Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: RickDeckard on (08:06:19/03-15-19)

Title: Concealability
Post by: RickDeckard on (08:06:19/03-15-19)
Spotting concealed weapons is either a perception test or an opposed test, both using a modifier according to the items concealability. Modifiers range from -6 to +10 according to the table on SR5 p. 420. Certain weapon mods add to the modifiers and some armors and holster reduce the modifier (which is positive).

So if Iím carrying a pair of brass Knucks in a concealed quick draw holster under an overcoat, what would the modifier be since knucks arenít listed on p. 420?

Iíd personally compare them to a hold out pistol so -4, and another -1 from the holster and -1 for the coat for a total of -6. Does that sound about right?
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (10:55:18/03-15-19)
I don't know that I'd call chucks being most comparable in concealability to hold-out pistols...

But other than quibbling over the starting point I'd say yes you're on the right track.

Edit: of course on rereading I notice I misread "Knucks" for "chucks".  Hold-out size is probably just right.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: RickDeckard on (12:30:16/03-15-19)
Hah, I don't have the nuts to wield nun-chucks! =)
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Overbyte on (14:34:25/03-15-19)
I'll semi-hijaak your thread and say that the Conceal rules are broken.

SR5 p419
Have the observing character make a Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test with a dice pool modified by the item’s Concealability to determine whether they notice the item. This test should be penalized normally by distractions, distance, and visibility modifiers (p. 175). If the observing character generates at least one success, they notice the item concealed on someone else’s person.

Using RAW it is almost impossible to get away with concealing a gun ever. Consider that you are in a room with 6 gangers that have a measly 6 perception.
Even if you have a Long Coat on (-2 perception) and a Concelead holster (-2) it's about a 90% chance one of them will notice you are packing.

My suggestion is that the thresholds need to be upped from a mere 1 to at least 2 and perhaps modified instead of pools.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: JudgeMonroe on (14:55:09/03-15-19)
I'll semi-hijaak your thread and say that the Conceal rules are broken.

SR5 p419
Have the observing character make a Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test with a dice pool modified by the itemís Concealability to determine whether they notice the item. This test should be penalized normally by distractions, distance, and visibility modifiers (p. 175). If the observing character generates at least one success, they notice the item concealed on someone elseís person.

Using RAW it is almost impossible to get away with concealing a gun ever. Consider that you are in a room with 6 gangers that have a measly 6 perception.
Even if you have a Long Coat on (-2 perception) and a Concelead holster (-2) it's about a 90% chance one of them will notice you are packing.

My suggestion is that the thresholds need to be upped from a mere 1 to at least 2 and perhaps modified instead of pools.

You use "gangers" with a "measly 6 perception" as though having 6 in *any* skill is ordinary. On the contrary, using the progression of NPCs in the core rulebook, you're dealing with PR3 lieutenants before you start seeing Perception skill values above 3, and most of your street-level grunts don't have it trained at all, so you typically don't need to overcome more than a 3-5 dice pool with Concealability modifiers.

Your point that a threshold of 1 hit is remarkably generous for passive Perception is still a good one, but I don't think the RAW chances of success are as bad as you make it out to be, though it comes down to how NPCs are built.

edit: Concealment is a mini-game where the goal is to take away all the other guy's dice. If he has any left, he's probably going to spot your stuff.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Overbyte on (14:57:21/03-15-19)
You use "gangers" with a "measly 6 perception" as though having 6 in *any* skill is ordinary. On the contrary, using the progression of NPCs in the core rulebook, you're dealing with PR3 lieutenants before you start seeing Perception skill values above 3, and most of your street-level grunts don't have it trained at all, so you typically don't need to overcome more than a 3-5 dice pool with Concealability modifiers.

Your point that a threshold of 1 hit is remarkably generous for passive Perception is still a good one, but I don't think the RAW chances of success are as bad as you make it out to be, though it comes down to how NPCs are built.

I should have said with 6 Perception POOL. That's a 3 perception with 3 intuition. Not very much at all, and 6 "mooks" have a 90% chance of 1 of them spotting.
That's an insanely good chance that you can't get away with concealing a gun under even the best of circumstances.

I think just changing the Threshold number instead of dice (perhaps 2 dice --> 1 threshold) would make it work.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Michael Chandra on (14:57:45/03-15-19)
I'll semi-hijaak your thread and say that the Conceal rules are broken.

SR5 p419
Have the observing character make a Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test with a dice pool modified by the itemís Concealability to determine whether they notice the item. This test should be penalized normally by distractions, distance, and visibility modifiers (p. 175). If the observing character generates at least one success, they notice the item concealed on someone elseís person.

Using RAW it is almost impossible to get away with concealing a gun ever. Consider that you are in a room with 6 gangers that have a measly 6 perception.
Even if you have a Long Coat on (-2 perception) and a Concelead holster (-2) it's about a 90% chance one of them will notice you are packing.

My suggestion is that the thresholds need to be upped from a mere 1 to at least 2 and perhaps modified instead of pools.
Normally you'd roll Palming to set the threshold for what they must roll to notice, and then the modifier comes into play. See p419:

Quote from: SR5 Core p419: ACTIVELY HIDING GEAR
If youíre intentionally trying to hide something on your
person that somebody else is looking for, and youíve
taken a little time to hide it (like a Complex Action or so),
make an Opposed Palming + Agility [Physical] v. Perception
+ Intuition [Mental] Test. The observing characterís
dice pool is modified by the itemís Concealability, and
he can use Palming in place of Perception if he wants.
If youíre being physically patted down, the searcher
can use Agility and his Physical limit instead of Intuition
and the Mental limit. Additionally, any negative Concealability
modifier is cut in half, and any positive Concealability
modifier is doubled.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Overbyte on (15:46:16/03-15-19)
Normally you'd roll Palming to set the threshold for what they must roll to notice, and then the modifier comes into play. See p419:

Quote from: SR5 Core p419: ACTIVELY HIDING GEAR
If youíre intentionally trying to hide something on your
person that somebody else is looking for, and youíve
taken a little time to hide it (like a Complex Action or so),
make an Opposed Palming + Agility [Physical] v. Perception
+ Intuition [Mental] Test. The observing characterís
dice pool is modified by the itemís Concealability, and
he can use Palming in place of Perception if he wants.
If youíre being physically patted down, the searcher
can use Agility and his Physical limit instead of Intuition
and the Mental limit. Additionally, any negative Concealability
modifier is cut in half, and any positive Concealability
modifier is doubled.

I never took that to mean "hiding a gun in a holster". To me that doesn't make much sense.
I assume this was meant for something like hiding a credstick on your person.
Does everyone with a gun need Palming skill so that it's not obvious (to visual tests) they are carrying a firearm in a concealed holster under a longcoat?
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Michael Chandra on (15:55:14/03-15-19)
Palming can't be defaulted on, so yes, if you want to hide something better than just a Concealment test, you need to know how.

And yes, if a bunch of people start studying you, the normal gun in a holster under the coat may be spotted by some. If on the other hand you're a bit away and they're merely giving you a glance, or just looking at your face, they get an extra -5 (-2 distance, -3 not paying attention to the right details), making it near-impossible to spot. If you're a guard quickly checking the crowd for faces that are up to no good, you won't notice the concealed gun. If you're a bodyguard facing the one menacing guy walking towards you, it's a lot easier to spot a hidden weapon, unless they took effort to hide it.

So if you're walking the streets, only cops may notice you're carrying, and only if something else draws their attention. The rest won't know.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: JudgeMonroe on (16:27:55/03-15-19)
So if you're walking the streets, only cops may notice you're carrying, and only if something else draws their attention. The rest won't know.

It's almost trivial to neutralize a passive perception pool of 6 dice, which includes most everyone up to a Professional Rating 3 patrol cop. That's light pistol + concealed quick-draw holster + lined coat. Some of the overcoats in R&G do you better than that. Past that point anyone paying that much attention to you isn't going to be fooled by much.

At some point the question isn't so much "Why is it hard to conceal stuff" but "Why should it be easy to conceal stuff?"
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Michael Chandra on (16:36:58/03-15-19)
Incidentally: If 6 people with 6 dice face a -4 and 10 dice, their chances are 20% to have at least 1 person tie or beat the Palming test. (Thanks AnyDice!) So 1 Palming and 9 Agility already is quite nice. =D
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Overbyte on (16:49:26/03-15-19)
Incidentally: If 6 people with 6 dice face a -4 and 10 dice, their chances are 20% to have at least 1 person tie or beat the Palming test. (Thanks AnyDice!) So 1 Palming and 9 Agility already is quite nice. =D

9 Agility is great for a lot of things. LOL  :D
But not everyone that carries a gun has 9 agility.
Outside of that, I think I just differ in my opinion. If the base threshold was 2 it would solve a lot of (my) issues I think.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: JudgeMonroe on (16:57:23/03-15-19)
Incidentally: If 6 people with 6 dice face a -4 and 10 dice, their chances are 20% to have at least 1 person tie or beat the Palming test. (Thanks AnyDice!) So 1 Palming and 9 Agility already is quite nice. =D

9 Agility is great for a lot of things. LOL  :D
But not everyone that carries a gun has 9 agility.
Outside of that, I think I just differ in my opinion. If the base threshold was 2 it would solve a lot of (my) issues I think.

If you consult the "Perception Threshold" chart on page 136, spotting "Normal" things has a threshold of 2, so I mean, you're not wrong.

For the "room full of mooks" question, I wonder how the results differ if you treat them as a group using the Teamwork rules, but I don't wonder it strongly enough to run the numbers.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Overbyte on (18:03:53/03-15-19)
Incidentally: If 6 people with 6 dice face a -4 and 10 dice, their chances are 20% to have at least 1 person tie or beat the Palming test. (Thanks AnyDice!) So 1 Palming and 9 Agility already is quite nice. =D

9 Agility is great for a lot of things. LOL  :D
But not everyone that carries a gun has 9 agility.
Outside of that, I think I just differ in my opinion. If the base threshold was 2 it would solve a lot of (my) issues I think.

If you consult the "Perception Threshold" chart on page 136, spotting "Normal" things has a threshold of 2, so I mean, you're not wrong.

For the "room full of mooks" question, I wonder how the results differ if you treat them as a group using the Teamwork rules, but I don't wonder it strongly enough to run the numbers.

Yes. And if you notice on that table, its not the number of dice that are modified for "obvious", "normal", "obscured", hidden" which to me lends credence to the idea that the threshold should be modified by concealment, not dice. But that would require some significant modifications (which I may do someday since I like that sort of thing). Simply switching to a threshold of 2 kinda "solves the problem" mostly for me.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Marcus on (19:21:37/03-15-19)
No one is gonna spot a set nucks, in concealed in holster under a coat. It's ridiculous to even roll.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on (19:30:28/03-15-19)
No one is gonna spot a set nucks, in concealed in holster under a coat. It's ridiculous to even roll.

Probably true with regards to being passively spotted, but being discovered in a pat down is another matter entirely.  Between the observer's pool penalties being halved, getting a +3 dice bonus for specifically searching for weapons, and someone doing a pat down probably having decent skill at it, you'll still need to be decent-to-good to sneak weapons past a competent guard/bouncer.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Michael Chandra on (06:35:41/03-16-19)
Which makes a lot of sense, really. But I wouldn't give a +3 on patdown, they already get the concealability modifier restricted. The +3 is more for 'am I looking for a very specific thing' when looking around. Patdowns are already a specific search, so unless you explicitly look for the weird feeling of a hidden datadrive, I wouldn't give the +3, just the concealability modifier.
Title: Re: Concealability
Post by: Marcus on (11:48:01/03-16-19)
Sure I'd agree with a roll on a patdown, though for sure a no kidding hard roll, and yeah unless the target in question has public notarity for  famously packing enchanted super nucks or something, no +3.