[Erling]

But just to be clear, what you're desiring is that if 4 lousy gangers focus Long Bursts at someone, they WILL get hit?

No, I have another purpose. See, 6-rounds burst results in -5 defense modifier. 10-rounds burst results in -9 defense modifier. Three consecutive (or even simultaneous - Delayed Actions make it possible) Semi-Auto bursts, which is 9 rounds in total, result in -4 modifier. I find it unfair.

plus if the enemy uses a periscope they will still see the attack coming and have a defense roll.

A distinctive feature of Shadowrun 5ed rules discussion is a trick "yes, it's X, but you can Z", where Z is a quite questionable thing.

Just imagine. A new guy comes to play Shadowrun at my table. He's a generic folk familiar with tactical video games like Jagged Alliance and XCOM, and war films like Saving Private Ryan, so his main idea about avoiding bullets is taking cover. However, he builds an adept with 14+ defense dice pool, just in case. He dodges several ranged attacks, but at a certain point he understands it's getting too dangerous even for him, thus he moves and hides behind a wall.
BANG! He's been shot. That goon with SA pistol rolled 4 dice (10 basic - 6 Blind Fire) against adept's 4 dice and won.

- Hey, Erling, I think it's not fair. Full cover must make hitting me much more difficult. I had 14 dice without it, then why on earth I have only 4 dice now?
- Errm... You know, you could use a periscope.
- What?! A periscope? How was I supposed to use a periscope being behind a wall, far from its side?

I don't think that guy would come again.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

Erling, that begs for a house rule in regards to the modification of the cover rules, not for nerfing those people who are built to evade that full-auto spray.

[Acolyte]

Hmm. correct me if I'm wrong, but cover simply adds to your defence roll, neh? The blind fire only applies to the attacker and as long as the defender is aware of attacks and can move, they still get a defence roll. Your adept would get 18 defence dice, if I'm reading the rules correctly. The only case where you'd only get the cover is if the adept was unaware. Good reason to go into heavy enough cover to block the shot.

Perhaps the attacker needs to make a perception check with a threshold - or verus stealth - to even know where to aim, otherwise the attack misses or maybe the attacker having lost track of the adept can opt not to shoot. For example, the adept runs out the door. Did he go just around the corner, or is he down the hall? Did he go just around the corner and drop prone? Perception check. He's an adept, there's a good chance the freaky monky's on the ceiling. If the attacker can't tell, most times they'll not shoot. Well, maybe if they got full auto they can try to suppress the hall outside.

Just a couple of thoughts.
   - Shane

Edit: just looked up the rules, and the "Defender Unaware of Attack" specifically does not apply to defenders already in combat, as per your example. Instead, the attacker would get the +2 "Character has Superior Position" bonus for having better awareness - he know where and when the shot's coming. Goon would roll 6 dice (10 - 6 blind +2 better position defender blind) vs the 18 of the Adept (14 + 4 good cover).

Hope it helps!
   - Shane

[Erling]

Edit: just looked up the rules, and the "Defender Unaware of Attack" specifically does not apply to defenders already in combat, as per your example. Instead, the attacker would get the +2 "Character has Superior Position" bonus for having better awareness - he know where and when the shot's coming. Goon would roll 6 dice (10 - 6 blind +2 better position defender blind) vs the 18 of the Adept (14 + 4 good cover).

"Superior Position" is a melee-only bonus under RAW. Also rule from p. 197 strictly mentions that fully-covered target is considered unaware of attack. Maybe developers implied another ruling, bur most forum dwellers are sure that fully covered target gets only 4 dice roll.

But I understand and appreciate your flow of thought. House rule "Attacker rolls with Agi+Skill-6, defender rolls Rea+Int+4" is exactly what I use at my table, though I think about following the SR4A concept and making attacker roll Int+Skill-6, as novahot cyberlimbs can't help you hit hidden target.

I also thought about making shooting through full cover a Simple Test with threshold based on a rate of fire and cover size. E.g. hitting a target which is behind 3-meters wall would be 8 for SA-single/SS, 6 for SA-burst/Short burst, 5 for Long Burst/Simple FA, 4 for Compex FA. Or something like that.

[S.Miles]

Don't make it too complicated by adding additional numbers and rules to the cover. If you can keep it simple but working, keep it simple and working
I think the -6 for Attacker and +4 for Defender is quite good.

Smart opponents might still wait for the character to leave his cover, if only a bit. I think, delaying his action till the covered character leaves cover (even if only a bit) should grant the attacker the first Action before the covered character acts.

Additionally: Always remember throwing grenades behind cover to chase those frightened chickens out of there. Or use Chunky Salsa to make their day even worse.

[Erling]

Erling, that begs for a house rule in regards to the modification of the cover rules, not for nerfing those people who are built to evade that full-auto spray.

It begs for house rules for both issues.

On one hand, dodging 9 bullets (3 simultaneous SA bursts) must be difficult. Maybe not as difficult as dodging 9 bullets shot from FA-weapon ("not enough ammo"+Complex FA, -8 defense modifier), but at least -6 (-2 x 3).
On the other hand, cover must be you friend. It gives your enemy -6 attack modifier, and it also provides you +4 defense bonus. And even if you'll get hit, damage will be reduced due to Penetration Weapons rules and (if you interpret rules in a certain way) due to Structure+Armor roll.

Someone may say "OK, maybe 3 simultaneous SA-bursts or short bursts must be a tougher thing to dodge. Let it be cumulative -2 per burst. But you make simultaneous FA-bursts almost impossible to dodge! You're nerfing adepts with high defense dice pools!"

No, I don't. Average NPC will have -2 attack modifier due to recoil with Simple FA/long burst (6 rounds minus 1 free RC point, 1 for Str, 2 for weapon mods), -6 modifier with Complex FA. Now add -6 Blind Fire modifier for the total of -8/-12! Many NPCs will have no chance to hit you.
Also really cool dodger can still have a defense roll (14 in base, +4 cover, - 15 from 6+9 bullets, end up with 3 dice - not bad, escpecially since shooter has from -8 to -12 attack modifier).

And even if you get hit (if you're under attack by corp spec ops with attack dice pool 14+), you will have at least 3 boxes of damage reduction if enemy shot 6 rounds, and at least 4 boxes damage reduction if he shot 9 rounds. Add some from Armor+Structure roll (if you interpret rules that way). Add you own damage resistance roll. Eventually you may end up with 1-2 boxes of stun damage of with no damage at all.

The result is:
1) dodging multiple attacks is difficult;
2) cover saves.

[Erling]

I think the -6 for Attacker and +4 for Defender is quite good.

Fair enough At least it prevents full cover from being nerfed.

[Acolyte]

Ah, you are correct about the Superior Position being melee only. My bad. However, pg 189 under Defender Unaware specifically says that this does not apply to characters already in combat. Pg 197 says different.

What you have here are two game mechanically sound rules that seem to contradict each other. As a GM, I'd take it to the group to see which one makes sense, not in terms of "realism" but for the game. I'd be learry of trying too hard to inject realism into a game where a cybernetically enhanced troll with a bazooka might decide to cast a fireball at you.

I do like the simple test with threshold, though. One thing to keep in mind, with the combination of -6 to hit and +4 defence, you've already penalized the attacker by a net 10 dice. Could be that's enough.

   - Shane

[S.Miles]

The 10 net dice simply cause the attacker to think twice. Not shooting every Action phase might actually be a good idea sometimes There are plenty of things you can do during combat. Shooting people behind hard cover is probably not the best of them.

[Michael Chandra]

On one hand, dodging 9 bullets (3 simultaneous SA bursts) must be difficult.

It's not simultaneous. People aren't perfect, you're not facing a machine perfectly orchestrating those bullets. That's why you can get hit 3x but also 0x. If there WAS a perfect enemy, then wouldn't it be technically a 9-round burst with perhaps a slight GM-call flanking bonus to increase the defense penalty?

Of course technically there can be systems that let you combine the fire. Now in SR4, I had a simple houserule for this when the players were involved in a military anti-paracritter operation. The TacNet had been modified and if people delayed to the exact same time, like you would do with a Small Unit Tactics maneuver in SR5, then a simple rule applied: All fire was simultaneous and the highest defense penalty (from multiple attacks) applied to ALL attacks. No silly "just four gangers firing long bursts is enough for you to take a guaranteed hit despite them being sucky at shooting and the spraying being as sucky as their praying."

Oh and yes you ARE nerfing people with high defense pools. That is what your entire idea is about. The only question is whether the nerf makes sense, not whether a nerf exists. Now if I were to claim you are forcing people to get massive defense dice pools, or telling the players with high defense pools that you want them to kill off their characters, THAT you could believably deny with arguments and intent.

The 10 net dice simply cause the attacker to think twice. Not shooting every Action phase might actually be a good idea sometimes There are plenty of things you can do during combat. Shooting people behind hard cover is probably not the best of them.

I agree with Miles btw, if an enemy is behind good cover and uses a periscope to still have a defense test, giving him +4 rather than 4 defense dice while the attacker loses 6 dice, you simply throw a grenade to flush him out. I used the Run-From-Grenades rules from Run&Gun in Missions, playing Carbon Copy, and that fight was delightfully tactical. Even though the scene took 2 hours, the players, even the not-really-into-combat players, greatly enjoyed it!

[Erling]

The 10 net dice simply cause the attacker to think twice. Not shooting every Action phase might actually be a good idea sometimes There are plenty of things you can do during combat. Shooting people behind hard cover is probably not the best of them.

Damn straight. And that's my intention, after all: tactical combat.

You're under heavy fire. Take full cover behind a low wall. Make pop-up attack (stand up Simple + shoot Simple + kneel Free). Wait for your next Action Phase. Use sprint to retreat. Ask your buddy to start suppressive fire.

The enemy's behind full cover (a wall or something like that). Move and flank him. Through grenade if you have one. Delay action and wait until he'll show up.

With "full cover provides only 4 dice pool and burns you Rea+Int roll" rule cover isn't so useful, and combat isn't so tactical.

However, pg 189 under Defender Unaware specifically says that this does not apply to characters already in combat. Pg 197 says different.

Yeah, you're right.

[Michael Chandra]

Okay, let me just note something really important: Those 4 dice vs -6? That's IF they even know where you are! Which requires secondary sight (drones, ARO, stuff like that) or them obviously seeing your gun sticking out, or hearing where you are, etc. So if you dive into a corridor and they fire through the wall, they won't be able to hit you just like that.

I had players hack marks, then use Trace Icon + AROs to let everyone see where the enemies were. That was a perfect appliance of the -6 vs 4 dice. But without it, spraying the building likely wouldn't have hit a single person. I had a player use their vision gear to give the sniper sight of the enemies, who used that to reason where he had to fire. Shot a bug spirit through two walls. That's lovely tactical combat. Using Periscopes to be behind Full Cover yet still being able to see the enemy's attacks coming and being able to fire at them? That's tactical combat. It's already all in the system.

By the way, Defender Unaware makes clear not being able to see the attack counts. So yes, normally in combat it doesn't matter that the enemy comes from behind or whatever. But if it's a sniper, or your sightline is completely blocked, you fail. Basically, in combat you'd assume 360-degrees vision for your players, so only things they still cannot see can catch them unaware. Full Cover without periscope means unaware, while 99% cover (or 100% cover with periscope) means not unaware so +4 dice for you. If you're behind full cover with the periscope, the enemy takes a -6 and wants to use a grenade, if you're behind 99% cover a good shot can still hit you just fine, or flush you with tactical combat. So again, already in the system.

So the question is: Is it bad that a bunch of poor shots that spray a lot of ammo in the timespan of 1 second still miss the super-reactive dodge monster that's going all movie-crazy on them? I don't think so myself. And a single lucky shot still kills.

[Erling]

I agree with Miles btw, if an enemy is behind good cover and uses a periscope to still have a defense test, giving him +4 rather than 4 defense dice while the attacker loses 6 dice, you simply throw a grenade to flush him out.

I'm not sure if Miles implied using a periscope.

Oh and yes you ARE nerfing people with high defense pools. That is what your entire idea is about. The only question is whether the nerf makes sense, not whether a nerf exists. Now if I were to claim you are forcing people to get massive defense dice pools, or telling the players with high defense pools that you want them to kill off their characters, THAT you could believably deny with arguments and intent.

OK, I got it.

No silly "just four gangers firing long bursts is enough for you to take a guaranteed hit despite them being sucky at shooting and the spraying being as sucky as their praying."

In fact I do believe that dodging 4 bursts in a row being at short range must be very difficult. And btw in SR5 even sample gangers roll 8 dice for attack (9 with aim). That's a pretty good dice pool. For a ganger.

"Guaranteed hit even being sucky" is a feature of the system, not my invention. Most hi-tech RPGs (including SR1-3) roll attacker's abilities (skills or attributes) against a certain difficulty level (Target Number), and if attacker succeeds, target rolls for dodge. But SR5 doesn't mix up Simple and Opposed tests, so attacker doesn't need to roll good - he just needs to roll better than target does. So if you have small defense dice pool (or it was reduced by modifiers), yes, sucky shooter will hit you.

Okay, let me just note something really important: Those 4 dice vs -6? That's IF they even know where you are! Which requires secondary sight (drones, ARO, stuff like that) or them obviously seeing your gun sticking out, or hearing where you are, etc. So if you dive into a corridor and they fire through the wall, they won't be able to hit you just like that.

That's a very important proposition, because it makes full cover even more useful than with "-6 for attacker, +4 for defender and no periscopes". In wich situations would you consider attackers unable to hit the target? What if a target is fully hidden behind a 2-meter long low wall? Would you call for a Perception roll for attacker?

use Trace Icon + AROs to let everyone see where the enemies were. That was a perfect appliance of the -6 vs 4 dice. But without it, spraying the building likely wouldn't have hit a single person. I had a player use their vision gear to give the sniper sight of the enemies, who used that to reason where he had to fire. Shot a bug spirit through two walls. That's lovely tactical combat.

Yes, that's a good tactical combat. But that doesn't contradict my assumptions, as you're talking about situations when enemies are not just fully covered - there're literally unaware, they have no idea about shooter's position, and they didn't see him at previous Combat Turns.

If you're behind full cover with the periscope, the enemy takes a -6 and wants to use a grenade, if you're behind 99% cover a good shot can still hit you just fine, or flush you with tactical combat. So again, already in the system.

"You don't need full cover to be good because you can piss off your enemy so much he will want to throw a greande. Expose yourself a bit - that's a good tactical decision".

[S.Miles]

One thing about the 3 gangers firing at once:
Only lessen the dodge chance, if failiure indicates getting hit once, not three times. So if 3 gangers work together, spraying in your direction, firing 10 Bullets total, the total defence penalty should be 9 and failiure on the defence test should result in a single damage value (highest/lowest net hits for the gangers + base DV/AP of their guns).
If you add the defence penalty AND apply damage 3 times, you overkill anything with this tactic. Especially if your PCs can do 6-Bullet bursts with Assault Rifles. So don't overdo it here.

I personally think, dodging bullets Neo-Style is a good part of Shadowrun, emphazising the "more than human" nature of higher-end PCs against goons. This imposes superiority over lowlifes and gives the PCs a moment of coolness and dominance, which never hurts if you usually get f'ed by the Corps.

As for cover:
I would apply full defense pool +4 even without periscope, as you can still move in cover and most defenses are anticipating the enemy, not seeing the bullets (A MBW 3 Sam with 30+ Initative might actually see the bullets, but below its probably combat movement and anticipation).
I would not agree to the attacker not being able to hit a target in full cover, as he can't see it. Again, this is a case of anticipation, which comes from the "blind fire" modifier. Firing in absolute darkness resolves the same penalty and you can't see your opponents here either.

[ZeConster]

"Guaranteed hit even being sucky" is a feature of the system, not my invention.

False. The system doesn't give you -5, -10, -15, -20 if 4 gangers seperately fire 6-bullet bursts at you - your invention does.