Based on the stated dice mechanic how do you see combat in SR4 being determined?
Using SR3 combat as a template these are my guesses.
1) Initiative and Surprise- Honestly without knowing the basics of how reaction and initiative might be determined (is it open ended or is it a test versus TN5 etc) this is pretty much useless. Further without knowing the basics of how reaction enhancing cyberware works it's impossible to say how many actions combatants will be looking at each turn.
2) Ranged Combat Test (to hit)- Personally I figure they will go with both number of successes needed and dicepool modifications to determine the complexity of shots.
Example 1: Ganger 1 takes a potshot at ganger 2 at short distance in decent conditions (yeah I know how often would that actually happen) thus the difficulty is one success. Ganger rolls 3 dice for quickness and 3 dice for pistols (or firearms whatever) and acchieves 2 success vs TN of 5.
Example 2: Street Samurai shoots at corp security goon while running and in poor visibility at medium range. Normally a medium range shot requires 2 successes to hit and visibility and running modifiers remove 2 dice from the street samurai's pool. However he has a smartlink which adds 1 die to the dice pool. He rolls his quickness of 4 and pistols of 5 - 1 for one negative modifier and acchieves 3 successes.
3) Dodge Test- I'm going to assume some sort of active dodging is going to be included in the system rather than manuvers for a set round (like evasive manuvers removes 2 dice from opponents ranged combat test while removing 2 from your own). For the sake of argument I figure the dodge test will be based on straight quickness and can only be done when not surprised. Maybe you can only dodge a number of attacks equal to your quickness or some fraction thereof in a round
Example 1: Ganger 2 wants to avoid being shot by ganger 1 as he doesn't have much in the way of armor. He rolls his quickness of 3 vs TN 5 acchieving 1 success.
Example 2: Security Goon figures he better avoid the samurai's handcannon so rolls his quickness vs TN 5. However his heavy armor reduces his quickness by 1 so he rolls 2 dice vs TN 5 and acchieves no successes.
4) Result Test- Going to go out on a limb and say that rather than power codes indicating the TN of the test that power codes might indicate the damage plus the number of successes required to stage the damage down. If you want added complexity you could probably assume that there might be modifiers to dice rolled based on penetration and stopping power.
Example 1: Ganger 2 needs to take a damage test vs a code of 2M for ganger 1s pistol. He rolls his body 3 + his armor rating of 2 for 5 dice. He manages to roll two successes and stages the damage from the pistol down to L.
Example 2: Corp Goon needs to take a damage test vs a code of 2M for Samurai's pistol. However the pistol is firing AP ammo and has impressive stopping power removing 2 from his body pool. Fortunately he his wearing heavy armor (+5 dice) so gets to roll 7 dice vs TN 5. He rolls poorly unfortunately and only gets 1 success so he still takes a medium wound.
With this sort of system I'd say burst fire should increase you chances of rolling a hit rather than increasing damage code (it's hard to keep a tight grouping with BF) so a Submachinegun on burst fire might add +2 dice to a samurai's dice pool. This would allow crazy gangers with submachineguns to be far more threatening than thier base skill would allow because spraying all that lead is bound to hit something.
So what do you think doable or am I totally off base ?
Full Version: Guesses to how combat might work
What if instead of having a dodge roll, if combat ends up more like melee 3rd style. Meaning a character uses an opposed test. For example a character uses some sort of martial combat skill like unarmed to attack and the defender uses his/her marial combat armed (clubs) to defend or counter, Likewise a character in ranged combat uses some sort of ballistic combat skill like pistols versus the defenders SMG skill allowing him/her to dodge, take cover, or some sort of maneuver. This would however, imply that all ballistic combat skills are more than just gun skills, but rather combat skills similar to that of swat, military and other armed forces use.
I don't know maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I like 3rd melee to much being my character is an over grown Elf hating German (elf) with muscle replacement and a str of 14 plus a set of cyberspurs to boot.
I don't know maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I like 3rd melee to much being my character is an over grown Elf hating German (elf) with muscle replacement and a str of 14 plus a set of cyberspurs to boot.
I'll take a stab and guess Initiative will probably result in successes allowing certain actions either per a fixed number of Combat Phases (say maybe 3) or spanning the whole Combat Turn.
Free, Simple, Complex and Exclusive type actions would require a certain number of successes and would elimnate the need for whole Free-Simple-Complex naming convention.
Free, Simple, Complex and Exclusive type actions would require a certain number of successes and would elimnate the need for whole Free-Simple-Complex naming convention.
I would not expect initiative to change. It already did not follow the basic rules for rolling dice because it used a nD6 roll.
For ranged combat, here is what I expect.
Attacker rolls Dice Pool equal to Quickness + Skill reduced by modifiers. -1 per range band, -1 per recoil, +1 per burst, ect...
Target rolls Dice Pool equal to Body + Armor.
Net successes for attacker result in boxes of damage.
I bet weapons add or subtract dice from this pool based on how effective they are. Light pistols -2, Medium Pistols -1, Heavy Pistols 0, SMG's 0, Rifles and Assault Rifles +3, Shotguns +2, HMG's +6... ect...
Melee combat may remain opposed tests. Both characters roll Strength + Skill with modifiers for friends and reach.
Winner rolls damage dice for weapon and adds net successes. Looser rolls Body + Armor.
Net successes for winner equate to boxes of damage.
The other way to go that I can see is weapons do a base damage in boxes (L,M,S,D) and the power is converted to a Dice Pool Reduction for the target. Example: An assault rifle might have a 3M damage code. When someone gets shot they roll damage reistance equal to Body + Armor - Power.
Net successes can add or reduce boxes of damage, either by 1 per success or by staging as in SR3.
For ranged combat, here is what I expect.
Attacker rolls Dice Pool equal to Quickness + Skill reduced by modifiers. -1 per range band, -1 per recoil, +1 per burst, ect...
Target rolls Dice Pool equal to Body + Armor.
Net successes for attacker result in boxes of damage.
I bet weapons add or subtract dice from this pool based on how effective they are. Light pistols -2, Medium Pistols -1, Heavy Pistols 0, SMG's 0, Rifles and Assault Rifles +3, Shotguns +2, HMG's +6... ect...
Melee combat may remain opposed tests. Both characters roll Strength + Skill with modifiers for friends and reach.
Winner rolls damage dice for weapon and adds net successes. Looser rolls Body + Armor.
Net successes for winner equate to boxes of damage.
The other way to go that I can see is weapons do a base damage in boxes (L,M,S,D) and the power is converted to a Dice Pool Reduction for the target. Example: An assault rifle might have a 3M damage code. When someone gets shot they roll damage reistance equal to Body + Armor - Power.
Net successes can add or reduce boxes of damage, either by 1 per success or by staging as in SR3.
I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction. It's complicated. Most games don't make a distinction between the two, and any distinction adds complexity. The mechanic is boring but rapid then:
Person A rolls firearm skill, needs N successes to hit.
Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!)
Person B rolls damage resist, with the weapon adding a number of successes to Person A's attack if it hit, and armor adding dice to the resist roll.
Person B takes damage depending on how many successes are left.
I don't really like this, as it removes any tactics necessary for choosing an appropriate weapon for your target. But it fits the dice system they've announced, and it fits the goal of simplicity they've announced.
Person A rolls firearm skill, needs N successes to hit.
Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!)
Person B rolls damage resist, with the weapon adding a number of successes to Person A's attack if it hit, and armor adding dice to the resist roll.
Person B takes damage depending on how many successes are left.
I don't really like this, as it removes any tactics necessary for choosing an appropriate weapon for your target. But it fits the dice system they've announced, and it fits the goal of simplicity they've announced.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!) |
I have to agree with you here: I would not like this, at all, and I feel it'd be a mindnumbingly boring mechanic. But it sure would be simple.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction. |
Considering how most people tend to think along the lines of "Pistol = little damage, assault rifle = quite a lot of damage, shotgun = even more damage, sniper rifle = bucketloads of damage", I don't think the general gaming population will mind. And it'd be fine by me as well, because I could house rule all that right back in there.
I thought about tthe possibility of having a new quickness linked dodge skill as it would replicate the uncanny knack some people have for avoiding attacks. Further by having it seperate from a ranged combat skill it would allow some characters to be extremely defensive without needing to be extremely lethal. Initially i decided against it because it would be very new to the game but I see points for and against it.
Under such a system dodge test would be quickness + dodge vs TN5. If you wanted to factor in how experience and training can improve your odds of finding good cover etc then I would say if the dodging character has a Small Unit Tactics skill of 3-4 then they recieve +1 Die to thier dodge pool and SUT 5-6 +2 Dice etc. That way you could represent how experienced tacticians can improve the combat worthiness of thier team.
Personally I figure having the number of successes neccasary for each range band (1 success for short, 2 successes, for medium, 3 successes for long range, 4 successes for extreme range) would be the most likely thing rather than adjusting the dice pool rolled. Of course magnification would reduce the number of successes needed (granted that would make magnification even more potent than it already is probably neccesitating increased cost). Environmental penalties and bonuses would be factored into the number of dice rolled, low light might be -1 or -2 die. Called shots would be something like adding 2 to the difficulty of the shot (thus a long range called shot might require 5 successes).
Under such a system dodge test would be quickness + dodge vs TN5. If you wanted to factor in how experience and training can improve your odds of finding good cover etc then I would say if the dodging character has a Small Unit Tactics skill of 3-4 then they recieve +1 Die to thier dodge pool and SUT 5-6 +2 Dice etc. That way you could represent how experienced tacticians can improve the combat worthiness of thier team.
Personally I figure having the number of successes neccasary for each range band (1 success for short, 2 successes, for medium, 3 successes for long range, 4 successes for extreme range) would be the most likely thing rather than adjusting the dice pool rolled. Of course magnification would reduce the number of successes needed (granted that would make magnification even more potent than it already is probably neccesitating increased cost). Environmental penalties and bonuses would be factored into the number of dice rolled, low light might be -1 or -2 die. Called shots would be something like adding 2 to the difficulty of the shot (thus a long range called shot might require 5 successes).
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction. It's complicated. Most games don't make a distinction between the two, and any distinction adds complexity. The mechanic is boring but rapid then: Person A rolls firearm skill, needs N successes to hit. Person B rolls dodge, if appropriate, to avoid being hit. (Could leave this step out for even more simplicity!) Person B rolls damage resist, with the weapon adding a number of successes to Person A's attack if it hit, and armor adding dice to the resist roll. Person B takes damage depending on how many successes are left. I don't really like this, as it removes any tactics necessary for choosing an appropriate weapon for your target. But it fits the dice system they've announced, and it fits the goal of simplicity they've announced. |
I tend to agree that at it's most potentially simple power/damage isn't required.
However I do think they will realize that people might want a fairly tactical game so I assumed that a new damage code might be either 2 variables (wound code taken and number of successes needed to stage down rather than a default 1 stage per 2 successes) or three variables (same as above +/- dice from the body test based on penetration for armor etc)
Within each basic class of weapons Heavy and Light Handgun the base 2 variables (wound code and staging information would be the same) while addining in the third variable would allow you to have unique characteristics for weapons within a class.
For instance
Heavy Pistols would be base of 2M meaning they do a base damage code of M wounds to an opponent and that people need 2 successes to stage each success up or down.
Really big handcannons might have a code of 2M(-1) meaning that they do base damage of a heavy pistol but that they subtract 1 die from body resistance tests.
AP ammo might subtract -2 from bonus dice given from armor etc.
This way you could still have unique weapons characteristics (on top of ammo capacity, cost, components, etc) and still keep with a fixed TN.
Keep in mind that one extra success needed is equivalent to three extra dice rolled (counting only the mean result, not the variance). So to maintain the severity of light modifiers, you'd need a lot more than -2 dice to be equivalent to +2 successes needed for a called shot.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| I bet they're going to try to do away with power/damage level distinction. It's complicated. |
I really like the damage code vs. "2d6 +x" method. I'd like to see the wound level replaced with instead the number of boxes of damage as a base damage.
So 5M = 5-3, 9S = 9-6, 18D = 18-10. This would allow for finer weapon damage assignments like "5-2", "9-4", "10-5", etc. to help represent weapon difference, perhaps ammunition types.
| QUOTE |
| Most games don't make a distinction between the two, and any distinction adds complexity. The mechanic is boring but rapid then: |
I don't think they could do away with current mechanics (using a success based system) without switching to a more "d20" hit-type system.
With most d20, you either hit or you don't. If you do, damage is randomized per weapon, aka "2d6+x" damage and targets can do little to mitigate damage at that point.
With SR, varied degrees of hitting and then damage are a possibility. SR allows for your "degree of success" to influence the damage. This also gives the target a chance to do something other than just take the damage.
Changing this mechanic would really alter SR in a profound way.
Three variables per weapon? Goodness, that's even more complicated than the current pair of variables. Maybe they'll do that, but it's hardly in keeping with the stated goal.
Given the changes to the dice system, does it really look like they're trying to build a tactical game? That's why I think it's likely that there will be only one variable, damage, which will be the number of automatic successes you get if you hit with that weapon. That roughly corresponds to the damage levels now, and all weapons will have a power of 5.
Given the changes to the dice system, does it really look like they're trying to build a tactical game? That's why I think it's likely that there will be only one variable, damage, which will be the number of automatic successes you get if you hit with that weapon. That roughly corresponds to the damage levels now, and all weapons will have a power of 5.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Three variables per weapon? Goodness, that's even more complicated than the current pair of variables. Maybe they'll do that, but it's hardly in keeping with the stated goal. Given the changes to the dice system, does it really look like they're trying to build a tactical game? That's why I think it's likely that there will be only one variable, damage, which will be the number of automatic successes you get if you hit with that weapon. That roughly corresponds to the damage levels now, and all weapons will have a power of 5. |
I just don't see it as variable weapons are pretty much part and parcel of tabletop roleplaying and especially Shadowrun. As far as I know the only system which has all weapons doing equal damage is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.
As for 3 variables that mainly so you can have enough variance between the classes of weapons (besides range and capacity of course) to accomodate the gunfiends that so populate the userbase.
Further since only one variable actually matters in regards to numbe rof dice rolled it's simple for the user to learn. Further I'd tend to only see that variable be used for extreme ammunition types rather than as general.
As for complexity vs the fixed TN system just because a system uses a fairly simple dice resolution mechanic does not mean that the rules around that mechanic also have to be simplistic. Some of the playtester seem to have intimated that while the base mechanic might be similar to say the nWoD mechanic that there are definitely significant (probably crunchy bits) different.
But weapons are variable in what I proposed. A damage 0 weapon--maybe a holdout pistol--will be easy to stage down, after body and armor and dodge. A damage 3 weapon--maybe a combat shotgun--will require 9 more resist dice, on average, to bring it to the same level of damage as the holdout pistol.
I would like to see more to the system than that, but I spend way more time looking up damage power and level and so on for everyone than I do keeping track of pool dice. And you can get, what, maybe 60% of the meaningful diversity out of a single number.
I would like to see more to the system than that, but I spend way more time looking up damage power and level and so on for everyone than I do keeping track of pool dice. And you can get, what, maybe 60% of the meaningful diversity out of a single number.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| But weapons are variable in what I proposed. A damage 0 weapon--maybe a holdout pistol--will be easy to stage down, after body and armor and dodge. A damage 3 weapon--maybe a combat shotgun--will require 9 more resist dice, on average, to bring it to the same level of damage as the holdout pistol. I would like to see more to the system than that, but I spend way more time looking up damage power and level and so on for everyone than I do keeping track of pool dice. And you can get, what, maybe 60% of the meaningful diversity out of a single number. |
Very true which brings up a good point if something can handle 90% of the circumstances without adding in another mechanic is it worth adding to the overall complexity by generating a rule to cover that 10%. Often I tend to err on the side of crunchiness (I know it's strange considering I like the idea of a fixed TN system) but that yes if a basic system can be acchieved without adding complexity it might be a good thing.
Especially if the advanced system allows you to sell an additional book down the road (there I go thinking like a salesman
).
Alot of what makes SR cool to me is how different the rules where. If all your successes will do it determine "a hit", then we might as well play d20.
As for my suggestion about changing damage codes, It's not adding any additional variables than currently exist. The change would be to replace "L", "M", "S" and "D" with numbers (representing boxes of damage).
I suppose the reality is, with all TN=5 (Attack Test then Dodge and Soak), net successes will probably be used to stage damage up or down (i'd guess +/- 2 damage per). No power level, just damage. The more leathel, the close to "D" the weapon starts at. This would definitely lend itself better to just "a number" type damage rating.
As for my suggestion about changing damage codes, It's not adding any additional variables than currently exist. The change would be to replace "L", "M", "S" and "D" with numbers (representing boxes of damage).
I suppose the reality is, with all TN=5 (Attack Test then Dodge and Soak), net successes will probably be used to stage damage up or down (i'd guess +/- 2 damage per). No power level, just damage. The more leathel, the close to "D" the weapon starts at. This would definitely lend itself better to just "a number" type damage rating.
I'm hoping that an attacker will never need a set number of successes for combat. If I'm thinking correctly, there will be two types of tests "static" and "dynamic" (just descriptors to use for conversation sake). Static would mean that a set number of successes is needed ie breaking a maglock 5 would need 5 successes. Dynamic would come into play when two characters are facing off and success is determined by who rolled more.
- Combat should always be dynamic. So needing a set number of successes for range would be, in my opinion, a bad idea. Rather dice should be subtracted for range.
- Damage staging should also require two successes. This mechanic has always been a unique property of SR and I would be really pissed if it went away. In older editions of SR they had a variable staging number (code written like 9M2) but they wisely did away with that. Bringing it back would be a bad idea.
- Also, added to the "hope it stays" catagory would be two separate tracks for Stun and Physical damage, again something SR has that I have not seen done anywhere near as good anywhere else, and 10 boxes for each track with L, M, S, D still in place. But now instead of having increased TNs for being at L, M, etc, you would have negatives to your dice pool.
- Initiative will remain relatively unchanged (my hope is that it remains completely unchanged). As stated by others, it was already different, so the change to the basic mechanic should not affect it.
- I believe they will keep the two part damage code, ie 2M, but the function of the number part will of course change. Either it will be the number of dice the attacker adds to his roll or it will be the number of dice the defender subtracts from his soak roll (if soak is still in the game that is)
- Attack rolls will most likely be Att + Skill +/- situational modifiers. It is of course entirely possible that the attacker may add things like a number of dice equal to gun damage rating (see above) or may even subtract dice equal to the defenders armor, which is the case in nWoD, it works there but I'm not sure if I would like to see it here. It has been stated that there will be signifacant differences...so we shall see.
- Combat should always be dynamic. So needing a set number of successes for range would be, in my opinion, a bad idea. Rather dice should be subtracted for range.
- Damage staging should also require two successes. This mechanic has always been a unique property of SR and I would be really pissed if it went away. In older editions of SR they had a variable staging number (code written like 9M2) but they wisely did away with that. Bringing it back would be a bad idea.
- Also, added to the "hope it stays" catagory would be two separate tracks for Stun and Physical damage, again something SR has that I have not seen done anywhere near as good anywhere else, and 10 boxes for each track with L, M, S, D still in place. But now instead of having increased TNs for being at L, M, etc, you would have negatives to your dice pool.
- Initiative will remain relatively unchanged (my hope is that it remains completely unchanged). As stated by others, it was already different, so the change to the basic mechanic should not affect it.
- I believe they will keep the two part damage code, ie 2M, but the function of the number part will of course change. Either it will be the number of dice the attacker adds to his roll or it will be the number of dice the defender subtracts from his soak roll (if soak is still in the game that is)
- Attack rolls will most likely be Att + Skill +/- situational modifiers. It is of course entirely possible that the attacker may add things like a number of dice equal to gun damage rating (see above) or may even subtract dice equal to the defenders armor, which is the case in nWoD, it works there but I'm not sure if I would like to see it here. It has been stated that there will be signifacant differences...so we shall see.
| QUOTE (Phantom Runner) |
| - I believe they will keep the two part damage code, ie 2M, but the function of the number part will of course change. Either it will be the number of dice the attacker adds to his roll or it will be the number of dice the defender subtracts from his soak roll (if soak is still in the game that is) |
Oh I like this line of thinking, I hadn't thought of it that way!
The developers have talked about not completely dismantling "the game they love" so I hope that goes beyond background storyline which we know is rather "safe", at least until 2064.
All this talk of change has my head spinning and I am really trying to remain optimistic. I guess August can't get here fast enough.
I seem to remember someone commenting that weapons now used '2 numbers'. The role each number played (attack power/staging? attack bonus dice/damage bonus dice?) remains to be seen.
Oi, I think August can't get here slow enough. I'm sure they have a lot to do--the more time they have, the better it will be (one would hope).
I don't think it's a good idea to have weapons add dice to an attack roll, because that means that every weapon that hits harder also makes it easier for you to hit at all. Subtracting dice from soak is more reasonable (if simply granting automatic successes upon a hit is not fine-grained enough).
I don't think it's a good idea to have weapons add dice to an attack roll, because that means that every weapon that hits harder also makes it easier for you to hit at all. Subtracting dice from soak is more reasonable (if simply granting automatic successes upon a hit is not fine-grained enough).
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| I don't think it's a good idea to have weapons add dice to an attack roll, because that means that every weapon that hits harder also makes it easier for you to hit at all. Subtracting dice from soak is more reasonable [...] |
Agreed. How easy it is to hit with a weapon should have nothing at all to do with the weapon's Damage Code.
what would be interesting is if they dropped the L/M/S/D progression completely, and went with a simple 1-10 scale. every 3 boxes of damage would impose a the SR4 equivalent of the SR3 +/-1 modifer.
weapons would then have a two-part damage code: a "minimum hit" number, and a wound number. the wound number is simple--it's how many boxes of damage the weapon does by default. the minimum hit would be subtracted from the target's successes when the target attempts to soak a hit from that weapon.
shooter's successes add boxes of damage on a 1-for-1 progression; target's soak successes reduce damage using the same progression, but the target's soak successes would be automatically reduced by the minimum hit number. if i shoot someone with a 3/5 rifle (minimum hit 3, wound 5), and get 3 successes, then the target is looking at 8 boxes of damage. the target then rolls his soak, and gets 5 successes (he's a badass). reduce those 5 success by the minimum hit number, and he ends up with 2 successes; compare them to my attack successes, and i end up with 1 net success, for a total damage to the target of 6 boxes. (obviously, this concept needs to be rebalanced, but i think the basis is sound.)
armor would add dice to the soak test; hardened armor might reduce the minimum hit number. armor-piercing ammo would reduce the number of armor dice a target gets. high-deformation ammo ("EX", hollowpoint, glaser) would reduce the number of soak dice a target gets.
for added realism (and also complexity), you could have different weapon types be partially armor-piercing. for instance, anything using pistol rounds works normally; anything that uses rifle rounds subtracts two dice from the target's armor; anything that uses rifle rounds really well (sniper rifles, basically) reduces the target's armor dice by three; and so on.
weapons would then have a two-part damage code: a "minimum hit" number, and a wound number. the wound number is simple--it's how many boxes of damage the weapon does by default. the minimum hit would be subtracted from the target's successes when the target attempts to soak a hit from that weapon.
shooter's successes add boxes of damage on a 1-for-1 progression; target's soak successes reduce damage using the same progression, but the target's soak successes would be automatically reduced by the minimum hit number. if i shoot someone with a 3/5 rifle (minimum hit 3, wound 5), and get 3 successes, then the target is looking at 8 boxes of damage. the target then rolls his soak, and gets 5 successes (he's a badass). reduce those 5 success by the minimum hit number, and he ends up with 2 successes; compare them to my attack successes, and i end up with 1 net success, for a total damage to the target of 6 boxes. (obviously, this concept needs to be rebalanced, but i think the basis is sound.)
armor would add dice to the soak test; hardened armor might reduce the minimum hit number. armor-piercing ammo would reduce the number of armor dice a target gets. high-deformation ammo ("EX", hollowpoint, glaser) would reduce the number of soak dice a target gets.
for added realism (and also complexity), you could have different weapon types be partially armor-piercing. for instance, anything using pistol rounds works normally; anything that uses rifle rounds subtracts two dice from the target's armor; anything that uses rifle rounds really well (sniper rifles, basically) reduces the target's armor dice by three; and so on.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
Agreed. How easy it is to hit with a weapon should have nothing at all to do with the weapon's Damage Code. |
I would think the same thing, especially if they keep the damage codes that we are used to in SR (ie a number with either L, M, S, D). If the damage number added to the number of dice that would mean that part of the damage code was put onto the attacker while the other part would be put onto the defender. As it currently is in SR3 both parts of the damage code are something the defender has to worry about, and I hope that does't change.
Of course, with what little we truly know about the system changes there are a lot of permutations that are possible.
Take armor for instance. It could be used in many different ways:
- It could subtract dice from attackers roll. I really hope that this isn't the case. Yes, it can be very easy to figure out, but it would take away a good deal of the tactical advantage the GM can levy against players (and thus keep things interesting), as players would know exactly how much armor the target is wearing.
- It could add dice to the defenders soak/defense roll. I think this would be more appropriate...but who knows.
- It could be a number of successes needed to damage the target. Example: Armor of rating 3 means that in order for the attacker to actually penetrate the armor he would need 3 "hits". Any "hits" above 3 would give extra damage (which of course this is me hoping that damage staging is still in the game). This is an....ok....idea, but it sort of has the d20 feel of Armor Class and I personally would hate it....unless perhaps "hits" below the armor "threshhold" would instead be convered to stun damage....eh...on second thought that kind of sucks too...
Drek. There are just too many possibilities right now.... the mind...
| QUOTE |
what would be interesting is if they dropped the L/M/S/D progression completely, and went with a simple 1-10 scale. every 3 boxes of damage would impose a the SR4 equivalent of the SR3 +/-1 modifer. |
I don't thing that wold be very interesting at all. I really fell in love with SR's LMSD progression and for me it is one of the defining traits that makes Shadowrun...well, Shadowrun. Of course, anything is possible at this point, but I take heart in the fact that it has been stated that old players will still be able to recognize SR as SR and for me this is a top distinguisher....
Variable TNs have been a hallmark of SR for plenty long enough and those are gone. What makes you think LMSD is marked for any sort of preservation? I like the mechanic too, but switching from that is a much smaller change than going to a fixed TN.
In fact, the fixed TN change might make LMSD unworkable--it may be too easy to fluctuate wildly over that range, making it anyone's guess as whether you'll be barely scratched or splattered over a ten meter radius. I could see them moving to a "one net success = 1 box of damage" system, with maybe six boxes, on the theory that the conversion from successes to damage is too complicated.
In fact, the fixed TN change might make LMSD unworkable--it may be too easy to fluctuate wildly over that range, making it anyone's guess as whether you'll be barely scratched or splattered over a ten meter radius. I could see them moving to a "one net success = 1 box of damage" system, with maybe six boxes, on the theory that the conversion from successes to damage is too complicated.
i think LMSD is neat, but the 1-10 progression allows for two things: a) simpler play; b) greater flexibility and detail. i mean, that's good, right? that's one of the things people are worried about--that SR will be oversimplified and undetailed. this reduces complexity and increaces detail. everybody wins.
It makes it very hard to get a one-shot kill. That lowers the feeling of danger.
to an extent. it's harder to stage up, on average, but it's also harder to stage down.
Some of the most tense moments in the game are when you're facing D damage with a high TN and you are trying to desperately beat down the damage to S so you'll survive. (But M damage usually goes to nothing.)
Without damage levels, that's unlikely to happen; you'll take two or three boxes off whatever they do, most of the time. It's more of a chipping-away mechanic than a "Yikes, this bullet has my name on it!" mechanic.
Pity, but then again, without combat pool to save yourself, maybe it's better to have a less potentially lethal mechanic. If you don't let the poor runners defend themselves, it's better to hit them with your boxing gloves on.
Without damage levels, that's unlikely to happen; you'll take two or three boxes off whatever they do, most of the time. It's more of a chipping-away mechanic than a "Yikes, this bullet has my name on it!" mechanic.
Pity, but then again, without combat pool to save yourself, maybe it's better to have a less potentially lethal mechanic. If you don't let the poor runners defend themselves, it's better to hit them with your boxing gloves on.
it seems to me that the tension would be even higher, since a single success makes a difference more often than it does in the current system. moreover, rather than getting two net successes and staging it down four boxes, you're able to bring it up to the very edge of survival.
If the damage levels were set that high, engaging in any kind of combat would be like playing Russian Roulette. Danger doesn't mean you have a 1/6 chance of dying...just a 1/6 chance of dying if you screw up.
i'm not sure how the danger level would be excessively higher, for a single hit. in the current system, if you get 2 net succs on your soak, you take 6 boxes of damage. in this system, if you get 2 net succss, you take 8 (assuming a D hit).
Yes, but you can't assume a D hit--that's the point. Most D hits now are staged up from M. But if you have a M-damage weapon (three boxes, let's say), you need seven successes at TN5 to get it up to 10 boxes, whereas you used to need four successes probably at a lot less than TN5 if you know what you're doing.
This makes it really bad to just sit there like a lump while people are shooting at you. They will hurt you in SR3 unless you have amazing armor and huge body.
The problem is, if you lower the number of TN5 successes you need (let's say it's two boxes per success), it makes soaking damage less reliable, because rolling against TN5 has more variability per success than against a lower TN.
That's the nice thing about variable TN--if you do things right, wear good armor, don't let them get a good shot at you, and so on, you have a very good chance of surviving a firefight. Without variable TN, it's hard to balance it so that it won't just be bad luck killing you one time in five unless the only way to die is to be nickel-and-dimed to death.
This makes it really bad to just sit there like a lump while people are shooting at you. They will hurt you in SR3 unless you have amazing armor and huge body.
The problem is, if you lower the number of TN5 successes you need (let's say it's two boxes per success), it makes soaking damage less reliable, because rolling against TN5 has more variability per success than against a lower TN.
That's the nice thing about variable TN--if you do things right, wear good armor, don't let them get a good shot at you, and so on, you have a very good chance of surviving a firefight. Without variable TN, it's hard to balance it so that it won't just be bad luck killing you one time in five unless the only way to die is to be nickel-and-dimed to death.
true.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| |
| QUOTE |
Variable TNs have been a hallmark of SR for plenty long enough and those are gone. What makes you think LMSD is marked for any sort of preservation? I like the mechanic too, but switching from that is a much smaller change than going to a fixed TN. |
Varialbe TNs is not a SR hallmark. Dozens of games use it, in fact almost every game uses a variable TN of some kind. Now multiple dice + variable TN + the concept of success is something that is more endemic of SR, but still not unique.
| QUOTE |
In fact, the fixed TN change might make LMSD unworkable--it may be too easy to fluctuate wildly over that range, making it anyone's guess as whether you'll be barely scratched or splattered over a ten meter radius. I could see them moving to a "one net success = 1 box of damage" system, with maybe six boxes, on the theory that the conversion from successes to damage is too complicated. |
I highly doubt fixed TN will make LMSD unworkable. But we shall see what they do....
Okay, let me take a hack at this....
With the dice pools becoming what is being suggested and provided I've followed their description well enough as well.
Speaking as a magician character here for this example.
First Decision Question - Can I allocate dice pools such as Spell Defense/Shielding in a manner similar to SR3? If so, I want to allocate my dice pool of 12 (Magic Attribute of 6, Sorcery of 6) to 4 dice to myself and 4 dice to each of my two friends in the hallway with me.
Second Decision Question - Can I make a "Quick Draw" type action still? If so, I want to perform the action (especially since my target is now a 5 instead of a 6) and draw my Ruger Thunderbolt with Smartlinked Ocular Glasses (Goggles/Gloves) and fire a shot at the security magicians head (I'm guessing he's the guy with the funny squiggles on his lapel).
Third Decision Question - I need to decide how many dice I'm using. As Quickness is related to my shooting of the gun but it is also linked to my dodging any inbound physical effects (gunfire, manipulation magic, etc), do I have to determine how many of my Quickness Attribute goes to what dice pool? If I don't, and the attribute is the "base pool", then I'm going to use my whole Skill (4) + Attribute (5) with my Smartlink Oculars (Goggles/Gloves) (+1 Dice Pool Bonus translated from what was once upon a time a -1 target number modifier) against a target number of a five (5). 10 dice to roll against that target means what, 3 successes on average after you drop the decimal/remainders of the average formula?
There's one example/inquiry... here's the other.
I'm going to presume my Ruger hits the guy, now what does he roll to resist the damage? I'm going to presume his Dodge/Defense action is Body (purely physical) or Quickness (moving around) + some value on Armor. I see he's an average looking human (Body 3-ish) with an Armored Jacket (5/3). It is a bullet so he gets the value of 5 into his formula. I'm guessing he's going to use Quickness (4 for this test), so he's rolling Quickness (4) + Armor (5). If his target is also a 5, then just where did the sheer ballistic power of my gun come into this again? I hear the suggestion of the power somehow effecting the armor... so here's a thought on how to handle that.
My Ruger is a Power 6M gun per shot. He's got Armor (5) for these purposes. My gun power exceeds his armor power so reduce his armor power by it's full 5 points and further reduce his Quickness (Maybe Body is a better option after all for the purposes of sheer common sense) by one (-1) die. This means he's rolling 3 dice against a target 5. Wow.
Mage looks like bloody hell at the very least. Did I get this right???
New Inquiry:
If we were all engaged in hand-hand to melee and there were two friends with me and one with him, how does "Friends in Melee" work???
With the dice pools becoming what is being suggested and provided I've followed their description well enough as well.
Speaking as a magician character here for this example.
First Decision Question - Can I allocate dice pools such as Spell Defense/Shielding in a manner similar to SR3? If so, I want to allocate my dice pool of 12 (Magic Attribute of 6, Sorcery of 6) to 4 dice to myself and 4 dice to each of my two friends in the hallway with me.
Second Decision Question - Can I make a "Quick Draw" type action still? If so, I want to perform the action (especially since my target is now a 5 instead of a 6) and draw my Ruger Thunderbolt with Smartlinked Ocular Glasses (Goggles/Gloves) and fire a shot at the security magicians head (I'm guessing he's the guy with the funny squiggles on his lapel).
Third Decision Question - I need to decide how many dice I'm using. As Quickness is related to my shooting of the gun but it is also linked to my dodging any inbound physical effects (gunfire, manipulation magic, etc), do I have to determine how many of my Quickness Attribute goes to what dice pool? If I don't, and the attribute is the "base pool", then I'm going to use my whole Skill (4) + Attribute (5) with my Smartlink Oculars (Goggles/Gloves) (+1 Dice Pool Bonus translated from what was once upon a time a -1 target number modifier) against a target number of a five (5). 10 dice to roll against that target means what, 3 successes on average after you drop the decimal/remainders of the average formula?
There's one example/inquiry... here's the other.
I'm going to presume my Ruger hits the guy, now what does he roll to resist the damage? I'm going to presume his Dodge/Defense action is Body (purely physical) or Quickness (moving around) + some value on Armor. I see he's an average looking human (Body 3-ish) with an Armored Jacket (5/3). It is a bullet so he gets the value of 5 into his formula. I'm guessing he's going to use Quickness (4 for this test), so he's rolling Quickness (4) + Armor (5). If his target is also a 5, then just where did the sheer ballistic power of my gun come into this again? I hear the suggestion of the power somehow effecting the armor... so here's a thought on how to handle that.
My Ruger is a Power 6M gun per shot. He's got Armor (5) for these purposes. My gun power exceeds his armor power so reduce his armor power by it's full 5 points and further reduce his Quickness (Maybe Body is a better option after all for the purposes of sheer common sense) by one (-1) die. This means he's rolling 3 dice against a target 5. Wow.
Mage looks like bloody hell at the very least. Did I get this right???
New Inquiry:
If we were all engaged in hand-hand to melee and there were two friends with me and one with him, how does "Friends in Melee" work???
If they go the whole mile on the nWoD trail, weapons will have only one value adding dice to the pool, the target will have a defence value subtracting from the pool and any successes will BE the damage. I donīt think it will be like that, but itīs the way it is in the new WoD games.
Here is a thought. The Fire arms would become an opposed test (Like it is now, in a way). Instead of a Combat Pool you have a Defense value, like a pool but it doesn't get USED UP like pools do in Shadowrun. I Roll my Pistols(3) + Agility(3) (Or whatever they call it), plus I get 2 extra Dice from my Smart Gun Link for a total of 8 Dice. You have a Defense value of 4 plus 2 dice for cover. We both roll against target number 5 to see what happens. I get 2 net successes, and the damage is staged up one. If the target is always going to be a 5, Armor and Power of weapons would work different. A weapons Power would indicate how many successes a person would need on their Body test to reduce the damage. Armor could reduce that amount to say a minimum of 2.
Example: I hit you with that Ares Predator that has a Power of 3 with Explosive ammo (+1 Power), now you need 4 successes to bring down the damage. You have a an Armored vest that gives you a ballistic rating of 2, so now you only need 2 successes to bring down the damage level. It would be closer to what they had in 1st Edition, but not as clumsy. If they did it this way, I'd say the spirit of the old rules would be there, but keeping to the ideals of the new edition. I don't like the new WOD automatic reduction of damage (If it was explained to me correctly, and this will be closer to what Shadowrun already has).
Example: I hit you with that Ares Predator that has a Power of 3 with Explosive ammo (+1 Power), now you need 4 successes to bring down the damage. You have a an Armored vest that gives you a ballistic rating of 2, so now you only need 2 successes to bring down the damage level. It would be closer to what they had in 1st Edition, but not as clumsy. If they did it this way, I'd say the spirit of the old rules would be there, but keeping to the ideals of the new edition. I don't like the new WOD automatic reduction of damage (If it was explained to me correctly, and this will be closer to what Shadowrun already has).
I'm thinking that the Power will be some sort of penetration factor that will be opposed by the target's Armor. If the Armor is greater then the threshhold to damage the target would be higher, and if the Armor is lower, then less 'Hits' will be needed to do the same damage.
That would work too, it would be kind of similar. In that aspect, you would reduce the Armor by the Power of the Weapon. So if you had Armor of 5 I would need 5 net successes to stage up the damage with a 0 Power weapon, but with a my Predator, Power 3, I only need 2 net successes to stage up the damage.
I'm guessing ranged combat will be straightforward as far as penalty are concerned : Condition affecting your PC modify the number of dice, environmental condition affect the number of successes required.
So if you have a smartlink or are wounded, it affect the dice pool. Range, lighting etc. affect successes.
It's easy that way. In a combat, most roll you'll make are tied down to the weapon you are using. If with my Smart Link I get 11 dice, I set them in front of me for the combat. If I get wounded, I substract a few. Whenever it's my turn, I just grab the dice in front of me without bothering with counting.
Similarly, it's not uncommon for the same enviromental modifiers to apply for several PCs. So if the next PC to take his turn is shooting at a the same target, with same cover and range, and he already has the correct amount of dice set in front of him, there's a roll that will not take long to make.
---
I'm also guessing that defensive option might come from willingly substracting dice to your pool to increase defense. I'm thinking that because using skill + attribute result in large dice pool, often as big an SR3 roll that combines a skill with the maxed allowed number of pool dice.
It's not a far stretch to imagine that a PC with a dice pool of 11 could substract 3 for defensive purpose.
So if you have a smartlink or are wounded, it affect the dice pool. Range, lighting etc. affect successes.
It's easy that way. In a combat, most roll you'll make are tied down to the weapon you are using. If with my Smart Link I get 11 dice, I set them in front of me for the combat. If I get wounded, I substract a few. Whenever it's my turn, I just grab the dice in front of me without bothering with counting.
Similarly, it's not uncommon for the same enviromental modifiers to apply for several PCs. So if the next PC to take his turn is shooting at a the same target, with same cover and range, and he already has the correct amount of dice set in front of him, there's a roll that will not take long to make.
---
I'm also guessing that defensive option might come from willingly substracting dice to your pool to increase defense. I'm thinking that because using skill + attribute result in large dice pool, often as big an SR3 roll that combines a skill with the maxed allowed number of pool dice.
It's not a far stretch to imagine that a PC with a dice pool of 11 could substract 3 for defensive purpose.
i dunno. i think--i hope--that it will be split along major/minor lines. minor hinderances or bonuses affect dice; major ones affect minimum successes. otherwise, you've got a situation where a small change in lighting has more impact than getting a targeting computer implanted in your skull.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 12 2005, 10:56 PM) |
| i dunno. i think--i hope--that it will be split along major/minor lines. minor hinderances or bonuses affect dice; major ones affect minimum successes. otherwise, you've got a situation where a small change in lighting has more impact than getting a targeting computer implanted in your skull. |
The idea is that all modifiers that applies no matter what you are shooting at should affect dice and those that are conditional to that particular shot should affect successes. That way you only really have calculate the number of required successes for each attack instead of the number of success AND dice.
As for a situation where "a small change in lighting has more impact than getting a targeting computer implanted in your skull", there's two things to answer to that :
Forst of all, there likely won't be many degrees of lighting conditions. When the difficulty is set by the number of success, it never is. It'd be like +3 for blindness, +2 for awful and +1 for bad. So there is no "small" change. Secondly, if a SL gives 3 dice, it compensate exactly for a +1 success. More if there is some form of exploding dice system. We can't know how SL balance with lighting conditions without knowing the penalty and bonuses associated to them.
Beside, SL is a glorified laser sight so I wouldn't mind if it was taking down a notch in SR4. There is no skillwire system so it doesn't do the shooting for you, just gives you a very clear idea of where you are shooting. It's actually non-sensical that the SL reduces the TN at all when you are shooting blind! Or can barely see, for that matter. The SL would just help you to draw a bullseye on shadows in these situations.
that's exactly my point, Charon. there should be modifiers for minor differences in lighting, but under your idea, there couldn't be. therefore, it's not--to me--a good idea, however clean it may be. clean mechanics are nice, but not when they sacrifice that much realism.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Apr 12 2005, 11:13 PM) |
| that's exactly my point, Charon. there should be modifiers for minor differences in lighting, but under your idea, there couldn't be. therefore, it's not--to me--a good idea, however clean it may be. clean mechanics are nice, but not when they sacrifice that much realism. |
Pff, realism. You want 8 different shade of lighting? What good has it done for your game lately?
Why not 10 different ranges for weapon? Why not more reach modifiers so that a 1 foot combat knife has reach advantage over a shorter blade? Why not let range affect bullet penetration? Why not adjust the penalty for shooting a moving target 8 different way depending on the direction of the target relative to you?
Anyway, there are only 3 lighting conditions in SR3, just as in my proposition.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Person B rolls damage resist, with the weapon adding a number of successes to Person A's attack if it hit, and armor adding dice to the resist roll. |
I'm unsure about the idea of Armor adding dice. I noticed that you mentioned your friend's dice analysis showed that Karma served to effectively reduce the TN. However, the current probability to achieve a success is 1/3, where you would need 3 dice to compensate for 1 success. If the damage value is based on a single value, which makes sense since it's simpler--it's streamlined--then depending on the success threshold armor might work well, or may be useless. Perhaps it could be used that way, and God only knows how the idea of Body + Armor to soak came to anyone's mind (I suspect it has to do with the mechanic used by games with similar systems). Maybe it should reduce the success threshold by it's value. Auto successes are cool in the SR1-3 system, although not popular enough that they were excised and condemned to Hell in SR2. However, if the only modifiers are success modifiers, then we are discussing a system that does in fact use automatic successes.
Take, for example, your average human (Body 3) with an Armored Jacket (5) shot by someone with a weapon that does... 5 damage, and therefore needs 5 successes to walk away unhurt. It seems pretty hard to imagine small arms would require more than 5 successes now that I've done the math. This is starting to remind me of SR1 when the Ares Predator did 4M2 damage.
So, Mr. Norm rolls Body (3) + Armor (5) vs. TN 5. Statistically, he'd get 2 successes, 3 if he's lucky (I'm not counting fractions). So automatically, the shooter with 1 net success at firing their gun inflicts 3 successes worth of damage (So... 3 boxes or however it translates to SR4's condition monitor). In SR1-3, that'd be an automatic Medium wound almost every time against someone who is wearing an Armored Jacket. For a normal human, they'd need to have an Armor rating of 12 to negate that amount of damage on average.
Mr. Samurai with Body 6 would get an average of 3 or 4 successes, and still suffer a Light or Light Plus wound depending on the mechanic.
However, let's consider this from a SR3 perspective. Let's assume normal ammunition, Predator (9M), Armored Jacket, Body 3. And no CP. We may as well cripple them like SR4 will.
Body (3) vs. TN (9) - Jacket (5) --> 3 v 4. He'll get on average 1 or 2 successes, but it's the difference between getting a M wound or L wound.
BTW, for those people who are incompetent at using CP, adding 2 dice would statistically suffice to reduce it to L on average, and would be enough to completely negate it while leaving the rest of their CP untouched.
Mr. Samurai, rolling Body 6 vs. TN 4 would on average receive a L wound, although he could stage it down to nothing without touching CP. For him, the SR3 system looks pretty good.
But then we also consider what multiple successes for the shooter will do. We all know how staging works. So, let's assume the condition monitor goes from 0-->10 like it has for almost 16 years.
How could we use Staging? We could add the shooter's net successes, or 1/2 net successes, to the target's success threshold. Assuming we get 2 net successes, let's see...
Assuming the same average results, Mr. Norm now has 2 or 3 successes. If the success threshold goes up to 7 (adding net successes to success threshold at a 1:1 ratio), then on average he'll receive the equivalent of an M and two L wounds, or maybe an M and an L wound if he's lucky. If he rolls optimally, he can negate the damage. Under SR3, of course, he'd get an M wound.
Mr. Samurai's 3 or 4 successes would leave him in M + L territory, and either way on average get at least an M wound (3 boxes). However, in SR3 if he was a little lucky he could go from 6 boxes of damage to 1 box by staging down. This would leave him in a much less enjoyable situation.
Okay, so this is the outcome of a Predator vs. Schmoe with an Armored Jacket. How about a Predator vs. FFBA (Half Suit)? Perhaps Mr. Norm was in a bad neighborhood, and Mr. Samurai's jacket was at the dry cleaner's.
Mr. Norm
Body (3) + Armor (3) vs. TN 5. Average of 2 successes. Against a Power 5 weapon, he'd get an M wound eqv.
His odds are better than in SR3 at staging down.
Mr. Samurai
Body (6) + Armor (3) vs. TN 5. Average of 3 successes. He ends up with the eqv. of two L wounds (2 boxes).
In SR3, he'd be looking at better odds than Mr. Norm, and a second success against TN 6 would put him in a better position.
Mr. Norm would on average receive almost an S wound (5 boxes) if the shooter earned 2 net successes, which reflects the difficulty of staging down damage when you're rolling 3v6.
Mr. Samurai would on average receive an M + L wound (4 boxes) if the shooter earned 2 net successes, which reflects the higher probability of staging down damage when you're rolling 6v6.
Let's see how a lighter pistol would fare compared to the handcannon that is a Predator. If a Predator is a 5, and you want something that should on average be soaked by someone with an armored jacket (Ball 5), I'd suggest a 3.
If it was 3, Messrs. Norm and Samurai would more often than not always soak the damage down to 0. This does generally reflect the power and damage of a Light Pistol or Holdout against persons wearing Armored Jackets. Even if it was FFBA, Mr. Samurai would soak it and Mr. Norm would be wounded (1 box), like SR3.
If we want LPs to be more dangerous, we'd raise it to 4. Mr. Norm will suffer a L wound eqv. (1 box) on average and Mr. Samurai would soak it completely on average. IF they wore FFBA (Half Suit), then Mr. Norm would suffer 2 boxes, and Mr. Norm 1.
If the shooter earned 2 net successes, the injury effects look like they do above with the Predator that they might earn low-to-Moderate injuries if the threshold is 3. IOW, it pays to be a skilled shooter even with a LP.
The problem with giving LPs a 4 would be that within the limited range than might best reflect the injury effects in SR at present is that you now elimate the SMG and AR damage codes. Some may say that is a good thing. Say SMGs do the same damage as LPs (and call them 9mm) as opposed to the more powerful HP (pick a caliber... Any caliber). As for ARs... I always thought that ARs should be more powerful. I thought it was insane that a pistol has better inherent penetration abilities in SR than an AR. I don't know how much actually damage they inflict compared to being shot with a pistol, though (I skipped that part of Gun Nut Camp).
Anyway, that's some of my thoughts on Body + Armor. I think if they keep the same armor values, and my probability analysis is correct (ha!) then there could be a pretty good, or at least equivalent, system.
If it gave auto successes, to get the same results the Armor values would probably have to change (i.e., be reduced) so that an Armored Jacket doesn't make any weare invulnerable to a bad shooter. There is also the fact that the armor values in SR3 would need to be rounded to provide an effect, and only some of the really good armor would be useful. FFBA (Half Suit) translates well since it's Ballistic rating is 3, so statistically you could say that it reduces the success threshold by 1. The Armored Jacket could be rounded up to 2 (so that Mr. Norm should be able to soak a LP round on average against a crappy shooter, but is still threatened by a good shooter or someone with a Predator). But then what about the Full Suit of FFBA or the Armor Vest w/ Plates, which should give them some more protection than a Half Suit of FFBA or the Vest alone (Maybe they could make the vest a 1 and then the plates allow you to round up when layering, and a Full Suit of FFBA would also round up when layering).
So I can see why Body + Armor is more popular, it may be a little cleaner. However, I am not a big fan of something that in SR has always been a sure thing of a TN mod (APDS notwithstanding) becoming a variable which could fail (catastrophically) based on the roll of dice.
| QUOTE (Charon) |
| Anyway, there are only 3 lighting conditions in SR3, just as in my proposition. |
there are three base levels of darkness, yes. but there are also glare modifiers, which certainly counts as a lighting condition. there's also all kinds of modifiers for smoke. heck, there's even a modifier for noise. how do you account for those factors using your system, without making tests impossible that should be merely difficult?
the problem with your idea is that not all modifiers that apply universally are minor (hence +/- dice), and not all modifiers that apply only in specific situations are major (hence +/- threshold). it is, therefore, not a workable system if you're looking for any level of realism. which i am.
armor adding to body dice would be a pretty poor mechanic, i agree.
As i've mentioned before, my guess is that both ranged and melee combat will use a single opposed roll as opposed to the multistage rolls currently used. An excellent example of steamlining. Obnubilating bureaucracy is not depth.
Magic will likely use opposed rolls as well, but given things like AoE spells and delayed effect spells (many of which can affect multiple targets) the number of successes rolled casting such spells will have to marked down to detemine future effects.
If spells still have a Force (for reasons of SR flavour i'd expect them to) i suspect that Force may cap the number of spell successes. The Force might even be a threshhold to determine whether or not the spell was successfully cast. The later would definately make the mages have to put more thought into Force choice.
Magic will likely use opposed rolls as well, but given things like AoE spells and delayed effect spells (many of which can affect multiple targets) the number of successes rolled casting such spells will have to marked down to detemine future effects.
If spells still have a Force (for reasons of SR flavour i'd expect them to) i suspect that Force may cap the number of spell successes. The Force might even be a threshhold to determine whether or not the spell was successfully cast. The later would definately make the mages have to put more thought into Force choice.
What makes you think everything's suddenly going to be "streamlined" by turning every basic combat action in the game into opposed rolls?
And, if for some reason that is what happens, what the fuck makes people think nothing but opposed rolls is quick and gracefull, but combat pool was clunky and slowed down gameplay too much?
And, if for some reason that is what happens, what the fuck makes people think nothing but opposed rolls is quick and gracefull, but combat pool was clunky and slowed down gameplay too much?
| QUOTE (Critias @ May 12 2005, 07:18 AM) |
| What makes you think everything's suddenly going to be "streamlined" by turning every basic combat action in the game into opposed rolls? And, if for some reason that is what happens, what the fuck makes people think nothing but opposed rolls is quick and gracefull, but combat pool was clunky and slowed down gameplay too much? |
SR3 combat already is an opposed roll(s). It's just not called that because Opposed Roll means something else in SR3, and the opposed roll is broken into two stages that makes it harder to see and slower to execute.
Combat Pool by itself wasn't so much the problem. It was that there were lots of pools to track the state of. If they turfed all the other pools but kept only the Combat Pool that would further exasperate that the Pools were only for limited subsets of rules. So they turfed all the Pools and brought in Edge.
How often Edge refreshes is going to deteremine how much of the Combat Pool concept still exists in SR4.
P.S. I certainly hope that nowhere in the rules will there be something where you have to divide successes by 2. Another annoyance i'd like to see die a quick, but agony filled death. Stage up a success at a time, likewise stage down a success at a time.
EDIT: For that matter "staging" can go suck death-wang.
Let me make sure I've summarized allright.
You want to call whatever it is you're talking about an "opposed roll" (and want to use it for everything from spellcasting to ranged combat to melee combat), but you don't really mean an "opposed roll" by that.
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.
Am I about right?
You want to call whatever it is you're talking about an "opposed roll" (and want to use it for everything from spellcasting to ranged combat to melee combat), but you don't really mean an "opposed roll" by that.
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.
Am I about right?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.