Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 6 2011, 06:30 PM

There are very few items or equipment that I feel is broken or cant be balanced with small changes. But there are a few things I have found that I feel are so broken as to just outright ban. The two main things I have found are Stick-N-Shock rounds and the Slow Spell.

Is there anything else in the SR4A system that you feel are to broken or would take to many house rules to fix that you just ban them?

Posted by: Warlordtheft Jun 6 2011, 06:37 PM

Apparently the slow spell was errated out of the german version. I think Stalahasse could confirm that-I recall him mentioning it.

The only thing I would outright ban is Thor Shots, and nuclear weapons. When running a standard SR campaign, I remind my players that what they bring the corps can bring ten fold.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 6 2011, 06:49 PM

… Where would they ever get a Thor shot or a nuke?

It's probably a mistake to ban S&S entirely. Instead, consider dialing it back (less DV), or not giving it a full -Half armor.

Posted by: Epicedion Jun 6 2011, 06:54 PM

I don't see a problem with SnS that isn't replicated in anything that causes Stun damage and reinforced fundamentally by the damage/armor system's Physical to Stun mitigation.

Posted by: Bushw4cker Jun 6 2011, 06:58 PM

War! Book
Empathy Software (Especially Emotitoys)
Centaurs

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 6 2011, 07:03 PM

It goes without saying that you'd ban everything in War!, yes.

PC Vampires and Nosferatu, perhaps. Spoofing Life? PPP, maybe, though that's just my personal dislike. Pirated software.

Go check out the thread about Broken Rules in general.

Posted by: deek Jun 6 2011, 07:04 PM

I've always outlawed Technomancers from my games. I leave them in the fluff, but don't allow them to be playable.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 6 2011, 07:06 PM

In general, nothing really needs flat out banning. Many things could benefit from tweaking, nerfing, or even gutting… but simply removing them from the game is too heavy-handed. I might not allow many players to play Infected, but I wouldn't say 'no one can ever do this, 100%'.

Posted by: Halflife Jun 6 2011, 07:10 PM

There is almost nothing that needs to be outright banned. Probably the only thing would be Insect/Blood/Toxic Magic. But a LOT of things will need to be watched closely.

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 6 2011, 07:35 PM

I guess I should have rephrased. I will never 100% ban something and say that they players can never ever ever have it no matter what. What I generally do is say that the things on my Banned list are not allowed unless the players can come up with a way to balance the thing they want to be allowed into the game.

Posted by: Medicineman Jun 6 2011, 07:46 PM

not only Stalahassee (= Stahlseele = Steelsoul )
but every german Player
I would ban Comlinks & Progs Rating 7+, Grenade Burst Damage,
HMHVV,aspected Mana Static (if it still exists ?)Renfield (!)
I wouldn't ban Emoti(or other ) software but i would ask for a teamwork Test !

with A ban Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: CanRay Jun 6 2011, 07:48 PM

The lack of the "Chunky Salsa" rule!

There needs to be more of that!

Posted by: Vuron Jun 6 2011, 07:52 PM

I my mind there are 3 major categories for banned items.

1) It breaks the game- Various options such as Slow probably satisfy this thing

2) Not gamebreaking but introduces too much power creep- Rating 7+ commlinks, other SOTA stuff that simply makes playing the game unfun for a lot of people

3) Stupid Stuff - YMMV but for some people it's TMs, PC AIs, Free Spirits, various alternative metahumans, SURGE in general, emotitoys, etc.

Honestly I prefer a soft ban on marginal stuff with the provision that taking or doubling up on overpowered options is bad news. Personally I feel few people like playing the BMX Bandit in a game where other people are playing Angel Summoner and games where everyone is playing Angel Summoner are boring powertrips.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 6 2011, 08:02 PM

PPP definately. War! obviously.

SnS can be balanced by making it "shotgun only."

And finally emotitoys and empathy software.

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 6 2011, 08:13 PM

Not a damn thing? Always remember this, what every nasty toys your players can throw at you, you can throw right back. SnS Bust-A-Move will put fear into your players, MWUAHAHAHAHAH

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 6 2011, 08:19 PM

Because as always, if the player uses a grenade, then the GM uses one back and get a TPK due to chunky salsa, that's the player's fault.

"You guys were in a narrow hallway, and all clustered near each other, and it was impact detonation."

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 6 2011, 08:24 PM

There is a certain logic that is assumed to be there. Scaring the players is find, but TPK should only be used as.... Honestly, I can't think of a reason to use it. I, as a player, personally like it when playing an RPG almost becomes a game of chess with the GM. Perosnally I see nothing wrong with making players go "Holy shit! We almost died! Next time we plan!"

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 6 2011, 08:27 PM

So, basically, the players can use the tools against the GM to unlimited efficiency, but the GM may not use them in a capacity that would result in even a single player's death? (excepting statistics and luck of the dice).

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 6 2011, 08:29 PM

It's that or you take a black pen to most of the book(s) or roll up new characters every week.

Posted by: squee_nabob Jun 6 2011, 08:37 PM

either determine how Iron Will works, or ban it.

Posted by: DireRadiant Jun 6 2011, 08:42 PM

I ban banners.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 6 2011, 08:45 PM

Like, 'Happy Birthday, Steve!'? That's harsh.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Jun 6 2011, 08:47 PM

Ooops--what what was thinking (Talahasse FL I think...)

With a Talahasse Tango,

Warlordtheft

Posted by: Oracle Jun 6 2011, 08:49 PM

May I ask you for what reason?

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jun 6 2011, 08:50 PM

I've found the game works just fine without stick and shock, there are other non lethal options if the characters need them.

As far as things to ban i find less is more but here's my list:

Shifters
Possession Traditions
SnS
Detect Life
AI's (I run my game universe without little AI's or at least treat them as very very rare)


Things I look very hard at during character creation and am on the verge of banning:
Surge
Metavariants
Sustaining Foci:

I should also note that I pretty rigorously enforce line of sight for both sustaining and casting. Also emotoys are fine, they give the teddy ruxpin amazing abilities to determine someones mood and facial tics, that doesn't really help people much though. It's not full fledged emosofts.

Posted by: DMiller Jun 6 2011, 09:34 PM

At our table...
Banned:
Control Thoughts spell
Mind Probe spell

Modified:
SnS is large bore weapons only (shotguns, MMG, HMG)

We look very closely at optical magnification items for spell casters.

We don't have War! or any of the new mini-optional rules books, we are running SR4 with the SR4a update PDF and all of the errata.

-D

Posted by: Digital Heroin Jun 6 2011, 09:35 PM

I'm loathe to ban anything in a game outright. For those really downright WTF items I either examine how to make it hard for the player to get them, or to make their life hell for using them.

As an example, try to bring out and emotitoy at a meet, and watch as the Johnson either outright closes negotiations, or asumes he's working with clowns and cuts the payment offered down substantially. Yeah, you'll be able to judge he thinks your a git better, but good luck changing his mind after.

Posted by: Oracle Jun 6 2011, 09:48 PM

This is another one I don't get. Why?

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jun 6 2011, 09:53 PM

I don't want to get into a debate on but possesion gains a number of awesome things for very little drawbacks

1.The vodoo tradition has one of the best spirit spreads in the game.
2. Force multiplication: Possesing an enemy not only removes an enemy but adds an ally.
3. General overpoweredness: The ability to add not only ITNW but also the stat buffs to yourself or an ally at will is just silly, and then they added channeling to get rid of any potential drawbacks it has despite the fluff to the contrary.

Posted by: Oracle Jun 6 2011, 10:00 PM

Didn't want to start one.

Posted by: DMiller Jun 6 2011, 10:03 PM

I agree. I usually drop the NPC attitude two points negative for this. Friendly drops to Suspicious, Neutral (which is normal for most Johnsons) to Prejudiced, etc. Sure a -2 doesn't offset the +6 from the emotoy completly, however now the face/team has an NPC that really doesn't trust them and is treated as such from that point until they redeem themselves. Oh and Hostile and Enemy does mean no job for you (I actually treat it as a failed mission and award a point of notoriety). Usually I'll award a point of notoriety for just using an emotoy as well.

-D

Posted by: Vuron Jun 6 2011, 10:08 PM

Yeah Emotitoys are a bad addition to the game

I like emotion + lie detection software running during a meet. Especially if the face has a cybereye camera that he's got linked to his commlink so that he can share the data with his gunbunny bodyguard, the mage and the hacker running VR overwatch.

I don't like that package in a little furby that the runners place on the table during a meet. I especially don't like the cost being a fraction of what emotion software runs.

Posted by: Faelan Jun 6 2011, 10:36 PM

Good reasons. The fluff definitely makes it seem more hazardous than the rules play out. I rewrote a bunch of stuff for my regarding possession spirits, hitting them with a reasonable NERF bat. I require a vessel to be prepared or in an altered state (fugue, sick, long term depression), that way I get my Exorcist type possessions and prevent the easy possession syndrome. Oh well, when the Horrors show up watch the possession Mages get massacred, and hunted down.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 6 2011, 10:41 PM

I agree with Faelan. Reduce the power of possession, don't ban it. If nothing else, use similar rules to mental manipulations, where the possessee gets the chance to resist, and keep resisting until free. This may be obsolete in many battles, since the fight might be over before they get a second resist attempt, but it's still something to think about.

Also, like most people, I have a short lit of what I`ll ban. And I`ll allow almost anything as long as they have a good, non-superpowered badass, reason for it. That list is Nosferatu. They are simply too powerful for the point cost. Possibly too powerful for anything other then extremely rare NPC.

Posted by: Titus Jun 6 2011, 11:04 PM

The only things I would ban would border on the ridiculous. No Shadowrunning group should have tanks, anti-aircraft armaments with a 5,000 foot range, aircraft equivalent to the president of UCAS or a major corporation, nuclear bombs, a virus that can cause devastation that rivals the bubonic plague or anything similar. Most anything else could probably be tailored.

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 6 2011, 11:12 PM

What is your main reason for banning these two spells?

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 6 2011, 11:13 PM

So not a fan of having a nuke in the sidecar of a motorcycle that is rigged to explode upon death the death of the owner of said bike?

Posted by: Raiki Jun 6 2011, 11:47 PM

At the risk of turning this into a possession debate after all, I have to say that nerfing possession mages is just silly. They already suffer major drawbacks compared to materialization mages that make up for the benefits they grant.

A ) Possession spirits cannot affect anything on the material unless they have a vessel.
B ) Vessels, even willing vessels, must resist a possession attempt. This includes the mage himself (although they always count as a prepared vessel and grant the spirit a +6 to their opposed roll).
C ) If the spirit fails a possession attempt against a target, that target is immune to possession attempts from that spirit for 24 hours.

A materialization spirit suffers no such drawbacks, they just materialize and start womping face.

This effectively forces upon possession mages an 'instant fail percentage' that just isn't equivalent to anything that materialization mages suffer.

Also, the possession mage (or other PC being possessed) must abdicate all control of their character in exchange for the "ITNW [and] stat buffs...at will". This is only marginally remedied by Channelling. A Channelling mage may use their own skills and does maintain control over their own actions, to an extent, but still has a strong mental/emotional overlay from the spirit.

They also use the lower of the two sets of mental abilities to resist any spells/powers/etc, so if you have a spirit with a high enough force to give you ITNW of any consequence (see discussions of the Drake rules for how useful ITNW 3-5 really is) then you're forfeiting half of those stat buffs anyway, since you'll be keeping your own mental stats.

This isn't to say that possession spirits aren't powerful. They are. All spirits are powerful. They're just powerful in different ways.

As for the spirit loadout of the Voodoo tradition, I can't argue with you there...it's pretty gross. If they had dropped one of the elemental spirits and added Plant, I would say that it was the most disgusting spread ever, but fortunately they were smart enough to never give Plant spirits to a possession tradition (as far as I can recall anyway).


~R~

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 6 2011, 11:51 PM

That's why you have the spirit possess your armor.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 6 2011, 11:57 PM

I don`t think we need any more of those shenanigans...

Posted by: DMiller Jun 7 2011, 12:00 AM

We found with a mage tailored towards mental manipulations these were just too abusable (along with any AOE versions).

Things like "shoot your friend in the head" and "shoot yourself in the head" made control thoughts too difficult to deal with. As for Mind Rape... err Mind Probe, I think that one is pretty obvious, but hey YMMV.

-D

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 12:04 AM

This is allowed per RAW, however keep in mind that:

A) Unless the spirit is bound, it will disappear at sunup/sundown.
B ) If the spirit is bound, every time you ask it to possess your armour, that's another service.
C) If you keep a bound spirit in your armour for long periods of time I would (and I would encourage other GMs to as well) call 'Spirit Abuse' on your ass and have spirits start spending edge to resist your summoning/binding attempts.

Problem solved.


Edited: Syntax

~R~

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 7 2011, 12:10 AM

Mmmm....ally spirits....

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 12:15 AM

If you enjoy the taste of black holes that's fine. Having tried to stat up an ally spirit for a possession mage myself, all I found is that it's like a roach motel for karma. Karma goes in, but it don't come out.

And on a more practical note, that's 2 initiations plus the cost of the spirit formula. On top of which, spirit abuse rules still apply to ally spirits, they just have a higher tolerance for metahuman bullshit than most others. But if they snap, you might as well just kill yourself now.


Edit: Also, I don't mean to be confrontational, by the way. I'm just an ex-debater, so I can come across that way sometimes.

~R~

Posted by: Faelan Jun 7 2011, 12:16 AM

A) And your point is what? Materialization Spirits can, but they can't do...
B) A possession Spirit with over a Force of 3 is going to possess the average unprepared NPC vessel 50% of the time. It gets worse from there since his ability to possess is directly linked to the only spirit stat that matters Force, which technically has no limit, while it is resisted by two attributes which do have limits. Fact the possession spirit is always at an advantage it takes its best attribute and compares it to two attributes which in many cases will not be anywhere near as good, and no knowledge or skill will allow you to protect yourself with any real ability. Banish only works after the fact and guess what once it has you in its grips you don't get to self exorcise. Materialization Spirits do not provide an instant WIN, Possession Spirits can and often do. Requiring a prepared vessel is not a huge restriction and it prevents an insta-win from happening.
C) Your point being what? The likelihood of it failing becomes lower and lower as the Force goes up. It is the only real limit on possession spirit use, and essentially limits the Mage to a set number of insta-win attempts, unless he chooses to dismiss and summon a new spirit to try again. This all at the grand cost of one complex action.

I would have to disagree with all your points and think it is rather silly to allow them in a game using the RAW of course YMMV.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 12:24 AM

::Shrug::

I'm just saying that adding a fail % chance to something that doesn't usually have one is a limiting factor.

Also, I'm not a fan of the "high force spirits" argument. Once force gets above 6, it doesn't matter if your spirit manifests or possesses, it's going to kick ass, take names, and probably ruin your game. That's a problem with spirits in general, not possession spirits specifically.

For example: Materialization spirits have ITNW at a level equal to Fx2 (as do possession spirits, but hear me out). On top of this, the spirits agility, body, and reaction scores all scale with force. Add in that some spirits can take skills as additional powers, and you've got a materialization spirit whose ability to shoot, dodge and soak bullets is only limited by Force, an attribute that you yourself mentioned has no hard limit (but a soft limit of "when it kills you").

This spirit can outshine any Sam around, and is effectively an insta-win as well.


~R~

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 7 2011, 12:30 AM

Because wearing a possessed suit of military grade armor is made of sexy, sexy win.

Posted by: Faelan Jun 7 2011, 12:32 AM

While a high Force Spirit is going to be a pain in the ass either way, one offers a path of resistance and hope, while the other takes all the players options away. That is why I limit possession spirits and requiring a prepared vessel is not that big a deal.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jun 7 2011, 12:36 AM

I am pretty well convinced that anyone who defends possesion as balanced either A) Has never had someone play a possession mage at their tables or B) Is playign said possession mages.

The addition of a fail chance on possessing vessels nowhere near counteracts the tactical advantages the posesion confers. You may believe otherwise but i suspect you fall into one of the above categories.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 01:03 AM

...Until that spirit decides it doesn't like you anymore and you commit suicide by jumping off of the highest nearby structure, as the spirit conveniantly unpossesses right before you hit the ground.





You're half right and 100% wrong.

I have played possession tradition mages before (I'm actually a voodoo fanboy, not just in SR but in life in general), though not with any of the ally spirit/invoking/chanelling/F12 spirit shenanigans that are so often brought up here to prove how "broken" they are. However, I'm not playing one currently, have had runners play them before in my previous games, and actually have someone playing a Qabbalist in my game right now. The spirits aren't quite as powerful as the voodoo layout is, but all of your other gripes would still apply.


Edit: Just noticed this.



Requiring a prepared vessel is a HUGE deal (an all caps italicized sized deal even ). Imagine playing a standard mage and then having your GM say "Oh yeah, whenever you want to summon something you had better have a magical leaf that you meditated over for a week before hand, or you're screwed". Not to mention the cost of the reagents involved. To say that this isn't a big deal is ridiculous, and I say you have either never implemented it or never had a player play a possession mage, that is how patently absurd an idea this is.

~R~

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 7 2011, 01:48 AM

Not really... *shrug*

Posted by: Sephiroth Jun 7 2011, 02:15 AM

And whenever possession rules debates like this come up, I get the peculiar impression more often than not that people slamming possession especially brutally haven't read the possession clarification stuff in Digital Grimoire. Draco18's thing with possessed armor is specifically dealt with in DG, for example (though admittedly it would work better with military armor than other armor because of the Body x 3 limit for encumbrance with those).

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 02:16 AM

Well, let's try to get this thread back on topic.

As for things to ban, I would stick with what most people here are saying and not hard-ban anything.

Do, however, take a good hard look at anything out of WAR! (especially MRSI software, doubly especially if the troll tries to apply it to his smartbow). Also take a hard look at any builds that rely on strange metavariants, SURGE, or going down to .01 Essence.

Personally, in my game, I tell people that they're only allowed to be Incompetant in 1 thing; Not because most people aren't bad at more than one thing, but because Incompetant (Automotive Mechanic), Incompetant (Aeronautic Mechanic) etc. was starting to really irritate me.


~R~

Posted by: longbowrocks Jun 7 2011, 02:26 AM

Why?

Posted by: baronspam Jun 7 2011, 02:28 AM

I can get down to .01 Essence with just the basic rulebook. All you need it some focus and an enterprising spirit.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 02:31 AM

Yeah, and that's part of the fun of a cyber character. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it, just that the OP might want to take a good look at any such builds. After all, who's going to get down to .01 except someone trying to squeeze every possible (mechanical) benefit out of their 6 points of essence?


~R~

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 7 2011, 02:33 AM

… Honestly, probably a new player. They'll grab a few high-Essence things, a couple tiny ones, and find themselves there. I really can't see any problem with how much/little Essence someone has, because the dangers depend on what they got.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 02:58 AM

::Shrug:: I'm just saying that .01Ess should warrant a look. If it's because they got two cyber arms and a couple other small things, you probably don't have a problem. But if they have Alpha Wired II, Muscle Toner 4, Reaction Enhancers 3, blah blah blah, and then a datajack just to tip the cyber/bio back to a favorable outcome you should maybe look a little closer.


I personally think that all hyper-specialized builds should be scrutinized to see if they're going to cause problems during gameplay, but I was just listing some things that might be warning signs of potential System Abuse. As always, YMMV, but nobody likes to see a poor abused system lying on the side of the road with NERAPH!!1! tagged on it's face in bring orange spray paint.




~R~

Posted by: Medicineman Jun 7 2011, 05:52 AM

Bah 0.1 Essence
Noobs
try to beat the 0.02 of my Char "Cyb Ork"

with a boasting Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Manunancy Jun 7 2011, 06:18 AM

I would alter than to shotguns, heavy pistols and HMG - today's 12-gauge shotguns have a 18mm bore, .50 is 12.7mm and a .45 is about 11.5mm. Most MMG are in .30 (7.62), on par with light pistols in bullet size.

Posted by: Blade Jun 7 2011, 06:59 AM

FFBA : The only effect it has is giving every player who knows about them a few more armor dice for free.
Emotitoys : Empathy Software can be fixed by a house-rule, emotitoys are easier to ban than to fix.
Electric weapons, especially dart tasers : more powerful than guns, legal and quite cheap. Either every criminal is carrying one or every person who might get in combat with a criminal wears insulated armor.

Posted by: Grinder Jun 7 2011, 07:13 AM

Wrong.

Posted by: The Jopp Jun 7 2011, 07:16 AM

I would not ban spoofing life.

Spoofing life is not a positive quality so there are drawbacks.

Sooner or later some accountant will connect the dots and after about six months to a year certain actions can be traced back to the spoofer.

I would raise the risk the higher lifestyle of the character.

Posted by: Medicineman Jun 7 2011, 07:17 AM

every Gerrman Player that either owns it or checks it
go to Korinthen

Hough!
Medicineman

Posted by: TheOOB Jun 7 2011, 07:21 AM

I generally ban SnS ammo, though I have reintroduced it as a new ammo type that is rare, expensive, and not available for all weapon types. Gel rounds do stun damage just fine thank you.

Posted by: Grinder Jun 7 2011, 07:36 AM

That's true. But stay away from generalization, ok?

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 08:39 AM

Not to rain on your dance (unless that's what you were dancing for?), I'm sure you'll note the 0 that you dropped. A tiny, insignificant number, zero, but important nonetheless.




Emphasis mine. (Sorry, I had to say it.)


With a wet dance.

~R~

Posted by: Medicineman Jun 7 2011, 08:59 AM

Ok. Jup, Guess I did drop it ....
Gonna pick it up right now

He who dances in the Rain
Medicineman

Posted by: Socinus Jun 7 2011, 09:15 AM

Honestly, I wouldn't ban anything.

Yes there are certain things I dislike about the system, but I've always considered banning an absolute last resort, especially in Shadowrun where there are DOZENS of solutions to even the most stubborn player build. I guarantee there is no player build within the rules that is un-killable or that cant be killed without turning TPK.

If you have a particular player abusing an aspect of the game, quietly discourage that in a calm conversation with the player.

Have some faith in your players; just because something CAN be abused doesn't mean it WILL be abused and it isn't fair (or fun) to punish players for something they haven't even done yet.

As a side note, BAN TECHNOMANCERS!? GAAAAHHHH! NOOOOOO!

Posted by: Dez384 Jun 7 2011, 11:05 AM

How is it easier to ban emotitoys when you can "fix" empathy software? They both function the same.

Posted by: Faelan Jun 7 2011, 11:16 AM

Also I should have been more specific, I noticed I left out the important part, I only require it for living targets. Possess the car, drone, statue, whatever all you want. I really tire of the way people fling the "You have never" around followed by casual references to something being silly or absurd. Try to be civil. I have had it happen, I have seen it abused, I have had the misfortune of playing with a power gamer, and GMing for one, so everything I can do to head off abuse before it happens saves a lot of arguing at the table. This one slipped by and that is why I enacted it, it was essentially a ban on free mind control.

Posted by: deek Jun 7 2011, 12:24 PM

We started playing our first campaign just weeks after the first SR4 core book came out and reading through it, the matrix was already overwhelming (and nowhere near as well-written as in the anniversary edition). I felt it added another dimension to an already hard to grasp ruleset, so I just made the call to say no TMs. I kind of introduced them as we played through Emergence, but my earlier ban combined with a lack of player desire has just kept them as plot device only.

So, really, it was timing and trying to reduce the amount of options to learn when we first started playing.

Posted by: Blade Jun 7 2011, 12:40 PM

A software that captures non-verbal communication cues makes sense.
A software that analyzes them could be possible.
A character who spends several thousand nuyen for that software and has the skills to use it correctly should be able to get some bonuses on some rolls (mostly Judge Intention).

An emotitoy is a toy. It has the price range of a toy. A 6000 nuyens emotitoy won't happen (except maybe for a limited set for rich people). And there's no way a toy-priced object will be able to replicate the functions of a software that cost at the very least 1000 nuyen.
Seeing how that cheapest empathy software can't give less than 1 die, there's no reason for an emotitoy to give even 1 die of bonus.

And even if you could fix emotitoys, then you'd have a toy-priced object that gives some bonuses for social situations. A toy price isn't much to spend even if it's just for a +1 bonus, so it'd become something that it's absurd not to have, just like the smartlink. Except that it's a toy. Do you really want all runners to carry a toy to help them in social situations? I don't.

Posted by: Omer Joel Jun 7 2011, 12:47 PM

I think I'll adopt a strategy of considering most stuff from the sourcebooks as the domain of the GM, except for the Qualities and Lifestyles in the Companion, maybe, and restrict starting characters to the core-book (and the Companion Qualities/Lifestyles) only. This way I could introduce the sourcebook stuff gradually, and refrain from introducing certain items, and thus avoid both an information overload and the power creep.

Posted by: Kyrel Jun 7 2011, 12:52 PM

Ban outright? IMO nothing, beyond THOR Shots and Nukes. Stuff like that simply don't belong in a standard type Shadowrun game IMO, and neither should it be something that players can get their hands on. You could argue about rating 7+ comlinks etc., but as long as you apply some common sense and make things hard enough to get, and let the consequences of using them be high enough, no items tend to cause any problems.

There are plenty of ways for creative players to abuse various rules, but IMO you should simply deal with those if they occur. Tell your players to try and build characters based on "Rules As (likely) Intended" rather than RAW. If a given combo or item seems imensely powerful, then it probably wasn't intended to be used in that way.

Personally I have a long list of house rules and tweaks, but very little is outright banned from the game.


/Kyrel

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 7 2011, 12:53 PM

Well... My Cyberlogician had an Essence of 0.015 before he started trying to recover his Essence Holes though transgenic treatments. Long Story...

Posted by: Cheops Jun 7 2011, 02:32 PM

Unhinged (Unwired) and Running Cracked (Runner's Companion). Both are shit and break the system. Also anything with Jason Hardy listed as the line dev.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 7 2011, 02:41 PM

Two of the Best books out there... Just Wow...

Posted by: Blade Jun 7 2011, 03:11 PM

While I wouldn't completely ban RC, I certainly take a very close look to characters using elements from it. There is a lot of potential for power creep in that book.

Posted by: sabs Jun 7 2011, 03:13 PM

Unwired is actually pretty good. It has some issues, but the pirated software, and registerd stuff adds some money sinks into the otherwise cheap hacker.

Software Clusters are awesome. The Virus ideas are... intersting.

The Agent armies and the DDOS stuff is kinda meh.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 7 2011, 05:11 PM

I agree with limiting or preventing control thoughts and mind probe.
SnS going to shotguns OR not allowing net hits to increase the stun damage (or just capping it at half skill rating perhaps?) Given that they do decent S damage and only get half impact AND cause a -2 to all dice pools regardless of resisting the taser dance. For cost they are quite powerful.

Keep an eye on allowing the use of the restricted gear positive quality. Sometimes it's totally cool and allows a character to shine, other times it just allows a character to steam roll and steal glory from others. The rigger using it to soup up his car? Totally awesome. The gun bunny using it to make a burst fire barret? Not so much.

But most importantly make sure you're more aware of the rules than your players. It's very easy to take 2 or 3 interpretations to almost any rule in the book. So discuss it with your players for possible group decided interpretations on grey areas.

Posted by: Crazy Ivan Jun 7 2011, 05:42 PM

Generally, the only things I "ban" are SURGE and Infected. SURGE I will allow as long as we don't jump into the realm of the silly or excessive. Admittedly, I'm a relatively new GM to Shadowrun (about 8 monthes experience), its a basic thing. Infected I have a problem with just on concept, but one of the first groups I ran for Shadowrun had a player who insisted on playing something "not common, cause he's played every other race." He ran a vampire, and was promptly surprised when his street samurai infected (we'd determined that the implants were in place before infection, so Regen wasn't functioning to max output) couldn't deflect bullets.

Though admittedly, this is a player who played "that other game" and was treated to a DM there who firmly believed that it wasn't knowledge skills and background, but simply a title of a class that determined everything about you. Very frustrating.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 7 2011, 05:57 PM

Just as a point of curiosity, who would allow a player to show up to the char gen session and say, "I want the Amnesia (level 2) quality" and allow it?

Posted by: Oracle Jun 7 2011, 06:03 PM

I would. But my players know me well enough not to.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 7 2011, 06:04 PM

We allowed everything at chargen and only banned or house ruled things as they became a problem. So far the only bans are capsule and SnS ammo, because their damage potential is too high compared to the cost. IMO the game works as written for the most part, and you only need to ban thing that you specifically don't like. Asking others to tell you what those bits are is pointless.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 7 2011, 06:08 PM

I did it to my GM on Sunday. I was kinda poking around at a character and went, "Can I have amnesia? Level2?" And he just groaned out a "No."

Posted by: Faelan Jun 7 2011, 06:23 PM

I would allow Amnesia Level 2 if it was a very small party, of one or two players. To do it right just takes too much attention to one character for it to be fair for a larger party.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 7 2011, 06:42 PM

He wouldn't let me be a double agent either. Shucks.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 08:25 PM

Okay, I admit my response was a bit harsher than was strictly necessary. As I've stated before, I'm an ex-debater, and we're trained to make strong authoritative declarations. I appologize if I came off as rude.

As for your rulings, this rule is much more reasonable. I honestly can't say that I agree with it, but I can see where you're coming from and won't call it absurd. I would probably still play a possession mage even with this restriction because I love the feel and flavor so much.

Incidentally, do you also ban Control Thoughts?

Also, my condolences on the munchkin situation.

Edit:Spelling.

~R~

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jun 7 2011, 08:54 PM

Really? I found the entire section in digital grimore an affirmation of why possesion should be banned. The notion that spirits of possesion traditions are just as easy to manage as spirits of other traditions is flatly disproven by having to have an entire section on "oh guys their totally balance because of binding material costs and a -4 dice modifier to posses dikoted katanas." You may feel otherwise but I stand by my statement again and again those who defend possesion most strenuously in it's current incarnation are the ones who are riding that power curve.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 09:28 PM

And completely ignore any evidence to the contrary? Like for example, this:




Just because a system has the potential to be broken, doesn't mean that no one can enjoy using said system without abusing it. If we're going to trim out everything that can be abused in SR, there goes the matrix, rigging, all mages, gun modifications, the BP/Karmagen system (because the priority system is much harder to min/max), any race not in the core book (and orks are pushing it). I could keep going, but I don't want to beat the point into the ground. The Shadowrun system has its flaws, yes, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.


~R~

Posted by: suoq Jun 7 2011, 09:29 PM

Adding Krav Maga. Not sure how it hasn't be mentioned in this thread already.

Not banned but modified: Any gun that contains a F accessory built in but is only rated R, should, in my opinion, be rated F. Examples: Morrissey Élan & HK-227X.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 09:42 PM

I've always looked a bit askance at any of the martial arts rules. Based on what styles/maneuvers the player wants to take, I have yet to need to hit any of it with the ban-hammer, but I have added it to the list of Things To Watch Out For.


~R~

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 7 2011, 09:47 PM

He's referring to spending a measly 5 BP on Krav Maga to take aim as a free action or draw/ready weapon as a free action. It's definitely riding the line of cheesy.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jun 7 2011, 10:50 PM

Your evidence isn't as contrary as you think Raiki but i'm not going to pursue it further. Keep telling yourself that possession is balanced and fair with conjuring if it's what you must do. I would say the fact the game designers felt there needed to be a whole tract in Digital Grimore saying "yea guys it's really totally balanced, but here's a whole bunch of optional rules to pare it down" is fairly compelling evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 7 2011, 11:11 PM

Okay, I'm good with agreeing to disagree if you are. I really didn't mean to start an argument, as you're one of the posters on here that I have quite a bit of respect for. Good gaming, chummer.


~R~

Posted by: Faelan Jun 8 2011, 01:12 AM

I don't have a munchkin situation because I took control of it. I do not ban Control Thoughts because the resistance mechanism is much more equitable. My players get Shielding and a skill added to the mess instead of pure attributes. They have an even chance instead of the deck being stacked against them.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 8 2011, 01:24 AM

Fair enough, sounds like just different GMing styles to me. I don't like to hard-ban anything, I prefer to work out any potential problems/broken rules if/when they come up. Most of them don't make it past character creation.



Honestly, I was just curious if it was a dislike for mind control in general or if it was possession specifically. I've seen it both ways. And you should do whatever is best for your game, I'll do the same. It takes all kinds, even in the shadows.


~R~

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 8 2011, 01:43 AM

Especially in the shadows

Posted by: longbowrocks Jun 8 2011, 02:28 AM

You guys complain about WAR! breaking the game, but RC, SR4A, and AU working in tandem will net you a chance to roll 41 dice with a sniper rifle (updated value). There isn't much to break after that.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 02:40 AM

Except why would you want to do so?

All this talk about breaking the game actually requires you to want to break the game... *shrug* I just don't see the appeal.

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 8 2011, 03:42 AM

I see it as fun thought problems, like theoretical physics. Amusing, but should have little to no real application.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 8 2011, 04:04 AM

It's easier to just not let players be snipers, really. The occasional assassination, sure break out the Barret. The rest of the time? Leave it at home, bring a shotfun.

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 8 2011, 04:09 AM

Mafia Master Thrower... "Leave the gun, take the cannoli. You can kill with it too."

Posted by: Raiki Jun 8 2011, 04:23 AM

Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever.


~R~

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 8 2011, 01:32 PM

Oh, no, that was intentional.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 02:53 PM

Even easier to let them be snipers, but have some (many) fights indoors. After a couple of times sitting on a rooftop and watching their 25+ sniper dice be completely meaningless, coupled with 10 initiative passes where they say "I keep delaying" they're likely to start re-evaluating their combat strategy. If they don't, then they're doing what they want without being too powerful, so it's all good.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 8 2011, 02:58 PM

That said, you don't want to leave him high and dry every run.Let him use those dice to cover a door in case people break away and try to make a run for it.

Posted by: The Jopp Jun 8 2011, 03:05 PM

And pray the sniper does not have the microwave radar inside his head and wallpiercing ammo...

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 8 2011, 03:08 PM

Maybe. The targets still get a defensive bonus, at least from the walls seperating them.

Posted by: CanRay Jun 8 2011, 03:09 PM

Again with the Sniper Talk, and again someone will reference "http://youtu.be/tzBTS6t60j0".

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 03:17 PM

If he's put that many resources into and the team can engineer fights close to the outer walls, let him have his heyday. The targets are still going to have more armor against him than they would have (brick walls give 12 armor, concrete 16, and they can up that by putting more barriers in the way). The point is not to completely negate sniping as an option, but to make sure it isn't an "I win" button. Even microwave radar and antitank armor in a gun that starts at -3 AP isn't an I Win button, since they're better defended against him than they are against guys inside the building with assault rifles (at least once the surprise is gone).

Posted by: CanRay Jun 8 2011, 03:26 PM

On the flipside, the guy inside with the assault rifle can easily have fire returned on him.

Mr. Sniper will have a few rounds before the Rotodrones show up with the LMGs loaded with nasty ammo.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 03:33 PM

Right, it's give and take. Less likely to take out enemies + less likely to be taken out vs. more likely to take out enemies but more likely to be fired on.

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 8 2011, 03:34 PM

don't forget that sniper rifles don't have a minimum range (short is 0-150) so he could use his Ares Desert Fox or Barrett 121 just as good indoors as he can out doors. And because most sniper rifles are SA he can shoot just as many times as the person using a pistol (and takes the same penalties, not greater, for shooting while engaged in Melee) but he is doing 7P-9P damage instead of 3P-6P. Even shooting narrow bursts your average SMG does only 7P and your average Assault Rifle does only 8P with the same narrow burst, but the rifle suffers less penalties from recoil.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 8 2011, 03:41 PM

Which is why you, as GM, need to be able to be flexible. HAve a few surprises once in a while. Hell, use the prime runner rules to outfit the occasional spider with the same radar, then go to town on the sniper with a specially outfitted interior defence drone that he was working on in his free time. Obviously it can't happen every run or the PC's will just get pissed, but after that first time, they'll consider their options.

(I understand this is unlikely, unless the point of the run is a tailchase where the spider is setting up the run to test his new toy(s), but it could still be fun.)

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 03:45 PM

Bursts in our group are more often used to take away dodge dice, though it depends on who you're shooting at. But yeah, sniper rifles are nasty. In a toe-to-toe firefight assault rifles and sniper rifles are fairly balanced with one another. It's only if you allow constant unanswerable strikes from distant snipers that the problems kick in.

Note that "sniping" doesn't have to mean that they have a sniper rifle. An assault rifle is equally capable of being a sniper weapon (ARs have 350 for long, and -2 is nothing to a dedicated gunman). The ability to do FA and bursts while sniping can drastically increase the sniper's damage output.

Posted by: HunterHerne Jun 8 2011, 03:51 PM

Long range in SR4A is -3, but otherwise, I agree. The advantages of the first shot with surprise on the sniper's side, and being realtively unanswerable (for a few shots at least) make sniping very powerful when appropriate.

Posted by: CanRay Jun 8 2011, 03:52 PM

Just remember to set your AK-97 to 300, because that's how many infidels you'll kill with it on that "Setting".

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 8 2011, 04:26 PM

And a Tacnet R4. Because someone I play with has done this. He fired through 2 concrete barriers (one floor of a parking garage up to two floors above) and ignored the barrier ratings for the target's defense almost entirely.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 04:51 PM

How did he ignore 32 armor from 2 concrete barriers? Methinks there may have been shenanigans involved.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 05:38 PM

Of ocurse, to use that radar, you have to be within 100 Meters, which kind of negates the utility of being a Sniper...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 05:47 PM

Well, since each wall is it's own barrier, you do not add them to determine if the Bullet Penetrates...



A Barret with 9p and AP -8 (APDS) will penetrate a Barrier Rating of 16 Before Net Hits are even calculated. And will continue to do so, as there is no falloff when shooting through a Barrier. (Yes, I know that it is not logical, but at least the target gets the benefit of that Barrier as additional Armor)... In the end, the target still gets his +16 Armor from the remaining Barrier rating of the two barriers (8 for each wall/floor in the example), but there you go.

Sniping is awesome powerful...

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 8 2011, 05:55 PM

Hu?
Does one not get the barrier rating of each and every last single barrier added as additional armor? O.o
So, for 2 walls, it would be 16+16?
Don't tell me only the strongest single wall in a complete building between me and the sniper gets added <.<

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 06:03 PM

You do... But the AP of the Weapon Subtracts from that Armor... So in this case, 8+8 Of course, you could apply the AP only once if you like, but that is not how it is stated. Each barrier is its own entity.

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 8 2011, 06:04 PM

never mind, I mis read. Tymeaus Jalynsfein has it right.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 06:10 PM

Sort of... Each wall had an end result of 8 Barrier rating remaining... Which, added together provides +16 Armor to the Target's armor rating.

Ninja Edited by Mr. Smileys...

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 07:02 PM

It's right there in the quote you gave. There are two ways that AP affects a shot. 1) it checks itself with the barrier rating to see if you penetrate. 2) it subtracts dice from the target's total armor rating in step 4. -8 AP doesn't equal -16 armor when they try to soak.

What you do:

"If a character wants to shoot through a barrier to hit a target behind it, add the barrier’s Armor rating to whatever armor the target already possesses"

Ok, so two concrete walls adds 32 armor.

"If the weapon’s modified Damage Value does not exceed the barrier’s Armor rating (modified by the weapon’s AP), then the weapon is simply not strong enough to pierce the barrier, and the attack automatically fails."

The DV + AP is plenty for bypassing each wall, so we're ok there.

Step 4 of the combat sequence (SR4A p. 149): "Determine the type of armor used to defend against the specific attack (see Armor, p. 160), and apply the attack’s Armor Penetration modifier (see p. 162); this is the modified Armor Value."

We apply the -8 to the target's 32, leaving 24.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 8 2011, 07:08 PM

But the combined barrier ratings would be enough to stop the sniper round cold, or am i misunderstanding something here?

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 07:13 PM

There's a hiccup in the rules for barriers stopping bullets. They should total up multiple barrier ratings and then apply AP, but they never say that. So technically you apply the AP to each barrier for determining if the bullet can punch through.

The rules are written from the standpoint of firing through a single barrier, and clearly weren't tested (or even analyzed) using a multiple barrier situation.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 8 2011, 07:15 PM

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH! @.@

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 07:23 PM

Very DUH... IMO they should have made vehicle armor and barriers work exactly alike, and specified that you total the armor for all hardened sources, then apply penetration. If you don't have enough DV to penetrate, you don't penetrate.

The way it's written now if you put 4,000 plywood sheets against one another (Barrier Rating 2 each), then your Predator IV's EX-EX bullet (-2 AP) will pass through them all and come out the other end. However, when it comes out it doesn't have enough force left to penetrate a paper cup (because the cup gets +8,000 armor).

Posted by: UmaroVI Jun 8 2011, 07:24 PM

Empathy Software/Emotitoys, Grenade Stacking, MRSI, Slow, Hackastacks, Channeling.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 8 2011, 07:25 PM

oy vey . .

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 07:38 PM

Which is a viable answer to be sure, as I stated above. But it is not the ONLY answer, as you also indicated. The rules are a bit odd here...

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 8 2011, 07:41 PM

Well my runner just lost two feet in each measurement in each room. Drywall, inch of air, drywall, inch of air, dr.... You get where this is going.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 07:42 PM

No, it's the only answer. The rules say exactly what to do. You use the AP for each barrier to determine if it can punch through, but you only apply the AP once to soak. I'm not sure how I said there were multiple possible interpretations, but if that's how it came across I apologize. The rules, though incredibly unrealistic and foolishly wrong, are pretty clear cut.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 07:50 PM

Apparently, you and I have different Interpretations of the rules. You MUST assess damage at each barrier, or it becoems quicky irrelevant. Unfortunately, because you assess Damage Immediately, you get stupid results (as I said previously, and you agree with) of a Bullet with infinite Penetration on even medium weight barriers.

The Barrier remaining is only 8 per Concrete Wall. So, thusly, you add +8 to the Armor rating of the Target for each wall. Resulting in a Bonus to Armor of +16.

I already said that you SHOULD likely add them together and then subtract the AP Valus of the incomming Round. Unfortunately, if you DO that, you cannot penetrate the Walls AT ALL and get no effect. You cannot have it both ways.

It is a Logic issue. The Second way is correct, in my opinion (much like yours), but it is not what the rules actually say.

As a Side note... Do you really think you are penetrating a Concrete Bunker at Range? Since there is no way for you to see any targets through 2 Concrete Walls (Barrier Rating of 32) when the BEST option (UWB RADAR Rating 4) only lets you see through 20 points of Barrier Rating. It is a scernario that will never actually be doable anyways...

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 07:57 PM

The Barrier remaining is only 8 per Concrete Wall. So, thusly, you add +8 to the Armor rating of the Target for each wall. Resulting in a Bonus to Armor of +16.

That is not what the rules say to do. You're adding a step. What they say (in the order they say them, though order doesn't actually amtter since the stteps aren't interrelated.):

1) Add the barrier's armor rating to the target's armor.

2) Check Modified DV and AP against the barrier's armor rating for penetration.

What you say

1) Add the barrier's armor rating - AP to the target's armor.

2) Check modified DV and AP against the barrier's armor rating for penetration.

At no point does the barrier's armor rating change in the rules (you even quoted them yourself). You're adding something that doesn't exist and making an already silly situation jump straight to ludicrous. If that works for your game, great. But please don't try to pass it off as RAW.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 8 2011, 08:02 PM

Tac-Net, AR-Overlay, Smart-Link.
Something on the inside sees the targt, is linked to the shooter via tac-net and the smartlink tells you where to shoot.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 08:03 PM

The problem you are having is that the last sentence in my quote is not a damage resolution step. It is telling you that if the DV does not excceed BR, then it stops. It is a Reminder of the rules regarding Barrier Ratings, not a Step.

Either way, you and I agree that it should be 2x Rating - Armor (AND thus the 2nd Concrete Wall Completely STOPS the round). But it is not how it is applied. Because if it is, your DV likely does not exceed the BR at that point, and the attack fails outright. In practivce, the remaining BR of each wall is added to the Armor rating, because you cannot add something that has already been penetrated (the original 8 BR from each barrier that is represented by the AP).

No worries though...

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 8 2011, 08:07 PM

I guess we just don't speak the same language or something, because what you're saying is my problem is not something I've never even said. Let's try this a more Socratic way.

I see where it says to add the barrier rating's armor to the target for soak.

I see where it says to compare the DV against the barrier rating (minus AP) to see if you even reach the target.

Where does it say anything about applying the AP to the barrier rating before adding the armor to the target's soak? You say this step occurs "in practice" but I want to know where it occurs in the rules. It looks to me like something you made up.

Posted by: deek Jun 8 2011, 08:08 PM

JM looks to be right on this last part, though. The rules don't say you only apply the remaining BR to the Armor rating, you get the full amount added to your Armor rating when you go to soak. The BR - AP check is only there to tell you if your bullet penetrates the barrier. Once you have determined whether the bullet can get through the two walls, your target still gets the benefit of 32 extra armor from the barriers. Then the target's personal body & armor + total barrier rating - AP is the pool you get to soak with.

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 8 2011, 08:49 PM

Bust-A-Move recon.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 09:24 PM

Which still gives you wonky effects. Poorly Worded to say the least. And for what it is worth, That is what I was saying it Should do. I have just seen it both ways, and the way I was "supporting", if you will, seems to be the most common I have seen...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 8 2011, 09:26 PM

Definitely another option, as long as you don't mind Information Guided Firing (Which likely cuts your Attribute contribuition in half, if not more), and still receiving the -6 DP penalty.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 8 2011, 11:24 PM

Reasoning?
I ain't aiming at the target, i am aiming at the wall that i can see just fine o.O
Everything getting hit afterwards is collateral damage/an oopsie/luck for me ^^

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 9 2011, 01:39 AM

Technically, if you aim at the wall, you hurt only the wall. SR4 doesn't have 'stray shots' or overpenetration.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 9 2011, 02:06 AM

So . . if you hold up your sheet of paper, and i take my gauss rifle here and i AIM AT THE SHEET OF PAPER YOU ARE HOLDING IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE . . your Face is now completely Gauss-Proof? O.o

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 9 2011, 02:24 AM

By RAW? Yes. The barrier rules are incredibly simplified and almost as incredibly illogical. You also:

- can have a barrier strong enough to bounce a bullet, but that will be torn apart by ten bullets.
- destroy a lead wall with radiation

Nobody ever said the rules made sense.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 9 2011, 02:28 AM

You act surprised by the illogic of it. You have played SR before, right? If you attack to damage the barrier, you only can damage the barrier. If you attack to shoot through it, you can only shoot through it. Certainly many GMs tweak these rules in logical ways, but that's the RAW. Hehe.

Posted by: deek Jun 9 2011, 12:28 PM

No doubt about the wonkiness.

So, is that the way you see hardened armor working as well, or is the AP removing BR for extra armor dice something that just happens for barriers? I would think it would be pretty messed up if say, someone with hardened armor, lost dice due to AP. It basically makes it all or nothing.

After thinking about it a little more, I can see the logic both ways.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 9 2011, 12:51 PM

Hardened Armor DOES lose effectiveness due to AP. If you have Hardened Armor 12, and you are hit with a Heavy Pistol (DV5, with APDS (-4 AP, for a Total of -5 AP), all you need is a few Net successes to get you to DV 8 to penetrate teh hardened Armor.
This is why the Force 6 Spirit is so susceptible to SnS Rounds. Any net hit allows the Damage to Exceed the Hardened ITNW of 6 (After reduction due to AP).

Posted by: deek Jun 9 2011, 02:11 PM

So, really hardened armor is no different than regular armor other than the threshold needed to actually hit the target and cause a soak roll?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 9 2011, 02:12 PM

Other than being hardened, you mean? No.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 9 2011, 02:15 PM

Exactly...

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 9 2011, 02:17 PM

That's what Smart Armor + Vehicle Armor is for.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 9 2011, 02:58 PM

Smart Armor...doesn't work in SR4. The rules make no sense. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=29900&view=findpost&p=893207.

(Long story short: Smart Armor is either as effective as regular armor or less effective than regular armor, depending on what "adds to the AP value" means)

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 9 2011, 03:02 PM

Then consider our group (an I'd guess practically every group) as having house ruled it, since that hyper anal interpretation is clearly not what was intended. YMMV

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 9 2011, 03:16 PM

Well, Since ADDS to Negative results in reducing the Negative, IT IS BETTER than Regular Armor, as it can NEGATE AP. Which is its intended purpose.

Crazy interpretations aside.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 9 2011, 06:16 PM

Just FYI
A + (B + C) == (A + B) + C

It's one of those magical properties of math that results in equalities.

(ARMOR + SMART) + AP == ARMOR + (SMART + AP)
[Where AP is either a positive (flachette rounds) or negative number (armor piercing rounds)]

In English this means that it doesn't matter one whit if Smart Armor adds to armor or adds to Armor Piercing, e.g. smart armor is no better than normal armor.¹

And the other interpretation makes less sense, but it comes from the gramatical dissonance between:



NEGATion means to subtract, which is the opposite of ADDing.

¹Excepting the fact that you then roll its rating and subtract that from it's rating, meaning that normal armor provides the same protection against the first attack, and more against each subsequent attack...

Posted by: sabs Jun 9 2011, 06:18 PM

but Smart Armor can be stacked with Normal Armor.

Something nothing else can do.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 9 2011, 06:35 PM

Alright, here's where the confusion comes from:

Reducing AP means "add" or "subtract"?

Followed by:



Note the use of the word adds and what it's adding to, and compare with the previous quote.

If they both do the same thing (move the AP value towards positive infinity) why the two different words ("reduce" and "add")?

Followed by a parenthetical indicating that more smart armor is worse than less smart armor (hits = bad, more hits = worse).

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 9 2011, 06:39 PM

You're trying to parse an English (and not even technical English) set of paragraphs using mathematical terms. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 9 2011, 06:43 PM

Parse this sentence for me:



Mechanically are those hits¹ good for the vehicle or not?

¹Game mechanics for the test involving dice.


Now that you've done that, parse this and tell me what happens:



Incoming fire: 11 DV, -4 AP, 10 points of smart armor (assume average roll of 3 hits).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 9 2011, 06:52 PM

Okay...

You roll the Smart Armors Rating and add the hits to the Weapon's AP...

Mechanically it works out. If you have a Weapon AP of -4 (your above example) and you roll and get 5 hits on your Rating 10 Smart Armor, your Weapon AP is now ony +1... See, You have just added the Smart Armor Hits to the AP. Oh, and you may now use your Smart Armor 9 More Times (It is less effective because of its prior use).

If that AP had been +5 for some reason, it would now be +10.

The quote about less effective is right in the text. You can only use Smart Armor a number of times equal to its rating. Each use renders it less effective. What is so hard about that?

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 9 2011, 07:00 PM

"Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective)."

"Thus" meaning "as a result."

Rewriting the sentence:

"As a result, each hit renders the smart armor less effective."

The parenthetical is a dependent clause to the rest of the sentence, where the primary noun is "hit."

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 9 2011, 07:19 PM

Each use renders it less effective because you're limited to <rating> total uses. Each hit renders it less effective at that moment because the larger weapon or better aimed shot punched through it.

Whenever you're using Smart armor and get hit you:

1) reduce the effectiveness of the AP by [rating] (by moving it towards 0). So AP -6 and smart armor 4 means the AP for that shot is only -2.

2) test the damage value of the weapon, if > 10, roll [rating dice] and reduce the effectiveness of the smart armor by [hits]. So AP -6, Damage 12, Smart armor 4 (2 hits) has an end result of an effective AP rating of -4 (6 - 4 + 2). If you get a glitch, reduce the rating of the smart armor by 1.

3) tally the use and ignore the smart armor once you've used it [rating] times.

It's convoluted, uses too many dice, and is in no way how I'd have designed it. But it does indeed work as written as long as you're not trying to read it like a computer program.

Posted by: DMiller Jun 9 2011, 09:27 PM

Guys, can we allow the smart armor argument to go on in the smart armor thread and bring this list a bit closer to on topic? I hadn't posted this in some of the previous arguments as I hadn't seen links posted to threads already containing said arguments. This horse is being killed elsewhere...

If you think Smart Armor need hit with a Ban Hammer, just say so. *shrugs*

Thanks.

-D

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 9 2011, 10:16 PM

AH HA. So you admit that having more smart armor is not as good as having less smart armor!¹ Every 3 dice you have (every 3 rating points) means that the hits on the Smart Armor test make the weapon shooting at the vehicle do more damage.

Effectively the same as "take your smart armor rating, divide by 3, multiply by 2. You have this much more armor."

¹Excepting glitches.



Towards zero? So a weapon that has +4 AP firing on a vehicle with 8 smart armor gets -4 AP?
(Or same gun, against a 2 smart armor vehicle has +2 AP)
I think you meant towards positive infinity.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 10 2011, 01:17 AM

To bring the topic back on...err...topic, I suggest: Any character based on a television/movie/general pop culture reference. Really guys, it's been done before.

Besides, in 'that other game', I once had a new player try to make a catfolk bard named (and I shit you not) Lolcat.



Trust me, banning is safer.


~R~

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 01:57 AM

WHAT??? You got some wierd Ideas there Draco18s...

Smart Armor's only function is to help alleviate or eliminate (in some instances providing more effective armor than would otherwise be useable; ie. when a Weapon's AP goes positive and continues to increase) a Weapon's AP capabilities. That is all it does. It does not increase any weapon's damage in any way, shape, or form.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 02:18 AM

You check the math here, then.



Do you agree with it, or not? And if not, how would you do it?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 02:40 AM

I use the Text in the Book for my rules. So lets look at them again, shall we? Here they are...



So.. Back to James Example. Hopefully, with the Above Rules we shall have some coherence.

DV 12, AP -6. Smart Armor Rating of 4 (2 Hits on the Roll). That is the Relevant Data From James' Example that you highlighted.

Now we look at the Above Rule. Relevant Part is Highlighted and Italicized.

So...

DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12, AP -4 because of the Successes of the Smart Armor's Roll. (2 Successes)
There was no Glitch, so the Smart Armor retains its Rating of 4.
The Smart Armor has been used Once, so it now has Three remaining Uses before the Smart Armor is totally depleted.
The Smart Armor is now less Effective becasue it has used one of its "Charges" to protect the Vehicle.

That is the sum effect of Smart Armor... In no way did this result in the Weapon's DV Increasing in any way whatsoever. It cannot ever have that effect, as it will ONLY EVER Add its effects to the AP of the Weapon. Note. You will always add effects, regardless of whether the AP is -100 or +100...

Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted by: sabs Jun 10 2011, 02:50 AM

wow you're .. so wrong it's not even funny. You willfully misread that rule completely.

DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12 AP -8 because of the successes of the Smart Armor's roll (2 successes)
THere was no glitch so the smart armor retains it's rating of 4.
The smart armor has been used once

What it represents is that the weapon does 'so much damage' that it's detonating some of the smart charges on the outside of the vehicle.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 10 2011, 02:53 AM

… Why would it make the AP *stronger*?

I mean, I assume the line about 'smart armor less effective' is a typo, but it doesn't really alter the more pertinent line, "Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value".

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 02:54 AM

Explain to me how adding +2 to -6 results in AP -8...
Basic Math Comprehension... Yep, even My Computer and My Calculator come up with -4.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 10 2011, 02:57 AM

Forget math. What kind of willful madness would assume that the armor *hurts* the protected vehicle?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 02:59 AM

You Got me...

Posted by: DMiller Jun 10 2011, 03:02 AM

*sigh*

Sorry Mr. S.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 04:31 AM

And you know what?
You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened.

Which rightly makes no sense, why are you adding the armor's rating to the AP value and not the vehicles armor value? (Even if mathematically they're the same). And if those hits on the test also added to / subtracted from the vehicle's armor rating there'd be no god damn confusion.

I'll point out again that "makes the SM less effective" clause is part of the "hits rolled" sentence. And "charges" expended (i.e. limited usability) has nothing to do with the armor being effective or not. You either have charges (100% effectiveness) or you don't (0%). It's a Critical Existence Failure in that regard.

I shall also note that parentheticals are supposed to capable of being removed from a sentence without altering its meaning. If the intent was that the hits make the AP "bigger" (i.e. move it towards negative infinity) then this is true. If not, then this is not true (as it is a parenthetical is then referring to something other than the hits on the test or not making the armor less effective).

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 10 2011, 04:36 AM

… Cuz it doesn't add to armor, it 'subtracts from' (adds to) AP. And why would it matter if you did it before checking DV>10? That check is unrelated, and obviously has to take place before anything else—it decides if the smart armor activates. It's really not hard: roll smart armor to hurt incoming AP. That's all.

That 'less effective' bit obviously makes no sense. It must be a typo. Let's ignore it, because there's no possible way of interpreting it to mean anything.

Posted by: sabs Jun 10 2011, 12:08 PM

Here is the deal:You get to choose when you're going to use Smart Armor.
IF an attack that is DV>10 hits the vehicle, then you roll the smart armor rating, and 'improve the AP of the attack by the hits' if you glitch on this roll, you lose a rating point.

first you check the base damage of the weapon. If it's DV>10 then you trigger the smart armor is fuxored option. If it's DV<10 you don't, and you use Smart armor normally.

Normal use of smart armor:

DV8 -6AP attack shoots vehicle. Smart Armor 10 is used, damage is now DV 8 0AP, There are 9 charges left. Now you compare that 8DV+net hits vs regular armor, if it's less than, nothing happens, if it's more than, you now roll dv8+nethits+burstfiremodifiers vs normal armor+body.

What you guys are missing is that the DV>10 note, is a 'weakness' of smart armor.
Smart armor is not as good against explosive, or highly damaging attacks.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 01:09 PM

Because you do not do that... Look at the rules I quoted, that is NOT in there. I believe that you are working from an old edition of Arsenal.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 10 2011, 01:21 PM

I don't understand that, sabs. You're saying that they meant to say 'subtract from' instead of 'add to' *just* for DV>10 attacks, because smart armor makes them worse? If true, that's stupid, and we should ignore it.

Here is what I understand to be the rules:

1. Smart armor reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV≤10. (DV 8 AP -6 becomes DV 8 AP -0, Smart Armor Rating 6). In outcome #1, no roll is made, and the smart armor just loses 1 charge.

2. Smart armor 'less effectively' reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV>10. (DV 11 AP -6 becomes DV 11 AP -6+Hits). In outcome #2, a glitch reduces the Rating of the smart armor, and the smart armor also loses 1 charge.

So. against powerful attacks (DV>10), smart armor is obviously less effective (~1/3 as effective). It can also glitch. Done and done. Anything wrong with what I assume to be the correct reading here? Note how there are no completely stupid and backwards effects, like armor making incoming attacks stronger.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 01:38 PM

Ahem. Quoting your post and bolding and underlining relevant section.





Mechanically that makes sense, but unfortunately, that's not what smart armor is supposed to be good for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armor the whole point of "smart armor" is to deflect the big shots (heavy weapons, attacks with DV > 10) so that they hurt less. The smart armor shouldn't activate on small arms fire and most definitely shouldn't be less effective against large arms fire.

Secondly:



That is exactly identical to adding the smart armor's rating to the vehicle's total armor.

Watch

Armor 4, SM 6
DV 9 AP -2

-2AP + 6 = +4

is DV 9 > 8? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).

Armor 4, SM 6
DV 6 AP -2

4 armor + 6 = 10
is DV 9 greater than (10 -2 AP)? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).

Sabs, your math is off:



-6 plus 10 is not 0, it's +4.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 10 2011, 02:00 PM

I didn't say it was different. I said it makes more sense conceptually to 'reduce' the AP 'directly'.

Yes: obviously, in real life, smart armor is only for DV>10. So? It may shock you that SR fails to emulate real life, sometimes quite a lot. My point was that there's no chance of smart armor ever being a *drawback*. I agree that it should work only for DV>10, and at full strength; that's a house rule. As long as it works for any DV>10 attack (and it does: sniper rifles, heavy weapons), that's all you'd really want to use it on anyway.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 02:08 PM

Aside from being confusing (because AP is better the lower it is, terms like "reduce" and "add" become ambiguous as to the intent).



I know ShadowRun isn't real life, that's not the point. The point is that this armor add on (as interpreted by you) exists to make vehicles Even More Immune to small arms fire, when what is sounds like (and what it's attempting to emulate) is to make vehicles better protected against large weapons fire.

That is: my point is that there is a cognitive dissonance between the implied use of the item and it's mechanical effect.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Jun 10 2011, 02:09 PM

No, the intent is never ambiguous. Armor always helps you defend against an attack, never making the attack better. Honestly. It literally takes intentional madness to conclude otherwise, whether I use single-quotes on 'reduce' or not.

Yes, it's a perfectly correct situation for a house rule. I said I agreed. In fact, it's far too expensive to waste on DV<10 anyway. It's just not what the book says, and we were talking about how some people (unbelievably) thought the book said smart armor *strengthened* incoming attacks.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 03:06 PM

Again, you confuse Fluff with Mechanics.

Posted by: sabs Jun 10 2011, 03:26 PM

Y, I see where you're coming from. That makes a certain amount of sense. It's a badly worded rule with no example to explain it.

I am willing to agree with you that:
DV<10 = AP reduced by Smart Armor Rating
DV>10 = AP reduced by Hits of Smart Armor Rating Roll.
Glitch lowers the Rating by 1.

Here is my second question.

I have a Smart Armor Rating of 10.
The incomming attack has an AP of -6.
Is the new AP +4? or 0?

Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think.

Otherwise I end up with:
Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16.
First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips?

This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage?

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 04:12 PM

I mean ambiguous in terms of determining the intent. The words are ambiguous, therefore the intent is unclear.



It doesn't say it adds to armor, but the "reduces AP" ends up functionally identical to adding to armor, but it doesn't do both.



"Reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating" is mechanics, not fluff. Because the second part is additional mechanics that don't conform to that sentence ("roll rating, his reduce the AP value" is not "rating reduces the AP value"). The first part also makes no mention of large weapons, whereas the second part does.

If the first part is fluff, it's not written as fluff. Fluff doesn't (or shouldn't) talk about AP values, armor ratings, and damage codes. Those are mechanics.

(Also, you can't say "again" because you haven't accused me of it before. I can't have more tea if I haven't had any tea at all)

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 10 2011, 04:13 PM

Skipping replying tot he rest, as it seems enough of that was done already.

Not quite. You still reduce the effective AP of the attack by the smart armor's rating. You then increase it by the hits. So final AP = (AP + R - H).



Unfortunately it's not clear. I think it shouldn't make the AP value go positive, but that's just me wanting balance.I've got no basis in the rules for it.



This is how I see it to. It's worse than just having 46 dice to soak. It also means you have 30 hardened armor and reduce AP by 10, so they need around 40DV just to scratch you.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 04:40 PM

Apologies... You are correct... Would you like some more tea?

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 06:38 PM

If I were a fan of tea, then I'd be delighted.

Posted by: CanRay Jun 10 2011, 06:42 PM

I'll take his tea.

Posted by: Loch Jun 10 2011, 06:50 PM

Having run one campaign pretty much laissez-faire, I have a short list of things I'd probably do differently next time:

If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool.
Put two Furbys on the table next to each other and they instantly start communicating with each other, often to the exclusion of all other stimuli. This is just the logical extension of this into Shadowrun, and a solution that I feel works better than just adding six dice to the social dicepools of every NPC the face talks to. This would be independent of any notoriety penalties/worse starting attitudes for using an emotitoy in the first place.

Tasers, Stick-n-shock ammo, and monofilament weapons do not add net hits to damage.
Basically carrying over logic from capsule rounds and contact toxins to the other weapons that "just have to touch you". Prevents SnS from automatically being the best ammo type for every situation ever. Still on the fence about whether to move SnS to "large bore only", but I'll experiment with this and see if I like it better.

I don't care if it's legal by the RAW, nobody starts with gear from WAR!
I don't like to ban books outright, but player characters shouldn't be able to start play with top-of-the-line gear already.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 07:03 PM

It is a Blueberry/Raspberry Green/Black Tea Blend... Quite soothing actually.

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 07:57 PM

Question:
How does it work if a R3 emotoy is 5 meters away from one that's R6?

(Per how you wrote it, neither gets a benefit, but it's a very one sided conversation (the R3 is too far away to communicate with the R6))

Posted by: sabs Jun 10 2011, 08:12 PM

My rule for Emotitoys is that they have to be touching the person whose mood they are sensing. Because they're designed as toys for kids. So they climb on the kid, and use complex biometrics to determine the mood of the child they are playing with.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 08:50 PM

Interesting... I like it...

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 10 2011, 10:06 PM

Then you have your hacker buddy program the toy so that it will try to kill anyone it climbs onto.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 10 2011, 10:09 PM

Heh...

Posted by: Teulisch Jun 10 2011, 10:58 PM

a mobile emotoy with a monowire garrote? that or some kind of poison delivery system. maybe both.

Posted by: Raiki Jun 10 2011, 11:21 PM

And it needs to look like a feral koala.


~R~

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 10 2011, 11:29 PM

Anybody else thinking the Teddy Bear from the end of the Screamers Movie?

Posted by: Raiki Jun 10 2011, 11:31 PM

Actually, I was going for more of an emoti-dropbear.




Edited for spelling.

~R~

Posted by: Mr. Smileys Jun 10 2011, 11:33 PM

its a Care-Bear and it wants to give you a hug

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 10 2011, 11:38 PM

Damn it, where was that video. It was like the care bears, only one of them was out for revenge for the murder of one of the others (and totally breaks a guy's neck)

Posted by: CanRay Jun 10 2011, 11:59 PM

Naughty Bear? Happy Tree Friends?

Posted by: Draco18s Jun 11 2011, 12:48 AM

That could be. I don't follow HTF.

Posted by: Christian Lafay Jun 11 2011, 03:38 AM

ALL HAIL FLIPPY!

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Jun 11 2011, 10:12 AM

It always struck me that an emotitoy surely wouldn't be that secure from hacking, so if a runner team want to show up at a meet with one, let them.

Thanks to Mr Johnson's elite hacking team, Mr Fuzzybear McCutepants will be telling the team "Yes, this guy is absolutely honest, you can trust him with your lives, gosh he's so nice you should give him a discount."

Posted by: Fortinbras Jun 11 2011, 10:29 AM

If the team doesn't have their hacker/technomancer ready for counter hacking it serves them right.

Posted by: suoq Jun 11 2011, 01:29 PM

Unwired 55

Note that option 3 means (if I recall) taking 6 dice off the spoof role because of the whole admin thing (recently beaten to death on Dumpshock),