Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lormyr on <01-21-20/1541:57>
-
:)
Grenades really should be triggering the harshest response from the game world the GM is willing to throw at the PCs. And HTR teams should be tactically aware enough to not walk into a rolling barrage. Details will vary wildly based on the situation of course. But if the building is already blown full of holes and everyone is dead.... just fire off a half dozen HE Missiles from a safe distance and have done with 'em. Follow up with an Astral scout or a swarm of cheap drones. Blame the terrorists for the collateral damage, it's why they pay the PR team.
This is mostly a table issue IMO as no matter what you do with AoE damage the PC will have some kind of access to it. Either Spells, Chem Grenades, or Explosives. Any and all of them can be abused. If one grenade isn't enough, fine bust out the burst fire launcher. Or have the Rigger fire off half a dozen from the Rotodrone murder squad. Or have three mages on the team.
If the players are knocking down buildings with spells and explosives or tossing around chemical weapons they should expect the GM to pull out the biggest hammer in the toolbox if they stick around.
Unless of course its some kind of Barrens/CZ/war zone where no HTR team is paid to care : ) Then, by all means, break out the 120mm Mortar squad and frag some hoops.
I wanted to respond to this in the other thread, but I'll put it here instead for Skalchemist.
Overall, I agree with you. Strictly putting aside game mechanics and fun factor, just going with setting, let's look at this from a powerful corps perspective. If you have a team with top of the line firepower raiding one of your facilities, I think the most appropriate response is a quick cost vs. loss analysis. In other words, will it cost you more (money, influence, reputation, whatever) to let the raided site and/or it's assets go or more to launch enough counter firepower to put a stop to the intruders? Other factors will certainly play a part, but in most cases, profit is the bottom line.
Lets look at game mechanics though. In 6e specifically, aoe spells cast even by fairly advanced spellcasters do not come anywhere close to grenades in power or radius. A magic 10 mage casting a fireball, and let's say amped up with +8 drain (4 for 2 damage, 4 to increase the radius to 8m) does 7 damage in an 8m radius. The grenade has a radius of 20m, doing a minimum of 8 damage at the same range as the spell, and much more to poor souls closer. That comparison alone is absurdly out of balance. At the risk of being an ass, I believe so strongly in the indisputable truth of that simple math that I have a very hard time taking anyone who disagrees seriously.
Fun wise, Shadowrun has two traditional styles: trenchcoat and mohawk. Neither is better, both are fun, both fit, it comes down purely to tastes. Setting aside trenchcoat for this conversation, lets focus on mohawk. What do you personally think would be more fun for the players?
A). Loud attacks are so deadly that whoever launches them pretty much wins. That means the players come in loud, obliterate the opposition, then (rightfully) get obliterated by the HTR retaliation.
or
B). Throw those greandes and spells. They are dangerous, but do moderate damage vs. lol you're dead son, with their primary benefit being the sheer number of people they can hit at once. The team comes in loud, still has to work for their kills, and then HTR responds in kind, and the team is facing trouble rather than certain death?
I don't know about you man, but I'll take B every time on either side of the "screen". Make those grenades damage 6, with a 10m radius and you will still get excellent value out of them without being obvious overkill. And for fucks sake people, allow a defense test.
-
I think you're underrating Spellcasting as Net hits also increase damage. Magic 6, Spellcasting 5, Spec, and Expertise, Rating 4 Foci, 13 dice at chargen, up to 18 pretty quick. This is in addition to the brute squad of nigh invincible Spirits doing whatever they want. Plus spells have the nifty option of being Mana or Stun damage, which in many situations helps with the security/game world response.
Grenade DV is too high? Lower them to 4 DV its still just a matter of more grenades. Either bust out the Semi Auto Launcher and fire off 4 per turn per Gun Bunny, or have the Rigger's Drone swarm saturate the area. I guess more PCs get to fire off grenades than just whoever wins initiative?
Give Grenades a defense test? Sure. But an optimized Samurai or Physad or Rigger will rarely miss with a gun, unless you've got a significantly different mechanic in mind, I don't think it would be much of a change. Could be wrong. Defense tests tend to favor PCs, not NPCs. Most stock NPCs don't dodge real well, and I think that may be deliberate.
Fun is relative. IME, make sure players understand that explosives = immediate countdown to an over the horizon Guarda Swarm launch or Astral Mages continuous Spirit bombing or whatever HTR shenanigans the GM feels like. If they decide to drop a building (and I recall doing just that multiple times in my Shadowrun career) the clock starts, better do what you need to do and get out.
Grenades haven't changed that much between editions. There was a Burst Fire launcher in the 5e CRB I think and Chunky Salsa was a thing. If a 'Runner team wanted to blow the hell out of a run with Grenade launchers in 5E, they could. Most teams chose not to because they didn't want the heat/consequences/notoriety/whatever that comes with decisions like that. That calculus should still be valid in 6E. Clearly YMMV.
I think part of it is the DV difference between "normal" weapons and grenades is so high in this edition it just "pops" more? Dunno.
-
Grenades suck as they are for sure, but they have always sucked but even more so now unless changed which is on the wish list so we shall see what comes of it.
As for a little bit of a side rant this is the type of thing that makes me hate Missions play because I can't control what the players do at that level but in my home game grenades are a no go for everyone.
-
I'm glad you posted this, Lormyr. At the risk of stepping into a duel in progress between you and Hobbes, I did want to talk about grenades! :-)
Your session report in a different thread was both eye-opening and hilarious, especially this bit...
(All of us): Fuck explosives. Seriously, what in the hell were you guys thinking?
Please
Give
Them
A
Defense
Test
For
Fuck's
Sake
My GM and I laughed and laughed at that. :D
I also generally agree with you that the current rules make grenades so huge of a threat that they will lead to not fun situations in our own game (I won't speak for anyone else's game or in absolute terms here, only with respect to my personal preferences).
I think our group tends more towards "trenchcoat", if I am inferring the meaning of those two paradigms of Shadowrun correctly; that is, more gritty, less manic. Given that, I've been thinking about the following house rules to mitigate grenades somewhat, but not as much as what you are suggesting...
1) The only time someone gets hit with the Ground Zero damage is if they are literally standing on the grenade or its in their pocket. Otherwise, they get the benefit of the doubt as close range.
2) The Avoid Incoming minor action is not affected by dodge penalties; 1 hit equals 1 meter moved.
3) Both the Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt minor actions have the following extra bit: "This action gives you X auto hits on a damage resistance test against blast effects (e.g. grenades)." I'm thinking X is 2, maybe 3.
With these house rules the ground zero damage code (which is just super-huge) will almost never come up in normal circumstances, so its really only the 12P and 8P that you need to think about. By changing the Avoid Incoming, it makes it easier to get out to Near (or out of the blast entirely). By adding the auto-hits to both Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt it makes it more useful in defense, and also provides some defense if you have already used Move/Sprint.
I think this would mean that grenades will still be close to insta-kill in confined spaces like hallways or rooms. But outside of that context, they become more of a tactical consideration; as long as you hold a minor action you can probably make it through a grenade blast.
EDIT: although if they have an MGL, you probably won't survive two blasts using SA mode unless you were able to get behind proper cover with the Avoid Incoming.
EDIT: I assume that in a lot of cases by using Avoid Incoming (especially as I have modified it) a character can put some kind of physical barrier (a car, a wall, etc.) between them and where they hope the grenade will land, in which case they may not take any damage at all. A grenade used on targets in the open is therefore mostly useful as a way to force the enemy to move out of position and put their heads down.
EDIT: It also occurs to me that Avoid Incoming would be more useful if the scatter diagram was biased in some fashion in the direction of travel. That is, a grenade was more likely to go long or short than to bound left or right.
Anyway, that's my take on the subject.
-
Grenades suck as they are for sure, but they have always sucked but even more so now unless changed which is on the wish list so we shall see what comes of it.
As for a little bit of a side rant this is the type of thing that makes me hate Missions play because I can't control what the players do at that level but in my home game grenades are a no go for everyone.
It depends on how Missions decides to use the Heat Mechanics. If explosives make the next run harder...
-
Grenades suck as they are for sure, but they have always sucked but even more so now unless changed which is on the wish list so we shall see what comes of it.
As for a little bit of a side rant this is the type of thing that makes me hate Missions play because I can't control what the players do at that level but in my home game grenades are a no go for everyone.
It depends on how Missions decides to use the Heat Mechanics. If explosives make the next run harder...
Eh. Maybe, but I expect it to have enough teeth to deter the kind of players who use those tactics at cons.
-
I think you're underrating Spellcasting as Net hits also increase damage. Magic 6, Spellcasting 5, Spec, and Expertise, Rating 4 Foci, 13 dice at chargen, up to 18 pretty quick. This is in addition to the brute squad of nigh invincible Spirits doing whatever they want. Plus spells have the nifty option of being Mana or Stun damage, which in many situations helps with the security/game world response.
Oh, don't get me wrong, magic wins. Always and period. The only aspect I am examining is aoe damage, both stand alone and in comparison to other aoe.
Yeah, net hits will totally factor. But my opinion that grenades are unacceptably way too strong stands.
Grenade DV is too high? Lower them to 4 DV its still just a matter of more grenades. Either bust out the Semi Auto Launcher and fire off 4 per turn per Gun Bunny, or have the Rigger's Drone swarm saturate the area. I guess more PCs get to fire off grenades than just whoever wins initiative?
4 DV is infinitely more survivable than 16, 12, or 8 DV. Right now, a troll with 14 soak might survive 2 ground zero grenades with lucky rolls with luck. Most characters with average body (3) cannot mathematically survive a single grenade landing within a meter of them.
Give Grenades a defense test? Sure. But an optimized Samurai or Physad or Rigger will rarely miss with a gun, unless you've got a significantly different mechanic in mind, I don't think it would be much of a change. Could be wrong. Defense tests tend to favor PCs, not NPCs. Most stock NPCs don't dodge real well, and I think that may be deliberate.
First off, under no circumstances ever should any effect that affects another character not require a directly opposed roll. That is poor game balance imo.
Second off, it very much depends on the character and action economy in question. A perfectly optimized elf samurai will hit a decker the vast majority of the time, but will never have a snowball's chance in hell of hitting a mystic adept with increased intuition and reaction, max ranks of combat sense (adept), and using the dodge action. Even a fairly non-optimized character will have their fair chance to dodge several grenades in a bombardment situation if they take full defense and/or dodge knowing they will need it t
Grenades haven't changed that much between editions. There was a Burst Fire launcher in the 5e CRB I think and Chunky Salsa was a thing. If a 'Runner team wanted to blow the hell out of a run with Grenade launchers in 5E, they could. Most teams chose not to because they didn't want the heat/consequences/notoriety/whatever that comes with decisions like that. That calculus should still be valid in 6E. Clearly YMMV.
Again, it depends. Chunky salsa, while possibly very realistic (I have zero experience with explosives), was a really terrible game mechanic. Second, except on the most extreme ends, it was possible to build characters that could survive it, and even laugh off the damage entirely, due to the substantial difference in soak pool potential. One of my main vets in Missions was a Minotaur bio-sam named Cocaine Bull, and he had something like 71 soak dice + 11 auto hits from hardened milspec? Dice pool might be a pinch off, but he routinely entirely shrugged off hits that characters have no earthly business surviving.
Grenades suck as they are for sure, but they have always sucked but even more so now unless changed which is on the wish list so we shall see what comes of it.
As for a little bit of a side rant this is the type of thing that makes me hate Missions play because I can't control what the players do at that level but in my home game grenades are a no go for everyone.
Of all the stuff I saw come up that was occasionally problematic, grenades rarely did for me personally, other than from Tony :p. The majority of actual problems I ran into was the rare player (not character) who was a pain. That and god mages, that is mages who just acquired too much karma and became deities.
That is an understandable frustration though. Some things are better off banned for all sometimes. I always thought grenades availability was entirely too easy.
I'm glad you posted this, Lormyr. At the risk of stepping into a duel in progress between you and Hobbes, I did want to talk about grenades! :-)
My GM and I laughed and laughed at that. :D
Thanks man, and the conversation is welcome to all. And I stand by that quote too!
1) The only time someone gets hit with the Ground Zero damage is if they are literally standing on the grenade or its in their pocket. Otherwise, they get the benefit of the doubt as close range.
2) The Avoid Incoming minor action is not affected by dodge penalties; 1 hit equals 1 meter moved.
3) Both the Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt minor actions have the following extra bit: "This action gives you X auto hits on a damage resistance test against blast effects (e.g. grenades)." I'm thinking X is 2, maybe 3.
That would help to take some of the bite off, but I personally believe it still leaves them too strong. Lower damage and give a defense test, but if for some reason we won't do that, having the avoid incoming action just flat reduce damage by 1 per hit would also at least help.
Eh. Maybe, but I expect it to have enough teeth to deter the kind of players who use those tactics at cons.
That's the real issue. A decent player who has a problematic character can just be reasoned with on the player side and scale back. A problem player with a problem character I personally would just eject if attempts to reason with them failed.
But that said, is grenade spam a problem? I am torn. On the one hand, I can see how it could be. On the other hand, hard to blame players for using tools the game equips them with. Best solution remains to take the teeth off of them so they remain a good option without being perfect annihilation.
-
Usually the social contract of the gaming table is enough to stop someone from wrecking the game for others. When it's not, most missions GMs seem like they can handle a problem player.
Mechanical teeth are good. I haven't done a real deep analysis of Heat yet, but it seemed really hard to get rid of from my first read through. May or may not be what you're looking for though.
-
For the most part I agree.
I like teeth too, but I like those teeth to be balanced. When it's not, I'll call it out. Loudly, as you're all well aware.
-
IME, make sure players understand that explosives = immediate countdown to an over the horizon Guarda Swarm launch or Astral Mages continuous Spirit bombing or whatever HTR shenanigans the GM feels like. If they decide to drop a building (and I recall doing just that multiple times in my Shadowrun career) the clock starts, better do what you need to do and get out.
In many scenarios, this undermines the game world’s cohesion for me.
Two scenarios: in both, the PCs are snatching R&D data from a secure facility. In one, they toss grenades like confetti. In the other, they go in loud with rifles and shotguns. I can’t think of any in-game reason why that would routinely result in different responses from the corp. Seems like the corps decision on how violently to respond will be rooted in the available force and the value of the facility, not the specific variety of ultraviolence being deployed.
I could just tell the players out-of-game that it will, but that’s pretty bad for immersion.
-
IME, make sure players understand that explosives = immediate countdown to an over the horizon Guarda Swarm launch or Astral Mages continuous Spirit bombing or whatever HTR shenanigans the GM feels like. If they decide to drop a building (and I recall doing just that multiple times in my Shadowrun career) the clock starts, better do what you need to do and get out.
In many scenarios, this undermines the game world’s cohesion for me.
Two scenarios: in both, the PCs are snatching R&D data from a secure facility. In one, they toss grenades like confetti. In the other, they go in loud with rifles and shotguns. I can’t think of any in-game reason why that would routinely result in different responses from the corp. Seems like the corps decision on how violently to respond will be rooted in the available force and the value of the facility, not the specific variety of ultraviolence being deployed.
I could just tell the players out-of-game that it will, but that’s pretty bad for immersion.
Grenades are a hell of a lot louder than guns. You pop off a grenade in a typical commercial building you're blowing out windows and setting off car alarms. Everyone within a few blocks is going to hear that and go "WTF?" and all kinds of stuff starts happening.
Guns are quieter. Firing a gun in a building, you may very well not hear that gun outside. Or not know what it is. There is every chance that the only folks reporting gunfire are the ones you're shooting at.
Responses... IRL a live shooter gets a tactical / SWAT team kind of response. A bomb threat gets the FBI, ATF and a SWAT team. IMO the game world should react in stages. The HTR team is, basically, Delta Force or Seal Team 6 on some kind of contract that is expensive to activate, so they get called in last, because there is no one to call after that. Few guys with guns, like as in a Bank Robbery? Try the local equivalent to the police first. Corporate cops, Government cops, or Mercenary cops, whatever you got. You don't call in Seal Team 6 for a Bank Robbery. You probably would call in Seal Team 6 if you could for an ongoing act of Domestic Terrorism. Not the best analogies but they're what I got. All IMO, and YMMV of course.
For the most part the first cops on the scene are usually setting up a perimeter. As more cops show up they start to go in. I suspect very strongly that the Corporate Cops of Shadowrun will hold up and wait for the big guns if there is a regular drum beat of high explosives being used. They'll just wait out here, thank you very much.
It makes sense in my head. May not in yours.
-
The property damage caused by a grenade is significantly larger than that caused by firearms, in most cases. So I could see why someone using enough grenades to cause structural damage would elicit a higher response, dependent on how valuable the facility is versus how valuable the employees are.
I think it really does come down to scale- a samurai cybered to the point of having 0.01 essence, armed with a sword, is going to be a bigger threat than a go-ganger with a grenade and an AK. The level of security needed to respond to each one is going to be different. It's not so much "how much damage can the weapon do" as it is "what does it take to stop the threat."
For a go-ganger, standard police might be enough to handle it, perhaps with a higher level of gear than normal (Not beat cops, but you don't need to call in the national guard). A larger gang might warrant more specialized forces (Matrix response, possibly SWAT if it's in a better part of town).
The example with the sammy is HTR-worthy. Furthermore, the corp will likely assume that the sammy has friends in the astral, matrix, etc. and plan accordingly. Giving the sammy a machine gun and a couple of grenades isn't going to affect this too much (Maybe just tactics- since sammy is now a long-range attacker versus short-range).
I don't necessarily think it's a bad call to adjust rules or block weapons that break the game, so long as NPCs aren't using the weapons the players can't use. Similarly, if players understand escalation of force, then they will also be able to plan accordingly.
This is actually one of the things I thought the 6e Beginner's Box did well, even if it seems obvious after the fact. "The general rule of ganger fights is no escalation. If you get swung at by a fist, you come back with a fist. If a knife comes out, everyone can pull knives. A gun comes out, everyone can pull guns."
Even in cases where you don't think the corp would care about fighting fair, they do care about the bottom line. If the runners are shooting up the place with rifles and shotguns, responding in turn makes sense. Heck, even if sammy is unarmed and just knocking folks out with their martial arts prowess, bringing out firearms still makes sense, since the paydata they stole is valuable. (I think you're more likely to find a ganger who puts pride before reason in this case and tries to "fight fair" than you are to find a corp acting this way).
However, bringing out the rocket launchers and grenades doesn't make sense, since you're increasing the cost of recovery. But if the runners are already using grenades, then there's no need to hold back to preserve property, since you need to stop the threat before they bring down the building.
I don't think it matters whether you restrict things like grenades via out-of-game measures, or through appropriate in-universe deterrents.
-
I think you're underrating Spellcasting as Net hits also increase damage. Magic 6, Spellcasting 5, Spec, and Expertise, Rating 4 Foci, 13 dice at chargen, up to 18 pretty quick. This is in addition to the brute squad of nigh invincible Spirits doing whatever they want. Plus spells have the nifty option of being Mana or Stun damage, which in many situations helps with the security/game world response.
Oh, don't get me wrong, magic wins. Always and period. The only aspect I am examining is aoe damage, both stand alone and in comparison to other aoe.
Yeah, net hits will totally factor. But my opinion that grenades are unacceptably way too strong stands.
Grenade DV is too high? Lower them to 4 DV its still just a matter of more grenades. Either bust out the Semi Auto Launcher and fire off 4 per turn per Gun Bunny, or have the Rigger's Drone swarm saturate the area. I guess more PCs get to fire off grenades than just whoever wins initiative?
4 DV is infinitely more survivable than 16, 12, or 8 DV. Right now, a troll with 14 soak might survive 2 ground zero grenades with lucky rolls with luck. Most characters with average body (3) cannot mathematically survive a single grenade landing within a meter of them.
Give Grenades a defense test? Sure. But an optimized Samurai or Physad or Rigger will rarely miss with a gun, unless you've got a significantly different mechanic in mind, I don't think it would be much of a change. Could be wrong. Defense tests tend to favor PCs, not NPCs. Most stock NPCs don't dodge real well, and I think that may be deliberate.
First off, under no circumstances ever should any effect that affects another character not require a directly opposed roll. That is poor game balance imo.
Second off, it very much depends on the character and action economy in question. A perfectly optimized elf samurai will hit a decker the vast majority of the time, but will never have a snowball's chance in hell of hitting a mystic adept with increased intuition and reaction, max ranks of combat sense (adept), and using the dodge action. Even a fairly non-optimized character will have their fair chance to dodge several grenades in a bombardment situation if they take full defense and/or dodge knowing they will need it t
Grenades haven't changed that much between editions. There was a Burst Fire launcher in the 5e CRB I think and Chunky Salsa was a thing. If a 'Runner team wanted to blow the hell out of a run with Grenade launchers in 5E, they could. Most teams chose not to because they didn't want the heat/consequences/notoriety/whatever that comes with decisions like that. That calculus should still be valid in 6E. Clearly YMMV.
Again, it depends. Chunky salsa, while possibly very realistic (I have zero experience with explosives), was a really terrible game mechanic. Second, except on the most extreme ends, it was possible to build characters that could survive it, and even laugh off the damage entirely, due to the substantial difference in soak pool potential. One of my main vets in Missions was a Minotaur bio-sam named Cocaine Bull, and he had something like 71 soak dice + 11 auto hits from hardened milspec? Dice pool might be a pinch off, but he routinely entirely shrugged off hits that characters have no earthly business surviving.
Grenades suck as they are for sure, but they have always sucked but even more so now unless changed which is on the wish list so we shall see what comes of it.
As for a little bit of a side rant this is the type of thing that makes me hate Missions play because I can't control what the players do at that level but in my home game grenades are a no go for everyone.
Of all the stuff I saw come up that was occasionally problematic, grenades rarely did for me personally, other than from Tony :p. The majority of actual problems I ran into was the rare player (not character) who was a pain. That and god mages, that is mages who just acquired too much karma and became deities.
That is an understandable frustration though. Some things are better off banned for all sometimes. I always thought grenades availability was entirely too easy.
I'm glad you posted this, Lormyr. At the risk of stepping into a duel in progress between you and Hobbes, I did want to talk about grenades! :-)
My GM and I laughed and laughed at that. :D
Thanks man, and the conversation is welcome to all. And I stand by that quote too!
1) The only time someone gets hit with the Ground Zero damage is if they are literally standing on the grenade or its in their pocket. Otherwise, they get the benefit of the doubt as close range.
2) The Avoid Incoming minor action is not affected by dodge penalties; 1 hit equals 1 meter moved.
3) Both the Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt minor actions have the following extra bit: "This action gives you X auto hits on a damage resistance test against blast effects (e.g. grenades)." I'm thinking X is 2, maybe 3.
That would help to take some of the bite off, but I personally believe it still leaves them too strong. Lower damage and give a defense test, but if for some reason we won't do that, having the avoid incoming action just flat reduce damage by 1 per hit would also at least help.
Eh. Maybe, but I expect it to have enough teeth to deter the kind of players who use those tactics at cons.
That's the real issue. A decent player who has a problematic character can just be reasoned with on the player side and scale back. A problem player with a problem character I personally would just eject if attempts to reason with them failed.
But that said, is grenade spam a problem? I am torn. On the one hand, I can see how it could be. On the other hand, hard to blame players for using tools the game equips them with. Best solution remains to take the teeth off of them so they remain a good option without being perfect annihilation.
Don't disagree with anything. I'm just fine with lower grenade damage. Opposed check, sure. I don't know that either of those things will become RAW for 6th, reduced Grenade damage sure could. I would say that Soak totals of more than 35 or so are basically unheard of at most tables, although I'm quite aware they're possible. You certainly didn't see any NPCs with Soak totals like that, that one thing at the end of Chicago came close though.
So... change your stress test to 5e, same basic group. Does the outcome change materially? Dude with Grenades still kills everything doesn't he? Or at least does so much damage that clean up is a foregone conclusion. So why wasn't that happening at your 5e table?
5E was more survivable by players certainly. I don't think NPC durability really changed much (Net). Grenade close by is still dead.
-
Even though grenades have DVs well out of line with other man-portable weapons, they lack the overpressure rules in this edition (aka: the "chunky salsa" rule).
Grenades in 5e, when used indoors/underground, were way more deadly than 6we's grenades. Check out the sidebar example of the overpressure rules in 5e: the grenade went up to a lulzy DV 156P.
-
I don't know that either of those things will become RAW for 6th, reduced Grenade damage sure could
That is my concern as well, but my hope is that if we make enough noise that it needs a change that whoever gets the final say on such things might listen.
I would say that Soak totals of more than 35 or so are basically unheard of at most tables, although I'm quite aware they're possible. You certainly didn't see any NPCs with Soak totals like that, that one thing at the end of Chicago came close though.
I usually only saw that PC side on characters with several hundred karma, or troll tanks that came out of the door with heavy hardened milspec through restricted gear, and that last one happened frequently enough to not be uncommon.
NPC wise, I can actually think of a number of very tough foes just off the top of my head. Yeah, the big bad from Season 8, but also the red samurai in depth charge with hardened milspec, and a few other missions that had enemies with hardened milspec. Altar Boy and Auslander were both tough as hell. It was rather uncommon though.
So... change your stress test to 5e, same basic group. Does the outcome change materially? Dude with Grenades still kills everything doesn't he? Or at least does so much damage that clean up is a foregone conclusion. So why wasn't that happening at your 5e table?
Well speaking strictly for myself, switching our stress test to 5e would have been a world of difference. Primarily to your point, the elite Aztec PR8 NPCs I used would have all been in light hardened milspec, so would have been flat immune to grenades without chunky salsa help. Revenant would have also been ludicrously more effective given the rules for MysAds in 5e vs. 6e, and Sovereign would have had several more spells including combat ones.
All that aside in a more general sense though, it would have changed even for average runners average opposition. Same base damage for the grenade (with slightly different rules for diminishing damage based on distance from ground zero), vastly different average soak pools. 6e, average HTR has soak total around 7. 5e, average HTR has soak total around 24 (body 5, full body armor 15, helmet 2, ware 2). Average difference of 6 is a big deal for grenades doing the same damage.
Even though grenades have DVs well out of line with other man-portable weapons, they lack the overpressure rules in this edition (aka: the "chunky salsa" rule).
Grenades in 5e, when used indoors/underground, were way more deadly than 6we's grenades. Check out the sidebar example of the overpressure rules in 5e: the grenade went up to a lulzy DV 156P.
You're right. That said, chunky salsa is the single most terrible rule I have ever encountered in any game I have ever played in terms of being unbalanced as hell. I never used it, even at Missions tables, nor did I ever see anyone else use it, including Ray when he was the boss man. Just because we made them lolsy overkill in 5e doesn't mean we need to carry on that poor decision.
-
So... change your stress test to 5e, same basic group. Does the outcome change materially? Dude with Grenades still kills everything doesn't he? Or at least does so much damage that clean up is a foregone conclusion. So why wasn't that happening at your 5e table?
Well speaking strictly for myself, switching our stress test to 5e would have been a world of difference. Primarily to your point, the elite Aztec PR8 NPCs I used would have all been in light hardened milspec, so would have been flat immune to grenades without chunky salsa help. Revenant would have also been ludicrously more effective given the rules for MysAds in 5e vs. 6e, and Sovereign would have had several more spells including combat ones.
All that aside in a more general sense though, it would have changed even for average runners average opposition. Same base damage for the grenade (with slightly different rules for diminishing damage based on distance from ground zero), vastly different average soak pools. 6e, average HTR has soak total around 7. 5e, average HTR has soak total around 24 (body 5, full body armor 15, helmet 2, ware 2). Average difference of 6 is a big deal for grenades doing the same damage.
Well, if you put the 6e goons in Hardened armor they'd have lasted longer. Milspec/Hardened armor just isn't printed for 6e yet. : ) I would argue very strongly that using grenades, especially indoors, in 5e would have turned anything without Hardened Armor (Milspec, or ItNW or whatever) would be pounded to goo. Might have taken a second or occasional third grenade if they're real spread out, but they'd all still be down in a single turn. This is generally what happens with a table of well built 'runners. "Reasonable" opposition tends to go away almost immediately. Unless the GM throws out something stupid, Alter Boy, dozen force 10+ spirits, couple of panzers, Dragons and Juggernauts...
Yes Chunky Salsa rules are a pain. Yes I'm glad they're gone. Still made 5e Grenades every bit as mechanically effective as 6e Grenades, IMO anyway.
My last bit, mostly for Missions play as I think stuff like this can be worked out at a table. "Jeff, knock off the grenade spam please, we get it." I feel the social aspect of the game is strong enough that unpopular tactics (Grenade spam, monowhip weapon foci, 5e Rigger SWARM rules, Pornomancers, possession traditions, high grade initiate mages, ect.) will restrain themselves most of the time and not disrupt the table for the other players/GM.
That's been my experience as a Missions GM and player. Players with mechanically strong characters get a feel for the GM/table, and play for fun. We have a mix of high karma and no karma characters at any given table, and 99% of the time everyone has a good time. Problem players will always be problem players, GMs will have to deal with them.
Missions can identify the unbalancing / unfun mechanics and put some rules around them in the Mission FAQ. Did it for 5e. I'm sure it'll be done again for 6e. For grenades in 6e Heat may work, raising the availability may be the way to go, or just putting chemsniffers everywhere. Just something there to enforce the social contract for the borderline cases. "If you do X, Y bad thing will happen so lets find another option..."
I'm all for mechanical changes to the way grenades work in 6e to bring them in line with other options. But Pepper Punch Grenades, AoE spells, Spirits, Multiple Gun Bunnies using Anticipate.... I think even if you took explosive grenades out, 6 well built runners will chew up a lot of NPCs real fast.
In general, nerfing "The best option" quickly becomes a game of whack-a-mole as there is always a best option. I prefer to have several "Best options".
-
I'm all for mechanical changes to the way grenades work in 6e to bring them in line with other options. But Pepper Punch Grenades, AoE spells, Spirits, Multiple Gun Bunnies using Anticipate.... I think even if you took explosive grenades out, 6 well built runners will chew up a lot of NPCs real fast.
You had numerous fair points, but this portion right here is what I will focus on for rebuttal since it is central to what burns my ass about grenades most: all of those things except for the aoe have an opposed roll to land the effect (and in the case of SR, a second roll to determine just how potently said effect landed). Aoe should be no exception to this.
Non-aoe attack: to hit roll vs. defense roll. if successful, follow with damage resistance test to determine magnitude of the success.
Non-aoe spells: spellcasting roll vs. resistance roll. in some cases, follow with damage resistance test to determine magnitude of the success. in cases where damage is not the result of success, the first opposed roll alone is sufficient to determine magnitude of effect.
Anything that just gets to affect you is poor design to me, and there is no counter argument that can be made to alter my mind on that particular point. Spirits, anticipation, and several other things are very strong, but you know what they all have that aoe does not? A chance to just "miss" you.
-
5e and 6e both have an all or nothing kind of option of getting out of the blast radius as a reaction to the attack. But the mechanics in either edition are not the best. Requires Edge (5th) or not to have moved (6th) and possibly a lucky guess or a minor action. There is a degree of Defender Agency, but its not as automatic or straightforward as a standard Defense test.
Grenade attacks have a threshold, and (for the most part) thresholds and opposed tests are not to be mixed. And I see the point, why is hitting a 2 foot circle suddenly harder when there is a ninja in the blast radius?
The opposed test can certainly be handwaived as diving for cover, rolling, or whatever. But I don't think it would have changed the outcome much in your stress test. I doubt an optimized combat character built around grenade throwing (or launching) is going to miss all that often.
And what exactly does that test look like? Like a Firearms test? Attacker Net Hits stage up, Defender Net hits and no damage? Is there a separate test to determine grenade placement? How is damage drop off from distance determined? I think you're asking for a non-trivial re-write that won't happen. Nerfing Grenade damage ? 50/50 shot at this point. Couple paragraph re-write of launcher and throwing rules... seems unlikely.
Find out who's writing the combat options book and bribe them to add a sidebar of optional explosive attack rules ; )
And my go to argument absurdum take: If grenades are lowered in damage output (through whatever mechanics) to be comparable kill count to an Anticipate bait gun bunny, are Shadowrunners now just running around with Grenade launchers 'cause they're no big deal?
-
5e and 6e both have an all or nothing kind of option of getting out of the blast radius as a reaction to the attack. But the mechanics in either edition are not the best.
I would go so far as to say bad options.
Grenade attacks have a threshold, and (for the most part) thresholds and opposed tests are not to be mixed. And I see the point, why is hitting a 2 foot circle suddenly harder when there is a ninja in the blast radius?
But the threshold is so easily hit as to might as well not exist. When was the last time you saw a grenade based character that missed with one? The answer for me is never.
The opposed test can certainly be handwaived as diving for cover, rolling, or whatever. But I don't think it would have changed the outcome much in your stress test. I doubt an optimized combat character built around grenade throwing (or launching) is going to miss all that often.
I agree with your specific example, but that is still a poor reason to have any affect that basically autolands and it is on the defense to somehow find a way to mitigate. Specifically, in every edition of shadowrun I have played (5 and 6) the top end of physical defense is much higher than the top end of physical attack pool potential, so if it would not be difficult to make some characters difficult to hit with grenades if that was the design goal.
And what exactly does that test look like? Like a Firearms test? Attacker Net Hits stage up, Defender Net hits and no damage? Is there a separate test to determine grenade placement? How is damage drop off from distance determined? I think you're asking for a non-trivial re-write that won't happen.
I also suspect a balanced re-write won't happen, and that is if the design team/powers that be other than Banshee are even listening or care. That said, the balanced approach would be easy: attack roll vs. defense roll. Defender wins, he manages to dive for cover out of the explosion radius. Attacker wins, everyone in said radius that failed eat some base damage. What should those specifics look like? For 6e, 5-6P in a 6-8m radius (not reduction for distance, why hassle with that?) would be leave grenades strong (top end weapon damage with potential for several enemies hit at once) without being ludicrously unbalanced.
Aoe indirect spells need the same treatment as far as attack vs. defense.
And my go to argument absurdum take: If grenades are lowered in damage output (through whatever mechanics) to be comparable kill count to an Anticipate bait gun bunny, are Shadowrunners now just running around with Grenade launchers 'cause they're no big deal?
I don't much care for anticipate either, but I have no strong issue with it entirely because it can be avoided entirely with a successful defense test - not only partially (and poorly) avoided through highly gimmicky action expenditure. I also think we both know that players/characters that are going to go HAM with explosives are going to do it regardless so long as they remain a strong option. The rules I listed above still leave them very competitive (I'd still say better) with anticipate, primarily as they are money reliant and not semi-limited intangible source reliant.
-
I also suspect a balanced re-write won't happen, and that is if the design team/powers that be other than Banshee are even listening or care. That said, the balanced approach would be easy: attack roll vs. defense roll. Defender wins, he manages to dive for cover out of the explosion radius. Attacker wins, everyone in said radius that failed eat some base damage. What should those specifics look like? For 6e, 5-6P in a 6-8m radius (not reduction for distance, why hassle with that?) would be leave grenades strong (top end weapon damage with potential for several enemies hit at once) without being ludicrously unbalanced.
My minor quibbles on using movement to avoid Grenades is, shouldn't that option be available for Avoiding spells too, especially the visible ones? I think creating totally separate mechanics for AoE Explosives and another for AoE spells will frustrate players too. "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a Grenade, but not a Fireball." (Admittedly, we already have totally separate mechanics for all those things....) And then then you've got to reconcile with movement rates... "Oh I'm two meters short? Jim toss a grenade behind me." Shadowrun has never handled tactical movement well in any edition, IMO.
FWIW I'd totally vote for Lormyr's AoE Attack Avoidance for 7th Edition or as an add on in a source book for 6th.
-
1) The only time someone gets hit with the Ground Zero damage is if they are literally standing on the grenade or its in their pocket. Otherwise, they get the benefit of the doubt as close range.
2) The Avoid Incoming minor action is not affected by dodge penalties; 1 hit equals 1 meter moved.
3) Both the Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt minor actions have the following extra bit: "This action gives you X auto hits on a damage resistance test against blast effects (e.g. grenades)." I'm thinking X is 2, maybe 3.
Really good take on this. A few of my own cents to add here:
1) Well spotted, and it begs the question: Was 5th Edition´s System of just measuring the individual distances to the point of impact really that bad? Right now, Ground Zero hits are almost impossible, and dodging (or scattering) out of the 3-Meter Zone is very likely as well. Almost all Grenade Damage is happening in that last bracket anyways.
2) Throwing these extra Dodge penalties for Avoid Incoming out of the Window is a good idea for simplicity alone. I´d also allow (a least for the PCs) to choose the direction of Avoid Incoming after scatter has been determined, as long as you can properly see the angle of the attack and as long as you don´t glitch on the test. I you roll badly on your attack roll, the point of impact shold be further away from the target, and if you roll well on an Avoid Incoming test, that should take yourself further away from the impact zone - that outcome shouldn´t be twisted around by an ill-fated scatter roll*. Irony of fate can be fun, but not when it leads to TPKs.
3) I think Hit the dirt already has this effect, although well hidden by the editing gremlins. Don´t have the CRB with me right now, but I think it´s listed with the description of explosive attacks. It can be negated with an Airburst Link, though.
To a add another point:
4) What I really don´t like is that armor and cover have next to no impact on the outcome of a grenade attack (and especially a frag granade attack): The Edge earned from a standard ranged or melee attack can be used for the defense test and also for rerolling hits of the opposition, which gives you a higher chance to avoid the damage entirely (and it´s pretty much the same with the Edge you deny for your opponents). With the Edge earned because of a good defense rating against an AOE attack, you will likely only be able to reroll one or two dice on your soak test, which has much less of an impact. In reality, it´s the other way around: One of the main purposes of combat armor is to protect against shrapnell. And cover should help here as well, for obvious reasons.
Because of this, I added a houserule that Fragmentation Grenades (and Rockets) are resisted with the full defense rating instead of just body. This also fixes another issue I have with 6th Edition´s grenades: High-Explosive Grenades are supposed to be the better choice against armored targets, but RAW they are just strictly worse Frag Grenades (besides managing collateral damage).
*Dumb question: Can you reroll (an opponents?) scatter dice with Edge ? :P
-
*Dumb question: Can you reroll (an opponents?) scatter dice with Edge ? :P
Arguably anyone can spend edge to force re-rolls, so NPCs throwing grenades should be scattering all over the place till all the PCs run out of Edge.
Also the 5 Edge/Player's call action could completely mitigate a grenade attack. Freak gust of wind, jammed launcher, dud grenade, they threw the pin not the grenade (really happens, ask any DI) whatever lulzy thing comes to mind.
Not perfect solutions, but are options.
-
My minor quibbles on using movement to avoid Grenades is, shouldn't that option be available for Avoiding spells too, especially the visible ones? I think creating totally separate mechanics for AoE Explosives and another for AoE spells will frustrate players too. "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a Grenade, but not a Fireball." (Admittedly, we already have totally separate mechanics for all those things....) And then then you've got to reconcile with movement rates... "Oh I'm two meters short? Jim toss a grenade behind me." Shadowrun has never handled tactical movement well in any edition, IMO.
FWIW I'd totally vote for Lormyr's AoE Attack Avoidance for 7th Edition or as an add on in a source book for 6th.
The movement issue is exceptionally punitive to melee characters, especially in 6e where any advantage whatsoever that melee might have had (superior damage in some cases in 5e, for example) is completely gone in favor of ranged.
It was available in 5e with indirect aoe with run for your life. Less useful in 6e. Overall I agree with you.
And thanks for the vote of confidence on the aoe re-balancing!
-
3) I think Hit the dirt already has this effect, although well hidden by the editing gremlins. Don´t have the CRB with me right now, but I think it´s listed with the description of explosive attacks. It can be negated with an Airburst Link, though.
I'll be danged, you're right! Its buried just above the scatter diagram on page 113.
-
The movement issue is exceptionally punitive to melee characters, especially in 6e where any advantage whatsoever that melee might have had (superior damage in some cases in 5e, for example) is completely gone in favor of ranged.
I have issues with 6e movement rules. Mainly that my superhuman cyborg is outrun at a typical high school track meet. ???
-
I have issues with 6e movement rules. Mainly that my superhuman cyborg is outrun at a typical high school track meet. ???
However you plan to deal with this, please avoid the use of grenades.