Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Combat Pools:
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Erebus
I've read alot of posts about folks being upset that the various dice pools are gone in SR4, and what I don't hear those same people saying is that they are fairly easy to re-add.

If you *MUST* have pools in your games, just re-add them. Figure out what determines the pools you want back in, and have characters just use the dice to add to their actions when they want.

For Example, Since most of combat is Opposed Rolls, you can always choose to add your dice from the combat pool to either your Attacks/ Actions, or your Defense Rolls for the turn. Since both sides would have pools, it shouldn't change the probabilities too far out of the original design. This would work for Astral as well as Matrix combat as well.

I'm at work currently... so I'll have to put some more thought into figuring out a working system.

Any one else have similar ideas on this or how to go about it?




Shadow
My understanding of my incomplete reading of the rule is that everything is already ridiculously easy. Thatís why all the artificial caps on character gen. Adding dice pools would just make it easier.
blakkie
At first word of demise of the CP i thought about it. I figured that just using a fixed number of dice though, not calculated off Attributes, would work best. I don't see anything that would change that.

I also figured that maybe an even better idea would be starting with a CP you could just spend Simple Actions doing nothing but building up a pool for that particular combat and tap that pool for any action during the combat (Sprinting tests, attacking, defending, leaping out the window, etc.)

That was someone covered by the Full Defense option, but that's kinda limited in scope.

But i'm waiting to see if the game actually needs it once i've played some.
Gutz
I will just suck it up and accept that my beloved dice pools are gone. I am not much on writing my own rules onto a game. If I wanted to do that I would just make up my own game. My point is not that I am upset the dice pools are gone, its that I resent games becoming less dynamic and more dumbed down and then hailed as being "cleaner" or "smoother". There is nothing wrong with making your players think a little.

My buddy suggested taking the Attribute dice completely from the combat system and creating a die pool with them for use instead. Since he really doesnt like Attributes being as important as Skills in determining success. So it would be Skill+Pool instead of Skill+Attribute.
Fortune
If you added a Combat Pool to SR4, I'd use it all in defense. There are tons of ways to get more attacking dice, but (non Full Defence) defending dice are few and far between.
blakkie
QUOTE (Fortune @ Sep 8 2005, 05:44 PM)
If you added a Combat Pool to SR4, I'd use it all in defense. There are tons of ways to get more attacking dice, but (non Full Defence) defending dice are few and far between.

Even the Full Defense ones aren't that plentiful.

Part of it is that a lot of the defensive dice available are actually penalties to the attacking dice (vision modifiers and such), and they also have the downside of often depleting your attacking dice as well.

QUOTE
My buddy suggested taking the Attribute dice completely from the combat system and creating a die pool with them for use instead. Since he really doesnt like Attributes being as important as Skills in determining success. So it would be Skill+Pool instead of Skill+Attribute.


Yet then his Attributes would still be determing success or failure, possibly to an even greater degree? wobble.gif
Taran
QUOTE (Fortune)
If you added a Combat Pool to SR4, I'd use it all in defense. There are tons of ways to get more attacking dice, but (non Full Defence) defending dice are few and far between.

...which is, IMO, a stronger argument in favor of using them to attack with. Just put the poor bastard down, then it doesn't matter how many defense dice you have grinbig.gif
SL James
Combat Pool is going to be lower than in Third Edition if you try to use 4 attributes instead of 3 unless you keep the multiplier .5, in which case Combat Pool is larger. 4 6's divided by 3 is always going to be less than 3 6's divided by 2.
Chandon
In SR3, combat pool was what added attributes into skill checks.
How about something like the following:

Attributes are not included in combat tests, but you get pools instead. The ranged combat pool would be agility + reaction.

On the other hand, trying to add random tweaks like this to an already-tested game system is a nightmare. Have fun.
Namergon
Alternatively, you could just state that the attribute are dice pools, refreshing at the end of the turn. For instance, you would have to split your Agility dice between all your shooting tests in the turn.

Also, You could apply a rule I saw in the PERSONA system, by Studio Mammouth. The Initiative test in this system is used to buy various effects at the player's discretion:
- increase Initiative score (1pt per success)
- buy "Defense Dice" (in fact automatic successes against attacks; 1 die per Success)
- buy additional movement phases (1 phase per 2 successes)
- buy additional attacks (1 attack per 3 successes)

I think this could be used as an inspiration for SR4, for people that would like to use some "dice pools".
Blueangel
Screw Dice pools. The way things work now is smoother.
James McMurray
Skill + Attribute is a fairly big portion of the system. you could change it to pool + skill, but then you might have to change the karma cost for attributes since they're not as powerful anymore. You also could end up with situations where attributes are even more important than skills because you can get higher pools.

For instance if you go Agility + Reation / 2 for combat pool someone with an agility of 4 and a reaction of 8 would have 6 combat pool. They could add 6 to their attack roll instead of the normal 4 they'd get from straight agility.

It could be done, but it might throw some wonky stuff into the mix as collateral.
Shrike30
I have enough problems with dexmonkeys as it is. Poolmonkeys were worse nyahnyah.gif
mdynna
I was never really attached to Dice Pools. Most of my players had a uniform allocation anyway: CP always all defense, SP always all drain resist. Lots of times they forgot about their pool. The addition of Attribute in your skill rolls effectively means that the pool has been "pre-added".
mfb
different strokes for different folks. i miss dice pools when i play in systems that don't have them. the proper use of dice pool is what seperates the good players from the great players (system-wise). not that the implementation in SR3 is perfect, by a long shot--there's a lot of room for improvement, there. but it's better than none at all.
James McMurray
QUOTE
the proper use of dice pool is what seperates the good players from the great players (system-wise).


Is that the dividing line? Wow, I never realized. Silly me I thought it was solid character building and great play. smile.gif
Butterblume
So, I was a better player because I knew how to exploit the combat pool (and the rest of the combat rules)?
mfb
solid character building is nice, but there are limits on what you can accomplish there. proper use of combat pool is a big part of great play.

as for good use of combat pool making you a better player, yes it did--system-wise.
James McMurray
Interesting perspective. Not one held by evrybody, but a rules manipulation approach is valued by some.
mfb
rules manipulation is the game part of RPG. some people value the game part; some people value the RP part; some value both. if you value the game part at all, you're basically valuing the ability to manipulate the game to your advantage. CP is nice because it's built-in, integrated rules manipulation. people whe value the game part are going to manipulate the rules regardless; CP is a good way to increase the tolerances of the game without directly harming the enjoyment of players who place less value on the game part.
James McMurray
I agree to a point. I only disagreed with your inclusion of every gamer in your statements.
mfb
...huh?
James McMurray
Sorry, wrong thread. Doh!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012