[wraith]

If you're taking requests, I've been trying to get an answer to this one for years now.

Just a bit of clarification, is this the proper methodology?



Say you slap a quarter kilo of minimum rating (6) plastique in a directional shaped charge (45 degree arc to only blow into the room) onto an apartment door to blow it in.  Logic + Demolitions scores four successes. So our equation looks like this :

Rating + (Successes on Demolitions + Logic) x sqrt(number of kilograms of explosive)

[6 + 4] x sqrt(.25) = 10 x .5 = 5

So we've got a DV 5 explosion.

An explosive’s Damage Value is calculated
as its Rating (modified by the Demolitions Test,
if you made one) times the square root of the
number of kilograms used (rounded down). The
Blast value for a circular explosion is –2 per meter,
while the Blast value for a directional explosion
(up to 60 degrees in a specific direction)
is –1 per meter. When explosives are attached
directly to a target, the target’s armor is halved;
otherwise the explosive has an AP value of –2.
If an explosion destroys a barrier, it creates a
cloud of deadly shrapnel that threatens an area
far bigger than the actual blast—the shrapnel blast
has a DV equal to the explosive’s DV minus the
Structure rating of the barrier, with a Blast of –1/m.

If a character intends to destroy a barrier (or knock a hole
in it), resolve the attack normally. Since barriers can’t
dodge, the attack test is unopposed. The purpose of the
attack test is to generate extra hits to add to the Damage
Value. If a character got no hits, then only apply the base
Damage Value. The only way a character could “miss”
is if he got a critical glitch on the attack test, thus proving
themselves literally unable to hit the broad side of a
barn. A character may use Demolitions as the attack skill
if he has the proper materials and time to set charges.

Before rolling the barrier’s damage resistance test,
adjust the modified Damage Value to reflect the type of
attack, as noted on the Damaging Barriers Table.

Now then, onto what happens when it goes boom.

First, the barrier gets to roll a damage resistance test, with structure + armor.  Given this is a standard door, it has Structure 2 and Armor 4 per the chart on pg 197.  However, since this is an explosive placed up against the door, we're not done with the math and ready to roll yet.  Per the 'Damaging Barriers' chart on page 198, explosives in contact with the barrier get to use Base DV times two.  As this section quotes a completely different method of blowing up a door than the one under Demolitions :

We're going to assume the Base DV of this explosive is the one calculated above, despite it having the results of a demolitions + logic roll added in, as the rules on 197 state that the table's results adjust the modified DV.  So the next roll is as follows :

2 (structure) + 4 (armor) dice rolled vs 5 (base DV) x 2 (per damaging barriers chart)

So 6 dice vs DV 10.

Assuming an average roll on 6 dice, the barrier gets 4 successes.  This leaves 6 DV unsoaked, which is more than the 2 structure the door has, and thus the door has been damaged!

Per 'Damaging A Barrier', page 197-198,  The remaining 6 successes are divided by the door's structure to determine the extent of the damage. 1 square meter of hole is generated per multiple of the structure left over in DV.  Thus here, a 3 square meter hole would be generated.

We'll assume most apartments don't have a 3 square meter door.  Now back to page 436!

If an explosion destroys a barrier, it creates a
cloud of deadly shrapnel that threatens an area
far bigger than the actual blast—the shrapnel blast
has a DV equal to the explosive’s DV minus the
Structure rating of the barrier, with a Blast of –1/m.

The penetrating a barrier section on page 197-8 doesn't actually have any specifics at all as to how you actually destroy a barrier, only how to punch a hole in one.  In this case, I'm going to go with the assumption that if the hole is larger than the object, that object is destroyed.

This door has clearly been destroyed!

Therefore, anyone on the other side of this door needs to soak :

The 5 DV (AP-2) (Minus 1 DV per meter as this is a directional explosion) explosion/blast effect itself.

-AND-

The secondary shrapnel explosion, at :

5 (Explosion DV) - 2 (structure rating of the door) with a Blast of -1 per meter.

So the door is gone, and the guy standing behind it is soaking two hits, one at 5DV (AP-2) and one at 3 DV.

As this is a shaped explosion, the people on the outside of the door do not have to soak it as well. If this was a standard spherical explosion, they would have to soak 5 DV (AP-2) -2 per meter from the door.

I have intentionally assumed this apartment is big enough that we don't have to calculate the blast reflection as well.


Now we move on to the next combat turn, and hopefully success on the part of the runners storming the apartment.


You see the number of assumptions I had to make up there? This is why I'm asking if this is an errata point or rules as intended, because there are details missing and conflicting rules in these two sections that need clarification.  Also, there's a typo in the earlier part of that same rule on page 436. The rules for barriers are not on page 194 as quoted, they're on page 197.

[Carmody]

Worth pointing out that talking about compensation isn't a big deal all over the world. In most of Europe, the UK excepted, talking about what you get paid for your job is quite commonplace.

You can add France to the list of countries where people do not talk about how much they make (except to state that it is not enough obviously).

[prionic6]

Same in Germany. Very rare to talk about numbers, even with your colleagues.

[Reaver]

you do in the Frozen North among your co-workers, but generally not with people outside of that unless it's in a general sense of the profession as a whole.

[Agonar]

But it'll go onto my list of "Hey, while we're at it" projects, for sure. Thanks.

Patrick, I have a question.. and the heat right now may have fried my brain, so that if it's already been mentioned, I apologize.
Are you going to re-assess the existing errata?  Like, how Adepts can't Initiate for instance?

I ask because of Recoil.  As presented originally, Progressive Recoil was a very good mechanic..  recoil accumulates until you spend an entire Action Phase doing something other than shooting..  unfortunately, it seems people misinterpreted that little statement, and when recoil was erratad, now you could spend a simple action to reset recoil...   

It worked the way it was, and there were posts and reviews, and blogs everywhere back then about how great progressive recoil was, because you couldn't just Simple-Action Full Auto repeatedly for hours on end (okay, not hours, but combat turns on end) without ever suffering a recoil penalty.  You eventually had to choose to drop shooting, and spend that Phase reloading, aiming, picking your nose.. whatever, as long as shooting wasn't involved.  With the errata..   Allowing a simple action to reset recoil is just too good.   If this was still SR4, where you were able to shoot with both of your simple actions, then there'd be a slight tradeoff, but you can only shoot on one of your simple actions.  So, depending on weapon, if you are spending a simple action to shoot, then you always have another simple action on which you cannot shoot, so you always reset recoil.

I may be alone in preferring the older mechanic, or others may like it too, I don't know..   but I really think that the original errata didn't fully take into consideration the mechanical differences in combat between SR4 and SR5 before they went and made the recoil more like SR4 again.

So I was just wondering if existing errata was on the table as well, with the stuff looking for fixes.

[Patrick Goodman]

Patrick, I have a question.. and the heat right now may have fried my brain, so that if it's already been mentioned, I apologize.
Are you going to re-assess the existing errata?  Like, how Adepts can't Initiate for instance?

Yeah, especially since (in regards to that last bit) I broke it. Yeah, existing errata is going to be on the table for discussion, especially as we compare things to the French and German errata.

And the adept initiation thing WILL be fixed. That's kind of embarrassing. Recoil will be discussed, especially in light of Run & Gun and its optional rules.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Just as long as the discussion revolves around the core rules; optional rules are just that, optional. I don't think it makes much sense to base errata on rules people may or may not be using, unless the errata is for said optional rules...

[Patrick Goodman]

It's mostly going to be done to make sure we don't break one book by fixing another.

[Kiirnodel]

I feel like I've missed something. What rule says Adepts can't initiate?

[adzling]

This has me confused as well...

[Herr Brackhaus]

I know there was discussion at some point about Adepts being unable to use skills linked to Magic (such as spellcasting and counterspelling) and how a "Magic related skill" was to be interpreted. Some saw it as all skills in the Magic Skills section, which includes Arcana even though it's linked to the Intuition attribute, while others saw it as only being a restriction on skills linked to the Magic attribute. Away from book so I don't have page references, but I could have sworn this was laid to rest some time ago. Restricting Adepts from learning Arcana and I believe Astral Combat makes no sense when Arcana is used for Initiation and there are plenty of (well, some) powers aimed at adepts engaging in Astral Combat.

[Imladir]

Street Grimoire (p126) allows mundanes to learn Arcana so I don't see this being a problem for Adepts...

[Herr Brackhaus]

Like I said, I was under the impression that that discussion had been resolved. But this is getting somewhat off topic.

[Patrick Goodman]

The band's together, and we have a place to play. Gotta sweep the stage and get the playlist together...and then it's time to rock.

Little luck, we'll be getting stuff out by the end of the month.

[Reaver]

Nice to hear Patrick!