Hello!
My players and myself are trying to come to terms with how movement, cover and attacking works in SR5. Now in many other games you can normally take one move and one attack, but not mix them in between: You can't run around a corner, shoot, and then run back to safety with no risk of being hit.
It seems that it could be done in SR, and if you are close to a corner you can even pull it off without the running penalty:
On your turn, you can walk a couple of meters around the corner, take a shot at an enemy down a hallway, and then walk back around the corner making it pretty much impossible to target you. and it costs no action at all except for firing, you can even Aim before shooting this way. Or, you can move to the corner, take a simple action to take cover, and then shoot, with less chance to hit and also exposing yourself somewhat for counterattack.
Is this working as intended? Am I overlooking some rule? If I start doing this with the NPCs too I think the players will hate it as much as I do.
Possible fix: On each phase you can either move before or after taking a simple or complex action, not both. So you can't move 3 meters, simple action aim, simple action shoot, move 4 meters away. Standing at a corner and taking one shot before moving away would be legitimate, but that means if you want to shoot next phase you would need to expose yourself.
Full Version: Hit & run tactics in SR, and taking cover action
I had a very similar problem in 4th Edition when players wanted to pop out of cover shoot, then drop back into cover without ever being exposed. Of course, the opposition did the same, so nobody ever had any targets, so combats turned into long standoffs that weren't very fun. I eventually broke the impasse by ruling that if you exposed yourself to shoot then you were vulnerable to counterattack during that initiative pass.
5th Edition recognized the issue and introduced the Take Cover simple action, which didn't exist in 4E. This was intended to represent the physical movement and effort of dropping behind cover. Leaving cover doesn't have a dedicated action, so there's still a potential argument around whether someone can leave cover (free action?), shoot (simple), and then return to cover (simple) without exposing themselves, which is basically the situation you are describing. I still rule that if you take a shot from cover then you are vulnerable to counterattack that initiative pass. It is a practical approach to prevent combat from dragging out unnecessarily and to smooth out some of the realism absurdities of a turn-based system.
5th Edition recognized the issue and introduced the Take Cover simple action, which didn't exist in 4E. This was intended to represent the physical movement and effort of dropping behind cover. Leaving cover doesn't have a dedicated action, so there's still a potential argument around whether someone can leave cover (free action?), shoot (simple), and then return to cover (simple) without exposing themselves, which is basically the situation you are describing. I still rule that if you take a shot from cover then you are vulnerable to counterattack that initiative pass. It is a practical approach to prevent combat from dragging out unnecessarily and to smooth out some of the realism absurdities of a turn-based system.
QUOTE (Tecumseh @ Oct 27 2016, 09:55 PM) 
I had a very similar problem in 4th Edition when players wanted to pop out of cover shoot, then drop back into cover without ever being exposed. Of course, the opposition did the same, so nobody ever had any targets, so combats turned into long standoffs that weren't very fun. I eventually broke the impasse by ruling that if you exposed yourself to shoot then you were vulnerable to counterattack during that initiative pass.
5th Edition recognized the issue and introduced the Take Cover simple action, which didn't exist in 4E. This was intended to represent the physical movement and effort of dropping behind cover. Leaving cover doesn't have a dedicated action, so there's still a potential argument around whether someone can leave cover (free action?), shoot (simple), and then return to cover (simple) without exposing themselves, which is basically the situation you are describing. I still rule that if you take a shot from cover then you are vulnerable to counterattack that initiative pass. It is a practical approach to prevent combat from dragging out unnecessarily and to smooth out some of the realism absurdities of a turn-based system.
5th Edition recognized the issue and introduced the Take Cover simple action, which didn't exist in 4E. This was intended to represent the physical movement and effort of dropping behind cover. Leaving cover doesn't have a dedicated action, so there's still a potential argument around whether someone can leave cover (free action?), shoot (simple), and then return to cover (simple) without exposing themselves, which is basically the situation you are describing. I still rule that if you take a shot from cover then you are vulnerable to counterattack that initiative pass. It is a practical approach to prevent combat from dragging out unnecessarily and to smooth out some of the realism absurdities of a turn-based system.
Sounds like a good rule, but it needs something solid to enforce it. I don't want to make a rule where running away etc. is not an option. As long as you can both attack and move it should be possible to attack and then flee, the onkly issue IMO is when you can reverse it next phase with no danger.
I must admit I still don't understand the Take Cover simple action. Ok, it makes some sense if you have limited cover but need to make yourself as small as possible, but overall simply moving behind something should not take more time than simply moving. If you are running behind a wall that covers more than 50% of you, you still need to take an action to get any benefit? In any case, regardless of cover bonus to defense, the rules on barriers still makes you safe if you simply run around the corner in a corridor, as weapon't often can't hope to penetrate (and then there is the blind fire penalty). So for my purpose, even if I enforce the take cover rule the problem remains.
The way I handled it in SR4 was to consider that actions are more or less simultaneous: if someone is shooting from a cover (with the -1 modifier for doing so), it means that someone else can shoot him (with the cover modifier for the defender).
Also don't forget that with smartguns, it's possible to shoot from behind a cover without having to pop out of cover.
Also don't forget that with smartguns, it's possible to shoot from behind a cover without having to pop out of cover.
I don't know if it is how the rules are intended, but I've always allowed held actions to be used to interrupt in this fashion--but I give priority as simple/complex actions over moves, and the person whoto the simple/complex action of the actor. That is, A is going to step around the corner, shoot, then return to cover. B has a held action.
-A steps out, so now B can see A
-B decides to use held action to shoot
-A is the actor, so shoots first as planned (actor has priority over held action)
-B, using a held action, shoots next (action has priority over movement)
-A then gets to move more
-A steps out, so now B can see A
-B decides to use held action to shoot
-A is the actor, so shoots first as planned (actor has priority over held action)
-B, using a held action, shoots next (action has priority over movement)
-A then gets to move more
As for Take Cover, if you don't like it for movement which would naturally provide cover - like running around a corner - then apply it to actions like ducking behind a desk or hunkering down behind the team's troll.
As for sequences of attack and movement actions, I think my approach is basically the same as Blade's, just stated slightly differently. Again, it comes down to the abstractions of a turn-based system and how you want to balance realism with gameplay.
An example
Berserker and Shooter both have 1 IP. Berserker has an axe. Shooter has a gun drawn and at the ready.
They are standing across a room from each other, 10 meters apart. Berserker has initiative 9 while Shooter has initiative 8.
Per the rules, Berserker acts first and can run across the room (presuming a reasonable AGI) and use his axe to chop Shooter into little bits. That's how the rules are written: Berserker can take all his actions (movement and attack) all at once before Shooter acts.
Logically/realistically, Shooter should be able to twitch his trigger finger (or mentally trip his smartgun link) a couple times while Berserker is running across the room, but that's not supported by the rules.
Additional absurdity: let's say Berserker has initiative 11 and Shooter has initiative 8. Now, because Berserker has 2 IPs, he's only allowed to take half his movement in his first IP. That means he can only get halfway across the room, which means that Shooter will have an opportunity to plug Berserker a couple times before he arrives with his axe. So, per the rules, Berserker is potentially better off with lower initiative and only 1 IP.
You have to decide whether you want to favor rules-as-written mechanics for consistency or whether you want to overrule them occasionally in order to preserve some sense of reason and realism. That's a choice every GM and every table has to make on their own. People will differ on which approach they find to be more fair. As they are, the rules are abstractions that attempt to balance the bookkeeping and event-processing demands on the GM, but they cannot perfectly adjudicate every situation.
Too long, didn't read: I don't think you're going to find anything more "solid" to enforce an interpretation. Talk it over with your table to try to build some consensus around how they want to handle it, with the clear understanding that whatever approach you use will apply to the opposition as well.
As for sequences of attack and movement actions, I think my approach is basically the same as Blade's, just stated slightly differently. Again, it comes down to the abstractions of a turn-based system and how you want to balance realism with gameplay.
An example
Berserker and Shooter both have 1 IP. Berserker has an axe. Shooter has a gun drawn and at the ready.
They are standing across a room from each other, 10 meters apart. Berserker has initiative 9 while Shooter has initiative 8.
Per the rules, Berserker acts first and can run across the room (presuming a reasonable AGI) and use his axe to chop Shooter into little bits. That's how the rules are written: Berserker can take all his actions (movement and attack) all at once before Shooter acts.
Logically/realistically, Shooter should be able to twitch his trigger finger (or mentally trip his smartgun link) a couple times while Berserker is running across the room, but that's not supported by the rules.
Additional absurdity: let's say Berserker has initiative 11 and Shooter has initiative 8. Now, because Berserker has 2 IPs, he's only allowed to take half his movement in his first IP. That means he can only get halfway across the room, which means that Shooter will have an opportunity to plug Berserker a couple times before he arrives with his axe. So, per the rules, Berserker is potentially better off with lower initiative and only 1 IP.
You have to decide whether you want to favor rules-as-written mechanics for consistency or whether you want to overrule them occasionally in order to preserve some sense of reason and realism. That's a choice every GM and every table has to make on their own. People will differ on which approach they find to be more fair. As they are, the rules are abstractions that attempt to balance the bookkeeping and event-processing demands on the GM, but they cannot perfectly adjudicate every situation.
Too long, didn't read: I don't think you're going to find anything more "solid" to enforce an interpretation. Talk it over with your table to try to build some consensus around how they want to handle it, with the clear understanding that whatever approach you use will apply to the opposition as well.
There are a few versions of house rules out there that look into this. Most of them retain cover but give benefits to actually using the Simple Action.
+2 dice for cover (incedental cover or just having obstructions between shooter and target, or being prone at range, etc.)
+4 dice for Taking Cover (as above but using Take Cover action)
Or
+2 dice for cover (incidental cover etc.)
+2 HITS for Taking Cover (not just dice but hits)
Or some variation thereof. I have tried both and they both work well.
+2 dice for cover (incedental cover or just having obstructions between shooter and target, or being prone at range, etc.)
+4 dice for Taking Cover (as above but using Take Cover action)
Or
+2 dice for cover (incidental cover etc.)
+2 HITS for Taking Cover (not just dice but hits)
Or some variation thereof. I have tried both and they both work well.
QUOTE (Tecumseh @ Oct 28 2016, 08:57 PM)
As for Take Cover, if you don't like it for movement which would naturally provide cover - like running around a corner - then apply it to actions like ducking behind a desk or hunkering down behind the team's troll.
As for sequences of attack and movement actions, I think my approach is basically the same as Blade's, just stated slightly differently. Again, it comes down to the abstractions of a turn-based system and how you want to balance realism with gameplay.
An example
Berserker and Shooter both have 1 IP. Berserker has an axe. Shooter has a gun drawn and at the ready.
They are standing across a room from each other, 10 meters apart. Berserker has initiative 9 while Shooter has initiative 8.
Per the rules, Berserker acts first and can run across the room (presuming a reasonable AGI) and use his axe to chop Shooter into little bits. That's how the rules are written: Berserker can take all his actions (movement and attack) all at once before Shooter acts.
Logically/realistically, Shooter should be able to twitch his trigger finger (or mentally trip his smartgun link) a couple times while Berserker is running across the room, but that's not supported by the rules.
Additional absurdity: let's say Berserker has initiative 11 and Shooter has initiative 8. Now, because Berserker has 2 IPs, he's only allowed to take half his movement in his first IP. That means he can only get halfway across the room, which means that Shooter will have an opportunity to plug Berserker a couple times before he arrives with his axe. So, per the rules, Berserker is potentially better off with lower initiative and only 1 IP.
You have to decide whether you want to favor rules-as-written mechanics for consistency or whether you want to overrule them occasionally in order to preserve some sense of reason and realism. That's a choice every GM and every table has to make on their own. People will differ on which approach they find to be more fair. As they are, the rules are abstractions that attempt to balance the bookkeeping and event-processing demands on the GM, but they cannot perfectly adjudicate every situation.
Too long, didn't read: I don't think you're going to find anything more "solid" to enforce an interpretation. Talk it over with your table to try to build some consensus around how they want to handle it, with the clear understanding that whatever approach you use will apply to the opposition as well.
As for sequences of attack and movement actions, I think my approach is basically the same as Blade's, just stated slightly differently. Again, it comes down to the abstractions of a turn-based system and how you want to balance realism with gameplay.
An example
Berserker and Shooter both have 1 IP. Berserker has an axe. Shooter has a gun drawn and at the ready.
They are standing across a room from each other, 10 meters apart. Berserker has initiative 9 while Shooter has initiative 8.
Per the rules, Berserker acts first and can run across the room (presuming a reasonable AGI) and use his axe to chop Shooter into little bits. That's how the rules are written: Berserker can take all his actions (movement and attack) all at once before Shooter acts.
Logically/realistically, Shooter should be able to twitch his trigger finger (or mentally trip his smartgun link) a couple times while Berserker is running across the room, but that's not supported by the rules.
Additional absurdity: let's say Berserker has initiative 11 and Shooter has initiative 8. Now, because Berserker has 2 IPs, he's only allowed to take half his movement in his first IP. That means he can only get halfway across the room, which means that Shooter will have an opportunity to plug Berserker a couple times before he arrives with his axe. So, per the rules, Berserker is potentially better off with lower initiative and only 1 IP.
You have to decide whether you want to favor rules-as-written mechanics for consistency or whether you want to overrule them occasionally in order to preserve some sense of reason and realism. That's a choice every GM and every table has to make on their own. People will differ on which approach they find to be more fair. As they are, the rules are abstractions that attempt to balance the bookkeeping and event-processing demands on the GM, but they cannot perfectly adjudicate every situation.
Too long, didn't read: I don't think you're going to find anything more "solid" to enforce an interpretation. Talk it over with your table to try to build some consensus around how they want to handle it, with the clear understanding that whatever approach you use will apply to the opposition as well.
I'm not so sure the shooter will always be able to shoot first. True, if you have a ready firearm aimed at someone it takes very little effort to shoot, while running and chopping takes a lot more, but it really takes very little time for someone to close the distance of a room and stab or hit someone with a blade - RL statistics determined that on most engagements between someone who has to draw the gun and shoot, an assailant with a knife would be able to run several meters and attack before they could get off a shot - in game terms that's a simple action + a simple action being slower than movement + 1 complex action.
I think in this sense reaction time will matter the most, so if the Berserker wins initiative he can make the attack, barring a held action from the shooter (which represents someone with a gun ready to fire).
In the case of 2 IPs that's 4th edition rules, in 5th edition you can spend all your movement in the first pass if you want to. And I think it is a good change to allow melee characters not be completely useless, even if not necessarily realistic.
So far I'm handling cover like this: If you take the action you can get +4, otherwise you only get partial cover. If you run behind total cover you can only attack before, not after, so you will have to expose yourself in most cases - the players agreed that move, shoot, move exploits the system and we ruled that you can only move+shoot or shoot+move in a single pass. This has worked fairly well so far.
Awarding 2 hits on defense from take cover action is interesting, but might make firefights too long. 2 hits is equivalent of 6 dice, but then again 6 dice can produce more results so it could work. Anyone tested this out already? I could even make it a choice, with Edge +4 dice might actually be preferable sometimes, and if the defender has enough penalties to defense (autofire, reach, Confusion spell, wounds) getting 2 free hits might be too good.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.