Effect and Blast weapons?

[arcador]

Hello,

In the first edition, it does not (it's specifically written).

In the 2nd edition, seems effect is added to the Blast weapons trait since there is no exemption to the rule.

This can make grenades quite dangerous.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Possibly related: Destructive weapons don't use Effect as a bonus to damage.

 

[RogerMc]

Effect is a measure of accuracy in terms of where you hit someone,

Can't see how it applies to lobbing a grenade through a window hoping it'll kill someone.

I might allow it for RAM and rifle grenades as these can actually hit someone and do additional damage that way.

 

[MonkeyX]

I can see how effect can change grenade damage. Throw one through a window with an effect of 0 it does normal damage, land the grenade in a guys shirt pocket with a +6 effect and boom, more damage.

 

[arcador]

While it @MonkeyX makes sense, the effect will be applied to the whole Blast range, and then it raises the question - can the grenade land in each's guy pocket, in the blast range? Of course, we can rule that it lands at an exceptionally good angle which maximizes the fragmentation (and close to the desired spot)...

I think I might go with @RogerMc's interpretation - only direct hits with weapons that detonate/activate on impact have effect bonus. The rest targets in the blast range will simply take the damage. Of course, with grenades - the higher roll, the closer to the desired spot.

 

[MonkeyX]

Also if a character dives/dodges that reduces the DM by his dex/athletics score. Would that also reduce damage by reducing the effect?

 

[Linwood]

I think I’d allow the effect to modify damage indirectly. For example it could reduce the level of available cover. Or if the player was targeting a specific object or area a 6+ effect might do the equivalent of a critical hit.

 

[arcador]

Also if a character dives/dodges that reduces the DM by his dex/athletics score. Would that also reduce damage by reducing the effect?

Blast weapons don't allow dodges. But yes - if effect increases the damage, then everything reducing the effect would reduce the damage.

Keep in mind even the simplest cover (which provides armor in this case) would provide more protection than, -2 for example.

 

[RogerMc]

It depends on how abstract your combats are.

If you are using a full battlemap and figures/tokens you can say exactly where the grenade is being aimed and the effect should just tell you whether it hits that spot or misses it by a short distance in a random direction (and if you fail the roll then the negative effect will tell you how far you missed by or whether you've fumbled and dropped the grenade at your own feet.

None of this should effect the general damage which is based on blast radius and on the existence of walls, trees, cover etc within it.

(incidentally if you did land it in someone's shirt pocket you are probably lessening the general damage by as much as you would increase it for that one target - otherwise why do heroes in films throw themselves on top of grenades to save the rest of their squad?).

But if you are running it very abstractly without a proper map then sure effect might be a valid add-on to damage because you don't want to actually map where it lands and will just handwave who is in the blast radius.

 

[arcador]

That is a pretty good call. I would also assume that this is a perspective from which people look at different rules (and perhaps arguments arise).