Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Hand of God V 4.0
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 07:01 AM
I was thinking about the Hand of God in 4.0 the other day, and was thinking that the way it works now is a bit too light. Now , jsut to get it out of the way, I didn't read over it again since, but what I remember of it was the when you use Hand of God, you permanetly burn off one point of edge. Wow. [sarcasm] that sure is daunting. [/sarcasm].
We were looking at it, especially compared to SR3, when you lose all of your karma and pool. So the solution that we came up that if you used hand og god, your Edge was burned down to 1. Thoughts please. Does this seem overly harsh? Adding insult to injury? Did I read something wrong and am way off base?
Posted by: Liper Jan 20 2006, 07:50 AM
I'd say you lose a point of edge and your edge cap is reduced by one.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 07:55 AM
kind of a 'living on borrowed time' approach then? I like the full reduction becuase it can be bought back, but not without considerable effort.
Posted by: Space Ghost Jan 20 2006, 08:22 AM
What about guys who only have one edge to begin with? Reducing the cap might be a good idea for those cases. Seems like the guy with 1 or 2 in edge could just keep burning edge and getting it back for little cost at all.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 20 2006, 08:38 AM
Hand of God can be invoked once in a character's lifetime to obtain an automatic critical success on any test. When the Hand of God is invoked, every die in the character's pool is considered a success for that test without any need to roll. The Hand of God can only be invoked before a roll and cannot be combined with any other use of edge.
Using the Hand of God reduces a character's edge stat to 0. This is the only case in which a stat can be zero. Edge can be increase with karma as per normal rules but that karma costs are for the character's unaugmented maximum + the new value.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 08:45 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Using the Hand of God reduces a character's edge stat to 0 |
"does" , or "can"? I ask because I recall it being only one point that it cost. But as I said I haven't read it in a bit.
BTW, I vote for still limiting HOG (Hand Of God for those of you unsure of my abbreviaion/acronym) to one use per character.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 20 2006, 08:58 AM
Houserule, since everyone was throwing out theirs I though I'd throw out mine.
Yeah, one use per character does seem best. But the low cost is sort of annoying.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 09:29 AM
ok, no prob, just checking becuase I thought I had remembered it being something else. As this post is pretty much about house rules, please continue.
As I see it, using HOG is a freebie way to cheat your way out of certain death. Hell, I think that's how they describe it! To not only make it such a low cost as losing only one point of edge, and being able to do it more than once, IMO, takes away from character mentality far too much.
I have player that has one PC he aboslutely loves ( his first character). He decided long ao that if he ever has to use his HOG, he is retiring the character, because he doesn't want him to die . That seems a lot more realisitc (character has a very close brush with death, decides to get out while he can) than someone that continuosly nearly dies and keeps going back for more.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 09:43 AM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Jan 20 2006, 01:01 AM) |
| I was thinking about the Hand of God in 4.0 the other day, and was thinking that the way it works now is a bit too light. Now , jsut to get it out of the way, I didn't read over it again since, but what I remember of it was the when you use Hand of God, you permanetly burn off one point of edge. Wow. [sarcasm] that sure is daunting. [/sarcasm]. We were looking at it, especially compared to SR3, when you lose all of your karma and pool. So the solution that we came up that if you used hand og god, your Edge was burned down to 1. Thoughts please. Does this seem overly harsh? Adding insult to injury? Did I read something wrong and am way off base? |
In SR3 you normally didn't use HoG until you had mostly emptied your pool anyway. Plus, in SR4 http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=11518#entry351802, yes?
Still I do get what you mean by the cost feeling a little light. Possibilities:
- Bump it to burning 2 points of Edge. That's still pretty nasty because it will take them time to bring it back up, playing with say Edge 2 instead of Edge 4 hurts, and they'd have to have at least Edge 3 to envoke the HoG (unless you let them have an Edge 0, but even then they are walking around with no protection from Glitches and that'll catch up to them shortly too). If it doesn't hurt them to drop 2 points of Edge they weren't using their Edge effectively anyway.
- I also like the idea of reducing the Attribute maximum of Edge by 1 when you burn a point permanently would also work, in that it also puts a lifetime on the uses. I guess that would be akin to the old AD&D limit on resurections to starting Con (i forget off hand what the D&D3e limit is now). Another way to up the cost a bit under this is to handle it like Magic loss where it is a penalty applied. So as an example if you have Edge 4 and use HoG when you go to raise your Edge back to 4 it costs you 5*3=15 karma.
- Even without lowering the Attribute maximum you could track the HoG use and have the cost calculated that way. That really starts to increase the cost of multiple use of HoG.
- HoG costs you a point of Edge (normal RAW cost) AND a point of Essense! At first glance that is harsher on Technos/Awakened than mundanes because they'll experience magic/resonance loss too. But not so much when you factor how much faster a cyber/bio mundane is going to reach 0 Essense.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 09:50 AM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| But not so much when you factor how much faster a cyber/bio mundane is going to reach 0 Essense. |
Brilliant. So most sams die anyway.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 09:56 AM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 20 2006, 03:50 AM) | ||
Brilliant. So most sams die anyway. |
Hehe. He wanted it tougher.
Yes it would make Wired 3 even more useless to PCs than it is now. But aren't you seeing a lot more PCs with a few points of Essense left and a lot less 0.01 Essense type characters? Assuming you implement house rules for the missing cyberware/bioware replacement rules what this does is dramatically increase the cyberware/bioware character's equipment costs as they use HoGs. EDIT2: And to cut them cyber sams a bit of a break allow HoG costs to "fill in" the essense holes.EDIT: And that is by far the harshest house rule I tossed out, the only other house rule in this thread that i see as harsher is the 1/lifetime rule. Just brainstorming and tossing ideas out. *shrug*
Posted by: mintcar Jan 20 2006, 10:35 AM
My house-rule: Burning Edge does not give you automatic critical success or let you automaticly escape death. Instead, it lets you buy one extra exploding die, nothing more. You can do it multiple times, and even after spending Edge on a test already. Lets you squeeze that extra little potential out of the character until it´s all over.
In situations were you just can´t afford to loose, you will propably roll with Edge, or even make a long shot test in really harsh situations. You will get a pretty good chance at a few hits no matter what. If you still fall short, you will burn a point of Edge permanently (and you can do so even if you´ve spent it temporarily allready), and roll your extra die. Still short on hits? Spend your next point and hold your thumbs. And so on until you have no more points left. Then you have to accept your failure.
I´ve done this in SR3 (don´t remember if it´s canon or not) and it´s completely unexploitable, as you can tell. It truly builds up the tention when all is riding on those last dice, and the cost for making just one more roll ceases to matter.
Possibly I will allow for spending all your Edge to do the "escape death" thing—if no Edge has been burned in that encounter. Basicly, if you´re short so many hits that the odds are too slim for you to even attempt more rolls, you can opt for escape instead and save your HOG for choosing coma over death if your nailed. You give up your chance of prevailing, but make the consequences of defeat less permanent.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 11:22 AM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| But aren't you seeing a lot more PCs with a few points of Essense left and a lot less 0.01 Essense type characters? |
Nope.
On the matter at hand... ironically I really like the canon approach:
It doesn't punish characters to much for putting more points in Edge (instead of other, constant upgrades) when their unlucky day comes, but can become very costly.
Of course, trying to run like playing a video game might not be a very good idea - one can run out of edge pretty fast.
Posted by: mintcar Jan 20 2006, 11:34 AM
Maybe my way is is too harsh now that you have to pay for it with Karma instead of just getting it for free (like Karma Pool). Edge is after all as costly as any attribute.
I´m with the lowering of the cap then. Best idea so far.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 11:36 AM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 20 2006, 05:22 AM) | ||
Nope. |
Curious. Sounds like a holdover of the SR3 "you have to buy as much as you can at chargen, because you'll never be able to afford it later" mentality? *shrug*
| QUOTE |
| On the matter at hand... ironically I really like the canon approach: It doesn't punish characters to much for putting more points in Edge (instead of other, constant upgrades) when their unlucky day comes, but can become very costly. Of course, trying to run like playing a video game might not be a very good idea - one can run out of edge pretty fast. |
I'd never myself limit it to 1 per lifetime or have it cost Essense. SR4 is just that much more deadly. But 1 point of Edge does still feel a bit cheap to me. A cost of 2 points i like because it's really simple, pitty is wasted on the fool that only gives his PC Edge 1 for he is doomed anyway.
However I equally like idea of tracking the HoG use as a permanent penalty like Magic and having it impact buying new Edge points. Partially because of symmetry with Magic loss, but mostly because of the escalating costs per use of HoG (and it starts out a bit cheaper than the rather stiff 2 point of Edge cost).
I also find mintcar's rule intreging, but not sure about it yet.
Posted by: mintcar Jan 20 2006, 11:56 AM
My rule worked great for Karma Pool. It made certain situations very exciting, it was equaly harsh for all characters and it was then good to have some rotation on Karma Pool points, so that you were constantly trying to get ahead of fate, instead of stacking it in your favour all the time.
In SR4 it would have a different fallout on different characters. One with a lot of Edge would not be happy about having to spend the next 10 sesions rebuilding their character´s main attribute after narrowly escaping death, and any other character would be dead in the same situation. It would be very, very unfair. You could have burnt Edge "regenerate" for every 10 Karma you earn. That would let edgy characters keep their character-concept after an incident and make things more fair. It would also be a bit complicated. But maybe it´s worth it.
On the other hand. The canon system gives you so much for your burnt Edge, no player can complain after doing it. If you waste away all your Edge under that system, you´re simply out of luck´s favour and possibly you will stay that way; if you now think other things are worth your Karma points more than filling your Edge again. A possibility for such a major change in a character after a near death experience is something I like.
Still I think if you had burnt Edge give 1 extra exploding die to any test, without limitations—then had burnt Edge regenerate every 10 Karma, it might be a bit more managable in game than the current system. Under the current system you get a very definitive option to succeed if you really want to. It´s not a gamble. Is that really fun? It´s not scalable towards the difficulty of the test either. For my part, I make a lot of judgement calls as a GM. I normaly prefer to use common sense rather than relying on dice or rules only. But when it comes to character deaths, it would feel good to have a system that leaves nothing but the dice in charge. So that it´s not me saying either "You burn Edge? Ok, you live then" or "No, you could impossibly survive that", "No you could never make that shot, even if all the gods of every pantheon guided your arm"—but it´s the player using every resource available to make my preset difficulty.
<edit> Might be easier to have burnt Edge regenerate every time Edge refreshes.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 12:31 PM
then it wouldn't be 'burnt' now would it? Just slightly charred on the edges. Give it a good dusting and get those black flaky edges off...
| QUOTE (mint car) |
| Spend your next point and hold your thumbs. |
Hold your thumbs? That brings a fairly ridiculous mental image to mind.
I always had fun finding rather ridiculous and embarassing ways to use Hand Of God to save characters. My personal favorite was when a runner was blasted out of his 10th story hotel room with a rocket. Well... really he saw the rocket coming and jumped, forgetting what story he was on. He used HOG, and I ended up having him land in a truck-trailer full of frozen peas. He was shipped a good twenty miles before he regained conciousness, and was pulling peas from various places for the next few months.
Posted by: mintcar Jan 20 2006, 12:41 PM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) | ||
then it wouldn't be 'burnt' now would it? Just slightly charred on the edges. Give it a good dusting and get those black flaky edges off...
Hold your thumbs? That brings a fairly ridiculous mental image to mind. I always had fun finding rather ridiculous and embarassing ways to use Hand Of God to save characters. My personal favorite was when a runner was blasted out of his 10th story hotel room with a rocket. Well... really he saw the rocket coming and jumped, forgetting what story he was on. He used HOG, and I ended up having him land in a truck-trailer full of frozen peas. He was shipped a good twenty miles before he regained conciousness, and was pulling peas from various places for the next few months. |
Holding your thumbs is an expression meaning 'hoping intencely for something'.
As for whether it´s truly burnt or not, who cares? For it to be permanently gone, you would have to use the house-rule of lowering the cap anyway.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 12:53 PM
so you use burning edge like the karma pool form 3rd edition then? Has this come up before in your game, or are you just being prepared? I'm apprehansive about lowering the cap for edge though, as it puts a permanent gimp on said character. But I'll discuss it with my group.
Holding thumbs is "enticing"?
I now find my self sitting at my desk trying to move my hands around to a postion where I can old both of my thumbs at once. Apparently it's early. Sadly, I feel neither "enticed" or "hopeful". A bit foolish really.
Posted by: Darkness Jan 20 2006, 01:16 PM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) |
| Holding thumbs is "enticing"? I now find my self sitting at my desk trying to move my hands around to a postion where I can old both of my thumbs at once. Apparently it's early. Sadly, I feel neither "enticed" or "hopeful". A bit foolish really. |
Try holding each thumb with its own hand
Bend your thumbs to your palms, then enclose them with your other fingers. Voilá, done.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 20 2006, 01:26 PM
now if I can just get down that whole "one hand clapping"...
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 20 2006, 03:13 PM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) |
| now if I can just get down that whole "one hand clapping"... |
I can do that!
It's my stupid human trick. (everybody has at least one)
The knukles in my hands are weird or something, I can bend my fingers flat against my palm with no resistance. Hence, I can clap (quite loudly) with one hand.
................. 
............what?
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 03:23 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Sounds like a holdover of the SR3 "you have to buy as much as you can at chargen, because you'll never be able to afford it later" mentality? |
Mostly it happens with characters using betaware - so, no sir, not starting characters.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| However I equally like idea of tracking the HoG use as a permanent penalty like Magic and having it impact buying new Edge points. Partially because of symmetry with Magic loss, but mostly because of the escalating costs per use of HoG (and it starts out a bit cheaper than the rather stiff 2 point of Edge cost). |
There is no magic loss that way in SR4...
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 04:40 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
Mostly it happens with characters using betaware - so, no sir, not starting characters. |
So then it is something that can be planned for, and they could instead buy Delta to get similar gear while leaving the space (and yes, that is damn harsh HoG rules).
| QUOTE | ||
There is no magic loss that way in SR4... |
I have Magic 4. I get a datajack installed. I now have Magic 3 and it costs me 5*3 karma to get back to Magic 4.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 04:53 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| So then it is something that can be planned for |
Nope. Most existing characters sporting betaware (and having spared some essence to have a bigger essence index) will be there instantaneously when converting from SR3 to SR4.
The idea of reducing essence in SR4 for HoG, where magic loss due to wounds went out of the window, is quite opposed to how the rest of system ticks...
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| I have Magic 4. I get a datajack installed. I now have Magic 3 and it costs me 5*3 karma to get back to Magic 4. |
Nope. That would be 4x3 Karma. The max of 6 for Magic drops neither.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 04:59 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
Nope. Most existing character sporting betaware (and having spared some essence to have a bigger essence index) will be there instantaneously when converting from SR3 to SR4. |
Oh you are talking about converted SR3 characters. Ya they are humped if you do a literal translation into SR4. Retire 'em and get a new one, they've become roadkill on the SOTA highway.
| QUOTE |
| I have Magic 4. I get a datajack installed. I now have Magic 3 and it costs me 5*3 karma to get back to Magic 4. Nope. That would be 4x3 Karma. The max of 6 for Magic drops neither. |
This is some new "clarification" from Fanpro while I was away? I don't see anything in the 1.3 errata?
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 05:15 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Ya they are humped if you do a literal translation into SR4. |
Actually, they tend to work out fine if one does not implement additional penalties - like screwing over low essence characters even more than ever before.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Retire 'em and get a new one, they've become roadkill on the SOTA highway. |
To bad betaware is intrinsical SOTA and converting characters is officially supported.
So thanks for that rash advice, but no thanks.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| This is some new "clarification" from Fanpro while I was away? I don't see anything in the 1.3 errata? |
You may want to read the 'Improving Attributes' section - it is quite clear on the subject.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 05:27 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 20 2006, 11:15 AM) | ||
You may want to read the 'Improving Attributes' section - it is quite clear on the subject. |
Yes it is. You calculate the cost based on the natural attribute, not the value of the attribute after modifiers. Say such as the penalty to Magic of having below 6 essense?
P.S. That beta cyber was bleeding edge like 10 years ago, oldtimer. Vat jobs are now what is what.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 05:43 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| You calculate the cost based on the natural attribute, not the value of the attribute after modifiers. |
Read again. (And sorry for inaccurate reference - p. 1164 is more accurate.)
Loosing Essence changes the natural Magic Attribute - there is no way to even express a 'would-be magic attribute' in SR4.
The max is reduced, though.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| That beta cyber was bleeding edge like 10 years ago. |
Nope... cutting edge was and is Deltaware - Betaware still isn't allowed for starting characters, though.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 05:51 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 20 2006, 11:43 AM) | ||
Read again. (And sorry for inaccurate reference - p. 1164 is more accurate.) Loosing Essence changes the natural Magic Attribute - there is no way to even express a 'would-be magic attribute' in SR4. The max is reduced, though. |
Scope issue. You are looking in the wrong place to make that determination. The "loss" is from a "penalt[y]". This also is incidentally the how and why Vampire mages & adepts can function at all (although Initiate Grades remain a big issue for them) without constantly draining and never using their essense for attribute boosting power. It also very neatly handles the lowered max without the special one-of of altering a natural max.
Deja vu all over again.
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (blakkie) That beta cyber was bleeding edge like 10 years ago. Nope... cutting edge was and is Deltaware - Betaware still isn't allowed for starting characters, though. |
I thought there was beta in SR before there was delta (which only came into being in Man & Machine)? But my lore-fu is weak, and I haven't been playing SR that long so that could easily be off. *shrug*
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 06:06 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| You looking in the wrong place to make that determination. |
As that place happens to be the rules, the only conlusion is that you are wrong.
| QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 164, Magic) |
| For every point (or fraction thereof ) of Essence lost, the character’s Magic attribute and her Magic maximum rating are reduced by one. |
There is no such thing as a virtual attribute you pay when increasing, too:
| QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 264, Improving Attributes) |
| The cost of improving a natural attribute rating is the new rating x 3. |
So, when loosing a point of magic, you just end up paying twice for it when restoring it.
There is neither notation nor ruling for such a virtual decreased attribute in canon SR4, though it may be a nice house rule... but that would be another thread.
PS: You may want to read Essence Loss again.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 06:10 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||||||
As that place happens to be the rules, the only conlusion is that you are wrong.
There is no such thing as a virtual attribute you pay when increasing, too:
So, when loosing a point of magic, you just end up paying twice for it when restoring it. There is neither notation nor ruling for such a virtual decreased attribute in canon SR4, though it may be a nice house rule... but that would be another thread. PS: You may want to read Essence Loss again. |
Gone through it, a lot. You missed page 62 off the list. Virtual attributes? Er no, but there are "modified" attributes. All over the freaking place.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 20 2006, 06:18 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| You missed page 62 off the list. |
No, that reference is included in 'Essence Loss'.
And, surprisingly, it states that you actually lose points in magic...
Vampire in fact do lose magic when starving, too.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Virtual attributes? Er no, but there are "modified" attributes. |
No, there are only augmented attributes.
Stop trying to claim your house-rule as canon - such things only cause confusion.
Posted by: blakkie Jan 20 2006, 10:03 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 20 2006, 12:18 PM) | ||
No, that reference is included in 'Essence Loss'. And, surprisingly, it states that you actually lose points in magic... Vampire in fact do lose magic when starving, too. |
However without treating it like a penalty every time they yo-yo their essense they would forever lose those points of magic. In metahumans currently where there is no way to regain essense, besides becoming an Essense Drain critter, this is effectively a permanent penalty (and thus described as permanent). But with Essense Drain critters a new avenue opens up.
You entirely missed this conversation the couple of times it went around? Hrmmmm, I thought someone got and posted an email from Rob clearing this up as well. But maybe not. That's going back a number of months now, and my first couple of Search attempts are coming up empty.
EDIT: And on page 62 it does not say the lower Magic is "natural", it is described as having a penalty applied due to the lost essense. It is vague, and you are reading "natural" into it.
| QUOTE | ||
No, there are only augmented attributes. Stop trying to claim your house-rule as canon - such things only cause confusion. |
Sorry, yes the proper word is "augmented" attributes.
But you are still confusing your own, problematic, interpretation of sadly vague rules with absolute "canon".
Posted by: mintcar Jan 20 2006, 10:34 PM
| QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) |
| so you use burning edge like the karma pool form 3rd edition then? Has this come up before in your game, or are you just being prepared? I'm apprehansive about lowering the cap for edge though, as it puts a permanent gimp on said character. But I'll discuss it with my group. Holding thumbs is "enticing"? I now find my self sitting at my desk trying to move my hands around to a postion where I can old both of my thumbs at once. Apparently it's early. Sadly, I feel neither "enticed" or "hopeful". A bit foolish really. |
I´m thinking about using it that way. I´ve actually played very few times since the new edition came, barely gotten started. No HoG ever invoked yet. But as you said, I want to be prepared because I know how bad I would feel making judgement calls on whether a character should live or not.
So is holding your thumbs a swedish expresion? Nobody heard of it?
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 21 2006, 06:43 AM
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| So is holding your thumbs a swedish expresion? Nobody heard of it? |
never heard of it. I've heard 'sitting on your hands', which is basically saying that you aren't doing jack, but 'holding your thumbs'? Is that some sort of reference to video games and gettign read y to jam the buttons, or just... something random?
At least everyone that's seen Boondock Saints knows the 'rule of thumb'
Posted by: RunnerPaul Jan 21 2006, 09:19 AM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| I thought there was beta in SR before there was delta (which only came into being in Man & Machine)? But my lore-fu is weak, and I haven't been playing SR that long so that could easily be off. *shrug* |
Alpha and Beta were introduced in Street Samurai Catalog (first splatbook for first edition) and Delta was introduced in Cybertechnology (mid-to-late second edition era).
Posted by: mintcar Jan 21 2006, 12:40 PM
I checked up on the thumb-holding. It´s old folklore. Today it´s an expression used when you´re wishing someone luck ("I´ll hold my thumbs for you") or when you´re hoping for something to happen yourself. It can be combined with a gesture (folding your fingers over the thumb with one or both hands), sort of like giving thumbs up.
Originaly it was appearently thought that the act of holding thumbs prevented the demons of bad luck from causing mischief. The harder you held the more difficult it would be for the demons to get loose. It was said to work better if you did it for someone else, and better yet if many people did it for the same person. So people (children still do it) would actually physicly hold their thumbs really hard when something they hoped for was about to happen—like for instance the outcome of a lottery or a competition.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Jan 21 2006, 01:11 PM
sort of like crossing your fingers then. I'd assume that one was everywhere, but now, who knows eh?
Posted by: mintcar Jan 21 2006, 01:39 PM
Here you cross your fingers when you´re telling a lie. I suppose it´s making up for the sin according to some old superstition.
Posted by: Kerberos Jan 21 2006, 02:09 PM
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| Here you cross your fingers when you´re telling a lie. I suppose it´s making up for the sin according to some old superstition. |
In Denmark we do both.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 22 2006, 10:22 AM
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way. There are two edges. There is the stat and then there is a translucent SR3 style edge pool. The two are tied together since the edge pool is always equal to the edge stat. However, the difference is fairly obvious in some ways. Edge pool can be used up but it does refresh. Edge stat can't be used up. If you have Edge Stat 8 and Edge Pool 8 (1) you still roll 8 extra dice if you choose to throw in that last point of edge pool.
Perhaps, instead of attacking the stat we should attack the pool directly.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
No, there are only augmented attributes. |
But there is also negative augmentation. It is possible for an augmented attribute to be less than the base atribute, by canon. Decrease Attribute spell.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 22 2006, 09:33 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| However without treating it like a penalty every time they yo-yo their essense they would forever lose those points of magic. |
Indeed they do - as soon as they drop below 6.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| And on page 62 it does not say the lower Magic is "natural", it is described as having a penalty applied due to the lost essense. |
As it isn't Augmented per defitinion, it is.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| But there is also negative augmentation. It is possible for an augmented attribute to be less than the base atribute, by canon. Decrease Attribute spell. |
Indeed, which would be noted the same way any other augmented attribute would - in brackets, behind the normal/natural value.
Posted by: nick012000 Jan 23 2006, 04:58 AM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) | ||
Indeed they do - as soon as they drop below 6. |
If this is true, then most vampires would burn out as soon as they're created (average vampire has Magic 3, and when first created, they have Essence 1), thereby loosing their ability to 'feed', and expiring within the next month from Essence loss.
I'd say that Critters with Essence Loss are immune to Magic loss from Magic loss from low Essence. It's the most simple way to run things.
Posted by: Liper Jan 23 2006, 05:02 AM
for those creatures I always tied thier magic attribute to thier essence.
essence 3 vampire? magic 3
essence 12 vampire? magic 12...
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 23 2006, 01:39 PM
| QUOTE (nick012000) |
| If this is true, then most vampires would burn out as soon as they're created (average vampire has Magic 3, and when first created, they have Essence 1), thereby loosing their ability to 'feed', and expiring within the next month from Essence loss. |
Yeahs, that's more or less what Essence Loss implies:
| QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 291) |
| As Essence decreases, Magic may also be affected (see p. 62). |
Indeed this is a very strang ruling.
On the other hand, even a vampire with no magic is technically able to feed using only charisma.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)