NEWS

[SR6] Grappling

  • 1 Replies
  • 75 Views

MercilessMing

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 156
« on: <11-17-20/1544:51> »
I swear I think I've asked this question before, maybe here maybe not, but a year later I encountered this again and reading it still confuses me:

Grappling procedure:
1 - Close Combat + AGI  opposed test vs REA + INT (Defense Pool)
2 - STR + Net Hits opposed test vs STR (text is actually unclear whether this is opposed or simple vs threshold = STR, but we deduced that threshold = STR would be too punishing)

Break Free procedure - this is where I'm really not sure:
1 - Close Combat + STR vs REA + INT (Defense Pool)?
The book doesn't mention the opposed dice pool (pg. 111 "This is a Close Combat + Strength test" so we had to assume the intent was standard Defense Pool, but everyone at the table was wondering why this wasn't a Close Combat + STR vs Close Combat + STR test.  That seems natural.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
« Reply #1 on: <11-17-20/1721:09> »
I swear I think I've asked this question before, maybe here maybe not, but a year later I encountered this again and reading it still confuses me:

Grappling procedure:
1 - Close Combat + AGI  opposed test vs REA + INT (Defense Pool)
2 - STR + Net Hits opposed test vs STR (text is actually unclear whether this is opposed or simple vs threshold = STR, but we deduced that threshold = STR would be too punishing)

So for step 2, it's an opposed test where the dice pools consist of X + Y vs Z.  X= Attacker's Strength, Y= Net hits, Z = Defender's Strength. 

BTW: Thresholds are given in (parenthesis).

The annotation would have had to have been "the attacker rolls Strength + net hits vs. (opponent’s Strength)" in order for it to become a Success Test rather than an Opposed Test.

Quote
Break Free procedure - this is where I'm really not sure:
1 - Close Combat + STR vs REA + INT (Defense Pool)?
The book doesn't mention the opposed dice pool (pg. 111 "This is a Close Combat + Strength test" so we had to assume the intent was standard Defense Pool, but everyone at the table was wondering why this wasn't a Close Combat + STR vs Close Combat + STR test.  That seems natural.

I really don't know what to tell you here, since the text is completely silent on the subject of the defender's dice pool. In a completely personal view: you've got what appears to be a "standard" Close Combat test mechanic, aside from the cited exceptions.  One could reasonably presume that it would be a standard REA + INT, but (again IMO) there's reasonable room to modify it since the attacker is explicitly subbing in STR for AGI.  But which you do sub out to make room for STR?  I'd suggest character's choice.  Definitely wouldn't recommend just adding a 3rd stat.

Continued personal thinking:  One might be tempted to make it a contested Close Combat + STR vs Close Combat vs STR.  And personally that's how I'd probably do it myself tbh.  But bear in mind that in this edition there's existing precedent for skills to not be in opposition to each other.  For example, Con/Influence no longer helps you resist being Conned/Influenced... you roll your mental stats and the skill only helps you on offense in many situations.  (of course, I'd also just allow a negotiation to be one opposed Influence + CHA rather than a back and forth of skill + cha vs 2 attributes over several rounds as offers and counter-offers are made)
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.