Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: ScytheKnight on <03-04-15/0542:01>
-
There's two things that really annoy be about the core rule book for 5E... #1 is the Rigging section, the entire thing, clear as mud, rewrite the whole bloody thing for Pete's sake... #2 Is clear calculations for a character's carrying capacity, but NO wight guidelines on gear, making it completely pointless except as a number to smack players with when they try to abscond with an entire bank vault. ( would just say the entire contents of a bank vault... but Shadowrun does breed a special kind of crazy).
Personally I'm doing a Missions based game, so things a reasonably PM, but I'm trying to keep things grounded in reality so I've just taken more of a "There's no Hammerspace" point of view, how much stuff can you character reasonably carry and access? It works, but it feels kind of hamfisted, lose and going to lead to problems at various points.
So how have other people tackled encumbrance?
-
We skip it more or less, as the values are quite arbitrary and hard to handle. They may serve as guideline but that's it.
-
the game excplitly states to ignore it 98% of the time. You have lift carry for that other 2% of the time
SR Core P420
carrying gear
As long as the players are reasonable and don’t perpetually
carry around every firearm and toaster in creation
(with enough ammo and bread to operate them both
continuously), weights and encumbrance aren’t important.
-
Yeah, my IRL group doesn't even use it. Unless we're wearing 2 layers of armor, a mask, and have a ballistic shield (and mostly that last one), we don't bother with it. It's assumed that standard protocol is wearing armor underneath, more armor or clothing on top, and a mask/helmet. Once you get past that point, we just arbitrarily assign a penalty or two (usually not attribute penalties; usually just dice pool penalties and maybe a minor speed penalty).
-
When I GM I feel it's fine to ignore unless you have a character that decided to dump stat STR. Then I pay very close attention to their "normal" load out.
At STR 1 you can carry 10 kg, or 22 lbs. (That's about 10 bags of sugar, if you are trying to imagine it.) I happen to know that a Colt M1911 fully loaded weighs ~3 lbs, of which a loaded magazine is ~ 1/2 lb, and use that as a guideline for Heavy Pistol weights.
I had a player turn up with a pistol Adept, STR 1, carrying 2x Predator V, 2x Lightfire 70, 2x Super Warhawk and 30 "clips" of ammo, so roughly 23 lbs there already. Added to this he wanted an Armoured Jacket, a backpack with 10 kg of explosive foam, and all the other miscellaneous stuff he thought a runner needed. Oh, and no means of transport and a Squatter lifestyle!
He was eventually persuaded to look again when the other players began impersonating such a character on a run. Imagine it, a pathetically weak elf stopping every few steps to adjust his gear, dragging the backpack of explosives, and begging the bus driver to drop him at the door and not the bus stop a block away!
-
Well, that guy pretty overdid it on the guns and stuff. I, personally, don't see a lot of Strength 1 characters at our table, but most of the time they are mages who carry very minimal stuff. Certainly well under 10 kilos.
-
We don't bother with encumbrance, though I always ask my runners what they're bringing with them before anything happens. This way, there's no bags that hold everything they have on their sheet or anything like that. If they want to carry around a couple of backpacks full of gear (which hasn't ever happened outside of the few missions that we do outside in the woods), then I usually let them know that once combat starts, or they need to do something physical, they might have to drop the bag(s) quickly (with a Free Action).
I do enforce encumbrance rules for armor though - strictly.
-
For me it's not so much encumbrance that's an issue as it is figuring out what's reasonable.
Take your average B&E sneakthief. He'll probably want a hardware toolkit, an autopicker, and a miniwelder at the very least; null sheen, right, that's all shiny. But he could also use a lot of other tools, and that's where things start getting dicey. How large is that electronics toolkit, or the disguise toolkit, or the jammer and the white noise generator and the bug scanner and the handheld motion sensor.
It adds up real fast. I'd typically go with allowing certain items to be stashed in other items. Got drugs and slap patches? Stow them in the medkit (within reason, we're not talking a k of novacoke here). That Bug Scanner fits nicely in the hardware toolkit slingpack you've got over your shoulder, along with the jammer, a couple data taps, etc. And the Rating 6 medkit which is said to be about "briefcase" size? Easily fits in the survival kit backpack, along with a few extra rations, or distributed across the various pockets of your jumpsuit (i.e. built in capacity).
Run & Gun did help in this respect, at least it's easier to compare item sizes with what a normal suit should be able to hold if the items were built into it. Still, it's always going to be a fine line because as a runner you always want to be prepared without bringing everything and the kitchen sink.
-
For most of the time, I don't worry about it. For those few times that it has mattered or the player is being silly I put my foot down and say "no". If they argue, they then can prove to me how they would carry such items. And for the most part, those that try to prove to me how they would do so fail 90% of the time. For the other 10%, they proved their point and get what they wanted....
-
they proved their point and get what they wanted....
A burial at sea after an impromptu swim check? >: D
-
Nods. Alright, makes me feel better knowing that what I'm going with is a pretty common way of handling it.
-
Hammer space is a wonderful thing.
-
they proved their point and get what they wanted....
A burial at sea after an impromptu swim check? >: D
"I can totally swim in all my clothing, with an armored duster on. And 2 pistols, an SMG and my rifle to boot!"
".... prove it"
-
My current character is STR-1 & I don't carry much on him to try & represent that, but he's not naked either.
His "Heavy" load is the following
Armor Jacket + Helmet
AK97 + 2 Spare Magazines + Survival Knife
Backpack + First Aid Kit, Trauma Patch, & Commlink (Maybe a few other things too. Not much)
-
That isn't all that much. And if players keep their characters to the same level of gear (plus or minus a few items) then there isn't a problem.
-
My current character is STR-1 & I don't carry much on him to try & represent that, but he's not naked either.
His "Heavy" load is the following
Armor Jacket + Helmet
AK97 + 2 Spare Magazines + Survival Knife
Backpack + First Aid Kit, Trauma Patch, & Commlink (Maybe a few other things too. Not much)
Note that Helmets are +2... so STR 1 you;re still taking -1 AGi and REA.
-
Not quite; you need to pass the wearer's strength by a full 2 points to take penalties. Str 1 means you can only get +1 armour from accessories, though.
-
Not quite; you need to pass the wearer's strength by a full 2 points to take penalties. Str 1 means you can only get +1 armour from accessories, though.
Agreed on the first part (rule is AV that exceeds the wearer's strength by 2 points, which in the case of a STR 1 character would be 3), but the second one I don't recognize. Got a reference for where it's said that STR limits the AV you can get from Accessories?
-
The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute.
It's directly before the part about Agility / Reaction penalties.
-
Interesting. So a character with STR 1 could wear Full Body Armor with the accompanying helmet (AV +3), and since he only gains +1 AV would not get any penalties. I wonder if this is the intent of the rulemakers, as this would mean that the penalty could never apply for STR 1 characters.
Now that I think about it, would it ever apply if both of those conditions are true?
A STR 6 character could only ever gain a +6 bonus, and so the bonus would never exceed his STR attribute by 2 points.
"The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute. For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction."
-
Since the text is about receiving a bonus then it can't be both, yes. Interesting find ... I already stumbeled about that passage before but forgot about it. So while thinking to limit the bonus they can receive is fair to give a penalty for low STR, it doesn't seem to work by RAW.
-
I personally think this is just something that needs errata. To my mind, the AV bonus should either be limited by strength (first line) or it should potentially impose penalties if you go above your strength attribute (the latter).
In other words, I'd strike the first line from the book and solely go by the second. Another option that would be more restrictive would be to combine the two lines by slightly altering the text to read as follows:
"The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute. For every 2 full points by which the bonus Armor Value of accessories exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction."
This would essentially mean that a STR 1 character wearing Full Body Armor and accompanying helmet (+3 AV) would take a -1 penalty to Agility and Reaction, and he would only gain +1 AV instead of +3. Similarly, a STR 5 character in Full Body Armor with accompanying helmet (+3) and carrying a riot shield (+6) would only gain +5 AV but would take a -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. I don't personally like this option, but I think this might be what the spirit of the rule is intended to imply.
Not that examples are anything to go off of, but Wombat is a STR 5 character that seems to get the +8 armor from his accessories, so I personally believe the first line is just an artifact from the editing process, personally.
-
The tables I have played at always use the second interpretation, full + armor value, with penalty if go over Str by a full 2 points.
-
Yeah I've never heard of someone taking the armor bonus down to compensate for low strength. It sure doesn't seem realistic anyway. Oh, I'm wearing a full suit of plate armor over my SWAT armor. But don't worry, I'll only get the benefit of using the elbow plate, so I still get to do jumping jacks.
-
Rift_0f_Bladz
Wait, Full + Armor Value? So the normal, non-accessories Armor Value counts against encumbrance too? Meaning, if you're a strength 6 human wearing Full Body Armor with helmet (+3 AV) at AV 15+3=18, you take a whopping ((18-6=12)/2=6) -6 penalty to Reaction and Agility?
Or did you mean just the Armor Value of accessories, on it's own?
Namikaze
I could see the first rule being something that was playtested and forgotten about. As written, those two sentences really doesn't make sense because the second clause will never apply because of the first. I do agree that wearing unlimited amounts of armor just because STR is limiting how much armor you can get seems silly, though.
That being said, I think it's perfectly plausible in many cases to wear multiple pieces of armor without it slowing you down like the 4th Edition rules seemed to do. A character wearing an Actioneer Business Suit and a Lined Coat isn't exactly being weighed down much more than if he was wearing Armored Clothes or just plain old clothing under his Lined Coat. In all cases, his armor is limited to the highest value, in this case 9. I've heard the stories that you and others have mentioned, but at least in my case I've never actually encountered a player who thought wearing two armored jackets was even remotely plausible. Maybe I've just been lucky...
-
Namikaze
I could see the first rule being something that was playtested and forgotten about. As written, those two sentences really doesn't make sense because the second clause will never apply because of the first. I do agree that wearing unlimited amounts of armor just because STR is limiting how much armor you can get seems silly, though.
Well the extreme example I gave was more to prove the point that if you have, let's say +10 armor from accessories, but only 1 strength, you shouldn't be allowed to take only +1 armor value from that +10 and still move around just fine. You should be getting the full +10, but also have to deal with the massive encumbrance.
That being said, I think it's perfectly plausible in many cases to wear multiple pieces of armor without it slowing you down like the 4th Edition rules seemed to do. A character wearing an Actioneer Business Suit and a Lined Coat isn't exactly being weighed down much more than if he was wearing Armored Clothes or just plain old clothing under his Lined Coat. In all cases, his armor is limited to the highest value, in this case 9. I've heard the stories that you and others have mentioned, but at least in my case I've never actually encountered a player who thought wearing two armored jackets was even remotely plausible. Maybe I've just been lucky...
Yeah, the multiple armor thing doesn't bother me so much as the idea that wearing a huge amount of armor accessories (those that are supposed to count toward encumbrance) can just be ignored by saying you're not going to take the full benefit of those accessories.
-
Armor Jacket, 12 AV
Helmet, +2 AV
In both cases, the number is considered the Armor Value. For the helmet, it is preceded by a '+', making it +AV, or + Armor Value. This made perfect sense to me to refer to it this way. But, yes, he meant accessories as they are the only items that use that nomenclature that don't also explicitly except themselves from the encumbrance rule (Mage Armor and Dermal Plating, etc specifically state that the additional armor they provide does not contribute to encumbrance).
-
Aaah. I've not heard anyone referring to armor accessories as "+ armor", but as you say that makes sense now that I think about it.
I thought he meant the plus as a Boolean operator, I.e. full AND armor value of accessories. Thanks.
-
Everyone I've ever played with goes by the example below the rules passage.
The examples never once mention capping the bonus from the armor to the STR rating.
So we basically read it as it is below.
The maximum bonus a character MAY receive WITHOUT PENALTY from these items is limited to BY their Strength attribute.
For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.
-
So a character with STR 1 could wear Full Body Armor with the accompanying helmet (AV +3), and since he only gains +1 AV would not get any penalties.
Well the extreme example I gave was more to prove the point that if you have, let's say +10 armor from accessories, but only 1 strength, you shouldn't be allowed to take only +1 armor value from that +10 and still move around just fine.
I read those two lines as interacting completely differently. Kind of surprised that people interpreted it in a way that negates the existence of penalties, then didn't like the results that followed.
The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute.
Each accessory can only provide as much bonus armour as you have strength.
For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.
There's no reason to base penalties off the modified accessory bonus - just the base accessory bonus.
Strength 4 with a ballistic shield is only gaining +4 armour, but they're carrying +6 and taking a -1 penalty to Agi / Rea. If they throw in a helmet, they're gaining +6 armour, but carrying +8 and taking a -2 penalty.
-
I read those two lines as interacting completely differently. Kind of surprised that people interpreted it in a way that negates the existence of penalties, then didn't like the results that followed.
Probably because the 1st line gets no added reference in the example even though the example clearly talks about 2 people both using over their STR attribute. It only mentions the 2nd line calculations about encumbrance. The fact that both lines are in the section about Encumbrance but the 1st one is never mentioned again in the Armor section where the accessories is probably also why its assumed to be incorrect. It even lists one of the characters as having a +8 Armor Value. Not JUST the +5 he would be at if he was capped at STR.
-
*shrug* I stopped paying attention to examples and archetype character sheets.
-
How can someone exceed their strength attribute by 2+points if their armor is limited to their strength?
-
There's no reason to base penalties off the modified accessory bonus - just the base accessory bonus.
-
I'm still confused about what you're saying Novacrane. Are you agreeing that the total value of the armor modifications is the number to work off of?
Example: if someone has a STR of 3, they can use up to 4 points of bonus armor without penalty?
Or do you disagree and feel like someone with STR 3 can wear 10 points of armor bonuses without penalty so long as that person uses 3 points of their 10?
-
I think he's saying both.
STR-5 + Helmet & Shield = Your capped at 5 "effective" AND because you've stacked to 8 you suffer penalties for 3 over.
So you don't have the STR to get the other 3 and just wearing the other 3 slows you down.
-
I think he's saying both.
STR-5 + Helmet & Shield = Your capped at 5 "effective" AND because you've stacked to 8 you suffer penalties for 3 over.
So you don't have the STR to get the other 3 and just wearing the other 3 slows you down.
Ouch. But I can see it.
-
Ahhhhh. That actually makes a LOT of sense.
-
You could take it as, in order to make both clauses have a point :
5 Strength
Helmet, +2 AV, less than 5, so full bonus applies.
Ballistic Shield, +6 AV, more than 5, so capped at +5 AV
Total bonus is +7AV.
This exceeds strength by 2 points, so they'd get the -1 penalty (though I like the idea of making it based on the max rather than actual bonus because it still has that size!)
Of course, nothing we're discussing matches the example!
-
Now I just want to write up a Gravity Spell that increases gravitational forces on a targeted piece of equipment, like say making their helmet or shield suddenly weight more.
(changing it's virtual AV, but no actually increasing the real AV of the item. So if I increased the Helmet by 5x, its encumberance calculation would be as if it were 10, but still just 2AV for actual defense)
Would it be easier just to target the person? Of course, but this is more amusing. ;)
-
Ouch. But I can see it.
Ahhhhh. That actually makes a LOT of sense.
I totally see how he's reading it. The issue is the 2nd portion is the example doesn't support the "Hard Cap" part at all.
Which is why I always felt the literal reading of it was not as written but as my example above reads.
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=19998.msg358489#msg358489