NEWS

[SR5] Flechettes vs no armor

  • 59 Replies
  • 20526 Views

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #45 on: <07-16-13/2250:18> »

Personally, the ratio of attacks missing going up to 40% because the defender doesn't have a limit and the attacker does is simply unacceptable.

As a side note, unrelated to anything: Damn, but I wish I'd gotten some of those during an actual game...

Going from 20% to 40%, yes. So a 1-in-5 chance of missing due to limit with fairly high numbers. Now we're actually into the heart of the matter as to what you want. You feel that a 40% miss chance is too high. Again, that's a valid complaint insofar as how fast and deadly combat should be is very subjective. Numbers are what I kept wanting to see. I, personally, think it's perfectly fine to have 2 in 5 attacks(40%) miss. I would PREFER that over 1 in 5(20%). Because I don't think equally matched opponents should hit each other the vast majority of the time. To phrase it another way if striking your opponent is a congressional vote, you think the attacker should be able to override a Presidential veto, every time. I do not. something closer to 50-50 and slightly favoring the attacker is fine by me. It's PURELY a matter of play style. I believe the designers(and many players) felt combat was way too fast in 4th. My players definitely had that complaint and we're hoping this makes 1 combat turn fights less frequent. My issue with what you were saying was 'unfair to the attacker'. I just can't consider having over a 50% chance to hit 'unfair'. I can definitely understand that some people would prefer it to be higher. There are probably people who would prefer a system where you didn't even get to dodge bullets at all. But 'unfair' just didn't seem like an accurate representation.

Also, in terms of style rather than mechanics, I like the idea of the hyper-wired sammy simply being too much for an inferior gun to hit. It also captures the essence of a very skilled person being limited by what he has to work with. An ace marksman with an inaccurate, cheap weapon should suffer for it. Not in terms of the weapon doing less damage, but in terms of being able to hit the target at all.

I'd rather be able to believe the combat scene than the target look like Neo from The Matrix.
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #46 on: <07-16-13/2300:22> »
Even if we ignore the fact that no one* is going to want to make Reaction their hard-capped stat, and that if you put that many points in Reaction and Intuition, your attacks are likely not going to be very good, there's still the matter of a single Take Aim action adding an extra die, and the possibility of bursts.

Shade

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 168
« Reply #47 on: <07-16-13/2306:54> »
I'd rather be able to believe the combat scene than the target look like Neo from The Matrix.

Wired reflexes: This highly invasive, painful,
life-changing operation adds a multitude of neural boosters
and adrenaline stimulators in strategic locations
throughout your body work to catapult you into a whole
new world where everything around you seems to move
in slow motion.

Ryo

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
« Reply #48 on: <07-16-13/2310:34> »
You're assuming 18 dice for the attacker and 16 for the defender? Okay. Like my original example in this thread, as it is about Flechettes vs no armor, the attacker has an Enfield AS-7, with flechettes, set to wide spread. The defender is at short range, within 15 meters.

Oh yeah, and the Enfield is capable of Burst Fire, so lets make that a long burst. -5 for Wide spread and -5 for long burst. The defender is now rolling 6 dice on his defense, against 18 dice and a gun with an Accuracy of 6, since we're assuming a smartlink.

Doesn't sound like the attacker is at a disadvantage to me.

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #49 on: <07-16-13/2319:52> »
You're assuming 18 dice for the attacker and 16 for the defender? Okay. Like my original example in this thread, as it is about Flechettes vs no armor, the attacker has an Enfield AS-7, with flechettes, set to wide spread. The defender is at short range, within 15 meters.

Oh yeah, and the Enfield is capable of Burst Fire, so lets make that a long burst. -5 for Wide spread and -5 for long burst. The defender is now rolling 6 dice on his defense, against 18 dice and a gun with an Accuracy of 6, since we're assuming a smartlink.

Doesn't sound like the attacker is at a disadvantage to me.

I'd hope that the intention in not having the limit on defense was not to kill the use of weapons without burst fire or full auto...
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

Mäx

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
« Reply #50 on: <07-17-13/0447:32> »
And if you want to get really ridiculous, make the shooter a gun adept for up to 20 ranks of Improved Ability, for 20 more dice.
Not possible, absolute max is Improved Ability 8 if the character also has 12 in the skill.
"An it harm none, do what you will"

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9924
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #51 on: <07-17-13/0726:50> »
Improved Ability 6. 7 if you have 13.

A Semi-Automatic weapon can fire a Short Burst that gives -2 on the defender by the way. Meanwhile, since Recoil is a real nightmare now, it's only fair it's actually required against some people.


@Crunch from page 1: Skills are added there as dicepool modifier, so I wouldn't apply limits in those cases either. They're still Attribute-Only tests, with a dicepool modifier. Can't find any rules supporting limits suddenly applying on a Block.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Crunch

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2268
« Reply #52 on: <07-17-13/0838:15> »
Improved Ability 6. 7 if you have 13.

A Semi-Automatic weapon can fire a Short Burst that gives -2 on the defender by the way. Meanwhile, since Recoil is a real nightmare now, it's only fair it's actually required against some people.


@Crunch from page 1: Skills are added there as dicepool modifier, so I wouldn't apply limits in those cases either. They're still Attribute-Only tests, with a dicepool modifier. Can't find any rules supporting limits suddenly applying on a Block.

p188 under defending in combat.
Quote
If the character has a melee weapon in hand, he can
Parry (p. 191) the attack and roll Reaction + Intuition +
appropriate Melee Weapon Skill [Physical] as his Defense
test. If his hands are empty and he has the Unarmed
Combat skill, he can Block (p. 192) and roll Reaction
+ Intuition + Unarmed Combat [Physical] as his
Defense test. Or he can Dodge (p. 191) and roll Reaction
+ Intuition + Gymnastics [Physical] as his Defense test.
These three, Parry, Block, and Dodge, each reduce his
Initiative Score by 5 and only work for one defense test.

And then again on 191 and 192.

[physical] is the notation for applying the physical limit.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9924
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #53 on: <07-17-13/0845:06> »
Okay, that is messed up.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Mäx

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
« Reply #54 on: <07-17-13/0905:34> »
Improved Ability 6. 7 if you have 13.
Yeap that is correct.
And now i have absolutely no idea how i calculated 12/2 and got 8 :o
"An it harm none, do what you will"

Ryo

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
« Reply #55 on: <07-17-13/1301:37> »
according to improved ability, the maximum rating of the power you can have is equal to your current skill ranks times 1.5, rounded up. 13 times 1.5 is 19.5, rounded up to 20, which is how I got that number.
« Last Edit: <07-17-13/1303:30> by Ryo »

Mäx

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
« Reply #56 on: <07-17-13/1305:44> »
according to improved ability, the maximum rating of the power you can have is equal to your current skill ranks times 1.5, rounded up. 13 times 1.5 is 19.5, rounded up to 20, which is how I got that number.
Nope.
 "The maximum improvement possible is your current skill level x 1.5 (rounded up)."
"An it harm none, do what you will"

Ryo

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
« Reply #57 on: <07-17-13/1333:43> »
according to improved ability, the maximum rating of the power you can have is equal to your current skill ranks times 1.5, rounded up. 13 times 1.5 is 19.5, rounded up to 20, which is how I got that number.
Nope.
 "The maximum improvement possible is your current skill level x 1.5 (rounded up)."

That doesn't actually imply that the maximum skill rating is current skill *1.5. That's how they should have worded it, actually putting the word 'skill' in there somewhere. It certainly makes more sense for it to mean the augmented maximum of the skill is current rating*1.5, but it wasn't worded very well to convey that.

Saying 'Maximum Improvement' refers to the improvement of the skill, not the skill itself, so it is more easily interpreted to mean 'the most you can increase it by,' or 'the maximum power rating,' especially considering the power has the world 'Improve' right in the name.

But still, being an adept does grant the possibility of 7 more dice, which is a significant advantage.
« Last Edit: <07-17-13/1335:53> by Ryo »

Ghoulfodder

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 229
« Reply #58 on: <07-17-13/1346:49> »
Surely this is just an exceedingly obvious case of the different nature of the pools involved in attack and defence mean it is balanced without defence having a limit applied. If it was unbalanced, the defence would have had that limit applied to it.

There's a reason attribute only rolls don't have limits and it's because there are fewer bonuses available to them and the level to which you can inflate them is generally lower and comes at greater expense comparably.

It's not exactly rocket science.

Shade

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 168
« Reply #59 on: <07-17-13/2027:25> »
It's not exactly rocket science.

Correct. It is, in fact, rocket surgery.