too, is probably *non-RAW*. RAW is frequently wrong, after all.
The other subthread here is more interesting, I think: now that I actually think about it, it does make more sense for the +DV called shot to *not* affect the physical/stun armor comparison step. It should function exactly as a normal burst. This, too, is probably *non-RAW*. RAW is frequently wrong, after all.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 15 2012, 03:58 PM)
Right, and that's probably a typical response. So, if you use thought instead of RAW, it's easy to see how (yes, non-RAW) ideas about spirits not taking 'vulnerable' hits arise.
The other subthread here is more interesting, I think: now that I actually think about it, it does make more sense for the +DV called shot to *not* affect the physical/stun armor comparison step. It should function exactly as a normal burst. This, too, is probably *non-RAW*. RAW is frequently wrong, after all.
The other subthread here is more interesting, I think: now that I actually think about it, it does make more sense for the +DV called shot to *not* affect the physical/stun armor comparison step. It should function exactly as a normal burst. This, too, is probably *non-RAW*. RAW is frequently wrong, after all.
Nice to see someone daring to change his mind instead of stubbornly arguing whatever seemed ok at the first time
As for it being RAW or not, it doesn't say either way. Literally it could seem to mean add X to modified damage value, and thus apply, but I choose to believe it is simply an oversight and that it is meant to work like the extra damage from bursts. In my games this matters more as we halve damage after soak(round up) if the modified DV does not exceed armor rating. Thus is can be the difference between a major wound and some minor stun damage. And yes, this is definitely a house rule and not an interpretation.
Hah, I actually hadn't yet weighed in on the 'modified DV' question at all. I meant I'd never thought about it before. The RAW (AFAIK) is that only narrow bursts don't count (but RAW only matters as a common starting point, after all).
The RAW (AFAIK) is that only narrow bursts don't count (but RAW only matters as a common starting point, after all).
And once again, the no discernable or weak parts of the anatomy is added by people citing a wall of text which never says it. Only them 'extending' their own prejudice. It's reasons like this why magic comes off as badly overpowered to many. It's magical... doesn't matter why... nothing mundane you can do to increase your damage is going to work when the rules never say anything of the sort.
It's a creature, a magical creature, but still a creature. It's also a badly broken creature at higher forces. It only goes as far as to say each one has a form... but that form has a wide variety. The rest is left up to your imagination. There's no reason why it couldn't have the equivalent of say magical arteries where the power pulses through it's form... and no reason it could either. I choose to go with there are, magical nexuses that are part of the form which are a little more delicate than the rest (and this is squarely for balance reasons).
Just as others can claim it's an amorphous blob of magical energy with no differentiation between parts of it... I and others can claim the opposite. It never says either in any of that wall of text.
Then we also get some real nuggets like someone in full body armor has no weak points... really... while the armor might be everywhere it still has chinks where it isn't as good. Normally they're around the joints... the head/face/neck is always problematic... especially the face area. Even a guy in bomb-squad armor which is about as protected as it gets... has weak points. Also, lining up a shot so it hits perpendicular to the armor face will do more damage than a glancing blow where it can hit but deflect. So there's a lot of room for interpretation in there. Just as a punch to the kidneys can kill... so can a shot to them to a guy in kevlar (stops it from penetrating... doesn't stop the deep bruising and temporary dislocation/tearing).
While going down the above route... nowhere in the rules does it give any reason an amorphous sheet of ghost should be affected by a bullet either... why don't we make it immune to that as well! Oh wait, the rules don't... they give ItNW which also covers called shots as part of that... wow. Or others perpetual favorite... electricity and tasers. How about a screech sonic rifle? It's immune to sound.. guess that extends to a barghest's paralyzing howl as well since that's purely sonic based.
It's a creature, a magical creature, but still a creature. It's also a badly broken creature at higher forces. It only goes as far as to say each one has a form... but that form has a wide variety. The rest is left up to your imagination. There's no reason why it couldn't have the equivalent of say magical arteries where the power pulses through it's form... and no reason it could either. I choose to go with there are, magical nexuses that are part of the form which are a little more delicate than the rest (and this is squarely for balance reasons).
Just as others can claim it's an amorphous blob of magical energy with no differentiation between parts of it... I and others can claim the opposite. It never says either in any of that wall of text.
Then we also get some real nuggets like someone in full body armor has no weak points... really... while the armor might be everywhere it still has chinks where it isn't as good. Normally they're around the joints... the head/face/neck is always problematic... especially the face area. Even a guy in bomb-squad armor which is about as protected as it gets... has weak points. Also, lining up a shot so it hits perpendicular to the armor face will do more damage than a glancing blow where it can hit but deflect. So there's a lot of room for interpretation in there. Just as a punch to the kidneys can kill... so can a shot to them to a guy in kevlar (stops it from penetrating... doesn't stop the deep bruising and temporary dislocation/tearing).
While going down the above route... nowhere in the rules does it give any reason an amorphous sheet of ghost should be affected by a bullet either... why don't we make it immune to that as well! Oh wait, the rules don't... they give ItNW which also covers called shots as part of that... wow. Or others perpetual favorite... electricity and tasers. How about a screech sonic rifle? It's immune to sound.. guess that extends to a barghest's paralyzing howl as well since that's purely sonic based.
@Yerameyahu
The problem is, if you go really RAW there are a lot of cases where RAW might seem a bit off.
(Thats when people often turn away from it.)
The problem is, if you go really RAW there are a lot of cases where RAW might seem a bit off.
(Thats when people often turn away from it.)
@Falconer:
Exactly. Purely by RAW, there isn't really an argument. Fluff-wise, you could certainly extrapolate things a certain way, but you could interpret the fluff so as to allow the RAW just as easily. And I see no reason to make a spirit's immunity to normal weapons even more ludicrously powerful, by gimping one of the few options that helps mundanes to hurt a spirit.
Exactly. Purely by RAW, there isn't really an argument. Fluff-wise, you could certainly extrapolate things a certain way, but you could interpret the fluff so as to allow the RAW just as easily. And I see no reason to make a spirit's immunity to normal weapons even more ludicrously powerful, by gimping one of the few options that helps mundanes to hurt a spirit.
Again, it's not about balance. It's about making sense. If your justification for an effect is purely metagame, you're doing it wrong.
Are you ignoring all the 'wall of text' about spirits being vulnerable to toxins, drowning, etc.? Because that would be a dumb mistake. Clearly these are issues (*exactly* analogous to weak spots) that affect the game. We *do* have fluff that explains why they're hurt by bullets, Falconer. The reason people ask about spirits and tasers is because it's a valid question, not because they're all morons who love game imbalance. As you say, we're talking about something that the rules don't say *either* way, so why choose nonsense?
I am all for game balance and nerfing spirits. Just not via the two-wrongs method. If you want to say spirits have weak spots, please do! If you want to say they have weak spots and that every random shooter knows where they are… that's less okay. It's not like we can't nerf spirits *and* have things make sense.
Are you ignoring all the 'wall of text' about spirits being vulnerable to toxins, drowning, etc.? Because that would be a dumb mistake.
Clearly these are issues (*exactly* analogous to weak spots) that affect the game. We *do* have fluff that explains why they're hurt by bullets, Falconer. The reason people ask about spirits and tasers is because it's a valid question, not because they're all morons who love game imbalance. As you say, we're talking about something that the rules don't say *either* way, so why choose nonsense?I am all for game balance and nerfing spirits. Just not via the two-wrongs method. If you want to say spirits have weak spots, please do! If you want to say they have weak spots and that every random shooter knows where they are… that's less okay.
It's not like we can't nerf spirits *and* have things make sense.
The point is, if you only go RAW here, you should RAW only everywhere.
This means if something is not in the books, you can't do it. No matter what the fluff says. Close to nobody is doing things like that.
And it is quite hard to tell fluff from crunch, from time to time.
So if it is said, they have no biological bodies (which makes them immune to a lot of stuff) how far does this reach?
The next point is, that there is always a lot of assuming going on, when it comes to rules.
So it is quite bad, if the fluff does not fit the crunch...
This means if something is not in the books, you can't do it. No matter what the fluff says. Close to nobody is doing things like that.
And it is quite hard to tell fluff from crunch, from time to time.
So if it is said, they have no biological bodies (which makes them immune to a lot of stuff) how far does this reach?
The next point is, that there is always a lot of assuming going on, when it comes to rules.
So it is quite bad, if the fluff does not fit the crunch...
QUOTE (Falconer @ Apr 15 2012, 05:55 PM)
And once again, the no discernable or weak parts of the anatomy is added by people citing a wall of text which never says it. Only them 'extending' their own prejudice. It's reasons like this why magic comes off as badly overpowered to many. It's magical... doesn't matter why... nothing mundane you can do to increase your damage is going to work when the rules never say anything of the sort.
It's a creature, a magical creature, but still a creature. It's also a badly broken creature at higher forces. It only goes as far as to say each one has a form... but that form has a wide variety. The rest is left up to your imagination. There's no reason why it couldn't have the equivalent of say magical arteries where the power pulses through it's form... and no reason it could either. I choose to go with there are, magical nexuses that are part of the form which are a little more delicate than the rest (and this is squarely for balance reasons).
Just as others can claim it's an amorphous blob of magical energy with no differentiation between parts of it... I and others can claim the opposite. It never says either in any of that wall of text.
While going down the above route... nowhere in the rules does it give any reason an amorphous sheet of ghost should be affected by a bullet either... why don't we make it immune to that as well! Oh wait, the rules don't... they give ItNW which also covers called shots as part of that... wow. Or others perpetual favorite... electricity and tasers. How about a screech sonic rifle? It's immune to sound.. guess that extends to a barghest's paralyzing howl as well since that's purely sonic based.
It's a creature, a magical creature, but still a creature. It's also a badly broken creature at higher forces. It only goes as far as to say each one has a form... but that form has a wide variety. The rest is left up to your imagination. There's no reason why it couldn't have the equivalent of say magical arteries where the power pulses through it's form... and no reason it could either. I choose to go with there are, magical nexuses that are part of the form which are a little more delicate than the rest (and this is squarely for balance reasons).
Just as others can claim it's an amorphous blob of magical energy with no differentiation between parts of it... I and others can claim the opposite. It never says either in any of that wall of text.
While going down the above route... nowhere in the rules does it give any reason an amorphous sheet of ghost should be affected by a bullet either... why don't we make it immune to that as well! Oh wait, the rules don't... they give ItNW which also covers called shots as part of that... wow. Or others perpetual favorite... electricity and tasers. How about a screech sonic rifle? It's immune to sound.. guess that extends to a barghest's paralyzing howl as well since that's purely sonic based.
I quoted the text so everyone could easily see it without going back and forth in the books, and made a point of stating that was I claimed after was my own interpretation of the text.
There is, however, multiple mentions in the text of spirits not functioning like physical beings, and statements of them being immune to a whole bunch of stuff that by RAW wouldn't necessarily be covered by ItNW. Aiming for vulnerable spots would most likely require you to know/see where those spots are, and since even researchers and experts in Shadowrun don't really know what spirits are made of, or how they are structured, and given that spirits can take a multitude of different forms - seemingly solid or seemingly ethereal; humanoid or bestial; a toaster or a glowing ball of fire - can it really make sense from an in-game perspective that anyone with a gun can see or instinctively knows the weak spots of those forms? 60 years of research and study have come to the conclusions that spirits are made up of 'a recombinant protoplasm that replicates' other materials so closely that you can't tell an immediate difference, and results in uncertainity of where they see from. Yet that replication of stone, fire, flesh, metal, sludge, etc all have 'vital areas' immediately obvious to everyone?
If you want to change the in-game knowledge about spirits, or the in-game explanations for how they are constructed, that's perfectly fine. It may even be desirable. In some previous editions, spirits couldn't even be affected by explosions because there was no will behind the attack, for instance.
But basically the only support that spirits have vital areas to target is the fact that the rules don't mention them not having it. That can be taken as a strong indication, sure - but there are a lot of things similarily not forbidden in RAW that can lead to really weird situations if applied. Like affecting a drone with Seven-7 gas, for instance, or wearing 5 helmets.
'm not saying that the rules and fluff say that spirits don't have vital areas - I am, however, saying that there's really nothing in either rules or fluff suggesting that they do.
Irion, I dunno what you're suggesting. I'm certainly not talking about people playing by the 'strict', frequently broken RAW (if it's even possible); I have no interest in that myself, but that doesn't affect the discussion. Yes, by RAW all those things mentioned affect spirits (except when specifically excluded), and by RAW, the GM *always* decides if any Called Shot is possible case-by-case. We're just talking about when/whether the GM should allow that. My own *personal* suggestion, mentioned earlier, was that it's simpler to say they have no weak spots that you can shoot.
Above all, the world should be coherent and make sense. The crunch *supports* that.
I'm certainly not talking about people playing by the 'strict', frequently broken RAW (if it's even possible); I have no interest in that myself, but that doesn't affect the discussion. Yes, by RAW all those things mentioned affect spirits (except when specifically excluded), and by RAW, the GM *always* decides if any Called Shot is possible case-by-case. We're just talking about when/whether the GM should allow that. My own *personal* suggestion, mentioned earlier, was that it's simpler to say they have no weak spots that you can shoot.Above all, the world should be coherent and make sense. The crunch *supports* that.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 15 2012, 10:25 PM)
The reason people ask about spirits and tasers is because it's a valid question, not because they're all morons who love game imbalance. As you say, we're talking about something that the rules don't say *either* way, so why choose nonsense?
...and it is stated in the rules that spirits have no nervous system - in general, things without a nervous system (or without sensitive electronics), aren't much affected by electricity at the levels used in a taser. Plus, it is mentioned specifically that vehicles, drones and electrical equipment can be affected - but no mention of spirits.
I'm all for letting spirits be damaged by electricity though - it's not a far stretch for me to say that electrical current messes with the 'recombinant protoplasm' in ways that make normal actions more difficult, and may disrupt the cohesiveness of the form. The lingering secondary effects are more iffy on something without nervous system though =/
@Yerameyahu - I think Irion is arguing with us on this one...
As long as you have a coherent and reasonable fluff, sure. It's not reasonable to me to say, for example, that all spirits are creatures in the first place, or that they all have biological-like weak spots that non-experts would be able to recognize and shoot at.
I know, I'm just asking what he means.
I know, I'm just asking what he means.
I wouldn't call them creatures at all, since they are astral (or rather metaplanar) entities creating a physical form out of pure mana...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.