Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <07-17-20/1214:08>
-
A discussion about the balance and appropriateness for grenades has been derailing the upcoming releases thread. I do think it's not only a valid topic for discussion but also an interesting one. I'm making this thread to continue it without being off-topic for discussions about upcoming releases.
To sum up some issues:
1) Grenades/rockets do a ton more damage than other weapons.
2) There's no defense test.
Not discussed, but I'd throw another issue onto the heap: the rules for setting bombs are rather murky and prone to being "grokked" differently by different readers.
To kick us off, here's the leaving off point for the discussion:
"Explosives in Shadowrun are horribly OP." Um, explosives IRL are horribly OP. We use those things to blow up the sides of mountains!
Sure. I concede that in real life explosives kill you. Now let's get back to game discussion.
If you were playing shadowrun 6 with a PC, and died to one grenade toss with no defense test, would you consider that either fun or balanced? If yes, why?
Also if yes, do you consider that the same in other tabletop RPGs you play? Take DnD for example. If there was a weapon anyone could pick up, that gave you a +10 untyped bonus to hit, and killed you if you were anything other than an 18 Con barbarian, would you still feel the same?
I have to assume by your lack of response that you largely agree it's not fun or balanced. I get it, stating otherwise would be an losing hill to try to die on.
To be clear, I am don't say these things to be an ass or tear down your work man. My goal is only to highlight and draw relentless attention to the things that hold this game back from being the best version of itself it can be.
I'm not the one being addressed there, but I'll respond to it.
I don't know if lowering DVs is really the answer, even though that is at first blush an attractive idea. First of all, what should the new DV be? 75% current values? 50%? Potential problem with 75% is you're not really changing the calculus any. 12P instead of 16P will indeed lower how high the bar is to optimize for damage soaking to reliably not be knocked unconscious in one shot, but it's STILL gonna reliably one-shot most victims. And two coming in are basically still guaranteed elimination anyway. 50% DV then? Now you're on par with guns and optimized melee, which on one hand might make sense, but on the other grenades have drawbacks that guns and physad kicks don't. Not to mention there's the potential problem of suspension of disbelief where you sit on a grenade and are incapable of being killed by the blast. A gun or physad kick starting at 8P at least can be staged up by net hits and POTENTIALLY eliminate an entire CM. You have to literally be 0 body for a grenade to knock you out at 8P. Edit: Also the example of the Anti-Vehicular rocket/missile... its damage value AS IS can't even knock out most fragging civilian vehicles, which is already ridiculous for an ostensible anti-tank weapon even before DV nerfing...
My gut tells me that 75% would be a viable number, but only IF defense vs grenades "worked". And of course if defenses worked, then you wouldn't need to nerf DVs anyway.
Contrary to Lormyr's view, I embrace the absence of a dodge test. I LIKE the idea of the existence of a rock to the scissors of a ridiculous dodge pool. Yes, whether one SHOULD exist given that Area Indirect Combat spells now allow dodge tests is a different topic, but academically I like the concept. I think the better way to address broken defenses vs grenade attacks is to fix why the extant mechanics are broken: 1) the minor actions you use to do so are limited to once per turn and 2) GTFO'ing has to be done before you see scatter rather than getting to do it after.
Since we have explosive weapons now across 4 books (No Future, CRB6, Firing Squad, Krime Katalog) I think it's pretty fair to say the window of opportunity to nerf raw DVs has closed. If it hasn't, it becomes harder and harder to fit that idea in as more and more books would require updated stats being issued. No, I rather prefer fixing the ways your minor actions fail to give you reasonable chances of success to defend against grenade blasts.
PS: I also like pegging blast survival to expenditure of minor actions because it makes it THAT much more of a risky proposition to cash in 4 minors for a 2nd major.
-
My lack of response is due to poor mental health. It takes me awhile to build up the spoons/spell slots/stun track to handle drain to have a heated discussion, even online.
I will get to it.
-
My lack of response is due to poor mental health. It takes me awhile to build up the spoons/spell slots/stun track to handle drain to have a heated discussion, even online.
I will get to it.
For what it is worth man, try not to take me personally. I am just direct and assertive with my views. Furthermore, if you don't feel like getting into it, please feel free not to. At the end of the day I am nobody to you, and I can certainly handle being treated that way.
In rebuttal to SSDR, you have some solid points. My lynchpins are this:
1. I am a firm believer that any attack should have both a defense test to avoid, and a soak test to reduce it if it is not avoided in this game. 99.9% of the game's attacks are made following that formula, so making explosives an exception is both unbalanced, and also makes memorizing more rules necessary since bombs are "special".
2. Damage and radius. A grenade should be better damage and radius than a starting mage's fireball. They should not be better damage and radius than a Magic 10 Initiate Grade 6's fireball, which they statistically aware more often than not. I think DV8 within 3 meters, and DV5 within the full remaining 7 meters (not the 20 listed, jesus christ people), and then have them follow all the rules of normal weapon attacks (defense test, extra damage for carry over hits) would make them acceptable.
3. I agree they are unlikely to change at this point. The decision makers clearly don't think they are an issue or it would have been changed before the edition launched. If that is going to be the case, both Avoid Incoming and Drop Prone will need substantial improvement.
-
Re: Multiple Books... most of them reference "As Grenade" or "As Missile" or whatever. Should still be a single CRB Errata for Frags and the like. The new Boom in Firing Squad had reasonable DVs IIRC.
Re: Lower DV. I'm in favor of a rework of Explosive DVs and blast radius and such. A dispersed, in cover/prone group should not be wiped out by a single grenade. 120mm Artillery shells don't take out whole squads, a hand grenade sure shouldn't. Anti-Vehicle should start the highest and drop off the fastest, like -4 DV per Meter. Frag would have the lowest Attack Rating, high damage, fast drop off. High Explosives should have a higher than frag Attack Rating, lower Damage, slower damage drop.
Re: Minor Actions v Defense tests, I'm good with how they are. However, Cover should do more to prevent damage from Explosions or Spray weapons. The "Cover" status does very little for AoE damage, should do lots. Presuming a lower DV I would suggest a -1 DV per level of Cover vs Explosions or Spray Weapons. If DVs remain as is, I'd say -2 DV per level of Cover.
And my own spin, should be Edge Actions to specifically counter Explosives too. 2 Edge, It was the Wind - add 2d6 Meters of Scatter. 3 Edge - Its a Dud, Explosive does not detonate as set. Could detonate later as a result of a nearby Glitch/Fireball/other explosive detonation/GMs whim. 5 Edge - "I Threw the Damn Pin..." Misfire or some other catastrophic mishap and the Explosives detonate one meter away from the launcher/attacker. (Technically a possibility already if the GM approves the 5 Edge Anything Goes Edge Action).
-
My lack of response is due to poor mental health. It takes me awhile to build up the spoons/spell slots/stun track to handle drain to have a heated discussion, even online.
I will get to it.
Don't rush on account of the peanut gallery. You gotta take care of you!
1. I am a firm believer that any attack should have both a defense test to avoid, and a soak test to reduce it if it is not avoided in this game. 99.9% of the game's attacks are made following that formula, so making explosives an exception is both unbalanced, and also makes memorizing more rules necessary since bombs are "special".
It's an elegant ideal to make every attack work the same way. But in this case, I prefer the expenditure of (viable) minor actions. The problem as I see it with giving grenades/rockets a dodge test is they get them SOME of the time. What pool are you rolling against, for example, if you trigger a boobytrap with a tripwire attached to a grenade's pin? When actively thrown/launched, sure it can make sense for attack roll vs dodge roll. When the explosive is a passive element of the environment, roll vs roll is (imo) a bad paradigm. And having two different mechanics for one thing is a terrible paradigm.
2. Damage and radius. A grenade should be better damage and radius than a starting mage's fireball. They should not be better damage and radius than a Magic 10 Initiate Grade 6's fireball, which they statistically aware more often than not. I think DV8 within 3 meters, and DV5 within the full remaining 7 meters (not the 20 listed, jesus christ people), and then have them follow all the rules of normal weapon attacks (defense test, extra damage for carry over hits) would make them acceptable.
I think this is territory where we'll just have to agree that we think fundamentally different things are the better fix. But with regards to Area Indirect Combat spells...they've been moved another degree away from being "magic grenades" in this edition because they no longer scatter and of course the DV scales up on net hits. They're really no longer comparable imo.
And my own spin, should be Edge Actions to specifically counter Explosives too. 2 Edge, It was the Wind - add 2d6 Meters of Scatter. 3 Edge - Its a Dud, Explosive does not detonate as set. Could detonate later as a result of a nearby Glitch/Fireball/other explosive detonation/GMs whim. 5 Edge - "I Threw the Damn Pin..." Misfire or some other catastrophic mishap and the Explosives detonate one meter away from the launcher/attacker. (Technically a possibility already if the GM approves the 5 Edge Anything Goes Edge Action).
I agree with you on cover, but I love this. Saying the grenade is a dud, or prior to exploding falls into a drain and directs the blast only upwards, or etc are imo perfectly reasonable executions of 5 Edge Boost "Create Special Effect". Not only would it be perfectly reasonable, you're in effect getting to say "you attack fails outright" for 5 edge.
I'm not so sure there's still a problem beyond that... yes "cancelling" an attack outright is a powerful benefit even at 5 edge, but I suppose by the same logic you could spend 5 edge to decree the other guy's gun jams and you in effect end up with the same result anyway. So... really it's only an issue of "is 5 edge too expensive" or not.
I'm not sure. My gut says 3 edge for a specialized "your grenade is a dud" action is too cheap, which would mean it'd have to therefore be 4+ anyway. Does there need to be a 4 edge action just for grenades when the 5 edge action is already there? I'll think on it.
This is a great point, Hobbes.
-
The problem as I see it with giving grenades/rockets a dodge test is they get them SOME of the time. What pool are you rolling against, for example, if you trigger a boobytrap with a tripwire attached to a grenade's pin?
For me this is an easy one. A planted explosive is no longer an attack, it is a trap. You oppose that with a Perception check or Engineering check (I'd allow either) to notice it (effectively the defense test), and an Engineering check if you care to attempt to disarm it.
I think this is territory where we'll just have to agree that we think fundamentally different things are the better fix. But with regards to Area Indirect Combat spells...they've been moved another degree away from being "magic grenades" in this edition because they no longer scatter and of course the DV scales up on net hits. They're really no longer comparable imo.
If we just have opposing views, that's cool. But I ask you to consider two things:
1. Scatter is a joke because of air-burst. Even taking a fairly non-optimized PC, Agility 9 (6 plus 3 augmented) and plain old athletics 6 will average about 5 hits on an attack rolls, which doubles to 10 when dealing with scatter.
2. Even scaling hits takes quite some time to catch up. Lets compare only the grenades lowest damage value of 8P in a 20m radius. Doing this attack costs the guy chump change nuyen and 1 major action.
Just getting a combat spell to a 20m radius is going to add a whooping 10 drain. At base magic 6, you are looking at DV3 if it hits. Let's give a generous spellcasting pool of 18 using your preferred dice pool interpretation (6 magic, 6 spellcasting, 2 combat spell spec, 4 focus). 8 hits on average, minus 3 hits for the defense test on average makes the spell break even on the grenade's lowest damage, for 16 damn drain.
I personally find that very comparable in terms of raw game mechanics, and not even remotely balanced.
-
The problem as I see it with giving grenades/rockets a dodge test is they get them SOME of the time. What pool are you rolling against, for example, if you trigger a boobytrap with a tripwire attached to a grenade's pin?
For me this is an easy one. A planted explosive is no longer an attack, it is a trap. You oppose that with a Perception check or Engineering check (I'd allow either) to notice it (effectively the defense test), and an Engineering check if you care to attempt to disarm it.
A grenade goes off 1 meter away from a victim. If the grenade got there before exploding because it was thrown or launched there, you're proposing the target should roll REA + INT vs the relevant attack roll, like any other attack... I get that. So if the exploding grenade that's 1 meter away goes off because it's taped to the wall and you pulled a tripwire connected to the pin, you're saying the target should roll REA + INT vs the LOG + Engineering of the person who set the booby trap? Setting a booby trap in effect establishes a threshold one must beat to dodge the blast?
I think this is territory where we'll just have to agree that we think fundamentally different things are the better fix. But with regards to Area Indirect Combat spells...they've been moved another degree away from being "magic grenades" in this edition because they no longer scatter and of course the DV scales up on net hits. They're really no longer comparable imo.
If we just have opposing views, that's cool. But I ask you to consider two things:
1. Scatter is a joke because of air-burst. Even taking a fairly non-optimized PC, Agility 9 (6 plus 3 augmented) and plain old athletics 6 will average about 5 hits on an attack rolls, which doubles to 10 when dealing with scatter.
If it's on airburst, it must be wireless-on. And carrying around wirelessly enabled grenades is a problem with an evident solution. No problem that I'm seeing, here :D
2. Even scaling hits takes quite some time to catch up. Lets compare only the grenades lowest damage value of 8P in a 20m radius. Doing this attack costs the guy chump change nuyen and 1 major action.
Just getting a combat spell to a 20m radius is going to add a whooping 10 drain. At base magic 6, you are looking at DV3 if it hits. Let's give a generous spellcasting pool of 18 using your preferred dice pool interpretation (6 magic, 6 spellcasting, 2 combat spell spec, 4 focus). 8 hits on average, minus 3 hits for the defense test on average makes the spell break even on the grenade's lowest damage, for 16 damn drain.
I personally find that very comparable in terms of raw game mechanics, and not even remotely balanced.
Well, I view the potential for DVs completely out of line with other means of attack as being not that different from 5e, really. You could hit someone with 50, 80, even 100 DV if you just bog down the game long enough to sufficiently calculate geometry. Not only is that DV unfun for most, doing math is unfun for most too. IMO, anyway :D
Getting rid of the chunky salsa rule in exchange for just assuming it's wompin' damage from the beginning is in my view a net win.
-
So if the exploding grenade that's 1 meter away goes off because it's taped to the wall and you pulled a tripwire connected to the pin, you're saying the target should roll REA + INT vs the LOG + Engineering of the person who set the booby trap? Setting a booby trap in effect establishes a threshold one must beat to dodge the blast?
No. So in the case of a planted explosive, the trap maker would roll say LOG + ENG to properly place and hide it. The victim of the trap would roll INT + PER/ENG to notice the trap at an appropriate time/distance to be safe from it. They could then choose to deal with it at a distance, or get closer to safely disarm with their own LOG + ENG.
If it's on airburst, it must be wireless-on. And carrying around wirelessly enabled grenades is a problem with an evident solution. No problem that I'm seeing, here :D
Yeah, this is potentially true. But as a mechanically minded person, I see it is a non-threat. Combat starts, minor action wireless on, major action blow up the world, minor action wireless off. . .
That is not even considering team matrix defense.
Getting rid of the chunky salsa rule in exchange for just assuming it's wompin' damage from the beginning is in my view a net win.
Well if I had to choose strictly between a world with chunky salsa or one without, then sure, I agree. It was the dumbest rule I have every played with in any game ever. But that said, I am capable of both imaging, and designing, a more balanced alternative than A or B.
-
So if the exploding grenade that's 1 meter away goes off because it's taped to the wall and you pulled a tripwire connected to the pin, you're saying the target should roll REA + INT vs the LOG + Engineering of the person who set the booby trap? Setting a booby trap in effect establishes a threshold one must beat to dodge the blast?
No. So in the case of a planted explosive, the trap maker would roll say LOG + ENG to properly place and hide it. The victim of the trap would roll INT + PER/ENG to notice the trap at an appropriate time/distance to be safe from it. They could then choose to deal with it at a distance, or get closer to safely disarm with their own LOG + ENG.
What if all that fails, or they glitch and set it off. Either way... how do you envision doing a resistance/dodge test against an explosive that is just sitting there and you just happened to be too close when it went off... it wasn't thrown/launched at you?
The way I prefer to do it, via expenditure of minor actions, requires a bit of movie logic in that you get a moment to realize what's about to happen and you do a cinematic dive or whatever... it's no more unrealistic than dodging bullets that were shot at you at any rate!
-
So if the exploding grenade that's 1 meter away goes off because it's taped to the wall and you pulled a tripwire connected to the pin, you're saying the target should roll REA + INT vs the LOG + Engineering of the person who set the booby trap? Setting a booby trap in effect establishes a threshold one must beat to dodge the blast?
No. So in the case of a planted explosive, the trap maker would roll say LOG + ENG to properly place and hide it. The victim of the trap would roll INT + PER/ENG to notice the trap at an appropriate time/distance to be safe from it. They could then choose to deal with it at a distance, or get closer to safely disarm with their own LOG + ENG.
What if all that fails, or they glitch and set it off. Either way... how do you envision doing a resistance/dodge test against an explosive that is just sitting there and you just happened to be too close when it went off... it wasn't thrown/launched at you?
The way I prefer to do it, via expenditure of minor actions, requires a bit of movie logic in that you get a moment to realize what's about to happen and you do a cinematic dive or whatever... it's no more unrealistic than dodging bullets that were shot at you at any rate!
I'll try to be a bit more clear. Using the example I listed above, if you fail to perceive the explosive trap, and trigger it, then you just eat the 16P, or appropriate damage listed via distance from trigger to boom (if say the trip wire was 5 meters from the actual explosive). The perception check to notice the trap is there is effectively the dodge test, or avoid it all together chance. Does that make more sense?
Yeah I feel you. For the most part I like as much realism in my games as possible without completely screwing game balance. Dodging a bomb is not at all realistic, but is better than auto dying with no defense test but an insulting soak test that amounts to "if you are not a trog and/or cybered up for bonus health don't bother".
-
So if the exploding grenade that's 1 meter away goes off because it's taped to the wall and you pulled a tripwire connected to the pin, you're saying the target should roll REA + INT vs the LOG + Engineering of the person who set the booby trap? Setting a booby trap in effect establishes a threshold one must beat to dodge the blast?
No. So in the case of a planted explosive, the trap maker would roll say LOG + ENG to properly place and hide it. The victim of the trap would roll INT + PER/ENG to notice the trap at an appropriate time/distance to be safe from it. They could then choose to deal with it at a distance, or get closer to safely disarm with their own LOG + ENG.
What if all that fails, or they glitch and set it off. Either way... how do you envision doing a resistance/dodge test against an explosive that is just sitting there and you just happened to be too close when it went off... it wasn't thrown/launched at you?
The way I prefer to do it, via expenditure of minor actions, requires a bit of movie logic in that you get a moment to realize what's about to happen and you do a cinematic dive or whatever... it's no more unrealistic than dodging bullets that were shot at you at any rate!
I'll try to be a bit more clear. Using the example I listed above, if you fail to perceive the explosive trap, and trigger it, then you just eat the 16P, or appropriate damage listed via distance from trigger to boom (if say the trip wire was 5 meters from the actual explosive). The perception check to notice the trap is there is effectively the dodge test, or avoid it all together chance. Does that make more sense?
I think we disagree that subbing in a perception roll to spot 16P before it happens from a booby trap is fairly analogous to rolling dodge to avoid 16P from a thrown grenade. Either the grenade is a lethal threat, or it isn't. I'm not on board with the basic premise of "you ought to be able to endure a nearby grenade blast". I'm fine with grenades being a completely different animal from every other kind of attack in the game, due to their highly plausible passive use as well as the potential for active use. Instead of dodging blasts, I'd still rather see minor actions that cover hitting the dirt/limiting your exposure to said blast and/or increasing the distance between yourself and the blast.
setting aside the potential problems of one threshold to spot a booby trap regardless of the possible contexts for a viewer (it might be in plain view from one direction, but not another... and etc etc)... how should actions like Drop Prone and Avoid Incoming work when you get the potential to dodge outright? Do you remove those actions? Do grenades go from OP to not-worth-the-bother if you get both? (I think so...)
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...) and improving cover/hitting the dirt/letting you avoid incoming more than once per round... I don't think DVs need to be tweaked at all, really. (tho again, 75% current levels wouldn't be all that bad either... except for AV rockets which I think need a BOOST, despite all this talk about explosives being OP :D
-
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...) and improving cover/hitting the dirt/letting you avoid incoming more than once per round... I don't think DVs need to be tweaked at all, really. (tho again, 75% current levels wouldn't be all that bad either... except for AV rockets which I think need a BOOST, despite all this talk about explosives being OP :D
Minor issue with the 5 Edge spend is that every other Grenade or Rocket Launcher is firing multiple times. So unless the GM is okay with "Fast Fuse, first one went off in the barrel" or something you've got to come up with 5 Edge per incoming. Or the poor, helpless NPCs have to have a tremendous Edge pool to deal with the crazy bomber PCs. Whichever.
Of course it could just kick off an Edge bidding war of wish granting as opposing sides throw 5 Edge back and forth at each other. Which would be amusing at least once....
-
I think we disagree that subbing in a perception roll to spot 16P before it happens from a booby trap is fairly analogous to rolling dodge to avoid 16P from a thrown grenade. Either the grenade is a lethal threat, or it isn't. I'm not on board with the basic premise of "you ought to be able to endure a nearby grenade blast". I'm fine with grenades being a completely different animal from every other kind of attack in the game, due to their highly plausible passive use as well as the potential for active use. Instead of dodging blasts, I'd still rather see minor actions that cover hitting the dirt/limiting your exposure to said blast and/or increasing the distance between yourself and the blast.
We are just at a hard impasse then, because I am in the polar opposite camp. They are utterly unbalanced in their present state, and should formula the formula of every other attack in the game besides toxins, which also need reworked.
Let me ask you the same questions I asked Ray:
If you were playing shadowrun 6 with a PC, and died to one grenade toss with no defense test, would you consider that either fun or balanced? If yes, why?
Also if yes, do you consider that the same in other tabletop RPGs you play? Take DnD for example. If there was a weapon anyone could pick up, that gave you a +10 untyped bonus to hit, and killed you if you were anything other than an 18 Con barbarian, would you still feel the same?
setting aside the potential problems of one threshold to spot a booby trap regardless of the possible contexts for a viewer (it might be in plain view from one direction, but not another... and etc etc)... how should actions like Drop Prone and Avoid Incoming work when you get the potential to dodge outright? Do you remove those actions? Do grenades go from OP to not-worth-the-bother if you get both? (I think so...)
Currently SR6 has partial rules for planted explosives. How would you handle this currently?
-
For me it's as simple as (SR 5e -> 6e)
Ares Predator: 8P -> 3P
Ares Alpha: 11P -> 4P
Panther XXL: 17P -> 7P
Frag grenade: 18P AP+5 -> 16P
Hi-Ex grenade: 16P AP-2 -> 16P
(you know I could go on at length, these are a limited number of examples)
And then the coup de grace:
Take Cover is an interrupt action you can almost always do -> Avoid Incoming means you have to save an action back (which you will then lose if you don't need it after all) and can only be done once per turn
How can anyone look at that and not think something's off?
Now, if there were regular threads being created from 2013-2018 from people saying "what's up with grenades in SR5e?" and "grenades need a buff" and "grenades are too weak", maybe I could buy into it being a deliberate and reasonable idea. Were there? Any? I've had a look and I couldn't find any.
PS: I also like pegging blast survival to expenditure of minor actions because it makes it THAT much more of a risky proposition to cash in 4 minors for a 2nd major.
Hasn't MagicRun done enough to piss off the streetsam players without also robbing them of 50% of their DPS? They're literally the DPS class.
-
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)
Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.
-
Let me ask you the same questions I asked Ray:
If you were playing shadowrun 6 with a PC, and died to one grenade toss with no defense test, would you consider that either fun or balanced? If yes, why?
Also if yes, do you consider that the same in other tabletop RPGs you play? Take DnD for example. If there was a weapon anyone could pick up, that gave you a +10 untyped bonus to hit, and killed you if you were anything other than an 18 Con barbarian, would you still feel the same?
Well, here's how I answer those questions:
1) yes, I think it would be balanced (and possibly fun, however much fun you'll have watching your character die)... assuming there were working defenses in place other than the defense test. "You die, no save." isn't fun, of course. But I'm not as convinced as you are that the chance to avoid death must necessarily be a defense test. As I said, I prefer the paradigm where you must pay to avoid death via action economy. You didn't save any actions? That's on you. You didn't have "no chance".
2) Older editions of D&D (pre-d20) had a rules concept called a Death Savings Throw. If you were hit by certain spells/effects, you could flat out die regardless of any factors outside of what number you needed to beat to make your save (which was linked to level and class, rather than Constitution). So it's not your exact scenario, but D&D grew and thrived where one could be struck by a weapon that would flat out kill you, no questions asked, if you failed your save. Having 18 constitution didn't even factor into things.
Now, sure. You're asking something slightly but importantly different... "what about a weapon that kills you with NO savings throw?" Obviously that's bad. But the analogue for a savings throw here is expending a minor action to minimize or avoid the blast that in absence of taking that action WILL likely kill you. And yes, I'm 100% fine with that. Or rather, I would be if the minor actions weren't worded in such a way that you're essentially helpless if a second person lobs a grenade at you in the same turn.
setting aside the potential problems of one threshold to spot a booby trap regardless of the possible contexts for a viewer (it might be in plain view from one direction, but not another... and etc etc)... how should actions like Drop Prone and Avoid Incoming work when you get the potential to dodge outright? Do you remove those actions? Do grenades go from OP to not-worth-the-bother if you get both? (I think so...)
Currently SR6 has partial rules for planted explosives. How would you handle this currently?
As is. I'm saying I think thrown grenades should be mechanically handled just like planted grenades. If a grenade goes off at your feet, it should not matter if it got there because it was thrown or if it was planted there and you subsequently walked up to it. Same rules should apply for both scenarios. No dodge; use minor actions all around. That's my view on how it "should be".
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)
Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.
The question of "should the GM be equipping NPCs with grenades" is not exactly the same question as "Should you be equipping your character with grenades." I don't know what kind of evil GM you expect to play with, but I like to think of myself as a cunning and devious person and *I* still wouldn't give grenades to standard opposition. AT BEST 1st wave of reinforcements shows up with flashbangs and gas grenades... if you're getting grenades thrown at you so often that you can't even afford to ever dip below 5 edge I'd submit the problem is with your GM, not the rules.
For me it's as simple as (SR 5e -> 6e)
Ares Predator: 8P -> 3P
Ares Alpha: 11P -> 4P
Panther XXL: 17P -> 7P
Frag grenade: 18P AP+5 -> 16P
Hi-Ex grenade: 16P AP-2 -> 16P
(you know I could go on at length, these are a limited number of examples)
Problem with your view is that the 16P for grenade in 5e was only valid if there are no nearby surfaces. In space, or high up in the air or something. 99.99%+ of the combats I've seen in SR have at least the floor/ground nearby. The sidebar example in the 5e CRB cites a grenade hitting a lulzy 156P. I think 6e's vision of "16P all the time, don't worry about tracking blasts" is superior to 5e's "ostensibly 16P, but potentially infinite damage" paradigm both in design AND playability. YMMV ;)
And then the coup de grace:
Take Cover is an interrupt action you can almost always do -> Avoid Incoming means you have to save an action back (which you will then lose if you don't need it after all) and can only be done once per turn
How can anyone look at that and not think something's off?
I thought I was clear in agreeing that the minor actions, as written to only work once per turn, ARE problematic? I'd like to see either Avoid Incoming lose the once per turn restriction, or there be more options that CAN be used on successive grenades. Still... even as is without any errata/houserule you can Avoid Incoming the first grenade, Return to Sender the 2nd, Spend 5 edge to make the 3rd a dud, and you still haven't even Hit the Dirt yet. Again, if you're getting bombed in 3+ separate major actions in the same turn... either you REALLY picked the wrong fight or your GM is being a Richard. Rules can't and shouldn't address either possibility there.
-
A sidenote: In SR5, floor and ceiling were never taken into account by most people for rebounds, since the rules specifically mention walls and doors. Only the theory of a single room massively rebounding took all six directions into account, so based on that rebounding requires more than just floor and ceiling blocked. Most interior walls would get shredded by an up-close grenade as well. So in most combat scenarios, you'd have no chunky salsa. Elevators, underground areas and alleys with thick walls, on the other hand...
-
In general Return to Sender should normally not work as Grenades should be set to Impact Detonation. If you foolishly throw a grenade with a 3 second fuse at a Street Samurai you get what you deserve.
-
I accept your answers SSDR, even if I couldn't disagree more about you finding them balanced. And yeah, I am well aware of old DnD methodology. . .my very first character in my very first game (temple of elemental evil) some 25 years ago died an hour into the game from a green slime in the moathouse.
So on the topic of Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt, other than removing the limitation of 1/round from the first, do you think they are otherwise balanced at present?
Imo Avoid Incoming needs to remove the die penalty to the roll to see how far you make it. I mean a -6 from the grenade coming to your face really limits how far you are going to make it. So if you are lucky 16P becomes 12P. . .
And if we are going to leave damage codes as is, Hit the Dirt needs to be at least doubled, if not more.
Ultimately the problem I have with using action economy to help mitigate explosives is that the already most powerful attack in the game now also sucks out your action economy just to have a prayer of survival. I frankly find that game design insane. We can do better, and if we can't do better, those responsible need a new career field.
As is. I'm saying I think thrown grenades should be mechanically handled just like planted grenades. If a grenade goes off at your feet, it shouldn't use one mechanic if someone threw it there (your proposal to roll dodge) and another if it was detonated there by a tripwire or some other means (better spend a minor action). No dodge; use minor actions all around. That's my view on how it "should be".
So if I am understanding you right, you think it is ok for a character to plant a hidden explosive, another character to trigger it with zero chance to notice it before it happens, and just eat all 16P before taking minor actions?
Problem with your view is that the 16P for grenade in 5e was only valid if there are no nearby surfaces. In space, or high up in the air or something. 99.99%+ of the combats I've seen in SR have at least the floor/ground nearby. The sidebar example in the 5e CRB cites a grenade hitting a lulzy 156P. I think 6e's vision of "16P all the time, don't worry about tracking blasts" is superior to 5e's "ostensibly 16P, but potentially infinite damage" paradigm both in design AND playability. YMMV ;)
I think we all agree chunky salsa was dumb, but I only saw it legitimately come up once in hundreds of hours of Missions play. The vast majority of the time a grenade is perfectly capable of busting through most barriers and thus not salsa'ing unless those barriers were extremely thick. Most hallways, doors, ect. just give.
Edit: Also, I mostly agree with Penllawen. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a mid grade security personnel to all carry a flash bang or two. Considering what happens if all 4 (more?) of them just toss those bangs is not an unreasonable scenario to ponder. The inflated damage and next to no "save" / "defense roll" / whatever you want to label it may be liked or tolerable to some, but poorly designed is the only fitting description for it.
-
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)
Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.
You don't need to hang on to 5 Edge all the time. Just when the NPCs roll out with a Rocket Launcher, maybe don't open with Anticipate?
Or just get to melee range. Oh, human shields, grab a hostage! You're the bad guys remember : ) Tons of options here.
-
I accept your answers SSDR, even if I couldn't disagree more about you finding them balanced. And yeah, I am well aware of old DnD methodology. . .my very first character in my very first game (temple of elemental evil) some 25 years ago died an hour into the game from a green slime in the moathouse.
Well it's not so much that I think everything is perfect as is, but that mitigating/avoiding blast damage via minor actions is the best way to go.
So on the topic of Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt, other than removing the limitation of 1/round from the first, do you think they are otherwise balanced at present?
Imo Avoid Incoming needs to remove the die penalty to the roll to see how far you make it. I mean a -6 from the grenade coming to your face really limits how far you are going to make it. So if you are lucky 16P becomes 12P. . .
And if we are going to leave damage codes as is, Hit the Dirt needs to be at least doubled, if not more.
Yeah I think almost all of the anti-blast minor actions could/should use some boosts to make them more useful. But the devil's in the details... if you could Avoid Incoming multiple times per round, for example, what's to stop a literal reader from just avoiding imaginary grenades in order to wring out all that sweet sweet movement that's otherwise capped per round? etc.
But again... no I'm not happy with the minor actions as they are but I think tweaking THOSE, rather than DVs or adding a dodge compenent, is the best fix.
Ultimately the problem I have with using action economy to help mitigate explosives is that the already most powerful attack in the game now also sucks out your action economy just to have a prayer of survival. I frankly find that game design insane. We can do better, and if we can't do better, those responsible need a new career field.
Well, I wasn't party to the 6e design or playtest processes, so all I can comment on is really the same stuff you can: the stuff we saw come in the rule books. But I guess we just have a profound difference of opinion here: I'm more than fine with the concept of having to spend minor actions to preserve oneself in 6e combat... I actively LIKE it! Use up all your minor actions at your peril. THIS is why street sams aren't obsolete in the world of 1 attack per turn... with all those minor actions you have the tactical flexibility (and the ability to not be taken out by damage!) that unaugmented mundanes can only drool in envy of.
As is. I'm saying I think thrown grenades should be mechanically handled just like planted grenades. If a grenade goes off at your feet, it shouldn't use one mechanic if someone threw it there (your proposal to roll dodge) and another if it was detonated there by a tripwire or some other means (better spend a minor action). No dodge; use minor actions all around. That's my view on how it "should be".
So if I am understanding you right, you think it is ok for a character to plant a hidden explosive, another character to trigger it with zero chance to notice it before it happens, and just eat all 16P before taking minor actions?
No, I think that there should be a contextually appropriate threshold for a perception test to notice a boobytrap. It's just that if you fail that perception test and you DO pick up the rigged stuffed animal, or trip the tripwire, you don't get ANOTHER test to avoid the blast. Frankly you probably "shouldn't" even get to spend minor actions, but that's not the gist 6e's shooting for. Even completely unaware targets get their raw REA+INT vs the sniper they have no idea is out there now, so by the same "movie logic" you should at least still get to hit the dirt or avoid incoming or whatever.
Edit: Also, I mostly agree with Penllawen. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a mid grade security personnel to all carry a flash bang or two. Considering what happens if all 4 (more?) of them just toss those bangs is not an unreasonable scenario to ponder. The inflated damage and next to no "save" / "defense roll" / whatever you want to label it may be liked or tolerable to some, but poorly designed is the only fitting description for it.
Sure, something that won't inflict structural damage like flashbangs might fly for every single goon in a private security/corpsec context. If you know that every last mook carries a flashbang though with rules of engagement that permit tossing them at the very first weird sound they hear, then it's your fault you're not provoking that response and THEN ambushing them after the flashbangs are expended. Again, I'm not really seeing much of a problem here.
Edit: part of why I think "that's fine" is 4 goons tossing flashbacks at you "should" still be resolved as 1 grunt group attack. Even if that attack involves multiple flashbangs.
-
No, I think that there should be a contextually appropriate threshold for a perception test to notice a boobytrap. It's just that if you fail that perception test and you DO pick up the rigged stuffed animal, or trip the tripwire, you don't get ANOTHER test to avoid the blast. Frankly you probably "shouldn't" even get to spend minor actions, but that's not the gist 6e's shooting for. Even completely unaware targets get their raw REA+INT vs the sniper they have no idea is out there now, so by the same "movie logic" you should at least still get to hit the dirt or avoid incoming or whatever.
We're on the same page then, and in agreement. I guess I failed to explain myself well in the previous discussion. Yeah, if you fail to notice the trap, no defense test - eat your damage. In the case of traps, the perception test is the parallel of the defense test in the thrown attack situation.
On the rest, at least we can agree that something needs to be done in order to curve the current explosive overkill situation. I'll just have to take small comfort in that. :p
Edit: part of why I think "that's fine" is 4 goons tossing flashbacks at you "should" still be resolved as 1 grunt group attack. Even if that attack involves multiple flashbangs.
Well the issue is that is an optional rule, and the further issue, is that is an optional rule when all attacks are against a single target. 4 guards throwing 4 flash bangs at 4 closely grouped runners is very realistic.
-
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)
Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.
You don't need to hang on to 5 Edge all the time. Just when the NPCs roll out with a Rocket Launcher, maybe don't open with Anticipate?
Or just get to melee range. Oh, human shields, grab a hostage! You're the bad guys remember : ) Tons of options here.
Unless the hostage is the CEO or something in my dystopia the guards toss the grenade anyways.
-
So I'll repost and hopefully make it more clear what I posted in the other thread.
I think you should roughly Halve the base damage in each band.
have a standard attack/defense test net hits on the attack increase the damage like a normal attack. The grenade ended up better placed.
Honestly I'd just remove scatter, and drop the damage a DV or 2 more. But, I get its been part of the game forever. So fine keep it to determine where it lands. As I said net hits by the attacker increases the base damage based on range from the target, it lands on you its 8Vs+net hits, out to 15M its 4DV+net hits or whatever by grenade.
Net hits by the defender, means you are 1 range band out from where it landed and soak that base damage. That means if it lands in your lap and you get more base hits you its now considered close and you resist 5DV, close is now near, near you are considered out of the area. This would be the benefit of grenades, they at least do something on a miss, even though I hate edge moves maybe have a low cost edge move that you makes it so you are considered 2 range bands out if you get more net hits, or just a 1 more whether you get net hits on your defense test or not
As for traps, I'd kind of agree with Lormyr in a earlier edition where surprise removed defense tests. Since surprise does allow defense tests in 6e i don't think it is consistent to work like that here. The initial test would be perception to see if you spot the trap before triggering it. If they succeed, well they don't trigger it unless they want to. If they fail they trigger it. I'd make it a demolitions vs defense test and they'd be considered surprised so no edge since they flubbed the perception test. Same as above net hits on the demo test increases its base damage. There wouldn't be a scatter test its range would be determined by the trap, like a landmine obviously the person who stepped on it is point blank, a trip wire the grenade might be a meter or two away based on terrain(the GM). Give the base test a threshold of 0, add 1 per grenade in the same trap, defense tests add to the threshold when determining net hits.
-
Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)
Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.
You don't need to hang on to 5 Edge all the time. Just when the NPCs roll out with a Rocket Launcher, maybe don't open with Anticipate?
Or just get to melee range. Oh, human shields, grab a hostage! You're the bad guys remember : ) Tons of options here.
Unless the hostage is the CEO or something in my dystopia the guards toss the grenade anyways.
100%.
That aside, Hobbes and SSDR in particular are usually good at finding setting logic/story reasons to help balance out game mechanics, and I am glad they have that sense. I personally believe game mechanics should be balanced against other game mechanics though, and will not be satisfied if that is not the case.
As for traps, I'd kind of agree with Lormyr in a earlier edition where surprise removed defense tests. Since surprise does allow defense tests in 6e i don't think it is consistent to work like that here. The initial test would be perception to see if you spot the trap before triggering it. If they succeed, well they don't trigger it unless they want to. If they fail they trigger it. I'd make it a demolitions vs defense test and they'd be considered surprised so no edge since they flubbed the perception test. Same as above net hits on the demo test increases its base damage. There wouldn't be a scatter test its range would be determined by the trap, like a landmine obviously the person who stepped on it is point blank, a trip wire the grenade might be a meter or two away based on terrain(the GM). Give the base test a threshold of 0, add 1 per grenade in the same trap, defense tests add to the threshold when determining net hits.
I'd be fine with that too. I could even tolerate SSDR's desire to keep all explosive defense entirely within action economy if the mitigation was seriously good. I still just think there are better ways to handle it than that.