Full Version: Guesses to how combat might work
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| P.S. I certainly hope that nowhere in the rules will there be something where you have to divide successes by 2. |
That was surely a bad design ...
If complementary test still exist, they should be with statistically half success ...
Which means normal amount of dices, but TN6 instead of 5.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Let me make sure I've summarized allright. You want to call whatever it is you're talking about an "opposed roll" |
Frankly it doesn't matter what you call.
| QUOTE |
| ...(and want to use it for everything from spellcasting to ranged combat to melee combat), |
Want, not want. *shrug* I'm suggesting that is likely what they'll do. But yea, it definately works for me.
| QUOTE |
| but you don't really mean an "opposed roll" by that. |
Not an "Opposed Roll" in the SR3 sense. Because that involves the number of opponent dice being a TN. See below.
| QUOTE |
| And, at the same time, you don't like staging. Because, y'know, number of successes positively isn't an integral idea in Shadowrun's system, and never has been. |
By getting rid of staging i mean the attacker rolls and the target rolls. They compare the number of successes on either side. If the attacker has more the effect affects the target. The more successes the attacker has beyond the target's successes the greater the effect (damage). To differentiate different weapon classes each extra success with, for example, an AR is more damage than with a pistol.
There is no intermediate step where you move damage up by the attackers roll, and then roll the defending dice and then step the damage down. It all happens at once.
| QUOTE (Taki @ May 12 2005, 08:04 AM) | ||
That was surely a bad design ... If complementary test still exist, they should be with statistically half success ... Which means normal amount of dices, but TN6 instead of 5. |
Complementary test/dice always struck me as awkward. First in how you rolled them as an extra roll, or same roll but using different coloured dice to differentiate. Then you had to divide by 2 and round down, which was another example of Skill(1) being the third teat of SR. Then there was the issue of when you got to use them, and what skill worked with what. Very foggy.
There is the related topic of Centering. It would be tougher to kill that off. How that moves over, hmmm. You could add an extra die to the actual Skill roll per Centering test success. But that increases the number of rolls you make.
Having centering skill cost in karma multiplied by two, each die counting as a normal skill die seems better I admit !
| QUOTE (Taki) |
| Having centering skill cost in karma multiplied by two, each die counting as a normal skill die seems better I admit ! |
I'm not certain about that approach. It would still give Centering a boost over SR3 Centering, and put one-of wierdness into character creation and skill buying.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| How often Edge refreshes is going to deteremine how much of the Combat Pool concept still exists in SR4. |
They've already said that Edge is a replacement for karma pool, not combat pool. Doesn't that give a pretty solid hint about the timescale of refresh?
| QUOTE (Ellery @ May 12 2005, 11:22 AM) | ||
They've already said that Edge is a replacement for karma pool, not combat pool. Doesn't that give a pretty solid hint about the timescale of refresh? |
Ya, and the same source called Skill + Attribute a pool.
It's a hint. But certainly not a "solid" hint. Given the likely difference in the size range from the Karma Pool, and that there aren't any other Pools to pile on top of the Edge dice, making the assumption about how often it refreshes is rather dubious.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| There is no intermediate step where you move damage up by the attackers roll, and then roll the defending dice and then step the damage down. It all happens at once. |
the only place i'm aware of in SR3 where that's not already the case is melee combat. in ranged combat, spells, and matrix combat, that's already exactly what you do.
| QUOTE (mfb @ May 12 2005, 11:39 AM) | ||
the only place i'm aware of in SR3 where that's not already the case is melee combat. in ranged combat, spells, and matrix combat, that's already exactly what you do. |
The target has two separate rolls in those cases. Once for Dodge/resistance/etc., and one for staging down the damage. The rolls must be separate because the TNs for each are not connected to each other.
For example a mage shoots a Mana Bolt at you. He selects the Force and Damage level. He then rolls his various dice. That determines the level of damage and the TNs that the target gets to avoid. The target (and anyone providing Spell Defense) then attempts to reduce the success count (resist). If there are any leftover successes the target then uses Body to stage down the damage.
...no. that's how it works with ranged combat, yes (dodge+soak), but for manabolt, your spell resistance test is all you get. there is no body soak after your spell resistance test.
Shhh. Just let him be happy.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| ...no. that's how it works with ranged combat, yes (dodge+soak), but for manabolt, your spell resistance test is all you get. there is no body soak after your spell resistance test. |
Oh right, picked the wrong spell as an example. It's Elemental Manipulations that you stage down. SR3 spells are all over the place with that. Some are opposed, some two-stage opposed, and so on. Leaving Spell Defense out of the picture that is, which adds an extra opposition roll.
So ya, all the spells would become more like a Manabolt. But you wouldn't start out at Medium damage or such. You'd just do extra damage for every over-success. However perhaps you could choose the damage boxes/success that also stipulated the damage/drain to give that go-for-broke option?
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Shhh. Just let him be happy. |
Frankly i've now begun to actively unlearn SR3. I don't plan to play it anymore. Experience tells me that come August the less I know about SR3 the better.
P.S. This means that if i find that SR4 stinks royally then it is unlikely that i will play SR in any form. I'd probably head off in some new direction. I wouldn't like it, and I'd miss the SR world. But I won't miss SR3 all that much. *shrug*
i'll agree that all damaging spells should use the same mechanic. i think (cast)/(resist or dodge)/(soak) would be the best mechanic--slightly more complex, but easier to make match other combat mechanics (ranged, melee, cybercombat, etc).
| QUOTE (mfb @ May 12 2005, 01:04 PM) |
| i'll agree that all damaging spells should use the same mechanic. i think (cast)/(resist or dodge)/(soak) would be the best mechanic--slightly more complex, but easier to make match other combat mechanics (ranged, melee, cybercombat, etc). |
But with fixed a TN you can lump them together. For example, soak and dodge into the same roll. So the target of a pistol attack would roll something like Body+Agility.
EDIT: I mentioned the possibility of this in a thread last week or so. TeOdio also mentioned posibility of something like this earlier in the thread. He hung the name Defense pool on it, although i think he mentioned a source of dice than different than my example of Body+Agility. Of course the source of dice would change based on the type of attack.
How exactly armor fits into that i'm not sure. Could be it adds dice to the target's "pool" (EDIT: I suspect this would mean that armor values would need to be dropped a bit, so an Armor of 3 would be roughly like an old 5 or 6. Armor layering rules would definately need to be reworked.). Could be that it somehow interacts with the weapons stats to determine how much damage each extra success does. Hopefully it doesn't end up like SR3 did where someone with a low body could wrap themselves in bleeding edge armor and still automatically take full, or at least nearly fully damage. It would also be nice if a Troll straight out of character generation didn't just laugh at a shotgun slug blast.
Incidentally if armor does provide dice then unattended objects/vehicles might end up making opposed rolls to attacks. That may ultimately lead to more Dread Gazebo attacks. But is that really a bad thing? 
you can't, though. if a dodge roll exceeds the attack roll, the attack misses clean--no soak necessary. it's only if the dodge roll is unsuccessful that you lump it in with the soak roll.
adding armor as dice to the character's soak pool is an extremely bad idea. you'd need 3 points of armor to nearly-guarantee a single point of damage reduction. if you're scaling damage on a point-per-success basis, armor should simply reduce the amount of damage you take, before soaking.
i mean, think of it this way: weapon damage, in a system like that, is nothing but automatic successes. if i shoot you with a 5-damage weapon and get 1 success, and you shoot me with a 1-damage weapon and get 6 successes, we both take the same amount of damage. weapon damage is, therefore, just fancy way of saying "autosuccess". armor should work on the same principle.
adding armor as dice to the character's soak pool is an extremely bad idea. you'd need 3 points of armor to nearly-guarantee a single point of damage reduction. if you're scaling damage on a point-per-success basis, armor should simply reduce the amount of damage you take, before soaking.
i mean, think of it this way: weapon damage, in a system like that, is nothing but automatic successes. if i shoot you with a 5-damage weapon and get 1 success, and you shoot me with a 1-damage weapon and get 6 successes, we both take the same amount of damage. weapon damage is, therefore, just fancy way of saying "autosuccess". armor should work on the same principle.
| QUOTE (mfb @ May 12 2005, 02:02 PM) |
| you can't, though. if a dodge roll exceeds the attack roll, the attack misses clean--no soak necessary. it's only if the dodge roll is unsuccessful that you lump it in with the soak roll. |
If you roll them together and the dodge portion takes care of it so what? The decision about whether to soak or not only has to be made if you are rolling separate. Actually you could still roll the soak dice in SR3, it's just that they wouldn't do anything.
| QUOTE |
| adding armor as dice to the character's soak pool is an extremely bad idea. you'd need 3 points of armor to nearly-guarantee a single point of damage reduction. if you're scaling damage on a point-per-success basis, armor should simply reduce the amount of damage you take, before soaking. i mean, think of it this way: weapon damage, in a system like that, is nothing but automatic successes. if i shoot you with a 5-damage weapon and get 1 success, and you shoot me with a 1-damage weapon and get 6 successes, we both take the same amount of damage. weapon damage is, therefore, just fancy way of saying "autosuccess". armor should work on the same principle. |
Well first that would be net successes. Second a 5 damage/success weapon would indeed be quite scary under that system. I would think more like missle launcher than firearm.
That aside i think the idea of armor subtracting a fixed number of boxes of damage (not successes) has it's merits. But i think that would require scaling back armor values a bit. In SR3 6 armor was easy to get, and higher was readily attainable if you you also maintained an Armor spell. That would soak a lot of damage. If the armor soaking gets too high you get into a power spiral. Since the damage done is calculated by subtraction the larger the numbers you are dealing with the easier it is to have all-or-nothing damage.
EDIT: Having armor subtract boxes could also allow penetration values to differentiate ammo and perhaps weapons. For example APDS ammo could ignore some of the damage boxes normally soaked by the armor. Flechette ammo could be blocked more effectively by the armor (setting aside the RL dubiousness of that particular SR3 rule, if not all SR3 shotgun rules).
what? no, i'm talking about each success adding a single box of damage.
rolling dodge and soak at the same time would just be confusing, unless you're using different-colored dice for each, because you need to know which successes are dodge successes and which are soak successes. if a given group has different-colored dice, great, but the default rules should not assume they do.
rolling dodge and soak at the same time would just be confusing, unless you're using different-colored dice for each, because you need to know which successes are dodge successes and which are soak successes. if a given group has different-colored dice, great, but the default rules should not assume they do.
| QUOTE (mfb @ May 12 2005, 02:25 PM) |
| what? no, i'm talking about each success adding a single box of damage. rolling dodge and soak at the same time would just be confusing, unless you're using different-colored dice for each, because you need to know which successes are dodge successes and which are soak successes. if a given group has different-colored dice, great, but the default rules should not assume they do. |
So a soak success subtracts a single box of damage? What does the dodge success do?
See I was only talking about net successes doing the damage. The advantage is then you don't need to worry about the second defending roll, a success whether from soak or dodge (or spell resistance, etc.) defends equally. The trade off is that you are really abstracting away the difference between Dodge and Soak. But it's a game not a simulation so a fair amount of abstaction is going to happen. Plus imagine how much faster combat would play by getting rid of the extra rolls and the adding/subtracting of staging. That is streamlining. That's why i'm guessing they might do that.
i prefer more realistic games than can be supported by that level of abstraction. dodge successes would work as they do in SR3: if you get more dodge successes than the attacker got attack successes, you dodge. otherwise, your dodge successes are added to your soak successes for reducing damage.
So the lithe, agile, elf and the burly, bulletproof, troll, both roll the same massive handfull of dice against an incoming attack, with no regard as to how each of them is handling getting hit. Why not just have something called a "DEFENSE POOL" that consists of your Body + Quickness + (whatever for armor) + (appropriate spell or cyberware)?
In fact, why stop there? If it doesn't matter if you dodge or soak an incoming attack, why should it matter how you deal out that attack, either? Strength, Quickness, skill, the weapon being used, a spell, a magic attribute...who's keeping score, really? We'll just have an "ATTACK POOL," too, that covers all that stuff.
But wait, there's just no holdin' me back, once I hit this point. Why do we need specific attributes at all, really, if all they mean is another die getting tossed into some vague, ridiculous, attack/defense die pool? We'll come up with something totally radical, now. A game where all you even need is ATTACK POOL and DEFENSE POOL. Metaspecies modifies those two attributes with general bonuses based on existing attribute mods (Elves get a +1/+1 for Quickness, for instance, Humans get a +0/+0, Orks get bonuses to ATTACK for their current Strength bonus and bonuses to DEFENSE for their current Body...easy, right?).
Every piece of cyberware and act of magic is left to the players and GM to describe and come up with cool names for -- cyberspurs give +1 ATTACK POOL (smartlinks give a +2 to ATTACK, if you describe your attack as shooting a properly equipped firearm!), dermal plating can give a +1 to DEFENSE POOL (or you can call it dermal sheathing if you want a +2!)... By making you quicker, Wired Reflexes and their ilk can just be bonuses to both pools at once (that's why they cost so much!). Who needs some silly gear list? Why not just list the essence and nuyen cost for extra ATTACK POOL and DEFENSE POOL dice, and leave it up to the players to call it what they want?
This is great! d20 ain't got nothin' on me! This'll be the best, quickest moving, RPG ever -- from character creation to combat resolution!
Streamlining is easy and fun!
In fact, why stop there? If it doesn't matter if you dodge or soak an incoming attack, why should it matter how you deal out that attack, either? Strength, Quickness, skill, the weapon being used, a spell, a magic attribute...who's keeping score, really? We'll just have an "ATTACK POOL," too, that covers all that stuff.
But wait, there's just no holdin' me back, once I hit this point. Why do we need specific attributes at all, really, if all they mean is another die getting tossed into some vague, ridiculous, attack/defense die pool? We'll come up with something totally radical, now. A game where all you even need is ATTACK POOL and DEFENSE POOL. Metaspecies modifies those two attributes with general bonuses based on existing attribute mods (Elves get a +1/+1 for Quickness, for instance, Humans get a +0/+0, Orks get bonuses to ATTACK for their current Strength bonus and bonuses to DEFENSE for their current Body...easy, right?).
Every piece of cyberware and act of magic is left to the players and GM to describe and come up with cool names for -- cyberspurs give +1 ATTACK POOL (smartlinks give a +2 to ATTACK, if you describe your attack as shooting a properly equipped firearm!), dermal plating can give a +1 to DEFENSE POOL (or you can call it dermal sheathing if you want a +2!)... By making you quicker, Wired Reflexes and their ilk can just be bonuses to both pools at once (that's why they cost so much!). Who needs some silly gear list? Why not just list the essence and nuyen cost for extra ATTACK POOL and DEFENSE POOL dice, and leave it up to the players to call it what they want?
This is great! d20 ain't got nothin' on me! This'll be the best, quickest moving, RPG ever -- from character creation to combat resolution!
Streamlining is easy and fun!
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i prefer more realistic games than can be supported by that level of abstraction. dodge successes would work as they do in SR3: if you get more dodge successes than the attacker got attack successes, you dodge. otherwise, your dodge successes are added to your soak successes for reducing damage. |
But how much damage is done by an attack success? How much damage is reduced by a soak+dodge success?
| QUOTE (Critias @ May 12 2005, 02:44 PM) |
| But wait, there's just no holdin' me back, once I hit this point...... |
Indeed.
The term Defense pool was actually mentioned already in this thread twice.
Basically your first two paragraphs except i think you are missing that the source for the die for attacking or defending come from different sources depending on the type of attack being done.
| QUOTE |
| Streamlining is easy and fun! |
Apparently spewwing out a manical rant is as well.
| QUOTE (Critias @ May 12 2005, 02:44 PM) |
| Why not just have something called a "DEFENSE POOL" that consists of your Body + Quickness + (whatever for armor) + (appropriate spell or cyberware)? |
Oh, great. That's just what I want is SR1 terms and ideas like Defense Pool coming back.
Only if they make the game exactly like SR1 would that not suck. I mean, auto successes would work, especially since modifications to a success # threshold does exactly that, but ... n/m.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| But how much damage is done by an attack success? How much damage is reduced by a soak+dodge success? |
Damage is probably given a damage code the same way as it is now to account for the the probability analysis that I described above. Plus you still want to be able to have a situation where someone with 1 in Shotgun can get a success and the vict... Target has to dodge and soak an effing shotgun blast. You know, to make SR remain dangerous for the slow and stupid.
Really, two tests isn't that hard to conceptualize.
Dodge (using Agility or Reaction) vs. Attacker skill (similar to now)
Soak vs. Success Threshold/Damage Value/whatever they call it (sort of like it is now)
I don't understand how this is so difficult. The ideas you are suggesting are, to me, harder to conceptualize than these two tests.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| But how much damage is done by an attack success? How much damage is reduced by a soak+dodge success? |
i'm assuming one box at a time, because that's what was being discussed on the previous page.
edit: whoops. two pages previous, as of this post.
I'd also like to mention now that after sleeping on it and thinking about it a little more, if they are going the auto success route that a variable success system entails, or even entertaining it, then body armor should definitely give auto successes instead of being added to body for a soak test.
I'm beginning to feel nostalgic for SR1 now.
I'm beginning to feel nostalgic for SR1 now.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| This is great! d20 ain't got nothin' on me! This'll be the best, quickest moving, RPG ever -- from character creation to combat resolution! Streamlining is easy and fun! |
Now just take all that and instead of rolling dice, we use the ever-handy Magic Eight-Ball !!
Does my attack hit??? Tell me oh Magic Eight-Ball...
*shake*
*shake*
*shake*
..."It is decidedly so"...
what's "ask again later"? ricochet, possible second roll? er, second shake?
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 12 2005, 02:59 PM) |
| I don't understand how this is so difficult. The ideas you are suggesting are, to me, harder to conceptualize than these two tests. |
Apparently since you got stuck on the words Defense pool thinking this was somehow remotely related to SR1.
A rough example of a table.
| CODE |
Attack mode |Attacker Dice Pool |Defender Dice Pool ------------+--------------------------+-------------------- Ranged |Weapon Skill+Attribute |Body+Agility Melee |Melee Skill+Attribute |Melee Skill+Body Spell |Sorcery+Attribute |Some Attribute+Something Else Matrix |Matrix Skill+Attribute |Will+Int Hit & Run |Driving Skill+Attribute |Body+Agility |
Assume for the moment that armor and Spell Defense are not applicable.
Someone decides to attack. You find the appropriate item in the Attack mode column. You go right one column and that's the dice the attacker picks up. One more column right and the defender picks up those dice. Die count modifiers may apply to each "pool".
Both the defender and the attacker role their "pools". The number of successes of each are compared. If the attacker has more successes than the defender you go to the weapon in question to see how much damage is done per net success. The number of net successes is multipled by the weapon's damage boxs/success. The damage has been determined.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
i'm assuming one box at a time, because that's what was being discussed on the previous page. edit: whoops. two pages previous, as of this post. |
So if each dodge soak success subtracts one box, each soak subtacts one box, and each attack success adds one box then why can't you just add dodge and soak together and compare that to the attack? Does it really matter whether or not dodge got rid of all the damage or soak got rid of all the damage? Mathematically it is the same.
SR3 just had to split it out because the TN could be different for the two of them.
| QUOTE (mfb @ May 12 2005, 04:19 PM) |
| what's "ask again later"? ricochet, possible second roll? er, second shake? |
It means you shake again and score a critical failure/success (depending on what the second shake is)!
OMG! I'm a genius! ROFLMAO!
Someone write all this down, I'm starting up a game company!
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Does it really matter whether or not dodge got rid of all the damage or soak got rid of all the damage? Mathematically it is the same. |
...except it's not, at all. you're forgetting the weapon's base damage. if you shoot me with a weapon that does 5 base damage and get one success, and i get two dodge successes, i take no damage because you missed me completely. if i soak and get two successes, i still take 4 damage. 0 != 4.
Now you're just confusing him. He unlearned SR3, remember? Don't try to cram his head back full of useless knowledge!
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
...except it's not, at all. you're forgetting the weapon's base damage. if you shoot me with a weapon that does 5 base damage and get one success, and i get two dodge successes, i take no damage because you missed me completely. if i soak and get two successes, i still take 4 damage. 0 != 4. |
....in SR3.
Yes, that was another reason that it couldn't be done.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Now you're just confusing him. He unlearned SR3, remember? Don't try to cram his head back full of useless knowledge! |
Having fun, Gomer? I sure am having fun laughing at you.
yes. and, like i've been saying, i don't like the idea of dodging not actually letting you dodge. it's not that bulky of a mechanic.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| yes. and, like i've been saying, i don't like the idea of dodging not actually letting you dodge. it's not that bulky of a mechanic. |
But the dodging is dodging. All rolling together is missing is breaking down for you where the lack of damage came from. Is that the part that is important to you? Metaphorically if you eat a can of beans you want to know which one made you fart?
So you're saying the base damage of a weapon shouldn't matter at all?
argh. i really don't understand how you can not see this.
if dodge successes exceed attack successes, you take no damage.
if dodge successes + soak successes exceed attack successes, you take damage unless you exceed attack successes by the amount of damage the weapon does.
dodge successes can have a different effect on the outcome than soak successes. therefore, it's important to know which successes came from dodging (since enough of them can negate all damage, no matter if you got shot with a rubberband or an assault cannon) and which came from soaking.
if dodge successes exceed attack successes, you take no damage.
if dodge successes + soak successes exceed attack successes, you take damage unless you exceed attack successes by the amount of damage the weapon does.
dodge successes can have a different effect on the outcome than soak successes. therefore, it's important to know which successes came from dodging (since enough of them can negate all damage, no matter if you got shot with a rubberband or an assault cannon) and which came from soaking.
To which his counter-argument (unless it's just "LOL," but so far he's only done that to Ellery) is going to be "you're thinking all stagnant and close-minded! stop talking about SR3! this is my crazy in my head game I'm talking about now! you're not making any sense, mfb! today is opposite day!"
You can only explain something so many ways before you have to admit defeat, mfb. Now's the time. He doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it.
You can only explain something so many ways before you have to admit defeat, mfb. Now's the time. He doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it.
| QUOTE (blakkie @ May 12 2005, 03:20 PM) | ||
Apparently since you got stuck on the words Defense pool thinking this was somehow remotely related to SR1. |
Wow. Did you even read the rest of my post? You must have, because you continue to assume aspects of the hypothetical which are pretty clear over and over again. Just as a ref... We're using my original hypothetical as was described in that bigass post from yesterday.
The SR1 ref was a nonsequitur and pretty blatant. It has nothing to do with this conversation. Now, were you to actually address any other part of my posts then we're in business.
Has this tread devolved into pointless bickering??...
*shake*
*shake*
*shake*
..."Sources say 'Yes'."...
*shake*
*shake*
*shake*
..."Sources say 'Yes'."...
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| argh. i really don't understand how you can not see this. if dodge successes exceed attack successes, you take no damage. if dodge successes + soak successes exceed attack successes, you take damage unless you exceed attack successes by the amount of damage the weapon does. dodge successes can have a different effect on the outcome than soak successes. therefore, it's important to know which successes came from dodging (since enough of them can negate all damage, no matter if you got shot with a rubberband or an assault cannon) and which came from soaking. |
See, we are talking about two different things.
I'm suggesting that the weapon would designate the damage per extra success. No base damage.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| So you're saying the base damage of a weapon shouldn't matter at all? |
I'm suggesting there be no base damage such as SR3 has. The weapon could designate something else such as damage per net success. At that point you could can avoid splitting out the dice for this or that. Dodge and soak and situational modifiers all become one.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| Just as a ref... We're using my original hypothetical as was described in that bigass post from yesterday. |
Perhaps you were. I wasn't responding to that post (didn't quote it, etc.). I was talking about a different possibility that allowed streamlining. Apparently me spellling out the details a few times didn't make that entirely clear, which takes us to....
| QUOTE |
| The SR1 ref was a nonsequitur and pretty blatant. It has nothing to do with this conversation. |
Oddly i didn't give you that much credit that you wouldn't read Critas' post and take it as truth. *shrug*
you want players to multiply instead of rolling dice seperately? we've got very different ideas about simplicity. especially when you start taking into account things like autofire, ammo types, etcetera.
Multiplication isn't easier than addition, or even subtraction. I don't see how anyone could imagine that as being any simpler.
Steamlining isn't nessasarily simplification. The key here is minimal number of rolls and carrying results forward. In this range of numbers multiplication is basically addition. I do understand that perhaps there are, for example, Geologists that will attempt to play this game. But in my experience people uncomfortable with math run into problems tend to do so when they have to carry forward, such as with 15+9, but single digits are fine such as 2x3.
As for multi-round bursts and how they would fit into that, that i'm really torn on. How SR has handled BF/FA is one of those often repeating issues on DSF. In SR3 it makes it harder to hit, and yet harder to dodge. So it's kinda a push, but in the gritty details usually it makes it harder to hit...but not always. I think however that it might be ok to not modify either the attack or defense die for a given BF. It would only make it harder to aim on the following firing, if you shot. As for damage adjustment it would work like ammo model, and bypass a box of armor. Why? Because of the extra chance to land one of the slugs in a vulnerable spot.
FA i'd still make harder to aim. Dodging wouldn't need to be modified. It would bypass even more boxes of armor.
The upshot of that would be that there would be more BF and then move, BF and move against single targets that are armored.
The weirdness part of this is that unarmored would not care about burst or not. But it's a starting point. How many runners, or NPCs for that matter go around with out any sort of armor (including magical)? Unarmored usually is pretty much hosed anyway.
As for multi-round bursts and how they would fit into that, that i'm really torn on. How SR has handled BF/FA is one of those often repeating issues on DSF. In SR3 it makes it harder to hit, and yet harder to dodge. So it's kinda a push, but in the gritty details usually it makes it harder to hit...but not always. I think however that it might be ok to not modify either the attack or defense die for a given BF. It would only make it harder to aim on the following firing, if you shot. As for damage adjustment it would work like ammo model, and bypass a box of armor. Why? Because of the extra chance to land one of the slugs in a vulnerable spot.
FA i'd still make harder to aim. Dodging wouldn't need to be modified. It would bypass even more boxes of armor.
The upshot of that would be that there would be more BF and then move, BF and move against single targets that are armored.
The weirdness part of this is that unarmored would not care about burst or not. But it's a starting point. How many runners, or NPCs for that matter go around with out any sort of armor (including magical)? Unarmored usually is pretty much hosed anyway.
okay. we've got really different ideas about streamlining, then. to me, adding soak successes to dodge successes is pretty streamlined--much moreso than trying to multiply the weapon's damage by net successes. and the dodge-then-soak method has the added bonus of being easier to wrap your mind around. anybody can understand "okay, i didn't dodge, that means i have to soak." combining dodging and soaking into a single roll is less intuitive.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.