Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Michael Chandra on <05-15-14/1131:59>
-
As I mentioned in a topic, I'm working on a few lists, such as easily missed rules and controverses. The idea is to recap some unclear RAW and short arguments for the different sides in RAI debates. There'd also be some popular houserules, and the note of consequences to keep in mind.
The topics themselves would include descriptions such as references to clarification posts, or pages. With controversial subjects, I'd probably be going for links to long debates on the manner. This way, the stuff is gathered together a bit so you're not searching for wherever it might have been mentioned before.
Before I make those topics, I'd like to expand the lists first, so I was wondering if people could help me by noting some. Without arguments, of course, because I'm not looking forward to a heated debate about heated debates. ^_^'
The list below is a short version, I got a more complete list written down somewhere, but this is a good place to start:
Easily missed rules & mistakes: (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16489.0)
Easily missed rules & mistakes:
+- Trolls/Dwarves costs at chargen
+- 1 Attack Action per IP
+- Stun damage is still resisted by Body+modified Armor
+- BDA/Lacing do not boost actual Body
+- Augmented Maximum
+- Sustaining Range
+- Power Foci & Magic
+- Initiation & Magic Points
+- Magic & Power Points
+- Initiation/Submersion at Chargen
+- Physical vs Stun Damage: modDV>=modArm, not modDV>modArm
+- Immunity To Normal Weapons working exactly as normal Hardened Armor
+- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
+- AoE Defense
+- Priority & Magic
+- Priority & SAPs
+- Chargen caps
+- Adept Powers Off-switch
+- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
+- Background Count
+- 'Spell' slots
+- Oversummoning & Edge
+- Condition Monitors
+- Increase Attribute spellforce
+- Power Points at chargen
+- Resting & Sustaining
+- Attribute Boost (does not give any non-dicepool advantages)
+- Cover: Always applies, ties to attacker
+- Attack Action: Multiple
+- Accumulative Recoil
+- Maximum DV of Called Shots
+- Damage is not a dicepool
+- Armor & Locations: No Headshots
+- Martial Arts
+- When are you unaware? (Should this be a controversy?)
matrix
- Autosoft Prices
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- Faraday Cages & Wireless Communication
gear
- Second Skin
- Essence Holes
- Cyberlimbs
- Cyberware 'Upgrades'
- Control Rigs & Speed
* Weapon Slots/Mods
- Taser Charges
- Law Enforcement Vehicles
- Training Times
- Lifestyle consequences
- Quick Healer
* Addiction
- Losing spells on off
- Connection
- Spirit Condition Monitors
- Special Reagent Prices
- Adepts + Rituals
- Losing your Way
- Alchemical Preparation Triggers
- Toxin damage intervals (Immediate = end of CT)
Controversial matters:
- Chargen order & Freebie points
- Initiative boosting
- Simple Actions vs Free Actions
- Drone Actions: Gunnery Simple & Vehicle Skill Tests?
- Drone Movement
- Gunnery+Rigging
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
- HotSim Bonus & Control Device (Gunnery and such)
- Fake Licenses
- Street Cred
- Connection
- Object Resistance Drones vs Illusions
- Contact Preparations
- Master/Slave & Unattended
- Katana 2handed
- Custom Fit (Stack)
- Bullseye Doubletap / Burst
- Diagnostics
- Electric vs Vehicles
- Integral weapon modifications
- Multicasting Spells
- DNI, UDC, and all that stuff
- Touch Attacks & Shock
- Pans&Personas
- Drone Sensor Arrays
- Sensor Enhancements
- Armor upgrading
- Movement Power
Possible houserules: (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18315.0)
+ Accumulative Recoil
+ Noise
+ Mystic Adept Power Points (chargen, after chargen, augmentations)
+ Quickening
+ Oversummoning & Edge
+ Strength Boost
+ Initiation/Submersion at chargen
- Vehicles: Repair Costs, Hardened Armor
- Addiction
- Cyberlimbs: restrictions & adjustments
- Karma<->Nuyen
- Lifestyle for Grid/Allergies
- Drone Sensor Arrays
- Drone Sneaking Size Modifiers
- Cover & Running: Auto-hits instead of bonus dice.
-
Is this limited to just the core rulebook?
-
Being a newby to the game, I would love to see more explanation on these missed rules. I don't know if anyone has the energy to document them. Some of them I get, many of them I do not.
-
wasn't there a rule about how grenades don't allow a defense roll? that wasa suprise to me...
-
Not just core, though I'd like to limit it to Extended Core.
You're right, I forgot the -2 to Defense entry should go. Of course we can add the new Run&Gun rule to that note.
Other controverses I forgot to mention also come from the tables: Licenses, Street Cred, and (not fully in tables but simply two conflicting lines) Connection. And from Run&Gun we get the controversion about Custom Fit (Stack), and some explanations on what Martial Arts and Specializations are like, and how maximum DV of Called Shots comes AFTER soak, not before.
-
Could you also include the Second Skin line and how it's almost fragging impossible to tell what it stacks with? Even the group I play with face-to-face had to consult SR4 books to figure that out.
Also, how about the confusing entries on what stuff is owned by Zoe? If a person isn't entirely familiar with the writing style and doesn't pay careful enough attention, it almost looks like they own nothing.
-
Those two are related. ^_^ Sure thing.
Oh, forgot to mention: Spirits and Edge (also known as how a GM can punish an oversummoner).
-
OK, I'm not such a newb, and it's unclear what you're talking about in some cases, such as "- The Reagents & Sustaining Foci trick".
-
OK, I'm not such a newb, and it's unclear what you're talking about in some cases, such as "- The Reagents & Sustaining Foci trick".
Once he compiles the list, that'll be explained, but the short version is this: you can use a Force 1 sustaining focus for an Increase Reflexes spell you cast at Force 1, while using 6 dram of Reagents so you'll be allowed to keep up to 6 hits.
-
OK, I'm not such a newb, and it's unclear what you're talking about in some cases, such as "- The Reagents & Sustaining Foci trick".
Cast a spell that counts hits (like Armor) instead of basing its effect off Force. Use the regents to change the limit so you keep more hits. This means that a you can sustain a high-hit Armor spell with only 1 level of Focused Concentration or a Force 1 sustaining focus.
-
Interesting.
The experienced GM/CDA even appeared to have flubbed recoil while we were doing the 5th ed intro missions at a convention last fall. (I didn't realize this at the time as it was my first SR play since 2nd ed but, as I understand it from talking with others, he used 4th ed rules instead of 5th.)
If even the wise can err, I would say that this list would be most helpful.
-
Interesting.
The experienced GM/CDA even appeared to have flubbed recoil while we were doing the 5th ed intro missions at a convention last fall. (I didn't realize this at the time as it was my first SR play since 2nd ed but, as I understand it from talking with others, he used 4th ed rules instead of 5th.)
If even the wise can err, I would say that this list would be most helpful.
In fairness to the GM, recoil has undergone different versions already, so it's possible he was using the older (and to my thinking better) rules.
-
OK, I'm not such a newb, and it's unclear what you're talking about in some cases, such as "- The Reagents & Sustaining Foci trick".
Cast a spell that counts hits (like Armor) instead of basing its effect off Force. Use the regents to change the limit so you keep more hits. This means that a you can sustain a high-hit Armor spell with only 1 level of Focused Concentration or a Force 1 sustaining focus.
Yup. Works (possibly better) with Edge, too.
One thing I'd add; the weird little wrinkles in Lifestyles. These always surprise me. The two I've discovered:
-If you have Low lifestyle or lower, all your actions take place on the public grid. This means all your Matrix actions (including data search) take a -2 penalty unless you hop grids.
-If you have a Squatter lifestyle or lower, you can't have a bank account! It's credsticks only. Don't get mugged!
-
Controversial matters:
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
With thanks to Xenon (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16476.msg291124#msg291124), I guess this one's been decided?
-
I'm not sure if rigger repair costs count as controversial since it's pretty clear from an interpretation standpoint, but man...
-
One I notice new players coming to the forums asking about that should be added: Priority and MAG/RES points. As in "Do I have to take a priority gives MAG or RES, or can I put SAP or Karma into it instead?" Very easily missed rule.
-
Weird - I could've sworn that one was on his paper notes.
-
Also, from Run and Gun, can we have something on weapon slots, accessories, and modifications? That entire system is kinda confusing at best.
-
One thing I'd add; the weird little wrinkles in Lifestyles. These always surprise me. The two I've discovered:
-If you have Low lifestyle or lower, all your actions take place on the public grid. This means all your Matrix actions (including data search) take a -2 penalty unless you hop grids.
-If you have a Squatter lifestyle or lower, you can't have a bank account! It's credsticks only. Don't get mugged!
Dont forget the -2 that Hackers take against you if you're on the public grid, so a Low Lifestyle makes it harder to hack you. But a Rigger would also take a -2 on their Jumped-In actions...
Controversial matters:
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
With thanks to Xenon (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16476.msg291124#msg291124), I guess this one's been decided?
Nope. That's the main argument used on one half of the debate, but there's opposing arguments against it.
Weird - I could've sworn that one was on his paper notes.
It was. Didn't have those with me though.
-
When this is all complied could we get it stickied please?
-
Controversial matters:
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
With thanks to Xenon (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16476.msg291124#msg291124), I guess this one's been decided?
I think it is pretty clear in a host, as the rules are very clear as to what you need to do while in a host. But, I can see things happening different ways out on the grids. quick example. Matrix Search to find details about Project X and likely file names, and then Perceptions to "spot" it (even if it's hidden, because at this point, you found enough details to spot a hidden icon), Protections on the file/icon, etc. Case by case basis, of course.
Controversial Rules
Bulls eye Doubletap / Burst. So much wrong with this, I think it should go on the controversial list (bad writing, weird interpretations, etc)
-
Updated version. The *-marks are interpretation ones that make a lot of sense, but could be turned into controverses. (Difference is I haven't seen massive debates with heavily-torn sides on them, so would be presenting one view, not counter-arguments.)
Easily missed rules & mistakes:
- 1 Attack Action per IP
- Stun damage is still resisted by Body+modified Armor
- BDA/Lacing do not boost actual Body
- Augmented Maximum
- Sustaining Range
- Resting & Sustaining
- Accumulative Recoil
- Quick Healer
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- Power Foci & Magic
- Initiation & Magic Points
- Initiation/Submersion at Chargen
- Physical vs Stun Damage: modDV>=modArm, not modDV>modArm
- Immunity To Normal Weapons working exactly as normal Hardened Armor
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- AoE Defense
- Martial Arts
- Maximum DV of Called Shots
- Lifestyle consequences
- Priority & Magic
- Priority & SAPs
- Second Skin
- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
- Background Count
- Essence Holes
- Training Times
- 'Spell' slots
- Cyberlimbs
- Oversummoning & Edge
* Addiction
* Weapon Slots/Mods
Controversial matters:
- Initiative boosting
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
- Drone Actions: Gunnery Simple & Vehicle Skill Tests?
- Drone Movement
- Gunnery+Rigging
- HotSim Bonus & Control Device (Gunnery and such)
- Fake Licenses
- Street Cred
- Connection
- Custom Fit (Stack)
- Bullseye Doubletap / Burst
- Object Resistance Drones vs Illusions
- Master/Slave & Unattended
- Chargen order & Freebie points
- Contact Preparations
- Katana 2handed
- Simple Actions vs Free Actions
Possible houserules:
- Accumulative Recoil
- Noise
- Mystic Adept Power Points
- Vehicles: Repair Costs, Hardened Armor
- Addiction
- Cyberlimbs: restrictions & adjustments
- Oversummoning & Edge
- Karma<->Nuyen
- Strength Boost
-
How often Patrol IC checks for intruders is something that gets asked a ton, it seems.
-
Wish I had an answer for that. :P Sounds like a controverse?_?
-
I don't know what the items on this list means. Will we be able to add more explanation around them? What is AoE defense as a missed rule for example? What is the recoil house rule?
Thanks! Great shadowrun community.
-
I don't know what the items on this list means. Will we be able to add more explanation around them? What is AoE defense as a missed rule for example? What is the recoil house rule?
Thanks! Great shadowrun community.
I imagine these will all get fleshed out once the list is finalized, but the AoE defense rule addresses the confusion (especially pre-Run & Gun) over how you defend vs. grenades and indirect AoE spells. The example on 283 has the caster counting net hits with an indirect AoE spell instead of the "three hits = no scatter" rule found elsewhere.
Recoil has changed (or been clarified, depending on how you look at it) since the book came out. It used to be that you had to take an entire Action Phase to clear your recoil, now it's just a Simple Action.
-
I'll be posting them later. :) Currently working on a partial easily-missed list. Basically this is the topic for "what do you think should be added to the list", while future topics will describe in detail.
AoE defense is an error in the table: It lists you suffer a -2 on Defense Tests, but that is from a previous version. You do NOT get a Defense Test against AoE, so there is no -2. However, in Run&Gun there is an Interrupt Action that lets you run away from them instead.
Recoil house rules come in 2 flavors. One resets to SR4's system, where it doesn't accumulate at all. The other one requires you to not fire for an entire Action Phase (or for 2 Simple Actions) to reset recoil. This makes how many rounds you fire a more tactical choice, and has a balance effect on BF/FA vs Single Shot and Semi-Automatic weapons. The recoil debate also has severe consequences on the balance of Automatics vs Longarms.
-
Recoil has changed (or been clarified, depending on how you look at it) since the book came out. It used to be that you had to take an entire Action Phase to clear your recoil, now it's just a Simple Action.
Interestingly enough, there's some parallels between PP cost for MAs and Recoil there; in both cases, you've got this:
"You changed it. :<"
"No, it was always meant to be like this, we just goofed up with the book."
"But it's stupid now, so I'll always say you changed it. :<"
-
First draft is up: http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16489.0
Not added yet:
- Sustaining Range
- Resting & Sustaining
- Quick Healer
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- Martial Arts
- Maximum DV of Called Shots
- Lifestyle consequences
- Second Skin
- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
- Background Count
- Essence Holes
- Training Times
- Cyberlimbs
- Oversummoning & Edge
* Addiction
* Weapon Slots/Mods
-
- Damage Resist, Physical vs Stun: If the modified Damage Value equals or exceeds the Modified Armor, the damage is Physical. This applies in ALL cases, even where equality is not explicitly mentioned, such as Vehicle Armor and Hardened Armor.
Might want to add that this only applies to attacks that deal Physical damage by default: it's a bit ambiguous right now.
-
Alrighty, edited that one.
-
I approve of the topic in that other thread.
One attack action also include attacking several targets at the same time and the same target multiple times. As long as you do it within the same action.
(One example would be "casting multiple spells" (p. 281) where you cast different spells at the same time and in the same action and on the same target (or even at different targets ) while splitting pool with the multiple attacks free action).
Great job!
-
all good stuff so far. nice work and much needed IMHO.
I'm not clear on spell sustaining foci. if I have a spell sustained with one and it gets deactivated either intentionally or otherwise, does that mean the spell is lost or if I activate it again the spell is still there. RAW are not very clear. :o
what i really want to know is if I'd need to recast the spell everyday after sleep.
-
Good one, adding that. Yes, you have to recast it every time. The spell ends once you stop sustaining it, which means it's gone. If a Sustaining Focus gets disrupted, the spell in it ends as well.
-
Integral weapon modifications.
Core says all weapon mods that are listed on the base weapon are integral. Even the ones that are on the gun's description list as being in a slot? And annoyingly Run & Gun did not clarify this at all.
Example, can the Ingram Smartgun X have a gas vent system put on its dual gas vent/silenced integral barrel? Because that's silly. But that seems to be RAW, but may not be RAI.
-
I'm surprised to see that the whole: what has/needs DNI? what has cyberware UDC? thread(s) didn't make it to the controvertial issue list.
As soon as you answered my question, two others jumped in with the opposite view.
I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.
-
I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.
The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.
-
I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.
The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.
Why would you want to plug a cable directly into your freekin eye to begin with is beyond me...
The book DO let you plug the cable into your datajack (if you have an internal smartlink)
Just like we done in every other edition before things got wireless...
(or into your imaging device if your smartlink is external)
-
I'm surprised to see that the whole: what has/needs DNI? what has cyberware UDC? thread(s) didn't make it to the controvertial issue list.
As soon as you answered my question, two others jumped in with the opposite view.
I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.
Forgot about that one, thanks. Need to remember to add it later.
-
I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.
The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.
Why would you want to plug a cable directly into your freekin eye to begin with is beyond me...
The book DO let you plug the cable into your datajack (if you have an internal smartlink)
Just like we done in every other edition before things got wireless...
(or into your imaging device if your smartlink is external)
Depending on how you view them style wise, there's no real issue to an eye cable.
If the cyber eyes are a cheap end, goggle looking, Cyclops visor - no one would question whether you could have a UDC on the side.
If you envision high end "almost human" eyes, it still is possible to have a link at the temple like Geordi LaForge's visor contact points.
The ick factor only comes in if you are talking about something like a high end "human" eye with no external hardware what so ever (even then it could be a covered flap like Data's ports on ST:TNG). And I doubt the rules should bow to ick factor. I mean, how's your ick factor when the eye drones are sent out? (Flying eyeballs and a PC with empty sockets? That's nightmare fuel)
Of course this also brings up other style issues - does my embedded commlink look more like Data with hidden ports under little doors? or more like Lobot with a cyber headband in the back?
Personally I have no qualms with internal stuff having a dermal or subdermal (you can transmit through skin if you adhere the wire) hidden UDC for a wired connection but I was trying to find out what the game says on that (as I go to Missions) and it appears that there are at least two different camps.
-
I still have no idea if cybereyes count as having a UDC to hook a smartgun up.
The rule that every device has as UDC and all cyberware are devices runs into cases where it is physically or practically impossible for the cyberware to have a UDC. Bone lacing is another example.
Why would you want to plug a cable directly into your freekin eye to begin with is beyond me...
The book DO let you plug the cable into your datajack (if you have an internal smartlink)
Just like we done in every other edition before things got wireless...
(or into your imaging device if your smartlink is external)
Depending on how you view them style wise, there's no real issue to an eye cable.
If the cyber eyes are a cheap end, google looking, Cyclops visor - no one would question whether you could have a UDC on the side.
If you envision high end "almost human" eyes, it still is possible to have a link at the temple like Geordi LaForge's visor contact points.
The ick factor only comes in if you are talking about something like a high end "human" eye with no external hardware what so ever (even then it could be a covered flap like Data's ports on ST:TNG). And I doubt the rules should bow to ick factor. I mean, how's your ick factor when the eye drones are sent out? (Flying eyeballs and a PC with empty sockets? That's nightmare fuel)
Of course this also brings up other style issues - does my embedded commlink look more like Data with hidden ports under little doors? or more like Lobot with a cyber headband in the back?
Personally I have no qualms with internal stuff having a dermal or subdermal (you can transmit through skin if you adhere the wire) hidden UDC for a wired connection but I was trying to find out what the game says on that (as I go to Missions) and it appears that there are at least two different camps.
Dermal and subdermal are not possible with all of the cyberware. Like a tooth compartment; RAW, that is a device and has a UDP. Problem: By design, the only way to be able to plug anything into it and have it still capable of its main function requires prying the tooth out first.
The entire idea of "all devices have UDPs and all cyberware are devices" was very obviously not thought through.
-
...but I was trying to find out what the game says on that (as I go to Missions) and it appears that there are at least two different camps.
Strictly reading the book you connect your smartgun system like this:
SR5 p. 433 Smartgun Systems
The smartgun features are accessed either by universal access port cable to an imaging device (like glasses, goggles, or a datajack for someone with cybereyes) or by a wireless connection working in concert with direct neural interface.
Strictly reading the above does not give much leeway to connect in any other configuration. If you have an internal smartlink it is either with a wire to your datajack or wireless working in concert with trodes or internal datajack/commlink/cyberdeck. There might or might not be other configurations, like a cable directly into your eye, but strictly reading I would say no.
-
Xenon, SlowDeck, I can see your points but I'd rather not hijack this thread further.
Original thread is here for further discussion: http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16188.msg286667#msg286667 My part begins at reply #97.
Suffice to say, multiple people (including yourselves) had multiple viewpoints. Also, realistically, the argument is broader than just cybereyes/smartlink.
-
:-[
Sorry for the derail, Michael.
-
So that topic would be the link for multiple controverses then. Thanks for the link. :)
-
Michael, I love your post. This is the kind of thing that I was hoping to get to with the Glossary post I started, but I simply found that it was too difficult for me to keep up with all the terms and items that needed definition. Hopefully you will carry this torch, starting with this thread. Awesome work.
-
Something that bears differentiating is how splitting dice pools/modifiers for multiple spell casts is different than splitting pools for multiple gunshooting.
-
One thing I'd add; the weird little wrinkles in Lifestyles. These always surprise me. The two I've discovered:
-If you have Low lifestyle or lower, all your actions take place on the public grid. This means all your Matrix actions (including data search) take a -2 penalty unless you hop grids.
-If you have a Squatter lifestyle or lower, you can't have a bank account! It's credsticks only. Don't get mugged!
Just adding on to that.
You should know which grid you’re using, but unless you’ve bought an upgrade, your grid is dictated by your lifestyle
Yet no where can I seem to find how to buy an upgrade.
-
I imagine that will be in Run Faster. Core book refers to future rules here and there. I'll add it to the houserule section though, just like Lifestyle upgrade for Allergies. The base line is based on Runner's Companion, where each Lifestyle part is 20%. Since both food and your matrix connections are only part of a part, and we're not making assumptions on the advanced Lifestyle system for now, I mentioned 10% of the other Lifestyle as possible extra cost. So to avoid an Allergy you'd be paying 10kx10%=1k extra, on top of whatever Lifestyle you have.
Yeah, Namikaze, I decided I couldn't handle the glossary. Now I find myself frequently, but not always, mentioning the counter-arguments to my own opinion on a matter, which is why a controverses list sounded like a better idea to me than trying to fully argue what the definition should be. Helps them make their own call, which also depends on table preference.
It's also interesting how I constantly keep running into new "oh right, we decided that was X but it wasn't clear at first" issues all the time, expanding the list here and there. ^_^
Current list, let me know if I missed something someone posted here, or you got something to add. I'll work on some more of the actual info list soon.
Easily missed rules & mistakes:
- 1 Attack Action per IP
- Stun damage is still resisted by Body+modified Armor
- BDA/Lacing do not boost actual Body
- Augmented Maximum
- Sustaining Range
- Resting & Sustaining
- Accumulative Recoil
- Quick Healer
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- Power Foci & Magic
- Initiation & Magic Points
- Initiation/Submersion at Chargen
- Physical vs Stun Damage: modDV>=modArm, not modDV>modArm
- Immunity To Normal Weapons working exactly as normal Hardened Armor
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- AoE Defense
- Martial Arts
- Maximum DV of Called Shots
- Lifestyle consequences
- Priority & Magic
- Priority & SAPs
- Second Skin
- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
- Background Count
- Essence Holes
- Training Times
- 'Spell' slots
- Cyberlimbs
- Oversummoning & Edge
* Addiction
* Weapon Slots/Mods
- Attack Action: Multiple
- Losing spells on off
Controversial matters:
- Chargen order & Freebie points
- Initiative boosting
- Simple Actions vs Free Actions
- Drone Actions: Gunnery Simple & Vehicle Skill Tests?
- Drone Movement
- Gunnery+Rigging
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
- HotSim Bonus & Control Device (Gunnery and such)
- Fake Licenses
- Street Cred
- Connection
- Object Resistance Drones vs Illusions
- Contact Preparations
- Master/Slave & Unattended
- Katana 2handed
- Custom Fit (Stack)
- Bullseye Doubletap / Burst
- Diagnostics
- Electric vs Vehicles
- Integral weapon modifications
- Multicasting Spells
- DNI, UDC, and all that stuff
Possible houserules:
- Accumulative Recoil
- Noise
- Mystic Adept Power Points (chargen, after chargen, augmentations)
- Vehicles: Repair Costs, Hardened Armor
- Addiction
- Cyberlimbs: restrictions & adjustments
- Oversummoning & Edge
- Karma<->Nuyen
- Strength Boost
- Initiation/Submersion at chargen
- Lifestyle for Grid/Allergies
-
Shock gloves and stun batons don't stage damage with net hits when used for a touch attack.
-
How do PANs and personae combine?
What is the standard sensorarray of a drone?
Can you upgrade/enhance sensors?
Can you upgrade/enhance armor?
Movement power of spirits
And for houserules:
Cars that can go with the speed of light.
Size modifiers for drone sneaking.
-
and don't get me started on the word "programs" :o
The book call the Auto pilot for the "Pilot Program"
On quite a few pages actually.
Even got it's own paragraph named Pilot Programs
...we are told that the Pilot Program can be disabled.
if someone has disabled the Pilot program or the vehicle does not have one...
Vehicles being controlled by GridGuide or an autonav system are considered under the control of their Pilot program...
An agent is about as smart as a pilot program of the same rating
Autopilot requires that the device have a pilot program, which most vehicles and drones do.
A pilot program is specific to the device it’s in.
Pilot program must make a Device Rating x 2 Test against a threshold set by...
Its Pilot program is a step above most drones in its class.
(p. 202 Actions, p. 246 Agents, p. 265 Complete Control, p. 269 Pilot Programs, p. 466 Small Drones)
Now we look at SR5 p. 238 Crash Program
You overload part of your target’s memory and scramble one of its running programs. You need to specify which program you’re trying to crash; you can learn what your target is running either with a Matrix Perception action or by observing the program in action. If you succeed, the program is scrambled: it ends and cannot be restarted until the device it was running on is rebooted.
By RAW it seem as if you are free to target the Pilot Program running on the Drone.
RAI might or might be that Crash Program can only be used against Cyberprograms.
...and if you push this way of thinking to 11 ;)
Can you use Crash Program to get rid of the Attack Rating of a cyberdeck until it reboot?
SR5 p. 228 Bricking Example
...The base DV of the attack is 5 Matrix damage (since it’s an Attack 5 program)...
SR5 p. 239 Data Spike
Your attack has a Damage Value equal to the rating of your Attack program...
SR5 p. 239 Erase Mark
You roll your Computer + Logic (with your Attack program rating as the limit)...
(and Files are not cyberprograms, a file is: A program or set of data that is collected as a single package; this runs the gamut from annual reports and kitten videos to autosofts and Attack programs (p. 215), does mean you can or cannot use Crash Program to scramble a music file playing on a commlink....)
Food for thought :)
-
(and Files are not cyberprograms, a file is: A program or set of data that is collected as a single package; this runs the gamut from annual reports and kitten videos to autosofts and Attack programs (p. 215), does mean you can or cannot use Crash Program to scramble a music file playing on a commlink....)
Wouldn't the crash program target the music player reading the music file?
Aren't auto-softs and attack programs cyber-programs? A program can be a file, but a file might not be a program.
-
Current list, let me know if I missed something someone posted here, or you got something to add. I'll work on some more of the actual info list soon.
I have encountered one more yesterday during my campaign.
Free-Fall (Body)
This skill covers any jump from height, including leaps
from a third-floor window** to jumps from a plane at high
altitude. If it involves any kind of attempt to slow or control
your fall, this covers it, so it includes skydiving with
a parachute, flying a wingsuit, or descending on a line,
bungee cord, or zipline.
Default: Yes
Skill Group: None
Specializations: BASE Jumping, Break-Fall, Bungee,
HALO, Low Altitude, Parachute, Static Line, Wingsuit,
Zipline
** One of my player did exactly that and we found out there isnt any rules in the book for doing that. The only use for free fall is "Rappelling" but is not the same thing because Rapelling is gear dependent and the description of rapelling is not the same and the use of body for that is iffy
for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lczsyJ3WC9Q what happens here at 0:50 which is a pretty common occurrence in SR as there is the adept power light body that seems geared towards that kind of action. But it seems that breaking a fall without gear would be more a question of Agility than body.
-
Here's the first draft, still incomplete. If you think anything is missing, please note it in the other topic.
Attributes:
Augmentations
- Augmented Maximum: p94: This is your natural (unboosted) Attribute value + 4, NOT your racial maximum + 4. Note that this limit only applies to Augmentations ('Ware), and anything else that actively states they obey Augmented Maximum, like the magical abilities/spells that raise Attributes. This means that Drugs, by confirmed developer intent, ignore it.
This one i dont get it. Is this a errata?
I have seen that people have taken page 94 as the rules for Augmented maximun even though the wording and the place have problems.
Keep in mind there are three restrictions* when it
comes to purchasing gear. First, when purchasing augmentations**
such as cyberware and bioware, each attribute
rating (Mental and Physical) can only receive an
augmentation bonus of up to +4. If the attribute being
raised has not reached its natural maximum limit, the
attribute can be raised naturally with Karma; but at no
point can augmentations exceed the +4 bonus cap. The
second restriction is that at normal character creation,
characters are restricted to a maximum Availability rating
of 12 and a device rating of 6. After character creation,
characters may be able to acquire gear that has a
higher Availability (p. 416) and a higher device rating.
Finally, all gear is subject to gamemaster approval, even
if the gear falls within these restrictions.
* Problem with this is that this rules are for Character creation and it talks about 3 restrictions which while number 3 is universal number 2 dissappears as soon as the game start.
** And because it said augmentations. And never mention limits wouldnt that mean i could for example make an adept with 7 power points and raise in 7 my magic?
As for that "errata" im confused as to what does that mean? Lets say i have a vanilla humans A:
Human A starts the game with 3 in body so would his augmented maximun would be? 7 or "up to 7"?
If it were 7 that would mean i could put during play up to 7 point of attributes with ware/magic for a total of 10
If it were "up to 7" that would mean that i could put during play up to 4 points of attributes with ware/magic for a total of 7.
And if i were to spend karma to raise the body of human A to 4 does that mean the augmented maximun also goes up?
Im confuse as to why there isnt the usual static number for augmented maximun of SR4, it seem more simpler and straigh foward :/
-
** One of my player did exactly that and we found out there isnt any rules in the book for doing that.
Page 133 of the core rulebook, from the section describing Free Fall:
If it involves any kind of attempt to slow or control your fall, this covers it, so it includes skydiving with a parachute, flying a wingsuit, or descending on a line, bungee cord, or zipline.
I assume the character in question is not using any sort of attempt to slow or control his fall in the ways described. Therefore, this becomes the relevant section:
Page 172 of the core rulebook:
Falling Damage
When a character falls more than three meters, he takes Physical damage with a DV equal to the number of meters fallen, with an AP of –4. Use Body + Armor to resist this damage. The gamemaster should feel free to modify the damage to reflect a softer landing surface (sand), branches to break the fall, and so on. Falling characters drop 50 meters in the first Combat Turn, 150 meters in the second Combat Turn, and 200 meters every Combat Turn after that. Terminal velocity for a falling body is about 200 meters per turn.
So if your player is jumping out of a third-story window, you can estimate 3.5 meters per story, giving you 10.5 meters (round up to 11). That means that he needs to resist 11P damage with -4 AP. Ouch.
If you're just falling, there's no skill in the world that will make you not take damage. Unless you have a specific martial art technique affiliated with the Parkour martial art. Or if you're an adept with Light Body. And for the record, if you're using the Rolling Cloud technique to lessen the damage you take, you still have to resist the damage with Body. It's just assumed you automatically lessen the damage by 1 DV.
As for that "errata" im confused as to what does that mean? Lets say i have a vanilla humans A:
Human A starts the game with 3 in body so would his augmented maximun would be? 7 or "up to 7"?
It would be 7. You take your base attribute value and add 4 to it. That's the maximum attribute value that you can achieve with augmentations.
If it were 7 that would mean i could put during play up to 7 point of attributes with ware/magic for a total of 10
What? No. You are overthinking this WAY too much. Your maximum value for that attribute is 7. Hence the term "augmented maximum."
-
Here's one for the list (possibly for both mistakes and houserules):
How many charges does a taser hold?
-
So if your player is jumping out of a third-story window, you can estimate 3.5 meters per story, giving you 10.5 meters (round up to 11). That means that he needs to resist 11P damage with -4 AP. Ouch.
If you're just falling, there's no skill in the world that will make you not take damage. Unless you have a specific martial art technique affiliated with the Parkour martial art. Or if you're an adept with Light Body. And for the record, if you're using the Rolling Cloud technique to lessen the damage you take, you still have to resist the damage with Body. It's just assumed you automatically lessen the damage by 1 DV.
So by that logic a elf who world wide expert at parkour with agility 11 and gymnastic 6 would be worse at breaking a fall than a troll with body 10 who fall flat face on the ground. And a person who just started parkour (and has only rolling cloud) has as much mastery as breaking a fall than said master of parkour. And even though than gymnastic has a parkour speciallity it really doesnt factor in any way possible.
Yesterday i house rule that the character made a rapelling test (ignoring the equipment requirement) and every net hit after 2 reduce the distance. So he got 5 net hits (with edge) and the distance from the 3 floor to the ground was 10 meter - 5 (for the net hits) and he had light body 2 so his safe distance fall was five and so he take no damage.
And it still that house rule doesnt account for gymnastic which should be a pretty central part of breaking a fall.
It would be 7. You take your base attribute value and add 4 to it. That's the maximum attribute value that you can achieve with augmentations.
Ah ok, just checking to make sure.
-
So by that logic a elf who world wide expert at parkour with agility 11 and gymnastic 6 would be worse at breaking a fall than a troll with body 10 who fall flat face on the ground. And a person who just started parkour (and has only rolling cloud) has as much mastery as breaking a fall than said master of parkour. And even though than gymnastic has a parkour speciallity it really doesnt factor in any way possible.
Yesterday i house rule that the character made a rapelling test (ignoring the equipment requirement) and every net hit after 2 reduce the distance. So he got 5 net hits (with edge) and the distance from the 3 floor to the ground was 10 meter - 5 (for the net hits) and he had light body 2 so his safe distance fall was five and so he take no damage.
And it still that house rule doesnt account for gymnastic which should be a pretty central part of breaking a fall.
All true. After having some discussions with one of the developers of the martial arts, it appears that there was some decision-making about how to handle the rules for the new techniques, especially with regards to the Rolling Cloud, Leaping Mantis, and Monkey Climb techniques. Some developers wanted to have a skill check involved in the process of using the techniques, others were against that idea. It appears the latter group won the argument.
I believe part of the confusion and frustration is clearly illustrated on page 134, wherein Rappelling and Climbing Failures and Glitches are both described as affiliated with Gymnastics skill, despite neither section talking about Gymnastics. They're both Free-fall related sections.
The reason why a troll can survive that fall better than an elf is straightforward enough: the troll is tougher. Falling 10 meters straight down... you're not likely to walk away unharmed no matter how much you can roll forward to help disperse the kinetic energy of the fall. At a certain point, there's no saving yourself.
This article (http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Long-Fall) actually does a pretty good job of explaining what I mean. The rules allow you to try to grab objects, and you can easily rule a fall being broken into smaller parts by simply making the falling person take damage at multiple points in smaller chunks. If you're falling 10 meters, you take 10 points of damage. If you're falling 2 meters 5 times, odds are really good you can resist the 2 points of damage often enough to be unscathed.
If you fall straight down 10 meters, you're going to hurt yourself. Plain and simple.
-
Couldn't you use free fall to land on a softer surface than the pile of bricks nearby?
Use free fall to hit the ledge 3 stories down instead of falling the remaining 20 stories to the ground.
While unlikely, its possible to use an uneven wall, or a tree to slow your fall from a great height, enough to walk away uninjured.
This article actually does a pretty good job of explaining what I mean. The rules allow you to try to grab objects, and you can easily rule a fall being broken into smaller parts by simply making the falling person take damage at multiple points in smaller chunks. If you're falling 10 meters, you take 10 points of damage. If you're falling 2 meters 5 times, odds are really good you can resist the 2 points of damage often enough to be unscathed.
Agreed.
-
Couldn't you use free fall to land on a softer surface than the pile of bricks nearby?
That's an interesting point. I think it would have to be ruled on a case-by-case basis. If you've got time to allow your body to glide on the wind and such, then sure. If not... splat.
-
This brings up an interesting question...
Can you use grapple rules while falling to position something, such as the dwarf teammate who got you into this mess, that is falling with you so you can have a soft landing?
-
Can you use grapple rules while falling to position something, such as the dwarf teammate who got you into this mess, that is falling with you so you can have a soft landing?
Can you define the situation a bit more specifically? Are you saying that while falling you want to shoot a grapple gun at the dwarf friend that got you in this mess? Or do you mean that while falling in tandem, you want to position yourself so that you and the concrete are the bread, and the dwarf is the meat?
-
Can you use grapple rules while falling to position something, such as the dwarf teammate who got you into this mess, that is falling with you so you can have a soft landing?
Can you define the situation a bit more specifically? Are you saying that while falling you want to shoot a grapple gun at the dwarf friend that got you in this mess? Or do you mean that while falling in tandem, you want to position yourself so that you and the concrete are the bread, and the dwarf is the meat?
The second one ;D
-
Probably use something like a grqpple roll at a serious minus since there is nothing to brace on, and your strength plus successes have to exceed their physical limit. Similar to throw person, just with some hefty penalties for being in midair
-
Yeah that's an awfully specific outside edge case. I'd say whoever wins the test of Unarmed Combat + Strength (no point in Agility here) can get the other person to the bottom. This goes back and forth until you hit the ground. Good luck.
-
Here's the first draft, still incomplete. If you think anything is missing, please note it in the other topic.
Attributes:
Augmentations
- Augmented Maximum: p94: This is your natural (unboosted) Attribute value + 4, NOT your racial maximum + 4. Note that this limit only applies to Augmentations ('Ware), and anything else that actively states they obey Augmented Maximum, like the magical abilities/spells that raise Attributes. This means that Drugs, by confirmed developer intent, ignore it.
This one i dont get it. Is this a errata?
I have seen that people have taken page 94 as the rules for Augmented maximun even though the wording and the place have problems.
Keep in mind there are three restrictions* when it
comes to purchasing gear. First, when purchasing augmentations**
such as cyberware and bioware, each attribute
rating (Mental and Physical) can only receive an
augmentation bonus of up to +4. If the attribute being
raised has not reached its natural maximum limit, the
attribute can be raised naturally with Karma; but at no
point can augmentations exceed the +4 bonus cap. The
second restriction is that at normal character creation,
characters are restricted to a maximum Availability rating
of 12 and a device rating of 6. After character creation,
characters may be able to acquire gear that has a
higher Availability (p. 416) and a higher device rating.
Finally, all gear is subject to gamemaster approval, even
if the gear falls within these restrictions.
* Problem with this is that this rules are for Character creation and it talks about 3 restrictions which while number 3 is universal number 2 dissappears as soon as the game start.
** And because it said augmentations. And never mention limits wouldnt that mean i could for example make an adept with 7 power points and raise in 7 my magic?
As for that "errata" im confused as to what does that mean? Lets say i have a vanilla humans A:
Human A starts the game with 3 in body so would his augmented maximun would be? 7 or "up to 7"?
If it were 7 that would mean i could put during play up to 7 point of attributes with ware/magic for a total of 10
If it were "up to 7" that would mean that i could put during play up to 4 points of attributes with ware/magic for a total of 7.
And if i were to spend karma to raise the body of human A to 4 does that mean the augmented maximun also goes up?
Im confuse as to why there isnt the usual static number for augmented maximun of SR4, it seem more simpler and straigh foward :/
Okay, what. Seriously, I really don't get what message you're trying to convey here.
Let's start with what I DO understand: No, Augmented Maximum is NOT only a chargen thing. Note that restriction 2 is stated to be during chargen, no such statement is made about Augmented Maximum.
Furthermore, I don't get why you're talking about taking ware and raising the total. It's quite clear: You take your NATURAL value, add 4, and that's your Augmented Maximum. So a Street Sam with 5 Strength has 9 as Augmented Maximum. If he has 5(6) Body due to Suprathyroid Gland, the Increase Body spell has to be cast at Force 6+ and can only give him 3 more points to the Augmented Maximum of 5(9).
And yes, that means raising your NATURAL value with karma means the Augmented Maximum goes up. That kinda is the idea of Natural value.
By the way, I disagree with your simpler-statement. NV+4 is much easier than RacialMax*1.5. Especially since it avoids the whole "I got 5 Agility and Muscle Toner 4, so there's no need to raise my Agility to 6 since 9 is my max anyway".
As for the freefalling, if you're rappelling fast by rope it'd help.
One more for the Controverses: Edge & Actions. (Can you use Edge on rolls resulting from an initial edged roll.)
-
Okay, what. Seriously, I really don't get what message you're trying to convey here.
Let's start with what I DO understand: No, Augmented Maximum is NOT only a chargen thing. Note that restriction 2 is stated to be during chargen, no such statement is made about Augmented Maximum.
Furthermore, I don't get why you're talking about taking ware and raising the total. It's quite clear: You take your NATURAL value, add 4, and that's your Augmented Maximum. So a Street Sam with 5 Strength has 9 as Augmented Maximum. If he has 5(6) Body due to Suprathyroid Gland, the Increase Body spell has to be cast at Force 6+ and can only give him 3 more points to the Augmented Maximum of 5(9).
And yes, that means raising your NATURAL value with karma means the Augmented Maximum goes up. That kinda is the idea of Natural value.
By the way, I disagree with your simpler-statement. NV+4 is much easier than RacialMax*1.5. Especially since it avoids the whole "I got 5 Agility and Muscle Toner 4, so there's no need to raise my Agility to 6 since 9 is my max anyway".
As for the freefalling, if you're rappelling fast by rope it'd help.
One more for the Controverses: Edge & Actions. (Can you use Edge on rolls resulting from an initial edged roll.)
The first part was my confusion as to why people keep marking page 94 as the rule for augmented maximum
My confusion came when i look up Augmented maximum people send me to page 94. And the section is in Chargen in the same "group" as a rule that dissapears after Chargen (the rule being the limitation of availability) and say rule only talks about buying augmentation not adept powers. So now i get that that what you put is an errata and is now the replacement of the rule.
The other part was me asking how the new rule worked as the number is no longer static but instead it depends on the natural attribute.
i get what you say about the new rule being better than the static number in SR4, didnt though of that. However one friend pointed out that a cyber arm now is worse than muscle toner because you could get a +4 with while the limit of a cyber arm is +3 so a metal arm has less potential strength than a meat muscles.
All true. After having some discussions with one of the developers of the martial arts, it appears that there was some decision-making about how to handle the rules for the new techniques, especially with regards to the Rolling Cloud, Leaping Mantis, and Monkey Climb techniques. Some developers wanted to have a skill check involved in the process of using the techniques, others were against that idea. It appears the latter group won the argument.
I believe part of the confusion and frustration is clearly illustrated on page 134, wherein Rappelling and Climbing Failures and Glitches are both described as affiliated with Gymnastics skill, despite neither section talking about Gymnastics. They're both Free-fall related sections.
The reason why a troll can survive that fall better than an elf is straightforward enough: the troll is tougher. Falling 10 meters straight down... you're not likely to walk away unharmed no matter how much you can roll forward to help disperse the kinetic energy of the fall. At a certain point, there's no saving yourself.
This article (http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Long-Fall) actually does a pretty good job of explaining what I mean. The rules allow you to try to grab objects, and you can easily rule a fall being broken into smaller parts by simply making the falling person take damage at multiple points in smaller chunks. If you're falling 10 meters, you take 10 points of damage. If you're falling 2 meters 5 times, odds are really good you can resist the 2 points of damage often enough to be unscathed.
If you fall straight down 10 meters, you're going to hurt yourself. Plain and simple.
i agreed, falling straigh down 10 meters should be resisted with body. But like the player in my game said "are you saying i have 10 in Agi and 6 in gymnastic with a parkour specialization and there is nothing i can do to avoid getting hurt? Can grab a ledge or roll in the propper way or anything? So i basically i just waste 16 points + 1 specialization"
So basically the falls short in that one and i have to make my own rules for that one.
For what is worth my idea for that one is gonna be:
Breaking fall test: Agi + Gymnastic (3) [physical] Complex action or a simple action with Agi + Gymnastic [physical]
Every net hit reduces the falling distance in a 1 for 1 basis.
If the player use the simple action optio and the distance shortened is more than safe distance of the character then he has to resist the distance as falling damage. On a glitch you fall half the total distance and resist damage and make an Agi + Gymnastic (5) [physical] or fall the entire distance.
On a critical glitch you fall the entire distance and resist damage.
For example a character jump from a 3rd floor with a lets say distance of 15 meters. He has light body 2 so his safe distance is 5 instead of the usual 3.
He falls and makes the breaking fall test as a complex action and get 3 net hits so he reduces the fall to 12 meters. Then he gets sees the guy he is chasing running away and decides to speed the process and makes the roll as a simple action and get 7 successes so he descends 7 meters which is 2 more than his safe distance (of 5) so he has to save 7 DV with AP -4. He resist and now he has still 5 meters to fall but as that is inside his safe range he falls those last 5 without a problem.
This rule is subjected to the possibility of the PC being able to break fall.
-
The first part was my confusion as to why people keep marking page 94 as the rule for augmented maximum
My confusion came when i look up Augmented maximum people send me to page 94. And the section is in Chargen in the same "group" as a rule that dissapears after Chargen (the rule being the limitation of availability) and say rule only talks about buying augmentation not adept powers. So now i get that that what you put is an errata and is now the replacement of the rule.
i get what you say about the new rule being better than the static number in SR4, didnt though of that. However one friend pointed out that a cyber arm now is worse than muscle toner because you could get a +4 with while the limit of a cyber arm is +3 so a metal arm has less potential strength than a meat muscles.
It's not an errata.
The other rule is actively labelled as going away after chargen, so this rule doesn't have that consequence.
The rule is exactly as it stands at page 94: Augmented Maximum is Natural Value +4. This value is obeyed by Augmentations, as page 94 notes, and anything else that actively states it follows it, which those things refer to and not page 94. Some Adept Powers and Spells state they obey Augmented Maximum, which is Natural Value +4 max, and as such they follow it. Anything non-ware that does NOT state it follows it, won't follow it. So the statement in question is not an errata'd version of page 94, it simply combines page 94 with the descriptions of the magical boosts and developer explanation about drugs.
As for your friend, he's wrong. Cyberarms do NOT follow Augmented Maximum. That clarification is on the future list, under easily missed rules and under houserules. So short version is that a Cyberlimb caps at Natural Maximum + 3, while Augmentations cap at Natural Current Value + 4, which may be more or less or the same. Potential is less, but actual current maximum is more for some builds.
-
The rule is exactly as it stands at page 94: Augmented Maximum is Natural Value +4. This value is obeyed by Augmentations, as page 94 notes, and anything else that actively states it follows it, which those things refer to and not page 94. Some Adept Powers and Spells state they obey Augmented Maximum, which is Natural Value +4 max, and as such they follow it. Anything non-ware that does NOT state it follows it, won't follow it. So the statement in question is not an errata'd version of page 94, it simply combines page 94 with the descriptions of the magical boosts and developer explanation about drugs.
It is possible im having a bad print of the book? Because i run a find in the PDF and my print copy and never found the term Augmente Maximun
This is the rule that i have:
Keep in mind there are three restrictions when it
comes to purchasing gear. First, when purchasing augmentations
such as cyberware and bioware, each attribute
rating (Mental and Physical) can only receive an
augmentation bonus of up to +4. If the attribute being
raised has not reached its natural maximum limit, the
attribute can be raised naturally with Karma; but at no
point can augmentations exceed the +4 bonus cap.
But as written it doesn't refer to augmented maximum in any place. I get that what you put is the correct interpretation but how is that not an errata? The core rulebook makes reference to a term that doesn't get a definition or better said doesnt exist in the book (for example the adept powers). You posted a definition of said term. that isnt an errata? :-\
As for your friend, he's wrong. Cyberarms do NOT follow Augmented Maximum. That clarification is on the future list, under easily missed rules and under houserules. So short version is that a Cyberlimb caps at Natural Maximum + 3, while Augmentations cap at Natural Current Value + 4, which may be more or less or the same. Potential is less, but actual current maximum is more for some builds.
im confused by this one. a human can have an arm with a maximun agility of 9 because i can customize it to 6 because anything more would render it unusable. But them i could only up to +3 with cyberlimb enhancement which is the maximum one can upgrade the limb (page 457) so i would end up with agility in one arm to its maximun of 9
on the other hand
augmentation caps at natural current value + 4. So if start with 6 in agility and put +4 with muscle toner and get total of 10 to agility.
So how is the metal arm potentially better than the muscle toner? Did i miss something? :-[
-
The rule is exactly as it stands at page 94: Augmented Maximum is Natural Value +4. This value is obeyed by Augmentations, as page 94 notes, and anything else that actively states it follows it, which those things refer to and not page 94. Some Adept Powers and Spells state they obey Augmented Maximum, which is Natural Value +4 max, and as such they follow it. Anything non-ware that does NOT state it follows it, won't follow it. So the statement in question is not an errata'd version of page 94, it simply combines page 94 with the descriptions of the magical boosts and developer explanation about drugs.
It is possible im having a bad print of the book? Because i run a find in the PDF and my print copy and never found the term Augmente Maximun
This is the rule that i have:
Keep in mind there are three restrictions when it
comes to purchasing gear. First, when purchasing augmentations
such as cyberware and bioware, each attribute
rating (Mental and Physical) can only receive an
augmentation bonus of up to +4. If the attribute being
raised has not reached its natural maximum limit, the
attribute can be raised naturally with Karma; but at no
point can augmentations exceed the +4 bonus cap.
But as written it doesn't refer to augmented maximum in any place. I get that what you put is the correct interpretation but how is that not an errata? The core rulebook makes reference to a term that doesn't get a definition or better said doesnt exist in the book (for example the adept powers). You posted a definition of said term. that isnt an errata? :-\
I bolded the part that deals with the augmented maximum.
It confused me as well until he pointed out which page.
-
Yeah that's an awfully specific outside edge case. I'd say whoever wins the test of Unarmed Combat + Strength (no point in Agility here) can get the other person to the bottom. This goes back and forth until you hit the ground. Good luck.
Probably use something like a grapple roll at a serious minus since there is nothing to brace on, and your strength plus successes have to exceed their physical limit. Similar to throw person, just with some hefty penalties for being in midair
Sounds like a good way to go with this.
Not sure if I use any minuses, although certain martial techniques would help. It seems better if it was on opposed test.
Although I allow a gymnastics test to add dice to the Unarmed Combat roll as part of gymnastics is knowing where the ground is enough to help you land properly. "Ground sense" as I've heard it called can be enough to change it from a good landing to almost landing on your feet and falling down (or worse your head). It seems like it might be obvious but with all the spinning, flipping, and twisting in the relatively short amount of time you might be airborne can cause you to lose track just long enough to cause a concussion. Especially if during a good part of the time your falling you panic.
-
Shock gloves and stun batons don't stage damage with net hits when used for a touch attack.
Incorrect. In the other thread you were citing an optional action for a touch attack with shock gloves. Standard action (without the +2 dice) you certainly do get net hits added to DV, same as any other weapon.
I think this should be one of "easily missed rules" though, as it seems several people say that action and got similarly confused.
-
that isnt an errata? :-\
Given how I have absolutely zero rights to make any official statement about the rules, yes, it isn't an errata. Now there's some spells refering to Augmented Maximum, and people familiar with the earlier editions are looking for the number, so refering to it as such seems like the best idea, even if page 94 doesn't call it that.
As for the cyberlimb: Yes, if you have 6 Agility, Ware caps you at 10. What about if you have 3? Like I said: "Potential is less, but actual current maximum is more for some builds."
Sir_Prom, I'm adding it to the controverses, since the rules are far from clear on the matter. It can be read both ways, unfortunately.
-
You're going to have to explain to me how it can be read both ways. "touch Only attack", which is an optional action, pg. 124, Run & gun, is quite clear on both the advantages and disadvantages: It gives you +2 dice, and you don't get net hits added to DV. There is nothing ambiguous there.
-
It gives you +2 dice AND a hold. The entire section starts with talking about establishing a hold, and mentions that if you got one with weapons X and Y you can use them without nethit advantage as well.
So controverse.
-
Given how I have absolutely zero rights to make any official statement about the rules, yes, it isn't an errata. Now there's some spells refering to Augmented Maximum, and people familiar with the earlier editions are looking for the number, so refering to it as such seems like the best idea, even if page 94 doesn't call it that.
Ah ok, sorry my fault i though this was like an official statement :-[
As for the cyberlimb: Yes, if you have 6 Agility, Ware caps you at 10. What about if you have 3? Like I said: "Potential is less, but actual current maximum is more for some builds."
So the cyberlimb would be better in the short term than muscle toner. Got it :)
-
It gives you +2 dice AND a hold. The entire section starts with talking about establishing a hold, and mentions that if you got one with weapons X and Y you can use them without nethit advantage as well.
So controverse.
NO, it doesn't? The touch attack says it makes you more susceptible to a hold.
-
Sigh... I meant make contact. The rules don't actually talk about hold, but I can understand why you're getting confused, despite my intent being quite clear.
-
Well, at the moment, it looks like you're reading a lot into only small of flavor text. The first paragraph of the side bar on pg 140 of run& gun is flavor text. But Pg.124 is hard rules. The rules are super-clear. If you insist on claiming there is a "controversy", you're going to have to explain very precisely why you think so.
-
I AM talking about page 124. I never even looked at 140. I clearly was describing the paragraphs on page 124, with making contact and such. You're the one that insists on not believing I'm reading the same rules, even though I'm clearly pointing at them.
As for the explanations: Do you really want me to go into that NOW? Here? Or are you going to start a topic about it for people to argue in? Or perhaps, which I much prefer, you could wait until the Controverses topic is made and look at the short summary there.
-
Well, I don't think it should be in the controversies section, it's not controversial.
Ok, great, PG. 124 only. It's super clear, that's an optional action. You can choose to use these weapons as a touch-only attack, which then follows all the touch-only rules (+2 to hit, ties go to attacker) and then you can't stage damage. THe default is a normal attack, where you do stage damage.
What on pg 124 makes you think you can't stage damage most of the time?
-
If you want him to ever actually finish the list, something he has no obligation to do, you might want to adjust your tone just a scooch. You're being awfully combative about this whole thing.
-
Well, he seems to be one of a very small minority who thinks it's unclear.
I appreciate him putting together this list. It's a good work. Doesn't mean this should be listed as controversial. It's not.
-
The fact that you're arguing with him about this in two separate threads tells me that this is controversial.
-
Well, I don't think it should be in the controversies section, it's not controversial.
You don't think so, yes. And you know what? A significant part of the controverses list I have a clear personal opinion on. But I do not feel like pretending it isn't a matter with serious debates attached to it. These topics aren't meant to be tainted by personal preference, I mean them to be a useful tool, including BOTH sides of some debates shortly described, even when I already picked my side and will never budge on it. Hell, I'm even going to include houserules that I personally think nobody should ever take, since some tables do consider them nice.
I don't care about whether I agree or disagree with you on something, but if you start suggesting I exclude debates from the list purely because you already have decided where you stand on them, I'm going to ask you to get out of my topic. Debates are for their own topics, this topic is about establishing what we want to include because people easily miss them or get confused on them.
-
I don't care about whether I agree or disagree with you on something, but if you start suggesting I exclude debates from the list purely because you already have decided where you stand on them, I'm going to ask you to get out of my topic. Debates are for their own topics, this topic is about establishing what we want to include because people easily miss them or get confused on them.
I agree, and to help keep this thread form becoming 50+ pages, it might be helpful that anyone who believes that a topic of discussion will become longer than just a few posts start a new thread, and reference it in their last post here on the subject. The conclusion of which or a link there-of (if their is a definite consensus) can be posted back here. I would allow Micheal Chandra to determine when that condition is reached.
-
Well, as you pointed it out in the other thread, it's possible that we didn't actually disagree.....meaning almost no one holds the opposite position.
-
Except that the "opposite" position you're talking about isn't the reason why I'm putting it in the controversies list, and I already stated what the actual position is a few times. So yes, please keep the debates to the topics where they belong, and don't jump the gun like this.
-
Pretty sure the list is still incomplete and that I keep remembering stuff to put on there, then forgetting later.
Should Resting&Sustaining be moved to Controversies, since it includes when you can rest while sustaining a spell?
Easily missed rules & mistakes:
- 1 Attack Action per IP
- Stun damage is still resisted by Body+modified Armor
- BDA/Lacing do not boost actual Body
- Augmented Maximum
- Sustaining Range
- Resting & Sustaining
- Accumulative Recoil
- Quick Healer
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- Power Foci & Magic
- Initiation & Magic Points
- Initiation/Submersion at Chargen
- Physical vs Stun Damage: modDV>=modArm, not modDV>modArm
- Immunity To Normal Weapons working exactly as normal Hardened Armor
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- AoE Defense
- Martial Arts
- Maximum DV of Called Shots
- Lifestyle consequences
- Priority & Magic
- Priority & SAPs
- Second Skin
- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
- Background Count
- Essence Holes
- Training Times
- 'Spell' slots
- Cyberlimbs
- Oversummoning & Edge
* Addiction
* Weapon Slots/Mods
- Attack Action: Multiple
- Losing spells on off
- Cyberware 'Upgrades'
- Control Rigs & Speed
- Taser Charges
Controversial matters:
- Chargen order & Freebie points
- Initiative boosting
- Simple Actions vs Free Actions
- Drone Actions: Gunnery Simple & Vehicle Skill Tests?
- Drone Movement
- Gunnery+Rigging
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
- HotSim Bonus & Control Device (Gunnery and such)
- Fake Licenses
- Street Cred
- Connection
- Object Resistance Drones vs Illusions
- Contact Preparations
- Master/Slave & Unattended
- Katana 2handed
- Custom Fit (Stack)
- Bullseye Doubletap / Burst
- Diagnostics
- Electric vs Vehicles
- Integral weapon modifications
- Multicasting Spells
- DNI, UDC, and all that stuff
- Touch Attacks & Shock
- Pans&Personas
- Drone Sensor Arrays
- Sensor Enhancements
- Armor upgrading
- Movement Power
Possible houserules:
- Accumulative Recoil
- Noise
- Mystic Adept Power Points (chargen, after chargen, augmentations)
- Vehicles: Repair Costs, Hardened Armor
- Addiction
- Cyberlimbs: restrictions & adjustments
- Oversummoning & Edge
- Karma<->Nuyen
- Strength Boost
- Initiation/Submersion at chargen
- Lifestyle for Grid/Allergies
- Drone Sensor Arrays
- Drone Sneaking Size Modifiers
-
- Magic & Power Foci: Power Foci do not raise your actual Magic. All they do is give you a dicepool bonus on any test that includes the Magic attribute as part of the dicepool.
I am still curious as to the reasoning of this. It's just that considering the subtle shift away from some sr4 mechanics and back to SR3, by that I mean Going back to Priority chargen, going back to sr3 and prior style initiative, going away from the overpowered direct spells of sr4.. And the fact that unlike SR4, SR5 does say that Power Foci "temporarily increase your effective Magic rating" in a similar way to SR3 saying "It increases the owner’s Magic Attribute by its own Force for purposes of. . ." but it does not, like SR4, say "A power focus adds its Force to all tests in which the magician’s Magic is included."
I can see the ramifications, and the argument that SR3 magic did work differently than SR 4 and 5.. but in SR3, if spells were cast at a Force higher than the magic rating, they were physical drain instead of Stun. But on a side note, with the power shift down from sr4.. direct spells no longer doing Force + Net Hits, a slight power boost of allowed Force from a Power Foci does not seem out of line.
And then there is the fact that while asked about in the FAQ threat, it was never addressed. It was not addressed in the Errata. So, again, I am wondering just what leads to this line of thought that Power Foci are intended to work as they did in SR4, even though nothing in the book, nor from any errata indicates anything other than they are intended to work similarly to how they did in SR3 and prior editions.
-
In the past someone said Magic didn't determine physical vs stun, but that appears to have been a wrong statement. So I'll withdraw that part. There are, however, still significant differences in how dicepools are constructed and used.
Now, the only argument you have that there's no indication is that you're choosing to interpret "they add to your Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting dice pools" as different from "adds its Force". If you take a look at the SR4 vs SR5 descriptions, however, they are quite similar, so it just screams rewrite. If they had wanted to go back to the SR3 version, you'd expect them to state that explicitly, as I just confirmed the SR3 version directly did. They did not, so there is no plausible reason whatsoever to ever assume they deliberately went back to the SR3 functionality. In fact, the SR5 description is even LESS likely to be falsely explained as a direct Magic increase, because it talks about effective rather than feeding Magic, and uses "that means" in the explanation of how that works.
"Power foci are the most potent and treasured of all. Possession of a power focus feeds a magician’s Magic directly, making her e fforts more powerful in all forms of magical ability. A power focus adds its Force to all tests in which the magician’s Magic is included. A single power focus can increase a magician’s ability to cast spells, call on and control spirits, and bypass astral barriers."
"Power foci live up to their name. They are very powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective Magic rating. That means they add to your Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting dice pools, along with any other test where Magic is involved."
So no, I do not even consider this controversial at all. Designer Intent is VERY clear on the matter, and has been for nearly a decade now.
If you insist on turning this topic into a debate, I suggest you resurrect the topic on the matter instead. If you do so, please provide arguments as to why they'd go back to the SR3 version without actively stating so and without clarifying/errataing it.
-
Hey....I tried to, quite civilly, engage Michael on the subject of sock gloves and touch attacks via PM, rather than clutter up this thread. He apparently did not wish to do so, so I have to discuss it here.
In order for an inssue to be "controversial", it must have two sides. I thought both Michael and Kincaid were arguing that you cannot, normally, stage up the dmg of a shock glove or stun baton normally. It looks liek I may have been wrong about their position........which means no one was arguing that.
So some one help me out here? If this is controversial, what are the two sides?
-
While I made an exception to my ignore list for this topic, reading all posts made here even if they're from someone on that list, I'm afraid I will not be making this exception to anyone abusing the forum's e-mail function to continue harassment.
-
Prometheus, it's controversial because there are two sides. Look at this thread (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16496), which you have actually posted in, to see that there is controversy. If you disagree with Michael's decision to file the matter as controversial, then ... whatever. It's not like this topic is official or anything. It's one man's opinions as to where these easily missed rules go.
-
While I made an exception to my ignore list for this topic, reading all posts made here even if they're from someone on that list, I'm afraid I will not be making this exception to anyone abusing the forum's e-mail function to continue harassment.
Michael, I was just asking you to state your case -- which you never did -- and then you flipped out like a weirdo.
Prometheus, it's controversial because there are two sides. Look at this thread (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16496), which you have actually posted in, to see that there is controversy. If you disagree with Michael's decision to file the matter as controversial, then ... whatever. It's not like this topic is official or anything. It's one man's opinions as to where these easily missed rules go.
Namikaze...I started that thread. If you read further, it appears that no one was actually disagreeing about anything, I just misunderstood both Kincaid and Michael Chandra. Which mean there isn't two sides.
-
If you read further into that thread, you'll find there are two sides. In fact, there are lots of sides. Some people want to use shock gloves in conjunction with unarmed attacks. Some want to separate the two. Some want to have a hybrid of the two actions.
I don't get why it matters if Michael puts the subject under the controversy heading or not. Hmm... controversy over the term controversy!
-
I don't get why it matters if Michael puts the subject under the controversy heading or not. Hmm... controversy over the term controversy!
I am NOT adding that to the controversies list! There's a limit to how meta one can get.
-
I don't get why it matters if Michael puts the subject under the controversy heading or not. Hmm... controversy over the term controversy!
I am NOT adding that to the controversies list! There's a limit to how meta one can get.
That seems a controversial decision... :P
-
Don't you start as well! >:( ;D
-
Ok, whatever, I give up. It just seemed like there was (still seems) like a controversy got manufactured out of complete thin air. Michael -- I just wanted to talk about this with you via PM, instead of cluttering up your thread (like this) you acted like a complete weirdo about it.
-
Considering you apparently harassed him to the point where he told you he was blocking your email address, then decided to use a different email address, I'm pretty sure he isn't the weirdo here.
-
And I have one I would suggest adding as well; I've argued about it on here before and it came up last night during a face-to-face game.
Interactions between a Faraday Cage and wireless communication.
-
Considering you apparently harassed him to the point where he told you he was blocking your email address, then decided to use a different email address, I'm pretty sure he isn't the weirdo here.
Hey, look man, If you want the whole transcript, I can provide it. I basically said "please state the two sides of the argument" and he responded with "Since you insist on keeping up the "my way or the highway" attitude and refusing to read the debates on the matter, I'm afraid I must add you to my ignore list". Apparently trying to just talk to someone (to avoid clogging up this thread) is somehow harassing? I found that very strange. We're not talking 20 PMs or something, btw, we're talking 3 each way.
-
And I have one I would suggest adding as well; I've argued about it on here before and it came up last night during a face-to-face game.
Interactions between a Faraday Cage and wireless communication.
Well, I don't know about in-game rules, but in real-world physics, a faraday cage is pretty absolute, as long as the holes in the cage are smaller than half the wavelength you're trying to block. (so solid sheet metal blocks everything, obviously). I don't believe any wireless communications use anything smaller than a few mm, so you don't even need that fine a mesh.
-
And I have one I would suggest adding as well; I've argued about it on here before and it came up last night during a face-to-face game.
Interactions between a Faraday Cage and wireless communication.
Hm... Which of the three types would it be? Or would this fall under a new subject named GM advice, with a recap of how Missions did this?
-
Easily Missed Rules. The issue both times has been, in part, on Faraday Cages blocking wireless communication inside them.
-
OK...if both devices are inside, there's shouldn't be (much) trouble. (you might get some reflection of signals that cause interference). If you're trying to cross the cage, it just won't work, period.
-
Hey, look man, If you want the whole transcript, I can provide it. I basically said "please state the two sides of the argument" and he responded with "Since you insist on keeping up the "my way or the highway" attitude and refusing to read the debates on the matter, I'm afraid I must add you to my ignore list". Apparently trying to just talk to someone (to avoid clogging up this thread) is somehow harassing? I found that very strange. We're not talking 20 PMs or something, btw, we're talking 3 each way.
When someone puts you on ignore, respect that. When someone then blocks you from their email, respect that too. It's about respect, if nothing else. Respect that Michael didn't want to talk with you and let it go.
Interactions between a Faraday Cage and wireless communication.
I don't think there are any crunchy rules on Faraday cages and wireless communication. Let me check Run 'n' Gun real fast though - they've got a new material that blocks wireless signals that probably works on the same principle. Also, let me look in Stolen Souls now that I think about it.
Run 'n' Gun lists the Universal Mirror Material as providing a Noise penalty equal to twice the rating of the material.
Stolen Souls has no specific rules for how to handle Faraday cages. They simply imply that a Faraday cage is sufficient to block wireless signals, and that the cage must be completely secure (enveloping the target area).
-
The crunch for a Faraday Cage is on page 231 of the core rulebook. It's mentioned in the noise table as blocking signal. The confusion comes in as to how that applies, if it blocks communications between two wireless devices inside it, and the like.
-
The crunch for a Faraday Cage is on page 231 of the core rulebook. It's mentioned in the noise table as blocking signal. The confusion comes in as to how that applies, if it blocks communications between two wireless devices inside it, and the like.
This is purely fluff, but Faraday cages get mentioned a lot in Stolen Souls and it seems like things within them communicate just fine. They're used to keep the nanites from communicating wirelessly with things outside the cage.
-
Thanks SlowDeck - I had forgotten that part. Kincaid seems to be correct though - I think of it as a wireless-negating wall. Wireless signals simply cannot travel through the cage.
-
I'm not the one having any problems with it. They're one of the best ways to secure a home wireless system :D Little beyond my means right now, though.
Unfortunately, the group I play face-to-face with isn't that familiar with how they work with this edition, thanks in part to how little detail the book goes into and how other assumptions have been challenged by changes in rules.
-
I am NOT adding that to the controversies list! There's a limit to how meta one can get.
There is never enough metas ;)
"Power foci are the most potent and treasured of all. Possession of a power focus feeds a magician’s Magic directly, making her e fforts more powerful in all forms of magical ability. A power focus adds its Force to all tests in which the magician’s Magic is included. A single power focus can increase a magician’s ability to cast spells, call on and control spirits, and bypass astral barriers."
"Power foci live up to their name. They are very powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective Magic rating. That means they add to your Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting dice pools, along with any other test where Magic is involved."
So no, I do not even consider this controversial at all. Designer Intent is VERY clear on the matter, and has been for nearly a decade now.
Sorry for asking but does statement number 2 means that if i have a magic rating of 2 with a mage and a power focu of Force 2 i could cast a spell with Force 4 without overcasting right? I assume the rule in 4th edition that power focus was the only focus that stack with other focus is gone now, right?
-
Sorry for asking but does statement number 2 means that if i have a magic rating of 2 with a mage and a power focu of Force 2 i could cast a spell with Force 4 without overcasting right?
It does not mean that.
-
Sorry for asking but does statement number 2 means that if i have a magic rating of 2 with a mage and a power focu of Force 2 i could cast a spell with Force 4 without overcasting right?
It does not mean that.
oh, ok. So it just add to the dicepool of anything that uses the attribute magic
-
Pretty much. It's oddly phrased and leads to confusion, but digging into the exact phrasing leads to the conclusion. That's why it won't stack with Spellcasting Foci as well.
-
Pretty much. It's oddly phrased and leads to confusion, but digging into the exact phrasing leads to the conclusion. That's why it won't stack with Spellcasting Foci as well.
Thanks :D
-
Notable rules that regarding cover that people often overlook (and, frankly, that are in need of errata):
1. Ties go to the attacker when the defender is behind cover. This makes taking Partial Cover a losing proposition in all cases.
2. If you are behind Total Cover (-6 dice to attacker), you are always considered unaware of the attack. In many instances, this will make Total Cover worse than being out in the open.
-
Notable rules that regarding cover that people often overlook (and, frankly, that are in need of errata):
1. Ties go to the attacker when the defender is behind cover. This makes taking Partial Cover a losing proposition in all cases.
Sorta........except on that tie, you get the benefit of the barrier rating. And I haven't done the math, but I'm not sure losing on ties is actually worse considering the +2 or +4 dice.
I agree with you that this should probably be errata'd in the case of obscurement, that does not have a barrier rating.
2. If you are behind Total Cover (-6 dice to attacker), you are always considered unaware of the attack. In many instances, this will make Total Cover worse than being out in the open.
Well, it's +4 to defend, and -6 to the attacker, that's a lot. But I'm not seeing where it says that means you're unaware.
-
Notable rules that regarding cover that people often overlook (and, frankly, that are in need of errata):
1. Ties go to the attacker when the defender is behind cover. This makes taking Partial Cover a losing proposition in all cases.
2. If you are behind Total Cover (-6 dice to attacker), you are always considered unaware of the attack. In many instances, this will make Total Cover worse than being out in the open.
Good one, got to add those.
Also no Called Shot To Head.
-
I figured out my magic-sr3 confusion. I was wrongly recollecting a note that the Force at which you can cast wasn't decided by Magic. I mentally stored that as not determining anything, rather than just not the one thing. A secondary note there is that Power Foci their current dicepool bonus (and Magic as attribute in general) is better than how dicepools worked in SR3.
-
1. Ties go to the attacker when the defender is behind cover. This makes taking Partial Cover a losing proposition in all cases.
Sorta........except on that tie, you get the benefit of the barrier rating. And I haven't done the math, but I'm not sure losing on ties is actually worse considering the +2 or +4 dice.
If the shot is strong enough to break through the barrier, how much damage from bullets is left behind in the barrier is a fixed amount: 1 for 1 bullet, 2 for 3, 3 for 6, 4 for 10. Let's use 14 attack dice, 10 dodge dice, and a 3-round burst from an 11P/-2 FN-HAR (so -2 on dodging, 2 damage left behind in the barrier) as example:
- With no cover, you have a 24.98% dodge chance; and the following net hit odds: 1 = 16.34%, 2 = 17.89%, 3 = 16.06%, 4 = 11.86%, 5 = 7.20%, 6 = 3.59%, 7 = 1.45%, 8 = 0.48%, 9 = 0.12%, 10 = 0.02%. This gives you a total of 2.2055 net hits on average, but that's based on 100% - if we base it on the 75.02% chance of getting hit, it's more like 2.94 net hits on average if you get hit. So there's a 75.02% chance of having to soak an average of 13.94P/-2 damage, or roughly 10.46P/-2 pre-soak damage on average.
- Partial cover (+2) dice: gives you a 21.37% dodge chance, 14.67% hit-through-barrier chance (which we can count as -2 net hits due to the barrier), and the following net hit odds: 1 = 17.00%, 2 = 16.41%, 3 = 13.21%, 4 = 8.87%, 5 = 4.96%, 6 = 2.29%, 7 = 0.87%, 8 = 0.27%, 9 = 0.07%, 10 = 0.01%. This gives you a total of 1.4311 average net hits per 100%, or 1.82 average net hits if you get hit. So there's a 78.63% chance of having to soak an average of 12.82P/-2 damage, or roughly 10.08P/-2 damage on average.
As you can see, with partial cover, the chance of getting hit goes up in our scenario, while average pre-soak damage goes down, so it's mostly useful for high-armor characters: low-armor characters will generally want to maximize dodge chances.
-
Which is entirely counter-intuitive, of course. Squishy characters will generally dive behind cover with their first Standard Action.
-
Just got to make it good cover then. :) Or dive around a corner and stick out the smartgun to return fire from a safe distance. Well safe, safe... It depends on whether your opponent's guns are tough enough to hit you through the walls...
-
1. Ties go to the attacker when the defender is behind cover. This makes taking Partial Cover a losing proposition in all cases.
Sorta........except on that tie, you get the benefit of the barrier rating. And I haven't done the math, but I'm not sure losing on ties is actually worse considering the +2 or +4 dice.
If the shot is strong enough to break through the barrier, how much damage from bullets is left behind in the barrier is a fixed amount: 1 for 1 bullet, 2 for 3, 3 for 6, 4 for 10. Let's use 14 attack dice, 10 dodge dice, and a 3-round burst from an 11P/-2 FN-HAR (so -2 on dodging, 2 damage left behind in the barrier) as example:
- With no cover, you have a 24.98% dodge chance; and the following net hit odds: 1 = 16.34%, 2 = 17.89%, 3 = 16.06%, 4 = 11.86%, 5 = 7.20%, 6 = 3.59%, 7 = 1.45%, 8 = 0.48%, 9 = 0.12%, 10 = 0.02%. This gives you a total of 2.2055 net hits on average, but that's based on 100% - if we base it on the 75.02% chance of getting hit, it's more like 2.94 net hits on average if you get hit. So there's a 75.02% chance of having to soak an average of 13.94P/-2 damage, or roughly 10.46P/-2 pre-soak damage on average.
- Partial cover (+2) dice: gives you a 21.37% dodge chance, 14.67% hit-through-barrier chance (which we can count as -2 net hits due to the barrier), and the following net hit odds: 1 = 17.00%, 2 = 16.41%, 3 = 13.21%, 4 = 8.87%, 5 = 4.96%, 6 = 2.29%, 7 = 0.87%, 8 = 0.27%, 9 = 0.07%, 10 = 0.01%. This gives you a total of 1.4311 average net hits per 100%, or 1.82 average net hits if you get hit. So there's a 78.63% chance of having to soak an average of 12.82P/-2 damage, or roughly 10.08P/-2 damage on average.
As you can see, with partial cover, the chance of getting hit goes up in our scenario, while average pre-soak damage goes down, so it's mostly useful for high-armor characters: low-armor characters will generally want to maximize dodge chances.
OK, fine, and I agree with Kincaid that that should be errata'd in some way. But there's nothing saying you don't get a defense roll when behind full cover, right?
-
Page 197, "If the defender is completely hidden behind the barrier, the attacker suffers a -6 Blind Fire dice pool modifier...but the defender is considered unaware of the attack."
-
Additions to the to-be list:
Easily missed rules & mistakes:
- 1 Attack Action per IP
- Stun damage is still resisted by Body+modified Armor
- BDA/Lacing do not boost actual Body
- Augmented Maximum
- Sustaining Range
- Resting & Sustaining
- Accumulative Recoil
- Quick Healer
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- Power Foci & Magic
- Initiation & Magic Points
- Initiation/Submersion at Chargen
- Physical vs Stun Damage: modDV>=modArm, not modDV>modArm
- Immunity To Normal Weapons working exactly as normal Hardened Armor
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- AoE Defense
- Martial Arts
- Maximum DV of Called Shots
- Lifestyle consequences
- Priority & Magic
- Priority & SAPs
- Second Skin
- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
- Background Count
- Essence Holes
- Training Times
- 'Spell' slots
- Cyberlimbs
- Oversummoning & Edge
* Addiction
* Weapon Slots/Mods
- Attack Action: Multiple
- Losing spells on off
- Cyberware 'Upgrades'
- Control Rigs & Speed
- Taser Charges
- Damage is not a dicepool
- Attribute Boost (does not give any non-dicepool advantages)
- Faraday Cages & Wireless Communication
- Cover: Always applies, ties to attacker
- Armor & Locations: No Headshots
- When are you unaware? (Should this be a controversy?)
- Autosoft Prices
- Power Points at chargen
Controversial matters:
- Chargen order & Freebie points
- Initiative boosting
- Simple Actions vs Free Actions
- Drone Actions: Gunnery Simple & Vehicle Skill Tests?
- Drone Movement
- Gunnery+Rigging
- Finding files: Matrix Search vs Matrix Perception
- HotSim Bonus & Control Device (Gunnery and such)
- Fake Licenses
- Street Cred
- Connection
- Object Resistance Drones vs Illusions
- Contact Preparations
- Master/Slave & Unattended
- Katana 2handed
- Custom Fit (Stack)
- Bullseye Doubletap / Burst
- Diagnostics
- Electric vs Vehicles
- Integral weapon modifications
- Multicasting Spells
- DNI, UDC, and all that stuff
- Touch Attacks & Shock
- Pans&Personas
- Drone Sensor Arrays
- Sensor Enhancements
- Armor upgrading
- Movement Power
Possible houserules:
- Accumulative Recoil
- Noise
- Mystic Adept Power Points (chargen, after chargen, augmentations)
- Vehicles: Repair Costs, Hardened Armor
- Addiction
- Cyberlimbs: restrictions & adjustments
- Oversummoning & Edge
- Karma<->Nuyen
- Strength Boost
- Initiation/Submersion at chargen
- Lifestyle for Grid/Allergies
- Drone Sensor Arrays
- Drone Sneaking Size Modifiers
-
You are not considered behind partial or good cover unless you spend a simple action on Take Cover (or if you are unaware of the attack). Just happen to be behind cover without taking a Take Cover action don't give you a positive dice pool modifier, but if you are unaware of the attack you get to roll 2 dice or 4 dice as a dice pool of its own even if you don't spend an action to Take Cover.
-
Given the discussions of this topic (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=16537.0), I think weapon mods can also be added to the list. I'm not certain if it goes under Easily Missed Rules And Mistakes, Controversies, or Houserules; there's material on the thread that applies for all three.
-
Question (didn't read it all, but a quick forum search didn't yield results):
Do weapon foci add now to defense tests? The text for block on p. 168 mentions adding a weapon focus and the errata document just moves this part to the parry action.
Sadly the text to weapon foci on p. 320 only mentions attacks with the focus ...
Another copy&paste error from earlier editions?
-
Given how the errata moved it to parry, I'd say that like in SR4 you can use them when parrying?
-
Given how the errata moved it to parry, I'd say that like in SR4 you can use them when parrying?
When was that introduced? Page 199 SR4A only mentions attacks. The advanced combat rules from Arsenal don't include anything like that.
I'm asking because I thought Item Attunement Metamagic was one option of a limited assortment to increase the melee defense pool.
-
I think back then it already was a matter of debate whether it applied to Parry. Not sure what the debate came from, it's been a few years.
-
I have a Bone Lacing/Density question that maybe I'm just missing or isn't clear to me... it seems like it doesn't apply to resisting Physical spells as part of the Body attribute since it says you resist the Spell itself not the Damage from the spell. So, have I been playing it wrong all this time and never noticed or am I reading to much into it...? I feel that it's highly appropriate to apply BL/BD to the Spell since it's still a Resistance test of my characters ability to shrug it off just like Damage... so would it be a House Rule to apply it in that manner by RAW even if it seems that way by RAI to me...?
-
Urk. Tough one. You don't get to resist damage, so technically it wouldn't apply I think. Instead it counts as Defense, so according to Aaron full Defense would apply there. (Which is a weird ruling when combined with the agi/gymnastics/etc FD qualities.)
-
Ok... I glad I wasn't just the only one it didn't look simple to, just removing the word Damage from the description meaning that it would apply to all Resistance tests should be an Errata. Because this seems like the only time that BL/BD isn't being applied to a Resistance test, in that since Armor is being discounted unlike any other time a Body Resistance is being called for..... cause it just doesn't make sense to me for it not to apply in this one instance when the effects of it are the exact same as your body resisting a bullet or the ground after falling...
-
Do weapon foci add now to defense tests?
No, they basically add to your weapon skill.
it gives you its Force as a dice pool bonus on your melee Attack Test.
If you take a parry interrupt action you add your weapon skill to your defense test
... and you can also add the bonus from your weapon focus when doing this.
Bonus die, such as die from a relevant weapon foci, can be added to this test.
Since you introduce a skill to the defense test you also introduce a limit
(in this case that would normally be [Accuracy] and sometimes [Physical], depending on what weapon focus you use).
-
Something that was just pointed out to me is that you can't bond more foci than your magic, which means no spending your nuyen on buying lots of low force Qi Foci for circumstantial powers. I honestly hadn't noticed that.
There's also the limit of magicx5 in the total force of your bonded foci.
-
So Foci limitations:
- Magic in foci bonded max.
- Magicx5 total bonded force max.
- >Magic in Foci active at any given time = addiction timer starts counting.
-
Do weapon foci add now to defense tests?
No, they basically add to your weapon skill.
it gives you its Force as a dice pool bonus on your melee Attack Test.
If you take a parry interrupt action you add your weapon skill to your defense test
... and you can also add the bonus from your weapon focus when doing this.
Bonus die, such as die from a relevant weapon foci, can be added to this test.
Since you introduce a skill to the defense test you also introduce a limit
(in this case that would normally be [Accuracy] and sometimes [Physical], depending on what weapon focus you use).
They don't add to your skill, they give bonus dice.
But according to page 320:
It adds magical power to the melee attacks you make with it. When used in physical combat, it gives you its Force as a dice pool bonus on your melee Attack Test.
they only work for attacks.
Or is parrying now an attack? Because with that interpretation and the 1 attack per phase ruling, the parry action is worthless, because you'd have to refrain from attacking ...
Please, cite the rule, I'd gladly see it. But I can't believe it otherwise with so many other glaring copy&paste-errors in place.
-
SR5 Errata p. 2 CLARIFICATION IN BLOCK & PARRY (P. 168, INTERRUPT ACTIONS)
The following sentence should be removed from the Block description and added to the Parry description: “Bonus die, such as die from a relevant weapon foci, can be added to this test.”
As for only one attack action per action phase; Interrupt actions are taken out of turn and not taken during your action phase. The Interrupt Action Intercept can, for example, be used multiple times in the same initiative pass as long as you have initiative score to spare and your opponents keep attempting to move pass you or break out of melee combat.
-
Michael, one topic that get asked a lot and is a bit confusing is the whole sensor and sensor array issue. Maybe it should be included.
-
Good one. Especially important for riggers. This one would do well on the easily missed rules. It's always 8 space for 6 capacity for a sensor array, max limit defined by what it is in, right?
I got Arrays on Controversies, but that's about what they by default come with, and whether you can upgrade them (add e.g. TV to a camera without buying a new one).
-
Drones and maneuvering autosoft (I dont know if this is part of your drones and defense point)
As you cant default on pilot: walker and pilot: aircraft, would a drone be considered incabable of walking/flight if it doesnt have the manevering program running? thus limiting its choices in what programs it can have active at a time? or is a drone always considered being able to have basic maneuvering skills, and the autosoft just increases that?
-
That one is part of the controversy "Drone Actions". One side of the argument focuses on the statement that drones are like normal people in combat, which could be taken to imply they can move normally and fire with simple actions.
-
Yeah its a tricky one and quite confusing. as page 205 states you use pilot+autosoft[handling] (without spelling out that its maneuver autosoft they talk about)
while page 269 states that the autosoft is excactly like the pilot skill, (in which case its not used for defense tests contrary to page 205)
And page 199 states that the pilot rating is used in place of all mental stats and reaction (thus saying that physical defense is pilot+pilot).
But I suppose those things are already beeing taking care of under the drone defense part in your first post:) keep up the good work
-
I just hope I manage to find enough support for it. :P If not, part may become a controversy.
Reorganized Easily missed rules a bit, with done and not-done stuff in it:
The new magic and combat stuff has been edited into the posts with bolded lines for now.
Easily missed rules & mistakes:
+- Trolls/Dwarves costs at chargen
+- 1 Attack Action per IP
+- Stun damage is still resisted by Body+modified Armor
+- BDA/Lacing do not boost actual Body
+- Augmented Maximum
+- Sustaining Range
+- Power Foci & Magic
+- Initiation & Magic Points
+- Magic & Power Points
+- Initiation/Submersion at Chargen
+- Physical vs Stun Damage: modDV>=modArm, not modDV>modArm
+- Immunity To Normal Weapons working exactly as normal Hardened Armor
+- Reagents/Edge & Sustaining Focus/Focused Concentration trick
+- AoE Defense
+- Priority & Magic
+- Priority & SAPs
+- Chargen caps
+- Adept Powers Off-switch
+- Physical Adepts & Magical Skillgroups
+- Background Count
+- 'Spell' slots
+- Oversummoning & Edge
+- Condition Monitors
+- Increase Attribute spellforce
+- Power Points at chargen
+- Resting & Sustaining
+- Attribute Boost (does not give any non-dicepool advantages)
+- Cover: Always applies, ties to attacker
+- Attack Action: Multiple
+- Accumulative Recoil
+- Maximum DV of Called Shots
+- Damage is not a dicepool
+- Armor & Locations: No Headshots
+- Martial Arts
+- When are you unaware? (Should this be a controversy?)
matrix
- Autosoft Prices
- Noise & Wireless Functionality
- All wireless benefits of Smartguns
- Drone defenses
- RCCs & Sharing
- Drones & Cyberprograms
- Faraday Cages & Wireless Communication
gear
- Second Skin
- Essence Holes
- Cyberlimbs
- Cyberware 'Upgrades'
- Control Rigs & Speed
* Weapon Slots/Mods
- Taser Charges
- Law Enforcement Vehicles
- Training Times
- Lifestyle consequences
- Quick Healer
* Addiction
- Losing spells on off
-
New thread just reminded me: barrier rules vs. barrier spell rules.
-
Nice list. ;D
But there's one small thing that caught my eye:
(note it's +100%, not x2)
By definition of % that's exactly the same... :o
So what should this note really tell me? ???
-
Nice list. ;D
But there's one small thing that caught my eye:
(note it's +100%, not x2)
By definition of % that's exactly the same... :o
So what should this note really tell me? ???
There are other items in the core rulebook that modify the percentage of lifestyle cost as well. You add those together and then apply it to lifestyle cost.
I was going to challenge it as well until the above occurred to me.
-
"A +20% +100%" is still "(A +20%) x2" but i think i know what you're trying to tell me...
So this should read: "note: all cost modifiers use the base cost" or "note: cost modifiers are applied additively not multiplicatively" ?
As in: "A troll (+100%) with an extra secure (+20%) middle (5000¥) lifestyle pays 5000¥ x2,2 = 11000¥ instead of 5000¥ x2 x1,2 =12000¥" ? ???
-
"A +20% +100%" is still "(A +20%) x2" but i think i know what you're trying to tell me...
So this should read: "(note: all cost modifiers use the base cost)" as in: "a troll (+100%) with an extra secure (+20%) middle (5000¥) lifestyle pays 5000¥ x2,2 = 11000¥ instead of 5000¥ x2 x1,2 =12000¥" ? ???
Yep. Pretty much. It also means that if that troll lived in a dangerous area instead of an area that is extra secure, it would come down to this:
5000 x 1.8 = 9000
instead of this:
5000 x 2 x 0.8 = 8000
-
My thinking: A secure neighborhood is not more secure for a troll (well, it might actually be, but not in terms of something he'd pay for. He's huge, after all.) On the other hand, a work area (which is additive, not multiplicative), would be added to the base and then the whole thing would be marked up since it costs more to make those troll-useable.
-
Ok, next question then: Where is additive (or multiplicative) use of modifiers described in the rules?
How to apply modifiers really is no new problem and i remember many discussions in different groups over the years. (used alphaware cyberarms costing 0.96 Essence or 1 essence in 4th edition for example ::) )
Would be nice to see this addressed this time (or perhaps it's in the book somewhere but just easily missed.... ;D).
-
I always read it as:
+20% and +100% = +120% (additive)
x1.2 and x2 = x2.4 (multiplicative)
-
I'm not entirely sure what all is said on this and what language I originally based it on, it's almost a year ago now, so I'd have to start digging around to see what it's like again.
Your GM might decide otherwise of course. Maybe it should be in the controversies list instead. Especially the Dependents thing.
Note to self: Add Imagelink-Smartlink to the list.
-
I always based the percentage modifications of something on the rules from Arsenal for SR4. Note that this is just my interpretation based off the old rules, though; I haven't seen anything on this in SR5.
Percentages
Some modifications raise or lower the Acceleration and Speed of vehicles by a specified percentage value. This percentage is always based on the vehicle’s basic value. For example a vehicle with a Speed value of 120 that receives a speed increase of +20% has a new Speed value of 144. If, at a later time, it gets another modification that reduces Speed by 10%, this would result in a new Speed value of 132 (144 – 12)
For lifestyles, I treat the modifiers as always affecting the base value, as per the above. In this sense, the modifiers are indeed additive, as a 20% increase followed by a 10% increase results in a net 30% base value increase (2000+400+200 = 2600, for example)
-
The entire idea of "all devices have UDPs and all cyberware are devices" was very obviously not thought through.
Or maybe the intention was most 'devices', like commlinks and smartguns and ammo pouches and gear, while most cyberware (like bone lacing) would not have a data port (hence making the data jack more important than just for noise reduction). An errata note might clear that up.
The book call the Auto pilot for the "Pilot Program"
On quite a few pages actually.
Even got it's own paragraph named Pilot Programs
It might have been intended to be "autopilot device" or "autoPilot", maybe "Pilot system", but it's also labeled Pilot Program in 4E. A copy-paste error, perhaps?
And if i were to spend karma to raise the body of human A to 4 does that mean the augmented maximun also goes up?
Still Easily Missed, if the number of times it's come up as a forum question is any indication.
Yesterday i house rule that the character made a rapelling test (ignoring the equipment requirement) and every net hit after 2 reduce the distance. So he got 5 net hits (with edge) and the distance from the 3 floor to the ground was 10 meter - 5 (for the net hits)
Sounds like a decent ruling, but I'd have thought that half hits would better fit the rather significant influence of gravity and attempts to roll with it. Sounds like House Rules for now.
Shock gloves and stun batons don't stage damage with net hits when used for a touch attack.
Incorrect. In the other thread you were citing an optional action for a touch attack with shock gloves. Standard action (without the +2 dice) you certainly do get net hits added to DV, same as any other weapon.
I missed it. Might have been worth a sidebar or something more easily readable.
-
Just a request for clarification :
Under the section "Pushing/Changing The Limit" in the other thread, the second paragraph starts:
Note that Hits AFTER the Limit decide whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun. ...
I'm not exactly sure what you meant here, so I may be missing something. If I had to guess, I'd say you were talking about limits so much you got the word stuck in your head and you meant to write something like, "...Hits Above your Magic rating determine whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun." But I'm just guessing and I don't want to put words in your mouth since I can't read minds. (at least not from this distance. ;))
-
Just a request for clarification :
Under the section "Pushing/Changing The Limit" in the other thread, the second paragraph starts:
Note that Hits AFTER the Limit decide whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun. ...
I'm not exactly sure what you meant here, so I may be missing something. If I had to guess, I'd say you were talking about limits so much you got the word stuck in your head and you meant to write something like, "...Hits Above your Magic rating determine whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun." But I'm just guessing and I don't want to put words in your mouth since I can't read minds. (at least not from this distance. ;))
He meant the following:
1. Apply the limit
2. Compare hits to MAG
3. If hits > MAG, drain is physical
So yes, hits after application of the limit decide the type of drain damage.
Maybe he could modify the sentence to:
"Note that Hits AFTER applying the Limit ..."
-
That's the correct reading, yes. I'll adjust it later for clarity's sake.
Mithlas, I've only seen it come up once, but if you say it happens more often, I'll add a clarification to it.
-
OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Edited into this: "Note that Hits AFTER applying the Limit decide whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun, based on whether the remaining hits exceed your Magic."
Edit: Note to self, add "Qi Foci do not let you bypass the maximum of an Adept Power."
-
It's true. Though what I wanna to know, is, since qi foci are additive with powers you already have, is there any reason not to say have 4 seperate mystical armor tattoos, and they all add together?
-
It's true. Though what I wanna to know, is, since qi foci are additive with powers you already have, is there any reason not to say have 4 seperate mystical armor tattoos, and they all add together?
You can't have more bonded Foci than your Magic rating, for example.
-
Edited into this: "Note that Hits AFTER applying the Limit decide whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun, based on whether the remaining hits exceed your Magic."
Just to confirm, this means that if my Magic is X, I have to get X+1 (or more) hits over my limit before I take Physical damage from Drain?
Rock on.
-
Edited into this: "Note that Hits AFTER applying the Limit decide whether Spellcasting drain becomes Physical or Stun, based on whether the remaining hits exceed your Magic."
Just to confirm, this means that if my Magic is X, I have to get X+1 (or more) hits over my limit before I take Physical damage from Drain?
No, if you get more hits (after you apply the limit) than your magic rating then drain become physical.
if you set a force that is equal to magic then your limit is equal to your magic rating and you can never get physical drain (unless you use reagents or edge to break the limit). if you set force higher than magic or if you use reagents or edge to break the limit then you might get more hits than your magic rating and in that case drain is physical.
-
No, if you get more hits (after you apply the limit) than your magic rating then drain become physical.
if you set a force that is equal to magic then your limit is equal to your magic rating and you can never get physical drain (unless you use reagents or edge to break the limit). if you set force higher than magic or if you use reagents or edge to break the limit then you might get more hits than your magic rating and in that case drain is physical.
Aw, rock off. To restate my current understanding, my Drain is Physical if Magic < Hits <= Limit.
The "after limit is applied" language is what threw me off. It could probably stand to be stated more clearly.
-
Aw, rock off.
What?
-
Aw, rock off.
What?
rock off
to battle someone via music.
Two bands or musicians duking it out too see who is the best musician out of the two.
Wonder if he meant Rock On like a positive? :P
-
Aw, rock off.
What?
rock off
to battle someone via music.
Two bands or musicians duking it out too see who is the best musician out of the two.
Wonder if he meant Rock On like a positive? :P
Nope, as in the opposite of "Rock on." Although rereading it, it does look like I'm trying to insult Xenon; totally not my intent.
-
And now I'm imagining a Rock toggle switch.
Also, I will ask this: Does an autosoft's rating count for purposes of space it takes up in a drone, or is it purely number of programs? I've gone with the number of programs interpretation.
-
No, if you get more hits (after you apply the limit) than your magic rating then drain become physical.
if you set a force that is equal to magic then your limit is equal to your magic rating and you can never get physical drain (unless you use reagents or edge to break the limit). if you set force higher than magic or if you use reagents or edge to break the limit then you might get more hits than your magic rating and in that case drain is physical.
Aw, rock off. To restate my current understanding, my Drain is Physical if Magic < Hits <= Limit.
The "after limit is applied" language is what threw me off. It could probably stand to be stated more clearly.
Not sure how that could be more clear. You apply the limit (if any), which may throw away some of your hits, then compare how many hits you have to your magic.
And now I'm imagining a Rock toggle switch.
Also, I will ask this: Does an autosoft's rating count for purposes of space it takes up in a drone, or is it purely number of programs? I've gone with the number of programs interpretation.
Nope, rating only matters for the dicepool. There's no restriction on rating for what a drone can run.
-
To restate my current understanding, my Drain is Physical if Magic < Hits <= Limit.
That's the short version, yes. The long version is this:
- Spellcasting:
- Cast spell, pick one of the following three:
- don't use reagents, don't use Edge on Push the Limit (other Edge uses are okay): Limit = Force
- use reagents: Limit = (# of drams used)
- use Edge on Push the Limit - before or after the initial roll - to set the Limit to infinite
- Apply limit: if (# of hits) > [Limit], (# of hits) becomes equal to the Limit
- if (# of hits) > (Magic Rating), Drain becomes Physical; otherwise, Drain is Stun
- Dispelling: if (Force of spell) > (Magic Rating), Drain becomes Physical; otherwise, Drain is Stun
- Ritual spellcasting:
- a Teamwork Test can be used, and reagents don't affect the limit, which means you have two options:
- leader doesn't use Edge on Push the Limit (other Edge uses are okay): Limit = Force + (# of assistants that rolled at least 1 hit: consider this 0 if you have no assistant, in which case Limit = Force)
- leader uses Edge on Push the Limit - before or after the initial roll - to set the Limit to infinite
- Apply limit: if (# of hits) > [Limit], (# of hits) becomes equal to the Limit
- If (# of hits leader scores post-Limit) > (leader's Magic Rating), Drain becomes Physical; otherwise, Drain is Stun
- Summoning/Binding/Banishing: if (Force of Spirit) > (Magic Rating), Drain becomes Physical; otherwise, Drain is Stun
- Alchemy: works basically the same as Spellcasting
- Artificing: if (Force of resulting formula, which equals (# of your post-limit hits) - (# of defense hits)) > (Magic Rating), Drain becomes Physical; otherwise, Drain is Stun
- Disenchanting: similar to Dispelling
-
Rush the job rules. I know I read them somewhere, but I be damned if I can't find it in the core book.
-
Can't find it, I don't think it exists anymore. So likely that rule stayed in SR4.
-
Am I the only one that misunderstood the Improved Potential Adept power description? I thought it meant that I could buy only up to three levels of it, one for each limit, instead of up to [Magic] levels for each limit.
-
Isn't that exactly what it says? You get Improved Potential (whichever Limit), which is a Power at level 1, you can get it for each limit but only once per limit. The only misunderstanding you have is that technically you're not buying up to 3 levels in it, you're buying it up to 3 times. So a Magic 2 character can still have it for each limit, since each version of the power only has a limit of 1. (Just like Improved Ability <X> and Attribute Boost <X>.)
Anyone who told you otherwise likely got confused with the Positive Quality Indomitable, which can be taken for the same limit multiple twice and has a maximum rank of 3 total (spread out over all the limits).
-
Yes, I think you can only increase each limit once.
-
Ah, in that case another bug report for Herolab.
Also, might I recommend that in future printings of the book, you change the cost of the power from ".5 per level" to just ".5" with the mention that It can be purchased 3 times? Because apparently at least some people are misunderstanding it, and I think the current text is non-intuitive.
-
Really? It seems quite to the point. "This is how it works", default setup.
-
I think the confusion is on whether it works like Indomitable or other powers/qualities, which I think is possible given the wording. I haven't thought about it much because I've been spending most of my spare time preparing for my meatspace group's next Mutants & Masterminds game instead of looking for ideas on next month's Shadowrun prep. It's possible that a small rephrase of the sentence could help clarify, rather than needing to make it much wordier with more sentences in explanation.
-
I think the confusion is on whether it works like Indomitable or other powers/qualities, which I think is possible given the wording. I haven't thought about it much because I've been spending most of my spare time preparing for my meatspace group's next Mutants & Masterminds game instead of looking for ideas on next month's Shadowrun prep. It's possible that a small rephrase of the sentence could help clarify, rather than needing to make it much wordier with more sentences in explanation.
Sorry, but no.
- allows to raise one limit by one
- can be taken multiple times, but only once per limit
So once per limit for three possible limits with each purchase costing the same? -> 0.5 PP per level
Indomitable can also be taken for a maximum of three times, but including examples on how these increases can be distributed.
-
Also, might I recommend that in future printings of the book, you change the cost of the power [...]
Just in case, I'd like to note that I am not a Catalyst employee and have zero influence on any of the products. All I do is offer official Missions in my hometown, and possibly at online conventions.
-
Perhaps you should have your nick changed to "doesn't work for Catalyst".
-
Done.
-
Didn't see it on a quick print page search, so...
The maximum bonus a character may gain from sequential
Take Aim actions, either to her limit or her dice pool, is
equal to one-half the character’s Willpower, rounded up.
That seems like a good thing to have in the list, as well as clarifying whether that means your total combination of dice pool + limit can only equal half willpower rounded up, or whether both dice pool AND limit can each get to half willpower rounded up before you fire.
-
Just found the rules for rushing the job on p228 under repairing Matrix damage.
Every hit you get can be used to either remove one box of Matrix damage or cut the time required in half; the first die spent toward time reduces the time to half an hour, the second to 15 minutes, and so on, to a minimum of one Combat Turn (3 seconds). Bricked or not, the device is off-line and unusable during the repair process.
This rule should be able to be used on any extended test to rush the job. Even if it doesn't specifically say so.
-
Just found the rules for rushing the job on p228 under repairing Matrix damage.
Every hit you get can be used to either remove one box of Matrix damage or cut the time required in half; the first die spent toward time reduces the time to half an hour, the second to 15 minutes, and so on, to a minimum of one Combat Turn (3 seconds). Bricked or not, the device is off-line and unusable during the repair process.
This rule should be able to be used on any extended test to rush the job. Even if it doesn't specifically say so.
What does this have to do with extended tests?
-
Just found the rules for rushing the job on p228 under repairing Matrix damage.
Every hit you get can be used to either remove one box of Matrix damage or cut the time required in half; the first die spent toward time reduces the time to half an hour, the second to 15 minutes, and so on, to a minimum of one Combat Turn (3 seconds). Bricked or not, the device is off-line and unusable during the repair process.
This rule should be able to be used on any extended test to rush the job. Even if it doesn't specifically say so.
What does this have to do with extended tests?
You can use hits over the threshold to cut the time in half.
Say we're doing a Matrix Search. Public info, 1 minute threshold of 1. We roll Computer + int and we get 4 hits. We can rush the job and spend 3 hits to do the job in 7.5 seconds instead of needing to wait for the full 1 minute and waste 3 hits being over the threshold.
Or say we're initiating as a mage. We make a Arcana + Int at a threshold of 2 (second time initiating) at a rate of 1 month. Say we get 3 hits, we're over the threshold, so we don't waste a hit, we spend a hit to rush the job and finish initiating in 2 weeks.
So you can use hits to rush the job, or put that hit to the threshold to meet it.
-
I don't think that's how that rule works, Deathstrobe. Otherwise, instruction and the Browse program become somewhat superfluous.
Rather, I think that is a specific rule for Matrix damage, not meant to be applied across the game. If it was, it likely would have been mentioned in the general concepts chapter.
-
You can use hits to reduce time or matrix damage, but how is this an easily missed rule that also apply to all extended tests...?
(Matrix search have rules of its own to reduce time IIRC).
Slipped by martinchaen because I never hit post it seems :)
-
I haven't seen this anywhere else, but as far as I can tell this could be the poster child for "Easily Missed Rules". Or maybe I'm just really dense.
On pg 190, in the example sidebar, there's a rule that if you shoot into melee and miss, you need to check if you hit the other combatants (most likely your allies). I've been going over this book for a year now and this was news to me just today. Apparently, this rule is not mentioned anywhere else in the book, just hidden away in this sidebar.
-
Regarding the houserules:
Recoil - I wonder if instead of completely eliminating it, returning some amount per action would be better. So, if you take a Complex action doing something besides shooting, you eliminate STR recoil, while a simple action clears STR/2 recoil. In many cases, that complex action still clears all of your recoil while the simple action can clear it all if you are firing more sparingly. So a burst fire every IP is possible for a STR of 6+ and a FA attack could be used every IP if you have 12+ STR. If you are built like a troll, it seems like you should be able to handle the kick of a gun built for smaller metahumans. If you don't want to require shooters to have to invest in STR, then you could just use BOD instead, or even use the skill rating for that particular weapon. Or only use half the rule - Complex action is still a complete wipe, but Simple action is only STR (or whatever) or STR (or whatever)/2 - this would require playtesting to see where it feels best.
Which is where the recoil rules also fail - all guns provide the same kick. One round from the light pistol? 1 recoil. One round from the assault cannon? 1 recoil. A good house rule might be to provide a multiplier to the amount of recoil from a single bullet from different categories of guns.
Noise - All good here, though I might be inclined to simply say that the bonus from data jacks just doesn't stack. So one jack covers all of your equipment (eliminating the need to connect it via wire and look like a throwback), but the most you can get form it is 1 noise reduction. A little less bookkeeping while still keeping most of the bite from the house rules you propose.
Anyway, these are my thoughts, not tested rules, so I suspect there may be glaring holes in them somewhere. But they seemed like a good idea at the time...
-
Hm, I kinda like the sound of partial recoil-compensation return, but it runs afoul on one thing: Part of RC is in the weapon, not in your own physique. So maybe have the Simple Action return your natural Recoil Compensation, and the Complex Action letting the gas vent cool and your grip recover. It would mean SA fire can be constant and even short bursts. There is also the option of requiring you to actually take a "recover" action to reset your natural RC if you keep firing, basically a steady-action, while an action phase of not firing lets the weapon itself recover.
And yeah, I'd definitely would want recoil to be more for Assault Cannons, like 4 or so. But with all the other weapons... Hm, wait a sec. How does this sound: Sniper Rifles 1 recoil when resting on a bipod or tripod, and 2 recoil when in hand? Though if RC recovers partially on a Simple, you'd probably want something like 2/3 instead.
But at that point we're getting into awfully specific stuff that isn't really something many people talk about. :) So a bit out of the scope.
-
I like the idea of taking a Simple Action to reduce your Progressive Recoil by (STR / 3) - that's the "natural recoil compensation" I think you're talking about Michael. Taking a Complex Action should reset it completely though, as you're not doing anything else that turn anyway. I'd just keep it like that. Also, you might consider the double uncompensated recoil rule for sniper rifles and autocannons. The drawback of course being for Battle Rifles like the Crockett, which are designed to be moved and fired. Still, the recoil would be high on a Crockett, but you're probably not firing it continuously round after round anyway.
-
Str/3+1 to be exact. And I AM firing the EBR continuously right now. Well, whenever I get to play. ^_^
-
And yeah, I'd definitely would want recoil to be more for Assault Cannons, like 4 or so. But with all the other weapons... Hm, wait a sec. How does this sound: Sniper Rifles 1 recoil when resting on a bipod or tripod, and 2 recoil when in hand? Though if RC recovers partially on a Simple, you'd probably want something like 2/3 instead.
I have to admit my knowledge of firearms is rather limited, but from what I understand bigger guns also increase the capacity for recoil compensation. Big sniper rifles and assault cannons can have all sorts of nifty spring systems that make recoil practically nonexistant. So that should be taken into consideration then as well.
-
1 really nice advantage over making cover give bonus hits: It means a Parry/Block/etc action, which involves a limit, doesn't ever run into the scenario where your additional defense dice do nothing. Could someone remind me to include that in my houserule topic?_?
Hey Michael, remember to include that in your houserule topic. :P
[Second Reminder]
-
if we bring in a bit of real life into the recoil discussion.... ;)
you can actually fire a machinegun pretty much until the barrel get overheated without suffering much in the form of recoil, at all. unlike recoil on a hunting-, sniper or assault rifle (that kick up and slightly to the side for each bullet you fire which make pretty darn hard to land more than 2-3 bullets at the target), the recoil on a machinegun is more of a back n fourth motion where you still keep your iron sights roughly at your target area even if you pull the trigger to fire off fire hundreds of bullets in a row. this align well with the existing suppressive fire rules, at least when used in combination with a machinegun.
(i don't have any experience with assault cannons so i can't really comment on that, but IIRC SR5 core does double any uncompensated recoil from heavy weapons...)
despite the more powerful kick of an assault rifle, it doesn't really take more time to recover from the recoil when you fire a full magazine compared to when you just fire a burst of 5-6 bullets.
there is no "progressive recoil" when an experienced military shooter (that probably average out at 2 initiative passes if you talk SR5) pull the trigger once every 1.5 seconds to fire a 3-bullet burst (the remaining 1.3 seconds between the last bullet in the previous burst and the first bullet in the next burst is more than enough to compensate). There will probably be some progressive recoil to consider if an experienced shooter would pull the trigger once every .75 seconds to fire a 3 bullet burst or if he where to pull the trigger once every 0.5 seconds to fire a semi-automatic weapon. this align very well with SR5 recoil rules (clarified in the errata)
same as there would probably not be any "progressive recoil" when an average non-wired civilian without military training (that probably average out at 1 initiative pass) pull the trigger once every 3 seconds to fire a 3-bullet burst (the remaining 2.8 seconds between last and first bullet is more than enough to compensate for any recoil). There will probably be some progressive recoil to consider if an inexperienced shooter would pull the trigger once every 1.5 seconds to fire a 3 bullet burst or if he where to pull the trigger once every second to fire a semi-automatic weapon. this too align very well with existing SR5 recoil rules.
i understand that some people want to make recoil on automatic weapons more punishing than it really is as a way to "balance" them compared to single shot or semi-automatic weapons, but this line of thinking is not really well grounded in real-world physics (after all; there IS a reason why many military forces around the world tend to use assault rifles - to great success i might add).
if the end goal of making recoil rules more punishing is to balance the flexible automatics skills compared to the more limiting pistol and longarm skills i would rather suggest a house rule to make the skills overlap. that you can use automatic skill or pistol skill to fire "medium sized weapons" that you hold with one hand (no matter firing mode - including machine pistols and sub machine guns as long as they are held in one hand [which let you fire around corners]) and that you can use automatic skill or longarm skill to fire "medium sized weapons" that you hold with two hands (no matter firing mode - including sub machine guns held in two hands braced against your shoulder [which let you take advantage of the stock], carbines and assault rifles).
....as for 1 bonus hit instead of +2 defense dice for partial cover and 2 bonus hits instead of +4 defense dice for good cover;
if you add that as a house rule you should probably consider giving 1 bonus hit instead of +2 defense dice for running
take cover is something most ranged combatants use to become harder to hit
running is something that most melee combatants use to become harder to hit
if you give bonus hits to one but not the either you are indirectly making ranged combat stronger compared to melee combat.
if you give bonus hit to both then you more or less maintain status quo.
-
Eliminating skills from the game is not the kind of reckless behaviour I am interested in analyzing. Besides, if anything that would make the bigger-gun skill even more overpowered, at least now each version has several downsides along with upsides. So it's missing every balance point to be had inbetween the 3 skills now.
You also missed the point: I do not want recoil to be more punishing for automatics, I want for it to actually MATTER for automatics. Right now it only ever really matters for the SA weapons in reality. But given how we had plenty of debate on that before you ended up on my ignore list, with number-crunching and everything, so I really don't see the point in getting into it now. Every argument to be made has already been made then, and I made the notes for people to keep in mind if they consider making recoil accumulate different, with several consequences in mind.
-
I'm just going to point out that recoil from rapid fire (i.e. burst and automatic) is more punishing than in game, in reality; modern military forces issue assault rifles, sure, but they generally train you to fire single-shot or maybe burst when engaging targets. It's a waste of ammo otherwise. When I was in, I never heard of a single instance of someone trained using their rifle's burst fire except in training (which is where once a year they give you 1 magazine, tell you to switch to burst, and shoot at your target, unscored). That isn't to say machine-gunners don't fire on full auto (or forces issued automatic rifles, for that matter); they aren't really being precise though, operating with the idea of 'suppressing fire'. You're also generally firing said machine-gun with a bipod or tripod, which really cuts out a lot of recoil, and works for rifles just as well.
-
I'll second MijRai's experience with my own. Unless the soldier was using a M249 or M2, no one fired on burst in my training scenarios. Though, one time just for giggles we changed the simulation to where all bullets were treated like 40mm grenades and let the soldiers go to town. That was a fun day.
-
Added Quickening, and Cover/Running being auto-hits, to the future houserule section, and moved Connection from Controversies to the Easily Missed Rules list due to errata.
Noticed Grid/Allergy measures and realized I'd better hurry up with this thing before Run Faster catches up with me. ^_^ Heck, I don't even know all I'd have to add from R&G and SG.
-
Yes. You can't really hit more than the first 2 bullets. 3 if you aim low. Longer bursts than that is almost always waste of ammo. But it look good on film, and SR5 almost always default to Hollywood realism over real life realism when Hollywood realism is cooler.... This, however is a separate issue if you ask me (should full auto generate more recoil per burst or not - the answerer is Yes if you want more realistic recoil rules, but if you want Hollywood realistic rules then full auto recoil should probably be even less, depending on which action flic you consider).
When it come down to how much time you need to recover from the recoil (which is what i commented on) I stand by my comment that it will be roughly the same even if you fire a burst of 10 bullets or a burst of 20 bullets (how long is kinda subjective I guess, but imo it is a single simple action worth of time - .75 seconds for a trained combatant with an average of 2 initiative passes or 1.5 seconds for an inexperienced civilian with an average of 1 initiative pass).
-
I second that, too. We were told not to use rapid fire except when receiving the order for "Sturmabwehrschießen". That seems to be a German speciality for defensive shooting, when the enemy has reached very short distances (below 100 meters). Basically it means that everyone switches to full auto (or bursts) and tries to stop the advancing enemy by a combination of pinning fire and "you cannot miss at this range". The next step would be receiving the enemy in CQB. Except from training instances however, I never heard of it.
The rules for shooting in SR - and many other rpgs - simply suck. In my mind, the authors simply lack first hand experience.
-
OK, I want to posit something here:
Say your in combat, first action pass you find cover (SA) then fire FA (SA, 6 bullets)
Next pass you Aim (SA), cancelling your recoil, and fire FA (SA, 6 bullets)
Next pass you run for different cover (SA), cancelling your recoil, and fire FA (SA, 6 bullets)
I have 2 questions:
1. Is there anything in the rules that disallows this? For example, have I read a rule incorrectly or missed one.
2. For the people with real world experiance, how does this stack up?
It seems to me that the Errata says I can do this.
Thank You!
- Shane
-
That's indeed the consequence of the errata and why I noted they take away tactical thinking in the houserules listing. Your FA-6-every-turn is indeed always the best tactic. The only problem is ammo, but you'd have 7 IPs of this and even IF a fight for some reason lasts that long, it's a Free Action to eject, Simple to put a new clip in and you can carry on indefinitely like this. If you run wireless-off, you could do FA-somethingelse instead, then at the 7th IP Fire, Eject, and in the 8th Insert, Fire and repeat somethingelse-FA.
-
Thank you for the fast reply!
I think the most elegant solution for my game is going to be taking out the SA version of FA. If you go full, it's a complex action. I don't personally have a problem with the SA bursts (3 bullet). Aim for center mass, fire burst seems quite resonable.
Thanks
- Shane
-
Heh, careful with SA standing for two things. I use Simple and Complex explicitly spelled out. So you're going to encourage the FA users to get a lot of RC and throw a Complex, take a Simple to reset, a Free to switch to BF, throw 3 rounds, stuff like that? I like it! It means FA is a nice "have at it!" option without Simple FA being the only proper tactic in combat. Mind if I steal it and add it as alternative houserule?
-
Go right ahead! And ya..... SA in this case meaning Simple Action rather than Semi Auto.... Silly me! ;D
- Shane
-
1. Is there anything ...
Perfectly legal
...but you need to take steps* to reach a total of 6 points of recoil compensation or you will get a negative dice pool modifier due to the recoil of each individual burst.
*such as:
- sacrificing karma on strength
- sacrificing stealth by install a gas vent rather than using a sound suppressor
- sacrificing concealability by using a gyro mount system
- sacrificing mobility by using a bi-pod or tri-pod
- sacrificing flexibility by only using weapons that have built-in recoil compensation
2. For the people with real world experiance...
A simple action is enough time to recover the previous recoil and again start with your iron sights focused on your target.
-
Ares Alpha, 4 Strength, Underbarrel weight.
-
2. For the people with real world experiance, how does this stack up?
My real-world experience says that combat in RPGs is always completely and utterly fictional. There's no organization to a battlefield, and so it's a little bit futile to make up rules to simulate chaos. Therefore, I look at the combat rules more as a gamer than with any of my experience with firearms. For example, strength is definitely a powerful factor in reducing recoil, but so is skill. Knowing how your gun is going to kick is just as important, so that you can properly compensate (and not over-compensate). But getting into that level of detail with a game like Shadowrun would make it play more like 2nd edition, which was slow and required an obscene amount of math to do well. I prefer the simplicity of this version, myself.
As to my feedback on your rule, I think that it is elegant and simple. When I first read through the core book and saw that fully automatic weapons could be fired with a simple action, I figured there had to be something broken about it. Having played now for a while, I think the biggest problem with it is the recoil rules. I'd see the solution as being one of two options. Either leave in the simple FA shots, but require a full Initiative Pass to reset recoil, or remove the simple FA shots completely.
-
Fair enough, and thanks!
Speaking of missed rules, I've yet to find in the book anywhere that you fall unconsious when your Stun meter fills up. They tell you that the damage transfers to physical and that every 3 boxes gives a modifier, but not when you go lights out. Has this changed from previous editions?
Also, when do you regain consiousness?
- Shane
Edit: I see by a quick search that this already a known issue, so common sense will have to suffice until Errata surfaces. People go down when either moniter fills up (barring augmentation of some sort).
-
Fair enough, and thanks!
Speaking of missed rules, I've yet to find in the book anywhere that you fall unconsious when your Stun meter fills up. They tell you that the damage transfers to physical and that every 3 boxes gives a modifier, but not when you go lights out. Has this changed from previous editions?
Also, when do you regain consiousness?
- Shane
Edit: I see by a quick search that this already a known issue, so common sense will have to suffice until Errata surfaces. People go down when either moniter fills up (barring augmentation of some sort).
It's in my Easily-Missed-Rules topic already. :)
- Losing consciousness: You fall unconscious if either of your Condition Monitors fills up. While the rules erronously do not state it explicitly, there are references to this fact in other abilities. Note that a Pain Editor actively circumvents falling unconscious from Stun damage.
As for regaining consciousness, if you are not healed with First Aid or Heal (Heal only works on Physical by the way), or temporarily patched up with a Stim Patch, only natural recovery would let you recover. So against the Stun track you'd require an hour of undisturbed rest to roll Willpower+Body, at least 1 hit means you regain consciousness. With Physical damage, you'd need 1 day of rest and Bodyx2, and honestly the people near you should just bring you to a street doc instead. If the damage is bad, a Street Doc BEFORE a Heal spell is the best option you can make, and it'd be advisable to get Healthy Glow cast on you beforehand.
-
SR5 Quick Start Rules p. 3 Condition Monitors
The Condition Monitor consists of two tracks. The Physical Damage Track displays wound damage and indicates when the character dies. The Stun Damage Track shows fatigue and stun damage and indicates when a character falls unconscious. (See Resolving Damage, p. 10, for more information.)
SR5 Quick Start Rules p. 12 Unconsciousness
When all of the available boxes in a track (Physical or Stun) are filled in, the character immediately falls unconscious and drops to the ground. If the Stun track is filled in, the character is merely knocked out. If the Physical track is filled in, however, the character is near death and will die unless stabilized.
-
Huh, neat. Wonder why it's missing from the main rulebook?
By the way, I assume the reverse happens if someone is healed (either from stun or physical), but is that true? If I heal an enemy of his most serious wound and leave him at say 9 on the damage track, does he immediately regain consciousness and (barring other measures) in a state to attack again?
-
SR5 Quick Start Rules p. 3 Condition Monitors
The Condition Monitor consists of two tracks. The Physical Damage Track displays wound damage and indicates when the character dies. The Stun Damage Track shows fatigue and stun damage and indicates when a character falls unconscious. (See Resolving Damage, p. 10, for more information.)
SR5 Quick Start Rules p. 12 Unconsciousness
When all of the available boxes in a track (Physical or Stun) are filled in, the character immediately falls unconscious and drops to the ground. If the Stun track is filled in, the character is merely knocked out. If the Physical track is filled in, however, the character is near death and will die unless stabilized.
Huh, my main book seems to be missing the whole Quick Start rules thing.
- Shane
-
The Quick Start Rules are a free PDF released last year for Free Tabletop Day or whatever the name is again. The section isn't in the official rules and has been missed for errata, but several abilities still imply the same rules as always are valid.
-
Don't know if any one brought this up before, but one,monocle has a rating if 12r seriously?
Two, there are no capacity ratings for a lot of items you may want to have implanted in a cyber limb or into armor. For instance, bug scanner, trades (in a helmet) auto picker, white noise generator, camera, etc.
-
Don't know if any one brought this up before, but one,monocle has a rating if 12r seriously?
Two, there are no capacity ratings for a lot of items you may want to have implanted in a cyber limb or into armor. For instance, bug scanner, trades (in a helmet) auto picker, white noise generator, camera, etc.
For Monocles, yes. It's just a quirk, but yes.
For the second part, the entire list of items there is on page 87 of Run & Gun.
-
Don't know if any one brought this up before, but one,monocle has a rating if 12r seriously?
<...>
For Monocles, yes. It's just a quirk, but yes.
<...>
Monocles have been errata'd to be availability - (that is, freely available). The 12R was in error. (See the official errata).
-
Don't know if any one brought this up before, but one,monocle has a rating if 12r seriously?
Two, there are no capacity ratings for a lot of items you may want to have implanted in a cyber limb or into armor. For instance, bug scanner, trades (in a helmet) auto picker, white noise generator, camera, etc.
Bug Scanner is [2], Auto-Picker is [1], Camera is [1], White Noise Generator is [2]. Page 87 of R&G. Granted, it's unclear what you can put those things in, so the GM has the final say about what fits into what.
-
Don't know if any one brought this up before, but one,monocle has a rating if 12r seriously?
<...>
For Monocles, yes. It's just a quirk, but yes.
<...>
Monocles have been errata'd to be availability - (that is, freely available). The 12R was in error. (See the official errata).
I always forget to check Errata, my bad. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Just to make sure I'm clear on this, is capacity for armor the same as capacity for cyberware?
-
I haven't got the foggiest, I don't know what can go in where and at what cost, and the rules are never clear. The only place where Armor Add-Ons are mentioned are in a spacesuit that mentions it can still take armor add-ons. Such a question should be asked to Bull for Missions, and then used as official-enough-for-now ruling until a FAQ comes out on them.
-
Sorry I didn't read through all the pages before posting :( but the multiple attack free action, can it be used against the same target by splitting your dice pool? For Instance, I want to shoot yakuza three times my final dice pool is 12 with a pistols skill of 6. Could i shoot him 3 times each with 4 dice?
-
With a single weapon, no. Attacking someone with multiple weapons is a foggy situation. On one hand the rules state "multiple targets" for "multiple attacks", on the other hand this is contradicted explicitly and implicitly here and there and the rules are missing part of the Multiple Attacks section. I personally assume that if you use 2 weapons, you can attack someone with each weapon once if you want. However, with a single weapon you can always only attack multiple targets, this is explicit in the rules.
-
Malevolence's and Acolyte's suggested recoil houserules have been added.
Conjuring, Quickening, and Initiation houserules have been added, leaving Power Points and Strength Boost as the only magical houserules not yet covered, and possible rules for Initiation/Submersion that I am awaiting FAQs for first for now.
Implemented a numbering system that will hopefully make more clear what rules are alternatives or corollaries to what other rules. I'd like a bit of feedback on that before working the numbers into the main houserule posts though.
Note that while the arguments behind the Datajacks rule keep the main Noise houserule in mind, it's still a valid houserule by itself against Deckers grabbing a bunch of Alphaware Datajacks to become immune to Noise. As such it's rule 3 and not rule 2.2.
-
Regarding your house rule thread (I suppose I should write it here right?)
Do you want more than 1 houserule to each subject? even if they are contradicting other houserules?
For instance
cyberlimbs houserule 1 (max +4 aug bonus as "normal" ware")
Cyberlimbs houserule 2 ( customization to current natural attribute + enhancements)
Cyberlimbs houserule 3 ( something something)
Or is your list only for the "single Best" houserule?
-
Not single-best, as you can tell from the multiple recoil rules, but don't expect me to write a glowing recommendation for all of them, such as in this case numbers 1 and 2. I have always stated that any GM making those houserules should just explicitly ban Cyberlimbs rather than deliberately punishing players for wanting to take them, and while I'll post the upsides of those rules I will still emphasize the downsides as well. I prefer the anti-cheese rule that doesn't screw over legit players while completely defying all designer intent.
-
Dibs on the somethign something houserule! I made one of those!
-
...I have always stated that any GM making those houserules should just explicitly ban Cyberlimbs rather than deliberately punishing players for wanting to take them...
IMO there are two major issues with cyberlimbs.
1) Trolls in particular but also Orcs plus Dwarves and to some extent Elves that have metatype maximum strength- or, in the case of elves, agility- values have to pay a lot of availability and cost just to get cyberlimbs that match their natural values.
2) You can get +3 armor on feet and hands (and to some extent partial limbs) to a much lower essence and/or monetary cost compared to other augmentations and powers such as Dermal Plating, Orthoskin, Mystic Armor etc.
My proposed house-rule for cyberlimbs:
- Base Cyberlimbs now come at your Natural Strength and Agility Rating as default.
- Cyberlimbs now accept a maximum of +4 Strength and Agility Enhancement.
- Feet and Hands now only accept a maximum of +1 Armor Enhancement.
- Lower arm and lower leg now only accept a maximum of +2 Armor Enhancement.
- Cyberlimbs can be Customized to match new Natural Strength and Agility Ratings during gameplay.
-
...I have always stated that any GM making those houserules should just explicitly ban Cyberlimbs rather than deliberately punishing players for wanting to take them...
IMO there are two major issues with cyberlimbs.
1) Trolls in particular but also Orcs plus Dwarves and to some extent Elves that have metatype maximum strength- or, in the case of elves, agility- values have to pay a lot of availability and cost just to get cyberlimbs that match their natural values.
2) You can get +3 armor on feet and hands (and to some extent partial limbs) to a much lower essence and/or monetary cost compared to other augmentations and powers such as Dermal Plating, Orthoskin, Mystic Armor etc.
My proposed house-rule for cyberlimbs:
- Base Cyberlimbs now come at your Natural Strength and Agility Rating as default.
- Cyberlimbs now accept a maximum of +4 Strength and Agility Enhancement.
- Feet and Hands now only accept a maximum of +1 Armor Enhancement.
- Lower arm and lower leg now only accept a maximum of +2 Armor Enhancement.
- Cyberlimbs can be Customized to match new Natural Strength and Agility Ratings during gameplay.
Trolls and the like paying more for higher strength cyberarms and the like doesn't really feel like a problem to me - they're strongerafter all, and thus harder to make - and you still get the bonus of being able to get higher strength cyberarms. I don't see why the arms themselves should magically be stronger and more agile because their owner is.
I do agree with the limits on armor; +3 armor hands always sounded silly to me.
-
Because
1) The base prosthesis is (or at least imo should be) created to fit the frame and musculature of the subject by default. Or at least the default value of the metatype it is created for (this was my original houserule, but it complicated things a bit... but ill post it below anyway).
2) In order to be comparable with other augmentations you should also be able to reach the augmented maximum of +4. Including characters that have a natural value that is equal to the metatype maximum value. Currently cyberlimbs are limited to metatype maximum +3.
3) Mental focused characters that does not mind augmentations (such as a decker) can currently abuse cyberlimbs to get an Agility 9 Cyberarm of Cheeze.
A Troll street samurai with metatype maximum strength pretty much can't get cyberlimbs under the current rules. A right arm would have have an availability code of 11 and cost 50,000¥ just to fit the frame and musculature of his natural strength. A human decker with strength rating of 1 getting a cyberarm could get an arm with metatype maximum strength that only would have an availability code of 7 and cost 30,000¥. The troll can also only enhance the strength of the arm by +3 (which is 1 point less than his normal augmented maximum strength of 14). The human decker can enhance the strength an additional 3 points (which give him a strength value that is 8 points higher than his natural strength or 4 points higher than his normal augmented maximum strength of 4).
The current rules promote physically weak and clumsy characters (traditionally a decker) to get chrome versions of their limbs. While traditionally this isn't an archetype that use to pack chromed limbs.
My rule would promote already strong and agile characters (traditionally a street samurai) to get chrome versions of their limbs. Traditionally this is THE archetype that use to pack chromed limbs.
The game-mechanic rules need to reflect this.... They need to make it impossible for characters with lower natural strength and/or agility values to get high strength and/or agility cyberlimbs (or if you look at it from the other perspective; possible for characters with high natural strength and/or agility values to get cyberlimbs with high strength and/or agility values).
-
- Base Cyberlimbs now come at your Metatype Minimal Strength and Agility Rating + 2 as default.
Human Strength 3, Agility 3
Elf Strength 3, Agility 4
Dwarf Strength 5, Agility 3
Ork Strength 6, Agility 3
Troll Strength 7, Agility 3 - Cyberlimbs can be Customized to match your Natural Strength and Agility Ratings
(even after installment and if your natural value increase during game-play). - Cyberlimbs now accept a maximum of +4 Strength and Agility Enhancement.
- Feet and Hands now only accept a maximum of +1 Armor Enhancement.
- Lower arm and lower leg now only accept a maximum of +2 Armor Enhancement.
-
This reduce the cost for a troll with natural strength 10 to get a cyberarm with matching strength from availability code of 11 and 50,000¥ down availability code of 7 and 30,000¥.
A human with metatype maximum natural strength (strength rating 6) getting a cyberarm customized up to his natural strength rating would also pay 30,000¥ and this arm would also have an availability code of 7.
The strength 1 decker would get a cyberarm with strength 3 that cannot be customized higher unless his natural strength value is increased beyond 3. The arm would have an availability code of 4 and cost 15,000¥.
The troll arm with strength 10, the human arm with strength 6 and the human decker arm with strength 3 can then be enhanced by up to 4 points of strength (for a cost of 4 capacity, 26,000¥ and an availability code of 12R).
-
Customizing to Natural Strength still falls under "just ban them explicitly then" for me. ZeConster's rule is far better at both preventing cheesiness and not punishing people for daring to take Cyberlimbs simultaneously. What you're basically saying is "I'm changing the rules because I don't like Cyberlimbs, and you really should just take Ware directly increasing your attributes, but let's pretend Cyberlimbs are still a realistic option with proper upsides". Again, I'll still include the Natural As Customize Cap houserule in the topic, but I consider it something that defies both designer intent and a proper mathematic test, as I stated and calculated out in several debates on the matter.
As for Partial Limbs, the alternative solution for those is simple: State Armor is an attribute. That way armor on partial limbs only applies against Called Shots to that limb, or alternatively the GM can average the partial armor so 4x3 = 12/5=+3 on the Armor rating. There's already a precedent in the form of the socks from R&G. I'll include several versions of course.
-
House rules almost always goes against the design choice of the developers. That is why they are called house rules.
There are two design paths to choose between when it comes to cyberlimbs;
1) can only customize the limb at install, does not scale at all during game play but is not limited by your natural physical attributes. Pro (if you can even call it that) is that you can get an agility 9 cyberarm of cheese on a character that is mentally focused but don't mind augmentations and that cyberlimbs in general is stronger out of chargen. Con is that characters with extreme physical attributes (such as a street samurai) will (at least eventually) become weaker with cyberlimbs and that cyberlimbs is pretty much off limits for trolls.
2) can only customize cyberlimbs up to your natural physical attributes but can also be customized to your new natural physical attributes during game play. Pro is that cyberlimbs now scale as your characters progress, if you focus on physical attributes you can use cyberlimbs without becoming weaker in the long run and that trolls can start to use cyberlimbs as well. Con being that you can no longer get an agility 9 cyberarm of cheese on a physically weak character and that cyberlimbs are not so heavy front loaded with power out of chargen.
Developers went with path #1
I personally think that it was a mistake.
Why?
Because i think the rules should promote the troll street samurai to use the chrome rather than the decker....
-
You already know ZeConster's houserules. Not sure why then you'd still insist only 2 paths exist. Especially since your path 2 has an addition many people did not offer in their paths, so obviously there's far more than 2 paths. There's basically several dimensions, each with at least 2 values, and not all combinations are viable. Your two paths are merely 2 of the many datapoints.
Anyway. I'll include multiple variants of Cyberlimb houserules, part of which can be combined. If you want to keep debating variants, resurrect one of the topics where more than enough on them was said. I'm willing to read what people on my list say here, but I have zero interest in the repeat of debates I already had plenty of in the past. All that can lead to is an end of my policy to read posts I cannot normally see in my topics, and that would be a waste. Keep it on-topic and switch to a separate topic when things get lengthy, and provide me with useful links for controversies.
-
You already know ZeConster's houserules...
Nope, but I will look for it when I get to a proper computer.
In an interview or a forum post (can't remember, I'll see if I can find the quote when I get home) one of the developers basically said that there was two options. Disconnect limbs from natural attributes or figure out how to make them scale as natural attributes improved.
edit:
did you mean this (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=12594.msg235413#msg235413)one?
^that house rule pretty much only prevent deckers to dump-stat agility and get an agility 9 cyberarm of cheeze...?
They don't fix what i consider the two major issues with cyberlimbs;
1) Trolls in particular but also Orcs plus Dwarves and to some extent Elves that have metatype maximum strength- or, in the case of elves, agility- values have to pay a lot of availability and cost just to get cyberlimbs that match their natural values.
2) You can get +3 armor on feet and hands (and to some extent partial limbs) to a much lower essence and/or monetary cost compared to other augmentations and powers such as Dermal Plating, Orthoskin, Mystic Armor etc
But reading his hose-rule at least gave me insight in what I think you and your brother value about cyberlimbs:
The ability for someone with average attributes to boost their attributes beyond the normal +4 augmented maximum....
-
Power Point rules added, let me know if I made mistakes while adjusting the text and accidentally left things out.
-
But reading his hose-rule at least gave me insight in what I think you and your brother value about cyberlimbs:
The ability for someone with average attributes to boost their attributes beyond the normal +4 augmented maximum....
You say this like appreciating the designer intent is a bad thing.
-
You're right that that rule doesn't solve all the problems, only 1. But those other problems can be solved with their own minor additions.
Cyberlimb Houserules aren't going to be 15a and 15b, they're going to be more like 15a/15b, 16a/16b, 17a/17b/17c, etc, and GMs can pick the smaller ones they like. If a GM doesn't want Cyberlimb Attributes to exceed what one can get through other ware, which exists in both SR4 and SR5, they can pick the houserule that changes that. If they want to keep this as intended but nerf down cheesiness, they can pick the houserule that offers that. For every situation they consider a problem, they can grab a rule for that. There's no need to go all-or-nothing, just like with the Quickening and PP rules I posted.
So basically there will be a list, it will feature multiple perspectives and note not all possible methods are included, and a GM can simply make a topic and go "so I want to tune down cyberlimbs, and I was thinking about <X> set of houserules from the topic and add <Y> myself, what do people think?" and have a nice debate. All my topic does is have a list with some explanations behind them, and GMs can freely pick, think for themselves and ask for advice, and that is when the debate should take place.
-
You say this like appreciating the designer intent is a bad thing.
Nope. That is a good thing.
I just didn't see Michael's point before reading your post (I think it is a valid point).
Bad things:
A character can dump stat agility and still get an agility 9 cyberarm of cheese
A character that max out physical attributes will have an augmented maximum that is +4 but a cyberlimb maximum that is only +3
Cyberlimbs start out with average metatype attributes before customization, but only for humans
You can get armor on feet and hands (and to some extent partial limbs) to a much lower cost compared to other augmentations
Good things:
Characters with average physical attributes can use cyberlimbs to break the +4 augmented maximum limit
Cyberlimbs come with minimum attribute ratings before customization, even if you have very low physical attributes
I will try to modify the house-rule so that it will address all the above....
(but to respect Michael's wish of not cluttering down his thread i will post that as a new topic)
Link to modified house rule here (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18539.0)
(slipped by Michael)
-
Reminder to self: I gave Sangius a poke and will put together a Speed houserule based on our ideas later.
-
So question, I have been rather busy so haven't really worked on this lately, and also am behind on the times (haven't read R&G and SG good enough to know fully what easily missed rules and controversies those contain). Since it's best to do this work in portions, I got two questions for people.
1: What should I work on next? For example, set-of-cyberlimb-houserules, drone-missed-stuff+controversies, etc?
2: What easily missed rules do you think I should add to the list from the new core books? For example, 'this uses radical reagents which are prohibitively more expensive than normal reagents' for preparing a vessel, or 'armor add-ons are listed on page #'?
-
There seems to be the opinion that adepts can't participate in rituals. Yet Street Grimoire does specifically state that they can. I'm a little fuzzy on the how though, since I believe the rules for adept rituals are spread out across the book. That might be useful to look into.
-
There's a lot of easily missed rules about alchemical preparations. Like that they require LOS to activate, you must be on the material plane or manifesting during astral projecting... Or, hmm. Maybe it's just end up "Read the box on page 210, and then make a different character".
Also... There appears to be no listed price for Radical Reagents. That implies either 1) they must be made by the PC (meaning some characters may need the Alchemy skill when they didn't know it) or bought through a contact with the right skills ad-hoc (they have no availability and it's up to the GM for how much extra the contact charges) OR 2) they are bought for their base price in normal reagents, which defeats the purpose of allowing the players to make them (since it just risks time and money for no reward).
That was kinda convoluted so allow me to rephrase. The rules imply you either have to make all the radical reagents yourself or your GM has to make up a price and availability for them, or else just buying them for their price in normal reagents would be unfair.
-
Their prices are listed in Shadow Spells because they did not make it into SG for reasons. But yeah, including that may be a good idea because it's not in SG.
-
There's a lot of easily missed rules about alchemical preparations. Like that they require LOS to activate, you must be on the material plane or manifesting during astral projecting... Or, hmm. Maybe it's just end up "Read the box on page 210, and then make a different character".
Yeah, there are quite a few. Like how the area of a preparation is based on Potency rather than Force (even though it has a Force).
The rules imply you either have to make all the radical reagents yourself or your GM has to make up a price and availability for them, or else just buying them for their price in normal reagents would be unfair.
Price & Availability for all the different reagents is on the last page of Shadow Spells (I know...). I think that would make it an easily missed rule.
ETA: Slipped by Michael Chandra on the reagents pricing
-
Their prices are listed in Shadow Spells because they did not make it into SG for reasons. But yeah, including that may be a good idea because it's not in SG.
Holy price leap, Batman! That is some serious cash for radical reagents. I would say "Screw shadowrunning, I'm going to make radical reagents for a living" but then, it might take 88 hours to produce one dram from normal reagents (assuming you can only make 1 refined at a time).
Also, here's an unclear rule from SG. The benefits of Fettering. It has a big crunch section, but I'm unsure what it does. Is it that you effectively have infinite services from the spirit? Maybe it just seems unclear to me. I'm mostly just trying to find something to add so I'm not just responding without adding to the thread purpose.
-
Is there one here about spirits having two condition monitors? I could have sworn that in SR4 and previous editions they only had one...?!?
Spirits follow the normal rules for combat, whether physical or astral. If all of the boxes on a spirit’s Condition Monitor (either of them) are filled, the spirit is painfully disrupted and is forced back to its home metaplane. Any services it still owes are lost.
Thanks to 8-bit for finding the quote!
-
Included a bunch of extra things for the future list in italic.
-
Note to self: Add Skills/Groups/Specializations points+karma to the chargen section.
-
Improving cyberware? The difference between increasing the rating and changing the grade. What is the ¥ cost and procedure? Are they handled the same? Or can you increase the rating just by making up the difference in cost?
-
afik there are no rules for upgrading or building your own augmentations.
one way of doing it is that you just rip out the old augmentation.
that you now consider the old augmentation "used" grade no matter what it previously was (if you want to try to sell it to a third party)
that you get an essence "hole" that you can fill with new augmentations before you need to spend more of your real essence.
then you buy the new augmentation at full price and on installment it take up the full essence cost.
first from your essence hole and then from your real essence.
-
Jand that totally makes sense for improving the grade of ware, but less so for improving the rating.
-
Talk to your GM.
It makes sense that Cyberware can be upgraded, but it depends on the item in question and should not be generalized.
You can't upgrade Bone Lacings, but getting from Reaction Enhancer II to Reaction Enhancer III might be feasible.
-
On one hand it sounds feasible, on the other hand it may simply contain nothing but superior parts so any upgrading could equal buying a new one. So it's a GM call.
By the way, it's on the future list. But normally you cannot upgrade, simply replace. You sell the old (unless Cultured), buy new.
-
On one hand it sounds feasible, on the other hand it may simply contain nothing but superior parts so any upgrading could equal buying a new one. So it's a GM call.
By the way, it's on the future list. But normally you cannot upgrade, simply replace. You sell the old (unless Cultured), buy new.
So in reading the rules I could not find it, if as you say you can't upgrade, just replace, do you get the essence back for the one you removed? are you just screwed and have to pay twice? Sorry for the questions, im a tad confused.
-
So in reading the rules I could not find it, if as you say you can't upgrade, just replace, do you get the essence back for the one you removed? are you just screwed and have to pay twice? Sorry for the questions, im a tad confused.
You don't get the essence back, but don't lose any more til you have filled that 'hole'.
So take a 1 essence thing out, have a 1 essence 'hole'. Put a 0.8 essense thing in, you lose no more essence, but your 'hole' is now 0.2. Add a 0.5 essence thing in, you fill the hole and lose another 0.3.
Or so I understood. Now going to try to find the rule!
-
So in reading the rules I could not find it, if as you say you can't upgrade, just replace, do you get the essence back for the one you removed? are you just screwed and have to pay twice? Sorry for the questions, im a tad confused.
You don't get the essence back, but don't lose any more til you have filled that 'hole'.
So take a 1 essence thing out, have a 1 essence 'hole'. Put a 0.8 essense thing in, you lose no more essence, but your 'hole' is now 0.2. Add a 0.5 essence thing in, you fill the hole and lose another 0.3.
Or so I understood. Now going to try to find the rule!
Edit - Couldn't find it, maybe it's just what the GM said in our game.
-
It's not in the core rules, it's in the Missions FAQ.
-
It's not in the core rules, it's in the Missions FAQ.
Thank you
-
In 4th edition, the 'essence hole' rule was in the Augmentation extended core book, so in all likelihood, the Missions FAQ entry is there to fill the void until 5e's augmentation book arrives.
-
Yup, what Kincon said.
Note to self, add Addiction flowchart.
-
Not to be labour the point, but the missions FAQ specifically talks about upgrading, and gives examples only about the grades, not improving the rating. That's why I'm asking for clarification.
And bone lacing doesn't come in different ratings it comes in different types. The places it really makes sense that you could just pay the difference are things like bioware; the places it makes less sense in in the ratings for eyes and ears, and maybe wired reflexes.
-
It's never stated explicitly that it is allowed in SR4 or SR5, nor do the rules ever say you can upgrade Gas Vent 2s to Gas Vent 3s, so I'd argue against it. And the Missions FAQ also basically says that 'upgrading' your ware basically means replacing it. If improving the rating WAS possible, they wouldn't use the term 'upgrading' for the grade without a note that you can upgrade the rating without a full replacement. So I don't see any RAW support for it, and so in the end the GM decides if any exceptions exist.
In comparison, you couldn't freely upgrade a rating 3 commlink to a rating 5 either, in SR4 you were limited in how far you could upgrade one and in SR5 no rules for it exist. If you buy a new deck you also got to fence the old one.
-
Here's how to upgrade your 'ware: sell the previous 'ware for a price determined by the GM (Missions uses 30%) and then buy the new 'ware with the money. Done and done.
-
Oddly enough though there are optional rules for upgrading a Medkit.
-
Why is that odd? A medkit and cyberware are vastly different things.
-
As are commlinks and cyberware. What I find odd about medkits being picked, is that they are one of the few items that change shape and size as their rating increases, yet you can upgrade them apparently without that concern. Where as something like a cyberlimb can be customized at purchase, but not afterwards. I would have even expected something like a Deck to be upgradeable more so than a medkit. In fact, medkits would have been one of the things I would have guessed would not be open to uprading, at least across size barriers.
-
I could be wrong but isn't that optional rule from a book that ALSO explains exactly what's in the things? And with a medkit, sorry but that is the ONLY case where upgrading to a 100% better model actually makes sense: All you're doing is adding a few more specialized things to your box. Why would adding some syringes, special medicines and such be impossible to do?
-
I would have expected that since a Rating 3 or lower fits into a pocket, and a Rating 4 or higher is a handheld case, that the difference was more than just adding some different medicines and syringes. Its one of the few things that explicitly gets larger with a higher rating.
-
Since you're quoting an optional rule about upgrading the rating of a medkit, you should really not pull that into the debate before knowing the full details, aka what exactly goes into a medkit. So I suggest you start digging before trying to present that argument.
-
Since you're quoting an optional rule about upgrading the rating of a medkit, you should really not pull that into the debate before knowing the full details, aka what exactly goes into a medkit. So I suggest you start digging before trying to present that argument.
I suggest you read my OP, as I clearly stated it was an optional rule. I am also not pulling it to either side of the debate, however, since you brought up commlinks, the optional rule for non cyberware based upgrades seems worth mentioning to me. And I am fully aware of what it says regarding what is changed out during an upgrade, and perhaps you should do some digging into the actual rules about it since it is more than just different syringes and medicines, from Bullets and Bandages;
reinstalling higher-Rating software, adding more
detailed medical content, and switching out the kit’s contents
for a streamlined selection of higher-quality tools
and supplies.
But again, my expectation still would have been that bringing a medkit from rating 3 (pocket sized) to 5 (handheld case sized) would have required a change in size.
-
I suggest you read my OP, as I clearly stated it was an optional rule.
And I suggest you read his, as it shows he knew you stated that. His point is that it's strange to take an optional rule about upgrading what is essentially a toolkit of the medical variety, and assume it should impact mandatory rules about upgrading stuff that is implanted in you.
Also, I would think the casing is by far the cheapest part of a medkit.
-
His point is that it's strange to take an optional rule about upgrading what is essentially a toolkit of the medical variety, and assume it should impact mandatory rules about upgrading stuff that is implanted in you.
I am not assuming that. I am not saying that.
-
I suggest you read my OP, as I clearly stated it was an optional rule.
Please quote the specific sections from my posts that justify the pretense that I ever lacked the understanding of the optional-status of the rule. Furthermore, please quote the specific sections from my posts that justify the false claim that I would somehow be arguing upgrading a medkit solely required different syringes and medicine.
Or let's just cut to the chase: You decided to pretend I did not read your posts or the rules, yet this very pretense of yours requires deliberately ignoring significant parts of my posts. I find this strawmanning highly unpleasant and am demanding you leave this topic until you are willing to show better manners. If you do not, I will report you for needless instigating.
In your own words:GTFO of here.
And before you declare that as needlessly rude:its an expression, relax
-
Please quote the specific sections from my posts....
All you're doing is adding a few more specialized things to your box. Why would adding some syringes, special medicines and such be impossible to do?
If by that you meant
reinstalling higher-Rating software, adding more
detailed medical content, and switching out the kit’s contents
for a streamlined selection of higher-quality tools
and supplies.
then I didn't get that from your quote. My apologizes if I misunderstood you.
But I was right about one thing, for sure, you need to relax
-
"perhaps you should do some digging into the actual rules about it since it is more than just different syringes and medicines"
"All you're doing is adding a few more specialized things to your box. Why would adding some syringes, special medicines and such be impossible to do?"
"I suggest you read my OP, as I clearly stated it was an optional rule."
"I could be wrong but isn't that optional rule from a book that ALSO explains exactly what's in the things?
"Since you're quoting an optional rule about upgrading the rating of a medkit,"
You claimed I said it was solely different syringes and medicines. I never did. I made abundantly clear that it was more than that. On the other hand, the medkit descriptions all go 'all of the above + <....>' so going you're adding a few things' is a decent summary if short. Plus you talked about what you expected the differences were. But there is no expectation if you know what they say, so your phrasing suggested you did not know the contents of different levels of medkits yourself.
Yet despite making it sound as if you did not know the full details, you decided to act as if I was the one completely missing the point of the rules and never bothered to read them at all, while it's obvious from my posts that I knew enough about them to argue the point, versus your posts suggesting you had insufficient knowledge.
Furthermore, I see you are refusing to apologize for, or even acknowledge the existence of, the needless unbased false claim that I never read your post properly, and added yet another comment meant purely to offend. As such I have reported you, and will continue doing so for any future posts you make here. I will also cease replying to them, because I only reply to people on my ignore list here if they do not abuse this fact. Your behaviour constitutes such abuse so I will no longer extend any courtesy to you, since you are unwilling to display any yourself.
-
Given that the matter has been discussed a bit here (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18603.0), could the essence of the line
So you don’t really need to be able to see the target—you can cast these spells blindfolded or with artificial image enhancement - as long as you’ve got a clear line of fire.
regarding targeting indirect spells maybe be added to the list? :)
-
You claimed I said it was solely different syringes and medicines. I never did. I made abundantly clear that it was more than that. On the other hand, the medkit descriptions all go 'all of the above + <....>' so going you're adding a few things' is a decent summary if short. Plus you talked about what you expected the differences were. But there is no expectation if you know what they say, so your phrasing suggested you did not know the contents of different levels of medkits yourself.
When you said, "All you're doing is adding a few more specialized things to your box. Why would adding some syringes, special medicines and such be impossible to do?", I interpreted "and such" to be related to special medicines and syringes that you had specifically mentioned. That's how I read your statement. As I already stated in my last post, I apologize if I misunderstood you. Furthermore, you asked "impossible to do", which I never said it would be, hence my request that you read my OP.
Now, as for why I used the word "expectation", it is simple. When someone asks me why I think something in the book is "odd", I will comment on the contrast between what I would expect to be printed relative to what is printed. I was commenting that since the size different between a Rating 3 and a Rating 4 is so distinct, and the differences involves an upgrade in software, my expectation would be that the higher rating software involves a larger industrial designed casing to hold the expanded footprint, that the additional material components need more space, and that the larger storage capacity would also require a package more along the lines of a handheld case. If it was easily fit into a smaller package, then I wouldn't have expected Rating 4+ to be so large, necessarily. Hence, why I find it "odd", from my own personal point of view
You should report any posts that you feel violate the rules of this site, but constantly publicizing it is unnecessary.
And note, that while you may disagree with me, all of my posts have been clearly related to rules of shadowrun. Zeconster's post below is the very definition of off topic.
-
We get it, aaron: you made wrong assumptions, misunderstood his posts, were rude about it, refuse to apologize, and refuse to realize you're derailing the topic with your bad behavior. Really, we get it.
-
I still don't understand what medkit upgrading has to do with upgrading cyberware. First off, the two things are very far apart from each other. Secondly, we still haven't gotten the 5th edition equivalent of Augmentation so there's no reason to think you won't see upgrade rules later. Finally, Bullets & Bandages does a great job of explaining that when you upgrade a medkit from, say Rating 3 to Rating 4, you can still only use the medkit 3 times (due to lack of space in the medkit to do more than swapping out some items). So I really don't understand what is going on there. Aaron, if you're curious more about how upgrading medkits work, you should read Bullets & Bandages. If you want to know how upgrading cyberware works, you should wait for the book. And if you want to understand how not to piss people off, you should read How to Win Friends and Influence People. :P
-
I still don't understand what medkit upgrading has to do with upgrading cyberware.
The conversation added Gas Vents and Commlinks being upgraded, so I thought mentioning Medkits would be relevant, you know, since they are also not cyberware, but do have optional rules for upgrade.
First off, the two things are very far apart from each other. Secondly, we still haven't gotten the 5th edition equivalent of Augmentation so there's no reason to think you won't see upgrade rules later. Finally, Bullets & Bandages does a great job of explaining that when you upgrade a medkit from, say Rating 3 to Rating 4, you can still only use the medkit 3 times (due to lack of space in the medkit to do more than swapping out some items). So I really don't understand what is going on there. Aaron, if you're curious more about how upgrading medkits work, you should read Bullets & Bandages. If you want to know how upgrading cyberware works, you should wait for the book. And if you want to understand how not to piss people off, you should read How to Win Friends and Influence People. :P
Ya, I have bullets and bandages, and have read the section about medkit upgrading. It doesn't really confuse me to be honest though. I don't have a problem with not pissing people off either, but Michael is very sensitive, he got upset at me literally quoting his own language back to him. I will never worry myself with someone of that nature.
-
Given that the matter has been discussed a bit here (http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=18603.0), could the essence of the line So you don’t really need to be able to see the target—you can cast these spells blindfolded or with artificial image enhancement - as long as you’ve got a clear line of fire.
regarding targeting indirect spells maybe be added to the list? :)
Good one. Unlike the massive debate about other details, this one is cleanly-cut in the rules. I oughta add that soon.
-
Due to circumstances I am withdrawing from the forum.
-
Michael,
I am truly sorry to see you go. You have helped me understand Shadowrun a lot and helped make sense of what is a really intimidating rules set for a newcomer.
All the best, and I for one am really sorry to see you go, especially due to the ill mannered.
-
Hope everything is okay health and home-wise and that the absence is only temporary.
-
Reddit user Draxtier (http://www.reddit.com/r/Shadowrun/comments/30eeqi/what_happens_to_active_spells_when_i_astrally/cps4q4h), pointed out that mental direction and manipulation spells don't work in the astral.
SR5 p314
When a magician is astrally projecting, her mind has stepped out for the moment. Mental detection and manipulation spells targeting the physical body of an astrally projecting mage simply do not work, although other spells do. Although if you really want to mess up a magician without killing her, you can move her body away from where she left it.
So, no mind control or no mind link.
-
Great work! Thank you!
-
Thanks so much for doing this.