Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: skalchemist on <02-29-20/1722:30>
-
I'm drawing a blank, can attack ratings go negative? Or are you unable to attack in that circumstance?
I thought you couldn't attack at all, but now I cannot find that rule, so I think I might have imagined it.
-
If a weapon starts at - AR, then you can't attack, but there's no rule afaik on 'negative AR means no attack possible'.
On the other hand, that IS something I'm houseruling asap. O_O That way assault rifles are nerfed down on extreme ranges.
-
It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.
-
Have to disagree with a negative AR being the same as "-". Using Burst Fire at Long or Extreme range shouldn't make it impossible to hit something. Give the defender the point of edge and roll your dice.
Presuming Firing Mode / Burst Fire or whatever is what is lowering your AR. Not sure what else does....?
-
Have to disagree with a negative AR being the same as "-". Using Burst Fire at Long or Extreme range shouldn't make it impossible to hit something. Give the defender the point of edge and roll your dice.
Presuming Firing Mode / Burst Fire or whatever is what is lowering your AR. Not sure what else does....?
Agreed- if anything, using burst fire should increase weapon range. I could see some conditions making fire ineffective at certain ranges (Visibility, weather, etc). However, switching to "spraying" your weapon rather than precision shooting increases its effective range.
-
Disagree. If negative AR is a problem for you, then you should get some AR-mods on your gun instead. You can reach +6 AR even in BF mode on an Alpha, so just get the tools you need to fire at that range then. All it takes is a Bipod or Tripod and you're already good. Unsupported spraying with negative AR should just miss when your target is >500m out.
-
It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.
This.
(but there is nothing about this rule wise)
And no, it is not easier to burst fire targets that are hundreds meter away. At that range you always switch to semi auto. At least if you are using an assault rifle.
It make perfect sense that some weapons can be used at long or extreme range while others can't. It also make perfect sense that some weapons (such as mounted heavy machine guns) are better suited for using automatic fire at long or extreme range.
From the sticky house rule thread :
Range categories and Attack Rating
If a weapon does not have an Attack Rating in a certain range category, it cannot be used at that range. Also, if a weapon does not have an adjusted Attack Rating (after applying firing modes, accessories, statuses and ammunition etc) of 1 or more in a certain range category, it cannot be used with that combination at that range.
-
We're talking some corner cases here, stock Assault Rifles, using SA/BF/FA at Extreme Range (or in the specific case of the FN-HAR, Full Auto at Far Range), or the Stoner-Ares, and Ingram Valiant using Full Auto at Extreme Range.
500+ Meter shots just don't come up all that often in Shadowrun. If your table wants that to be Single Shot only, go for it. (or require the assorted Gas Vents and Bipods).
I would think an FN HAR at 250+m would still be dangerous on Full Auto. I know I'd be worried :)
-
I'll echo Hobbes on this one. It's unlikely to come up a lot, and if it does, I personally don't see any good reason to invent a rule preventing an attack that will pretty much auto award your target Edge (I would imagine their DR is at least 4).
Edit: I want to elaborate a little. Whatever happened to just playing a game using the rules of the game? If that SA/BF/FA firing at penalty makes attacking with insert weapon here an AR of 0, so you determine that should not be possible and they have to switch to insert other weapon here that likely has very little mechanical difference in stats (maybe 1 DV) but substantially better AR because it is above 0, what is really the difference there that we need to invent rules to prevent it?
For example, I want to shoot my Ares Alpha in BF mode at max range so I can score a 6DV hit. My GM decides I can't, because they don't like the idea of me being able to use a weapon with AR 0. I switch to my Remington 900, fire that in SA mode, for a 6DV hit with AR 12.
Is that really worth making up rules over? Weapons in this edition are nearly identical mechanically, so what is the value of that hassle and annoyance to the player?
-
It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.
This.
(but there is nothing about this rule wise)
I figured out where I was getting this idea from. The Spirit rules say that if the spirit's force is low enough that the AR calculation is negative then the spirit cannot attack at that range (pg 147 I think). But there seems to be no general rule along these lines for non-spirit attacks.
To my mind it makes sense that if the AR goes to zero or less you cannot successfully attack. But only slight more sense; I can see it both ways. The most obviously place it would come up in play is extreme range attacks with faster firing modes.
-
It's my opinion that if an Attack Rating is modified to 0 or below, it counts as a "-" and no attack is possible at that range.
This.
(but there is nothing about this rule wise)
I figured out where I was getting this idea from. The Spirit rules say that if the spirit's force is low enough that the AR calculation is negative then the spirit cannot attack at that range (pg 147 I think). But there seems to be no general rule along these lines for non-spirit attacks.
To my mind it makes sense that if the AR goes to zero or less you cannot successfully attack. But only slight more sense; I can see it both ways. The most obviously place it would come up in play is extreme range attacks with faster firing modes.
It supposed to be if the AR starts at zero for that range then you can't attack .. modified AR does not effect the ability to attack... just whether it's a good idea or not from edge perspective.
The comment about spirits is on how you calculate their "starting" AR ... i.e. stronger spirits have greater range.
-
That's also how I read that, simply 'if the spirit is <=0, it counts as -'.
-
Well I figured that <1 = - gets around potential abuse involving scopes. If your AR is already super low where you're not gaining the edge, then the cogent concern is whether or not the defender gains edge. Saying <1 = no attack at least prevents shenanigans involving "yeah I'm using automatic fire at extreme range, doesn't matter! I have a scope!"
-
Well I figured that >1 = - gets around potential abuse involving scopes. If your AR is already super low where you're not gaining the edge, then the cogent concern is whether or not the defender gains edge. Saying >1 = no attack at least prevents shenanigans involving "yeah I'm using automatic fire at extreme range, doesn't matter! I have a scope!"
If the weapon had an AR <=1 without modifications at extreme range I don't see the issue.
That why is support that only the baseline AR should determine range capability... adding a scope should not actually extend the range of any given weapon just make it better at its "normal" ranges, and extend that same principle to all weapon modifications
-
I think SSDR accidentally did >1 when meant <1, aka 'if you modify from X to <1, it should turn into not-possible', not 'you can modify a - into an X to allow attacking outside your range'.
-
I think SSDR accidentally did >1 when meant <1, aka 'if you modify from X to <1, it should turn into not-possible', not 'you can modify a - into an X to allow attacking outside your range'.
Well I figured that >1 = - gets around potential abuse involving scopes. If your AR is already super low where you're not gaining the edge, then the cogent concern is whether or not the defender gains edge. Saying >1 = no attack at least prevents shenanigans involving "yeah I'm using automatic fire at extreme range, doesn't matter! I have a scope!"
If the weapon had an AR <=1 without modifications at extreme range I don't see the issue.
That why is support that only the baseline AR should determine range capability... adding a scope should not actually extend the range of any given weapon just make it better at its "normal" ranges, and extend that same principle to all weapon modifications
The issue isn't gaining range. The issue I see is gaining capability at no cost.
Example: An AK-97 has AR1 at extreme range. You're never gaining edge, and you're likely giving it away. Unless you use a Scope. In which case, ok that's what the scope does. Noone gets edge now. However, an AK-97 has advantageous firing modes. If you lay down a burst at -4 AR and +2DV, now you're just getting 2 free DV since the scope is making your penalty meaningless. Unless, of course, going down below 1 means that you now count as a "-" and no attack is possible at all.
I don't like burst fire being the optimized way to attack people at extreme range. It's beyond my standard of reasonableness :)
I think SSDR accidentally did >1 when meant <1, aka 'if you modify from X to <1, it should turn into not-possible', not 'you can modify a - into an X to allow attacking outside your range'.
Ugh. Indeed. I know the alligator is supposed to always want to eat the bigger number. I need to wake up more before making posts involving basic math, apparently. My earlier post is corrected :D
-
Ok, I see where you are going now ... yes but that is more a problem of scopes and not AR modifications. I think scopes are the only models so far that just negates the edge gain right?
So I'd instead they added 3 or 4 to the AR at long or extreme range you would be back to extreme range burst is possible but just a lousy AR with the AK
-
Well, even if there's no scope... when you're at the extremes, going more extreme in that direction results in no further penalty but you get the bonus.
Say the AK-97 had no scope. Whether the AR is 1 or -3, either way its the same result (defender gains edge) except taking the burst fire gives you +2 free DV. Unless the attack flatly isn't possible at AR-3. OTOH if the AR was high enough to to still be a positive number after applying the -4 penalty, then the starting AR had to be 5 or higher. And at that point, we're not in "extremes becoming more extreme". AR 5 means you are still denying edge to a reasonably sized envelope of possible DRs. Going down to 1 means you're all but guaranteed to give away edge, so the "price" of your +2DV is "working". It stops "working" when you start super low, and then go below zero.
-
Yeah .. that starts to get into the territory of where the AR system breaks down but overall I'm ok with it since you are still giving up that edge point which can sometimes be quite pivotal
-
Whistles as he writes down an alternative finer-grained houserule system for AR-DR
-
Well the issue only exists with Stock weapons. If you've stuck something on there to fix the AR, Scope, Gas Vent, Bipod, Adept Power, APDS Ammo.... suddenly your AR is positive and away you go.
-
Well the issue only exists with Stock weapons. If you've stuck something on there to fix the AR, Scope, Gas Vent, Bipod, Adept Power, APDS Ammo.... suddenly your AR is positive and away you go.
That's my approach... the baseline stock weapon AR is the only thing I use to determine if an attack is possible at a given range.
If I had a player making regular use of say burst fire at extreme range I would make them get some modifications to bring the AR up but in general if it's just used sparingly I'm ok with it as is.
-
The comment about spirits is on how you calculate their "starting" AR ... i.e. stronger spirits have greater range.
I get that now, I had interpreted it in my mind as a general rule, but it is specific to the initial AR calculation for spirits.
That being said, after reading this discussion I find SSDR's arguments for having it be a general rule persuasive. That is, if your modifications would make the AR zero or less then the shot will automatically miss, so no point making it in the first place. As Lormyr and Hobbes have said, its an edge case and would rarely come up, but it still pleases my sense of consistency for some reason.
-
I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges. It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.
-
Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.
-
Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.
I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges. It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.
I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.
-
Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.
I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges. It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.
I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.
so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?
-
Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.
I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges. It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.
I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.
so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?
<crosses fingers, toes, arms, legs>
Oh, please say yeas! PLEASE say yes!! PL-LEASE SAY YES!!!!!!! For the love of reason and common sense: PLEASE SAY YES!!!!
The thought of something the size of a toddler having the mass and strength to harm a full grown man with an empty hand is just plain silly....
-
Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.
I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges. It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.
I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.
so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?
<crosses fingers, toes, arms, legs>
Oh, please say yeas! PLEASE say yes!! PL-LEASE SAY YES!!!!!!! For the love of reason and common sense: PLEASE SAY YES!!!!
The thought of something the size of a toddler having the mass and strength to harm a full grown man with an empty hand is just plain silly....
Finesse Weapons appeared in ... 3rd? Edition D&D. 20 Years ago give or take? The concept of divorcing Str from melee damage isn't breaking new RPG grounds. Str matters for melee, not as much as previous editions, absolutely. Lots more things to take issue with in 6th, IMO.
If Str adding to AR and not DV was 6ths biggest sin we'd all be singing the praises of the new edition.
(totally could be 3.5 Edition that Finesse Weapons appeared...but I doubt D&D was the first game to do something along those lines)
-
I think it was 3.5
-
Idunno, sounds more like the table considers it 0/- for not possible since right now there's no rules stating who IS allowed to throw that far.
I just noticed there is one spot in the rules that clearly indicates attacks are possible at zero attack rating; the thrown grenade rules on page 115 where it says AR is zero at far and extreme ranges. It says most characters won't be able to throw grenades that far, but if you have the strength, you can clearly do it even though your AR is zero.
I figure if a weapon's AR has a numerical value, even a negative, you can shoot your shot with a potential to do damage. If a weapon's AR reads "-" it's because the round has traveled beyond it's effective lethal range. Sure, the bullet might hit, but it's impact is similar to a thrown pebble.
so using that logic then do all unarmed attacks by pixies have an AR of "_"?
<crosses fingers, toes, arms, legs>
Oh, please say yeas! PLEASE say yes!! PL-LEASE SAY YES!!!!!!! For the love of reason and common sense: PLEASE SAY YES!!!!
The thought of something the size of a toddler having the mass and strength to harm a full grown man with an empty hand is just plain silly....
Finesse Weapons appeared in ... 3rd? Edition D&D. 20 Years ago give or take? The concept of divorcing Str from melee damage isn't breaking new RPG grounds. Str matters for melee, not as much as previous editions, absolutely. Lots more things to take issue with in 6th, IMO.
If Str adding to AR and not DV was 6ths biggest sin we'd all be singing the praises of the new edition.
(totally could be 3.5 Edition that Finesse Weapons appeared...but I doubt D&D was the first game to do something along those lines)
Actually, Finesse fighting appeared in the 2e DnD Swords and Sorcery supplemental. But it lacked the versatility that came with the total rewrite of the DnD rules that came with 3e.
Under 2e, The MAX dex any character could get was 19
(not even elves got higher), for a +3 bonus. However, Strength branched off into percentiles after 18, for a total bonus of +6!
Also, Weapon finesse did nothing for damage, it was a straight bonus to hit under 2e rules. It wasn't until 3.5 that Weapon Finesse added to damage (probably to appease the whiners that whined "why can't my DEX fighter hit as hard as a STR fighter?? We both have 18s in the stat.. its not fair!!! Oh and I want to dual wield shields too!!!)
But, if you REALLY wanna get into the DnD debates... well, people have gone missing, and others have lost body parts debating THAT system... (which has 0 grounding in anything other then number crunching)
-
If Str adding to AR and not DV was 6ths biggest sin we'd all be singing the praises of the new edition.
In fairness, this is a major point of contention for me. We're talking top 3 list of things disliked about 6e. Simply put, I am unable to get over a strength 2 elf striking for the same damage, with the same weapon, as a strength 13 troll.
-
Fair 'nuff.
And I have 0 desire to debate D&D editions. It was simply the earliest example I could recall. And I couldn't even recall exact edition, so... :D
As I said in the Melee Str thread, if you're not building your combat character to generate Edge, you're significantly less effective. Str helps generate Edge for most weapons. (Welcome to Shadowrun where for 6 Editions in a row the Monowhip is king of melee weapons... moving on.) More Edge = overall more damage output, and not because you're plinking away 1 or 2 hits at a time. The Edge actions are where it's at.
And on topic for this thread, giving up Edge to the GM is a non-trivial thing. GMs can be evil and should also be using the Edge actions for their NPCs.
"All this Automatic weapon fire has attracted attention. A Lone Star City Master, sirens blaring, is screeching around the corner, it must have just been a couple blocks away when the shooting started..." *Tosses in 5 chips*
-
If Str adding to AR and not DV was 6ths biggest sin we'd all be singing the praises of the new edition.
In fairness, this is a major point of contention for me. We're talking top 3 list of things disliked about 6e. Simply put, I am unable to get over a strength 2 elf striking for the same damage, with the same weapon, as a strength 13 troll.
Well, for what it's worth, I like the idea of expanding the STR rules for hardened cyberlimbs DV to ALL melee weapons. (MFW excluded, naturally)
-
If Str adding to AR and not DV was 6ths biggest sin we'd all be singing the praises of the new edition.
In fairness, this is a major point of contention for me. We're talking top 3 list of things disliked about 6e. Simply put, I am unable to get over a strength 2 elf striking for the same damage, with the same weapon, as a strength 13 troll.
Well, for what it's worth, I like the idea of expanding the STR rules for hardened cyberlimbs DV to ALL melee weapons. (MFW excluded, naturally)
A play of that would help. Like +1 DV if you are STR 7, or +2 if you are truly superhuman at 12+.