[Dracain]

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?

[Shinobi Killfist]

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. 

[Dracain]

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. 

[Jimmy_Pvish]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Jimmy_Pvish]

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!!

[cip]

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?

[Michael Chandra]

Unclear. I figure I'd let you keep the cover unless you move.

[Xenon]

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).

[Dracain]

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?

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Warmachinez]

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.

[Dracain]

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. 

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[martinchaen]

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.