Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: cuidaBeja on <01-16-20/1600:11>
-
It specifies that you are splitting your dice pool for multiple attacks with no minor action, but gives little information beyond that.
Is always split in half or can you split it further? It's ten bullets, can it be five two-shot attacks? Ten single shot attacks?
Is the DV just normal for some reason or are they bursts or semi-auto attacks? How is this being run?
-
ok, so a common point of reference to begin with: the full auto rules, on pg. 109:
FA: This mode allows multiple attacks without
using the Multiple Attack Minor Action. The
shooter chooses to split their dice pool among any
valid targets in range. This can be used to attack a
slew of targets or even a single target with a series
of small dice pools, with each hit doing the full
damage of the weapon. This mode uses ten rounds
and decreases the Attack Rating by 6.
Ok, so now we're being obliquely told to reference the Multiple Attack rules. They're on page 42 and are as follows:
Multiple Attacks (I)
A character can attack more than one opponent,
assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow it. Split your dice pool evenly
among all targets, or if you are using two different
forms of attack, use half the dice pool for each,
rounded down. This action must be used in conjunction
with an Attack Major Action.
Ok, so moving on to your questions:
1) Per the rules for Multiple Attacks, when you're hosing people down with full-auto your dice pool is evenly divided by X, where X is the number of attacks you're making. Unlike the Multiple Attacks rule, full-auto explicitly allows you to make more than one attack on a given target.
2) the full auto rules do not say they modify the DV, ergo they do not. It does say, however, that the AR is decreased for all these attacks by 6.
Edit: Also, note that the number of bullets is basically irrelevant. You just subtract 10 rounds, and what actually matters is your dice pool. If your dice pool were large enough, you could potentially make MORE than 10 attacks! The thing is though: it doesn't say to round up. And you can't roll a fraction of a die, so in effect you round down. Example: If your pool is 10 dice, it doesn't matter where you allocate your 10 bullets. If you want to make 3 attacks, you divide your 10 dice pool by 3 attacks: 3 and 1/3 dice per attack, rounded down to 3 dice per attack. NOT 4 dice on one attack, and 3 dice on each of the other 2 attacks.
-
Is always split in half or can you split it further?
Is always split by the number of attacks you decide to make.
It's ten bullets, can it be five two-shot attacks?
You can attack five times, splitting your pool by five.
Ten single shot attacks?
You can attack ten times, splitting your pool by ten
(but I would advice against it due to the high risk of glitching, unless perhaps you have a dice pool of 30+ dice)
Is the DV just normal for some reason or are they bursts or semi-auto attacks? How is this being run?
DV is equal to your regular attack no matter how many times you split the attack (or if you don't split the attack at all and just fire once at a single target).
(DV does not increase if you aim more bullets at the same target, instead you will have a bigger dice pool -or you will have multiple chances to hit- if you attack the same target with more bullets)
It does say, however, that the AR is decreased for all these attacks by 6.
For the purpose of Edge gain you decrease your AR by 6 and compare it only once and with only the highest DR of all your targets.
...MORE than 10 attacks!
I disagree.
With 10 bullets you cannot attack (and split your dice pool) more than 10 times.
-
Split and divide are different words. One has a mathematical connotation, the other does not. I think you'll find a perfectly valid interpretation is to take the remaining die or dice and distribute them as you see fit.
Also, RAW aside, how do you make more than 10 attacks if you're only firing 10 bullets? I feel like this is why these games have GMs.
-
Split and divide are different words. One has a mathematical connotation, the other does not. I think you'll find a perfectly valid interpretation is to take the remaining die or dice and distribute them as you see fit.
Since the rules use the phrase "split evenly" that's a watertight argument for "no, you can't allocate the dice as you want". attacks using dice pools of 4, 3, and 3 is not evenly split.
Also, RAW aside, how do you make more than 10 attacks if you're only firing 10 bullets? I feel like this is why these games have GMs.
Generally, I agree. While it's theoretically possible to shoot more than one person with one bullet, it's not *reasonable* to most people. Still, since you can't just split the dice as you see fit, there's an effective limit on the number of attacks you can make, even if there's not a hard limit. Unless you have 10+ dice, you can't even make 10 attacks as you'll need a minimum of 1 die per attack. And if you were to go beyond 10 attacks, well all you're really doing is missing with more than 10 attacks TBH. There is no mechanic where an unaware target gets no dodge test in this edition, so the only possible outcome you can reasonably rely on with 1 die is a miss. If you wanted to make 11 attacks, you need a dice pool of 22+ to have 2 dice on any attack. That's pushing near the limit of what's even possible in 6we. And even with 2 dice you're still just missing with everything most likely, anyway.
TL;DR: While you CAN make 10 attacks, and maybe more if you argue RAW... it's a stupid argument. Your effective cap on the number of attacks you can HIT WITH is going to only be like 3 or 4.
-
Can't split 11 evenly. It doesn't say to round the number of dice, it says split them. The only ways to do that is to add the remainder as evenly as possible or round off, preferably down. Unless we interpret it as cutting up our dice which seems really difficult :p
And don't bother with the second clause. If I attack 6 dudes with different attacks I use half dice split between each target of each attack? Sure. But then I has to go back to the 1st clause which doesn't say to round but to split evenly. Which may or may not be impossible.
RAW is stupid in this case cuz it's not specific enough. One could argue the second clause implies a need to round. One could argue that the word evenly means the final dicepools must equal as SSDR has. Both of those aren't RAW though because they require interpretation, evenly doesn't necessarily mean equal and implications are inferred not read literally.
-
There is errata on this. Whether it makes it into the errata dump this month remains to be seen.
-
Can't split 11 evenly. It doesn't say to round the number of dice, it says split them. The only ways to do that is to add the remainder as evenly as possible or round off, preferably down. Unless we interpret it as cutting up our dice which seems really difficult :p
And don't bother with the second clause. If I attack 6 dudes with different attacks I use half dice split between each target of each attack? Sure. But then I has to go back to the 1st clause which doesn't say to round but to split evenly. Which may or may not be impossible.
RAW is stupid in this case cuz it's not specific enough. One could argue the second clause implies a need to round. One could argue that the word evenly means the final dicepools must equal as SSDR has. Both of those aren't RAW though because they require interpretation, evenly doesn't necessarily mean equal and implications are inferred not read literally.
I guess we can agree to disagree on whether "Split your dice pool evenly among all targets" can mean something other than rolling the same number of dice for all attacks. You have 10 dice and want to shoot 3 targets? Well 10 split evenly three ways is 3 and 1/3. You can't roll 1/3 of a die, so you only actually roll 3 dice for each attack.
The second clause, where you halve the dice pools, is if you're making separate skill checks. Like shooting someone with a pistol in one hand and attacking someone with a sword in your other hand. Now granted, the rule doesn't explicitly cover how to do multiple attacks on multiple attack types... like if you want to shoot 2 people with a machine pistol in one hand and lop two people with the sword in your other hand... but given the total example it's pretty clear (IMO) that the intent should be you halve the dice pools of each of the two kinds of attacks, and then if you want THOSE to attack multiple people you then split the remaining half dice among those targets.
-
The german rulebook states that you split the dice pools "as evenly as possible", which I intepret that there´s no rounding involved: If you split a dice pool of 8 between 3 targets, you can form pools of 3, 2, 2 (but not 5,2,1 or 3,3,3 or 2,2,2).
But TBH, we can hair-split the fragg out of the current state of FA attacks, but that doesn´t solve their main problem: They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes. (Unless you use Anticipiation, at which point they become extremely silly if the GM doesn´t have common sense and puts a limit on the number of possible attacks).
Against a single target, 99% of the times you are better off with burst fire: You get a +2 Bonus on your damage code, you only lose 4 points of AR and spend only 4 bullets. With a FA attack, you could attack the same target multiple times, but due to the split dice pools, there´s a high chance to miss one or even all them - and if you don´t hit with at least 2 of them, your outcome is already worse than with a single-target BF attack (This is especially true for low-damage FA weapons like Autopistols. Their FA mode is pretty much pointless right now). Against 2 targets, burst fire is strictly better, as you still get a +1 damage on each attack. Against more targets, burst fire obviously doesn´t offer a "catch-all" solution, but when you use FA, your dice pool is already split down so much that you won´t hit anything anyways. I can somewhat appreciate that they tried to break the pattern and give FA a more distinct effect, but the math just doesn´t check out. FA in SR6 is just flailing around your weapon wasting bullets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSsz2tJl8rg).
My current houserule adds a damage bonus based on the number of individual attacks: +3 for a single target attack, +2 for a 2-target attack, +1 for an attack against 3 or 4 targets, no bonus for 5 or more targets. Using Anticipation is possible, but only for 3-4 targets. Attack limit is obviously 10, but that´s hardly relevant once you put a cap on the Anticipation cheese.
I really hope that they do something with FA firing in the Errata, or at least add more options (Wild Dice, anyone? ::)) in the upcomming supplement. A return of (actual) suppressive fire would be nice, as well as "wide" bursts that are harder to dodge.
-
But TBH, we can hair-split the fragg out of the current state of FA attacks, but that doesn´t solve their main problem: They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes. (Unless you use Anticipiation, at which point they become extremely silly if the GM doesn´t have common sense and puts a limit on the number of possible attacks).
Isn't FA the only way to hit more than 2 targets with a single action and not use any minor actions? That would seem to me to make it at least circumstantially useful. Or am I missing something? If there are only two targets Wide Burst is obviously FAR better.
-
But TBH, we can hair-split the fragg out of the current state of FA attacks, but that doesn´t solve their main problem: They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes. (Unless you use Anticipiation, at which point they become extremely silly if the GM doesn´t have common sense and puts a limit on the number of possible attacks).
Isn't FA the only way to hit more than 2 targets with a single action and not use any minor actions? That would seem to me to make it at least circumstantially useful. Or am I missing something? If there are only two targets Wide Burst is obviously FAR better.
The Multiple Attacks action allows you to split your attack however many ways you like. Or, up to 10 separate attacks, because you're only firing 10 bullets. Unstated restriction, but probably a sensible one. (but again, as I opined, a relatively unnecessary restriction as once you split your dice pool that many ways nothing is going to hit anyway). So what's the point of FA then, if either way you can make lots of attacks for one Major Action?
The advantages of Full Auto are twofold:
1) you don't have to spend the minor action
2) you get to potentially place multiple attacks on the same target. Yeah, FA doesn't increase the DV... but you CAN hit the same target with normal DV 2, 3, or even more times!
-
As an aside, for our game we house ruled all of this stuff to try to make it clearer and make the interaction between firing mode and choice of attack more obvious, and to simplify the possible permutations of firing mode + Attack action + multiple attack minor action. Here is how we did that, for your reading pleasure. When using these actions, the Multiple Attack action does not exist; its factored in to the actions below. These are the only options for firearm attacks (well, excluding a separate action for using a firearm and melee attack in one round, but this is enough for now).
Attack - Careful Fire: 1 major action. only possible in SS/SA/BF firing modes. You target one enemy with a firearm and pull the trigger once. Your fire is modified by the firing mode (e.g. -2 AR/+1 DV for SA, -4 AR/+2 DV for BF).
Attack - Rapid Fire: 1 Major action and 1 minor action. only possible in SS/SA. You target one or two enemies with a firearm, and pull the trigger twice in quick succession. Split your dice pool as evenly as possible into two packets. Assign these packets to either two targets that are close to each other, or a single target. Your fire is modified by the firing mode as above.
Attack - Wide Burst: 1 Major action. only possible in BF firing mode. You target two enemies with a firearm that are fairly close to each other with a single trigger pull. This does NOT require a minor action. Attack rating is only at -2 but Damage Rating is only at +1 against each target (not -4/+2 as would normally be the case with BF mode). You must split your dice pool as evenly as between the two targets.
Attack - Spray: 1 Major action. only possible in FA firing mode. You fill an area (roughly the size of a room) with a volume of fire, firing 10 rounds, or empty the weapons magazine as long as at least 6 rounds are left. Divide your dice pool as evenly as possible among any number of targets in that area, as long as each target is assigned at least one die. No damage rating change. Use FA mode modifications (-6 AR, +0 DV). This does NOT require a minor action.
Things this scheme does not allow for:
* using FA to attack the same target with more than one "packet" of dice.
* firing more than two "packets" in SS/SA mode.
* firing more than one "packet" in BF mode.
It also treats SA as a distinct firing mode that fires two rounds per trigger pull, rather than simply the ability to pull the trigger really fast. Also, the assumption is that any weapon that is listed as SA also has an SS mode.
Also, we have house-ruled Anticipation such that it cannot be applied to Attack - Spray.
These house rules won't work for everyone, but they have seemed to work well for us so far. They are not a minor change, but a fairly substantial re-working of the rules. For us its easier to think of it as four different "tactics" to use when shooting at people, and the firing modes that allow for those tactics, than to think in terms of multiple attack plus attack and then figure out how firing mode interacts. These rules do make the choice of firing mode your gun is set to before the fight starts pretty important, especially if you do not have DNI and have to use a major action to switch mode.
-
Since when did splitting 11 dice over 3 attacks NOT become 4+4+3....?
Previous edition even explicitly stated that you split them as evenly as possible (SR5 p. 196 Multiple Attacks; but that information always felt a bit redundant tbh). In the name of word count saving they probably just got rid of it. Since they didn't add any rules about suddenly rounding down the size of the dice pool I honestly don't understand how you can say they alter the whole intent of the sentence.
But I guess, to avoid future situations like this the few words they gained was probably not worth it... ;-)
-
Since when did splitting 11 dice over 3 attacks NOT become 4+4+3....?
Ever since the operation was defined as "evenly splitting", rather than "splitting evenly as possible". 11 dice over 3 attacks, evenly split, is 3 and 2/3 dice per attack. It's not *possible* to roll 2/3 of a dice, so each attack is therefore in effect rounded down to 3. Splitting evenly *as possible* would have meant 4,4, and 3, yes. Since it's only possible to roll dice in batches measured by counting numbers.
-
Place 11 dice on the table. Split it in 3 stacks. 4+4+3. Simple :)
But I don't really have an issue if you wish to rule that it will be split into 3+3+3 or even 4+4+4.
I buy your argument that when they now left out "as possible" it can suddenly be read either way.
Perhaps it is a candidate for errata after all.... shrug.
They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes.
It is the only option in which you are allowed to attack the same target twice (or more) with a single firearm.
You may also use it to attack more than two different targets (without resorting to an AoE attack of some sort).
In previous edition FA mode against a single target was almost always a much better option.
In this edition, not so much (but attacking the same target twice by splitting the pool can still be worth it!)
Personally I think FA against more than one target should act more like a frontal cone AoE attack that hit both friend and foe alike (perhaps similar to how it was treated in SR5). I also liked the fact that if you wished to hit individual targets separated by friendly targets you would have to resort to burst-fire (two separate targets) or semi-automatic fire (three separate targets) where all your targets also had to be within short or medium range. If you wish to fire at two individual targets separated by friendly targets further away than that you would instead have to dual wield two separate firearms and hit each target with a single attack from each weapon. All that made a lot of sense, at least to me. But I judging from the amount of posts about firing modes in SR5 it was probably far from clear for everyone...
-
But TBH, we can hair-split the fragg out of the current state of FA attacks, but that doesn´t solve their main problem: They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes. (Unless you use Anticipiation, at which point they become extremely silly if the GM doesn´t have common sense and puts a limit on the number of possible attacks).
Isn't FA the only way to hit more than 2 targets with a single action and not use any minor actions? That would seem to me to make it at least circumstantially useful. Or am I missing something? If there are only two targets Wide Burst is obviously FAR better.
Dual-wielding two wide bursts.
As for Anticipation, it might get errata clarification, we'll see soon, but the key note is to notice the description mentions "each target".
-
But TBH, we can hair-split the fragg out of the current state of FA attacks, but that doesn´t solve their main problem: They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes. (Unless you use Anticipiation, at which point they become extremely silly if the GM doesn´t have common sense and puts a limit on the number of possible attacks).
Isn't FA the only way to hit more than 2 targets with a single action and not use any minor actions? That would seem to me to make it at least circumstantially useful. Or am I missing something? If there are only two targets Wide Burst is obviously FAR better.
Dual-wielding two wide bursts.
As for Anticipation, it might get errata clarification, we'll see soon, but the key note is to notice the description mentions "each target".
The ability to shoot someone twice in the same attack is, IMO, the main point of FA. Doubling, or tripling up on DV is a pretty big benefit. Although action economy is nothing to sneeze at either. Saving a minor action means that's one more attack this round you get to dodge.
Anticipation says it works when you expend the multiple attack minor action. Ergo if you don't expend the action, then you don't get to Anticipate. And if you expend the action, then you don't get to double/triple up on a single target as that's a FA rule, not a multiple attacks rule.
-
But TBH, we can hair-split the fragg out of the current state of FA attacks, but that doesn´t solve their main problem: They are just almost 100% mechanically inferior to the other firing modes. (Unless you use Anticipiation, at which point they become extremely silly if the GM doesn´t have common sense and puts a limit on the number of possible attacks).
Isn't FA the only way to hit more than 2 targets with a single action and not use any minor actions? That would seem to me to make it at least circumstantially useful. Or am I missing something? If there are only two targets Wide Burst is obviously FAR better.
The advantages of Full Auto are twofold:
1) you don't have to spend the minor action
2) you get to potentially place multiple attacks on the same target. Yeah, FA doesn't increase the DV... but you CAN hit the same target with normal DV 2, 3, or even more times!
1) Weirdly enough, the German CRB expanded this to Burst Fire as well, which further devaluates FA in comparison :o
2) True, but that option is a statistical trap when compared to BF. Yes, there is a small chance to hit with all 2 or 3 attacks against that one single target, but each time, the damage is resisted seperately as well. And with the same amount of incredible dice luck, you might as well just score that one devastating BF hit, with all the Net hits and the +2 Damage added upon.
-
Well, with regards to #1, it looks like in this edition you don't have to spend the minor action either. But, you're limited to only 2 targets rather than multiple attacks not having a limit. Now, as an aside, how do you handle the combination of wide bursts with the multiple attack action? Yeah THAT'S sticky in a way that I don't think the FA rules are ;)
And IRT #2, it all depends on the soak pool(s) of the target(s) in question, doesn't it? Body 2 is the "average" value for NPCs, and most NPCs won't have bone lacing or such for more dice, either. Assuming I hit each time, I'd rather inflict a DV multiple times vs 2 dice each time rather than DV +2 once.
-
Body 2 is the "average" value for NPCs
It might be the “average” value for all the NPCs in the world, but unless your PCs spend a lot of time shooting civilians, it’s very unlikely to be the average value they see rolled against them. In the 6e CRB, only a few grunts have Body of 1 or 2, and they are all either Professional Rating 0/1 or non-physical-combat types (riggers, deckers, technomancers.)
-
How many NPCs have 2s in a stat depends more on how the GM/Module stats the NPCs than where a theoretical "average" lies, yes.
But even if the Body is 3 or 4, it's not changing the calculus much of whether it's better to do one hit soaked once or multiple hits of a bigger combined DV but are soaked individually. Probably geting 0-2 hits either way... it's just skewing more. A body of 6 or 9 changes the calculus towards one "small" hit soaked once. THAT isn't going to be common, if the GM is responsibly statting the opposition.