NEWS

Power Creep - Reloaded

  • 80 Replies
  • 25277 Views

Otakusensei

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 56
« Reply #75 on: <01-04-11/1341:47> »
Honestly, the whole "not like you" thing seems to be one-way. I'm not going to say I like you, but I don't not like you either. I only bring up the warning stuff because it feels like you're trying to make this personal when it isn't. If I read your intentions wrong, I'm sorry.
That's cool.  I just saw a rules call that seemed to be out of the norm so I mentioned it.

Mäx

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
« Reply #76 on: <01-04-11/1539:14> »
I just saw a rules call that seemed to be out of the norm so I mentioned it.
::)
Well you kinda fail at reading comprehension man, if the fact that its a house rule had to be explained to you about half a dozen times, when it's obvious from the first post that it's only how he personally runs it becouse he wan't to provide a logical system for his players so they can know how the or higher part of the OR will be handelt.
"An it harm none, do what you will"

Otakusensei

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 56
« Reply #77 on: <01-04-11/2218:05> »
I just saw a rules call that seemed to be out of the norm so I mentioned it.
::)
Well you kinda fail at reading comprehension man, if the fact that its a house rule had to be explained to you about half a dozen times, when it's obvious from the first post that it's only how he personally runs it becouse he wan't to provide a logical system for his players so they can know how the or higher part of the OR will be handelt.
No offense, but you might want to give you post a read through if you're going to talk to someone about reading comprehension.

I got thrown off by the fact that the Clearsight autosoft rating was being included in the OR (software running on a device makes it more complex?) and the fact that what he was describing is essentially the dice from a perception test used as OR.  I've had to explain to people in the past that you don't resist illusions with perception tests, at least not Improved Invisibility.  I figured what was going on was something like that, and it bothered me because Clearsight makes no sense as a factor in that test.

If you want to get into the original post his explanations of dogbrains was also incorrect.  You use OR because the drone is an inanimate object, not because it isn't smart enough to resist the spell.  However you should really let the man fight his own battles and defend himself.


raggedhalo

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 709
« Reply #78 on: <01-07-11/0627:25> »
In my view, the way to fix the Designate spell is basically to remove the second paragraph and change the Drain Code to (F/2)+1.  That's +1 for a Physical spell, 0 for Line-of-Sight range, 0 for Sustained, 0 for Realistic, and 0 for Multi-Sense.  You'd need to beat the OR of the targeting system to trick it into believing that there was really a designator shining there. Net hits would add to the attack roll.
Joe Rooney
Freelancer (Missions and otherwise: here's my stuff, plus CMP 2011-05 Burn Notice)

My Obsidian Portal profile

KarmaInferno

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2005
  • Armor Stacking Cheese Monkey
« Reply #79 on: <01-07-11/1537:30> »
I still think making it a Manipulation spell is the easiest solution. No OR needs to be dealt with then.



-k

raggedhalo

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 709
« Reply #80 on: <01-10-11/0517:48> »
I tried it as a Manipulation spell, and the Drain Code came out to what's in the book (can't remember my working).  Still need to excise that whole bit about needing cyberware or natural senses.  At most, it should require a Knowledge skill in an appropriate science (so, physics, then) or somesuch.
Joe Rooney
Freelancer (Missions and otherwise: here's my stuff, plus CMP 2011-05 Burn Notice)

My Obsidian Portal profile