[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Let me ask you the same questions I asked Ray:

If you were playing shadowrun 6 with a PC, and died to one grenade toss with no defense test, would you consider that either fun or balanced? If yes, why?

Also if yes, do you consider that the same in other tabletop RPGs you play? Take DnD for example. If there was a weapon anyone could pick up, that gave you a +10 untyped bonus to hit, and killed you if you were anything other than an 18 Con barbarian, would you still feel the same?

Well, here's how I answer those questions:

1) yes, I think it would be balanced (and possibly fun, however much fun you'll have watching your character die)... assuming there were working defenses in place other than the defense test.  "You die, no save." isn't fun, of course.  But I'm not as convinced as you are that the chance to avoid death must necessarily be a defense test.  As I said, I prefer the paradigm where you must pay to avoid death via action economy.  You didn't save any actions?  That's on you.  You didn't have "no chance".

2) Older editions of D&D (pre-d20) had a rules concept called a Death Savings Throw.  If you were hit by certain spells/effects, you could flat out die regardless of any factors outside of what number you needed to beat to make your save (which was linked to level and class, rather than Constitution).  So it's not your exact scenario, but D&D grew and thrived where one could be struck by a weapon that would flat out kill you, no questions asked, if you failed your save.  Having 18 constitution didn't even factor into things.

Now, sure.  You're asking something slightly but importantly different... "what about a weapon that kills you with NO savings throw?"  Obviously that's bad.  But the analogue for a savings throw here is expending a minor action to minimize or avoid the blast that in absence of taking that action WILL likely kill you.  And yes, I'm 100% fine with that.  Or rather, I would be if the minor actions weren't worded in such a way that you're essentially helpless if a second person lobs a grenade at you in the same turn.

setting aside the potential problems of one threshold to spot a booby trap regardless of the possible contexts for a viewer (it might be in plain view from one direction, but not another... and etc etc)... how should actions like Drop Prone and Avoid Incoming work when you get the potential to dodge outright?  Do you remove those actions? Do grenades go from OP to not-worth-the-bother if you get both?  (I think so...)

Currently SR6 has partial rules for planted explosives. How would you handle this currently?

As is.  I'm saying I think thrown grenades should be mechanically handled just like planted grenades.  If a grenade goes off at your feet, it should not matter if it got there because it was thrown or if it was planted there and you subsequently walked up to it.  Same rules should apply for both scenarios. No dodge; use minor actions all around.  That's my view on how it "should be".

Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)

Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.

The question of "should the GM be equipping NPCs with grenades" is not exactly the same question as "Should you be equipping your character with grenades."  I don't know what kind of evil GM you expect to play with, but I like to think of myself as a cunning and devious person and *I* still wouldn't give grenades to standard opposition.  AT BEST 1st wave of reinforcements shows up with flashbangs and gas grenades...  if you're getting grenades thrown at you so often that you can't even afford to ever dip below 5 edge I'd submit the problem is with your GM, not the rules.

For me it's as simple as (SR 5e -> 6e)

Ares Predator: 8P -> 3P
Ares Alpha: 11P -> 4P
Panther XXL: 17P -> 7P
Frag grenade: 18P AP+5 -> 16P
Hi-Ex grenade: 16P AP-2 -> 16P
(you know I could go on at length, these are a limited number of examples)

Problem with your view is that the 16P for grenade in 5e was only valid if there are no nearby surfaces.  In space, or high up in the air or something. 99.99%+ of the combats I've seen in SR have at least the floor/ground nearby. The sidebar example in the 5e CRB cites a grenade hitting a lulzy 156P.  I think 6e's vision of "16P all the time, don't worry about tracking blasts" is superior to 5e's "ostensibly 16P, but potentially infinite damage" paradigm both in design AND playability.  YMMV

And then the coup de grace:

Take Cover is an interrupt action you can almost always do -> Avoid Incoming means you have to save an action back (which you will then lose if you don't need it after all) and can only be done once per turn

How can anyone look at that and not think something's off?

I thought I was clear in agreeing that the minor actions, as written to only work once per turn, ARE problematic?  I'd like to see either Avoid Incoming lose the once per turn restriction, or there be more options that CAN be used on successive grenades.  Still... even as is without any errata/houserule you can Avoid Incoming the first grenade, Return to Sender the 2nd, Spend 5 edge to make the 3rd a dud, and you still haven't even Hit the Dirt yet.  Again, if you're getting bombed in 3+ separate major actions in the same turn... either you REALLY picked the wrong fight or your GM is being a Richard.  Rules can't and shouldn't address either possibility there.

[Michael Chandra]

A sidenote: In SR5, floor and ceiling were never taken into account by most people for rebounds, since the rules specifically mention walls and doors.  Only the theory of a single room massively rebounding took all six directions into account, so based on that rebounding requires more than just floor and ceiling blocked. Most interior walls would get shredded by an up-close grenade as well. So in most combat scenarios, you'd have no chunky salsa. Elevators, underground areas and alleys with thick walls, on the other hand...

[Hobbes]

In general Return to Sender should normally not work as Grenades should be set to Impact Detonation.  If you foolishly throw a grenade with a 3 second fuse at a Street Samurai you get what you deserve.

[Lormyr]

I accept your answers SSDR, even if I couldn't disagree more about you finding them balanced. And yeah, I am well aware of old DnD methodology. . .my very first character in my very first game (temple of elemental evil) some 25 years ago died an hour into the game from a green slime in the moathouse.

So on the topic of Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt, other than removing the limitation of 1/round from the first, do you think they are otherwise balanced at present?

Imo Avoid Incoming needs to remove the die penalty to the roll to see how far you make it. I mean a -6 from the grenade coming to your face really limits how far you are going to make it. So if you are lucky 16P becomes 12P. . .

And if we are going to leave damage codes as is, Hit the Dirt needs to be at least doubled, if not more.

Ultimately the problem I have with using action economy to help mitigate explosives is that the already most powerful attack in the game now also sucks out your action economy just to have a prayer of survival. I frankly find that game design insane. We can do better, and if we can't do better, those responsible need a new career field.

As is.  I'm saying I think thrown grenades should be mechanically handled just like planted grenades.  If a grenade goes off at your feet, it shouldn't use one mechanic if someone threw it there (your proposal to roll dodge) and another if it was detonated there by a tripwire or some other means (better spend a minor action).  No dodge; use minor actions all around.  That's my view on how it "should be".

So if I am understanding you right, you think it is ok for a character to plant a hidden explosive, another character to trigger it with zero chance to notice it before it happens, and just eat all 16P before taking minor actions?

Problem with your view is that the 16P for grenade in 5e was only valid if there are no nearby surfaces.  In space, or high up in the air or something. 99.99%+ of the combats I've seen in SR have at least the floor/ground nearby. The sidebar example in the 5e CRB cites a grenade hitting a lulzy 156P.  I think 6e's vision of "16P all the time, don't worry about tracking blasts" is superior to 5e's "ostensibly 16P, but potentially infinite damage" paradigm both in design AND playability.  YMMV

I think we all agree chunky salsa was dumb, but I only saw it legitimately come up once in hundreds of hours of Missions play. The vast majority of the time a grenade is perfectly capable of busting through most barriers and thus not salsa'ing unless those barriers were extremely thick. Most hallways, doors, ect. just give.

Edit: Also, I mostly agree with Penllawen. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a mid grade security personnel to all carry a flash bang or two. Considering what happens if all 4 (more?) of them just toss those bangs is not an unreasonable scenario to ponder. The inflated damage and next to no "save" / "defense roll" / whatever you want to label it may be liked or tolerable to some, but poorly designed is the only fitting description for it.

[Hobbes]

Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)

Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.

You don't need to hang on to 5 Edge all the time.  Just when the NPCs roll out with a Rocket Launcher, maybe don't open with Anticipate?

Or just get to melee range.  Oh, human shields, grab a hostage!  You're the bad guys remember   : )   Tons of options here. 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I accept your answers SSDR, even if I couldn't disagree more about you finding them balanced. And yeah, I am well aware of old DnD methodology. . .my very first character in my very first game (temple of elemental evil) some 25 years ago died an hour into the game from a green slime in the moathouse.

Well it's not so much that I think everything is perfect as is, but that mitigating/avoiding blast damage via minor actions is the best way to go.

So on the topic of Avoid Incoming and Hit the Dirt, other than removing the limitation of 1/round from the first, do you think they are otherwise balanced at present?

Imo Avoid Incoming needs to remove the die penalty to the roll to see how far you make it. I mean a -6 from the grenade coming to your face really limits how far you are going to make it. So if you are lucky 16P becomes 12P. . .

And if we are going to leave damage codes as is, Hit the Dirt needs to be at least doubled, if not more.

Yeah I think almost all of the anti-blast minor actions could/should use some boosts to make them more useful.  But the devil's in the details... if you could Avoid Incoming multiple times per round, for example, what's to stop a literal reader from just avoiding imaginary grenades in order to wring out all that sweet sweet movement that's otherwise capped per round?  etc.

But again... no I'm not happy with the minor actions as they are but I think tweaking THOSE, rather than DVs or adding a dodge compenent, is the best fix.

Ultimately the problem I have with using action economy to help mitigate explosives is that the already most powerful attack in the game now also sucks out your action economy just to have a prayer of survival. I frankly find that game design insane. We can do better, and if we can't do better, those responsible need a new career field.

Well, I wasn't party to the 6e design or playtest processes, so all I can comment on is really the same stuff you can: the stuff we saw come in the rule books.  But I guess we just have a profound difference of opinion here:  I'm more than fine with the concept of having to spend minor actions to preserve oneself in 6e combat... I actively LIKE it!  Use up all your minor actions at your peril.  THIS is why street sams aren't obsolete in the world of 1 attack per turn... with all those minor actions you have the tactical flexibility (and the ability to not be taken out by damage!) that unaugmented mundanes can only drool in envy of.

As is.  I'm saying I think thrown grenades should be mechanically handled just like planted grenades.  If a grenade goes off at your feet, it shouldn't use one mechanic if someone threw it there (your proposal to roll dodge) and another if it was detonated there by a tripwire or some other means (better spend a minor action).  No dodge; use minor actions all around.  That's my view on how it "should be".

So if I am understanding you right, you think it is ok for a character to plant a hidden explosive, another character to trigger it with zero chance to notice it before it happens, and just eat all 16P before taking minor actions?

No, I think that there should be a contextually appropriate threshold for a perception test to notice a boobytrap.  It's just that if you fail that perception test and you DO pick up the rigged stuffed animal, or trip the tripwire, you don't get ANOTHER test to avoid the blast.  Frankly you probably "shouldn't" even get to spend minor actions, but that's not the gist 6e's shooting for.  Even completely unaware targets get their raw REA+INT vs the sniper they have no idea is out there now, so by the same "movie logic" you should at least still get to hit the dirt or avoid incoming or whatever.

Edit: Also, I mostly agree with Penllawen. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a mid grade security personnel to all carry a flash bang or two. Considering what happens if all 4 (more?) of them just toss those bangs is not an unreasonable scenario to ponder. The inflated damage and next to no "save" / "defense roll" / whatever you want to label it may be liked or tolerable to some, but poorly designed is the only fitting description for it.

Sure, something that won't inflict structural damage like flashbangs might fly for every single goon in a private security/corpsec context.  If you know that every last mook carries a flashbang though with rules of engagement that permit tossing them at the very first weird sound they hear, then it's your fault you're not provoking that response and THEN ambushing them after the flashbangs are expended.  Again, I'm not really seeing much of a problem here.

Edit: part of why I think "that's fine" is 4 goons tossing flashbacks at you "should" still be resolved as 1 grunt group attack. Even if that attack involves multiple flashbangs.

[Lormyr]

No, I think that there should be a contextually appropriate threshold for a perception test to notice a boobytrap.  It's just that if you fail that perception test and you DO pick up the rigged stuffed animal, or trip the tripwire, you don't get ANOTHER test to avoid the blast.  Frankly you probably "shouldn't" even get to spend minor actions, but that's not the gist 6e's shooting for.  Even completely unaware targets get their raw REA+INT vs the sniper they have no idea is out there now, so by the same "movie logic" you should at least still get to hit the dirt or avoid incoming or whatever.

We're on the same page then, and in agreement. I guess I failed to explain myself well in the previous discussion. Yeah, if you fail to notice the trap, no defense test - eat your damage. In the case of traps, the perception test is the parallel of the defense test in the thrown attack situation.

On the rest, at least we can agree that something needs to be done in order to curve the current explosive overkill situation. I'll just have to take small comfort in that. :p

Edit: part of why I think "that's fine" is 4 goons tossing flashbacks at you "should" still be resolved as 1 grunt group attack. Even if that attack involves multiple flashbangs.

Well the issue is that is an optional rule, and the further issue, is that is an optional rule when all attacks are against a single target. 4 guards throwing 4 flash bangs at 4 closely grouped runners is very realistic.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)

Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.

You don't need to hang on to 5 Edge all the time.  Just when the NPCs roll out with a Rocket Launcher, maybe don't open with Anticipate?

Or just get to melee range.  Oh, human shields, grab a hostage!  You're the bad guys remember   : )   Tons of options here.

Unless the hostage is the CEO or something in my dystopia the guards toss the grenade anyways.

[Shinobi Killfist]

So I'll repost and hopefully make it more clear what I posted in the other thread.

I think you should roughly Halve the base damage in each band.

have a standard attack/defense test net hits on the attack increase the damage like a normal attack.  The grenade ended up better placed.

Honestly I'd just remove scatter, and drop the damage a DV or 2 more.  But, I get its been part of the game forever. So fine keep it to determine where it lands. As I said net hits by the attacker increases the base damage based on range from the target, it lands on you its 8Vs+net hits, out to 15M its 4DV+net hits or whatever by grenade.

 Net hits by the defender, means you are 1 range band out from where it landed and soak that base damage.  That means if it lands in your lap and you get more base hits you its now considered close and you resist 5DV, close is now near, near you are considered out of the area. This would be the benefit of grenades, they at least do something on a miss, even though I hate edge moves maybe have a low cost edge move that you makes it so you are considered 2 range bands out if you get more net hits, or just a 1 more whether you get net hits on your defense test or not

As for traps, I'd kind of agree with Lormyr in a earlier edition where surprise removed defense tests. Since surprise does allow defense tests in 6e i don't think it is consistent to work like that here. The initial test would be perception to see if you spot the trap before triggering it.  If they succeed, well they don't trigger it unless they want to.  If they fail they trigger it.  I'd make it a demolitions vs defense test and they'd be considered surprised so no edge since they flubbed the perception test. Same as above net hits on the demo test increases its base damage. There wouldn't be a scatter test its range would be determined by the trap, like a landmine obviously the person who stepped on it is point blank, a trip wire the grenade might be a meter or two away based on terrain(the GM). Give the base test a threshold of 0, add 1 per grenade in the same trap, defense tests add to the threshold when determining net hits.

[Lormyr]

Between the potential to just call a grenade a dud (for the not-low price of 5 edge, but DAMN that's an effective answer to an incoming grenade...)

Great, now every PC is hoarding 5 points of Edge at all times just in case the last NPC in the fight tosses a frag. Bang go all your fun, inventive, and cinematic cool Edge actions. Will I use two Edge to disarm that enemy as I parry their blow? God, no, then I'd only have three left, and that could be a fatal mistake.

You don't need to hang on to 5 Edge all the time.  Just when the NPCs roll out with a Rocket Launcher, maybe don't open with Anticipate?

Or just get to melee range.  Oh, human shields, grab a hostage!  You're the bad guys remember   : )   Tons of options here.

Unless the hostage is the CEO or something in my dystopia the guards toss the grenade anyways.

100%.

That aside, Hobbes and SSDR in particular are usually good at finding setting logic/story reasons to help balance out game mechanics, and I am glad they have that sense. I personally believe game mechanics should be balanced against other game mechanics though, and will not be satisfied if that is not the case.

As for traps, I'd kind of agree with Lormyr in a earlier edition where surprise removed defense tests. Since surprise does allow defense tests in 6e i don't think it is consistent to work like that here. The initial test would be perception to see if you spot the trap before triggering it.  If they succeed, well they don't trigger it unless they want to.  If they fail they trigger it.  I'd make it a demolitions vs defense test and they'd be considered surprised so no edge since they flubbed the perception test. Same as above net hits on the demo test increases its base damage. There wouldn't be a scatter test its range would be determined by the trap, like a landmine obviously the person who stepped on it is point blank, a trip wire the grenade might be a meter or two away based on terrain(the GM). Give the base test a threshold of 0, add 1 per grenade in the same trap, defense tests add to the threshold when determining net hits.

I'd be fine with that too. I could even tolerate SSDR's desire to keep all explosive defense entirely within action economy if the mitigation was seriously good. I still just think there are better ways to handle it than that.