Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:56:55 -0400
Here are the rules I use for dodging. I believe they are canon (except for
the very last couple of lines):

When a PC is aware of a forthcoming attack, he has two options. The first
would be to attempt to Dodge the attack. This is done by rolling any
number of available Combat Pool dice versus a base TN of 4. Wound
modifiers apply to this TN, as well as some other situational modifiers.
Some of these are: being bound, sitting or laying down, being prone, and
dodging within a small enclosure. In the case of these other situational
modifiers, I may reduce the amount of Combat Pool dice that may be used
rather than increasing the TN. This is entirely GM discretion. Vision
modifiers do not apply to dodge success tests. However, Dodging may result
in a potentially damaging situation if the Dodge attempt is botched. If
this option is taken, no Combat Pool dice may be used to augment the Damage
Resistance test.

The second option would be for the PC to make a Damage Resistance test in
the following fashion: he would roll his Body plus any number of available
Combat Pool dice versus a TN equal to the Power of the attack minus any
appropriate armor. If the number of successes generated by the Combat Pool
dice alone are enough to reduce the attacker's number of successes to -1
then the attack was successfully Dodged and no damage is taken, nor is any
armor degraded. Otherwise, the PC must stage the damage down as per the
normal rules. If he manages to stage the damage down to nothing, no damage
is taken but there may be some superficial cuts, bruises, tears in
clothing, etc. To add to the cinematic feel of the game, any attack that
is successfully Dodged using only Combat Pool dice causes no change to the
target's clothing or body (i.e. they don't wrinkle their suit or acquire
any superficial cuts, etc.). When using this option, two different colors
of dice need to be used (one for the attribute and one for the Combat Pool
dice).

That should hopefully clear up some of how the Combat Pool dice are used
for Dodging.

Justin :)
Message no. 2
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:08:40 -0500
You wrote:
> When a PC is aware of a forthcoming attack, he has two options. The first
> would be to attempt to Dodge the attack. This is done by rolling any
> number of available Combat Pool dice versus a base TN of 4.
I think letting people off with a base 4 for dodging gunfire is a wee bit easy.
Perhaps a table giving difficulties based on cover available? If you're going
to revise how dodging works, might as well go all the way.

losthalo
Message no. 3
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:35:04 -0500
At 01-Okt-97 wrote Wendy Wanders, Subject 117:


>I think letting people off with a base 4 for dodging gunfire is a wee bit
>easy.
>Perhaps a table giving difficulties based on cover available? If you're
going
>to revise how dodging works, might as well go all the way.

How about this, base the TN for the dodge on the skill of the firer.
--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #17:

When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to
their advice.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:11:35 -0700
Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:

> I think letting people off with a base 4 for dodging gunfire is a wee bit easy.
> Perhaps a table giving difficulties based on cover available? If you're going
> to revise how dodging works, might as well go all the way.

Hrm. What about making the dodge target number dependant on the attacking
person's skill in one way or another? Maybe 4 + (attacker's skill / 2)?
And yes, I know how brutal that could be with an attacker's skill of 6, but
hey, if 6 is meant to be a super marksman, or blackbelt a few times over....

Bah. I'm only trying to put off having my jaw x-rayed. (At least my
procrastiation got the FAQ's posted to the lists yesterday... ;)

Have fun tearing that apart.

--

Dvixen Code-word : Weevil-chuck. dvixen@********.com
"And I thought First Ones were rare." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
FAQ Flunky of the SRcard and ShadowRN Mailing Lists
http://coastnet.com/~dvixen/shadowrn/srnfaq1.html <= Get it. Memorize!
Required Reading => http://coastnet.com/~dvixen/srtcg/tcgfaq1.html
Message no. 5
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:30:33 -0600
Dvixen wrote:
|
| Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:
|
| > I think letting people off with a base 4 for dodging gunfire is a wee bit easy.
| > Perhaps a table giving difficulties based on cover available? If you're going
| > to revise how dodging works, might as well go all the way.
|
| Hrm. What about making the dodge target number dependant on the attacking
| person's skill in one way or another? Maybe 4 + (attacker's skill / 2)?
| And yes, I know how brutal that could be with an attacker's skill of 6, but
| hey, if 6 is meant to be a super marksman, or blackbelt a few times over....

No thank you. The combat pool rules may be flawed, but they work and are
easy to use. If you can't fix it without keeping it simple then don't fix
it, IMHO.

| Bah. I'm only trying to put off having my jaw x-rayed. (At least my
| procrastiation got the FAQ's posted to the lists yesterday... ;)

I'm not even going to ask :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 6
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:35:26 -0500
You wrote:
> Hrm. What about making the dodge target number dependant on the attacking
> person's skill in one way or another? Maybe 4 + (attacker's skill / 2)?
> And yes, I know how brutal that could be with an attacker's skill of 6, but
> hey, if 6 is meant to be a super marksman, or blackbelt a few times over....
I really think dodging firearms attacks should be difficult unless there's
readily available cover. Thus, I'd prefer a table based off of how close
diveable cover is rather than the skill of the attacker. An untrained newbie
or an expert assassin, the bullet is too fast to see and usually gets to you
too fast to move once you hear it. The only thing is to move a lot and present
a bad target, or to move behind something else...

losthalo
Message no. 7
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:16:26 -0500
At 01-Okt-97 wrote Wendy Wanders, Subject 117:


>Thus, I'd prefer a table based off of how close
>diveable cover is rather than the skill of the attacker.

Then make it real simple and use the reversed range table for firearmes.
short=T#9, extrem=T#4.

How about this?

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #17:

When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to
their advice.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:04:07 EST
> I really think dodging firearms attacks should be difficult unless
> there's readily available cover. Thus, I'd prefer a table based off
> of how close diveable cover is rather than the skill of the

You aren't dodging the bullet. You're dodging the person holding the
gun. Somewhere between when he decides to pull the trigger and his
finger actually does. This is why dodging works. By the time the
bullet leaves the muzzle, you're probably dead.

Still, the distance between you makes a real difference, as a slight
degree of bad aim makes no difference at point blank (you're hit) and
a huge one at extreme (you hit the wrong building)


-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 9
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:13:07 EDT
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:08:40 -0500 "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
>I think letting people off with a base 4 for dodging gunfire is a wee
bit easy.
>Perhaps a table giving difficulties based on cover available? If you're
going
>to revise how dodging works, might as well go all the way.

You could go the way of White Wolf's WoD system. The dodge difficulty
ranges from 2 to 8 (it uses d10's, for any non-WoD players..) depending
on available cover as follows:
8 no cover in sight
7 partial cover within running distance (3yd)
6 full cover within running distance (3yd)
4 full cover within diving distance (1yd)
2 by moving back a half-step, combatant is back under full
cover.

Either keep the numbers as they stand, or re-work them based on the cover
modifiers (flat t#, minus the modifier your cover gives to attackers,
etc..).

~Tim
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:25:49 +0100
Barbie said on 15:35/ 1 Oct 97...

> How about this, base the TN for the dodge on the skill of the firer.

Or how about doing it the other way around? The target elects to dodge,
and rolls Combat Pool against a TN 4 plus wound mods. The attacker's TN is
now based on how many successes the target got -- twice the number of
successes, for example. Apply all relevant modifiers to this, and let the
attacker roll a skill test. The target can then only use Body dice to
resist the damage, not Combat Pool.

And yes, this is similar to the Star Wars RPG rules for dodging.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Zo buurman, ik hier?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:09:58 -0600
Gurth wrote:
|
| Or how about doing it the other way around? The target elects to dodge,
| and rolls Combat Pool against a TN 4 plus wound mods. The attacker's TN is
| now based on how many successes the target got -- twice the number of
| successes, for example. Apply all relevant modifiers to this, and let the
| attacker roll a skill test. The target can then only use Body dice to
| resist the damage, not Combat Pool.
|
| And yes, this is similar to the Star Wars RPG rules for dodging.

Nice. Except I'd set the dodge modifier equal to the number of
successes rolled. And modify the dodge TN by the rate of the
attacker's fire (+1 for burst fire and +2 for full auto (4 or more
rounds)).

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 12
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:58:39 -0400
Dvixen[SMTP:dvixen@********.COM] wrote:
> Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:
> > I think letting people off with a base 4 for dodging gunfire is a wee bit
easy.
>
> Hrm. What about making the dodge target number dependant on the attacking
> person's skill in one way or another? Maybe 4 + (attacker's skill / 2)?
> And yes, I know how brutal that could be with an attacker's skill of 6, but
> hey, if 6 is meant to be a super marksman, or blackbelt a few times over....

We use 150% of the attacker's skill... Yeah, it's pretty brutal
with an attacker with skill 6, but most security guards etc have
a 3 or 4 in our games... Of course they get the unfair advantages
of tactics and planning. :-)

> Bah. I'm only trying to put off having my jaw x-rayed. (At least my
> procrastiation got the FAQ's posted to the lists yesterday... ;)
>
> Have fun tearing that apart.

What? Your jaw? You must be into pain... (or is that "in pain"?) ;-)

James
Message no. 13
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:09:29 -0500
You wrote:
> Or how about doing it the other way around? The target elects to dodge,
> and rolls Combat Pool against a TN 4 plus wound mods. The attacker's TN is
> now based on how many successes the target got -- twice the number of
> successes, for example. Apply all relevant modifiers to this, and let the
> attacker roll a skill test. The target can then only use Body dice to
> resist the damage, not Combat Pool.

> And yes, this is similar to the Star Wars RPG rules for dodging.

The problem I see with this is the base target number of 4. For every two
dice, on average, put into dodging, the attacker's target number goes up by 1.
This, to me, doesn't seem to simulate the difficulty at most ranges of dodging
a bullet(s). It shouldn't be easy, imo. Characters should be wary of standing
out in the open getting shot at, whereas this makes it more likely that they
will survive getting caught in the open.

losthalo
Message no. 14
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:35:49 -0600
losthalo wrote:
|
| You wrote:
| > Or how about doing it the other way around? The target elects to dodge,
| > and rolls Combat Pool against a TN 4 plus wound mods. The attacker's TN is
| > now based on how many successes the target got -- twice the number of
| > successes, for example. Apply all relevant modifiers to this, and let the
| > attacker roll a skill test. The target can then only use Body dice to
| > resist the damage, not Combat Pool.
|
| > And yes, this is similar to the Star Wars RPG rules for dodging.
|
| The problem I see with this is the base target number of 4. For every two
| dice, on average, put into dodging, the attacker's target number goes up by 1.
| This, to me, doesn't seem to simulate the difficulty at most ranges of dodging
|a bullet(s). It shouldn't be easy, imo. Characters should be wary of standing
| out in the open getting shot at, whereas this makes it more likely that they
| will survive getting caught in the open.

Well, combat pool may only be used if the target is aware of the
attack (I'm pretty liberal about this in that if the attacker is
within the target's field of vision (and not hampered by darkness,
fog, etc) they are aware of the attack). You could pick a distance
within which ranged attacks can be "dodged". Or use the base TNs
from the spell range table in GII, like someone else said.

So if character A is being attacked by character B, who is within A's
field of vision and 50m away, A can use any or all of his combat pool
to dodge vs a TN of 6 (I'm not sure what the TN really is, this is
just for the example).

Or you could just say that if an attacker is farther away than, say,
20m then the attack can't be dodged.

Is this working for you? :)

And BTW losthalo, could you set the word wrap/column width on your
mailer to 75 or 70? Right now it's at 80, which is fine for reading
but your posts get garbled when I and others reply to them.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 15
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:35:19 -0500
You wrote:
> And BTW losthalo, could you set the word wrap/column width on your
> mailer to 75 or 70? Right now it's at 80, which is fine for reading
> but your posts get garbled when I and others reply to them.
Actually, this is a university account, and I don't believe it will allow me to
set linelength. The joys of free accounts...

losthalo
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:33:46 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:09/ 2 Oct 97...

[snip "target dodges before attack" rules]
> Nice. Except I'd set the dodge modifier equal to the number of
> successes rolled. And modify the dodge TN by the rate of the
> attacker's fire (+1 for burst fire and +2 for full auto (4 or more
> rounds)).

Not sure what you mean by the "dodge modifier"... Adding in a mod for the
number of rounds fired sounds like a good idea, but I'd go for +1 for
every 3 rounds, I guess. That way it becomes harder to dodge a minigun
than a four-round burst.

Another thing that bugs me and doesn't is that dodging is only effective
at short ranges this way. If you're at extreme range, the TN after the
dodge will most likely be less than the base TN for the shot. I don't like
it because it seems to me that at long range a shot shouldn't hit that
easily, especially if you're dodging, but I like it because there's a real
possibility for dodging into the enemy's fire instead of away from it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Zo buurman, ik hier?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:46:41 +0000
On 1 Oct 97, Brett Borger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> You aren't dodging the bullet. You're dodging the person holding
> the gun. Somewhere between when he decides to pull the trigger and
> his finger actually does. This is why dodging works. By the time
> the bullet leaves the muzzle, you're probably dead.

While I agree that you're dodging the gun, not the bullet, I don't
agree with the last sentence. Bullet still has to fly to it's target.
Now, you won't dodge it now if you were just standing, but those
additional moments can mean your moving body (after you threw yourelf
to the floor) can move a little bit further. That becomes especially
important at longer ranges, and with silenced guns with subsonic
ammo. (And even a sniper rifle bullet with a very high muzzle
velocity will take some time to go through that 1 km, so if the
target dodges after seeing the flash, he can get it in his arm,
instead of his heart...)

> Still, the distance between you makes a real difference, as a slight
> degree of bad aim makes no difference at point blank (you're hit)
> and a huge one at extreme (you hit the wrong building)

Yes, and the bullet flies longer. Remember, we're not talking about
lasers... Hmm... That recalls me - shoulnd't laser weapons be harder
to dodge. With standard mechanics, they are pretty difficult to
dodge, due to their power and armour-piercing capability, but if
using one of the alternate systems discussed here, a laser weapon
should get something like +2 to #TN to dodge...


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Fight unemployment - waste police time.
Message no. 18
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Pool (Dodging)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:56:00 +0000
> > the bullet leaves the muzzle, you're probably dead.
>
> While I agree that you're dodging the gun, not the bullet, I don't
> agree with the last sentence. Bullet still has to fly to it's target.

I knew somebody was going to do it. Sigh. Okay....you''re dodging
the gun, not the bullet. There is time in flight that can allow you
to move out of the way, but you probably already moving to be able to
do it. Even if you weren't, and you still manage to dodge, my
counter to the original posters comment holds....you are most often
dodging the gun, not the bullet.

> > degree of bad aim makes no difference at point blank (you're hit)

> Yes, and the bullet flies longer. Remember, we're not talking about
> lasers... Hmm... That recalls me - shoulnd't laser weapons be harder

Yes, but in relation to the angle change at a long distance, the
increase in flight time is insignificant. You can dodge the bullet
easier, yes, but it is X times easier to dodge the gun at this
distance.

> to dodge. With standard mechanics, they are pretty difficult to
> dodge, due to their power and armour-piercing capability, but if
> using one of the alternate systems discussed here, a laser weapon
> should get something like +2 to #TN to dodge...

Valid point....I'd probably make it only +1, just because I think
that save at extreme ranges, you better e in motion by the time the
bullet leaves the muzzle, or you won't move enough for it to count.
Bullets don't move at light speed, but they are fraggin fast, and
humans (or whatevers) aren't.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Combat Pool (Dodging), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.