Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Dracain on <12-04-13/0105:43>
-
Ok, I know this is a somewhat silly question, but I've been brushing up on my rules, and I noticed the take cover action. I always thought the if there was an object between yourself and the gun, you had cover, but this makes me doubt that, as well as ask a few more questions, which I figured I would post here.
1. Does the "Take Cover" action refer to just making yourself less shootable, and when you're behind something, you're just in cover for free?
2a. Do I use a simple action to look out of cover?
2b. If 2a is yes does that mean I cannot cast a spell from cover?
2c. If 2a is yes, does this mean I have to use a simple action to look out of cover, and another to fire, thus, leaving me out of cover?
-
Yeah this had me confused as well. If you happen to be standing behind a car don't you just have cover?
I'm personally using it in two ways.
1. The cover you are behind is not sufficient to provide cover, take cover action has you crouching or whatever to get cover or a higher level of cover.
2. I give people free movement in adjacent cover with the action, basically a trade of a simple action for a meter of movement.
#2 is pure houserule, but it works for me. #1 might be the intent as it doesn;t make sense as an action otherwise.
-
I think I'll just say that the "Take Cover" action is used to essentially hide as much of your body behind cover as possible, as opposed to the norm, which is peaking out of cover to take a shot. Though I think I'll also use #1 like you and say that what might not normally work as cover works when you crouch/duck behind it, making yourself as small as possible.
Thanks for the quick reply. Good to know I'm not the only one that confused.
-
It's make me confused as well, because "going out of cover" is not mention in the book if I'm not mistaken.
Now my group decide to use cover like this.
- If you are behind partial cover, you had to "take cover" to get partial cover benefice.
- If you are behind good cover, you will have partial cover benefice by default and had to "take cover" to get good cover benefice.
- When "take cover" is in effect and you're attacking (shoot,cast spell,punch,slashing with sword or whatever) you will suffer blind fire penalty.
- no blind fire penalty if behind good cover without taking cover (only gain partial cover benefice)
- If you don't want to suffer blind fire penalty, you have to "going out of cover" first (free action) but that's mean you have to "take cover" again to gain cover benefice.
PS. my group use "going out of cover" as simple action before but that's punish "complex action" attack too much.
-
I don't think applying the blind fire penalty in cover is a good thing. Note that you only take the penalty when you're behind complete cover normally, and taking cover already costs a Simple Action once, more if you have to keep moving. Applying an extra penalty in the form of always suffering blind fire seems unusually cruel.
-
I don't think applying the blind fire penalty in cover is a good thing. Note that you only take the penalty when you're behind complete cover normally, and taking cover already costs a Simple Action once, more if you have to keep moving. Applying an extra penalty in the form of always suffering blind fire seems unusually cruel.
You are right, I'm looking in the book and blind fire only happen when take cover in one hundred percent cover.
Will update this with our GM, thanks!!
-
What troubles me the most is this question:
Do you need to repeat "take cover" each initiative pass or at least after each attack action?
-
Unclear. I figure I'd let you keep the cover unless you move.
-
In SR5 you don't take a negative dice pool modifier if the target that have no cover, partial cover or even good cover. Only if you attack a target that you can not see at all (for example in total darkness, target is using an invisibility spell, target have full (100%) cover etc); in that case you take a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice.
I think maybe that there should be a negative dice pool modifier (probably an environmental modifier) when you only have a very small target surface to hit (like trying to hit a micro drone or someone behind 90% cover - compared to shooting at a troll or a big van out in the open that does not have any cover at all). Maybe something like large target (think a vehicle) +2 dice, full sized humanoid target +/-0, half sized target -2 dice, small target (like a small drone or a partial limb) -4 dice (just like a called shot) and a target that you can't even see (or is very very small, like a bug) -6 dice (like blind fire). But it isn't. With some thinking I bet it would make for a decent house rule...
Anyway... defenders get a positive dice pool bonus to avoid ranged attacks when they spend an action to actively hide behind cover. They also get a dice pool of their own when just happen to be in cover when unaware that they are being attacked (2 dice when in 25-50% partial cover and 4 dice when in more than 50% cover). This also applies when being behind full (100%) cover (4 dice) or in other situations when they can't see the ranged attacker attacker (and don't get to take a defense test to avoid getting hit using reaction + intuition).
So defenders in a combat situation does not automatically get a positive dice pool modifier for just happen to be behind cover when they see the attacker - They need to spend a simple action to make use of the cover. This still however get to roll their normal reaction + intuition. If they spend a simple action to really take cover they get to roll their reaction + intuition with a positive dice pool modifier of +2 dice while having partial cover to work with and +4 dice when having good cover.
Partial cover does not give any positive defense bonus when defending against spells (except for indirect combat spells that you are aware of and that are not area of effect or touch). Spending a simple action to gain more than 50% cover cover (or to go prone when more than 20 meters away) do give you a positive dice pool to avoid getting hit. Even by spells (and depending on your reading it might give a dice pool of its own against spells that normally don't give you a defense test, such as direct combat spells - or might only give a positive dice pool modifier to attacks that allow for a defense test in the first place).
With ranged attacks you can spend a simple action to attack and the second action to take cover. With spells you can recklessly cast a spell in a simple action and spend a simple action to take cover. There are also ways to stay in full (100%) cover and still attack your target. Ranged attackers can use a mini-camera on their weapon (smartguns come with an onboard camera that can be used for this purpose but also imaging scopes also have one; but longarms are tricky to fire around corners with and still stay unexposed) that give them a live feed camera update when they shoot around a corner (or a cover). Magicians can use a periscope or mage goggles to cast spells at targets that are not in a direct line of sight and/or while they are in full (100%) cover.
(For some people I found it might help if you think about it like when you spend your last action point in X-Com to hunker down or fortify your position rather than taking a shot or going into overwatch mode... a mechanic that will be re-used for Shadowrun Online; it even have SR5 rule support).
-
In SR5 you don't take a negative dice pool modifier if the target that have no cover, partial cover or even good cover. Only if you attack a target that you can not see at all (for example in total darkness, target is using an invisibility spell, target have full (100%) cover etc); in that case you take a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice.
I think maybe that there should be a negative dice pool modifier (probably an environmental modifier) when you only have a very small target surface to hit (like trying to hit a micro drone or someone behind 90% cover - compared to shooting at a troll or a big van out in the open that does not have any cover at all). Maybe something like large target (think a vehicle) +2 dice, full sized humanoid target +/-0, half sized target -2 dice, small target (like a small drone or a partial limb) -4 dice (just like a called shot) and a target that you can't even see (or is very very small, like a bug) -6 dice (like blind fire). But it isn't. With some thinking I bet it would make for a decent house rule...
Anyway... defenders get a positive dice pool bonus to avoid ranged attacks when they spend an action to actively hide behind cover. They also get a dice pool of their own when just happen to be in cover when unaware that they are being attacked (2 dice when in 25-50% partial cover and 4 dice when in more than 50% cover). This also applies when being behind full (100%) cover (4 dice) or in other situations when they can't see the ranged attacker attacker (and don't get to take a defense test to avoid getting hit using reaction + intuition).
So defenders in a combat situation does not automatically get a positive dice pool modifier for just happen to be behind cover when they see the attacker - They need to spend a simple action to make use of the cover. This still however get to roll their normal reaction + intuition. If they spend a simple action to really take cover they get to roll their reaction + intuition with a positive dice pool modifier of +2 dice while having partial cover to work with and +4 dice when having good cover.
Partial cover does not give any positive defense bonus when defending against spells (except for indirect combat spells that you are aware of and that are not area of effect or touch). Spending a simple action to gain more than 50% cover cover (or to go prone when more than 20 meters away) do give you a positive dice pool to avoid getting hit. Even by spells (and depending on your reading it might give a dice pool of its own against spells that normally don't give you a defense test, such as direct combat spells - or might only give a positive dice pool modifier to attacks that allow for a defense test in the first place).
With ranged attacks you can spend a simple action to attack and the second action to take cover. With spells you can recklessly cast a spell in a simple action and spend a simple action to take cover. There are also ways to stay in full (100%) cover and still attack your target. Ranged attackers can use a mini-camera on their weapon (smartguns come with an onboard camera that can be used for this purpose but also imaging scopes also have one; but longarms are tricky to fire around corners with and still stay unexposed) that give them a live feed camera update when they shoot around a corner (or a cover). Magicians can use a periscope or mage goggles to cast spells at targets that are not in a direct line of sight and/or while they are in full (100%) cover.
(For some people I found it might help if you think about it like when you spend your last action point in X-Com to hunker down or fortify your position rather than taking a shot or going into overwatch mode... a mechanic that will be re-used for Shadowrun Online; it even have SR5 rule support).
That makes complete sense and clears up all confusion, though to be honest I dislike the implementation. Cover makes you harder to hit, not makes it easier for you to dodge, it would make more sense as a penalty, without an action tied to it. I think I may implement a "hit-box" houserule, which says that you take penalties based on how big their "hit-box" is to you. The only problem I can see with this is that trolls become a bit easier to hit, which I suppose you could say they balance out with their natural armor, but I am not sure. For now, I'm just going to say that characters give neither a bonus nor a penalty to being hit based on size. I do think this rule will become popular with riggers however, if we think it out properly.
I was going to put the numbers up here, but then I realized Xenon already put really good numbers up. I still am curious what people think about a couple things though.
1. Do you think those numbers sound right?
2. Do you think characters should size should count?
My answers are yes and no respectively, what are yours?
-
Keep in mind that harder to hit means a penalty on a roll that's potentially capped by Accuracy, whereas easier to dodge means a bonus on an unlimited roll. For someone with a high dicepool, dice penalties mean less hits lost on the limit.
-
I was going to put the numbers up here, but then I realized Xenon already put really good numbers up. I still am curious what people think about a couple things though.
1. Do you think those numbers sound right?
2. Do you think characters should size should count?
My answers are yes and no respectively, what are yours?
After playing once a week for the past 6 monthst with my regular group, I would not mess with the basic combat rules. Everything flows very well and the system is designed and balance to work as it is written. I suggest (here I assume you have not playeed much yet) that you use the rules as written and then modify IF you encounter issues.
-
I was going to put the numbers up here, but then I realized Xenon already put really good numbers up. I still am curious what people think about a couple things though.
1. Do you think those numbers sound right?
2. Do you think characters should size should count?
My answers are yes and no respectively, what are yours?
After playing once a week for the past 6 monthst with my regular group, I would not mess with the basic combat rules. Everything flows very well and the system is designed and balance to work as it is written. I suggest (here I assume you have not playeed much yet) that you use the rules as written and then modify IF you encounter issues.
I have played, and I noticed that it is just as easy to hit a microdrone the size of a fly as it is to hit a tank. Considering the squishiness of drones, that makes being a rigger a lot harder.
-
I do find it odd they don't get a modifier, but that's not related to Take Cover and more the subject of a completely different topic.
-
Dracain; that's presuming the PCs/NPCs even see the microdrone in the first place. Rules for perception tests state that an item that is "Hidden/Micro/Silent" is a Threshold 4 test, and in combat especially I would require an Observe In Detail test to even have a chance to notice a tiny insect-like drone flitting around. If the PC/NPC was combat, the "Perceiver is distracted" modifier would apply even on an Observe In Detail test (unless players specifically stated that they were looking for a minidrone), and depending on other factors, modifiers like "Object/sound not in immediate vicinity" and "Object/sound is far away" might also apply.
-
Dracain; that's presuming the PCs/NPCs even see the microdrone in the first place. Rules for perception tests state that an item that is "Hidden/Micro/Silent" is a Threshold 4 test, and in combat especially I would require an Observe In Detail test to even have a chance to notice a tiny insect-like drone flitting around. If the PC/NPC was combat, the "Perceiver is distracted" modifier would apply even on an Observe In Detail test (unless players specifically stated that they were looking for a minidrone), and depending on other factors, modifiers like "Object/sound not in immediate vicinity" and "Object/sound is far away" might also apply.
I do find it odd they don't get a modifier, but that's not related to Take Cover and more the subject of a completely different topic.
Both are fair points, I just figured they could both go together rather well, fixing two problems with one solution, considering all cover really does is make your hit-box smaller anyway. I only really suggested it because it seemed like a simpler and somewhat smoother way to do this, without changing up the balance, not to mention I think the idea that the cover isn't doing anything until you take an action is a little silly. A waist high wall provides cover just by being there, but taking active cover will increase how much it helps. I think I'll run this by my players and see if they want to try it, just to see if it works.
-
I find it strange that it is not harder to hit a small target.
No matter if the target is small because it is a small drone or because you only have a small area to hit because the target currently happen to be behind a wall that cover 90 % of his body (but he is not getting any bonus because he have not spend an action to fortify behind the cover).
If you spot a micro drone it will be as easy to hit as a van. A mini drone as easy to hit as a car. A target you only see the head of its as easy to hit as a 10" troll out in the open.
Over simplified?
-
I find it strange that it is not harder to hit a small target.
No matter if the target is small because it is a small drone or because you only have a small area to hit because the target currently happen to be behind a wall that cover 90 % of his body (but he is not getting any bonus because he have not spend an action to fortify behind the cover).
If you spot a micro drone it will be as easy to hit as a van. A mini drone as easy to hit as a car. A target you only see the head of its as easy to hit as a 10" troll out in the open.
Over simplified?
I agree, which is why I'll be employing this houserule. It sounds easier to explain, and employ in combat, as well as just makes more sense from both a fluff and crunch standing.
-
A 10" troll isn't all that big, though, Xenon :)
And yes, it's obviously oversimplified. It generally works, in my opinion, though.
-
I blame my Samsung keyboard. And strange American measures.
10' Troll!
Better :)
Actually let us just use metric and say 3 meter
-
Yes it works. Faster too.
But get kinda strange in some situations...
Then again, GM can always rule that the shot is extra easy or hard and give the shooter an extra positive or negative dice pool modifier...
-
Yes it works. Faster too.
But get kinda strange in some situations...
Then again, GM can always rule that the shot is extra easy or hard and give the shooter an extra positive or negative dice pool modifier...
The problem is that when using a grid system it is harder to justify them not having a bonus when they can literally say "I literally have a car between myself and the shooter", not to mention it punishes complex actions even more then they already are. You already cannot do anything else, even move, and now you can't even take cover? On another note, if you were to use this houserule, do you feel these numbers are right?
-
[...] not to mention it punishes complex actions even more then they already are. You already cannot do anything else, even move, and now you can't even take cover?
From what I understand you can still move fully when using a complex action, as movement is separate from actions in SR5 (apart from the run/sprint actions). If I'm mistaken, could you point out why?
Back on topic, I'd certainly support a houserule with smaller things being harder to hit. The numbers seem right, but it'd have to be playtested to be sure.
As for taking cover, if you're taking a complex action to shoot at someone, I'd find it reasonable that you don't have the time to also make good use of cover that's there - you're too busy lining up your shots to really think about how much you're exposing, so you end up exposing enough for you not to get a bonus. If there's a large object clearly obstructing a large area, it'd be different - but then it'd be a two-way street as well, and it'd have to be an extreme example.
-
^This
When you take a complex action, lets say shooting bullets, then you spend the entire action phase doing it. If you have a pistol you aim, fire, aim, fire, aim, fire. As fast as possible. No time to duck and stay behind cover (or even recover recoil; be aware of progressive recoil when using this fire mode). You can still move while you do this (but if you run you take a negative dice pool modifier for that as well - you are not allowed to sprint...)
When you only use a single action to fire a bullet (or recklessly cast a spell) you also have time to duck behind cover to take advantage of it so you are harder to hit when it is time for the others to act.
-
Fair enough, I figured I might as well put it out there.
Moving on from the cover stuff, how would you handle character size if rules were implemented to deal with size? Trolls are obviously large targets, and Dwarfs are obviously small, so should someone get a bonus/penalty to shooting them?
-
For balance reasons, I'd say no. They're roughly enough the same size anyway; it's mainly the things that's an order of magnitude smaller that should get a bonus.
-
For balance reasons, I'd say no. They're roughly enough the same size anyway; it's mainly the things that's an order of magnitude smaller that should get a bonus.
That's what I was thinking,but it never hurts to get an outside opinion.
-
However, the dwarf will have a far easier job using the Troll as a Body Barrier than the other way around.
-
However, the dwarf will have a far easier job using the Troll as a Body Barrier than the other way around.
You've just put the best mental image in my head.
-
The problem is that when using a grid system it is harder to justify them not having a bonus when they can literally say "I literally have a car between myself and the shooter", not to mention it punishes complex actions even more then they already are. You already cannot do anything else, even move, and now you can't even take cover? On another note, if you were to use this houserule, do you feel these numbers are right?
So many literallies...haha.
Keep in mind that if the car is sufficiently large enough to completely obscure LoS, not only is the attacker suffering -6 to their DP (blind fire), the defender still gets to roll 4 dice to defend against the attack (unaware behind full cover), and the attack needs to penetrate the car and hit the target. Even if the attack hits, most weapons are not going to do more than tickle an equipped runner. Now heavy armor piercing weapons are another story but for good reason. As others have pointed out you can still move, no reason to repeat that part. :)
__________________________________________________________
As for size modifiers, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that SR4 Arsenal had rules for just that.
Micro Target: Micro-sized targets such as insects and micro-drones are incredibly difficult to hit, especially at range. Apply a –6 dice pool modifier. At certain ranges, these targets may not even be visible without magnifi cation (meaning the Target Hidden Blind Fire modifier p. 141, SR4 p. 178 SR5, would apply as well).
Mini Target: Mini targets include minidrones, very large insects, small rodents, and similar small animals. Apply a –4 dice pool modifier.
Small Target: Small targets include small drones, cats, small dogs, babies and toddlers, and similar small creatures. Apply a –2 dice pool modifier.
Large Targets: Large targets such as car-sized and larger vehicles, some orks, most trolls, big trees, horses, and similar bulky creatures are easier to hit. As a general rule, anything with a Body of 8–14 counts as large. Apply a +1 dice pool modifier to the attack.
Massive Targets: Really, really big targets are rare, but hitting them can be as easy as shooting the side of a barn. This includes things like buildings, trucks, hovercraft , aircraft , and large creatures like dragons. As a general rule, anything with a Body of 15+ counts as [massive]. Apply a dice pool modifier of +2 or more, as appropriate.
On that note, I'd like to point out babies and toddlers as targets... What a morbid wet-work assignment that would be! (0_0)
-
Some people remarked, that it's strange to give dodge dice to the defender instead of substracting dice from the attacker. Subtracting was done in SR4 and it was changed to additional dodge dice in SR4A, because attackers often "forgot" to subtract dice when attacking targets with cover. Targets nearly never forget to add dice to dodge when they have cover.
At least that's what a dev said on a forum, IIRC.
-
The problem is that when using a grid system it is harder to justify them not having a bonus when they can literally say "I literally have a car between myself and the shooter", not to mention it punishes complex actions even more then they already are. You already cannot do anything else, even move, and now you can't even take cover? On another note, if you were to use this houserule, do you feel these numbers are right?
So many literallies...haha.
Keep in mind that if the car is sufficiently large enough to completely obscure LoS, not only is the attacker suffering -6 to their DP (blind fire), the defender still gets to roll 4 dice to defend against the attack (unaware behind full cover), and the attack needs to penetrate the car and hit the target. Even if the attack hits, most weapons are not going to do more than tickle an equipped runner. Now heavy armor piercing weapons are another story but for good reason. As others have pointed out you can still move, no reason to repeat that part. :)
__________________________________________________________
As for size modifiers, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that SR4 Arsenal had rules for just that.
Micro Target: Micro-sized targets such as insects and micro-drones are incredibly difficult to hit, especially at range. Apply a –6 dice pool modifier. At certain ranges, these targets may not even be visible without magnifi cation (meaning the Target Hidden Blind Fire modifier p. 141, SR4 p. 178 SR5, would apply as well).
Mini Target: Mini targets include minidrones, very large insects, small rodents, and similar small animals. Apply a –4 dice pool modifier.
Small Target: Small targets include small drones, cats, small dogs, babies and toddlers, and similar small creatures. Apply a –2 dice pool modifier.
Large Targets: Large targets such as car-sized and larger vehicles, some orks, most trolls, big trees, horses, and similar bulky creatures are easier to hit. As a general rule, anything with a Body of 8–14 counts as large. Apply a +1 dice pool modifier to the attack.
Massive Targets: Really, really big targets are rare, but hitting them can be as easy as shooting the side of a barn. This includes things like buildings, trucks, hovercraft , aircraft , and large creatures like dragons. As a general rule, anything with a Body of 15+ counts as [massive]. Apply a dice pool modifier of +2 or more, as appropriate.
On that note, I'd like to point out babies and toddlers as targets... What a morbid wet-work assignment that would be! (0_0)
Looking out over the top of a car typically means more that 50% of your body is behind some cover, looking over anything that is waist height still provides about 50% cover in fact. This is why I think having some rules for "passive cover" could be beneficial.
P.S. There are only two uses of the word "literally" in the post, and while they are technically in the same sentence, the second one is a sentence being spoken by another person, the hypothetical "player" in my example. Both uses denote that there is no exaggeration, the first saying that they can say that, and the second showing that there is no embellishment, there really is that much cover.
-
Looking out over the top of a car typically means more that 50% of your body is behind some cover, looking over anything that is waist height still provides about 50% cover in fact. This is why I think having some rules for "passive cover" could be beneficial.
Yes but typically people aim at center of mass (torso/chest) and in Shadowrun, as with most table-tops, this is the default attack assumption. By not taking the "Take Cover" action, the character is treated as not trying to protect it. If people are already aiming at your chest, only covering waist down isn't going to help unless you actively duck.
Edit:
Also note that I said large enough in my post. Obviously a little compact is barely enough to completely hide a dwarf, but something along the lines of a pickup, SUV, loaded station wagon,
etc especially with tints is plenty to fully obscure vision.
P.S. There are only two uses of the word "literally" in the post, and while they are technically in the same sentence, the second one is a sentence being spoken by another person, the hypothetical "player" in my example. Both uses denote that there is no exaggeration, the first saying that they can say that, and the second showing that there is no embellishment, there really is that much cover.
Was just playfully nitpicking.
-
In my games, I also allow Take Cover to be maintained into the next Initiative Pass as long as the player doesn't move or take any action. Once they do (move or take an action), they no longer have the benefits of Take Cover until they spend another Simple Action.
I haven't seen anything in the book to confirm that is correct, but it makes sense at our table.
-
Looking out over the top of a car typically means more that 50% of your body is behind some cover, looking over anything that is waist height still provides about 50% cover in fact. This is why I think having some rules for "passive cover" could be beneficial.
Yes but typically people aim at center of mass (torso/chest) and in Shadowrun, as with most table-tops, this is the default attack assumption. By not taking the "Take Cover" action, the character is treated as not trying to protect it. If people are already aiming at your chest, only covering waist down isn't going to help unless you actively duck.
Edit:
Also note that I said large enough in my post. Obviously a little compact is barely enough to completely hide a dwarf, but something along the lines of a pickup, SUV, loaded station wagon,
etc especially with tints is plenty to fully obscure vision.
P.S. There are only two uses of the word "literally" in the post, and while they are technically in the same sentence, the second one is a sentence being spoken by another person, the hypothetical "player" in my example. Both uses denote that there is no exaggeration, the first saying that they can say that, and the second showing that there is no embellishment, there really is that much cover.
Was just playfully nitpicking.
This is all fair enough, and completely understandable, I was just explaining my train of thought. After all, a Dwarf looking over the hood of a car, or a Human looking over the roof (with proper positioning, it still makes the shot harder) still is harder to hit, same could be said about someone peaking around a corner. I just find it weird that there is no passive cover. Concerning my explanation of the use of literally, that's just me going on about grammar, which is a bit of a bad habit of mine.
Concerning the core rules on taking cover, it doesn't say that the bonus goes away when attacking, and seems to assume that the person is in a position to return fire. Am I reading it wrong, or is this just another one of those "the wording is somewhat vague" situations that lead to a large amount of different interpretations of the same rule.
-
This is all fair enough, and completely understandable, I was just explaining my train of thought. After all, a Dwarf looking over the hood of a car, or a Human looking over the roof (with proper positioning, it still makes the shot harder) still is harder to hit, same could be said about someone peaking around a corner. I just find it weird that there is no passive cover. Concerning my explanation of the use of literally, that's just me going on about grammar, which is a bit of a bad habit of mine.
Concerning the core rules on taking cover, it doesn't say that the bonus goes away when attacking, and seems to assume that the person is in a position to return fire. Am I reading it wrong, or is this just another one of those "the wording is somewhat vague" situations that lead to a large amount of different interpretations of the same rule.
Oh hey me too. No way for us to know exactly why they did what haha. Just good guesses. I think that has to do with the whole Mind's-Eye-Theatre approach so common in this game. Using mats can get very complicated with some rules. Cover for example (passive and such).
I assumed it was gained until you moved out however it seems a heavy topic so I didn't bring it up :-X
-
I figure cover is gained until you move out of it, but the question is, does firing a gun/casting a spell/any other number of fancy things people do in this game from behind cover count as going out of cover?
-
I figure cover is gained until you move out of it, but the question is, does firing a gun/casting a spell/any other number of fancy things people do in this game from behind cover count as going out of cover?
You can use a ranged weapon while staying in cover by using Blind Fire (a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice [p.178]) or Attacker firing from cover with imaging device (a negative dice pool of 3 dice [p.177]). You can also cast spells from cover if you use Optical Devices (a negative dice pool modifier of 3 dice [p.444]).
-
I figure cover is gained until you move out of it, but the question is, does firing a gun/casting a spell/any other number of fancy things people do in this game from behind cover count as going out of cover?
I don't think so. The Firing from Cover only applies when you're behind total cover after all. You're still there behind partial cover and firing away.
-
You can use a ranged weapon while staying in cover by using Blind Fire (a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice [p.178]) or Attacker firing from cover with imaging device (a negative dice pool of 3 dice [p.177]). You can also cast spells from cover if you use Optical Devices (a negative dice pool modifier of 3 dice [p.444]).
That's from total cover. If you're behind "normal" cover (what you normally do with the Take Cover action) you're still partially exposed, which also means you can just fire back at the other guy without fancy things.
-
I figure cover is gained until you move out of it, but the question is, does firing a gun/casting a spell/any other number of fancy things people do in this game from behind cover count as going out of cover?
I don't think so. The Firing from Cover only applies when you're behind total cover after all. You're still there behind partial cover and firing away.
It applies when you are in cover (which might or might not mean you have to be in total cover).
If you take the action to take cover behind a car and lift your right arm to shoot over the hood with your smartgun heavy pistol you are in good cover and get +4 dice when you take a defense test if someone shoot back at you. You are also firing from Cover with Imaging Device which give you -3 dice.
If you just stand behind a car you are not Taking Cover and you will not get a positive dice pool modifier to your defense test.
-
I figure cover is gained until you move out of it, but the question is, does firing a gun/casting a spell/any other number of fancy things people do in this game from behind cover count as going out of cover?
I don't think so. The Firing from Cover only applies when you're behind total cover after all. You're still there behind partial cover and firing away.
It applies when you are in cover (which might or might not mean you have to be in total cover).
I'll be honest, I thought those were for total cover as well. Perhaps someone should ask on the errata thread.
-
Firing from Cover With an Imaging Device (p. 177, emphasis mine) is stuff like pointing your gun around a corner. You can only do it with an imaging device and it assumes you're firing from total cover. If you don't have an imaging device, you'd use the Blind Fire penalty.
Take Cover is an action that can result in either Good Cover or Partial Cover, depending on what the GM decides is available. Since Partial Cover assumes only 25-50% of the defender's body is covered (so standing behind a waist-high wall, for example), I wouldn't require a player to spend another action on reestablishing cover in most cases--the wall isn't going anywhere. Good cover is 50%+ and very well might require additional Simple Actions to reestablish, depending on the circumstance. A human taking cover in a fairly deep doorway from corp sec down the hall might qualify for this bonus, but may also need to spend a Simple Action to duck back into the doorway after firing. Obviously, if you're getting this bonus because you're prone, you don't need to reestablish it.
Weird rules note that I mentioned in the errata thread: If you take Partial Cover behind soft cover (so no barrier rating to speak of), you are actually easier to hit than if you took no cover at all. For some strange reason, cover negates the "ties go to the defender" rule, which means attackers need one fewer net success to hit you.
-
Firing from Cover With an Imaging Device (p. 177, emphasis mine) is stuff like pointing your gun around a corner. You can only do it with an imaging device and it assumes you're firing from total cover. If you don't have an imaging device, you'd use the Blind Fire penalty.
Take Cover is an action that can result in either Good Cover or Partial Cover, depending on what the GM decides is available. Since Partial Cover assumes only 25-50% of the defender's body is covered (so standing behind a waist-high wall, for example), I wouldn't require a player to spend another action on reestablishing cover in most cases--the wall isn't going anywhere. Good cover is 50%+ and very well might require additional Simple Actions to reestablish, depending on the circumstance. A human taking cover in a fairly deep doorway from corp sec down the hall might qualify for this bonus, but may also need to spend a Simple Action to duck back into the doorway after firing. Obviously, if you're getting this bonus because you're prone, you don't need to reestablish it.
Weird rules note that I mentioned in the errata thread: If you take Partial Cover behind soft cover (so no barrier rating to speak of), you are actually easier to hit than if you took no cover at all. For some strange reason, cover negates the "ties go to the defender" rule, which means attackers need one fewer net success to hit you.
You forgot total cover, which is about 100% of the body being obscured. Like Michael Chandra and Top Dog said, we think the firing blind/using a camera refers to that.
-
I don't think Total Cover involves the Take Cover action generally, since it'd apply when you hide behind a wall completely, without sticking out.
-
Yes - It is clear that if you have full cover you have to use blind fire or fire with an imaging device and opponents get -6 to hit you etc.
However, just standing behind cover does not give you a bonus
(and you are not harder to hit since in SR5 size of the target area doesn't matter unless it is 100 covered - in which case you get -6 because you have to blind fire).
but consider this: standing behind cover and then use the Take Cover action give you a defensive bonus.
The Take Cover action might very well mean that you "hunker down" behind the cover.
- that to get the positive dice pool bonus you have to do everything you can to cover your most vital areas (like your head and torso)
....while some other parts of your body (like your legs and shoulders) might still stick out depending on the size of whatever you are taking cover behind; giving you full, good or only partial cover bonus.
and if you wish to fire out of the cover while still remaining in cover you use an imaging device or possible even blind fire
...the alternative could be to stick your head out from cover (but that could also mean you are no longer hunkering down behind the cover)
you can also just spend a simple action to take a shot and then the second simple action to duck down behind cover again...
taking cover might also mean that you just kneel behind cover and still have your upper torso and head fully visible (but if that would be the case then you would automatically get that bonus if you passively happen to walk behind a cover that would protect all but your upper torso and head -- but you don't).
Consider this scenario: You are standing behind something that cover your upper torso, head, arms and weapon.
Opponents does not get any negative dice pool modifier
You don't get any positive defense dice pool modifier.
You don't get any negative attack dice pool modifier.
Then you Take Cover. What does that mean...???
I think it mean you kneel behind cover and either A) lift your arm and your weapon above the edge so you can still fire back.
Opponents does not get any negative dice pool modifier (because they see your hand and weapon)
You get a positive dice pool modifier of 4 dice because you have good cover and can see your opponent through the live camera feed of your weapon.
You get negative dice pool modifier of 3 dice because you fire with an imaging device.
or B) stay fully hidden
Opponents get a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice because of blind fire
You don't see your opponent so now you only roll 4 dice as a pool of its own
(can't roll reaction + intuition since if you can't see your attacker you are unaware of the attack)
The only way you can fire back without exposing yourself and giving up your location behind the cover is by shooting through the cover with a -6 dice blind fire modifier.
food for though.
-
taking cover might also mean that you just kneel behind cover and still have your upper torso and head fully visible (but if that would be the case then you would automatically get that bonus if you passively happen to walk behind a cover that would protect all but your upper torso and head -- but you don't).
I figured it worked kinda like this, with taking cover getting in a position that obscures/protects most of your body, while still being able to take shots at the enemy.
-
However, just standing behind cover does not give you a bonus
(and you are not harder to hit since in SR5 size of the target area doesn't matter unless it is 100 covered - in which case you get -6 because you have to blind fire).
but consider this: standing behind cover and then use the Take Cover action give you a defensive bonus.
I share some of your frustrations regarding the vagaries of the system, but I should point out that this isn't accurate. Inanimate and stationary objects with cover gain the same bonus (p. 188)--no movement is required. If people start shooting at you when you're already standing behind a short wall, you don't need to take any further action to get the benefits of Partial Cover. Dropping to one knee and peering over the wall would be a Simple Action that grants Good Cover.
-
p.188 say;
Note that even stationary or inanimate targets may have a defense dice pool if they have Partial or Good cover.
A defense dice pool, yes.
A defense dice pool bonus, no.
What the above means is that when you are surprised (caught off guard and don't get to take a defense test), unaware of the attack (because you for example don't see the attacker), behind full (100%) cover (because you can't see the attacker) or if the target is a stationary -or even inanimate object that normally never get a defense test;
- you still roll 2 dice for partial cover or 4 dice for good cover as as dice pool of it's own.
You don't get a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice for partial cover or 4 dice for good cover unless you also spend action time to Take Cover (which might or might not mean that you hunker down behind cover).
SR5 p.190 Defender/Target has [Partial / Good] Cover
If the Defender uses a Take Cover action to get behind something where more than [twenty-five and up to fifty / fifty] percent of the defender’s body is obscured by intervening
terrain or other forms of cover ...
============================
Note that a target behind cover (even partial cover) will get barrier protection on a tie.
p190 Cover
If you attack someone in cover and you tie in the Opposed Test, you hit your target through the cover she’s using. If you penetrate the barrier (see Barriers, p. 197), you can still do damage to your opponent.
============================
There are 3 options here:
All of them might be correct
1) You always get 2 dice for partial and 4 dice for good if you have enough cover for your body, even if you don't take action.
2) When you take cover you are (or remain) in partial or good cover but can still return fire without losing the cover and without using blind fire or fire from imaging device.
3) When you take cover you "hunker down" behind cover and if you want to remain in cover and still fire you take blind fire or fire from imaging device.
(but p.190 suggest that 1 is false).
Maybe both 2 and 3 can be correct...?
Maybe it work like this: If there is enough intervening terrain or cover to give you 25-50% cover you can use Take Cover action to get +2 dice and still attack from there or hunker down your head and most of your torso behind cover to get +4 dice but -3 dice because you now fire with an imaging device?
-
Maybe both 2 and 3 can be correct...?
Maybe it work like this: If there is enough intervening terrain or cover to give you 25-50% cover you can use Take Cover action to get +2 dice and still attack from there or hunker down your head and most of your torso behind cover to get +4 dice but -3 dice because you now fire with an imaging device?
That is an intriguing idea, and while I doubt that is what they meant, it still is quite clever.
-
p.188 say;
Note that even stationary or inanimate targets may have a defense dice pool if they have Partial or Good cover.
A defense dice pool, yes.
A defense dice pool bonus, no.
What the above means is that when you are surprised (caught off guard and don't get to take a defense test), unaware of the attack (because you for example don't see the attacker), behind full (100%) cover (because you can't see the attacker) or if the target is a stationary -or even inanimate object that normally never get a defense test;
- you still roll 2 dice for partial cover or 4 dice for good cover as as dice pool of it's own.
You don't get a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice for partial cover or 4 dice for good cover unless you also spend action time to Take Cover (which might or might not mean that you hunker down behind cover).
An inanimate object is incapable of moving, which means it cannot take a Simple Action to Take Cover. Nevertheless, if it is partially obscured by something, it is considered to have cover (be it Partial or Good). What happens after that may differ from what happens to a PC with cover, but the important part of the rule is that movement is not required to have cover. If a PC is standing out in the open, then he obviously needs to spend a Simple Action to gain cover. It's a simple logic tree.
1. Did the inanimate object move [y/n]-- It's inanimate, so obviously no.
2. Does the inanimate object have cover [y/n]-- Quite possibly, given the rules on page 188.
Now step 3 may or may not be different for a PC vs. an inanimate object in terms of whether or not it's a bonus to defense pool or simply a pool of 2-4 dice, but that's separate from the issue of whether or not you need to move to benefit from cover, since that's established in steps 1-2.
There are 3 options here:
All of them might be correct
1) You always get 2 dice for partial and 4 dice for good if you have enough cover for your body, even if you don't take action.
2) When you take cover you are (or remain) in partial or good cover but can still return fire without losing the cover and without using blind fire or fire from imaging device.
3) When you take cover you "hunker down" behind cover and if you want to remain in cover and still fire you take blind fire or fire from imaging device.
(but p.190 suggest that 1 is false).
I think this is largely going to come down to the GM's call. I'm loathe to bog down combat more by trying to figure out each character's dominant hand and if they're able to full use the doorframe for cover while firing out of it, so I'll probably just default to firing from Partial Cover is not a problem and firing from Good Cover would be handles on a case-by-case basis. Firing from an arrow slot or over the back of a pickup won't impair your shot and cover more than 50% of your body, but if you've squeezed yourself into a corner to take cover, then you'll probably have to pop out, fire, and "reset" cover.
-
If it would be enough to just move behind cover without spending an action and still get a positive dice pool modifier might or might not be true (but p.190 does seem to phrase it like the modifier [only] applies when you spend a simple action to take cover).
We know you get a positive dice pool modifier of 2 or 4 dice if you spend a simple action to take cover (p. 190). We also know that in situations where you normally don't get to take a defensive test you still get a dice pool of 2 or 4 dice on it's own if you stand behind cover [even if you don't take an action to also take cover] (p.188). We also know that on a tie on the opposed test the attack will hit cover (which it might or might not pierce) before the target (p.190).
Now, it make sense that the a shot should be harder to pull off of the target is behind cover so you only see part of him or even very little of him. Either as a negative dice pool modifier for the shooter (make most sense) or as a positive dice pool modifier for the defender (easier to not forget or whatever the reason might be).