@Bioindex/Essence/Bioware-Limits:
Yes, i was not very concise about that.

That was one thing why being a rigger sucked.
Your control pool was depending on natural reaction only.

You added your VCR bonus to your Reaction to determine control pool. Riggers in SR3 were a massive money/Essence sink, to the point that a rigger/samurai was actually less viable than a decker/samurai. On the flip side, being a rigger really meant something - you had significant TN, dice pool, and initiative bonuses.

... and the level of your VCR Implant of course

The sucky part (in terms of balance) however was the fact that magical alterations to the associated attributes were treated as "natural" by default, thus creating the questionable situation where a mage could directly boost a Riggers Reaction by 6 points that affected Rigging (and subsequently the control pool as well) and out of vehicle situations while 6 levels of reaction enhancers simply didn't do anything for a Rigger's Reaction / Control Pool during rigging

Decker/Riggers were perfectly viable, though. You needed an extra datajack, thanks to a very silly rule about not being able to use the same jack for both purposes effectively, but that was really minor. I was even able to twist some rules, make it so my micro-drones could remotely plug into s matrix line, and connect to an internal system without me ever leaving the van. We also discovered that datajack-equipped drones were excellent for plugging into team member's jacks, which gave us top-notch communications. Also, that combination could make for a very effective CNC operative, who specialized in real-time intel and give the team a huge edge in coordination.

Decker/Samurai was also a very effective combination. Ever notice how the combat decker archetype in the BBB looked suspiciously like a light sam? It gave you the ability to infiltrate a facility and deck it from the inside. That was a huge asset in classic Shadowrun; 4/4.5 seems to have largely done away with offline storage, which is a pity. It was actually easier to be a decker in the basement in SR4.5 than it was in SR3.

The ESSENCE SINK you could cheat away.
Install Full Cyberlimb. Mod Cyberlimb with DNI for 0,1 Essence.
Build VCR/Cyberdeck and other assorted toys into the Limb. Done.
But the Money Sink is still a big issue. But that's true for anybody using implants excessively.

Not really ...



Nope, no legal way of building a VCR into a Cyberlimb in that manner. Don't confuse cyberdecks / remote control decks with VCR.

I'd say is't kinda the way generic sodas are a safe bet, because the market for sodas of a particular flavor is already established. The scenario you are proposing is more like selling a wholly new flavor for a generic price, and with half a year's production done up front.

The pricing certainly did draw in a share of new players, or at least new buyers. But without a proven target group for cyberpunk/magic crossover RPGs to start with, pricing the core book and even the expansions the way they are would have been a major gamble.


@Cochise:

Well, that one is making a return in 5th...

Ah, right, i think i confused something there <.<

Well, that's kind of fitting I guess ... in the worst sense

What about Betamax?

different items I know but could not resist.

Betamax should be okay... Of course, it is STILL dead-end tech, but there you go.

nm

Ahhh... Sendaz is at a loss for words... I have finally arrived.

The prohibitive aspect is system and tech agnostic => It doesn't care about the VCR being Betamax, VHS or Video 2000

Normally I just lurk and read, but this one caught my eye, and I am a 3E advocate.

This is not entirely correct, but the general thought holds some merit. Many tests are opposed in some manner. If you have no successes, you will not succeed.
However-
If I roll 1 success and my target rolls 1 or more successes on his dodge test, yes, it is a clean miss. He can only roll to dodge using dice from
his combat pool, which is a finite resource. A lot of players understand that and won't go for the dodge, instead using those dice to augment their
damage resistance test instead, which is Body + combat pool. If you burn all your CP on the dodge and fail to dodge, you're now soaking that
bullet with no pool. If you failed to dodge (through bad rolls or simply opting to soak), my single success will require the target to achieve at
least 4 successes to avoid being wounded (because I use base M weaponry).

If this were melee combat instead of ranged, I don't even have to achieve a net success. Ties go to the attacker.

You have your sorcery skill dice (which can be split between casting and drain resistance), plus your Spell Pool, plus any additional applicable Foci dice you wish to add.
The force of the spell has no effect on the casting of it, though it will be a factor in determining the Drain. In some cases its maximum effect is limited by the force of the spell,
but it does not limit how many successes you are allowed to roll on the test. Karma is not a factor in this whatsoever in SR3.

True, and a little more challenging (administratively) with area spells rather than single target, but still pretty simple, as the Spell Resistance test takes
the place of a Damage Resistance test. Target must resist, usually with Willpower but occasionally Intelligence (directed illusions) or body as specified by the spell.
The TN to resist the spell is the force of the spell. Except for Elemental Manipulation spells (which are handled like standard ranged combat), you do not have pool
dice to resist the effects of a spell, unless you are also gifted with a Spell Pool because you are a caster of some sort. If you do not fully resist the spell, you may
be having a very bad day.

In this particular scenario, you are right about the net successes - as ties go to the defender on spell resistance. Probably for the best, given how limited their available
dice will be to resist virtually anything. A force 6+ anything will hose most targets, if the caster succeeds.

If the caster is throwing an acid spray, however, since it is resolved as if it were normal ranged combat, the above regarding Combat Pool and dodging
still applies here. If you don't dodge the effect entirely, you're doing a Damage Resistance Test with whatever remains. At least you've got armor,
where applicable, to try and reduce the power of the attack - something that is almost never a factor in most magical exchange.

This one, however, is not just a little incorrect, it is wrong in every respect. Improved Invisibility is an Indirect Illusion, and it is a Physical spell.
While the force of the spell is important for determining who, if anybody, resists the effect and can see through your invisibility, the fact that a camera is
involved means you will not be seen. Inanimate objects do not get a spell resistance test. At all. This means no camera can pierce the illusion, no
matter who is observing the feed. If you're using an old-school film camera with an optical viewfinder, you might see me walking past, but your camera
will not, under any circumstance, as it is an inanimate technological device. If you're observing the LCD viewscreen (or equivalent) that many cameras today
have, neither you nor your camera would be able to see me, because you are limiting yourself to what the camera can see. A force 1 Improved Invisibility
spell is the ideal tool of the tinfoil-hat crowd. Hopefully they don't have any security measures in their home that require retinal, fingerprint, or voice analysis.

-d.

So far as I am aware, there is no such rule regarding datajacks and their effectiveness based on what you're using it for in 3E. You couldn't be connected
to both at the same time via a single datajack, but the only rule regarding riggers and matrix use that I am aware of appears on page 28 of Matrix.

I've heard a lot of wonky statements in recent years about what SR3 rules dictate when it comes to certain functions, but the majority of them are inaccurate - like
stating that the position of your datajack is in any way related to the function it serves. You can put your 'jack anywhere you've got a solid mount location for it
in your body, and it can serve any purpose equally regardless of where it's located.

In the case of the Decker/rigger hybrid, it simply won't matter where it's at, it only matters if you've got a functional VCR, in which case it would inhibit all your
datajacks equally.

Err, no, tie goes to defender if i remember correctly. In every case. In Melee it's different in so far as whoever has more hits gets to deal his damage

You forget about Object Resistance here i think.
A Camera has an Object Resistance Level of i think 4 at least?
So improved invisibility does nothing if you can't get your hits above that. Might be force. Not really sure right now, i never really did much with the magic rules.

SR4 rules, sensors and electronic equipment have an OR of 3 (IIRC, that translates to 9 dice to resist in SR5). Not considering Edge, it means Force 4 minimum to score that 1 net hit for a physical spell (like Improved Invisibility) to affect a camera (SR5 mechanics, Force 1 can do it if you're really lucky).

Negatory. The defender in the melee exchange has to achieve more successes to dole out damage. In the case of a tie, the attacker wins
and the defender must make a DRT.
(edit: Reference source, p. 123, last sentence of the first paragraph under COMPARE SUCCESSES, Shadowrun, Third Edition core rules)

In the case of Missile Parry and Astral Evasion (this is just based of a rapid search on "ties go" in the core book) it holds true as well. The aggressor often has the edge.

Incorrect, though you're not the only person to make that mistake. ORT does not apply, because it is an Indirect illusion, the sensors are not being
targeted by the magic. They addressed this in the offical SR3 FAQ. Relevant portion quoted here. Bold emphasis theirs. Coloring mine.


I've been the site host/administrator for an SR3 based MUD for too many years, I have to try and keep on top of this stuff to deal with what players might throw at me.
Sometimes, though, they do get the better of the situation, so I give them credit where it's due. (We're a little more black trenchcoat than pink mohawk, but if done right, almost anything can work out well)

Not totally correct either since any success scored on the dodge test transfers to to damage resistance test on a 1:1 basis. The reason why players usually prefer using combat pool on the damage resistance test is because they meta the system by analyzing the TN of dodge vs. damage resistance.



So while you're right that this will happen, a character who faces a higher TN for damage resistance than for dodging should - from a pure metagaming standpoint - always opt for dodging first before soaking - provided that he still has CP dice left - while a character with a lower TN on resistance should spare his CP dice for just soaking. If TN for dodging and restistance are identical then it doesn't matter which route you go.

However, this particular playstyle doesn't necessarily translate into 'good role play'.



The underlined part is incorrect. Drain resistance dice for spells are always Willpower + available/allocated Sorcery Pool Dice + eventually available Totem modifiers + allocated focus dice from appropriate foci. I'm leaving out Centering dice there on purpose since they are strictly speaking for a separate test.



Not quite: Indirect Illusion spells are resisted with Intelligence by the "onlooker" (note: For indirect illusions the terminology of "subject","target" and "spell resistance test" aren't that well defined in SR3) while the person who the spell is cast upon can opt for resisting with Willpower to totally nulify the effect completely.

Direct Illusions make use of Willpower and Intelligence with no clear cut preference for either.

Sidenote I: The person under an indirect illusion must successfully resist the spell with Intelligence as well in order not to be affected by the spell's effect.

Sidenote II: Some of the Health Spells do use other resistance attributes (or would if they weren"t using the "voluntary target" modifier by default).



You're right and wrong at the same time: In SR3 there is only a fluff reference to the different wiring of a rigger's datajack and a decker's and that's IIRC a carry over from 1st (and possibly 2nd, can't remember) where that wiring actually was also a rule aspect. The physical location of the jack did never matter but its wiring did and - fluff wise - still does in SR3 ... which can be used as an argument for requiring a second datajack if both functions are to be utilized by the same character ... and it's one of the cases where I personally take fluff over crunch any day.



Let's better say that OR involvement for sensors is one of the debatable things in RAW. Oh and just for the record: The sensors certainly are one of the two "targets" an indirect illusion has. That's what caused them to provide (conflicting) FAQ on that issue in the first place.



And the problem with that FAQ answer is:

Going strictly by RAW indirect illusion can only be cast on/around persons (single target) or over areas (area of effect spells) => You wouldn't be able to cast the spell on just the sword in the first place. But leaving that aside - since that aspect is one of the things that gets ignored / house ruled away in most cases - the next problem with that FAQ answer is that the "half OR" rule simply doesn't mesh well with spells where OR isn't the TN in the first place because it's only referenced in context of spells that use OR as TN. While their intention might have been that OR should be of importance there they would have had to provide Errata there instead of (wonky) FAQ. The final problem with that FAQ is in your colored sentence: The terminology of "target" and "subject" are not well defined within the rules and sometimes are used interchangably. A camera certainly is just as any onlooker a subject / target of the spell's effect ... otherwise any "living" onlooker would never get a resistance test that is explicitly refered to as a "Spell Resistance Test" as well and - by RAW - can even be augmented with Spell Defense.

That was the rule I was referring to, yes. You could also bypass that rule by adding a second datajack, which I believe was cheaper than adding a reflex trigger to your VCR. I might be thinking of a holdover from Sr2, though.

I haven't seen many exotic locations for datajacks over the years. The oddest was either a fingertip datajack, or the cyberspur one. Cyberspur sounds a bit odd, but the player wanted a Robocop-style "spike", so I figured that was the best way of doing things.


Not totally correct either. While dodge successes do reduce damage successes, damage staged per two net successes, and each staging did more damage. So, if you reduced them from five net successes to four, you're still taking the damage staged up twice.

Also, except for dedicated tanks, most of the time players realized that dodging was superior to soaking. There's a few reasons for that: dodging used a base TN of 4, while the soak TN depended on the power of the attack and your armor. Also, with the smaller dice pools, often you needed fewer successes to dodge than you needed to soak.

@Cain:
There's the Eye-Jack at least.
It's a Datajack inside your eye.
But RAW there is nothing stopping you from putting a Datajack anywhere else on your body.
See Induction Datajack for precedent. If the Induction Pad can be placed anywhere else, then why should the normal jack not be able to have the same cable go there?

~sigh~ I was absolutely correct, since the described situation (see DS-Dru's posting for reference and re-read what I quoted from him) was one where a complete dodge did not occur.

Simple examples:

1. Attacker in ranged combat scores 5 successes against TN of "whatever" with a 9M heavy pistol (actually the weapon doesn't matter either, but in this case the numbers just "add up" easier). Targeted player with armor of 5 decides to dodge first with all his Combat Pool dice and after that starts soaking with just Body. Let's say he scored 3 successes against the base Dodge TN of 4 => He didn't successfully dodge the damage completely. He now has to do his Damage Resistance Test against TN 4 as well with a remaining number successes of 2 for the attacker. Please note that the damage staging for ranged by RAW occurs after the Damage Resistance Test despite not making any difference when doing the staging beforehand. In order to totally avoid damage the targeted character would now need 6 successes (the remaining 2 from the attackers test that could otherwise stage damage + 4 to counter the M Damage of the pistol). Total number of successes needed for avoiding damage here: 6+3=9 successes
2. Same situation, but the targeted player doesn't opt for dodging and instead goes directly to soaking. This time he needs 9 successes again to avoid taking damage (5 to counter the attacker's successes that could otherwise stage damage + 4 to counter the M Damage of the pistol).

Those numbers of successes required will remain the same even if you try to alter the Damage Code of the weapon or available armor. However, the probabilities of scoring them would change depending on the TNs and thus turns the thing into a question of opportunity cost as previously described.

Now you are trying to look at situations where someone aims for a complete dodge. And guess what? The attempts for that usually are only worth the attempt when

• your CP is large enough to even manage that with good probability
• the TN for dodging actually is lower than or equal to the TN for damage resistance.

There are a small number of cases where a higher TN for Dodge than for Soak will still have better chances of going unharmed, but those didn't and still don't come up that often (or shouldn't):

1. An relatively or even extremely low skilled attacker with an extremely deadly weapon
2. A targeted character with relatively low and extremely low body but a well enough sized CP to get away with it
3. A combination of 1+2

Now guess why I mentioned that players "meta gamed" the system by making explicit comparison between TNs for dodging vs. soaking?

Except that the number of Successes needed to actually soak that pistol damage with no dodge successes is only 8 Successes, not 9.
9M staged to Deadly with 5 hits. That is only Deadly damage, which requires only 8 successes to stage down, not 9.

Mmm, I disagree:


Rules:

3. Make Attacker’s Success Test
The attacker makes his or her Success Test using the appropriate Combat Skill, modified by dice from the character’s Combat Pool. Count the successes the attacker olls.

4. Resolve Dodge Test
If the target wishes to attempt to dodge an attack, he may use the Combat Pool against a Target Number 4, with modifiers. Count the successes the target rolls. A clean miss occurs if the number of successes from the target’s Combat Pool dice exceeds the attacker’s successes.

5. Resolve Target’s Damage Resistance Test
The target makes his or her Damage Resistance Test using Body dice and Combat Pool dice against a target number equal to the Power Rating of the weapon used, minus the target’s Armor Rating. Count the successes the target rolls.

6. Determine the Outcome
Compare the attacker’s and target’s successes (including both Dodge and Damage Resistance successes). Depending on which character rolls the higher number of net successes, the weapon damage is reduced or increased (staged up or down) appropriately. A tie means the attacker inflicts the weapon’s base damage.

7. Apply Damage
Stage the weapon’s damage accordingly and apply it to the target.

Exemple from rulebook:

Comparing Liam’s and Snot’s successes, we find that Liam (the attacker, with 5 successes) has rolled 2 more successes than Snot (who only rolled 3). Liam therefore gets to stage up his weapon’s Damage Level. His 2 net successes (2 more than Snot) are enough to increase the Damage Level by one, from Moderate to Serious. Poor Snot takes a Serious wound.



So technically, in the prime exemple from Cochise, with defender rolling 8 success:

Attacker: 5 success, defender 8 successes with body+CP= defender has 3 success over attacker, hence stage the damage by 1 level only to Light.

So Cochise is right, defender needs 9 successes and not 8.

No he isn't, since I posited NO SUCCESSES on Dodge (and in fact chose NOT to dodge).
So, 5 Successes stages from Moderate to Deadly (4 Successes used and the 5th drops away, because it is useless without an additional success).

SO... now I soak 9D.
And all I need is 8 Successes to Stage From Deadly to No Damage at all.

I suggest that you re-read the rules on that again, because - as I wrote before - ...




... actual damage staging for ranged combat in SR3 occurs after the Damage Resistance Test and you have to compensate all successes of the attacker plus 2 successes per wound level of the weapon



You'd be correct if staging (and the subsequent loss of 1 odd success) were to happen prior to Damage Resistance. In SR3 that's only true for melee.



You are aware that the quoted example that sk8bcn gave doesn't involve dodging either?



Again: The actual damage staging occurs after the Damage resistance test. sk8bcn even gave the explicit sequence there.



No, by RAW you're doing a Damage Resistance Test against TN of 9 with 5 successes for a weapon with a base Damage Level of M. The number of successes you score in that Resistance Test will determine whether or not the base Damage of the weapon is staged up or down.




Which is still "incorrect" with regards to ranged combat in SR3, since you're not following the combat resolution sequence correctly.

Cochise:''The ganger shoots at you with a Hold-Out pistol."
Player 1:'My armor can take that, bring it on!'

Later...

Cochise:'The Troll shoots at you with his Panther Assault Cannon.'
Player 1:'I'd rather dodge that.'
Cochise:'Stop meta-ing the system man!'

That's what what you are saying sounds like to me.
I think the mechanic works fairly well in representing how a character might weigh his options.

But on the other argument:
9 Successes are needed to negate an M damage code with 5 successes on the attacking side.
4 Net Successes are needed to stage down the damage, thus 9 are needed altogether.

And now you're putting words into my mouth and not in a very favorable manner. I suggest that you stop that right now.



It "works" to a certain degree but it's still a system inherent weakness / flaw of the combat system and how players operate on that. You asked for those yourself, so for fucks sake stop stepping on people's toes when they actually point out some of them to you . And as far as "weighing" options in a combat situation is concerned: I'd subscribe to that idea if the character actually makes perception tests that do give him the information you just gave to the player in such a generous manner in "my" name. However the truth is that players will make that meta gaming decision based on the Damage Code (a meta information) that the GM provides usually regardless of whether or not their character actually had the time to evaluate opposition's armament vs. own armor.

Hmmm... Been a while... And I have no books to verify across any longer.
Memory weak. I concede.

This is one of the reasons I hated 3rd Edition. To many rules variations for almost the same thing.
Application of Damage is so much easier (and far more consistent) in SR4A.

I apologize, but that really was what it sounded like to me. My intent was only to make fun a little, I meant no offense.

And of course you are right about the characters not knowing what weapons they are being shot at with until it is too late, but how is telling them the damage code before they decide to dodge any different from telling them the name of the weapon? I described it as I did because your post presumed that they knew. In my understanding they have to tell the GM whether or not they are dodging before they know how well the attacker did on his roll, and are thus unable to know the damage code.

The difference lies with the possibility of different Damage Codes created by different ammunition.



They should not know or rather not use their knowledge under the "separate player and character knowledge" paradigm. But it's pretty much inevitable that players will make use of their meta knowledge. You'll most likely end up with your players on average not even giving a damn about NPCs with Hold-Outs and Light Pistols due to the systematic knowledge of how much you as GM would have to "fudge" situations to make those weapons reasonably dangerous for your average starting character (not to mention advanced characters).



That would work only if the GM actually withholds the information on the number of successes and the used weapon / ammo types and their resulting damage codes prior to the player announcing his decision whether or not he'll dodge. Unfortunately following the combat resolution in such a strict manner will lead to what has been mentioned before: rather long out of game time for an extremely short in game time period.

Longest combat resolution times I have ever seen came out of SR3. I have absolutely no wish to go back to that kind of paradigm whatsoever.

Yeah ok, I thought about the Player-/Character-knowledge aspect of it too, and that is true.
It is a universal problem in RPGs, in my experience.

I disagree on the long out of game time though.
The GM can ask whether the character wants to dodge while he rolls dice.
While he waits for the response he can roll for attacks from NPCs in the same Initiative Pass too.

I am going to handle it with a time limit for those kinds of situations,
nothing like a bit of pressure in a fight scene. It will force the players to rule-of-thumb those situations.

The longest combat round I ever had was in Shadowrun 5, when we playtested the Rigging-rules and everybody brought between 5 and 10 drones on average (one guy had like 15).
We played about half a round of chase sequence on a highway that day, took us nearly four hours.
We had some funny quotes come out of that though.

That's why I originally wrote: (not necessarily limited to that particular Edition nor SR exclusive) before giving my incomplete list of "suckage".



My personal experience of roughly 15 years as GM for SR3 games tells me this: Your theory is nice but I highly doubt that it'll work out under actual gaming conditions.

Now... play that out in SR3... Might take days. *sigh*
Force multipliers such as Grunts, Mooks, Drones and Spirits tend to add an exponentially increasing time element to any situation.

And this situation here is precisely why I've got a character that usually carries a holdout or light pistol for defensive purposes which is loaded with A-V rounds.

Much as in real life (though I think most of us would agree dodging bullets flying at you is the wiser move), the characters will act on their assumptions about
the capabilities of what they can observe. If I see somebody pull out a Wildey Magnum, I'm going to assume it's chambered for .475 and I know that packs a
beastly punch - I definitely wish to avoid being hit by anything coming out of that pistol. On the flipside, if somebody's aiming a little .22lr at me, the only major
worry I have, aside from being shot in the eye, is that it's going to be a very dirty bullet and I'm going to be looking at infection issues. Again, I'd still rather not
be shot, but if I have a choice of which one to dodge.. I'm dodging the bigger round, I know it will be more devastating. At least.. I *assume* that to be the case.

This is a real-world example, there isn't a 'meta' factor here. The same scenario translates into the game, except that in the game many players tend to feel
more superhuman about things. And, well, most people don't walk around in heavy armor every day in their regular life, so maybe that's also a factor.


I'm not afraid to give my runners some opposition they aren't expecting. I still haven't quite figured out where it happened, but a great many players seem to be
under the impression that all of their jobs are going to be successful. Sometimes you have a really smooth run, but frequently something goes wrong. I realize
it may not be "fun" to get screwed royally on a gig, but if the crew working it doesn't put in their due diligence in research & prep, I'm not going to accept the
blame for when they get hosed. I'm also not going to mind when they go hunting down a J who totally set them up to get wiped out, either, if they survive the
run. I've met many, though, who seem to feel personally cheated (as players, not their characters) if something doesn't swing their way, and I don't quite grok
that mentality. As long as you aren't railroading them into a situation, there shouldn't be an issue.

You're right, I did have that worded incorrectly. Sorcery dice are only split amongst the spells you are casting and whatever flavor of spell defense you are employing,
be it standard, shielding, reflecting, absorption, whatever. They do not factor in to the drain resistance rolls. I was thinking Spell Pool for the split for drain and had a
brain-failure of my own there.

I tend to leave out Centering as well, mainly because my players do. It can be quite useful in the right situations, but having JohnnyMage play his mandolin every time
he casts a spell gets on everybody's nerves. They usually employ it for overcoming penalties rather than successes.

Based purely on the text prior to the actual spells themselves, your interpretation is valid. Magic in the Shadows introduces an example where this is not the case, in the form of
the Vehicle Mask spell. Still an indirect illusion, still just TN 4 (though the force of the spell does have to be equal to the body of the vehicle) - and they go so far as to let extra
successes get used to adjust the signature of the vehicle itself. Making it look like something else vs. looking like nothing at all, very subtle difference.

Granted, it is a variation of an existing spell designed to work solely on vehicles, so you could quite reasonably ask your magicians to whip up a variation of their own
to only mask singular items, rather than cloaking their presence.


A camera may be an 'onlooker', but it's non-living, and the rules do state that non-living/inanimate objects do not get a spell resistance test. This is why the people
passing by do - and this is frequently why the GMs should be the ones rolling the spell resistance for individual players (if they aren't already), because barring something
specific pointing out that Magic Is Happening Here, they should never even know if they failed to resist an illusion of some sort.

Stepping out of that spell category, do you handle manipulation spells the same way? In the core book they provide both Light and Shadow, which affect areas creating
a zone of more or less visible light to negate or impart visibility modifiers. Do you make your players and all their NPC opposition roll to resist the effects? Could I roll
spell resistance to prevent Ice Sheet from putting down that layer of ice over everything? I may not be the direct target of the spell, but I'm clearly within its area and
will be affected by it if not.

I think, no matter the outcome, there will always be certain points people disagree upon. I feel the intention was clear with the invisiblity spells. You used the mana
spell to cloud the minds of people. The physical version was designed to slightly warp reality around you. Frankly, I think it would be better suited to being a
transformation manipulation spell, actively bending the light around an object.

What they do not address, and what I think many overlook entirely is that the magic still has a /range/ at which it is effective. I believe the default range was the
casters Magic in meters, though on a sustained/quickened spell, you could use the Force of the spell in place of a caster's attribute. If you're beyond the range of
that spell effect from any observational positions, then it shouldn't matter of the viewer is living or not. If the camera is 20 meters away and the invisibility effect
is only covering a 4 meter area, it's going to be plenty visible until you get a lot closer. If anybody happens to be observing a group of armed people approaching
their location and then the weapons just seemingly vanish, that's probably going to make the more mentally nimble among them raise the alert for hostile magic on
the inbound lane.

I'll go with "misleading" instead, because successes on dodges do not translate 1:1 to soaking.


Problem here is that, in order to soak, you need a high body + available CP. A human with a Body of 6 was reasonably rare, usually only metahumans ever got that high. Much higher than that was the province of troll tanks.

So, if someone shoots you with a whatever M weapon with 4 successes, you only need 4 successes to dodge. However, you need 8 to soak. And since your base soak was only Body, getting enough dice to even have a chance was difficult. Given the average Body of 3, you'd need 4 pool dice to even have a chance to dodge, but you'd need 5 to have a chance at soaking. Since combat pool is a limited resource, you're better off conserving and going for the dodge.

Actually, they do, however my original agreement about the issue of ranged dodging was also in error, as I just went to re-read the Dodge Test rules for clarity. Stah had stated that if you
only get 1 success on your attack test and the target achieves 1 success on the dodge test it misses. I had agreed, thinking him correct. This is not the case. The tie favors the attacker, and a
DRT would then take place, and final damage resolution.
Any success rolled on the dodge test carries over 1:1 for the DRT if they failed to completely dodge the attack.

So, if someone shoots you with a whatever M weapon with 4 successes, you would need 5 successes to dodge completely.

You're missing the point there: I didn't infer that a camera would get a resistence test. I pointed out that said camera is indeed a "target" / "subject" of the spell. The reason for it not to get a resistence test is its "non-living" nature and not because it's not "subject" / "target" of the spell. If onlookers weren't "targets" / "subjects" of the spell, then even living onlooker could not be allowed to make a resistance test that - by RAW - is still called a spell resistance test and which can be augmented by spell defense.
Subsquently the argument for not involving OR of the camera due to it not being "target" / "subject" is invalid. One could reasonably argue that the "half OR" requirement should apply as well and still tread within RAW ... and that's why they should have erratated that instead of giving wonky FAQ. And as far as vehicle mask is concerned: That one is another reason thing why they should have either errataed the core rules as far as valid target definitions for indirect illusions are concerned because the spell creates an instance where the rules contradict themselves without clearly replacing core rules with something that can be considered "advanced" rules.



Yes and no... Manipulation spells usually are rather explicit as far as "target" / "subject" are concerned and they usually also make explicit reference how to "resist" the created effect (which usually involves standard damage resistance or attribute tests rather than spell resistance tests).



Depends on situation and narrative.



Nope, just as a living onlooker who successfully resists the indirect illusion doesn't remove the illusion for other onlookers
The only way of preventing Ice Sheet doing that would be to have a mage who has put the designated area itself under spell defense and manages to pull the defense off.



Ask yourself: Do you as person within area of effect get an explicit Spell Resistance Test against the effects of Ice Sheet? If not, do the rules allow for support via spell defense (thus making you a target of the spell by implication)?



Yes, the intention was (and still is) clear. Yet they also still suffer at points like inconclusive "target" / "subject" definitions as well as the OR thing ... and those were/are candidates for Errata.



Hell no, if they actively bent light around a person you'd make it even worse:

1. As manipulation you'd bring the spell much closer to realms where it has to abide to normal physics once the effect is created.
2. Since you'd effetively make the bent photons the actually manipulated "matter" there, you'd have to make special rules and explainations as to why any onlooker - living or non-living - would get any form of resistance test at all (regardless of whether or not that test is a Spell Resistance Test by definition)
3. If you really bend light around a person in that manner, the person would be rendered totally "blind" which has ramifications of its own
4. The thermal implications for that aren't that good either.

Trust me, you're far better of with magically created "actual sensory input" - be it at the initial sensor (e.g. eyes and cameras for physical spells) or within the minds of "living" beings (mana versions).



Unfortunately that's no correct either. Certainly, there are range limitations for both target acquisition when casting and certain spells / categories and applications of magical abilities even have limitations based upon magic rating and distance, but those limitations aren't generalized enough. Just as a combat spell can be targeted within Line of Sight as long as the caster can see his target, indirect illusions will affect onlookers within their LOS at the target under the spell's effect regardless of distance, force and magic rating.



So while this might sound nice, it's not correct ... at least not as far as RAW is concerned

They still do, sorry. One success on dodge still equals one success on DRT.



I'll call that a matter of personal experience.



You'd need 5 to successfully dodge



Correct.



Body + available/allocated CP ... we'll get to high enough pool sizes further down.



In order to produce the required number of 5 successes for dodging in your example with 4 successes on the attackers side, a character on average needs 10 dice of combat pool against the base dodge TN of 4. That means we're already talking about someone with an attribute average of 6.66 on Quickness, Intelligence and Willpower. With that kind of Quickness he'd sufficiently be able to wear (ballistic) armor values of 7 (and above, depending on how the attributes are set up in detail). So against a weapon of M base damage (since I used TN 4 for dodge TN no burst/full auto involved) that amounts to a TN of 2 against the vast majority of ranged weapons with a base damage level of M (heavy pistol with power 9 there being the top contender). In order to produce 8 successes against TN of 2 you'd need an average of (surprise!) 9.6 dice. So statistically speaking you're better off soaking there ... and I'd wager that getting 10 dice from Body + CP is easier than getting those 10 dice from just CP.

But let's look at it for a totally average human with all 3s in attributes accross the board who's wearing a 5/3 vest:

His combat pool amounts to 4 but can't remember of the top of my head if the 5/3 vest will already cause him to lose one die there. So I'll take "worst case" and assume that to be true.

Now let's have him getting shot at with 4 successes from a heavy pistol again: He has no way of successfully dodging that attack - even if he had full combat pool available. His TN for dodging would be 4 - but only when unharmed and on average he'd score 1.5 successes. Since he didn't completely dodge those successes are directly transfered onto the now following DRT. That DRT also has a TN of 4 (9 - 5) and with just Body he'd on average again score 1.5 successes => Overall he'd have an average of 3 successes, thus suffering a M wound from the attack.
He could have gone for soaking directly with 3 dice from Body + his 3 CP dice. That would have amounted to the exact same 3 successes against the TN of 4 with the exact same wound as result.

However, the really interesting comparison would have been the situation where said character had already suffered a mere Light Wound and got the same attack. In such a situation his dodge attempt would have been against TN of 5 while soaking would still remain at TN of 4. Now his average number of successes would drop to 2.5 when dodging first vs. 3 when going for soaking directly.

So my conclusion remains: Going for Dodge is usually only worth it once TN for dodge is actually lower than TN for soaking.

First of all, you're assuming a fair number of variables in your favor-- namely, that the TN for soaking will be less than dodging. In other words, you've chosen a biased example. You also deliberately chose an example where the guy cannot fully dodge, which also biases things in your favor. You're also assuming limited successes, and not looking at the variability. Let's try that again, and focus on ranges of probability.

A ordinary human with 5 combat pool is hit by a Slivergun with 4 successes. The slivergun was very common in SR3, and has roots in Neuromancer, so it's a very appropriate gun. We'll assume enough armor that his soak TN is 4. If he dodges, and rolls well, he can completely avoid taking any damage. If he does not fully dodge, he will reduce the damage, enough so that he doesn't have as much damage to soak with his body.

But if he only soaks? Even if he rolls all successes, he will take damage. He simply does not have enough dice to stage down the damage. So, the probabilities favor dodging over soaking, because of the variability in outcome: only dodging carries the possibility of avoiding all damage.

Also there never is any way of knowing whether the enemy has archieved one or onehundred successes.
A dodge might be successfull with only two successes.

Sorry Cain, but this is getting annoying: I explicitly made mention of the involved conditions from my very first comment on when talking about how, when and why players tend to meta game the combat system. Apparently you either chose to ignore that or just selectively read my comments prior to trying to nitpick.

Quite frankly, I never even made claims to the contrary to what you're now trying to argue. So please, just stop it!



That "bias" only exists in your mind and was caused by your own line of argumentation - despite that not even being necessary, since no real claims to the contrary were made.



Fun fact: You were the one who tried to nitpick by explicitly referencing low pool sizes and attributes. But when I'm showing you an example for just that, I'm the one who is making a "biased" example? Hell I could have gone with a 3 successes example on the attack roll and the result overall would still be the same, because that 5/3 armor on a "all 3 in attributes" character would still reduce the available CP to 3 dice thus making a full dodge impossible to begin with.



I "assumed" nothing the like: I took statistical averages on dice rolls there as well as an average human (with an attribute average of 3 in all attributes without creating bias of any kind by maximizing the relevant attributes while lowering those of lesser importance to the example).



Combat Pool of 5 means an average of 3.33 attribute points in Intelligence, Quickness and Willpower. You're already above average ... most likely you'll try to twist that into a Quickness of 4 in order to be able to wear more armor without losing a CP die. But this doesn't look good in terms of your "no bias please" accusation.



First, the Slivergun has rule-wise so many exceptions associated to itself that - while being iconic - it certainly does not represent "the average" within its own weapon class.
Second, your example doesn't work out, since the Slivergun with its flechette ammunition limitation always goes against doubled impact armor and doesn't get the damage staging effect for flechette. So an impact value of 2 would only reduce soak TN to 5 while 3 points of impact would lower it to 3 already. No TN4 possible in your example and the base damage level is still only M on that armored target, thus requiring a maximum of 8 successes on a DRT to go unharmed.



Statistically he'd need a full 100% successes rate on his 5 CP dice in order to manage that. The probability for that is IIRC about 3.12%



Now lets have our body 3 (see, unbiased there) character use his 5 dice of CP for soaking against the corrected TN of 3 in your example and let's see how high the probability of getting the required 8 successes for going unharmed are: 3.90%

I guess directly soaking is statistically better again and your own attempt of creating a biased example (where you intended the character to be unable to completely soak in the first place) just failed.

But I guess you'll now want to change your own bias by switching the gun to a generic heavy pistol against ballistic armor of 5 in order to get back to that TN of 4 for both soaking and dodging and then you'll gleefully tell me that in that case the dodge probability remains at 3.12% while the soak probability drops to 0,39%? Unfortunately I'll then demand that you remove the above average Quickness bias (by transferring it to Willpower in order to maintain your original CP number) and have him suffer that 1 die CP loss due to 2 full points of ballistics above Quickness of 3 => Even with your above average bias only 4 CP dice available and it's again impossible to fully dodge against 4 successes of an attacker and he'll definitely take damage. Interestingly enough the probability of scoring the maximum number of 7 successes with a resulting L Wound would amount to 0.78% in either case, while average would still be a total of 3.5 successes for either sequence which would still result in a M Wound in both cases.

I guess we could go on there in circles for some time, but I guess we then better don't talk about how often you'll see a player character (starting or advanced) with those kind of low attribute and armor values ... because remember: This was about how and why players tend to meta the system

I think the only bias lies in the assumption of 4 successes on the attackers side.

One side of the attack (the defender) is assumed to have average values at 3,
while the other side (the attacker) is assumed to achieve 4 successes.

This means that with an average skill of 3 on the gun,
they would have had to invest 5 pool dice,
to get to the 8 dice he needs on average for 4 successes.

This is going under the assumption that he is firing with a TN of 4,
it might be worse.

My point is that the dodge test is influenced from two sides.

If you assume that the enemy has a low TN on his attack,
dodging may be a bad option for you, because he likely has a lot of successes,
and thus you will probably not achieve a full dodge.
If you assume that he has a high TN,
dodging has a way higher chance of success.

The other side is the armor/damage thing.
If the damage code is low, or modified to a low value,
dodging is not necessary, for you can add your pool dice to the DRT instead.
If the damage code is high, dodging is necessary,
and might be necessary even if you assume a low TN on the attack roll.

I like the mechanic, it is surprisingly simple once you write it down in a simplified form,
as I have down for my little house-rule-project. The wording in the BBB is needlessly word-heavy.
And I hate the way 4th has included dodge-tests as a standard,
thus adding one more dice-roll for the standard attack sequence,
and added Full Defense for ranged combat.

As discussed before in this thread:
Game-mastery comes into play sooner or later.
After all, it is one aspect of RPGs that make the game exciting.
This is where it comes in when ranged attacks are concerned.

Of course you can math-hammer this stuff, I totally agree, and I can imagine how annoying that gets,
but it is the GM's prerogative to put some time-limits on this stuff.

His observation is pretty much spot on: you don't like the fact that a player can look at the weapon they're up against and say "Hmm, I think I'm better off standing my ground than trying to dodge," or "Dodging will be much easier, I'll do that." It's not some kind of hideous metagaming filth to do that, WHFRP and Dark Heresy both include Parry and Dodge actions whose effectiveness depend upon your own skills and those of your opponent, and you can work out that your toughness + armor is enough to make the attack useless so you don't even need to do that. It's a fairly typical feature of any combat system.

If you have a player spending 30 seconds wibbling between the two and trying to math out the best way to go, that's when the GM implements RL time limits (10 seconds or less) before the character defaults to not using your combat pool at all. I never had to do that once in 4 years of GMing SR3, but the option was there.



Characters being able to decide if they want to try to dodge bullets or trust to their armor to handle it while focusing on other tasks is not a weakness or a flaw at all.



Wait, you give them damage codes? Before they actually make their dodge and damage resistance test?

Chummer, I think I see where your problem is.

Damage is staged up/staged down based on the successes the defender get vs. what the attacker got. If the base damage code is 9m, they don't need to know the "9" part until they're rolling to soak, after they're already decided if they're going to try to dodge and how much to commit to dodging. The "m" part they don't even need to know until after all tests have been made and you're staging the damage up or down.

My players would dodge or soak based on the kind of weapons being fired at them. I didn't make them do perception tests because a shadowrunner can tell the difference between a fragging pistol, submachine gun, assault rifle, and the like. They didn't know the exact code, but they knew the ballpark, same as their characters would. From there, depending on how many bullets were flying they'd make their decision, and we'd go from there.

If you gave your players the initial damage code involved and then gave them all the time in the world to decide what to do, I could see that being really painful, yeah.

You selected the example based on 4 attacker successes, and chose defender attributes that could not dodge. And then, when I put up a more fair example, you complained about me being biased?


The problem is, you're only looking at one value: the expected value. In real probability, things are expressed as a range, usually conforming to the normal curve. In other words, try again, your bias is showing.

A rather normal situation for the circumstances you yourself tried to focus on when mentioning low attributes and pool sizes. Fun fact: I didn't even look at the numbers and the probabilities before opting for that "all 3 attribute" character as an example.



Actually no, I do not complain about you being "biased" at all. I merely pointed your own accusation of me having picked a biased example back at you and even corrected some of the wrong parts about your example. Matter of fact:

You are trying hard to provide an example where Dodging is the superior choice in comparison to direct Damage Resistance. While that's fine and dandy, it's also just a waste of time because I nowhere made the claim that soaking is in general better than dodging nor did I claim that situations where Dodging is in fact better do not exist. My claim still is, that players tend to use their system familiarity / knowledge to analyze the probabilities of success and subsequently will make their choice based on that and not necessarily based on character knowledge. I further do make the claim that there is a general tendency to CP usage on the Damage Resistance Test due to the numbers involved - particularly once a character is already wounded.



Incorrect, by now I have provided looks at average expected values as well as probability for highest possible success rate. I could certainly go on involve standard deviation and stuff like that, but as a matter of fact: Those wouldn't change anything. Neither in terms of you trying to provide your own form of "biased" example to prove a point against a claim that actually wasn't even made, nor about how the statistical numbers work against the use of CP for Dodge due to how the system works overall.



~laugh~ Come on, humor me with further explanations on the normal curve. It will be particularly interesting to hear your explanation as to how the discrete (random) probability distribution of a d6 turns into a continuous (random) probability distribution. For starters I'd suggest you have look at this and this




I could comment about what is showing with your comments there, but I guess that could turn into a violation of TOU