Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Vehicle Damage Resistance Test
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Mephisto
Hi all!
I recently discussed with others from my group if we should alter the vehicle damage resistance test and I like to ask for some input. "Search" didn't show up anything for me.

The "Problem": My group see it as a problem that if a vehicle with a low body (no rigger steering it) is hit with a weapon (like a sniper rifle) capable of doing about medium damage paired with some successes to stage up the damage will most likely severely damage or destroy a vehicle. Even if you reduce the power of the attack to "2", if you have a body of say 3 and an medium damage with 4 successes it will come out in the best of circumstances as a severe damage by a single shot.

Thought: We have thought about cancelling the staging of successes but this won't solve the problem with high damage weapons. Another thought was doubling the body of the vehicle for resistance tests.

Does anybody have any house rules on this one and/or experience with it?

Looking forward to your suggestions!
Quix
I hate giving responses with game balance as the reason. But that is my opinion on drones and low bod's. The PCs I've had who played riggers were better abd bigger gunbunnies then any of our sammies. For vehicles without riggers this leaves you on the short end of the stick but... what can I say, I can't solve all the worlds problems. I'm too lazy.
Austere Emancipator
I was playing around with giving vehicles 3x their Body for Damage Resistance Tests. That would allow even the smaller vehicles to usually stage down damage against most small arms. Against very large vehicles, this would realistically require you to use some heavy weaponry -- or AV ammo with any old crappy gun apart from Hold-Out Pistols. There's just no way any unarmored target can expect to stage down an AV Sniper Rifle shot, or an AV burst from any FA capable weapon. Remember, it takes 72 dice on average to stage down once against a Power of 12.
Kagetenshi
Not much of a problem. Going into combat with an unarmored vehicle is like going in unarmored as a character.

If you're determined to change it, doubling Body dice doesn't seem too bad.

~J
Demon
the thing about it that bothers me so much is that their is alot of dead space in a vehical. Shooting one generally denotes aiming center mass. well if you shot is off and you hit the trunk, or passenger compartment (aside from the risk to the passenger) you are going to do next to nothing to the vehical (cosmetic obviously aside). If you hit any of the vital parts of the car then sure, but for the most part those are all in the engine area and along the bottom, if your not taking aim at one of those parts you prolly aren't gonna hit nothing worth while.
Kagetenshi
That's where the damage level reduction and halving of Power comes in.

~J
Fonitrus
QUOTE
the thing about it that bothers me so much is that their is alot of dead space in a vehical. Shooting one generally denotes aiming center mass.


If you really think about it. Take a step back and look at all rules in SR they are very 'abstract'. What i mean is they seem to be designed to "roll your dice, determine result, then provide a verbose story of what happened" unlike what we r use to "give story of actions, roll then result"

the former purely is what SR rules give u. The latter is what i would consider Called Shot or like special increasen TN mod becaus of wanting particular result...

QUOTE
well if you shot is off and you hit the trunk, or passenger compartment (aside from the risk to the passenger) you are going to do next to nothing to the vehical (cosmetic obviously aside). If you hit any of the vital parts of the car then sure, but for the most part those are all in the engine area and along the bottom, if your not taking aim at one of those parts you prolly aren't gonna hit nothing worth while.


Like I said. Your best bet is to just hope your GM is a good storyteller and u say "im shooting at the vehicle"...no need for further talking...then have the GM describe in full detail wat your roll says ingame...

Most of us are used to be in control and WANT to do something but the abstract nature of the rules dont allow that.
I mean think of armour. Secure jacket gives 5/3 overall armour..Thats very abstract..I dont mind it cause i like abstractions, provides transparency of the mechanics layer of the game. But ingame alot of us would want to justify that 5/3 cannot be eqwually be applied to the foot aswell as to the torzo. But that is too deep into the lower level of mechanics of the game that honestly we as players should not be bothered. Either that or House Rule and addopt some design of armour points per location and go modify your combat rules...

As for vehicle survival 5 points of armour is plenty against MOST firearms in the game except for special ammo and nasty heavy weapons and sniper rifles.
But you are not shot at by sniper rifles on daily basis (if yes your GM should reconsider another 'career').

However you can varry the dice depends on how survivable your vehicles are.
But be carefull armoured vehicles PLUS modified Body REsistance Dice = TANK
dont over do it.

if u do decide to change here is what i have found out to be a good variant
Unarmored Vehicles (armour =0) roll Body*3 dice
Armoured Vehicles (armour>0) roll Body*1.5 dice (round down)

try it out..you'll see its nice
Kagetenshi
The problem with that is that makes an Armor 1 vehicle worse than an unarmored vehicle of the same type for low Powers. For instance, take a heavy pistol (9M) against a Body 3 car with 2 points of armor. That starts off at 4L. We can't guarantee lack of staging, so we'll just try to get as many successes as possible against TN 4. With one point of armor we get four dice against TN 3, for an average of two to three successes. With no armor we've got nine dice against TN 4, for four to five successes.

Edit: in the case of a Body 3 vehicle, the example holds true all the way up to Armor 3, though the lead that the unarmored vehicle gets is reduced.

Talking about vans or transports stacks this even more against lightly-armored vehicles.

~J
Fonitrus
true but if u r a runner u r not gona go into nasty places with armour 1 or 2 same as if u wont go into combat (willingly) with only 2 balistic armour.

You are gona fork out some ¥ to get your car done up properly to be able to do the job. there is no half-good vehicle...it either stands up to the test or it falters..
thats why the 1.5*Body...in games i have played and have GMed always armour 5 was the place to be and armour 5 in most games i have GMed and curently running in, is the norm. Armour 5 is afordable and just under that point when ur handling suffers. takes up load..

as for the comparison of armoured vs non armoured ebing worse off at low ratings..well its adustable...
u can increase the threshold....i never bothered cause i never seen vehicles with less than 5 armour..except for bikes and few drones...

but to seriously think about it...lvl1 armour with body*1.5 dice is bit better than armour 1 and just plain Body dice....
so really no complaining..u r better off anyway..
u can raise the 1.5 to 2 easy
RangerJoe
(Quick aside. Good points, all, but Fonitrus, could you please refrain from using "u" when you mean "you" and "r" when you mean "r"? Cheers. I know I speak for many when I say that seeing "u r" anything makes our eyes weep. Unless you're talking about Ur, in which case all bets are off)
Austere Emancipator
I am personally against any such "poverty traps", especially when there is no RL reason why such should exist.

Yes, multiplied Body dice coupled with a few points of Vehicle armor does make many vehicles very hard to disable with small arms. Considering how much punishment (lightly) armored HMMWVs can take from AKs, I have no problem with that.
Fonitrus
QUOTE
(Quick aside. Good points, all, but Fonitrus, could you please refrain from using "u" when you mean "you" and "r" when you mean "r"? Cheers. I know I speak for many when I say that seeing "u r" anything makes our eyes weep. Unless you're talking about Ur, in which case all bets are off)


its kind of a habit.

"u r" ? Ur? i don't get the association with your eyes weeping. (might be cause English isn't my 1st language)

*start whiny voice* Please Explain */end whiny voice*
Kagetenshi
There are canon vehicles with Armor 3 and under (3 being the heavy pistol cutoff point) off the shelf. Some people will buy them and not upgrade. Most non-Riggers don't intend for their vehicles to see combat anyway, it's one of those things that happens by accident.

~J
Namergon
Some notes:
- a vehicle is most of time a (very) moving target. Hitting it is therefore difficult (high TN, hence not many successes).
- when the vehicle is parked, sure it is an easier target. No problem to hit a strategic point of the car.
- "destroyed" in the condition monitor of a vehicle should be taken with a grain of salt. I would rather say "so broken that make it work again would cost more than buying a new one"
Kagetenshi
Nope. Destroyed means it stops working and won't start again without serious repair. Whether or not that repair is cost-effective is an entirely different matter.

The rest of the car may be fine, but if the engine disintegrates the car is destroyed.

~J
Fonitrus
QUOTE
Nope. Destroyed means it stops working and won't start again without serious repair. Whether or not that repair is cost-effective is an entirely different matter.


I agree there.

As for the repairs BBB states 5% per box * Vehicle Cost
so 10 boxes=50% of vehicle cost to repair the damn thing..

very cost effective..especially if it had some decent modifications that are hard to find...
Kagetenshi
Yep, though the whole GM fiat thing comes into play if the damage was done with explosives or AV FA miniguns/HVHMGs firing their entire bursts, or if the chassis is shelled afterwards.

~J
Austere Emancipator
I actually consider the D on vehicles to be "unable to move with its own power at the moment", nothing more. Exactly how broken it is usually depends on what it was hit with and how. Regardless, RL vehicles can often take a lot of punishment before reaching that state.

[Edit]I'm getting slow. frown.gif[/Edit]
Lindt
I have seriously considered using the 2x body rule, as I complelty agree that cars just arnt durable enough. The idea that I can scrap a car with 1 shot from a hand gun just dosent seem right to me (again, ignoring AV and what not). Sure, once you get into heavy weaponry, as I feel prefectly justified to blowing the bugger up if you unload on it with a 20mm cannon.
Also agree that D damage to a vehicle is that point where it stops working. The can it be fixed question is GMs advantage, someone unloads on a car (from the front lets say) with an SMG, its gonna do a lotta body work damage, the battery is most likely gone, same with raidatior, probely the oil, air and AC pumps, along with the alternator. Someone pulls out his LAW rocket, well its all over then.
Modesitt
This is slightly off-topic, but you'll find it very hard to convince your GM to hear the plight of the unarmored vehicles once you bring a drone with some armor into the game.

Example:
GM: "Ok, it has 3 successes with a shotgun. How many soak dice for the drone?"
Me: "2, but it doesn't matter. The shotgun slug bounces off the armor."
GM: "What?"
Me: "I don't even need to bother soaking. Subtract one damage level and cut the power in half, if that isn't higher than the armor of the vehicle it simply doesn't do any damage. This steel lynx has 9 armor."
GM: *Sound of GMs head exploding*

My thoughts: Triple the bodies of all vehicles, but downgrade armor. Maybe change it so every point of armor is another die on resistance tests AND a point of normal armor. Or create a new customization feature called "Reinforced Frame" that gives you more dice for vehicle damage resistance tests and make all vehicle armor count as standard armor.
Austere Emancipator
Shotgun slugs doing nothing to armored targets shouldn't surprise anyone, really. What should really make the GM's head explode is that the Steel Lynx is immune to the Barrett M121's custom AP ammunition.
Kagetenshi
This is as good a time as any to ask for opinions on a house rule: is it reasonable to give APDS rounds their usual bonus against vehicles, but not cancel any of the vehicle's bonuses? IE, the armor is halved, but the power of the attack is still halved as well and the damage level dropped by 1?

For example, say someone has a custom sporting rifle (8S) and is attacking a drone of Armor 6. With normal rounds, the attack would be bounced; with AV rounds, it would end up being 5S after armor. With proposed APDS rules, APDS would generate 4M vs. Armor 3, or 1M.

~J
BitBasher
Not in my opinion. I treat APDS as standard ammo.

AV ammo is crackheaded. I treat AV as losing a power level and NOT dividing the armor by two, IE the vehicle gets full armor but it still penetrates twice as easily as standard ammo. This relieves the crackhead effect of AV ammo being more than four times as effective, essentially you go from "can't hurt it" to "it explodes from a heavy pistol shot" in one go. This also means something with 10 points of armor is safe from small arms fire, as I think it should be. Want to kill an APC? Go buy an assault canon with AV rounds or a missile. That's what they're for. This makes AV in man portable guns a stepping stone between normal ammo and heavy av weapons instead of an effective replacement for them.

I also limit drone armor to 3x the body of the drone and this solves most of all problems with the combat.
littlesean
Something to consider when accounting for damage on vehicles. Air bags.

Ok, well not air bags specifically, but look back 35 years and see how much electronics and safety equipment, not to mention environmental equipment and black box technology, were actually on vehicles. You really did have to hit the engine or gas tank to really make a difference.

Now, shoot the front bumper and the air bags may deploy, and if you are doing 100kph in a combat situation, that could be bad. There are sensors all over the vehicle to determine roll over, crashes and deploy safety equipment. What if a shot accidentally activates the retractable hardtop while in above combat situation? That would seriously affect the aerodynamics of the vehicle, converting it from a sleek bullet silhouette to an air scoop.

Go ahead another 60 years, and what kind of stupid crap has been legislatively 'required' for your vehicle to operate? (Please note, I don't think airbags, seatbelts, or catalytic converters are stupid, but the black box thing is questionable).

The possibilities are mind boggling.

Let your imagination run wild!
Kagetenshi
I'd imagine a rigger or power user would adjust it the way a skiier adjusts his or her binding release settings, decreasing the chance of accidental deployment by increasing the chance of nondeployment when it would be needed (seatbelts being an exception, of course).

~J
Mephisto
Hi all! Thanks for the input and your point of view. I don't know when we will have a combat with a vehicle in it again but I think we will try the body*2 approach and see where it gets us. smile.gif
GrinderTheTroll
I like that view on it Fonitrus, SR is truely more abstract than people like at times.

IRL, even a powerful handgun can crack the engine block of a vehicle, damage the cooling system, or otherwise make it inoperable.

I don't think of "Deadly" damage as flaming explosions unless, well, you get hit with a HE round or something fun like that.

As its been said before, going into a situation with an unarmored vehicle is madness.
Austere Emancipator
Yeah, AV ammo is quite insane, I agree with BitBasher there. My suggestion would be something like this (somewhat furthering Kagetenshi's idea):
APDS: Available for most weapons, halves all armor (including Vehicle armor, but not Bulwark...), Power divided by two and DL lowered by 1 against vehicles as normal.
AV: Only available for big-ass guns -- HMGs, the Barrett (yeah yeah, fuck the custom ammo), Assault Cannons -- halves all armor (again, not Bulwark), Power divided by two but DL not lowered against vehicles.

Or something like that.

APDS ammunition should absolutely penetrate vehicle armor better than standard ammunition. And although the canon AV ammunition really shouldn't penetrate even as well as APDS, it's nice to have some ammunition with capabilities similar to the .50BMG "multipurpose" HEIAP/APEI/HEI/SAPHEI/whatever rounds.
BitBasher
QUOTE
IRL, even a powerful handgun can crack the engine block of a vehicle, damage the cooling system, or otherwise make it inoperable.
I've seen demos attempting this, and no normal pistol cartridge used could actually do it. I could be wrong but IMHO this is kind of a myth.

And I dont think APDS could penetrate vehicke armor at all, it's a discarding sabot and the weight of the round is negligable. it simply doesn't have the mass to do any damage to a vehicle.
ShadowGhost
Another of Shadowrun's infamous vague rules.

QUOTE
If a character is shooting at a vehicle, the weapon's Power is reduced by half (round down) and the Damage Level is reduced by one (D to S, S to M, and M to L) to reflect the vehicle's mass and structural integrity. Weapons that do Light damage cannot affect the vehicle unless the attacker uses special ammunition.


Since they don't specify Base Damage or Modified Damage of Light, it can be interpreted that a heavy pistol firing regular rounds (9M) could do no damage:

.5*9 = 4 (rounded down)
Moderate -> Light.

Modified Damage would be 4L - as a weapon that does Light damage against a vehicle, it could be interpreted that it "cannot affect the vehicle."

You would require a called shot to stage up the damage one level in order to damage the vehicle if the weapon does Base Damage of Moderate, and Modified Damage of Light.

So now it takes a shotgun or rifle to damage a regular vehicle without calling shots.

Of course, this is just one possible interpretation, and gives unarmored cars and trucks a slightly longer life in a firefight.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (ShadowGhost)
Another of Shadowrun's infamous vague rules.

QUOTE
If a character is shooting at a vehicle, the weapon's Power is reduced by half (round down) and the Damage Level is reduced by one (D to S, S to M, and M to L) to reflect the vehicle's mass and structural integrity. Weapons that do Light damage cannot affect the vehicle unless the attacker uses special ammunition.


Since they don't specify Base Damage or Modified Damage of Light, it can be interpreted that a heavy pistol firing regular rounds (9M) could do no damage:

.5*9 = 4 (rounded down)
Moderate -> Light.

Modified Damage would be 4L - as a weapon that does Light damage against a vehicle, it could be interpreted that it "cannot affect the vehicle."

I am pretty sure the "cannot do damage if damage code is Light" is prior to the adjustment, not after. Else you'd need to have a "S" weapon or higher to even damage a vehicle.
mfb
honestly, that doesnt' sound like such a bad idea to me. i agree, however, that the rules probably aren't intended to be interpreted like that.
Ol' Scratch
Note that it says "weapons that do Light damage," not "weapons staged or reduced down to Light damage."
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (BitBasher)
And I dont think APDS could penetrate vehicke armor at all, it's a discarding sabot and the weight of the round is negligable. it simply doesn't have the mass to do any damage to a vehicle.

For the exact same reasons why the round penetrates body armor better it also penetrates vehicle armor better. The metal plates used in body armor are basically much the same stuff that gets used in vehicle armor. Faster, harder, smaller area penetrating = more penetration, plain and simple. The only case where it might be otherwise is when penetrating liquids, where mass is more important than velocity.

I agree that a small arms APDS round wouldn't do a whole damn lot of damage to a vehicle, because it won't penetrate very far through a bunch of metal items, and at best it will just punch a small hole through them. That's why I think ½ Power and -1 DL should absolutely be applied to APDS just like standard ammo, and vehicles should use at least double and maybe even triple Body dice to resist.

It's quite clear from the context of that paragraph that they're referring to the DL prior to adjustment. Of course you're free to interprete it however you will for your games.
Paco
Just a thought, since riggers have their pool to assist them when soaking damage, why not give everyone the ability to have a pool as a house rool. I have thought about it myself jsut never tested it. Maybe their pool is equal to equal to half their driving skill for that vehicle round down, or 1/2 their natural reaction round down, and it can only be used for damage resistance. Just a thought ...
ShadowGhost
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
I am pretty sure the "cannot do damage if damage code is Light" is prior to the adjustment, not after. Else you'd need to have a "S" weapon or higher to even damage a vehicle.

I quite certain it means a weapon with a Base Damage of Light cannot do damage, not a weapon with a Modified Damage Level of light (i.e 1/2 power and DL reduced one)

I'm just saying it's a *possible* interpretation - it also doesn't mean you need a weapon with a minimum base damage of S - a base damage of Moderate with a called shot to stage damage would work as well - i.e. make a called shot to damage engine, gas tank, tires etc.

The called shot modifier makes the TNs a little higher against unarmored vehicles.


Also, a houserule to help - don't allow extra successes to stage damage with regular ammo. (i.e. non AV ammo can't stage successes)

Extra successes would still have to be rolled off on body before staging damage down.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Paco)
Just a thought, since riggers have their pool to assist them when soaking damage, why not give everyone the ability to have a pool as a house rool. I have thought about it myself jsut never tested it. Maybe their pool is equal to equal to half their driving skill for that vehicle round down, or 1/2 their natural reaction round down, and it can only be used for damage resistance. Just a thought ...

Then why bother having riggers? Riggers are supposed to be so good in vehicles that they make them do all kinds of crazy things (like swerve incoming damage, maybe position the vehicle to take less damage, etc).

Riggers need to have something special that sets them apart from the pack IMO.
Ol' Scratch
The target modifier bonus, reduced defaulting penalty, Reaction boost, and Initiative boost are quite sufficient in insuring that riggers remain the top dogs in vehicle combat. Or do you think the combat system should be altered so that only people with Wired Reflexes get a Combat Pool? It's pretty much the same difference (and hell, Wired Reflexes cost a ton more).

This is an old house rule we've been using for ages. Standard drivers get a Control Pool equal to one-half their Reaction (rounded down) and standard drivers using a datajack get full Reaction for the Control Pool. Riggers get all their other perks for using a VCR. As with most pools, you're still limited by your skill level for determining how many pool dice you can use in any single test.

The only impact it's had on game play is allowing non-riggers to actually have a chance of being some competition in vehicle combat. It also allows the "wheelman" and even "stunt driver" character archtypes to be more palatable.
GrinderTheTroll
Hell no I say, Hell no! biggrin.gif

It's sensible enough though, and since SR is perfect as is, none of us ever bow to House rules, eh?
Paco
The rigger still stands out by a long shot, rigger would still have a bigger pool, be able to apply it to more things and take more actions. I just think that while a rigger can pull off the unimaginable compared to a non rigging person, doesn't mean that a non rigger shouldn't be compeltely SOL behind the wheel. The thought was that it would be simpler to give a character extra dice at resisting damage with a vehicle than modifing the vehicle damage rules and vehicle stats.
Neon Tiger
I remember a topic like this from a long time ago...

My suggestion: All non-AV ammo functions as per canon. AV ammo for small arms still gets its damage level reduced, but it neither halves the vehicle armor, nor gets it power halved(but against "soft" targets they still halve armor ratings).

AV ammo for heavy weapons(Assault Cannons, HMGs, large shotguns maybe?) gets no DL or power reductions, but do not still halve vehicle armor.

Truly AV weapons(Great Dragon missiles, Ballista missiles etc) work per canon AV ammo as in no power or DL reductions and halves vehicle armor.

IIRC, SRII had vehicles make their damage resistance tests with body + (armor/2) number of dice + any Control Pool you allocated. Maybe something like that?

Fonitrus
QUOTE (Paco)
Just a thought, since riggers have their pool to assist them when soaking damage, why not give everyone the ability to have a pool as a house rool.  I have thought about it myself jsut never tested it.  Maybe their pool is equal to equal to half their driving skill for that vehicle round down, or 1/2 their natural reaction round down, and it can only be used for damage resistance.  Just a thought ...

If you are going to attempt to leviate the wierd problem of vehicle resistances VIA giving non-riggers extra pool to help them keep the vehicle in operational order under fire, then the same constant must be applied to the rigger as well...

Rigger is just a subclass of a Driver and as such must inherit its abilities.
So if a non-rigger Driver gets half Reaction as pool to save damage on vehicle, then the rigger must get the same PLUS any rigger related bonuses.

But we can go adding constants into the problem until riggers become so overpowerd that no-one will even consider playing anything else. Unarmored body 1 bike that gets 30 dice from rigger because we got carried away with addition of constant to protect our vehicles..

The rigger/driver and its pools are not our problem...Dont fix unless broken..

What is the problem is the ON/OFF type of effect armour has on vehicles... with shooter skill of say 4 and 2 combat pool dice against TN4 u probably have 3 successes.

If the weapon was a 7M smg that bursted, you end up having to resist 3L ->6M with 3 successes
as the rules stand on a SUV with Body 4 and no armour you are going to probably take a Serious damage from all that. And that was just one simple action.
if he took aim and had some lazer sights he shoots at TN2 and generates alot more successes and u end up taking Deadly.
Now start inserting armour values and when you hit 3 you realize that damage is OFF....

Body x 3 is sufficient for most vehicles as it makes them alot more survivable but what used to be fair game SUVs and trucks now are impregnable wheeled fortresses against NPCs that dont have the dice/skill+pool to go behind it...

now assume ut TN was higher than base TN4 and u end up almosy never damaging sufficiently enougha SUV with smallarms fire.

Now why do you want to care?
Simple..reverse the roles. Cruicial VIP/NPC of some sort is running away. He gets into a unarmored jeep..he gets 12 dice...why not make him a rigger with 6 control pool...There is no way in hell (and back if u wanna try again to be sure) you are ever going to catch/stop that vehicle just by shooting it.

Its really bad when House Rules backfire on you and the group fails a run because the VIP had insane amount of dice to throw and the runners we slightly injured to get any more than 3 max successes in the time-span of 3 combat turns. By which time the group lost the VIP as he didint care about saving some control pool for damage resistance and thrw in all his 12 (6 skill + 6 control) dice into accelerating like a mofo down the highway...

Body x 2 is slightly better.
Bu i think due to the way d6 probabilities work out we dnt just need a fixed number of added dice. We need a formula that gives dice based on maybe armour to keep some sort of a balance between armoured and not armoured vehicles. But as a GM i had enough problems keeping track of all these numbers about the game i was running. Adding another complex formula into the mix will surely piss me off...Also the more non-fixed the formula and the more runtime-computation required to get a simple # of dice to roll to resist then the more chances you have of your PCs fudging their math or forgetting to divide properly or whatever, just to get few (or even just 1) extra dice into the saving throw...
I dont say all PCs are but i have had one in past gaming group that consistently fudged dice (and he wasnt the GM smile.gif )

So a simple solution i think...There is none..Except. Leave it be and compensate elsewhere.
If team vehicle cops flak every session, consider increasing the payment per runs so at least they will not go broke just because they need to repair the vehicles and the SR vehicle rules are wonky smile.gif
or dont target thir vehicle too much and instead do call shots on mirrors, screens and lights and such sort of extras..oh tyres as well...
Or...do 'barrier' shots. Kinda shoot at targets in vehicle without intending to damage the vehicle.. SO only effect is i barrier penetrated passenger may get hit...and thats a nother random-pick-a-target-on-ablind-shot evil.
Da9iel
So what's the barrier rating of a vehicle window/door? Body + armor?
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Fonitrus)
Body x 3 is sufficient for most vehicles as it makes them alot more survivable but what used to be fair game SUVs and trucks now are impregnable wheeled fortresses against NPCs that dont have the dice/skill+pool to go behind it...

I halve Power after all attacker-end modifiers, but that would still not make SUVs or trucks anywhere near impregnable. 8M Assault Rifle 4-round burst = 12S, 6M against vehicles. Skill 4, 4 CP, TN 5, at least 2 successes on average. That's 6S right there, with a truck or other large vehicle with 4-5 Body staging it down once on average, for M damage or L damage every time.
Fonitrus
QUOTE (Da9iel)
So what's the barrier rating of a vehicle window/door? Body + armor?

Armour of course..use double barrier as if barrier penetration rules...
if car unarmoured use default glass rating or hatever seems applicable at the time...

there is a barrier table somewhere in BBB...i never remember things if they r easily accessible in a table.
Capt. Dave
Giving non riggers control pool..HA! Why not give mundanes spell pool? Because they are not mages.
Why not give everyone task pool? Because if they don't buy the cyber/bioware to recieve it, they don't recieve it.
Why not give non-riggers control pool? Because they aren't fraggin riggers. If you want control pool, buy a damn VCR.

Geez, what next? Adaptation pool for everyone?
Ol' Scratch
As previously mentioned, continue on with that logic.

Why not give everyone Combat Pool? Because they aren't fraggin' warriors with combat ware!
Why not give everyone Hacking Pool? Becuase they aren't fraggin' deckers!

Oh wait. Everyone gets Combat Pool and Hacking Pool. Oops. Amazingly, though, it doesn't do much to ruin the effectiveness of those with implants in combat or the matrix. How absolutely absurd! Down with free Combat Pool! Down with free Hacking Pool! Boo! Hiss!
BitBasher
QUOTE (Capt. Dave)
Giving non riggers control pool..HA! Why not give mundanes spell pool? Because they are not mages.
Why not give everyone task pool? Because if they don't buy the cyber/bioware to recieve it, they don't recieve it.
Why not give non-riggers control pool? Because they aren't fraggin riggers. If you want control pool, buy a damn VCR.

Geez, what next? Adaptation pool for everyone?

Actually I give my mundanes control pool equal to their natural reaction. This is not equatable to spell pool because any mundane can drive a car well, but not everyone can cast magic. Also there are certain things that anyone should have a chance to do (like dodge weapon attacks when driving) that are literally impossible without control pool.

In reality, the real rigger will still whomp the piss out of any non rigger because of the TN reduction to the majority of his tests equal to the level of VCR and +2 dice in that pool for each level of VCR. TN reductions are god.

What this also does is make it so a mundane with enough skill can drive with at least some degree of competence, even if he cant touch a rigger.
Rev
Re: what deadly damage means.

It would be very easy to use overdamage to represent additional destruction up to the point of the vehicle being a pile of rubble just like how people die in SR.

Sometimes it might even make sense for vehicles to gain overdamage with time, say if they caught on fire, or were sinking.
Capt. Dave
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
As previously mentioned, continue on with that logic.

Why not give everyone Combat Pool? Because they aren't fraggin' warriors with combat ware!
Why not give everyone Hacking Pool? Becuase they aren't fraggin' deckers!


Well lets look at that again, shall we?

The VCR gives a character control pool. It is a piece of cyberware that gives a character an ability. If you don't have that cyberware, you don't get that ability.

Why not allow all PCs the bounses of bone lacing, wired reflexes, and muscle toner? Because of they do not purchase the ware to get such a bonus, they have to deal without. As I have said, If you want control pool, buy a fraggin' VCR.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012