Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 12 2003, 07:20 PM

If I project into the astral plane, can I affact anything non-astral? Can I cast spells on a non-astral creature?

How does this apply to spirits? If there are spirits guarding something in astral space, can they affect something non?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 12 2003, 07:53 PM

Nope. What is on one side can't affect the other.
Unless there's an astrally active person in the midst of a crowd of mundanes. In which case, you can target the active person with an area-effect spell, and as long as you can see the others they'll get blasted as well. Mmm, powerballs...

~J

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 12 2003, 08:28 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong Kag, and Lord knows I spend enough time being wrong, but you can't cast a physical spell on an astral target, can you?!?

Meaning if you are as astral, your targets must also be astral. It was my understanding that you could only cast mana spells at astral targets. Meaning you could NOT powerball from astral space, even on an other astral target.

As a general rule, physical cannot affect astral and astral cannot affect physical.
Spirits who wish to attack living creatures must have access to the physical realm, through possession or materialization. Likewise spirits that wish to use their powers on the physical realm must be physical themselves.

Sunday

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 12 2003, 08:34 PM

I think you can, but if not, just replace powerball with manaball. Makes more sense most of the time anyway, I just personally prefer powerball for the cool factor.

~J

Posted by: Drain Brain Oct 12 2003, 08:35 PM

I'm inclined to agree with you SG, but would it not make sense for physical spells to affect dual natured creatures or Astral Perceivers, since they are still "in" their bodies?

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 12 2003, 10:06 PM

What's a dual natured creature? Something that can switch between Astral and Normal?

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 12 2003, 10:06 PM

Yes a physical spell will affect a dual natured targetl, because they exist in the physical at the time.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 12 2003, 10:14 PM

Sunday_Gamer is right. Only mana spells affect astral forms (BBB pg. 78). So an astrally projecting spellcaster would not be able to damage a dual-natured critter by casting powerball at it, since he can only target the astral side of the dual-natured critter.

Also, third edition has completely done away with spells "grounding to the physical plane." So you could manaball an astral target, but it still would not affect the non-astral targets around him.

Posted by: Drain Brain Oct 12 2003, 11:39 PM

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 13 2003, 12:13 AM

Hmmm.. Would a magic user with perception be considered dual? Or is it the act of going astral that puts you in one side and not the other?

Also, if astral perception is a Free Action, can I and my characters assume that they can just see both at the same time if they have the appropriate ability?

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 12:15 AM

yes, a an astrall pervieveing mage is dual natured while he is percieving.

Percieveing astrally is not a free action, it's a simple action, so no.

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 13 2003, 12:15 AM

Oh, it's simple? Doh!

Thanks!

Another note: If a mage is dual natured, how long does a perception last?

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 01:03 AM

until he decides to stop, but while he is percieving he suffers a plus 2 TN to everything he does in the mundant "normal" world because astrally percieving is very distracting.

Posted by: Catsnightmare Oct 13 2003, 01:06 AM

Bit Basher beat me to the punch.

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 13 2003, 01:09 AM

Bit, I just looked it up... Pg 171, SR3 states, "To use astral perception, spend a Simple Action to extend your perceptions to the astral plane." A few paragraphs down it states, "It only takes a Free Action to see anything actually present in astral space like spirits, barriers, and other astral forms, and does not require a Perception Test unless an astral being is specifically trying to hide from you."

I am confused... Please help.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 13 2003, 01:21 AM

Simple Action to start astrally perceiving, Free Action to actually perceive astral stuff while already Astrally Perceiving.

~J

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 13 2003, 01:21 AM

Oh, ok... God, I feel stupid today...

Posted by: Catsnightmare Oct 13 2003, 01:37 AM

Don't worry about it, Shadowrun is notorious about having rules scattered the hell all over the book and be worded just vague enough to FWYM.

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 13 2003, 01:55 AM

FWYM? Do I want to know?

Posted by: Person 404 Oct 13 2003, 02:11 AM

F*ck with your mind, presumably.

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 13 2003, 02:13 AM

Oh, geez... Now I really feel dumb...

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 13 2003, 05:24 AM

I'll delve a little deeper into that since it's an important point about astral space.

There are 3 modes. Physical, Dual, Projecting.

Physical means you think the astral plane is a funky new jet.
Dual which means you are astrally perceiving and are now dual natured, present in both physical and astral space at the same time. This is noticeable from astral space but your movement is obviously limited by your physical body.
Complete projection means you've left your body and are completely astral, though you may appear as a ghost like form and speak with people, you cannot affect the physical world in any way.

Many critters are naturally dual natured and are therefore constantly astrally present and aware, though since this is natural to them, they do not get +2 TN like mages do (since mages are having funky astral space vision overlays)

When facing dual natured opponents I find the fully astral mage has the advantages, he's faster, he's flying, he can move so much faster than his opponent and he can log mana spells at them which for many dual natured creatures is usually highly bad. =)

Now back to regular programming, I'm done babbling about astral space.

Sunday

PS: One of the greatest advantages of the Masking discipline is the ability to be astrally perceiving while not "lighting" up in astral space, meaning you are dual but look Physical instead, veeeeeery handy.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 13 2003, 07:07 AM

Guys,

Sunday Gamer is quite right. Just to add a bit too it, I have found that unless you are a mage yourself (and many times even then) being dual natured sucks. In fact, in most cases against serious opposition, it is a death sentence.

Why? Again as Sunday Gamer said, Astrally Projecting Mages own you. They are faster, more mobile, and can pull tricks that make them pretty much invunerable to you. [One of my favorites against ghouls is to cast a mana spell and phase into a wall. Since the Ghoul is dual natured, they can't hurt me, so I phase out of the wall on my next pass, fire off the spell, and phase back in.

*nasty*

-Polaris

Posted by: Fortune Oct 13 2003, 07:07 AM

It's also important to remember that all spells cast while Astrally Projecting cause Physical Drain as opposed to Stun, no matter what the spell's Force.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 13 2003, 08:34 AM

Fortune,

That is absolutely correct. That said, most manabolts in my experience are fetish-drained force 6 spells which means they have a drain code of 2. That means that you are safe enough casting these even in Astral Space even with physical drain.

-Polaris

Posted by: Raiko Oct 13 2003, 08:49 AM

Posted by: Fortune Oct 13 2003, 08:51 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 13 2003, 09:12 AM

Raiko,

Yes, you do take fetishes with you in astral.

Fortune,

Yes, there is always some risk, agreed. That said, it is generally (IMX anyway) a risk worth taking. It also doesn't change the fact that dual-natured creatures are totally screwed by astrally projecting mages.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 03:32 PM

How do you figure you take fetishes with you? thay are NOT bound to you, you did not pay karma to bind them to your aura. If you own a weapon focus that you have not bound but is sitting on your belt it sure would not go with you.

I would like a page reference and quote to support this please.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 13 2003, 03:57 PM

Bitbasher,

Read page 173 on the SR Main Book under "Astral Attributes" (it is the top left corner of the page in my edition).

"Your astral form looks like an image of your physical body. The astral forms of your foci and fetishes (emphasis mine) go with you in astral space."

Thus it is pretty cut-and-dried that you do keep your fetishes in astral space when projecting.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 04:03 PM

Aaaah well, that what happens in my game when noone has ever used a fetish.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 13 2003, 07:41 PM

Fetishes have their up sides and their down sides. The down side is that if you lose your gear (escaping a prison, climbing down your fire escape in your pajamas to escape Lone Star, etc.), you are hosed (which is why it is always a good idea to have a non-fetish spell or two).

The up side is that you can either lower the cost to learn a spell, or, more effectively, lower the effective Drain by one. This rocks for a combat mage. First, if you have <1 point of cyber (dropping Magic to 5), you can still cast Force: 6 spells without taking physical Drain (especially useful if the GM doesn't let you initiate at char-gen). Secondly, reducing a spell's effective Force from 6 to 5 drops the Drain power by 1 (a Force: 6 Manabolt goes from 3 (Dmg Lvl) Drain to 2 (Dmg Lvl) Drain. Also, from a roleplaying perspective, fetishes add a lot of flavor to your character.


The dual nature of ghouls is one of the reasons that I think 10 points is too much to pay for them. If being an albino is "free", then being a ghoul should be, as well. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages, and being dual-natured is the worst. Some people actually think they are min-maxing when they make a ghoul adept. They think "Hey, plusses to my physical stats, and astral perception for free!" But not being able to turn it off makes you any astrally projecting mage's personal joyboy. Plus, a clever mage could astrally percieve and cast mana spells onto the astral side - he could use area-effect mana spells on ghouls in a swirling melee with his buds, and only hit the ghouls.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 08:05 PM

Does anyone enforce the "ready item" simple action to use a fetish? after all you need to whoop it out to use it. This is the main reason that fetish required spells aren't used ever. Too much chance of not having one out, or the right one out, or having it at all when you need it. It kinda wrecks versatility.

Posted by: Zazen Oct 13 2003, 09:26 PM

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 13 2003, 09:32 PM

There's some confusion over fetishes and their respective speed.

One would think that in order to use it one who need to be holding it, but arguments can be made for wearing them.

Under foci they mention how it always takes a simple action to activate the focus, however under the description of the expendable fetishes,they mention how popular they are and how that popularity probably stems from the fact they require no extra time to use. Mind you, that's for expendable fetishes. Not sure how it applies to everything else, they weren't very clear.

Sunday

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 09:37 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 13 2003, 11:06 PM

Guys,

As far as I know there is no action required to use fetishes. In fact I know this to be true because you can have a fetish linked exclusive spell if you so desire.

Personally, if I were to run another game in the near future, I would disallow fetishes because they are simply too good. The only drawback is the one Glyph mentioned.....if you are captured/naked, then you can't use the spell.

OTOH, if you are captured, then you have a lot more to worry about than being unable to have your fetishes believe me. Since you only have to wear fetishes to use them, that means any other conceivable scenario that denies you fetishes would have to be contrived in the extreme. Basically fetishes are like a spell book in DnD. It is supposed to be a disadvantage but it really isn't and every player knows it.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 13 2003, 11:33 PM

Polaris, my players would disagree. If they weren't disadvantages to them my players wouldn't avoid them like the plague. And they do. Because there are disadvantages to them.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 13 2003, 11:47 PM

Bitbasher,

Such as? I not trying to be obnoxious, but I can not think of any serious disadvantage to fetish linking most spells.

Fetishes are cheap. You can use them when wearing them (using them is free). They give great benefits (either reducing the karma or force of the spell by one....which is awesome), and you can have them pretty much all the time (including projecting astrally).

I would gently suggest that your players are missing a trick.

Mind you there are some disadvantages on paper, but they are really "non existant" disadvatages. For example, they can be taken away, but that in almsot all cases is a non-issue. The spells are also easier to detect when casting, but again, an awakened person will almost always perceive it anyway while a mundane almost never will....fetishes notwithstanding.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 14 2003, 03:22 AM

Well come now, of course there is a disadvantage to using the fetishes! They become material components for your spells!!

So tell me, which would you rather. Having spells that require material components and are slightly more powerful, or, having slightly less powerful spells but you don't need a damn thing to cast them?

I would go with the whole "don't need a damn thing", why? Because requiring material compoents is still a disadvantage.

Sunday

Posted by: Glyph Oct 14 2003, 03:45 AM

The main reason that I mentioned the "no spellcasting if you lose them" disadvantage is that a lot of GMs, at least on this board, seem to be fond of the "contrived scenarios" that Polaris mentions - things like "You don't have any gear and you're in the middle of the jungle" or "You don't have any gear and you're in the middle of the Barrens." You know who you are.

The other disadvantage is that you have to buy them, and spend time attuning a new one if you lose the old one. However, the cost is piddling even for a Resources: E mage. Note, though, that even though they have a low Availability and can usually be gotten in 24 hours or less, they are still not as simple to get as just buying beer at the maxi-mart.

According to the rules, a fetish has to be touching the spellcaster's body to work (BBB, pg. 180). So they don't take any actions to use if they are rings, necklaces, etc. - you only have to take an action to use it if you, say, have it in your pocket instead of wearing it. Which doesn't make much tactical sense.

Despite their having little or no real disadvantages, I actually tend to be like Sunday Gamer when I play spellcasters - I will sacrifice power for that sense of self-sufficiency.


Zazen, I won't restart that old debate again. I will just note that it probably is a good idea to talk with your GM before the game, to be sure that you are on the same page that he is. If you can only affect one side, then you can do tricks like the one I mentioned. But if you can affect both sides, you have more potential targets that you can hit - plus, as someone else mentioned, you can always project if you want to hit astral targets only.

Posted by: Clipwing Oct 14 2003, 01:20 PM

Plus with fetishes, consider this scenario: Wagemage sees nasty shadowrunner throwing kickass fetish-required manabolts and blasting the guards that he's trying to protect. Wagemage readies trusty Magic Fingers/Levitate Item spell and takes away the shiny shadowrunner toy... aw... drek... lol. *gamemaster grins evilly *

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 14 2003, 03:26 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 14 2003, 04:38 PM

*nod*

That's generally how I do it. I wear my foci and fetishes either as jewlry that I wear under a layer of clothing. [I have a focus-belt but even then I wear my coat and shirt over that belt so it can not be seen.] Otherwise I wear my fetishes as pins that are pinned to the *inside* of my shirt and/or longcoat.

In short, your focus and fetish have to touch you to work. There is no rule that says they must be visible. If they aren't visible, then they can not be affected by spells (no LOS) at least in the physical plane. [Astral is a different issue since LOS changes in astral.] However, since Magic Fingers can not be cast in Astral Space (being a physical spell), this is a moot point.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 14 2003, 06:40 PM

I happen to use fetishes *cough* ok, not really.
I have a little plastic monkey that squeeks when you squeeze him and often insists on using it when I cast certain spells.
Mostly because it's silly and because some day, some idiot is gonna take my monkey away and think I can't cast spells anymore. =)

Sunday

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 14 2003, 06:54 PM

Posted by: Hero Oct 14 2003, 07:06 PM

I don't use fetishes my self, but I found one way to get around the not having the fetishes on you matter. I do believe teeth compartments take no essence away, so why not have the teeth compartments be fetishs. I have used this with sustaining foci before and since it is completely with in the rules, I have seen no rules on foci having to be a certain size per force rating. So if you are worried about not having your fetishs with you all the time, just have some teeth pulled and fetishes in the shape of teeth put in there place.

Posted by: Rev Oct 14 2003, 07:42 PM

Heh, that tooth (etc) compartment idea is great. Never thought of it.

When I make a magician charachter I typically take a mix of fetish, non fetish, and exclusive spells. I miss the expendable fetishes from sr2 though.

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 15 2003, 06:29 AM

They have expendable fetishes in SR3.
I assume you refer to them being different? If so, refresh my memory, how were they different?

I carry quite a few on me usually, yet somehow, I never use the little buggers.

Sunday

Posted by: Zazen Oct 15 2003, 06:45 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 15 2003, 06:51 AM

Zazen,

I would walk away from the table and never look back. In SR your personal gear is always considered indestructable unless that piece of equipment is specifically targeted with a called shot. This is the price you pay for a generalized damage system.

Doing it any other way is a completely hose job to the players.....especially if you only use it for fetishes and not for things like the amunition that the Street-Sam is carrying too.....

-Polaris

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 15 2003, 06:53 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 15 2003, 07:05 AM

John,

Simple enough.

1. The elemental manipulations are special cases.

2. Even then the description goes out of it's way to say that it may damage the target in various ways with it's secondary effects. It does not say that it does.

Also in the case of fire and acid:

1. It does not keep you from using the hollowed out tooth.

2. If the fetish is worn in the INSIDE of the armor (like I have already suggested), then there will be no damage. [Not exposed to the acid and it takes oxygen to make something burn.]

3. This is clearly a hose job to punish a character that has items the DM doesn't like....that is especially true if the secondary effects were directed at fetishes rather than weapons and other gear.


Finally, I point out that elemental manips are exceedingly *rare* spells against most living targets (like runners). I find that elemental manips are used almost exclusively against vehicals or other devices.

Why? Because against people, elemental manips suck (at least when compared with power bolt or mana bolt). I could go into detail why, but that isn't the point now is it?

-Polaris

Posted by: mfb Oct 15 2003, 07:29 AM

they've got their uses, stable TN being one of them--against an unknown target, especially one that's obviously a significant threat ('named characters' as opposed to 'goons', to put it in Feng Shui terms), i'm not sure i'd want to risk my first spell splashing against his unexpected 6 will. once i've tagged him with an L or M to slow him down, or if i've got him surprised, then combat spells become the shizzle with the fizzle.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 15 2003, 08:00 AM

Mfb,

The problem even then is that a manaspell (like a manabolt) is still almost always better.

1. Elemental Manips do indeed have a stable target number. Unfortunately, they have a very bad drain code. That means that if you toss a moderate fireball, you will have to absorb deadly drain at +1 drain code to boot.

That alone makes elemental manips subpar at best.

2. They use sorcery as a ranged combat skill. That ladies and gentlemen means that the target can dodge and avoid damage. Even worse it means you can not use spell pool to help you but must use combat pool instead....which negates one of the primary advantages of being a mage (i.e. you only need combat pool to dodge yourself).

3. The secondary effects are unlikely to harm fetishes anyway. Fetishes can be made from the same things that foci can and there is no rule that says that foci can not be made from any normal object....even manufactored objects such as plastics (for example).

That means that your base object resistance for any focus (or armor/weapons for that matter) will be 8-10. Futhermore, unless the mage is totally insane, you will see a base damage code of serious at worst (see my prior point about drain). That will add two to the base object resistance. If it is an elemental area effect spell, then you will see moderate pretty much at worst and that adds four to the object resistance.

Considering that you have to beat the object resistance with 2d6, that means you will pretty much never affect foci or fetishes.

-Polaris

Posted by: Fortune Oct 15 2003, 10:42 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 15 2003, 10:54 AM

Fortune,

Edit: Good catch, I just looked it up and stand corrected. You can in fact add spell pool to elemental manips.

That said it ought to be disallowed. Why? Because according to the referenced rule, you can also (by implication) also add combat pool as well. Being able to add *both* combat pool and spell pool to a spell is broken....even with the other disadvantages that elemental manips have. [I will definately remember this though for my mage ]

That said, it doesn't diminish my point vis a vis fetishes at all. They are virtually impossible to hurt with the secondary effects regardless if the Mage has any sense at all.

-Polaris

Posted by: Fortune Oct 15 2003, 11:23 AM

There is no problem with adding dice from more than one Pool to a test. You still have to abide by the general rule for all Pools in regards to the total number of dice not exceeding the skill involved. I have asked Rob Boyle this specific question in the past, and that was his response.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 15 2003, 03:25 PM

Fortune, that's on the FAQ now too. All pools combined can not add any more dice total than the base skill.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 15 2003, 03:53 PM

Guys,

Thanks for the clarification. It was my understanding that the limit on pool dice applied per pool. Alight then, all that simply does is negate my second reason why elemental manip spells are poor choices against a living opponent. That said, the rest of my points stand I think.

-Polaris

Posted by: OurTeam Oct 15 2003, 08:20 PM

I've never had a GM who suggested Combat Pool could be added to the casting of a manipulation spell. The book (SR3 p. 183) implies that the caster may add Spell Pool, and says nothing about Combat Pool. I think its a misinterpretation of the rules to apply Combat Pool to the casting of Manipulation Spells.

After any eligible magician has had their chance to roll Spell Defense, the Target of the manipulation spell receives it like a ranged combat attack. The Target may use Combat Pool in his/her Dodge Test and his/her Damage Resistance Test.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 15 2003, 09:54 PM

OurTeam,

The implication is somewhat subtle but it is there. Under elemental manipulations, it specifices that the sorcery skill is treated as a ranged combat skill and further references you to page 109 (at least in my book) for those rules. Under those referenced rules, you can indeed add combat pool to your ranged attack skill.

However, if the total pool dice can not exceed your skill, that is less of a problem.

-Polaris

Posted by: Glyph Oct 16 2003, 02:53 AM

Damaging manipulation spells have a higher Drain than combat spells, and tend to be less effective. However, like any other part of a mage's arsenal, they have their uses. They have elemental secondary effects, they can hit visually hidden opponents, they must be staged down (by comparison, if you cast a deadly manabolt and get 5 successes, and so does your Target, nothing happens), and they have a set TN of 4 - which is nice when you're facing that albino gnome.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 05:34 AM

Glyph,

I have actually found that you are more likely to take out the opposition with a power-bolt or mana-bolt than you are with an elemental manipulation.

Why? Because the target has to make a resistance check against the force of your spell and nothing (except astral barriers and shielding) acts to reduce this target number. That means if you are throwing that mojo at force 6 (or force 8 ), that target is highly unlikely to get more than one or two successes....even the abino gnome is unlikely to do so.

*THAT* in turn means that a deadly manabolt or powerbolt will usually suceed at least one time in two (against mages) and often 95% of the time or more against mundane targets.

OTOH, an elemental manipulation spell can be reduced by armor and the target can dodge. Dodging of course has a target number of 4 (which is much lower than the force of the spell usually). In addition, the target gets an additional resistance check and armor does help (half impact in fact) against it.

Thus a force 6 fire-bolt against a mage with an armor spell of 6 (not so unusual) and two points of normal impact armor will take 4 off the target number to resist with body....after dodging.

This is almost always a TN of 2 which means the spell is pretty damned ineffective.

Elemental Manips have their place....especially against Vehicals which can not be targeted by mana spells and are highly resistant to Physical combat spells. However against enemy personelle, they suck.

-Polaris

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 16 2003, 05:45 AM

So you hit them with a Deadly Force 1 Flamethrower (or your favourite manipulation), which yields a 4 to resist drain if I'm doing my math correctly (spellslinging ain't my strong point) and will do a fair amount of hurt to your typical magery-type. A Fireball would be doable with a 6 to resist drain, and eliminates the dodging problem.
Not great, no, but not useless I'd be inclined to say.

~J

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 06:30 AM

Kagetenshi,

Actually a force 1 deadly elemental manip would have a drain target number of 3 (1/2 round down +1+2 for overdrain). Actually this is a clever way to use the spell. Naturally it means that the resistance numbers will always be two as well.

In addition to all of that, spell defense dice will actually cut through this spell like butter which weakens it further.

Finally, you can only toss as many dice into your force 1 flamethrower as you could into your force 6 manabolt. For a starting character that is usually twelve dice. Considering that the target can dodge and has a TN of 2 on the damage resistance, that bites. It bites even more when you consider that you must resist a higher drain code than your target does....and you don't have as many dice to help you.....

Getting back to the topic......

Even if you do manage to damage the mage, you will still not damage the fetishes in all likelyhood even if they are worn out in the open. If they are worn under armor, then they are essentially immune from even the strongest elemental manips.

-Polaris

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 16 2003, 06:46 AM

Hell, cast it at Force 3. Drain power for a 3D Flamethrower is still only 4D. Casting it at D eliminates the penalty involved in affecting inanimate objects, which means that even manufactured high-tech objects will be affected almost half of the time. If the object is especially vulnerable to the element (electronics being hit by Lightning Bolt, for a canon example), they get a -1 to their OR, too, which improves the odds for even manufactured high-tech objects to better than 50/50 if you pick an appropriate spell.

Fetishes are unlikely to be manufactured high-tech objects, anyway. Such things make poor magical materials. That's why they're so difficult to affect to begin with...

And I don't consider destroying equipment with elemental manipulations to be picking on the players. As a player, I expect that the GM will apply the secondary effects of my elemental attacks to NPCs' equipment... that's most of the reason I even bother casting them. As Polaris so brilliantly points out, they're not really worth their hefty Drain otherwise. That being the case, I'd be nothing more than a hypocritical whiner if I complained about NPC elemental manipulations damaging my PC's equipment as per the rules.

I haven't complained when my equipment's been damaged by explosions or other excessive applications of brute force, either. That's common sense, though, and not explicitly outlined in the rules, so I couldn't expect munchkin rules lawyers to understand my position on that...

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 08:30 AM

John,

Incorrect. There is no rule that says that fetishes have to be 'natural' objects. In fact the rules state quite clearly that fetishes can be made of the same things that foci can....and foci can be any object...including highly processed items.

In addition to that, you do not automatically get to affect all the items on a person with an elemental manip. They have to be able to *be* effected first (read the section on elemental manips if you doubt me). Thus a fetish made of processed ceramic worn in the inside of a coat would simply be immune from elemental manips. Ceramic does not burn so fire is out (it says so in the description). It is worn in the inside of the armor, so acid is out (and ceramic is immune to acid anyway). Finally ceramic is an insulator so electricity is out.

My point is that the rules have to apply equally to everyone or no one, and if the GM made the rule vs fetishes and not a Sam's gun and ammo, then I would feel quite right in walking out.

-Polaris

Posted by: The Jopp Oct 16 2003, 10:38 AM

Hmm, I didn't find what I was looking for so I'll ask all the wise people gathered here.

It says that an Astrally Projecting mage can only affect Astrally Active beings with Mana spells. Now,what happens if said projecting mage sneaks through a wall, finds a group of "goons" and throws a FIREBALL at them? Will the spell just fizzle because it is not a MANA spell or would it affect all the living beings in the room BECAUSE it is a PHYSICAL spell? The drain would be horrible and physical so that would justify the above effect but how unbalancing would it be?

I can't find anything in the rule preventing the mage from actually casting the spell, but what would happen? Would only the astrally active beings in the room be affected or would the actual fire also hurt everyone else? Would secondary effects apply?

Me confused.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 16 2003, 10:43 AM

Read page 182, the last paragraph under Astral Spellcasting. Your answer is there.

Sphynx

Posted by: The Jopp Oct 16 2003, 10:48 AM

WILCO.

What book? MITS or BBB?

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 16 2003, 11:02 AM

BBB

Sphynx

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 16 2003, 03:49 PM

I missed this earlier...

Posted by: Siege Oct 16 2003, 04:52 PM

Remember who you're talking to Bit.

-Siege

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 16 2003, 05:08 PM

I know, I just... can't fathom that.

In my game you are not safe, your equipment is not safe, aour apartment is definitely not 100% safe.

Your bank account is pretty safe but people still split amongst multiple legitimate and shadow banks to protect their assets from malicious hackers.

Riggers lose vehicles and drones. I had a rigger without any vehicles for a real life year in a game, and he stuck it out until things got better. Hew was a pretty competent sammy when he eventually got a ride again. His vehicles didnt get lost because of being destroyed, but because he came in debt to organized crime and used them to call it even.

People make enemies, its not unheard of to have your house ransacked and crap stolen. No matted how cool you think your defenses are, remember... YOU are the people hired explicitly to beat those defenses and there's always someone better than you.

I don't see ANYTHING in this game as a constant, or a shelter in the storm which you can cling. An enemy that is competent enough and can do enough research will find out about your weaknesses and exploit them. Thinkgs like fetish requirements is a weakness.

I don't see this thing happen often, but when it does happen it's going to happen when you absolutely needed it the most. When the feces really hits the rotating oscillator.

I guess maybe I'm just really a bastard GM but my players really, REALLY don't take any of this for granted. They live their little lives waiting for the other shoe to drop. Nothing, not friends, family, gear, being awakened, or their own life is 100% constant or dependable.

That's probably why my people never use fetishes. Because someday it's not going to be there, and they better hope to god that it's not a life or death scenario when that happens.

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 16 2003, 05:24 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 05:27 PM

Bitbasher,

With very specific exceptions, your personal gear has to be considered sacrosant for the same reason your personal gear in DnD is considered sacrosant.

If it isn't, you then open up the possibility of "hit locations", and part of the called shot mess resulted from trying to wedd hit-locations onto a combat system that assumes generalized damage.

Besides, as I rather pointedly showed in the case of fetishes, if you get the right kind of fetish (material) and you wear it tactically (inside a hollowed tooth or inside your clothing/armor), then it really is pretty much indestructable.

BTW, I also always buy back-up fetishes. Yes, it takes time to rebond, but at least you have them. After all accidents do happen (gear can be lost).

Really, this is just common sense if you have any experience with generalized damage systems at all.

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 05:37 PM

Icycool,

First of all, as a shaman, I would start with natural materials. However after the GM tossed a spell like this at me just once for the express purpose of stripping my of my fetishes, then I would get them made of ceramic.

Moral: If you want your players to roleplay, then do not punish them for doing so. Otherwise you *will* get results you don't like.

As for the rest, I just reread the elemental manipulation section including the respective spells in the BBB and you are not completely correct. The item in question has to be a valid target for the secondary effect to work. That means that the item has to be able to be affected by the element.

Any item that is not flammable, is immune from the secondary effects of flame bolt (ball).

Any item that is not metallic and/or organic is immune from the secondary effects of acid bolt (toxic wave).

Any item that is not flamable and/or conducts electricity is immune from the secondary effects of lightning bolt (ball).

Thus fetishes made of ceramic especially if worn inside the armor are immune from elemental maniupulations. This may torque off a shaman to use them, but I suspect that most Hermetics would have no qualms about using ceramic fetishes given this fact.

-Polaris

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 16 2003, 05:56 PM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 16 2003, 06:01 PM

errr, Polaris, There are rules in DnD last time I played where if you get hit with a fireball or other spell you had to make a save for all your items, magic or not, and they would be destroyed by failing a saving throw for each item. I always used those rules. Very similar system really.

Also the interpretations of what is immune to elemental effects is a tad dense, as the lightrning bolt and fireball generate immense heat that can melt softer metals and damage a lot wider range of things than you imply.

There was a good point made however, and that is the word "Limited" in "Fetish Limited" If the fetish isn't a limit then the GM isn't doing his job. If it's being abused until it is no longer a limit, then I'd probably disallow them entirely. That defeats the entire point of it being a limit, and therefore should grant no benefit. I personally believe the intent of the rules far outweighs the importance of how someone can abuse them.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 06:13 PM

Bitbasher,

Actually in DnD you don't unless you roll a natural 1 on your saving throw. Your gear is sacrosant. IIRC that was also the rule in 2E as well.

Also I am not being dense at all. Do you know what they use to carry molten pig iron in?

Answer: Ceramic. Thus I was being quite fair. Also ceramic is immune from acidic effects. Just ask any profesional chemist.

IcyCool,

To your first point, I would argue that I was roleplaying. It is totally in character for a magician to protect his items (fetishes, foci, etc) to the best of his ability. If it turns out that they need to be made of ceramic to do this and worn inside hollowed out teeth (or under armor), then so be it. That is in fact roleplaying.

So you feel that in DnD, you are doing the wizard a disservice if you don't take away his spell book from time to time? If so, then I will accept your disservice

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 16 2003, 06:41 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 16 2003, 07:14 PM

Icycool,

Actually that is the case in DnD. Your equipement is totally unharmed unless you roll a "1" on your saving throw. If you like I can look it up and quote it chapter and verse, but this is an SR board and not a DnD board.

My only point was this: If you target my fetishes/foci, then I will make it hard for an enemy to destroy them and/or take them away. Having said that, I conceed that fetishes (and other gear) can be taken away (if you go back a couple of pages I call this the only 'real' disadvantage), but such 'take away' situations are contrived and you generally have worse things to worry about if captured (for instance) than the loss of your fetishes, believe me.

Thus is it perfectly good RP for a mage or shaman to get damage resistant fetishes and wear them inside of armor or even inside of hollowed out teeth especially if they had been damaged/taken away once. It is called being smart.

As for totems, I quite agree that if you totem pitches a fit, then you had better listen. That is why I generally prefer hermetics. However, coyote would be cool with nearly anything.

Finally, in astral space, you can't use elemental manipulations anyway so at least part of the point is moot.

-Polaris

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 16 2003, 07:34 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 16 2003, 09:05 PM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 16 2003, 10:33 PM

Polaris,

Rather than comment on your indestructible gear theory which has already been pretty well covered, I ask you to consider something else. Your particular game is highly unusual. Rather than calling fetishes "simply too good", say that they are really great in your game. In most games they are fairly well balanced because of the variety of disadvantages covered in this thread, which you obviously do not implement.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 17 2003, 12:21 AM

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 17 2003, 03:57 AM

Not that it's terribly relevant to Shadowrun But all you had to do in AD&D to scrap your gear was fail a save, you failed? All your gear has to save. Droves, nay scads! nay MOUNTAINS!!! of gear were destroyed in this fashion.

Sunday

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 17 2003, 04:05 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 17 2003, 06:08 AM

Zazen,

Actually my game that I play in goes exactly according to the rules in this. If that makes my game unusual then that says volumes about the current state of shadowrun rules....none of it good.

John,

You are wrong about DnD and you are wrong in general about elemental manips.

On page 177 of the 3.5 PHB it says:

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 17 2003, 06:06 PM

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 17 2003, 06:27 PM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 17 2003, 07:29 PM

Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 17 2003, 07:36 PM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 17 2003, 08:01 PM

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 17 2003, 08:42 PM

Hey! What the hell happened to my thread? =)

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 17 2003, 08:44 PM

I believe nindaru, that it took the proverbial left turn at albequerque

I also think all your original questions were answered, if they weren't please feel free to ask any further questions and I'm sure they will get answered in between everyone collectively butting heads with Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 17 2003, 08:46 PM

Read page 182 of SR3(BBB), the last paragraph under Astral Spellcasting. Your answer is there.

Sphynx

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 17 2003, 08:49 PM

Bit, you missed my smily face at the end there. I was only goofing. =) Actually, I like that the thread (and all my others) has taken a turn. I have learned alot that I would not even had asked about!

Thanks to you all!

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 17 2003, 09:28 PM

I was kidding too man and I'm desensitized against smiley faces that aren't yellow and graphical

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 18 2003, 06:27 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 18 2003, 07:15 AM

John,

You are simply wrong. If you read the spells, they say that acid only affects organic or metalic substances. It says so in the first two sentences of the description. Your quotes cover those items that can be affected by acid.

The same applies to fire, electricity and all the rest.

As for the car, I am well aware of faraday cages thank you very much. However let's talk about lightning strikes:

Electricity follows the path to the lowest potential along the path of least resistance. That means that if you look at a person hit by a bolt of electricty, you will find burn/impact damage at the place where the bolt entered and left and some along the path. This is why boots are often blown off feet during electrical strikes. Well, because the fetish is an insulator not on the path to ground and isolated in a high potential, it will not be damaged.

As for acid, it is highly unlikely that the acid is hydrofluric acid because HF is a lousy acid *except* for etching silicates.

In fact, magic voids what regard as physical law regardless, so we go with the spell description and *only* with the spell description. Otherwise I would argue that an acid ball would do no immediate damage to any human target (as anyone that has been splashed by 18 Molar acid can tell you). OTOH, if you don't neutralize it immediately you will wind up with a severe chemical burn but that takes time....often as much as a minute for you to even notice the effect! [This is why you have to be so careful around highly corrosive acid.]

That is not how the acid bolt spell works, so we know right away that we can ditch any pretense of chemistry.

Look guys, Read the rules. Some of you are just trying to screw with foci for the sake of screwing with foci and I find that attitude rather despicable frankly. It was already admitted that such things are rare......and if you read the *rules* and what they *say* and not what you want them to say, you will find I am right.

Go on....I dare the lot of you.

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 18 2003, 07:26 AM

Guys,

Read these and weep:

Page 196 bottom of the page, first sentence under Acid Stream:

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 18 2003, 07:57 AM

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Posted by: Siege Oct 18 2003, 11:55 AM

Hat's off to all involved in this thread. I'm in awe.

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 18 2003, 02:18 PM

John,

My reading comprehension is just fine, but yours could use a little work. Try to break out the groupthink will ya?

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 18 2003, 04:46 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 18 2003, 05:43 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 18 2003, 07:09 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 19 2003, 04:43 AM

John,

Even Bitbasher and TinkerGnome have admitted that I was not (at least) completely wrong, so your assertion is false (and neither are fans of mine).

The point is that these forums suffer from groupthink. I happen to be right on this issue and that really is the end of it [and I have been right before when the entire forum it seemed thought I was wrong.....refering to armor layering].

-Polaris

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 19 2003, 05:02 AM

Hmm. So you're asserting that the rest of the group disagrees with me, and then accusing me of groupthink?

Do you see the problem with this logic?

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 19 2003, 05:44 AM

Christ, I concede Polaris was right on one minor point, while boning up everythign else and he practically claims himself a winner... you were still wrong about 99% of the time polaris counting all the points you stopped bringing up beacuse you had no remaining valid argument.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 19 2003, 06:02 AM

Bitbasher,

Actually if you read the letter of the rules I am right at least 9 times out of ten. Go count it yourself. I suggest you read what I write carefully and not claim I said somthing that I did not. That is rude.

John,

You might want to read what I said again....as well as what you said. You claimed that the entire board disagreed with me. I showed that that was not completely true (and that was all I had to show).

Furthermore, this board does suffer from groupthink. The two positions are adjoint not contradictory.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 19 2003, 09:43 AM

Polaris, it has nothing to do with Group Think. I agree Group Think exists here, but I've also proven that you can change the Group Think by showing the evidence, such as the old 'Astral Beacon' theory.

You said that Fetishes are invulnerable to damage because we have an abstract armour system. No matter how much you point out what elements won't effect ceramic, you are still wrong on that matter. I would check anytime you took a Serious+ wound to see if a random piece of gear was hit in the process, and if I randomly pick the Fetish, and that fetish could be effected by the element/object, bye bye fetish. If I hit a solid piece of gear like a gun, bye bye gun (not destroyed, but broken) and convert the damage to stun (since a nice solid object took the brunt of the damage). No Canon source, just sensible behaviour for a GM.

It's not a Group Think that certain gear is isn't invulnerable, it's logical thinking. Blast and Metal Elemental Effects, as will bullets and blades, will happily break ceramic under anything except maybe hardened armour just from the impact.

No matter that you are right about Acid and Fire Elemental Effects not effecting your ceramic fetishes (I'd think that'd be just as logically obvious and can't believe people are questioning it), doesn't mean you are right on the subject matter, the invulnerability of Fetishes.

John, a ceramic anything won't be effected by a flame, acid, electrical or any other such spell. Look at the duration of the spell. Instantaneous. To damage ceramic with even a powerful one of these elements (force 10 + deadly maybe) you'd still need to have it sustained for a bit. Now yes, I've read the rules and saw how even guns can be "corroded into junk" but I don't think they'd be turned to sludge or anything, just that the pins and other important factors could (I'd require at LEAST Force 6 to do it) be damaged enough to make a gun into 'junk' or 'useless'. Acid, just like Fire and Elec, doesn't stick around after the 'instantaneous' has passed by. In that split second, it did damage and is gone, any residual effect being something seperated from the spell (like clothing caught on fire from a flame spell).

Anyhows, this is my first and last post on the subject. You guys can go back to your banterings trying to convince each other of the small details that don't even matter for the big picture. Truth be told, Polaris is quite right in that Fetishes are not limiting for a person. Not because of invulnerabilities (after all, if you pick a random piece of gear to damage, the chance it's the fetish is equal to the chance its your primary firearm). If you are naked and lost you're screwed anyhows. Etc Etc. Fetishes are hardly limiting, no more so than any other important piece of equipment.

I do think that you're better off not using Fetishes, since 100% is better than 99%, but it's not going to hinder you to limit your spells with Fetishes. If your players are scared to do it, it's because you, as a GM, exploit them giving them a GM vs the Players feeling, and that's just bad GMing.

Sphynx

Posted by: Siege Oct 19 2003, 01:44 PM

I don't call it bad GMing so much as a realistic understanding of the "oh sh!t" factor of not being able to work your spells if you lose your gear. And voluntarily crippling otherwise powerful magical ability by accepting silly limitations such as expendable fetishes. Or even reusable fetishes.

It's not unlike the skillwire monkey losing his chips.

Or even a gun bunny being seperated from his weapons.

It's not like the GM keeps "stealing" or actively depriving players of gear with contrived or cliched scenarios, but taking an "area of effect" hit and getting your gear fragged, torched or otherwise singed is a legitimate result.

-Siege

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 19 2003, 02:15 PM

Not what I said Siege. I said that anyone giving them a "GM vs Players" feeling is giving them bad GMing. Taking out an item for story is good for the story, but selectively taking out an item purely because you, the GM, don't like something about the character, is poor GMing. As for a silly limitation, some people actually prefer to take fetishes for more than the spell points. But assuming they did do it for the single spell point they saved, that's still less in value than a single flaw point.

Sphynx

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 20 2003, 05:46 AM

Polaris, John, Bit, and whomever else: Leave my nice thread in peace, please. If you all would like, I can start up a new fresh thread just for you all to argue in. Either way, move on. Arguing over the rules is one thing, but tossing insults is just too much.

Posted by: Zazen Oct 20 2003, 06:17 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 06:36 AM

Zazen,

I have been consistantly right w/r/t to the written rules of the game. My ideas aren't wierd, rather a large segment of the posters here ignore wonky rules and have (apparently) for years....without realizing it.

Furthermore, a lot of posters here seem to be stuck even now in SR2 mode. A classic example of groupthink was the Astral Beacon theory that Sphynx alluded to. Another classic example was the arguments over armor layering. Yet another was the persistant and wrong idea that you can ground spells through an active sustained focus from Astral Space into physical space.

In the prior thread regarding foci, you wouldn't believe how long that wrong idea persisted even in the face of quotes from SR3 to the contrary.

So, yes this forum suffers badly from groupthink. I am an arrogant SOB and I will be the first to admit it.

I am also generally right, and it might be nice to have that aknowledged as well.

-Polaris

P.S. Sphynx, there are no elemental manips that have impact or blades effect either in BBB or in MOTS. That means that ceramic foci are pretty much immune from all the standard elemental manips.

P.P.S. This is to Sphynx too. Your rules regarding breakage of items is a house rule. I am not saying it is a bad houserule, but it is a houserule. By canon, your items are sacrosant unless specifically targeted (with the appropriate TN penalties if possible at all) or unless the effect specifically says otherwise (which admittedly elemental manips do).

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 20 2003, 07:42 AM

I was the first to say it was a House Rule there Pol.

Regardless, it's 50% of any ruling a GM does is House Ruling, including anything that falls under 'descriptive'. If I state that a shot penetrated your jacket and slams into your rib strong enough to give you a light wound and a huge bruise on your mid-abdomen, that's a House Rule. If I say that the medium damage slams into your chest with a strong impact and the sound of glass shattering is heard as sharp objects sting your chest, that's a House Rule.

Some things shouldn't be called House Rules though, and should instead be called creative storytelling rules. Just because there's no rules in armours taking holes from bullets and objects under them breaking in the process because they're made of ceramic or glass, doesn't mean it should never happen, which is what "invulnerable" implies.

The idea of an abstract armour system is to give the GM more room for creative combat scenarios, not to prevent it entirely. It gives me the option of putting that Deadly damage on your Achilles or through your eyeball, my choice, dependant on what makes my story better. But the abstract armour idea was NOT intended for the purpose of providing equipment an invulnerability.

Sphynx

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 07:51 AM

Sphynx,

You and I both know, however, that an abstract hit-location and armor system does in fact de facto do just what I said....it gives item immunity. This is not limited to SR either, but is true in pretty much all RPGs with such systems.

Going strictly by canon, unless the item is specifically targeted or an effect specifically says otherwise, your gear is sacrosant.

Really, why is this disputed? Now if in your games you want to modify that, then fine. You may be suprised, but if we gamed together, I doubt we would have very many problems at all in that regard (just as long as I knew the house rules up front which I think is fair). I would even say that item damage as a houserule is even reasonable....but it ain't canonical.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 20 2003, 08:11 AM

That's the mistake boss. No, it isn't a tool for the player, an abstract armour system is a tool for the GM. It gives them control of the story, and if they choose to have an attack damage a piece of equipment on you, they don't have to wait until the hit-location chart says they hit you in that area (roll for random object in location) and hope it's the item they want to hit.

Now, the problem isn't the rules, it's the abuse by the GM. As I stated before, selectively picking out items to destroy for the sake of "teaching a player a lesson against twinkdom" is BAD GMing. As a matter of fact, it causes twinkdom because now a player has an urge to start finding loopholes in the rules to keep his equipment safe.

Personally, as a GM I would never target an inventory item of a player, though every once in awhile I do perform my own little test to see how much damage armour has taken. Only exception would be if you're taking along some huge cyberdeck looking object into a firefight, or trying to use an object as a shield.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the abstract armour system is a tool for the GM to use, should he so opt to do. It is definitely NOT a shield of invulnerability for a character's inventory to hide behind. I find it as difficult to believe that's being argued as you seem to find it that my case is being argued.... I mean think about it: "My inventory is invulnerable to damage because I wear armour". What GM wouldn't start proving you wrong if you told him that?

Sphynx

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 20 2003, 08:45 AM

sorry to double post like this Pol, but I went through the whole thread and the book and can't find your quotes that make objects invulnerable in either the thread nor book, just some D&D quotes which I'm sure are not the Canon source you refer to. Could you point me to the Canon source that says objects are invulnerable please?

Sphynx

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 02:45 PM

Sphynx,

I said your equipment was sacrosant de facto and not de jure. I picked my words carefully. There is absolutely no canon rules support that says that your items get damaged in regular combat. None. Nada. Zip.

Ergo, I draw the very logical and reasonable conclusion that in standard combat they are not. That is especially true since mechanics exist in the game to damage gear should the GM choose to use them.

I grant that realistically gear should be damaged in combat, but in virtually any RPG (and this I know to be true), that doesn't happen largely because such a thing slows game play far too much and is subject to far too much GM abuse.

Thus unless you can find canonical rules in the books that state otherwise, I stand firmly (and I feel correctly) on the position that standard combat damage does not damage your gear.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 20 2003, 03:10 PM

Drawing a logical and reasonable conclusion, as you have stated you have done, is, by definition a House Interpretation and not Canon at all.

So, no matter how non-canonical everyone else's rules are on the matter, yours are just as non-canonical.

A lack of rules to support the opposing viewpoint is not proof that one's own viewpoint is the ruling. I'm not only willing, but already have admitted on various occasions that a damaging of items is House Ruling. But choosing to not damage items is also House Ruling, not Canon. Don't try to tell me that items are invulnerable because of a lack of rules. Of course they're not.

Sphynx

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 04:39 PM

Sphynx,

You know better than that. If the rules don't allow for a particular sort of attack and/or result, then in an RPG the baseline assumption is you can not do it.

That is particularly true when a mechanic does exist that allows you to target items.

I think fundamentally we may have to agree to disagree, but once more I feel I am on firm ground.

My conclusion is fairly simple I think:

Since it requires houserules to damage gear in normal combat, the default (canonical) assumption is that items can not be damaged in normal combat.

I don't understand how you could come to a different conclusion. To me at least the logic is obvious.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 20 2003, 05:24 PM

I think that last two sentences there pretty much sums up most recent arguments we have with you Polaris.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 20 2003, 06:19 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 20 2003, 06:29 PM

If "no damage to gear" is a house rule and "chance of damage to gear" is a house rule, then the official ruling must be along the lines of: "make a house rule" or "when it fits the plot"

There is no official ruling on how much a tin of Tasty Pop™ costs, so does that mean they are inherently free? If you said yes, I want to hit you with a large blunt object, and you made a house ruling. If you said no, then you have made a house ruling and maintained some semblance of common sense.

If you want a game that has every eventuality already defined, go somewhere else.

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 20 2003, 06:33 PM

Polaris, did you get a chance to check out a copy of MitS? Those rules supercede the rules in the SR3 main book.

On the subject of "lack of rules = proof". Riddle me this, rulesman (). There exists canon ruling on firing at a vehicle, correct? This would also include such things as firing a grenade launcher, or tossing a grenade at said vehicle, correct? Now, there also exist rules for firing or throwing a grenade at a person. Let's take the following example:

Gary Ganger is showing off his new Yamaha Rapier to his pals. One of them decides to chuck a grenade at Gary's bike (with Gary still on it). Does Gary get hit by the blast, since his bike was targeted by the grenade? How about if Gary is two feet away from his bike, and the grenade lands between them? According to your interpretation of the rules, only one OR the other would get hit by the blast, correct? If not, what's the difference between this, and having the grenade blast damage the shiny predator(as there are rules for attacking objects) in Gary's hand?

Posted by: Zazen Oct 20 2003, 06:49 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 20 2003, 07:14 PM

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 20 2003, 07:26 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 20 2003, 07:30 PM

Posted by: Shanshu Freeman Oct 20 2003, 08:32 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 08:40 PM

Shansu,

Sure because in this case there are explicit rules within the spell in question that covers collateral damage to gear. All I am saying is that in combat, there is no way you can do collateral damage to gear strictly according to canon unless a specific effect says otherwise. Elemental Manips do....but in a very limted way.

As for MIPS, there is no rule in MIPS that forbids you from having a fetish of OR 10 either.....read the rules there carefully please (already covered in any event).

I am right. I am not saying you might not houserule, but if you took away festishes because of collateral damage without any preexisting houserule to that effect, I would walk right off the table....and I would have every right to. [For the same reason if you destroyed a Sammie's gun with no preexiting houserule, he would have every right to walk away from the table.]

-Polaris

P.S. This is indeed groupthink in action. If the rules don't make sense, then petition WizKids to change them but don't trot out your houserules and somehow claim they are canonical because they ain't.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 20 2003, 08:46 PM

Only one making claims about Canon here is you Pol, and your House Interpretation is not Canon, sorry.

Sphynx

Posted by: Shanshu Freeman Oct 20 2003, 08:52 PM

yarrr



kthnx

Posted by: Zazen Oct 20 2003, 08:54 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 08:58 PM

Guys,

Actually I am 99.99% sure that what I am saying is in fact canon. I tell you what...I will write to WizKids and ask. Be prepared, however, for a major serving of crow.

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 20 2003, 09:11 PM

That doesn't answer my question about the fish, though. What's the difference between half-melted bullethole-ridden gear and a properly maintained fish tank, according to rules which never mention neither of them?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 20 2003, 09:21 PM

Zazen,

You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. Let's stick strictly to combat shall we.

BTW, John and the rest were *wrong* about their force three elemental manip spells. My ceramic OR 10 fetishes would be totally immune for yet another reason (in fact would be immune from any imaginable force 3 elemental manip).

Read the latest errata and weep:

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 20 2003, 10:45 PM

Actually, Polaris, you're wrong on that one. Elemental Manipulation spells have their own target number system, explained on the next page. OR does not affect elemental manipulations... which is the primary reason to use them, really. That, and a lightning bolt can melt just about any vehicle to slag, going off the R3 example (not that I think that's right, either).

Posted by: mfb Oct 20 2003, 10:58 PM

polaris, honestly? any group you walk away from because they prefer to fill gaps in the rules with common sense will probably be glad to see you go.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 12:07 AM

Mfb,

If a group took away your gun as a sammie just because you took a light hit from an Uzi, and you weren't warned about such rules in advance I bet you would walk from the table too.

Really, it is that simple. There are too many here seeking to screw a mage with fetishes because they don't like fetishes.

TinkerGnome,

I stand corrected. Nevertheless it remains a great reason to use ceramic fetishes and foci....because it makes them almost immune from Power type spells.

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 03:07 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 03:35 AM

Zazen,

You are attempting (and failing) to trap me an a reductio ad absurbum fallacy. The problem is that tropic fish have nothing to do with combat so the entire analogy is false.

Done.

-Poalris

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 03:51 AM

no, polaris, it's not false. rules are rules, whether they apply in a combat situation or not.

as for my street sam, i'd walk from the table if the GM was being an unreasonable ass about something. saying that your fetishes--or any other equipment--stands a chance of being damaged or destroyed when you're hit by an explosion / powerball / spray of autofire is not being an unreasonable ass.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 03:58 AM

Actually MFB is right, the argument he presents, which is "Anything not expressly granted by the rules therefore must not exist in the world" is valid both in combat or out. Combat is irrelevant to his point, and the question he asked you.

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 03:58 AM

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 03:59 AM

Now, I understand I was rude to you previously Polaris.


I thought however, you might like to know of a game called Hackmaster which is produced by Kenzer and Company under liscence. Whatever else might be said about it, it's actually a game that takes great joy in insisting everything be held to a canonical standard of gameplay (at least for HMA members: HMGMA 1400 something!).

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 04:07 AM

to back up zazen here, read the entry for "Oversimplification" http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm. It shows this is a valid tool, especially in this circumstance.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:09 AM

Nephyte,

I consider this to be rude as well, at least by implication. I am well aware of Hackmaster, and I hate it for exactly the combative atmosphere it engenders. This is also one of my primary criticisms of Shadowrun as well. [That and the world and setting make no sense.....shadowrunners should not exist as independant contractors.]

That said, you can not simply push people aside, and hide from bad rules and pretend they don't exist. Bad rules do exist in SR....and in fact the game is full of them, and I have the right and obligation to point them out.

-Polaris

P.S. Zazen, the fallacy you are commiting is called "False Analogy" Tending fish has nothing to do with combat therefore it can not be used to attempt a Reductio ad absurbum. Done.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:10 AM

Bitbasher,

Why don't we wait until WizKids comes back with an answer before you get too proud (because Zazen is attempting a false analogy which should be obvious even to you).

I fully expect you to eat some crow when I do get the reply.

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 21 2003, 04:16 AM

Actually, given the existence of so many multi-national corporations within x-square blocks of each other, each having its own territorial jurisdiction, the "class" or "caste" of shadowrunner or independent expediter would inevitably manifest.

Especially considering the weakened Federal government.

Now, do I think it likely that so many "street" level characters would make it up the ranks? Maybe, maybe not -- virtual training being what it is.

It's not unlike professional criminals of today; there are successful hitmen who have long and distinguished careers working for various "F"amilies that only get caught because of snitches and similar deals.

Never mind how many crimes go unsolved yearly (etc. etc. etc.)

-Siege

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 04:24 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:24 AM

Siege,

Actually no. Given the canonical wealth and power of the A, AA, and AAA corps, and given the implicit understanding that low-grade industrial espionage/sabotage is an acceptable business tool, and especially given the lack of power of most national governments, Shadowrunners simply should not exist at least as written in the books.

Consider this: Why spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of nuyen on "criminals that do horrific things for money" (to paraphrase Villiars) when you can have your own security personal whose loyalty is more or less assured to do the same jobs?

At best you would use these criminals as bait which would cause the market for independants to dry up pretty damn quickly.

As for deniability, that problem is really a non-issue. Even today, national governments send covert military and intelligence teams against each other all the time, and diability is never an issue.....it is simply how the game is played and everyone knows it.

-Polaris

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 04:27 AM

the argument here is not about combat, polaris, it's about rules. in combat--actual combat--your gear can and will be damaged or destroyed by any number of causes. personally, i think the idea that you can be hit with a force 6 powerball and expect your wood-and-string dreamcatcher to pull through unharmed is absurd enough without dragging the poor fish into it.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 04:27 AM

Corporate Download gives the "reason" for shadowrunners. The Corporate Court can punish any corporation that engages in espionage/sabotage against another corporation or government. Which is what happened to Fuchi.

Shadowrun is supposed to be ridiculous; it's a "dark" parody world of our own.

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 04:28 AM

Well, venturing off-topic even more so....

Posted by: Siege Oct 21 2003, 04:35 AM

The problem lies in motivational loyalty:

American Spec Ops do some pretty dangerous stuff. Why? Motivation. Be it patriotism, religion or the occasional snake-eating nut, they believe in what they do.

While no spec-op soldier ever considers himself expendable, they do realize the potential for capture, death, torture and so on. But they still do it.

Can you inspire such motivation from wage employees? Maybe, maybe not. But with the amount of money it would take for a corp to develop it's own spec ops, why not go the infinitely more expendable and expedient route of hiring someone who's either

a) already trained
b) experienced
c) has a verifiable track record

I've had the displeasure of taking a class from a born accountant and accountants run businesses today. They think in terms of profit and loss to the absolute exclusion of anything else. This frag characterizes _everything_ in terms of a "winning" or "losing" transaction. And the vast majority of transactions, according to his philosophy, are losing ones. I'm waiting for the day when an accounting degree is required for every tactical commander in the field or they have to justify spending a $1000 per shell to clear a forward position.

Ranting aside, I have no doubts that this accounting professor would see the feasibility in hiring ex-SEALs rather than trying to produce their own resources: recruiting, training, equipping and so on.

Although AA and AAA corps would invest the money in spec units for their own security -- easier to support, maintain and keep alive. As opposed to being deployed deep within enemy territory. Governments, being what they are, are infamous for loving to waste money.

Compare that to dropping say $20,000 on four or five people who don't know who you are, can't be traced back to you, will either provide all their equipment or buy it from the "payment" they're receiving...I think it ends up being a good deal.

Maybe not from the shadowrunner's long-term perspective, but not everyone thinks along those lines. (unless you get in the adept vs samurai argument)

-Siege

Edit: And KT's explanation works too.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:36 AM

Kanada-Ten,

The problem is one of enforcement. It is not in the best interests of Corps to go to the Corp Court because of runners. They are better off trying to turn those runners and return the favor.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you can "prove" they are from a corp or not....and I can tell you from modern covert missions sponsered by governments, that a good government agency (or AAA corp in SR) can generate enough "paper" to "prove" enough plausible deniability to hold up in any Corp Court procedure. Of course no other Corp will believe it, but that's not the point now is it?

In short, Corp Download left me very unimpressed because the reason doesn't hold water.

-Polaris

Edit to Siege,

The problem is that Spec-Ops are a proven commodity for Natl Governments and A+ corps would almost certainly want some of their own. The reason:

LOYALTY

You can not put a price tag on loyalty and that is precisely why Megacorps would use their own people (with cut outs) rather than people off the street. Hardened criminals off the street are not loyal to you and can easily turn in your hand. In addition, they actually cost *more* (in the long term) than your own teams.

In short, no one would use them except perhaps as bait. They wouldn't be trusted *because* of their competance (the more competant, the more dangerous and untrustworthy they are).

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 04:38 AM

What zazen is trying to show has nothing directly to do with combat, nor what you emailed to FanPro. And for the purspose which he is drawing that parelell his analogy is perfectly valid. His issue is one of common sense.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:40 AM

Bitbasher,

1. Common sense is not common.

2. Common sense is often wrong.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 04:42 AM

Believe us Polaris, You have convinced me, and my others of that exact fact! rejoice!

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:44 AM

Bitbasher,

You joke but I was being quite serious. That second point alone negates Zazen's entire argument.

Common sense is often wrong.

It is. The classic example is the "called shot" rule that allows you to bypass an armor spell.....and that is the rule.

When you start appealing to "common sense" in a rules discussion, you almost invariably have entered the realm of houserules.

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 21 2003, 04:46 AM

Provided you are willing to spend a million dollars training someone who may get geeked the first time he twitches left instead of right.

I would also refer you to the criteria I listed:

1. experience
2. track record

Is this professional criminal willing to die for you? Maybe, maybe not. He'll certainly be motivated to stay alive since he knows that he has no recourse in court and his employer won't bail him out.

And if he betrays his employer, he'll find it difficult to get another job -- not that he will have the means of hurting his employer ("Yeah, it was some guy in a bar. Nice suit. Mr. Johnson. No, I'm not kidding...hey...watch those cattleAAAARRRGGGHHH!"). Not like a Renraku spec-op who spends a couple of weeks in intensive debriefing.

-Siege

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 04:51 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 04:53 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:54 AM

Siege,

And how does a corp verify their "track" racord....and for that matter why would they bother? You are much better off using your own operatives whose training, records, experience, and reliability are known factors.

"Shadowrunning" occures today between major governments, and these teams are just as cutthroat as their fictional counterparts in SR.

No national government that I know of uses independents for any of these missions. They may be "independants" officially, but they really are not (plausible deniability) for exactly the reasons I have already mentioned.

Given that this is a proven technique (including plausible deniability) for governments, I see absolutely no reasons why megacorps with the budget and power of (and exceeding) a national government to do the same. In fact it seems likely to me.

-Polaris

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 04:55 AM

Link, Polaris?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:58 AM

Kanada,

Look up the declassified missions of the CIA, KGB, and OSS sometime. In addition to that w/r/t the Corp Court, the fact they can use Mind Probe (although how they do that on a space station is beyond me), would be yet another reason why no megacorp would go to the Corp Court. Besides, all the corp has to do is supply plausible deniability. If politics rules the day anyway, then the corp really has nothing to worry about.

Zazen,

Actually you are incorrect. In many cases the lack of a rule is in fact a rule. Just wait and see what WizKids has to say. I think you will find that this is such a case.

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 21 2003, 05:01 AM

I've gone to some length to explain why a corp might not want their employees deployed in covert, unofficial and deniable missions.

Of course, given the tech of 2060, it's entirely possible to create soldiers and operators who literally know no fear, have no memory after signing on the dotted line and will have their active memory wiped for the x number of years they served in the corp "special projects" division.

(Hey, an interesting reason to take Amnesia...)

I'll point out that governments are far more willing to "waste" money on sending Green Berets to do drug interdictions and spy missions than a bottom-line minded corp.

Silly question -- just how much practical knowledge do you have on national governments and their covert operations?

-Siege

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 21 2003, 05:02 AM

Reducto ad absurdum isn't a large phrase, it's a rather common one. I fundamentally disagree with most of Polaris' points, but I have to defend his use of the phrase.
Though I still say it's a valid technique.

~J

Postscript: everywhere I look it seems to be spelled reductio, but yet I lost points on a latin test some time ago for spelling it that way instead of reducto... common error, or should I go argue for my points?

Posted by: Siege Oct 21 2003, 05:03 AM

Is it just me, or does Polaris come across as the Gary Gygax of Shadowrun?

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 05:09 AM

Siege,

I can answer that to a degree. When I was in the US military, I reported to Ft. Meade MD although I was stationed in Alaska (officially).

That should be enough for those that are familiar with the US Alphabet soup.

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 05:13 AM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 05:14 AM

He needs to quadruple his lexicon, then yeah.

And then once again Polaris, if a lack of a rule is in fact a rule, then since there are no rules on feeding tropical fish, then tropical fish cannot be fed?

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 05:16 AM

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 05:18 AM

Posted by: CanvasBack Oct 21 2003, 05:23 AM

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 05:32 AM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 21 2003, 05:33 AM

Posted by: Seville Oct 21 2003, 05:33 AM

Polaris,
What service?

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 06:04 AM

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 06:07 AM

Fine, Knowledge Skill; Fish Tendering. Default to intelligence if you don't have that particular skill.


I'd definitely say it doesn't require an active skill test Once you pass the knowledge skill test, the feeding should be quite simple.



As far as rulings go: That is perfectly defined within the rules. Any knowledge skill used without actually having a skill is a default to intelligence with a TN penalty. Fish Tendering is a perfectly acceptable knowledge skill as the book says anything can fit in the various categories and only proceeds to give a few examples rather then an exhaustive listing.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 06:09 AM

Destroying things is pretty well covered in the rules too. The question is does Powerball destroy your cloths and you? The answer is: it can.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 06:11 AM

Seville,

I was officially assigned to the 6981 ESG (USAF) in Elemdorf.

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 06:13 AM

Kanada,

Actually, it can not going by the strict reading of canon. However, a Powerball can destroy a pile of cloths next to you. That is why Fireball is used instead of Powerball in many cases...because it can destroy some items.

-Polaris

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 06:15 AM

Powerball would consider your cloths a valid target because they are physical and in sight of the mage.

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 06:23 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 06:25 AM

Kanada,

I will concede that the canonical rules can be read that way. However, that assumes that you treat your items as seperate from yourself, and that is not the way the combat system is geared. The moment you no longer possess an item, it is not part of you and thus a seperate (and valid) target. If you do possess it, then it is considered part of you. At least that is how I read the combat system (and I feel I am on fairly firm ground on this).

In addition to all of that, bear in mind that the errata I quoted does apply to Powerball, and most items are considered technological at best (OR and many would most likely be considered highly processed (certainly ballistic cloth should be since it is plastic) and that is OR 10.

That means you need a power 5 Powerball (which is no joke drain wise) just to cast the bloody thing, and it would be highly unlikely to affect those objects in any case even going by your interpretation. I also note that if do use your interpretation then no mage will use a Powerball because it can destroy the very items that the runners may need to get clues from (like the terminal in the office to name one example).

-Polaris

Posted by: Seville Oct 21 2003, 06:26 AM

Electronic Security, Air Force Intel and independent reporting to the NSA on a PACAF base.

One more question: were you an officer or enlisted.

Let me know if you need a helping hand.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 06:27 AM

Zazen,

Actually Nephyte is right and made the point much better than I. W/r/t knowledge skills, there are standard target numbers and numbers of successes for average tests, easy tests, hard tests, etc etc.

Feeding Fish would be an easy test, which would require a TN of 2 (and one success) of the Knowledge, Fish Tendering skill. That would require a TN 6 (just one) on an Int check. All of this is strictly canonical....including the guidelines for the GM.

-Polaris

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 06:29 AM

That's ok with the Powerball 5, I'd just use a feitish

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 06:29 AM

Seville,

I was enlisted at the time. Used the service to help me finish my degree and pay for graduate school. After a few years with NSA, I had enough (and refused to come back as an officer after I got my degree).

I am doing fine right now but thanks for asking. Anything else. I have given as much of my bona fides as really should (you understand I hope). Everyone else will have to either believe me or not.

-Polaris

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 06:41 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 06:44 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 06:57 AM

Zazen,

If the fish are exotic, then up the difficulty. The point is that such rules exist in canon....which means your reducto ad absurbum fails.

-Polaris

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 07:01 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 07:11 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 07:18 AM

Polaris, we can't have a discussion if you won't answer questions that I pose. We especially can't have a discussion if my supposed flaw in logic keeps changing names and incarnations.

Unless something changes, I'm not going to continue.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 07:21 AM

Zazen,

Now you are reaching and looking more than a little desperate. Let's compare the situations:

In combat, there is no rule (none, nada, zippo) that allows for collateral damage to your gear in standard combat.

Conclusion: Gear is not subject to collateral damage (unless an effect specifically says otherwise).

In non-combat, there are a wide variety of knowledge skills you can have to cover any situation with distinct guidelines as to what is and is not a valid knowledge skill. Furthermore, the GM is given specific and numeric guides as to what target numbers to use and what the number of successes mean.

Furthermore in equipement, you are given a general guide to price items not on the list in terms of nuyen based on today's prices.

Conclusion: You can feed tropical fish.

Thus your attempted reducto ad absurbum fails.

-Polaris

Posted by: Anymage Oct 21 2003, 07:58 AM

Zazen, here's the big difference.

Technically, you're right. Anything not specifically brought up in canon is a house rule, including the care and feeding of tropical fish.

However, the players have a right to know what rules apply when they get into certain situations. If you made it clear that you had an item damage houserule at the outset, Polaris or myself could chose to stay in the game or walk before making characters. If not, you'd be unfair, because what makes this grenade blast/hail of bullets/etc. different from the last one that didn't end up destroying gear. Such a houserule could even be "when I as the GM, trusted to be impartial, think the drek's too thick", so long as your impartiality were trusted and you made that clear at the outset.

I assume that the existance of tropical fish, as well as everything required for their upkeep, falls under "house rules most players accept as default". Subtle definiton that I can't nail down in lawyerese, but hopefully something that can be understood and explained better by someone else. Again, if I had a severe problem with tropical fish, I could walk out on any game that included them, but I could do the same for gravity (which is also not specifically mentioned in the rules). I'd be a grade-A prat for doing so, though.

The thing I think Polaris has a problem with, and that I have issues with also, is when rules for something you'd hopefully know change without your being aware (combat rules apply especially, since characters engage in combat quite often, and should know how the "laws of physics" in the world work), or else when the rules change arbitrarily and unfairly. It's not about house rules per se, it's about house rules that make one player feel unfairly picked on. (And also usually come as a complete surprise, something that rules shouldn't do.)

So I'd be quite fine playing in a game with tropical fish, as I would be if you applied some sort of equipment damage rule I knew about and agreed upon beforehand. If the rules for the care and feeding of tropical fish seemed to change randomly just to screw the characters, though, you can bet I'd be dissatisfied.

Think consistency. Think fairness. The rules as written at least theoretically have those going for them, and I have a right to expect similar out of any game I play in.

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 21 2003, 08:10 AM

Ok, aside from my thread degenerating into mad chaos, what the hell is "reducto ad absurbum"? I don't know Latin, but all I can come up with is "return of the missing". Am I that uncultured?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 08:14 AM

Nindaru,

Part of that may be my fault. I may have mispelled the latin. Reducto ad absurdum is a logical technique where you show a contradiciton (an absurdity) after removing all the verbal qualifiers. That is not an exact definition, but it is close enough for this thread.

In short, if you can show that a position is inherently self-contradictory, then that position is fundamentally illogical. cf. Euthyphro by Socrates where he shows that "good" and "evil" must have definitions independant of the god(s) (or of God in christian theology). He uses the above technique in his argument.

-Polaris

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 08:39 AM

the description of powerbolt/ball in SR3 says that it affects both living and non-living targets. it says nothing about excluding gear carried or worn by someone hit by a by powerball. therefore, gear worn by someone in the effect area of a powerball is affected by that powerball. how it's affected is a question left unanswered by the rules, but it is affected. same goes for grenades; the 'blasts against barriers' rules prove that grenades can affect objects, and a character's belongings are objects, QED. again, the question is how those objects are affected, not whether or not they are.

who here is saying that a GM should be able to just randomly sit up and say "your focus/cyberdeck/whatever was destroyed by that last burst of gunfire", and expect his players to stick around for another session? i'm not, and i don't think anyone else is, either. what we're saying is that gaps in the rules should be filled with common sense, not stupidity.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 08:46 AM

Mfb.

You said:

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 21 2003, 09:21 AM

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 09:24 AM

explain to me, polaris, how it's disputable that the items you carry are not automatically unaffected by area-effect spells, grenades, and the like. show me in the rules where objects are excluded simply because you're carrying them.

Posted by: Zazen Oct 21 2003, 12:39 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 21 2003, 01:19 PM

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 01:22 PM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 21 2003, 01:54 PM

MFB, my comments were complimentary to yours, not contradictory. In my experience, many GMs are perfectly willing to hose a 500 fetish but balk at blasting a 500,000 cyberdeck with the same ruling. Or killing the sammy. Or anything else serious that comes from the ruling, for that matter. If it's consistantly applied, I can't argue with the ruling. If the ruling makes the game seriously unfun (particularly when it is done maliciously or excessively), then I can certainly find another.

Posted by: Lilt Oct 21 2003, 02:52 PM

This topic got me pondering as to wether or not it is possible to hit hidden fetishes using a powerball. In theory fetishes, as enchanted objects (p180, BBB), are magical things and thus will have auras visible from the astral plane (p171,BBB). It would then be possible to obtain LOS to it via its aura if the caster was astrally percieving (in the same manner that an invisible character can be targeted) thus it would be a valid target for the spell.

Anyway: your statement that it would be hard to affect OR8 to OR10 objects is a bit off. Using a force 5 deadly powerball (maybe exclusive limited for drain): I need to roll one die up-to the OR to do deadly damage to them. Even if you're rolling 6 dice on the casting test, you have about a 40% chance of destroying any OR10 objects and about a 60% chance of destroying any OR8 objects in the area. Not that I've ever seen any GMs play this, in the same way that I've never seen a GM hand out equipment damage on anything less than a botch or contact with acid ETC.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 21 2003, 03:03 PM

Just an FYI, LOS for a fetish requires true LOS, so if a fetish is under clothing (as most players do wear theirs) then no, you can't target it with a Powerball. That's why Elem Manip's were so talked about in this thread, only they can effect items you can't see.

Sphynx

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 03:42 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 04:22 PM

John Campbell,

Please do not call me a liar unless you know for a fact it is true. It isn't.

Here is a quote from Zazen's original post that started this digression:

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 05:00 PM

er, actually as long as he does that with any other relevant equipment that is by no means arbitrary. It is entirely reasonable that if a bullet hit a ceramic bauble that the item be destroyed. It is also reasonable that if someone gets shot there is a chance (Although horribly, horribly almost riciculously low) that the bullet impacts said item. This means That the decision is not arbitraty, it is not on a whim. It is based on a realistically possible sequence of events, regardless how unlikely. Furthermore, he said that there would be a roll involved, not that it would happen automatically. You are exaggerating his statement to invalidly to make a point.

Let's comapre quotes:

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 05:07 PM

Bitbasher,

That was not a misquote. What I said was true and I stand by it. By "allowing the possibility" with no warning and nothing in the rules to support it, he is saying that he would take away gear at whim.

Reread Zazen's and John's early posts and you will find that this is exactly their attitude. Just you wait until I get an answer back from WizKids.....

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 05:21 PM

Guys,

There is another reason why I am probably right about carried items w/r/t Powerball and the like.

Consider the difference between a Powerball and a Fireball. In the case of the fireball, the spell description goes well out of it's way to allow for damage to worn items including special rules for such effects.

Now if items could always be affected in the area of the spell, such language would not be needed.

The implication should be obvious: Because Fireball has to be given special language (and special rules) to affect worn items, spells that lack such language (Powerball) can not.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 05:38 PM

Actually it's listed that way because elemental effects have special rules on what they can damage and what they cannot while combat spells affects all items across the board based on OR. The rules on how items are damaged from combat spells are clearly illustrated, as I am sure you will agree Polaris. I am not referring specifically to damaging items being worn, but any items in general.

And polaris, as you may have noticed in the past not too many of us care what FanPro says. Most of us prefer a game enjoyable to our groups, regardless of the idiosyncharacies of the rules.

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 21 2003, 05:53 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 21 2003, 06:02 PM

Posted by: Seville Oct 21 2003, 07:14 PM

I normally try to stay out of bloodbaths like this thread, and likewise, I try not get all preachy, but ultimately, I feel the need to say something.

Right now, there are at least several posts on this thread made by someone on the verge of seething anger, because someone disagrees with their viewpoint on whether or not an imaginary object can be damaged by shooting the imaginary person wearing it with an imaginary bullet. Likewise, there are other posts on this thread written in self-righteous anger, because someone they probably never met disagreed in a rather vehement manner with their own opinion on said imaginary objects, characters and bullets.

Now I realize that this is snafu for these boards, but, on this one thread, couldn't we calm down, agree to disagree, and maybe get back to the interesting discussions of the first 3-4 pages?

Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 21 2003, 07:16 PM

You think it'll work?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 07:20 PM

John,

You said:

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 21 2003, 07:25 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 07:35 PM

TinkerGnome,

OTOH both playability and precedence (see my point about elemental manips) would indicate that you do not consider the gun to be a seperate target from Gary (or the rest of his gear). Otherwise grenades become far too deadly and problematic....and the game stops being fun and playable (since no gear will survive a chunky-salsa effect).

I don't think this is what the designers intended, and all other precedence both in the combat rules and fiction surrounding it seem to indicate otherwise as well.

I admit in this case (damage emanations both from Power Ball and Grenades) that the rules are unclear. With that caveate, as far as I can tell you err on the side of keeping your gear.

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 21 2003, 07:44 PM

Polaris, it all depends on what the positioning is, and why I listed the runaway train of items you have to roll for and the fact that the GM has to make a decision on which items are affected and which are not. If I'm riding on a motocycle and aiming my gun dead ahead, behind the handlebars and a grenade lands in my lap, the three obvious things that are going to be taking damage are my bike, me, and the gun (which is hovering with a foot of air between it and the blast). There's no rule that says the gun will or even should take damage, but it is a logical deduction.

How do you damage a gun? There aren't any rules for it. Does it have a barrier rating? If so, how does the damage affect it? Again, the world of GM calls and outside of canon. The two views of canon are both perfectly valid. The strict view is that since there are no canon rules, nothing happens to it. The other view is that since there are no rules, the GM is responsible for making rules to cover it (or making a rule that says "items aren't affected").

In any case, I wouldn't lump grenades and area effect spells into the same bucket, since they're fairly different in nature and application.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 07:46 PM

TinkerGnome,

Here's what decides it personally for me:

The strictly canonical way handling it (i.e. no damage to carried objects) is also the simpliest and most fun. That means in a game it is better almost by definition.

-Polaris

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 21 2003, 08:20 PM

More fun for you, because you get to munch out without taking any negatives for all the positives you want to stack on a character.


Much less fun for me as the GM, because the game loses grittiness as the characters become super-human machines that need nearly a literal army of opponents to even challenge them.




Quite frankly, it's always been my experience that there are far more players looking for a game to join then there are GM's looking for players to sit at their table. Thus I believe as a GM, my personal view is far more important. However, if you as a player find the game utterly un-enjoyable because you can't munch out, I freely invite you to look for another table to play at, which will fit your style better. That may all be personal experience however. Maybe someone elses gaming area include 30 GM's with only 20 players. I dunno. I do know however that if that is the area you live in, you really should send an E-mail to Blackjack and let him know. The poor guy is always the GM, and I really think he'd like to play more often.

[disclaimer] The use of the word "you" was not meant to be associated with any particular person or entity. It was rather a encompassing "you" meaning all people who aren't me, or don't have the same opinion as I do.[/disclaimer]

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 21 2003, 08:34 PM

Okay, now, let's compare what I said with what you're claiming that I said.

Actual quote from me:

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 09:22 PM

yeah, "pretty much precisely"? what does that even mean?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 21 2003, 09:58 PM

As someone who qualifies almost everything whether or not they know themselves to be right, I also have to challenge your last assumption there, Campbell.

~J

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 10:15 PM

polaris, i've already proved that your 'no damage to carried objects' idea is not canon; your counterpoint about elemental manips was shot down by bitbasher. and as for being 'more fun', that's a personal opinion on your part that i, and several others here, disagree with. i enjoy a dash of realism in my games.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 21 2003, 10:30 PM

Polaris, just a central point here please provide a direct quote from the book stating that "items are immune to damage unless otherwise directly stated" and we're good to go. Not inferred from something unrelated, like specifics of elemental damage and their special rules. I would like a direct quote please to that effect, referring to items and worn equipment in general. This is what you keep insisting.

Either say:
a) "No, there is no direct quote to that effect."
or
b) "Yes it is, here is the book and page number."

Please no sidestepping, explanations, dissertations or use of the word "but", "imply" or "reasonable" or their synonyms.

This is a simple multiple choice question. Thank you.

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 10:38 PM

yeah, i mean, something like that is pretty important. had that been the intent of the designers, i think it pretty much definitely would have been written down in black and white somewhere.

Posted by: spotlite Oct 21 2003, 10:45 PM

ialdabaoth: "do you think it'll work?"

answer: nope!

Geez guys, when it comes down to it, does it really matter? I know everyone's got their back up, but I've just read everything here for the first time and this is what I think:

What Polaris calls 'canon' is not necessarily what everyone else calls canon. His definition seems to be a very definite, logical, step by step, and possibly even a little anal (no offence is meant, but will probably be taken anyway), others seem to have a more open one, which allows them to extend canon to fit circumstances not covered by the rules. Neither is 'right' and its down to personal taste. I would say the latter is actually more fun, but that too is personal choice.

Finally, in my personal opinion, the wording repeated throughout the books sums it up for me. Using Polaris' approach, the immortal words 'the GM's ruling is final' make absolutely anything you choose to do canon, backed up by that statement. Two GMs may disagree, but that doesn't change the statement. At least, not the way some of you guy's have been arguing!

Shadowrun is not a video game. The improvisations that are necessary do not represent a 'whim'. At the start of my campaign I tell people that if I don't know where to find a rule I'll improv and look it up later, and they'll have to live with it. Never had a problem yet.

Just chill, everyone, ok?

Posted by: mfb Oct 21 2003, 10:54 PM

it's less polaris' stance on damage to items than his intimation that any GM who'd dare allow some minor annoyance--like a high-force powerball, or a grenade going off in one's pants--to affect a character's gear is a bad GM.

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 21 2003, 11:14 PM

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 11:19 PM

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 21 2003, 11:37 PM

Damnit people, do you all realize that you have been arguing for days over a f'ing game??? Take it somewhere else. I'll even start the thread for you...

This thread used to have good, informative content...

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 21 2003, 11:42 PM

Nindaru, you'll probably have to get used to it. You can't moderate your own topics. And besides, it is actually "fun." Do you reilize your getting upset over a forum about a game taking about the game?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 21 2003, 11:45 PM

Mfb,

My stance on elemental manips has been vindicated in the past page or two. Judging by the posts in the past two pages, there has been a general consensus here that ceramic fetishes are both possible and would not be damaged by standard elemental manips....and this point was conceeded even by those that strongly disagree with my item stance in general.

You will find that when it comes to rules dicussion, I am generally correct by the strictest canonical standard. If you don't like that, then houserule your own games and get FanPro to change the rules (SR is in dire need of a fourth edition btw). However do not go trotting around houserules as though they are canonical rules when they are not.

What would get under my skin really fast is the suprise application of a houserule that damaged gear (in this case fetishes) when (to my knowledge as a player) no such house rule existed before. I consider that an Ex Post Facto rule, and I would and have walked from such tables over such things....and with good reason I think.

-Polaris

Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 21 2003, 11:49 PM

Obviously not

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 21 2003, 11:49 PM

K-T, you're right. My bad.

<walks away...>

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 12:02 AM

Bitbasher,

Can you provide a quote from anywhere in the canon material that allows for a carried object to be damaged by collateral damage unless a spell or ability specifically said otherwise?

I am still waiting.

-Polaris

Posted by: IcyCool Oct 22 2003, 12:04 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 12:36 AM

IcyCool,

Both Sphynx and TinkerGnome (and if I am leaving others out then I apologize) have both stated (and Sphynx did so flat out) that in fact Ceramic Fetishes are immune from standard elemental manips (fire, acid, electricity). The others here have not disagreed with them since those posts were made....thus my position here has been vindicated.

As for items in general, the default assumption in any game (including RPGs) is this:

Unless the rules say you can do something, then you can not.

I fully grant that houserules exist, and in unusual situations, I fully agree the GM needs to have enough flexibility to make the call.

This, however, is not an unusual situation and since combat occures in SR on a fairly fequent basis, then your players have a right to know about any and all combat houserules up front including those that damage items. [It is that last part that would cause me to walk.]

The point is that going strictly by the rules, your carried items can not be damaged since no rule exists that allows it (and as Nephyte has already stated rules are enablers). If you impliment such a rule, then by definition you are making a combat related house rule, and the players have a right to know about it before the game begins....before character creation even.

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 22 2003, 12:46 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 01:03 AM

TinkerGnome,

I agree with that little quote, but that is not quite the same thing that we have been discussing here.

1. Does the GM have the right to include rules for collateral damage for gear?

Yes. That said, the players have rights too, and one of those rights is knowledge that such a house rule exists before play begins.

If no such rule is made, then a player is perfectly within his rights to draw the same conclusion that I have: That according to strict canon, items can not be hurt with collateral damage unless the effect specifically states otherwise. Thus I stand by my general position that unless the rules (especially in combat) say you can do something, the baseline assumption is that you can not.

2. Does the GM have the right and obligation to fill in holes in the rules?

Absolutely. I have never questioned that. However, the player has the right to expect that all such rules will be handled in an impartial and fair manner.

As for the fetish thing, I apologize. After reviewing the thread again, you did not explicitly agree that ceramic fetishes would be immune from the common elemental manips....I was thinking of others (although in my own defense Sphynx did say that so I was at least partially right). I add this to show that I do attempt to be fair.

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 22 2003, 01:04 AM

That's the basic crux of the issue, isn't it?

From Polaris' point of view, the world is destroyed and re-created with only what is listed in the source book as defining any and all interactions. If it's not listed in the book, it doesn't happen.

The other point of view superimposes personal experience to fill the void of where the rules leave off, presumeably because we don't expect the rules system to be so thoroughly complex as to address any and all possible considerations, implications and scenarios.

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 01:14 AM

Siege,

I don't entirely disagree with that assessment. Let me put it like this:

The rules dictate the physics of the world in the game. Those things that will come up on a regular basis need to be outlined and understood by all that play the game.

Given that rules as written often have counter-intuitive but correct (as determined by the game designers) results, common sense while a valuable aid should not in general circumvent the written rules.....and any "common sense" rules that get added into common occurances (such as combat) need to be understood by all participants in advance. I don't see myself as unreasonable by taking a hard line stance on this issue.

Thus, unless the GM says otherwise (a houserule), then in general if a rule doesn't allow for it to happen especially in combat (where the character's lives are on the line), then it should not be allowed to happen. If such houserules exist, then all participants should know about them....and it should be understood that they are in fact houserules.

Clearer?

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 01:30 AM

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 22 2003, 01:35 AM

Hmm... what's the OR of a skillchip? 8 or 10+? Methinks it's a big stick for the skillchip wennies.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 01:37 AM

Bitbasher,

The burden of proof is on you and not me. Unless you can show a rule that explicitly allows for collateral damage to gear, then the baseline assumption is that gear is not subject to that kind of damage. That is borne out by the fact that certain effects (elemental manips for one) go out of their way to give explicit rules for just that. This assumption (in combat unless the rules say you can do something, then you can not) is generic in all RPGs that I have ever seen.

As for Powerball, I did say many times that the rule could be read the way Kanada was reading it. However, it could also be read to exclude carried objects too. I remind you that a vehical (for example) has to be targeted as a single target and not by individual parts of the vehical. The same logic could (and IMHO does) apply to a character and his gear.

Thus, this is a case where the rules are unclear. The case of Powerbolt is very clear, however. If you target the person, you do not affect his gear,

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 01:38 AM

TinkerGnome,

I would say that a skillchip is a highly processed technological item.

OR 10

-Polaris

Posted by: mfb Oct 22 2003, 01:44 AM

polaris, you misunderstood. i'm not talking about ceramic fetishes, or whatever. i'm talking about your assertion that because elemental manips included effects on personal gear and combat spells did not, combat spells (and other effects) automatically had no impact on carried gear.

so, like i said--the rules and description already allow for collateral damage to worn/carried gear:

1. a piece of gear is an object
2. there are rules for damaging objects with area effect spells, grenades, etc.
3. there is no language in the book which disincludes worn/carried gear from area effect spells, grenades, etc.
4. therefore, gear can--by the rules--be damaged by area effect spells, grenades, etc.

the only question is how one would determine which worn/carried gear is affected, and what the effects would be. that part would be a GM ruling/house rule; if the GM decided that every time polaris's character got hit with a grenade or area-effect spell, he lost a fetish, then i'd support polaris's decision to walk from the table.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 01:45 AM

I have no burden of proof this is not flow or LD debate here Polaris. It is not formal. If either case is unproven, then it is just that, unproven. Especially seeing how I am not trying to prove anything, just show that you also have no proof.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 01:54 AM

Bitbasher,

*sigh* Once more, the rules for Powerball are unclear. However, the argument I would use is quite simple. Your carried gear is not a valid target for a powerball for the same reason that a visible police siren (the kind cops toss on a roof with stickum) is not a valid target for a powerball.

In both cases, I would argue that your gear (like that siren) is part of one single target: you (in the case of the gear) or the car (in the case of the siren).

As for games, I have not yet heard back from Wizkids, but I am sure I will soon. That said, the standard for combat rules in any RPG has been the one I espoused:

If the rules don't say you can do it, then in general you can not. The rules act as enablers.

Thus the burden of proof is on you, and I will not be swayed to try to prove a negative especially when I don't have to.

-Polaris

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 22 2003, 01:58 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 02:04 AM

Kanada,

Actually the vehical just takes deadly which admittedly implies that the siren wouldn't work either. My point is that the rule can be read in a way to exclude objects. I also point out though that the vehical's armor helps protect the siren even though it is outside the vehical proper.

Even if you read it the other way, I remind you that only objects that are visible and in line of sight can be affected by a Powerball....and that is more restrictive than one might imagine.

In the case of fetishes, the fetishes would be unharmed in any event (this was discussed pages and pages ago and I think everyone agrees) because they are generally worn under the armor. For that matter those runners that layer armor (which is most) and those that use FFBA (which again is most IMX) would not lose all their armor either.

Because the rule can be read both ways with equal validity, in the case of a powerball, it is unclear.

The case of items in general suffering collateral damage is another matter. There is no mechanism that allows this for generic attacks thus items are generally immune from such collateral damage.

-Polaris

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 22 2003, 02:12 AM

Posted by: mfb Oct 22 2003, 02:13 AM

polaris, show in the books where personal gear is distinguished from any other objects. you're creating a false distinction; there is no canon rule that says rules apply differently to an object in someone's hand than they do to an object sitting by itself. the burden of proof isn't on us, to show that there's no ruling; it's on you, to show that there is a ruling. the rules for powerball are very clear, unless you introduce a fictional division between carried objects and unattended objects--a division not supported by the rules, and therefore not canon.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 22 2003, 02:15 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 22 2003, 02:18 AM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 02:27 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 03:26 AM

Bitbasher,

The key word is "valid" and that is in doubt in the case of a powerball. It is also a moot point going waaaaay back to the original side-discussion because fetishes can (and usually are) hidden and thus not subject to a powerball.

I am not making an 'affirmative' position. My position in debate terms is quintessenially negative. I am saying that without a rule to support collateral damage to items, items do not suffer from collateral damage.

That is a negative position (in terms of debate). You have to show that such a rule exists. You have in part with Powerball which is why it hinges on what is and is not a valid target. You have not w/r/t random gunfire or even grenades.

-Polaris

Posted by: mfb Oct 22 2003, 03:37 AM

i'll allow that a fetish kept out of sight somewhere--in a pocket, or somesuch--might not be a valid target. a fetish in view, however--or a weapon, or a cyberdeck, or what have you--would be a perfectly valid target.

Posted by: Namer18 Oct 22 2003, 03:45 AM

So I'm a little slow and I'm still hung up on the behind armor protecting a fetish completely from elemental manipulations and the ceramic tooth compartment idea.

Both acid elemental effects and metal elemental effects specifically state they can degrade armor(Mits pg 52). If the armor was completely degraded by the attack would you insist that the fetish that was under the armor still couldn't be affected by the same attack? It seems to me if you degrade armor to 0 its not protecting anything, which would mean anything under it could be affected by the spell.

As for the ceramic tooth would you say that a elemental manipulation of metal, would be unable to damage the ceramic because it does not specifically say metal can damage ceramic?

Just some questions since I'm interested in the answers.


Namer18

Posted by: mfb Oct 22 2003, 03:50 AM

stuff like that is very much in the realm of GM call. arguing it here is just gonna confuse the issue.

actually, come to think--motion on the floor, calling to move this whole discussion to a new thread. second the motion?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 03:57 AM

Namer 18,

You are getting two seperate issues confused (which is understandable).

If the fetish is worn under the armor, it is never a valid target for a mana or physical type spell (such as Powerball). That is because there is no Line Of Sight.

A ceramic fetish is protected from standard elemental manipulations not because it is hidden under armor (since elemental manips can affect hidden items) but because ceramic can not be flash burnt, is immune from acid, and does not conduct electricity. Basically there are no standard elemental spells that can damage ceramic items.

The point of contention then is can gunfire cause damage to your items as a secondary effect (what I call collateral damage)? Since there is nothing in the rules that breathes a word about this, the canonical answer is that you can not. [The absence of a rule is a rule by direct implication.]

Clearer?

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 22 2003, 04:01 AM

Posted by: mfb Oct 22 2003, 04:01 AM

right. that part--hitting something with stray gunfire--would be a house rule, albeit a perfectly logical one.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 04:16 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 04:23 AM

Bitbasher,

I am not arguing with you w/r/t Powerball other than to say that (using vehicals as an example) the spell could be read the other way.

The rule is unclear in the case of powerball. We also decided pages and pages ago that w/r/t foci, powerball was a moot point since the fetishes need not be exposed....and no LOS means no Powerball.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 04:33 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 22 2003, 04:39 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 04:49 AM

Bitbasher,

If you will recall, this discussion is all about fetishes (and originally how you could carry your fetishes into astral space). The original contention was that fetishes were inferior because they could easily be destoryed and/or taken away.

I contended that this was not true. Powerballs were one of the first things mentioned in that discussion, but that was quickly shot down.....because fetishes can be worn under armor (or even clothing) and thus would not be subject to such spells. This also nixed magic fingers and other such tricks.

*THAT* was when the discussion turned to elemental manipulations (since they can affected hidden items), but then too, I showed convincingly that ceramic fetishes would be immune from all the standard elemental manips.

It was then that Zazen said (paraphrasing) that he would have such foci broken on as collateral damage on stray gunfire....and that was what started this contentious chain of posts about item and gear integrity.

Look, I am not disputing that Powerball can be read they way you say. I do say that if you do read it that way, only a small percentage of the runner's actual gear will actually be affected. Even worse, as I player I can demand strictly according to canon that the individual TNs for my items be adjusted for the amount of cover (how easy it is for the mage to see) my items have *if* they can be affected at all. [And as we agreed pages and pages ago, hidden fetishes can not be affected by powerballs.]

The real issue is not powerball, but adversarial GMs that attempt to take away fetishes because they don't like them....and I point out correctly that items including fetishes are exempt from collateral damage unless the affect specifically states otherwise.

You have made a good canonical argument w/r/t Powerball. I have never said otherwise (although LOS and other considerations above come into full fore). This does not ipso facto extend to grenades, or even area affect elemental manips (other than the rules for elemental manips themselves). There are no rules that govern how a grenade damages your gear. None. Thus the default assumption is that it does not.

-Polaris

Edit: Zazen, yes, I would not allow it (the rug pulling). Happy?

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 22 2003, 04:57 AM

Since I never really have anything outstanding to add, I just wanted to say this...

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 05:07 AM

Nindaru,

I completely agree with you. If you go waaaay back when I mentioned (casually at the time) that most mana bolts were fetish-linked (drain) and thus had a drain code of 2 (at force 6) [thus making them reasonable to cast even when astral], I also mentioned that the next time I ran a game, I would not allow fetishes because they were too good for too little effective cost.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 05:08 AM

Then we pretty much agree.

I agree with nindaru too.

In my game since fetishes, along with all equipment is fundamentally destructable, and my players are okay with this. It changes some things like fetish usage, pretty damn drastically.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 05:12 AM

Bitbasher, Nindaru,

Is it possible that we will actually end this discussion with a positive tone and some sort of agreement?!



-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 05:14 AM

Well that's like saying that hiroshima and nagasaki was an "up note" because they caused peace eventually.

But yeah

Posted by: Zazen Oct 22 2003, 05:28 AM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 05:30 AM

Then after that comment everyone's happy... one of us in a short bus riding to Chuck E Cheeze kind of way, but happy none the less...

Posted by: Zazen Oct 22 2003, 05:36 AM

Amen!

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 22 2003, 05:44 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 06:28 AM

Kanada,

What barrier ratings? How do you determine that?

You can't. There are no canonical rules that cover how your personal gear is damaged either by collateral damage or by grenades. I thought that was accepted by everyone....and just when I thought this was ending on a pleasent note too. *sigh*

-Polaris

Posted by: mfb Oct 22 2003, 06:40 AM

like i said, there are rules that say your gear can be damaged, but none that say how to determine that damage.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 03:15 PM

Polaris, that's what you get for thinking...

Posted by: spotlite Oct 22 2003, 03:50 PM

Maybe I've missed something here.

But Polaris said that in every (I think s/he used that word, I could be wrong) RPG s/he's played, the lack of rules about a thing means you cannot do that thing, and that this is accepted or definate in those games. Can I just ask (and I'll probably regret it): where does it say that, in any of the games in question?

I'm not looking to kick anything off. I'm not looking for someone to pipe up about Polaris and point out why s/he might be wrong or might not be wrong. I'd just like Polaris to tell me. I've never seen it written down, and you seem to place a lot of faith in things that are, and make assumptions about things that are not and claim that this is how things are done. Have you written (professionally I mean) for a games company and this is how they've breifed you? Or is this something you have decided/worked out for yourself? If it is, could you explain why? And don't bite my head off please mate, I'm only asking.

I know you've asked fanpro about one of the topics in this thread ( I forget which its been so hectic!), but I have a suggestion - perhaps we should ask them if the absence of a rule means that something cannot be done. Would that settle things a bit? Perhaps - just perhaps, mind - Shadowrun is different from other RPGs you've played where the absence of a rule doesn't automatically invalidate things which are not explicitly covered? Its just a thought.


Anyway, my personal take - its not a definate answer, its not canon perhaps - is that Object Resistance exists in the game world for a reason. Examples of what fits what OR levels are given. Armour (hardened armour notwithstanding) can be degraded, (which is both an object and equipment carried by a character) and only reduces the power of a damaging attack anyway, rather than making the owner immune to damage. This implies that some of the damage, be it kinetic, elemental effect or whatever, gets through. The staged damage level, as opposed to Power rating, is unaffected and this has a direct impact on the OR test.

So, it doesn't specifically state that equipment IS damaged/destroyed, but the rules exist to work out how to do it (using OR, damage level, and perhaps a called shot if the NPC is clever and can work out where to throw the spell). So i see lots of evidence that it is possible, though I don't see any evidence of precisely how to work out what gets hit under what circumstances. But surely that just means there's a hole in the rules, not that it is against the rules to do it?

Do feel free to pick all that apart and tell me why its wrong. I won't take offence unless someone gets personal. As I said, its just my personal take on the matter.

Again, sorry if I've missed the point, but Polaris seems to be arguing from a very black and white viewpoint and i'd like to try to understand why - without upsetting him/her or anyone else if possible!

Posted by: Siege Oct 22 2003, 03:55 PM

Until you call someone an out-and-out fraghead, you'll be fine.

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 05:36 PM

Spotlight,

The problem is that ORs exists only for spells. That is because you can do collateral damage with elemental manips according to very specific rules in the book (and we generally agree on that in principle).

Likewise it is possible to target individual items using "power" spells, provided it is a valid target and a Line-Of-Sight exists.

However, go check out pretty much any RPG out there. Unless rules specifically state you can do something in combat, you can not. That is especially true when it comes to items that you carry.

You will find no rules or even guidelines to how much body various items have, what their hardness (barrier) ratings will be, etc etc. Certainly you will find nothing that even hints that collateral damage (say from gunfire) will damage your items (so any such rule is automatically a houserule).

In short, I feel like I am on very firm ground here and stand by it. I am not disputing your right to make houserules....as long as you admit that they are in fact houserules and thus not canon.

I also want to leave everyone here with a thought: On the WOTC boards there is something called "The Oberoni Fallacy". It goes something like this:

"Just because you (the GM) can fix it with a houserule, does not imply that the fundamental rule (or item, spell, ability, etc) is not broken."

Seems obvious doesn't it? Unfortunately, at least here that is precisely the sort of error I have seen poster after poster make here. Just because you can fix something with a houserule has no impact in a criticism of the rules as they are written canonically.

-Poalris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 22 2003, 05:39 PM

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 22 2003, 05:43 PM

Posted by: Nindaru Oct 22 2003, 05:45 PM

Oh, and to Polaris, if a situation is not specifically listed in the rules, it is GM territory, agree?

If you agree, who are you to argue how another GM may handle that situation in their own game?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 05:46 PM

Bitbasher,

The rule on page 96 of the Cannon Companion is clearly labeled as an "Optional" rule. Thus it is not official.....putting in the same status as Deadlier Overdamage, an officially suggested houserule. In fact Cannon Companion goes well out of it's way to explain that none of these options were official rules, but rather some possible houserules only that both the GM and the players should agree upon in advance.

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 22 2003, 05:49 PM

Nindaru,

Not necessarily. In general things not covered by the rules are GM territory, but players have certain rights too....and houserules that affect a character's survivability (esp w/r/t combat, equipment, and the like) need to be laid out in advance.

Otherwise, the player has every right to expect that the rules as listed in the book are the ones being played under....and that means no collateral damage to gear.

In short, as a player you have a right to assume a strictly canonical game until and unless the GM says otherwise in advance.

-Polaris