Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Rules and such / Re: Defense tests and environmental modifiers
« Last post by Xenon on Today at 15:39:59 »
Where did the idea that hearing or smelling the target can eliminate the blind fire penalty? I don't see that referenced in the rules that you quoted.

SR5 p. 291 Invisibility
The subject is completely tangible and detectable by the other senses (hearing, smell, touch, and even taste, if it somehow comes to that). Her aura is still visible to astral perception.
Attacks against invisible targets suffer the Blind Fire modifier if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise sense the subject of the spell.

1. You can still be detected by other senses (hearing, smell, touch, taste).
2. Attack against you do not suffer the Blind Fire modifier if the attacker is able to sense you.
Rules and such / Re: Defense tests and environmental modifiers
« Last post by Kiirnodel on Today at 15:20:52 »
Where did the idea that hearing or smelling the target can eliminate the blind fire penalty? I don't see that referenced in the rules that you quoted. Unless you have some way to know the exact location of your target despite not being able to see them, the Blind Fire penalty would apply.

Having absolutely no idea where the target is, such as because you have no sense that someone is there except that you think there might be. Means you have no real way to target them. Tell the GM where you are firing your weapon (including a Blind Fire penalty), and maybe you might be lucky that you targeted the right place. Just applying the penalty doesn't mean you magically have a chance to hit.

And smelling your target doesn't eliminate Blind Fire...
You know, if you had asked me this question a year ago, I'd have easily said that the massive editing/errata issues in 5th made it not as good as 4th edition. But now that more books and updates and such have come out...the pros are starting to outweigh the cons for me.

My group started in 4E, and the campaign is almost done now(been going on for 3 years roughly). I like 4E. But even I can admit is has its own issues that 5E did largely reduce, if not eliminate entirely. Limits is a good example, so there isnt nearly as much of the mini-game "the guy with 30+ dice wins". Same thing with power bloat. I'm one of the few GMs that doesn't mind the military book War!, but even I'll admit there is some stuff in the books that should never be in the hands of most players. Don't even get me started on how comically cheap and easy to get Tacnets were in 4E.

As people have said, 5E still has issues. It has work to do. It needs some balancing(too much magic right now, not enough tech), and some of the rules are a tad wonky(foundations confusing amirite?). But if you rembe the golden rule of "The rules exist to support the narrative, the narrative doesn't exist to support the rules", then I'd day 5E is the way to go.

As long as you can apply a little Handwavium when needed, and everyone us having fun? 5E is good. It's definitely what I'll be suggesting we use for our next game.
Well the nature of Missions play is that the pre-generated runs won't really give the GM full flexibility to employ the "background hooks" on negative qualities like Corp/Corp Limited SINs.

You are correct.  As far as (actual) Missions play goes Criminal SIN is worse than Corporate SIN, but worth less points.  But to be perfectly honest, it's not a struggle to come up with 25 Karma of Negative qualities that will never come up in a meaningful way if that is a player's goal.  Minor Addiction is outright an advantage for anyone with Narco. Weak Immune System is basically 10 free Karma.  Assorted Phobia's and Allergies that will never actually come up in Missions play.  (Allergic to dogs anyone?  How about Phobia of Heights?)  A lot of Adept builds could take Sensitive System for 10 free Karma as well. 

The Missions team isn't out to re-balance the rules.  The FAQ is already huge, making a balance pass on dozens of qualities just for minor tweaks... eh.  As far as I'm aware they've only changed the cost on a single quality (prototype transhuman).
4th was a fine game. It has many issues, in that it's inherently very poorly balanced. It has most of the holder loop holes developed in 3rd that were gotten rid of in 5th. One of the biggest issues in 4th was the destruction of the Decker as archtype. Cellphone hacking just to simple the whole archtype was replace by custom cellphones running custom OS, used by agent built in on board.

Stunbolt, or the old simple simple double tap. Hell on wheels deadly.
Evening all!  With great assistance excellent local knowledge from Avatarbf, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has been added to the dropbox for your enjoyment.
Rules and such / Re: Defense tests and environmental modifiers
« Last post by Marcus on Today at 14:32:35 »
Whether due to darkness or cover, if the shooter doesn’t know where the target is, they apply the Blind Fire modifier. This modifier is the same as the Total Darkness modifier and as such is not cumulative with it, but if strong winds or extreme range are also involved an additional -4 penalty can be applied. Some additional rules apply if the attacker is shooting through cover (see Shooting Through Target Barriers, p. 197).

There is a big difference between b/c it's dark and the target is behind that wall over there and I have no idea where the target is.
You don't exactly where the target is, but you know mostly where the target is.
Hey Artemis.

As you can tell, the "Previous Editions" board doesn't get much traffic.

I've been playing Shadowrun for 25 years now and, in my opinion, the rule mechanics have improved with each edition. (The flavor/tone of the game world is a separate question.) I have liked each edition, and I'll be the first to say that 5th Edition isn't perfect and could be improved, but I still think there's been an upward trajectory in the quality of the game mechanics over the years.

(Others will certainly disagree with me. If you were to post this question on Dumpshock - a haven of traditionalists - half the responses would say that SR3 was the pinnacle of the franchise while the other half would argue for some hybrid of SR4 and SR5.)

There is relatively little than I prefer in SR4 over what's in SR5. Again, this is all my opinion of what improved in SR5:
+ Chargen is harder to optimize (this is good)
+ Initiative is more fluid, with more Interrupt actions to add strategy
+ Spellcasting is more balanced (Stunbolt is no longer an automatic "I win" button)
+ Decking/hacking is better defined
+ Armor has been simplified while damage codes are better balanced
+ Limits help keep a lid on dice pool inflation

From SR4, some of the things I miss include a handful of adept-specific powers and optional rules. I prefer SR4's approach to Advanced Lifestyles over SR5's. Some people prefer the gear prices from SR4, especially when it comes to hacking/decking. Technomancers have taken a significant step backward in SR5, which is unfortunate. Mystic Adepts took a giant leap forward in SR5, going from broken (useless) to broken (too useful).

I really enjoyed SR4 while I was playing it, but I would never go back now that we're on SR5. Again, SR5 has plenty of opportunities to improve further, but on the whole it is still a significant improvement (in my opinion).
Rules and such / Re: Defense tests and environmental modifiers
« Last post by Xenon on Today at 12:41:18 »
I find it a bit strange as well, but I included the rules above... They actually seem pretty clear.

If you can smell, hear or touch (but not see) an invisible target then I would thought you would take the Blind Fire modifier to hit him. But you don't. In fact, by RAW, it seem as if you would take no negative dice pool modifier at all.

If you can't see nor smell, hear or touch an invisible target then I would thought you would not be able to hit at all. Unless maybe if you use AoE and get lucky. But, by RAW, it seem as if you would just take the Blind Fire modifier.

If you were correct, that'd mean I could just take the blind fire penalty and "shoot" into the unknown if I went first in an ambush...
If you for example are a PhysAd with Combat Sense then you would always be allowed a perception test. If the "tingling spider sense" of yours is successful then yes, by RAW, it seem as if you would be allowed to take the shot at your [hidden] attacker.

If you don't actually see your attacker (because you know, he might be hidden behind a concrete barrier, a security door or having an active invisibility spell) you would take a Blind Fire modifier of -6 dice... But as long as you smell, hear, touch or see at least 1% of your attacker then, by RAW, it seems as if you would just go ahead and shoot him (without talking a negative dice pool modifier at all).
Keep in mind that if the defender is unaware of the attack there's no defense test at all!  (Snipers are deadly...)
...but if the target happen to be behind partial (or full) cover it will roll 2 (or 4) dice as a pool of its own. This pool also apply to inmate objects that normally are not allowed to take a defense test.

Touche.  You're absolutely correct... but 2-4 dice still is probably just a formality of an extra step before crumpling your character sheet (or Burning an Edge to live thorugh it..)

"In order to take the Blind Fire modifier he must have some idea of where the target is located, right?". Wrong.

Pay attention. This is the part where it get really interesting :) ...

I'm not sure I'm completely on board with your synthesis.  If you were correct, that'd mean I could just take the blind fire penalty and "shoot" into the unknown if I went first in an ambush, even if the only perception of a threat I have is the meta knowledge that initiative had been rolled.  I'm firmly of the opinion (even if it's not RAW) that you need to be able to call out to the GM which square on the battle mat you're imagining your target is lurking, or behind which bit of cover you're shooting through if you're not using minis/mats.  Because, well, the alternative is:  "I just shoot.   Doesn't matter where, I'll take my blind fire penalty and somehow the bullets will home in if I get any hits.."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10