Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: El Carnicero on <11-20-13/1815:15>
-
Page 206, "...the maximum damage healable with the First Aid skill is equal to the skill's rating."
Page 207, in the example, Full Deck--with a First Aid of 1 and a specialization in Combat Wounds--uses a rating 6 medkit to generate 6 hits on his First Aid test, resulting in 4 net after the threshold, and he heals his patient 4 boxes. This is moar than his First Aid skill.
So what gives? Is he substituting the Medkit's First Aid skill for his own, even though he's rolling his own skill check and using the medkit to assist? When making the test do you use whichever is higher, the skill or the rating of the device? Is the line on 206 a goof from before they put Limits in the game? Am I missing something?
-
When making the test do you use whichever is higher, the skill or the rating of the device? Is the line on 206 a goof from before they put Limits in the game?
I'd put money on these two being the best choices.
-
It looks like it was mentioned in the errata thread, but no official word.
-
Page 206, "...the maximum damage healable with the First Aid skill is equal to the skill's rating."
Page 207, in the example, Full Deck--with a First Aid of 1 and a specialization in Combat Wounds--uses a rating 6 medkit to generate 6 hits on his First Aid test, resulting in 4 net after the threshold, and he heals his patient 4 boxes. This is moar than his First Aid skill.
So what gives?
Page 450, Medkit paragraph: "Add the medkit's rating to your limit on First Aid kits."
I believe that means, for your example, that Full Deck with First Aid-1 and a rating 6 medkit has a limit of 7 successes.
-
I was thinking that too, but in the example on 207, the text reads:
"...which means he has 12 dice limited by his Mental Limit of 5 plus the Medkit Rating of 6, totaling 11..."
So it seems as if the intention is for the Medkit to modify the Mental Limit, not the "meta-limit" worked into the text. Which would mean he only got 1 box healed on the roll, not 4. Broken editing is broken?
Edit - the rule as written, excluding the example, would suggest that a player character with a First Aid of 3 and a Logic of 3 would be better off letting a Rating 6 Medkit operate independently instead of working with it. (12 dice for the PC, max 3 hits healed, compared to 12 dice for the medkit autopilot, max 6 hits healed). Working as intended?
-
The paragraph that states that the max number of healable boxes being limited by the skill's rating seems to be a direct copy/paste from SR4a..
The way I do it in my game is to use the limit as the limit. Medkits add their rating to the limit, so if your [Mental] is 5, and a Rating 4 medkit, you can heal up to 7 boxes with a good roll (9 - 2 for the threshold). This seems to make the most sense, since SR5 introduced inherent and Gear limits.
-
It also still takes a decent skill to get the net hits necessary to heal many boxes, as the way I read it, the max boxes healed of skill rating is still after reaching the threshold. Since the threshold is 2 for first aid, you need more than 3 hits to start to hit the skill limit.
This would make the person with first aid 3, logic 3 and a medkit capable of healing 3 boxes, requiring 5 hits, requiring just slightly better than average rolls; the most the medkit can heal is 4 boxes. Any skill over 3 begins to see a box per skill point more possible, after a skill of 4, each box is more than the medkit is ever able to get since its tlimit is its rating.
But yes, with low skill and logic, a R6 medkit can operate itself better than most people can.
-
It also still takes a decent skill to get the net hits necessary to heal many boxes, as the way I read it, the max boxes healed of skill rating is still after reaching the threshold. Since the threshold is 2 for first aid, you need more than 3 hits to start to hit the skill limit.
This would make the person with first aid 3, logic 3 and a medkit capable of healing 3 boxes, requiring 5 hits, requiring just slightly better than average rolls; the most the medkit can heal is 4 boxes. Any skill over 3 begins to see a box per skill point more possible, after a skill of 4, each box is more than the medkit is ever able to get since its tlimit is its rating.
But yes, with low skill and logic, a R6 medkit can operate itself better than most people can.
I couldn't have said it any better myself and I tried! haha.
People can also spend edge. :)
-
Spending edge won't help though, because the skill limit isn't a proper SR5 limit, it's a seperate concept.
I still find it weird that low-skilled first aiders have no leg up over nonskilled first aiders for a wireless medkit; to me it should just add bonus dice (and do something else with the skill limit). But still, they do have the option to use it in non-wireless mode, which is nice because hackers and noise and stuff. So that's something.
-
It also still takes a decent skill to get the net hits necessary to heal many boxes, as the way I read it, the max boxes healed of skill rating is still after reaching the threshold. Since the threshold is 2 for first aid, you need more than 3 hits to start to hit the skill limit.
This would make the person with first aid 3, logic 3 and a medkit capable of healing 3 boxes, requiring 5 hits, requiring just slightly better than average rolls; the most the medkit can heal is 4 boxes. Any skill over 3 begins to see a box per skill point more possible, after a skill of 4, each box is more than the medkit is ever able to get since its tlimit is its rating.
But yes, with low skill and logic, a R6 medkit can operate itself better than most people can.
Fair enough, and that's what we're going with at my table; my problem with this, though, is that this interpretation:
- Contradicts the example given on pp.207, where a character with a First Aid of 1 heals a target 4 boxes (after threshold),
- Introduces a "meta-limit" in a system with an already existing "Limit" mechanic, that is inconsistent with any rule anywhere else,
- Suggests that someone with average Logic and "Competent" skill in First Aid would be less effective working in tandem with a Medkit than the Medkit's autosoft could do on it's own,
- Makes a non-wireless Medkit functionally worthless to anyone who doesn't have a [Mental] Limit lower than their First Aid.
Given that the example on pp.207 reads out like every other example in the book, and is consistent with every other Test-vs-Limit in the book, I'm more inclined to think it's the correct interpretation. That single sentence on pp.206 introduces a world of WTF to a system that is otherwise synergistic with everything else in SR5.
People can also spend edge. :)
Can they, though? Edge is used to break "Limits," as in the [Mental] part of the (First Aid + Logic [Mental]) roll. Using edge would only allow you to take the maximum number of successes allowed by your skill if you skill was higher than your [Mental] Limit.
The hard cap on healing in the rules description is not a "Limit" in that sense. It's a limit, but not a "Limit." Natch?
-
Before I start, believe me, I agree 100% that there is a desperate need for Errata on this subject. However, looking purely at RAW (ignoring the fluff and examples of course) it is balanced and statistically the max healable limit isn't an issue that will realistically ever come up.
I still find it weird that low-skilled first aiders have no leg up over nonskilled first aiders for a wireless medkit; to me it should just add bonus dice (and do something else with the skill limit). But still, they do have the option to use it in non-wireless mode, which is nice because hackers and noise and stuff. So that's something.
No leg up? Someone who's taken a basic run of the mill CPR/First Responder session at a job is going to have a rating of 2 so I assume that's what you mean by low-skilled. However, even with a rating of 1 they have a leg up on nonskilled.
Using an average medkit (rating 3; reasoning below) and average human runner (attributes of 3 across the board):
• Medkit: DP = 6; Limit = 3; Heals minimum amount 31.96% of the time. Max heal of 1 (same).
• Skill rating 0 runner (watches ER Dramas): DP = 5; Limit = 7; Heals minimum amount 20.99% of the time. Max heal of 2 (0.41%) or 3 (only with edge).
• Skill rating 1 Runner (watched the 30 minute first aid vid for a job) : DP = 7; Limit = 7; Heals minimum amount 42.94% of the time. Max heal of 1 (same).
• Skill rating 2 Runner (took a very basic, day long, CPR/First Aid class): DP = 8; Limit = 7; Heals minimum amount 53.18% of the time. Max heal of 2 (25.86%).
Is an over double success rate not a leg up? Yes the possibility for an unskilled runner to heal more with edge using a high grade medkit is wonky and First Aid definitely needs an errata but the problems you speak of just don't exist.
Spending edge won't help though, because the skill limit isn't a proper SR5 limit, it's a seperate concept.
Can they, though? Edge is used to break "Limits," as in the [Mental] part of the (First Aid + Logic [Mental]) roll. Using edge would only allow you to take the maximum number of successes allowed by your skill if you skill was higher than your [Mental] Limit.
The hard cap on healing in the rules description is not a "Limit" in that sense. It's a limit, but not a "Limit." Natch?
Um...negate glitches, reroll a bad roll, add to the roll, burn for automatic 4. Take your pick. I'm very aware that edge doesn't boost the max heal, why would anyone? Edge is not just to boost limit. In order to actually look at something you need to look at all angles not just the ones that make your points look good. You need to look at the statistics too. Metahuman dicepools can already get ridiculously high thanks to the new skill ratings but we'll look at just the straight average.
Average Medkit is rating 3 considering most places don't have briefcase size trauma kits strapped to the wall for emergancies.
Average human runner is let's say Logic 3 First Aid 3 (so has taken a full EMR - CPR/First Responder class)
• The average medkit is going to have a DP of 6 and a limit of 3. The most the medkit can heal is 1 (3 hits) and that's only a 31.96% of the time. That means the kit doesn't to diddly squat 2 out of 3. We won't even calculate glitch rates.
• The average human runner on the other hand using the average medkit will have a DP of 9 and a limit of 7. The human will be healing at least 1 damage 62.28% of the time and at most 3 damage 14.48%. So not only is the person performing better than the equipment alone, but they can use a point of Edge to increase their chances of success or to prevent geeking their bud if they really mess up unlike the medkit.
Fair enough, and that's what we're going with at my table; my problem with this, though, is that this interpretation:
Contradicts the example given on pp.207, where a character with a First Aid of 1 heals a target 4 boxes (after threshold)
Ignore examples, samples, and fluff. In SR5, as with all editions, there are some serious miscalculations across the board; see the errata threads to see a lot of examples.
Introduces a "meta-limit" in a system with an already existing "Limit" mechanic, that is inconsistent with any rule anywhere else,
First Aid is not only used to heal damage. It has more than one use. For balance they decided to give one use a maximum effectiveness. Many systems do this, I don't see the issue other than you don't like being limited.
Suggests that someone with average Logic and "Competent" skill in First Aid would be less effective working in tandem with a Medkit than the Medkit's autosoft could do on it's own,
Completely untrue if you're also comparing to the average medkit (see above). If rating 6 then no duh, that's why they are made. Also keep in mind that someone with a skill of 4 is still going to be able to heal just as much as a medkit of 6. Perhaps less often but with specializations, gear, and edge it's not hard for a logic 3, rating 4 runner to beat a rating 6 medkit on auto.
Makes a non-wireless Medkit functionally worthless to anyone who doesn't have a [Mental] Limit lower than their First Aid.
I completely agree and personally I hate the Wireless bonuses they added in this edition. It makes the game feel really cheesy. I have already houseruled in my campaign that the wireless benefit of the medkit is that it allows someone to work remotely through it (with the normal penalties of course) but the other bonuses are just there no matter what.
-
I finally got a chance to actually check the example on p. 207. I think it is both not as bad as people quote it to be, but even worse of an example. In it, the runner has first aid of 1, but also a specialization. So if the 4 healing hits are against the limit of 1 from skill, big error. If it is against (1+2 specialization), then he should be able to heal 3 boxes, not 4, but its a minor error. This makes it an even worse example though, as it is utilizing a specialization to do things that it may or may not do.
-
Wow Alchemyst, fantastic post mate. I seriously appreciate you taking the time to explain things out point by point, and even throw in some crunchy numbers to help things make sense. I would give you some rep or karma if the board allowed it; instead, you get this:
(http://i.imgur.com/InYwA7T.jpg)
So the consensus I'm getting--from both your post and reading around--is that when in doubt, slag the examples and stick to the blocks 'o text. That's an easy enough rule of thumb that I can use, at least until an official errata rolls out that can clarify my suspicions one way or another. Until then, though, I'm content to use the RAW regardless of the messy example.
That said, I do have a minor personal quibble not related to either the RAW or RAI. I didn't omit other uses of Edge for the sake of making my argument look good (just an oversight), and I have no issues whatsoever with my character being "limited." I have no dog in this fight, and am only hammering it out online because it's something I'm genuinely curious about. My dick is no bigger if I'm right or wrong, and my GM gives two craps what the intarwebs say; he uses the books, makes judgement calls, and looks at official errata when they become official. He's already stated we'll be using my skill as the limit, regardless of the discrepancy, because otherwise I could potentially heal someone 11 boxes in 33 seconds, and that is most definitely not Working As Intended (and no doubt why the skill "meta-limit" is in place). Whatever the resolution to the discrepancy may be, neither he nor I are okay with a person going from dead to fully healed and unphased in half a minute, so it's a limit I'm perfectly happy to endure.
Besides that little disagreement, though, thanks again for the effort you put into your post. That was exactly what I hoped to get out of the discussion.
-El Carnicero, Resources E Street Samurai.
-
Any runner worth its salt would use a Rating 6 Medkit though, since it lasts quite a while and rolls 12 dice autonomously.
Anyway, since Autonomous Medkits are a thing, I'm assuming they count as Skill Rating in First Aid. Especially since it says "and the devices rating in place of her First Aid skill" for First Aid without the skill and with a Medkit. Note that in the defaulting scenario, you still take the -1 for defaulting. It sounds to me like the Medkit counts as both an increase in the Limit as well as a Skill Rating increase, which is the only reason why autonomous and defaulting First Aid with Medkits are even an option.
El Carnicero: Even if you have First Aid 6, Logic 6 and a Medkit rating 6, you have only 1/1172 chance to roll the 13+ hits required for healing 11 damage. You'd have to reroll with Edge at those 18 dice for 1/9 chance to heal 11 damage, and honestly if you're spending Edge and invested that heavily in being a healer, such rare-but-possible healings are well-deserved.
By the way, I agree with giving the dice modifier without the wireless as houserule, but autonomous functioning really should remain a wireless bonus.
-
Average Medkit is rating 3 considering most places don't have briefcase size trauma kits strapped to the wall for emergancies.
Maybe for normal folks, but a typical runner team will have 1 or 2 R6 Medkits because they're used to lugging around big things (also, an R6 Medkit will actually save you money after 45+ uses compared to an R3 Medkit, so the price difference isn't a big deterrent). What are your numbers if you use an R6 Medkit instead?
-
Medkit: DP = 6; Limit = 3; Heals minimum amount 31.96% of the time. Max heal of 1 (same).
Skill rating 0 runner (watches ER Dramas): DP = 5; Limit = 7; Heals minimum amount 20.99% of the time. Max heal of 2 (0.41%) or 3 (only with edge).
Skill rating 1 Runner (watched the 30 minute first aid vid for a job) : DP = 7; Limit = 7; Heals minimum amount 42.94% of the time. Max heal of 1 (same).
Skill rating 2 Runner (took a very basic, day long, CPR/First Aid class): DP = 8; Limit = 7; Heals minimum amount 53.18% of the time. Max heal of 2 (25.86%).
Wait, 0.41% at healing 2? How does that work? 5 hits equals 0.41%, but that would heal 3 since you have 3 nethits.
-
Wait, 0.41% at healing 2? How does that work? 5 hits equals 0.41%, but that would heal 3 since you have 3 nethits.
My mistake, I meant 4.53%. A lot of results to roll and originally I had messed up using a dice pool of 4 not 5. Forgot to change the extra healing values after changing the minimum.
Maybe for normal folks, but a typical runner team will have 1 or 2 R6 Medkits because they're used to lugging around big things (also, an R6 Medkit will actually save you money after 45+ uses compared to an R3 Medkit, so the price difference isn't a big deterrent). What are your numbers if you use an R6 Medkit instead?
Realistically a running group won't have an R6 Medkit with them all the time. When you're already carrying an armory on you, a large briefcase size kit is a pretty hefty thing. Same reason runners don't frolic through town with a bunch of LMGs or Guass Cannons. But anywas assuming your troll doesn't mind being a pack mule and you have R6 what are we coparing it to? I used averages because it's easy. Do you want best kit vs best runner? That's going to be unfair to the device. So I'll use the same increase to match my previous examples so attribute and skill rating are equal to the rating of the kit.
Medkit (rating 6) running auto: DP = 12; Limit = 6; Heal = 1 (81.89%); Max heal = 4 (17.77%)
w/ Skilled Runner (Logic 6, First Aid 6): DP = 18; Limit = 9 (assuming the other mental stats are still average); Heal = 1 (96.74%); Max heal = 6 (22.33%)
The runner already beats the medkit on auto in success chance and damage healed but can even still bump his dice pool further with specializations, skill rating increases, implants, edge, etc as long as their heal max and hit limits (not that he needs to here).
Any runner worth its salt would use a Rating 6 Medkit though, since it lasts quite a while and rolls 12 dice autonomously.
I'd argue against that because it varies situation to situation. Most runners worth their salt aren't going to try bringing along one if the goal is to remain inconspicuous. Especially if they know a good trustworthy mage or two. They are large and awkward to carry. Most runners I've had so far keep one or two in their vehicles or have a dedicated medic carry one if the situation is expected to go south real fast, but for the most part carry rating 3's for emergencies. It's really preference though.
Anyway, since Autonomous Medkits are a thing, I'm assuming they count as Skill Rating in First Aid. Especially since it says "and the device’s rating in place of her First Aid skill" for First Aid without the skill and with a Medkit. Note that in the defaulting scenario, you still take the -1 for defaulting. It sounds to me like the Medkit counts as both an increase in the Limit as well as a Skill Rating increase, which is the only reason why autonomous and defaulting First Aid with Medkits are even an option.
I love this and may house rule it in to see how balance works out.. May make things REALLY CHEESY!
By the way, I agree with giving the dice modifier without the wireless as houserule, but autonomous functioning really should remain a wireless bonus.
The way I see it is it's autonomous function is off of the kit's own autosofts anyways why does it need to access the matrix to do so? I can understand if you want to monitor it's progress on your commlink but otherwise, meh.
Wow Alchemyst, fantastic post mate. I seriously appreciate you taking the time to explain things out point by point, and even throw in some crunchy numbers to help things make sense. I would give you some rep or karma if the board allowed it; instead, you get this:
*important snip*
Besides that little disagreement, though, thanks again for the effort you put into your post. That was exactly what I hoped to get out of the discussion.
-El Carnicero, Resources E Street Samurai.
To help save the page space I snipped your message, STILL IMPORTANT THOUGH! haha, didn't want you to think otherwise.
I come from depths of the old WoTC forums and it's so hostile over there that I learned that number crunching is both an effective and prompt way of discussion without matching their hostilities haha. I appologize if I ever sound degrading or insulting. I don't mean to be and love friendly and educated discussions. I hope that we have many more to come!
I'm glad your GM has stuck to his guns without upsetting you players, that's always a good sign of a healthy group. I also agree with that reasoning. I never looked at it that way. It's pretty on par with my reasoning that it prevented someone who knew basic first aid from performing at the same level as a world renown doctor no matter the situation. When you get super medics with skill ratings of 13 you still get quite obnoxious levels of healing.
I want a sig for that now!
-
A briefcase isn't that bad to carry. You're bound to have one in the trunk, and when you're going to a battlefield, plenty of characters can spare a hand or space in the duffelbag to bring one. Especially when that duffelbag now no longer is holding a sniper rifle. So at hand for instant usage, no, but at least one with the team while they're on the move, most definitely. It just takes a single backpack in an entire team to bring it, while the RCC and Deck can be brought without a hassle already.
As for the Medkit running its own autosoft and not requiring matrix connectivity: I'm not so sure about that. It may very well be that a completely-autonomous healing setup requires more than that medkit can offer by itself, especially since it already requires mechanical devices for automated treatment as well as quite a bit of space for the actual supplies. Not that much space remaining for running a fuzzy logic system that's better than even a drone is at its core duties.
-
Realistically a running group won't have an R6 Medkit with them all the time. When you're already carrying an armory on you, a large briefcase size kit is a pretty hefty thing. Same reason runners don't frolic through town with a bunch of LMGs or Guass Cannons.
I strongly disagree with the "realistically" bit. Considering anyone can bring the "handheld case" with them, even the hacker, drone rigger or spellcaster, it really isn't that much effort to bring one along (and unless they're infiltrating a building or site, they can always just go to the car/van and get it).
Also, the main reason not to "frolic through town" with heavy weapons is they tend to be not only forbidden, but very obvious. A medkit with some paint to make it look like a normal briefcase? Not so much.
But anywas assuming your troll doesn't mind being a pack mule and you have R6 what are we coparing it to? I used averages because it's easy. Do you want best kit vs best runner? That's going to be unfair to the device.
Since your earlier numbers were in response to Top Dog's claim that " low-skilled first aiders have no leg up over nonskilled first aiders for a wireless medkit", the numbers you used there are the ones you should compare the R6 Medkit to, not an expert healer.
Medkit: DP = 12; Limit = 6; heals minimum amount 81.96% of the time. Max heal of 4 (17.77%). Average: 1.97.
-
I had a response for all the parts of the posts relating to weight, carrying a rating 6 medkit and what not but then realized why bother responding? I already stated it's up to preference on that subject so why in the world do you have the need to argue being correct on yours? Disagree all you want but if a rating 4+ is anything like modern day first-in bags like I carry in my truck (EMT laws in my state require that I do) I wouldn't want to have to lug that thing with me everywhere I go. It's only a small duffle-bag but it weighs roughly 15lbs without my specialty equipment and you have no idea how hindering that is trying to get around in even large apartments. The paramedics on my rig have even heavier packs and they are red faced and huffing by the time they get up a flight or two which is why they prefer that we can get the patient to them.
Again it's purely preference.
Since your earlier numbers were in response to Top Dog's claim that " low-skilled first aiders have no leg up over nonskilled first aiders for a wireless medkit", the numbers you used there are the ones you should compare the R6 Medkit to, not an expert healer.
Medkit: DP = 12; Limit = 6; heals minimum amount 81.96% of the time. Max heal of 4 (17.77%). Average: 1.97.
So you want me to take a top of the line autonomous medical trauma kit and compare it to a below average runner? Why in the world would that be a good comparison?
Also what's the point? Godwyn already explained the stats perfectly already... I honestly see no reason why you are wanting to continue this discussion. Is it to prove top of the line medkits are better autonomously than unskilled runners? Not a single person has argued against that.
But oh well, because it's easy and I'm nice, here you go:
Medkit used alone
Medkit (rating 6) DP = 12; Limit = 6; Minimum = 1 (81.89%); Max = 4 (17.77%); Glitch chance = (0.13%)
Aforementioned medkit used by Runner with average attributes of 3:
Skill rating 0: DP = 8; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (53.18%); Max = 6 (0.02%); Medkit max = 4 (1.97%); Glitch chance = (0.46%)
Skill rating 1: DP = 10; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (70.09%); Max = 1 (70.09%); Medkit max = 4 (N/A); Glitch chance = (0.24%)
Skill rating 2: DP = 11; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (76.59%); Max = 2 (52.74%); Medkit max = 4 (N/A); Glitch chance = (0.46%)
Skill rating 3: DP = 12; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (81.89%); Max = 3 (36.85%); Medkit max = 4 (N/A); Glitch chance = (0.13%)
Skill rating 4: DP = 13; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (86.13%); Max = 4 (24.13%); Medkit max = 4 (24.13%); Glitch chance = (0.24%)
Skill rating 5: DP = 14; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (89.47%); Max = 5 (14.95%); Medkit max = 4 (31.02%); Glitch chance = (0.07%)
Skill rating 6: DP = 15; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (92.06%); Max = 6 (8.82%); Medkit max = 4 (38.16%); Glitch chance = (0.13%)
Skill rating 7: DP = 16; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (94.06%); Max = 7 (26.26%); Medkit max = 4 (45.31%); Glitch chance = (0.04%)
Skill rating 8: DP = 17; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (95.58%); Max = 8 (17.19%); Medkit max = 4 (52.23%); Glitch chance = (0.07%)
Skill rating 9: DP = 18; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (96.74%); Max = 9 (10.76%); Medkit max = 4 (58.78%); Glitch chance = (0.02%)
Skill rating 10: DP = 19; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (97.60%); Max = 10 (6.48%); Medkit max = 4 (64.81%); Glitch chance = (0.04%)
Skill rating 11: DP = 20; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (98.24%); Max = 10 (9.19%) or 11 (3.76%)1; Medkit max = 4 (70.28%); Glitch chance = (0.01%)
Skill rating 12: DP = 21; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (98.72%); Max = 10 (12.48%) or 12 (2.12%)1; Medkit max = 4 (75.14%); Glitch chance = (0.02%)
Skill rating 13: DP = 22; Limit = 10; Minimum = 1 (99.07%); Max = 10 (16.31%) or 13 (1.16%)1; Medkit max = 4 (79.39%); Glitch chance = (<0.01%)
1: Edge was spent for the purpose of bypassing limit only. Percentages were not affected.
Also I included glitch chance just to show A) how rarely glitches come up and B) how the pool size affects the chances of rolling over half 1s.
As you can see, using average attributes (unfair comparison I might add) once you hit a skill rating of 3 or more there is no benefit (other than 1 less healed at rating 3) to use the medkit autonomously unless you need to direct attention elsewhere. This is also ignoring the use of edge and specializations. Additionally, hitting your maximum is going to be a really rare occurrence even with the limit so I don't really see what all the fuss is about. It doesn't take much to raise your skill a bit if your character is upset they can't out perform a specialized machine.
Note: Again the rules for unskilled characters make things wonky and goes to show the need for Errata. Until then I'd just cap the unskilled heal cap at 1; problem solved.
EDIT:
Formatting errors.
-
Why are you being so hostile about this? You're the one who decided to criticize someone's claim that "low-skilled first aiders have no leg up over nonskilled first aiders for a wireless medkit", while deliberately not taking a 1500₯ R6 Medkit into account in your calculations. And then, when I stated my opinion that a typical runner team will have at least one R6 Medkit, and politely asked you what the numbers worked out to if you used an R6 Medkit instead of an R3 one, you somehow decided to compare it to a highly-trained-in-first-aid runner, which is completely besides the point you were making.
And for future reference, claiming you're "nice" in a post which is just you being obstinate and argumentative makes you look silly. I was polite about disagreeing with you. You weren't.
-
Why are you being so hostile about this? You're the one who decided to criticize someone's claim that "low-skilled first aiders have no leg up over nonskilled first aiders for a wireless medkit", while deliberately not taking a 1500₯ R6 Medkit into account in your calculations. And then, when I stated my opinion that a typical runner team will have at least one R6 Medkit, and politely asked you what the numbers worked out to if you used an R6 Medkit instead of an R3 one, you somehow decided to compare it to a highly-trained-in-first-aid runner, which is completely besides the point you were making.
And for future reference, claiming you're "nice" in a post which is just you being obstinate and argumentative makes you look silly. I was polite about disagreeing with you. You weren't.
I'm not hostile, you asked me for numbers and I figured that instead of having you respond again in saying I didn't use the ones you liked I'd just make a list of all the skill levels. That's just what I do, if you feel assaulted by it I apologize, that was not my intent.
Also this is an open discussion in a forum discussing rules, am I not supposed to criticize? o.O I refused to talk about what kits the runners would have on them because it's far from topic and wasn't an important part of the discussion just an observation I made that I even stated was only preference, nothing more. I find that to be very polite.
Edit:
Also, when I did the stats for an R6 vs a like dice-pool runner I explained my reasoning for doing so. Adding an R6 to the percentages for the unskilled ones I listed would really have kept the stats the same. The percentage for the skilled was still higher. Only the wonky "use kit rating in place of skill rating" adds issues for more damage healed than even the medkit alone. I have repeatedly stated that as an issue and never disagreed with that part. So I'll admit I'm a little confused on how my responses were somehow completely against the point of skilled having a leg up.
-
Anyways, the OP already thanked the responses and his matter was concluded so adding on the fact that you believe me to be hostile I see no reason for us to continue. You have the last word if you'd like it. I'll gladly continue discussing in PMs if you feel the need to.
Farewell on this topic.
-
I'm the one who was being criticized, and I took no offence. I think you had a good point actually; I was also comparing the unskilled versus skilled runner with a rating 6 medkit, and it's fair that a rating 6 medkit is so advanced you'd actually need some more skill to use it effectively. A rating 3 medkit seems more sensible for a beginning medic. And you were right about edge too, although that was more a misinterpretation then anything else (seems I wasn't the only one who thought you ment the limit break).
On the other hand, I do agree that most shadowrunners will bring along a rating 6 medkit (they could keep it in the car most of the time, or on a harness), and I think a game about shadowrunners should take that into consideration, but it makes internal sense that it wouldn't. And it depends a lot on game style, I guess.
The "device rating instead of skill" rules are indeed a bit odd. For one thing, is that instead of the wireless DP bonus? The rules don't say so, but otherwise rolling Int-1+2*device would often be better even for decently trained characters.
At any rate, I hope we can get back to a constructive discussion on the topic. Any good discussion will include people disagreeing with each other, and sometimes strongly so (I can be pretty stubborn and confrontational myself somt... well almost always) but I think it's important to keep it into context - we're all just trying to interpret the rules of a game as best we can, and the rules are complex (and sometimes badly edited) enough for genuine differences of opinion to form.
-
I had a response for all the parts of the posts relating to weight, carrying a rating 6 medkit and what not but then realized why bother responding? I already stated it's up to preference on that subject so why in the world do you have the need to argue being correct on yours?
Because you provided arguments against it as well (and did so again in this post). Since this isn't just a debate between us, it also provides people with arguments to keep in mind when playing, so it's important that they actually know arguments for both sides. It's an open discussion, so we're allowed to provide our own arguments.
A shame you decide to step out of the debate because of this, since I'm sure you could have contributed more, but everyone has the right on that. Goodbye.
I have to note, though: Numbers may be unbiased, but they can still be used in a biased manner. By leaving out a situation just because it defies your preference, you're muddling the comparison and have gone past the line of neutral numbers. It's best to keep all numbers in mind, only then is the resulting debate reliable. The same goes for applying a houserule to a RAW debate, this can result in confusion between whether your numbers are RAW or not.
I'll provide a quick comparison later with a few scenarios, to see how well autonomous medkits operate when we assume a trained operative adds the medkit rating to his healing limit.
Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.
-
I'm the one who was being criticized, and I took no offence. I think you had a good point actually; I was also comparing the unskilled versus skilled runner with a rating 6 medkit, and it's fair that a rating 6 medkit is so advanced you'd actually need some more skill to use it effectively. A rating 3 medkit seems more sensible for a beginning medic. And you were right about edge too, although that was more a misinterpretation then anything else (seems I wasn't the only one who thought you ment the limit break).
I'm glad you didn't, I meant nothing but information and tried to do so as unbiased as possible, though obviously I have my preferences that slip through in my posts. I am afterall human not AI...see that GOD, not AI! Stop trying to trace me! :P
On the other hand, I do agree that most shadowrunners will bring along a rating 6 medkit (they could keep it in the car most of the time, or on a harness), and I think a game about shadowrunners should take that into consideration, but it makes internal sense that it wouldn't. And it depends a lot on game style, I guess.
I agree on that point as well. I have always stressed the importance of having gear like that readily available. We all love our suped up super RVs from 4e amiright?
The "device rating instead of skill" rules are indeed a bit odd. For one thing, is that instead of the wireless DP bonus? The rules don't say so, but otherwise rolling Int-1+2*device would often be better even for decently trained characters.
Yeah errata needed stat! Also I'm not sure on that, hmmmm even more odd now! Thanks for bringing that up.
At any rate, I hope we can get back to a constructive discussion on the topic. Any good discussion will include people disagreeing with each other, and sometimes strongly so (I can be pretty stubborn and confrontational myself somt... well almost always) but I think it's important to keep it into context - we're all just trying to interpret the rules of a game as best we can, and the rules are complex (and sometimes badly edited) enough for genuine differences of opinion to form.
Me too, I just have little interest in discussion when someone calls me hostile when I honestly have no clue how. Portraying and reading emotions/intention is really hard through text so I understand where someone might interpret me being perhaps snotty posting all the percentages but I really meant nothing of the sort. I apologize to you as well in case I came off that way.
Because you provided arguments against it as well (and did so again in this post). Since this isn't just a debate between us, it also provides people with arguments to keep in mind when playing, so it's important that they actually know arguments for both sides. It's an open discussion, so we're allowed to provide our own arguments.
I wasn't arguing, I was just stating my reasoning on using 3 as average. I've stated multiple times that it's pure preference. You then posted on why my reasoning is flawed and tried to disprove that. Again I responded with personal preference on why I wouldn't. I'm agreeing to disagree. I won't debate which is right or wrong. I even agreed that a group would definitely have an R6 handy, just not necessarily directly on hand 24/7 that is all.
A shame you decide to step out of the debate because of this, since I'm sure you could have contributed more, but everyone has the right on that. Goodbye.
You were very clear that you believed me being hostile on the subject and that I was being overcritical' the person I criticized of course doesn't share that view which is the only reason I'm actually responding.
I have to note, though: Numbers may be unbiased, but they can still be used in a biased manner. By leaving out a situation just because it defies your preference, you're muddling the comparison and have gone past the line of neutral numbers. It's best to keep all numbers in mind, only then is the resulting debate reliable. The same goes for applying a houserule to a RAW debate, this can result in confusion between whether your numbers are RAW or not.
It's not that it defied my preference. I honestly had no clue what you wanted me to post the R6 against. I thought it fair to keep my same comparison before which was a runner with an exact dicepool. Even with my average runner stats I used that as my base. Honestly, a strictly mathematical average without a sample pool to pick from would be between 0 and 13 so roughly skill rating 6 or 7. I'd go with 6 on that ignoring skill rating 13. I was not refusing to do stats for a rating 6 medkit against a so-called 'average' runner, I simply went with my default comparison scheme of matching dicepools. I apologize if you interpreted it in a biased or hostile way again, it was not my intent.
Also, every time I proposed a houserule to fix issues I clearly stated them as such and made clear they were only ideas not RAW. This has always been and will always be an integral part of discussion about errors in RAW.
Here's RAW. Here's an error I noticed. He's what I do to fix it.
If each part is clearly stated I see no issue.
I'll provide a quick comparison later with a few scenarios, to see how well autonomous medkits operate when we assume a trained operative adds the medkit rating to his healing limit.
The current percentages will stay the same, the max healable amount will increase likewise the percentages of healing max will become closer to 0%. This will also show an even more preposterous unskilled healable max although the percentage of actually healing the new max will be impossible without edge spending.
I'm sorry for responding after saying I was leaving. The forums that I usually have discussions in have made me think it's extremely poor form and disrespectful. However, Top Dog made it clear that he didn't think me hostile or overcritical and I felt he deserved a response but you brought up some points I did not want to ignore (equally insulting to ignore then to post after leaving IMHO). I will be starting a topic on this matter as to not derail the OP's topic any further. Hopefully you can join me there and we can keep it friendly in both views. I understand that you prefer the public discussions to the private and I respect that.
-
Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.
??? There are no allegations, you said I was being hostile and criticizing a post that's all. It's right there. But oh well, do as you must.
-
Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.
??? There are no allegations, you said I was being hostile and criticizing a post that's all. It's right there. But oh well, do as you must.
No, I said that, and I did so because you said things like this when I politely pointed out what I believed to be a flaw in your reasoning:
I already stated it's up to preference on that subject so why in the world do you have the need to argue being correct on yours?
Disagree all you want
So you want me to take a top of the line autonomous medical trauma kit and compare it to a below average runner? Why in the world would that be a good comparison?
Also what's the point?
Your choice of words was dismissive, and I interpreted that as hostility.
-
Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.
??? There are no allegations, you said I was being hostile and criticizing a post that's all. It's right there. But oh well, do as you must.
Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.
-
Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.
??? There are no allegations, you said I was being hostile and criticizing a post that's all. It's right there. But oh well, do as you must.
No, I said that, and I did so because you said things like this when I politely pointed out what I believed to be a flaw in your reasoning:
I already stated it's up to preference on that subject so why in the world do you havakee the need to argue being correct on yours?
Disagree all you want
So you want me to take a top of the line autonomous medical trauma kit and compare it to a below average runner? Why in the world would that be a good comparison?
Also what's the point?
Your choice of words was dismissive, and I interpreted that as hostility.
My mistake, with so many replies it gets hard remembering who said what.
As for those posts that I said I don't find anything hostile...
I honestly don't understand why preference on average carried pack was such a huge discussion.
"Disagree all you want" is hostile? I had a preference and although you disagreed I wasn't going to change mine. Likewise I wasn't trying to get you to change yours, just to explain mine. How is this an issue?
Dismissive is not hostile. I again, honestly did not understand the point of posting more percentages. The point is exactly the same with higher rating kits, ust more dice to deal with leading to overall higher percentages of success but still the same trend. This was not hostile at all. At least not in intent.
-
Edit: Given allegations made towards me, I no longer feel comfortable contributing to this debate and will not write this comparison.
??? There are no allegations, you said I was being hostile and criticizing a post that's all. It's right there. But oh well, do as you must.
Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.
Who accused you of that? I became confused on who said what while discussing. That's just a simple mistake easily discussed by saying, "that wasn't me" or something like that. No need to be vague on 'accusations' that never took place. I apologize, not perfect.
EDIT:
Also, I don't believe, contacting me to say "Until you get your head out of your a** and actually pay enough attention to people to read both what they're saying and WHO THEY F-ING ARE, which likely equals never, please be so kind not to contact me again." (censored of course) is a very good welcoming to these forums by you. It was a simple mistake that I explained stems from me being used to the formatting of the other forums I frequent.
A simple, "Hey, you actually confused my brother's post with mine. You might want to pay attention to that." would have been a great way to both inform me that I made a mistake and make me feel foolish without resorting to such foul discussion and raging.
-
Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.
Who accused you of that? I became confused on who said what while discussing. That's just a simple mistake easily discussed by saying, "that wasn't me" or something like that. No need to be vague on 'accusations' that never took place. I apologize, not perfect.
Apparently you did (or at least implied it), in a PM response to a PM by him trying to explain precisely that you'd confused who said what? EDIT: given that his angry PM was apparently a response to your PM response to his initial PM, you're only posting part of the conversation, quite possibly misrepresenting things.
PS: is it necessary to double-post all the time? You can just edit your post, you know.
-
Given the allegations that I am managing two forum accounts, I feel my personal integrity is being attacked without proper justifications and am completely withdrawing from this debate.
Who accused you of that? I became confused on who said what while discussing. That's just a simple mistake easily discussed by saying, "that wasn't me" or something like that. No need to be vague on 'accusations' that never took place. I apologize, not perfect.
Apparently you did (or at least implied it), in a PM response to a PM by him trying to explain precisely that you'd confused who said what?
PS: is it necessary to double-post all the time? You can just edit your post, you know.
Yes I did (notice edits all over my posts), however when replying people tend to not go back and read the edited parts.
Also in his message he never said that I had confused who said what. He stated, and I quote, "I never expressed anything of the sort. I kindly request you detract that false allegation from the public forum," and promptly posted every post he had made. Still confused I replied with the quote from you believing it was him and he was just leaving it out. As I still believed it was him I wasn't staring at the name. As I explained to him I'm more accustomed to other forum formatting and usually identify by signatures since in cases like WoTC and GITPG the names are smaller and 9/10 people have one of the default profile pictures (only a few actually have a unique identifiable one). At least on those forums no one gets so angry when you confuse people. They just laugh and everyone moves on.
EDIT:
As shown in the snippet from my previous post, his reply to mine was extremely hostile and insulting. Supposedly I purposely accused him of having two accounts in order to debunk his posts, accused him of lying to my face, and that my arguments hold absolutely no merit. All of this because I confused a single post. I never stated anything there. All I did was mix up one post. I've never seen anyone blow up so much at such a small mistake in all my years.
Did I make a silly mistake that I should have caught while quoting? Yes and I admit it's stupid.
Could it have been fixed with a simple sentence to explain that I was confused with who said what instead of blowing up with a very hostile and hate filled 3 paragraph PM? Yes and it should not have been handled the way it was.
-
Also in his message he never said that I had confused who said what. He stated, and I quote, "I never expressed anything of the sort. I kindly request you detract that false allegation from the public forum," and promptly posted every post he had made. Still confused I replied with the quote from you believing it was him and he was just leaving it out. As I still believed it was him I wasn't staring at the name. As I explained to him I'm more accustomed to other forum formatting and usually identify by signatures since in cases like WoTC and GITPG the names are smaller and 9/10 people have one of the default profile pictures (only a few actually have a unique identifiable one). At least on those forums no one gets so angry when you confuse people. They just laugh and everyone moves on.
On THESE forums, however, he's encountered more than enough people who give him crap without proper cause, that his fuse is a bit short. Considering he apparently quoted every post he made in the topic to you, to prove the statement you believed to be his wasn't amongst them, a significant part of the blame lies with you for replying with my quote without double-checking, which led him to an actually quite expectable conclusion that you were deliberately doing so and implying that he controls both his account and mine - in other words, from his point of view, your response seemed to be a malicious act, not an ignorant one.
EDIT: It wasn't "a small mistake" - you REPEATED your incorrect statement after he provided you with what should have been more than enough to clear up the confusion, clearly giving the impression you did exactly this:
purposely accused him of having two accounts (...) accused him of lying to my face
In that context, his reply, while still very hostile, isn't nearly as unexpected as you seem to think it was, since it was in response to what he believed to be a malicious and false accusation.
EDIT 2:
Did I make a silly mistake that I should have caught while quoting? Yes and I admit it's stupid.
Could it have been fixed with a simple sentence to explain that I was confused with who said what instead of blowing up with a very hostile and hate filled 3 paragraph PM? Yes and it should not have been handled the way it was.
Could it have been fixed if you'd put just a little more thought into the meaning of his PM before replying the way you did (like "wait, if he quotes a whole bunch of stuff, and the thing I think he said isn't amongst them, maybe he didn't actually say that") and then checking the usernames? Yes.
While he shouldn't have blown up at you the way he did, it is disingenuous for you to act like he didn't provide you with enough information to realize your mistake prior to his outburst.
-
On THESE forums, however, he's encountered more than enough people who give him crap without proper cause, that his fuse is a bit short.
Thanks to a PM or two from other members viewing this topic it seems it's quite the opposite about who gives whom crap without proper cause. I understand a short fuse, but when someone's apparently sitting on a nuke, you should probably step back and make it a bit longer of one.
Considering he apparently quoted every post he made in the topic to you, to prove the statement you believed to be his wasn't amongst them, a significant part of the blame lies with you for replying with my quote without double-checking, which led him to an actually quite expectable conclusion that you were deliberately doing so and implying that he controls both his account and mine - in other words, from his point of view, your response seemed to be a malicious act, not an ignorant one.
EDIT: It wasn't "a small mistake" - you REPEATED your incorrect statement after he provided you with what should have been more than enough to clear up the confusion, clearly giving the impression you did exactly this:
purposely accused him of having two accounts (...) accused him of lying to my face
In that context, his reply, while still very hostile, isn't nearly as unexpected as you seem to think it was, since it was in response to what he believed to be a malicious and false accusation.
I never said it was unexpected. Knowing I was wrong and looking back I would fully expect someone to reply and correct me. However, no matter the situation the hostility that I was met with both unwarranted and unneeded.
Repeated or not it's still a very SIMPLE mistake with a very simple solution.
EDIT 2:
Could it have been fixed if you'd put just a little more thought into the meaning of his PM before replying the way you did (like "wait, if he quotes a whole bunch of stuff, and the thing I think he said isn't amongst them, maybe he didn't actually say that") and then checking the usernames? Yes.
While he shouldn't have blown up at you the way he did, it is disingenuous for you to act like he didn't provide you with enough information to realize your mistake prior to his outburst.
I have already fully admitted that fact. However, that's no excuse for his response. Also, the main difference is that I had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but I didn't know it while on the other hand he had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.
-
On THESE forums, however, he's encountered more than enough people who give him crap without proper cause, that his fuse is a bit short.
Thanks to a PM or two from other members viewing this topic it seems it's quite the opposite about who gives whom crap without proper cause. I understand a short fuse, but when someone's apparently sitting on a nuke, you should probably step back and make it a bit longer of one.
I didn't accuse YOU of giving him crap without proper cause. I stated that there are OTHER people who give him crap without proper cause, which is why his fuse is so short.
I have already fully admitted that fact. However, that's no excuse for his response. Also, the main difference is that I had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but I didn't know it while on the other hand he had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.
You haven't, actually. All your posts so far claim that you made the mistake once and he failed to correct you properly, even though he provided you with what should have been enough information to realize your mistake and you still made the mistake again. He shared the information needed to end the discussion peacefully, and you (accidentally, apparently) ignored it, leading him to think that you "had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.".
He tried to use the "very simple solution", and it is your response to that attempt that set him off, not the mistake itself. So while there is no excuse for his response, there's no excuse for yours either, especially since you continue to misrepresent the situation by placing the blame for you making the mistake twice solely with him. Him blowing up at you doesn't reduce your share of the responsibility for causing the misunderstanding.
-
I didn't accuse YOU of giving him crap without proper cause. I stated that there are OTHER people who give him crap without proper cause, which is why his fuse is so short.
I've been informed that this is a common occurrence with him. I was not talking about this situation but the others I have not been involved in.
You haven't, actually. All your posts so far claim that you made the mistake once and he failed to correct you properly, even though he provided you with what should have been enough information to realize your mistake and you still made the mistake again.
"Did I make a silly mistake that I should have caught while quoting? Yes and I admit it's stupid."
I admitted I SHOULD have caught it. That's my fault. I've admitted that.
He shared the information needed to end the discussion peacefully, and you (accidentally, apparently) ignored it, leading him to think that you "had the information needed to end the discussion peacefully but did know it and CHOSE not to use it.".
He tried to use the "very simple solution", and it is your response to that attempt that set him off, not the mistake itself. So while there is no excuse for his response, there's no excuse for yours either, especially since you continue to misrepresent the situation by placing the blame for you making the mistake twice with him.
His attempt was a bunch of posts and requesting me to retract my 'accusation.' Which I was unaware was one.
Again, he could have explained that the post I quoted wasn't his and ended it there, but he didn't because he blew up. Even if he said, "Are you F-ING stupid? That's my brother not me!" that would have been warranted, albeit hostile. The 3 paragraph rage message and insults? No not at all. I don't understand what you're defending.
I admitted I was wrong and apologized.
He has not. He's not had the chance being offline but again thanks to the PMs of others, and your stance on defending his 'short fuse' I doubt he ever will.
This topic is extremely derailed by this point.
-
His attempt was a bunch of posts and requesting me to retract my 'accusation.' Which I was unaware was one.
Again, he could have explained that the post I quoted wasn't his and ended it there, but he didn't because he blew up. Even if he said, "Are you F-ING stupid? That's my brother not me!" that would have been warranted, albeit hostile. The 3 paragraph rage message and insults? No not at all. I don't understand what you're defending.
I'm "defending" against you downplaying the fact that he tried to explain the situation to you (and therefore making it seem like the timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael blows up", when the actual timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael tries to explain he didn't say what you think he said" --> "You still misunderstand" --> "Michael thinks you're accusing him of controlling my account as well as his own (a serious accusation), since you're still attributing my quote to him" --> "Michael blows up"). In my opinion, you are heavily downplaying your share of the 'blame' in the third step, and portraying him as someone who is angered by tiny little things when the thing he was angered by was actually quite big. He was angrier than he had a right to be, but contrary to what your posts seem to imply, he had a right to be angry.
I admitted I was wrong and apologized.
He has not. He's not had the chance being offline but again thanks to the PMs of others, and your stance on defending his 'short fuse' I doubt he ever will.
I haven't really defended his "short fuse", I have simply explained that he has one. Plus your apology is imcomplete, since you're not admitting to being as wrong as you really were. Every one of your apologies have basically accused him of not just blowing up, but blowing up without trying to clear up the misunderstanding first. Your last one even accused him of being the one who had been provided with the information needed to clear up the misunderstanding, when it was you.
EDIT: Let me make this extra clear: he had no reason to think the reason you still contributed my post to him was that you hadn't understood his attempt to explain he didn't say what you thought he said.
EDIT 2: In fact, what you're saying seems to boil down to that he should've assumed you made the same mistake twice in a row despite him notifying you of the fact that you made a mistake (EDIT 3: and keeping in mind that he had no knowledge of your prior experiences which led you to make the mistake, and therefore no real reason to assume it even was a mistake on your end). I find this unreasonable of you - not nearly as unreasonable as his response was over the top, but FAR more unreasonable than you say it is. And as long as you keep denying this, I will continue arguing against your denial.
-
I'm "defending" against you downplaying the fact that he tried to explain the situation to you (and therefore making it seem like the timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael blows up", when the actual timeline is "you misunderstand" --> "Michael tries to explain he didn't say what you think he said" --> "You still misunderstand" --> "Michael thinks you're accusing him of controlling my account as well as his own (a serious accusation), since you're still attributing my quote to him" --> "Michael blows up").
It's exactly ("you misunderstand" --> "Michael tries to explain he didn't say what you think he said" --> "You still misunderstand" --> "Michael thinks you're accusing him of controlling my account as well as his own (a serious accusation), since you're still attributing my quote to him" --> "Michael blows up")
I'm not saying it isn't that. What I'm saying is the information was just him saying he didn't say that. When he could have just clearly stated that I was confusing the names. The fact that he blew up at all is what is sad and very immature.
The first line of his PM, "So just to be clear on the matter: You are accusing me of using two separate forum accounts for Jekyll&Hyde posts and my brother being nothing but a fiction of my imagination? If you truly believe that, I suggest you contact FastJack. It's bound to be against the ToS to be active on two accounts here."
If he had just sent that I would have responded confused by what he meant and I'm sure he would have informed me, I would have seen the huge mistake, apologized, and moved on." Instead he turned that into a question he didn't care for me to answer (as shown by the following three paragraphs of him wrongly assuming my intentions) and blew up.
In my opinion, you are heavily downplaying your share of the 'blame' in the third step, and portraying him as someone who is angered by tiny little things when the thing he was angered by was actually quite big. He was angrier than he had a right to be, but contrary to what your posts seem to imply, he had a right to be angry.
Again, I have clearly stated he had a right to be angry. However, he wasn't just angry he was rage-filled, insulting, and hostile.
You are the one saying he has a short fuse (quick to temper). Which is obviously true and I won't agrue.
I haven't really defended his "short fuse", I have simply explained that he has one. Plus your apology is imcomplete, since you're not admitting to being as wrong as you really were. Every one of your apologies have basically accused him of not just blowing up, but blowing up without trying to clear up the misunderstanding first. Your last one even accused him of being the one who had been provided with the information needed to clear up the misunderstanding, when it was you.
My apology is complete. I am apologizing for what I had control over. You don't have to accept it, not that I'm apologizing to you anyways, and neither does he. That's your choice to turn down but there it is.
He did blow up without clearing up the misunderstanding first. He's second PM even asked me to clarify what I was accusing him of! HOWEVER, he did not send it to see what I said, he blew up in that message before giving me a chance to answer said PM.
I'm not accusing him of anything! What is with you two and your constant screams of 'accusations?' He wasn't provided with any information, HE HAD IT ALL ALONG!
-
Guys, at this point continuing this debate seem pointless. As far as I can see, both sides misinterpreted the other's posts, and both sides posted things that could be interpreted as hostile, whether they were intended as such or not. And that all means that at this point it really doesn't mattered who started it all, and as we all know people can get a bit overheated and post hostile things when they get fired up. At this point the discussion won't continue meaningfully anyway - just let this post sit and all calm down for a while.
-
EDIT: Let me make this extra clear: he had no reason to think the reason you still contributed my post to him was that you hadn't understood his attempt to explain he didn't say what you thought he said.
EDIT 2: In fact, what you're saying seems to boil down to that he should've assumed you made the same mistake twice in a row despite him notifying you of the fact that you made a mistake (EDIT 3: and keeping in mind that he had no knowledge of your prior experiences which led you to make the mistake, and therefore no real reason to assume it even was a mistake on your end). I find this unreasonable of you - not nearly as unreasonable as his response was over the top, but FAR more unreasonable than you say it is. And as long as you keep denying this, I will continue arguing against your denial.
Because, ahem, HE DIDN'T GIVE ME THE CHANCE AFTER ASKING ME TO CLARIFY! He just blew up!
Do whatever you want but I'm going to take the advice of the others and just leave this topic entirely. It's not worth it especially considering I've been warned that he does this all the time that he,
also tends to make personal attacks against other posters and is somehow able to spin being called on it into an attack on him.
I'm done, no reason to continue. I honestly look forward to joining you in real discussions not related to your bother in the future, but as far as this goes it's asinine to continue. Say whatever you want. I won't be commenting further on this topic.
-
I'm not saying it isn't that. What I'm saying is the information was just him saying he didn't say that. When he could have just clearly stated that I was confusing the names. The fact that he blew up at all is what is sad and very immature.
But the information (a full list of every post he had made in the topic) should have been enough for you to realize your mistake, and you are denying this. Plus if he initially assumed you were accusing him, instead of assuming you were confusing me with him, that explains why he might give you all his posts and say "this is all I said" instead of simply saying "you're confusing my brother with me".
My apology is complete. I am apologizing for what I had control over.
But you had control over more than you say you had. Therefore it is incomplete.
I'm not accusing him of anything! What is with you two and your constant screams of 'accusations?' He wasn't provided with any information, HE HAD IT ALL ALONG!
No, he didn't. How could he have the "information" that you were simply being mistaken when you responded to him giving you every post he had made with a post he didn't make? IT WASN'T THERE. Your response only served as MORE evidence to him that you were not simply mistaken! There's no reason for him to assume you wouldn't check the name in a quote before sending it to him!
also tends to make personal attacks against other posters and is somehow able to spin being called on it into an attack on him.
I could spin remarks like this right back around at some other people, who tend to strawman his arguments, repeat this several times in a single topic, then when he gets visibly aggravated after explaining each time that what they say he argued wasn't what he actually argued, say "but they're all valid interpretations of your posts! why are you so angry? I don't understand".
I honestly look forward to joining you in real discussions not related to your bother in the future
And I'm perfectly willing to join you in real discussions as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your actions and statements, instead of using the fact that someone overreacts as a way to shift the blame.
EDIT: Where did your other medkit topic go? I wanted to post some numbers in it, but couldn't find it anymore.
-
Some good arguments, then some not-so-good. Thread's locked