Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: yesferatu Aug 25 2011, 03:34 PM

Hey guys, I've got a runner with no cyberwear and I'm trying to max out my armor.
I had been wearing an urban explorer, but there's gotta be something more stylish and less sucky.
Any ideas?

Posted by: suoq Aug 25 2011, 03:44 PM

Body 3 = Armor up to 6 before encumbrance issues (SR4A 161)
Assuming a Strength of 2, any of the 6/4 armors (of which there are a lot) with Softweave from WAR! will have an encumbrance of 4/4.
FFBA half body armor (AR 48) = 4/1 for an encum of 2/1. PPP Shin guards for 0/1 would round it out.
That's a total of 10/6 armor.
The big expense here is softweaving your armor.

Posted by: Loch Aug 25 2011, 03:51 PM

Wellp, this thread ended up exactly where I thought it would. It's a valid method and all, but only if your GM allows WAR! stuff anyway. Mine doesn't allow softweave, and I'm loath to pull out some of the other tricks in there simply because I'd rather not escalate the arms race that quickly. I'm already playing a minigun-toting Troll, and that feels like enough

I feel like we need our own corollary to Godwin's Law for Dumpshock and WAR! coming up in threads.

Posted by: Fatum Aug 25 2011, 03:52 PM

FFBA comes to mind, if your GM allows it.
Also, if you're a runner without cyberware and don't need that much mobility (like if you're a [summoner] mage, a rigger or a hacker) you can easily pick whatever armor you want...

Posted by: Miri Aug 25 2011, 03:55 PM

I believe somewhere in Arsenal there is a note about having the armor custom tailored to fit you and change the encurambance calculation. ALternativly I know there is a line that says "Ignore encurambance if it the character is wearing only one piece of armor."

Posted by: suoq Aug 25 2011, 04:01 PM

I missed, in the question, where I should ignore certain books. I fail to see how FFBA (with it's -2 to encum) is any less cheesy than softweave's -2 to encum. If you want no cheese, then pick a 6/4 armor and be done with it. If you want the FFBA cheese and NOT the softweave cheese then the Berwick shirt and trousers (4/3 total) with FFBA half do the job, though I prefer the Synergist longcoat (4/2) (and FFBA half) for RP reasons (plus the concealability modifier).

Complaining because I answered someone else's question as they asked it just because you have a personal problem with a book does not make this a more helpful place. If you have a better answer, please give it.

Posted by: Fatum Aug 25 2011, 04:04 PM

Both are optional rules, Miri.

Posted by: Miri Aug 25 2011, 04:08 PM

Well yes.. but using an optional rule is about the only way the OP is going to get around the limitations to wear something heaver then a Urban Explorers Jumpsuit.

Posted by: squee_nabob Aug 25 2011, 04:39 PM

Millspec Armor. You can get plenty of mods on it that increase your ability to wear armor without penalty (str mods and mobility upgrades). I have a 3 body 1 str character who has 13/13 armor

Posted by: Seerow Aug 25 2011, 04:48 PM

Milspec armor is just a little bit conspicuous... but yeah a good option when you can get away with it, since it gives up to bodyx3 naturally.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 25 2011, 05:02 PM

Segway Terrier or a Horseman with a Rigger Coccoon. There's 20 armor right there.

EDIT: I'm sorry - 24 for the Horseman and 21 for the Terrier.

Posted by: UmaroVI Aug 25 2011, 05:02 PM

There are precisely 4 ways to get better armor than you already have.

1)Softweave
2)Form Fitting Body Armor
3)MilSpec Armor
4)"Optional Rules." There's like a zillion and I don't want to list all of them individually, but they amount to "beg your GM to let you wear more armor."

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:08 PM

Because they stack? Also, my group considers FFBA to be cheese, along with PPP.

(And besides, if the low-body character cheeses with FFBA/Softweave, then the high body troll will too, and so will the opposition, and in the end he'll end up back where he started: not enough armor, only now it'll feel like everyone is using Nerf guns).

Posted by: Miri Aug 25 2011, 05:09 PM

I'ma drive around in my Segway Terrier with a Rigger's Coccoon with a full turret and Distinctive Style vehicle mod to make it look like a Dalek.

*nodsnods* And in real life when I'm at the table I will wear a metal collar so that when I yell out "EXTERMINATE" my tablemates can't strangle me.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 25 2011, 05:10 PM

Note: You can wear armor inside the Rigger Coccoon also.

Posted by: suoq Aug 25 2011, 05:16 PM

So when you ask the question, then you can put those in the "banned" list. If everyone has to answer the OP's question with houserules other than the OP's houserules, this is going to get very confusing.

That's exactly right. That's what he chose when he went for Body 3 instead of body 4 or 5. And yes, all the cheese turns guns into Nerf guns. I didn't write the cheese so it's not my problem. Our group has it's own house rules, but I don't pretend everyone else is playing by them.

Posted by: Medicineman Aug 25 2011, 05:17 PM

what about the Exoskeleton from Attitude ?
I don't own the Attitude (yet ,because I'm waiting for the German Lifestyle 2073) but I remember a discussion here that it can be Armored up

HokaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:19 PM

And thus your argument is invalid. Just because you didn't write the cheese doesn't mean it's not cheese.



Because every character ever has 4 or 5 body.

Posted by: suoq Aug 25 2011, 05:24 PM

Again, Draco, I have no clue what you're mad about, but it's not my problem. Someone other than you asked a question. I answered it using the rules as they exist instead of using your group's personal houserules. Get offended all you want, but I'm not playing by your house rules.

Posted by: Critias Aug 25 2011, 05:27 PM

Well, this went downhill pretty fast.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 25 2011, 05:28 PM

QUICKLY LET US TALK ABOUT POSESSION SPIRITS INHABITING DIKOTED GEL PACKED ARMOR.

Posted by: Summerstorm Aug 25 2011, 05:30 PM

ALSO... i never understood why people aren't just taking the penalties. If you are AMAZINGLY good -Reaction/Agility or compensate with skill- why not take the penalties? It's not that you need to kill people any HARDER. Protect yourself.

On the other side, if you don't USE agility/raction that much... you don't lose that much either.

I know it is a "bad" deal trading in like 2 points armor for a possible die on all attack and all dodges, but depending on situation, it might be ok.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:31 PM

= mad, angry
= straight face, disgusted, grim, no expression

I am not angry. I am simply pointing out that what you said doesn't make sense.

Posted by: UmaroVI Aug 25 2011, 05:32 PM

Summerstorm: Because you could just have 1 less agility and 1 more Body, wear the 2 more armor, and come out with a net +1 reaction and +1 damage resistance over where you'd be by encumbering yourself?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 25 2011, 05:32 PM

But, it made Perfect Sense according to the rules as they are written.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:33 PM

And as we all know, the rules make complete and perfect logical sense the way they are written.

(See, that's not angry, it's sarcasm)

Posted by: Seerow Aug 25 2011, 05:34 PM

I'd like to point out to everyone Draco ISN'T the one who originally posted complaining about suoq responding using WAR!. That was someone else entirely. Draco only really responded to 2 things: 1) Why he thought it was cheesy and 2) Saying that having 4-5 body is required if you want to not die in combat is kind of silly.


The thing that is being attributed to Draco being angry really seems to be that first response going "OMG WHY DID YOU BRING WAR INTO IT!" which wasn't Draco at all...

Posted by: Neraph Aug 25 2011, 05:42 PM

I don't own it yet either, but when I do own it you'll know because I'll be posting super-awsome builds with it.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:44 PM

Thank you.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 25 2011, 05:45 PM

As I've said before, unless you specify otherwise, most people on the forums will assume you are talking about any and all of the rules as written, not houserules or home campaign restrictions.

If you want houserules, it is a good idea to specify that up front.

If you're discussing a home campaign and that campaign has restrictions like X item or rule not being allowed, it is a good idea to specify that up front.

If you are presenting either as a response, if it a good idea to specify that up front.

This will generally avoid a lot of confusion later on.




-k

Posted by: Medicineman Aug 25 2011, 05:46 PM

IIRC You allready gave me some good Ideas (the Headless Murdercycle was Your Idea ,right)
and I'm looking forward to it(especially for my Hobbit Dronomancer)

HeyaheyaHeya
Medicineman

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:49 PM

If this is directed at me, then here, here's my first reply to this thread that started this whole "Draco is getting angry" thing:



This was directed at a quoted section of text asking "why is one piece cheesier than the other?"



This was a blatant "this is what my group does."



This was an aside pointing out how it doesn't matter if one guy cheeses his armor to max, everyone else will see how Good of an Idea that is, and Do It Too, and it will only ruin the game experience.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 25 2011, 05:54 PM

But it is interesting to note that you immediately assume that it will ruin the gaming experience for all involved. It doesn't. In fact, we use FFBA, PPP, and Softweave, and the Armor usage has not skyrocketed because of it, as you insist it must. Not everyone is out there trying to get the most awesome and overpowereed character they can for their expenditure. All of the above add options. Options are not cheesy, in and of themselves, even if they do stack.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 05:56 PM

The question is:

Why?

What prevents your players from wanting more armor?

Posted by: Seerow Aug 25 2011, 06:02 PM

It's TJ. I'm pretty sure he's the guy whose groups never start with any skill rating above 3, and rarely have stats exceeding 5-6, and a dicepool of 12 is amazing like woah. He and his group play things low powered, and they prefer it that way. Don't try to question it with logic, it really won't get much of anywhere.

Posted by: Traul Aug 25 2011, 06:02 PM

First question: how low-profile do you want this armor to be? Full body FFBA is not concealed because it includes a hood and gloves, so you will get different answers depending on whether you want something to wear on the streets or during runs only.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 25 2011, 06:02 PM

I was pretty much directing it at everybody. This isn't the first time confusion has set in over what exactly is being discussed.




-k

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 06:18 PM

Oh right, I forgot. TJland where RAW runs perfectly.

Posted by: yesferatu Aug 25 2011, 06:20 PM

I guess I'm looking for non-house rule stuff that could pass in most situations.
I'm not going to hit the Stuffer Shack in a chameleon suit.

So far, it looks like I'm going to have to mod my gear or max out around 10/6.
I don't see why my character, or really most runners, would have access to full-on military tech.
Without serious armorer connections, I don't think I'd have access to most of the obscure gear.

Thanks, most of you.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 25 2011, 06:22 PM

Never said they were low powered. In actuality, the chracters start with "Appropriate" levels in skills. You can only have so many Legendary characters after all. If you think that the character is "Professional" level, then he has a 3 in that skill, not a 6. Skills run the normal gamut, 1-4, with a few 5's or a 6. Stats run the gamut, of course, from 2's to 9's for humans, dependant upon Ware and whatnot. Now, that being said, average dice pools are in the 12-15 range for primary abilities, and 8-12 range for Secondary and Tertiary. Some pools are as low as 3-7 dice, dependant upon character.

The reasoning is simple. The game world assumes a certain level of expertise (regardless of whether or not others actually agree with that, is is pretty irrefutable), and ALL contacts and NPC's are designed with that in mind. So why, exactly, would a character need 2-3 times the dice pool of their opposition? There is absolutely no reason for that, other than to have no chance of failure. Read a book or two like that. BORING... If you keep the fluff of the world in mind, then you do not need Dice Pools in the 20-50's, people can only be so dead, coerced, or whatever. There is just no reason to do so. Mid to high teens is more than adequate. This is completely born out by the Optional Rule for Dice Pool Caps. Since it is really difficult to get Natural Skil/Attribute combinations above 14 (6+7 for Humans is only 13 after all), 26 Dice is usually the Maximum you should ever see if you are using that optional rule.

We have had characters that exceed that norm. Interestingly enough, they are generally the ones that DO NOT survive. For whatever reason. In some cases, it is because they are so hyperspecialized that they are non-functional outside of their specialty. For the one or two that chose to wear 20+ Armor, they sucked up all the firepower, as they became the biggest threat on the board. As such, they died as the biggest threat on the board.

And Draco18s. It is not about Wanting more armor, it is about Needing more armor. The need is just not there if you take appropriate precautions. And again, with Body 3, Strength 2 characters, An Armored Longcoat, Softweave, FFBA and a piece of PP is more than enough for most situations (10/6 right?). You want to survive the Gauss Round, or the LMG on FA, just don't get hit.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 25 2011, 06:26 PM

Nope... RAW is not perfect, as we all know. We just do not have a lot of players who enjoy breaking the game. Shadowrun has a detailed world with very established parameters. We stick within those parameters. We do not complain that the Skills are just broken as hell because we cannot get 12 ranks in a Skill. We do not complain when you can only wear 2x your Body in Armor. Etc... When you try to break the world, well, the world breaks. When you have players that play within the scopes of the game, then the game runs smoothly for all...

All of the edge cases that I see complained about here on the forums are generally not an issue with us, because we stay away from those edges. It is really that simple.

Many may not like that, but it is true nonetheless.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 06:28 PM

The rules shouldn't allow for anything else (excepting vehicles and people inside vehicles) other than this.



What's the Body 7, Strength 5 character wearing, the same thing? Because your Bod 3/Str 2 character has already cheesed it to the max in order to get up to...10/10? 12/10?

I agree that 12/10 armor is plenty, the problem lies in the fact that by allowing the things that get the low-body characters to get there allow the tank characters to, well, tank. With more armor than a tank.

The rules problem lies in the fact that in order to resist damage you roll body + armor and body limits armor (each point of body gives 2.5 dice worth of damage resistance dice, not counting extra cheese, which makes it closer to 1 point of body is 4 dice: the more damage resistance you have, the more you get!).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 25 2011, 06:35 PM

I have a character with Body 7... he is Sporting about 11/11 Armor (No Softweave). Again, why should I want more; I don't often get hit. Who cares what the Low body character has to do to wear that armor. The point is that the Troll does not have to do the same thing to survive.

I see no problems with the rules. But, in your point above, should not the tougher person be tougher to hurt (as you said: the more damage resistance you have, the more you get). I'm Seeing no issue here.

Posted by: Miri Aug 25 2011, 06:45 PM

Usually when one or two characters are sporting a really really high offense or defense value I think it makes balancing an encounter more difficult. Lets say you do have your street sam with 20+ armor and high body. In order for a bad to hurt him he needs to get hit by pretty a Gauss rifle round or that LMG on FA.. but if either of those items get turned on anyone else they will get red misted. If that street sam/mage is dropping 20 something dice for an attack and red misting the critters in one action then the GM has to either throw more at them or make them harder to hurt. Which in turn makes things really tough and boring on the guy with an Ares Slivergun.

Keeping pools on stuff done as a group can make things easier for the GM to build and improvise around then for something the character specializes in and or does on his own he can be sporting more dice then a non specialized.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 25 2011, 06:53 PM

It seems like the problem here is everyone agrees that having more than 10-12 armor is pretty over the top, but not having more armor than that makes having a high body pretty useless, since the only difference between a 3 body character with 10 armor and a 6 body character with 10 armor is 3 damage resistance dice. I mean seriously... woohoo? Given that, who would ever invest into a high body, it's just not worth the returns.

So what if you got rid of encumbrance based on body, and made body a bit more valuable? Say you automatically resist half your body in damage (round down), while still getting to use your full body in a damage resistance test. So the guy with 6 body is taking an automatic 2 less damage than your guy with 3 body. Of course, that gets kind of awkward with vehicles (Hi, I'm just going to ignore the first 8 damage you deal to me, then still roll 36 dice in resistance.), so may not be the best solution. Maybe just do away with body as a separate stat and roll it in with strength? Both stats are on the weak end of things, and even combining them together doesn't make them too strong, and it's not too unreasonable to think that you're no longer going to have wimpy 1 str characters with 6+ body.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 07:10 PM

Yeah, looks like a gentleman's agreement to me.

Posted by: suoq Aug 25 2011, 07:18 PM

Personally, when I have more body, on a run, I'm using it for armor. For my 5 body orc, it's YNT Softweave Armor jacket, FFBA half, leg and arm casings, shin casings, and vitals protector, plus a dermal sheath. Comes out to 16/12, which in the end does a nice job of keeping damage in the stun category.

(Going to dinner, or a meet, or some other social occasion, he wears Berwick. That's just me.)

---

For Missions characters, I tend to go with 4 body, 6/4 armor (pick one), half FFBA, and forearm and shin PPP.

----

For 3 body, see above.

I've never done more than 5 body. Not my style. But if I wanted a body that high, I'd be adding the Carbon Boron and forearm protectors probably.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 07:21 PM

And I knew a character who survived a suicide bomber (mook ran up, popped the pin on a 'nade, and hugged him). Took 0 boxes of damage (no Edge).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 25 2011, 08:07 PM

*Shakes Head*

Posted by: Elfenlied Aug 25 2011, 08:10 PM

Get a quickened armor spell.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 08:13 PM

He wasn't even using FFBA, PPP, or softweave.

Posted by: Miri Aug 25 2011, 08:14 PM

Core Rules (325 4A) says "When attached directly to a target, the targets armor is halved, otherwise the explosive has an AP of 0" If that mook hugged him with the grenade between the two of em.. (grenade sammich!) well.. that must have been one awesome roll.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 25 2011, 08:16 PM

Well, that didn't occur. I don't think anyone remembered that little tidbit.

Posted by: Chimera Aug 25 2011, 08:39 PM

<--The GM.

No softweave

Posted by: Traul Aug 25 2011, 08:42 PM

Does the mook count as tamping?

Posted by: yesferatu Aug 25 2011, 08:46 PM

Oh, I see how it is.

Posted by: suoq Aug 25 2011, 09:46 PM

Synergist longcoat (4/2) (personal preference. You can get 4/3 with various suit partials)
FFBA half (4/1)@(2/1) encum
PPP forearm and shin optional (0/2)
Non-conductivity depending on campaign.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Aug 25 2011, 09:50 PM

You wouldn't want to do that. It is a huge "shoot me first, I'm a mage" sign. If you want to go the route of quickened spells, get Increase BOD and/or Combat Sense. They still have their own problems though.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 25 2011, 10:05 PM

I dispute that. Not that it's a huge "shoot me first" sign, but that it matters too much once you start rocking that kinda stuff.

Cuz if you play by raw, FFBA + Armor + Armored Jacket = Happy Times. 18 ballistic armor is a GIANT middle finger to most anything that comes your way. It's not subtle, but I figure if it's time for all the armor you can slam on, subtlety isn't on your list of top priorities.

Posted by: Traul Aug 25 2011, 10:33 PM

If it's Quickened, you wear that sign all the time, not only when you need the armor.

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Aug 25 2011, 10:42 PM

Hmm which opponent would appear to be the bigger threat? The one wearing an armor jacket, gloves and a hood or the one with an armor jacket and a "glowing field of magical energy around" (BBB p. 210)
Unless someone else starts casting obvious magic the force field will indicate the mage. Everybody knows that mages are the biggest threat and need to be dealt with first. Even if there is another possible mage, fire may still be concentrated on the guy in the glowing force field.

The other options for quickened spells I mentioned do not have this drawback.

Posted by: Kirk Aug 25 2011, 10:51 PM

Which raises the obvious temptation of putting quickened armor on the CQC specialist.

Posted by: Traul Aug 25 2011, 10:59 PM

Why quicken it?

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Aug 25 2011, 10:59 PM

Yup and for the mage to run around with an assault rifle.

Posted by: Kirk Aug 25 2011, 11:03 PM

So that even if the bad guys get the drop on us they think that's the mage.

Posted by: whatevs Aug 26 2011, 03:03 AM

Has anyone mentioned ffba + heavy armored clothing? It's my goto set for faces/mages.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 26 2011, 03:04 AM

Heavy armored clothing?

Posted by: whatevs Aug 26 2011, 03:08 AM

Yeah, in arsenal. Globetrotter victory or something (dont have the book handy)

Posted by: Seerow Aug 26 2011, 03:09 AM

Oh okay. I know there's a lot of armored suits and stuff in arsenal, I thought you were referring to an item with the name 'heavy armored clothing', which I had never heard of. My group favors the Synergist business suits, everyone in the group has a set for meets or places where general armor is not admissible. Because a group of 5 guys with identical business suits is great.

Posted by: whatevs Aug 26 2011, 03:15 AM

I got the idea from canray's 'pup the dog shaman' post a while back. He used that terminology and it kind of stuck in my brain that way. Also too lazy to get the book out and be specific, so my bad.

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 26 2011, 03:19 AM

Wear that Urban Explorer Jumpsuit (without the helmet which oddly enough is encumbering... it's essentially a thick hat) and have it covered with Ruthenium polymer coating. It also costs as much as the Chameleon suit and has better Impact armour. Imagine that.

Ta-da you have everyday inconspicuous wear plus the ability to pull up a hood and go invisible. Hey, if they can't see you they can't shoot you. That's fairly defensive.

Otherwise, Form-Fitting Body suit with something that gives you only 3 protection. Like the Globetrotter Camo Vest 3/3. With FFBS you get 9/5 and you can use SecureTech pieces to bump that up to 9/7 before being encumbered.

Make sure that Camo vest is nighttime urban...

Posted by: Elfenlied Aug 26 2011, 08:06 PM

I don't think so, since only people with Astral sight will actually see the spell. And those will figure out that you're not the mage (unless of course the character in question actually is.

Posted by: hermit Aug 26 2011, 09:21 PM

One of SR4's core rules problems, IMO. Can be fixed by making encumbrance dependent on, say, Strength and Agility, for instance. And no, Body does nto need to be upped in value in compensation; it's valuable enough as is, especially for orks and trolls. And no, armor should be a way to somewhat even the odds for characters, enabling the body 2 hacker to survive any damage dealt, not to turn trolls into walking MBTs.

Posted by: Doc Byte Aug 26 2011, 09:32 PM

-->

Posted by: CanRay Aug 26 2011, 09:33 PM

Surprised I haven't suggested this one yet.

http://youtu.be/Vfg5d2w0Iao

Posted by: Seerow Aug 26 2011, 09:36 PM

What? How do you figure Body is valuable enough? Its ONLY value is in damage resistance and encumbrance. You're taking away half of its point of existence. Body is far and away the least valuable attribute if you take away encumberence, you may as well just remove body and make damage boxes/damage resistance based on strength.



I just want to point out that the advanced cargo module got erratad to have only a grapple arm. If you want full mechanical arms you need to spend the two slots on them, which means more overmodding.

Posted by: Doc Byte Aug 26 2011, 10:30 PM

I created this mech 2 years ago. There might be a better chassis in War! or Runner's Black Book.

Posted by: hermit Aug 27 2011, 12:51 AM

It gives you damage boxes and is your soak attribute. I don't quite see how that isn't enough (Willpower is even less useful).

And basing Encumbrance on Body devalues armour for anyone not wanting to be a walking tank. This pretty much forces every character who has an interest in survival to max out body (and even then, it heavily biases the game towards orks and trolls). Bad design choice if ever one was made.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 27 2011, 01:28 AM

So now the difference between the 'tank' and your regular guy is 2 boxes of health and 3 extra dice (1 success) on a soak roll. He might survive one extra hit. That's a really big might given how little that difference actually is.

At least now the difference is effectively 9 dices of soak, and you take stun instead of physical damage more often.

As for willpower being less useful, it may be less useful now, but taking away armor from Body makes Body just as bad off as Will, if not worse.

Body/Will used to have the added value of setting target numbers for a lot of effects, but I think most of us agree we don't like variable target numbers... but either the resistance attributes need something else to make them more valuable, or they need to be eliminated. Body setting your max armor is a nice benefit that makes it worthwhile, but not the end all be all.




It doesn't devalue armor, but yes it does prevent them from wearing a ton of it. Your average guy can get away with 8 armor without trying too hard. If he wants more than that, he can invest in more body, but most people don't need more. If you're that worried about survival, reaction is probably the better stat to boost anyway.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 27 2011, 01:37 AM

I was taking Quickened to mean "also in a Sustaining Focus".

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 27 2011, 02:12 AM

Tank to regular guy is more like 10 dice.

+4 body (= +2 boxes of health) is +6 armor. 4 + 6 = 10.

And that's before armor cheesing.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 27 2011, 02:18 AM

"Quickened" is a pretty specific thing in SR.





-k

Posted by: Seerow Aug 27 2011, 02:18 AM

I was referring specifically to a scenario where body no longer gives you extra armor, as hermit suggested. And I just remembered that health boxes round up. So a 3 body char vs a 6 body character has +1 health box, and 3 extra damage resistance dice. At the cost of 35 build points, or god forbid, 75 karma, that is in no way worth it.


Yes, by the rules Body lets you get extra armor so that 3 extra body gets you 6 extra armor so you end up with 9 total extra soak dice, plus your increased health track, plus you frequently take stun instead of physical damage. But hermit is talking about removing the majority of that benefit, with no compensation, and saying Body is still a great stat. I say BS.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 27 2011, 02:30 AM

Ah, it was unclear.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 27 2011, 02:57 AM

Yes, but it's rare for players to use the term that way.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 27 2011, 05:37 AM

I dunno. I've been playing SR since it came out, and across the many, many people I've played Shadowrun with, if someone says "quickened", they have almost always meant the Metamagic.

Pretty much if they meant a Sustaining Focus, they said "Sustaining Focus" or "in a focus", or even "in a spell lock".

I suppose it depends on your area.




-k

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 27 2011, 02:00 PM

I think that you have me confused with Hermit... I know, it happens a lot.

Posted by: Elfenlied Aug 27 2011, 02:13 PM

Not in our group. But I guess as always, YMMV.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 27 2011, 04:10 PM

Yeah, it's the avatar. Sorry TJ


I did notice the mistake and edited one post, didnt realize I had done it more than once.

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 27 2011, 04:17 PM

The Armour spell produces a visible glow when cast. Sustained or Quickened, it's going to make two things obvious:

1) You're Magically active and therefore need to die first.

OR

2) You're worth protecting, therefore you need to die first.

Plus there's the whole background count issue.

Posted by: Elfenlied Aug 27 2011, 04:22 PM

Emphasis mine. At the time of casting, it is visible, yes. After it has been cast, there's no way you can tell someone has a quickened armor spell on him, unless you have access to astral sight.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 27 2011, 04:25 PM

Wow, that's some serious cheese there.

"When cast" can mean "when activated" too, y'know. Not just "the act of casting the spell".

The act of casting is instantaneous, anyhow.




-k

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 27 2011, 04:30 PM

Though I'm flattered, my word isn't valuable for RAW judgements. Also, you're reaching quite a fair bit on your interpretation.

In SR4A:



You cast it on someone, and they have a glowy field around them as long as the spell's in effect.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 27 2011, 04:30 PM

Full Combat Armour. Put it on a troll, keep the troll between you and the bullets.

Posted by: Mardrax Aug 27 2011, 04:50 PM

Don't forget it makes you tougher to knock down.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 27 2011, 04:52 PM

People actually use the knock down rules?

Posted by: Elfenlied Aug 27 2011, 05:15 PM

Well, if you interpret the "glowing field of magical energy" as something you can see without astral sight, then yes, the spell will invariably be less useful. I could certainly see such interpretation being valid.



I only enforce them when someone uses Gel packs.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 27 2011, 05:17 PM

Yeah, that and someone using a water elemental attack are about the only scenarios I've seen it used.

Posted by: Kirk Aug 27 2011, 05:20 PM

I do. It's not just that the simple action to stand can make a difference. It's that getting knocked down helps tell the story.

"He hit you for 8"
"The troll hammers you, slamming you to the ground."

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 27 2011, 05:29 PM

Hey, No Worries.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 27 2011, 05:30 PM

Indeed... We use them.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 27 2011, 05:53 PM

Technically I only called it the Mudercycle. My contact info is in my sig if you want the notepad I have of all my goodies.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 27 2011, 07:10 PM

Why am I getting an image of Nathan Explosion on the Dethcycle?

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Aug 27 2011, 08:02 PM

Not sure, what you are trying to say, but the knockdown rules say you compare the damage boxes checked off on the condition monitor against BOD not the DV of the attack.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 27 2011, 08:38 PM

Applied DV is Boxes Checked. Very Different from Proposed DV, which is potential damage inflicted.

Posted by: Kirk Aug 27 2011, 10:00 PM

Sorry for not being clear by distracting you with numbers.

I much prefer cues for storytelling, of which knockdown is one. And frankly the rule is easily applied. You took damage equal to or greater than BOD you get knocked down. Not complex at all. So:

"You took 8 damage."
"You get hammered to the ground by the troll, taking 8 damage."

The latter is more evocative. More narrative. Drives the story just a little better.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 27 2011, 10:42 PM

Ignoring the Knockdown rules just weakens Body further; seems like a bad idea.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Aug 27 2011, 11:34 PM

Hmm... regarding body & strength... page 51 of Arsenal says you can add a Strength modification to your armor. This modification is servos, hydraulic pumps, etc...

Does this mean that this armor upgrade or modification is only available to obvious, heavy armors, or can this be added to the armored clothes like the Auctioneers Business suit?

Posted by: Seerow Aug 27 2011, 11:35 PM

Pretty sure those are armored suit upgrades, for stuff like military grade armor.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Aug 27 2011, 11:40 PM

I am likely to agree as the fluff & the location of the enhancement has it under military armor. Just thought I double check to make sure & wait for the obligatory RAW reference.

Posted by: Critias Aug 27 2011, 11:55 PM

Yeah, they're specifically listed under the heading (and then under the table) Military-Grade Armor Enhancements, where it then states "Military-grade armors accept a wide variety of enhancements that are not available to other armor types," all right there in Arsenal, p. 51, where you spotted it. It's pretty clear-cut.

Posted by: hermit Aug 28 2011, 02:18 AM

Well, it certainly will stop being what you consider a great stat, as in, the be-all end-all of stats in terms of survivability. That's the point. It still is a viable stat you will use more often than some others (like charisma, willpower), unless your character is some specialist build.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 28 2011, 02:26 AM

Body is what keeps you going when your brain is telling you, "Hey, Bob, YOU'RE DEAD!".

Posted by: Seerow Aug 28 2011, 02:27 AM

Actually, no, it becomes a stat that you would never invest in. Ever. Seriously, 1 extra damage resistance die isn't worth the cost that an attribute entails. Body instantly becomes the most worthless karma sink in the game, at least Willpower is going to be wanted for mages to be able to use their abilities regularly. Body? Who cares? Just grab some agi and armor it up.




That said I did think of a solution (which I posted in the 5e thread a day or so ago): Body and Willpower become derived stats, rather than full on attributes. Body is the average of Str+Agi+Reaction, and Will is the average of Log+Int+Cha. That way nobody actually has to invest karma for a stat that is just an extra die of damage resist. As you improve your physical body, you naturally become more hardy. As you improve your mental facilities, you naturally become more willful.

Armor can either go on being based on the new derived body, or it can be moved to agi/str (if moving it, I'd recommend str. Agi is already used for basically everything and the kitchen sink, while strength has relatively few linked skills, and could use something secondary to give it a bit more value to people who aren't intending to mix it up in melee.)

Posted by: pbangarth Aug 28 2011, 02:30 AM

Not that any real life example means anything in Shadowrun, but I am living proof that LOG and INT and CHA can all be high but WIL be pitifully low.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 28 2011, 02:34 AM

Well what do you define WIL as?

Because remember, in Shadowrun WIL is basically "Use this to resist magic, and for astral combat" Which generally isn't something that comes up in real life.


edit: Besides, worst case you could introduce a set of flaws: Weak Willed and Frail Body, which reduce the Will/Body respectively by 1/2/3 to represent that for someone who has it as a part of their character concept.

Posted by: Kirk Aug 28 2011, 03:18 AM

Been pondering your solution. It's got possibilities.

The first sticking point comes when metas are considered. Troll getting body by virtue of strength? sure. So, however, do orks and dwarves. And what bothers me slightly more is that it means all elves are by nature of their charisma slightly more strongwilled than everyone else. not sure it's wrong, mind, just it bothers me for some reason.

The second sticking point comes from the math. The first subpoint of that is determining the break which will inevitably be gamed. Always round up? Always down? Always to the nearest? And lest we forget, the second subpoint regards increasing body and will. While automatic it would almost always require at least two attribute increases. One might argue you're getting a bargain, paying for two and gaining three, but it still can raise arguments.

I like the basic idea, to be honest. I just want the potential problems recognized and either dismissed or dealt with.

Posted by: Traul Aug 28 2011, 03:19 AM

And resist addiction, temptation, fear, compulsion,... WIL is used in a lot of compound attribute tests.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 28 2011, 03:30 AM

This I don't mind so much. Elves are traditionally spellcasters, I don't mind them having a slightly above average Will. Orcs and Dwarves gaining a little extra body isn't outlandish... Orcs already have a +3 body right now, so they'd actually be losing effective body (gaining 2/3 of a body point rather than 3 full points). Similarly, Dwarves currently get 1 body, now they just have +2 strength -1 reaction, resulting in a net +1/3 body.


Actually now that I'm thinking about this, since the solution was proposed with regular humans in mind let's go through each race and see what type of adjustment they end up with for body/will:

Human:
-Body: +0 (+0 normal)
-Will: +0 (+0 normal)
Ork:
-Body: +2/3 (+3 normal)
-Will: -2/3 (+0 normal)
Dwarf:
-Body: +1/3 (+1 normal)
-Will: +0 (+1 normal)
Elf:
-Body: +1/3 (+0 normal)
-Will: +2/3 (+0 normal)
Troll:
-Body: +1 (+4 normal)
-Will: -4/3 (+0 normal)

So basically everyone except for Elves come out behind where they normally are. This would mean needing to either reassign metahuman attribute bonuses, or reassign the BP costs, or some other off the wall solution (like allowing metahuman bonuses/penalties to apply directly to Body/Will, despite being derived)



That's a good point. Personally, I'd go in favor of always round down, but I'd be open to arguments for any rounding method.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 28 2011, 03:39 AM

I'd say round normally. 1/3 -> 0, 2/3 -> 1.

Posted by: pbangarth Aug 28 2011, 04:12 AM

Pretty much this.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 28 2011, 04:16 AM

Heavy Gear (Silhouette, SilCORE) has something like that. Health and 'mental health' are both based on combinations of more fundamental physical stats.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 28 2011, 04:41 PM

Which is why, while conceptually alluring, I won't be using this system.

Posted by: hermit Aug 28 2011, 10:06 PM

Because Agi is so much cheaper? Also, what does someone who neither is dedicated face nor mage with a Cha drain tradition want with Charisma?

Also, Willpower is only relevant for spellcasters or people really paraoid about mana spells. And even then, you can just pop some drugs. Will not cost you any Karma.

Plus, Body goes up a lot for everyone who is a troll or dwarf. Maybe switch Athletics back to body, instead of strength, for good measure. But certainly not what you suggested, that's ridiculously overpowering Body again. As is, Body and Rea are the only attributes that matter for a dedicated fighter. Which sucks. And armour is all but useless for anyone who is not a troll, which sucks even more.


That's hard to make work, though the basic idea isn't that bad. There're Wil drain traditions, what about them?

Making Body a derived attribute could be doable, though. However, I'd rather just move encumbrance to str+agi, and reassign the Athletics group to Body, so it has a very viable linked skill.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 28 2011, 10:20 PM

All attributes cost the same. But your example of agi is easily augmented, which Body is not. Besides that, agi IS worth the points because it has a lot of linked skills, and is the driving attribute for almost all combat skills. Getting a bonus to a bunch of key skills vs getting a bonus to a damage resistance is a pretty huge difference. Especially if you make armor tied to a stat everyone wants anyway, so then everyone has plenty of armor, making an extra die or two worth less.

You're complaining saying "Who outside of this specialty wants this stat" while not thinking "Would someone who specializes in taking damage even care about getting body?" The answer is no. Because they get enough survivability from armor and other gear, that body is just a huge waste of karma, they're better off investing in reaction instead so they just flat out get hit less.



Other people have already pointed out where Willpower comes into play with other tests even for non-mages.



Huh? Define a dedicated fighter. If you mean a ranged combatant, they want Reaction and Agility. If you mean a melee fighter, they want Reaction, Agility, AND strength.




All mages use Will as a part of their drain. Tradition determines the second attribute that gets added. You use the new derived Will. It might be a slight nerf to Mages, but it's not like they couldn't use being taken down a peg.



And now strength has no linked skills. And encumbrance is based on the most useful stat for a non-magician combatant. How is this an improvement?

Posted by: hermit Aug 28 2011, 10:38 PM

Because dermal plating and bone augmentations do not exist.


The priority would definitly shift, but Body still nets extra dice. And if you link Athletics to Body it becomes a basic nescessity again, anyway.


Do you only play glass cannons who absolutly cannot take a hit whatsoever? Being a fighter does include the ability to take damage as wella s deal it, in my book. Right now, that makes Body an nescessity, or you will be broken in half by the first punch that comes through.



Really, you should read the entire sentence before replying.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 28 2011, 11:01 PM

Neither one is a body augmentation. They'd still be useful as ever for extra soak dice, but only serve to devalue a body that has no other benefits further than soak dice.




When your average character can get between 12 and 20 dice while maintaining an average body, getting any extra body seems pretty superfluous. If you can pick up some extra damage resistance as a cheap upgrade you might spring for it, but pay 20-30 karma for it? Yeah right.




Actually, no. I like playing tank characters. My last character was a dwarf with 6 body, and a set of military grade armor. I got that 6 body to be able to wear my armor. If I could have the exact same armor by instead raising either strength or agility, you bet I would have done so in a heartbeat. Because dropping 3 dice out of damage resistance doesn't actually hurt all that bad. It really doesn't. I'm going to reitterate: If you remove body from encumbrance, the difference between a guy with average body, and a guy with awesome body, is a single damage box, and an average 1 success on a damage resistance test. 90% of the time, that won't even make the difference in surviving one extra hit.




What did I misread? The only strength based skills in the game currently are Climbing, Running and Swimming. If you switch Athletics to go based off Body, then yes, Strength now has no linked skills. You then say make encumbrance based off strength+agility, which makes the end encumbrance value really high (average runner going between 6 and 10, allowing between 12 and 20 armor), high enough you don't really need to worry about strength (unless you're a melee combatant who needs it for damage), and instead just focus on agility which boosts almost everything you do. I mean holy shit do you even listen to yourself?

Posted by: hermit Aug 29 2011, 12:09 AM

Since SR4A doesn't allow more boni than base attribute, you need a high body to profit from that.


It does? It makes the end encumbrance potentially lower for everyone actually, especially trolls, who now can have a max of 6(9)+8(12)=14(21) encumbrance points. How the average runner has an Agi of 10 is beyond me really. And why waste money on strength, unless encumbrance is based on it? plus, in that system, you pay twice as you do now for adding the same value to encumbrance, sicne it defaults on two attributes instead of one.

Strength would be an encumbrance and damage in melee sort of attribute (sort of what Body is now). Right now, it is the athletics attribute. No change in viability. Also, you forgot Parachuting, for the record.


That's half the point. Right now, you only stand a chance to survive being hit by anything with awesome Body. If you've got an average stat, you can just forget about armour, the 6 you can wear before it detracts from any skill you use (including VR hacking) is eaten by any decent AP ammo. In the Shadowrun we have now, there's Bubba the tank troll and glass cannons. No in-between. If you use Str+Agi, you get a little equalisation, and less tank trolls.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 29 2011, 12:25 AM

So someone with 3 body gets 3 extra bonus dice. Plus all of their armor. That's plenty. Hell I don't think you can actually get more than 3 bonus body dice on damage resistance anyway. Dermal Sheath is just bonus armor, which doesn't require body. Bone Lacing caps out at +3 bonus with Titanium. So what exactly was your point with this again?




Where did you get an agi of 10 from? I was figuring a combine str+agi of 10 as the upper end, and str+agi of 6 as the average.

And it seems you're TRYING to say that you only have str+agi, as your cap, rather than str+agix2 as the cap (which is what I assumed from your initial talking, replacing body straight up with str+agi), which leads to pretty outrageous numbers. Even with that, your average combatant is looking at 3 strength, and capping out their agility or close to it, because anyone who is worried about combat and isn't a mage wants agility. So you have an encumbrance of 10-12 max for your average combatant focused runner, which is the same as someone with a high body now.

On the other side of the scale, you have your Mages and Deckers, the ones who usually dump strength and agility, who are sitting at an encumbrance limit of between 4 and 6.

Also, trolls would have a max of 5(7)+10(15) = 15(22). Given your strength and agi can be augmented, but Body cannot (without a full suite of cyberlimbs which is something pretty rare to have and a pretty focused build, and in those cases its more efficient to just put armor on the limbs anyway), your upper bound on armor is actually slightly higher.


So you've brought down the upper limit slightly in a situation where someone doesn't want strength, brought it up slightly in a situation where they do. The lower bound is still the same, but it now costs someone twice as much to gain armor, and three times as much to gain armor + body.

So please explain to me what the hell any of this actually fixes? You still have people who can't wear hardly any armor. You still have people who wear way more. The only difference is the people who can wear more armor no longer also have body backing them up, but that extra body isn't actually all that important because armor is the primary factor in your damage resistance anyway. You shift all this stuff around and all you actually accomplish is making Body more worthless than it is now.





Eh, I forgot parachuting, you forgot what a troll's actual augmented stats are. At least parachuting is something that never actually comes up.




So instead, we have in order to survive being shot, you need to have awesome agility or strength, and you can just ignore body because agility and strength give you the same effective damage resistance while also giving you other stuff. Unless you want athletics, and DON'T want to be a melee combatant then you can go body. If you want to be a melee combatant, you're just screwed anyway, because now you need body for running, strength for damage, and agility for attack. And all 3 for damage resist.

Posted by: hermit Aug 29 2011, 01:02 AM

What is it you want to say? That Body needs to be the attribute to own all attributes? I was saying your bonus dice don't mean that much if you run around with a low-ass body. And please, read the base book. Both bioware options that raise Body are in there. You can max out Body just like any other attribute with implants.


That, then, would be 6 to 10 armour, not 12 to 20.


Yes, and I never said anything else (though it seems you're TRYING not to get it). Body*2 goes for Agi+Str. Agi*2+Str is ridiculous indeed. I just never assumed anyone would think up such nonsense. Where did you pull that one from? And why not STR*2+Agi?


As opposed to 15+15=30. Also, Body can be augmented with the hyperthyroid (+1) and bio-augmented bones (which raise body by their level, up to +4), to a maximum of +5, maxing out augmented body for a troll. There are more and differentw ays to max out augmented strength and agi, but you can only go up to their augmented value anyway.


It evens the odds. And it makes more races than trolls and orks viable as tank specialists (especially dwarfs).


Yeah, because right now a melee build doesn't need all three (Str to do damage, Agi for the skill and Body to survive a hit) as is.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 29 2011, 01:18 AM

Go back and read again. It raises body for damage resistance tests only, it doesn't actually increase the body. But fine, you can get +4 body dr that way. OR you can stick with 3 body, get bone lacing instead, get +3 body damage resist and some extra armor on top of it. The bone lacing is still better damage resist overall, and works just fine with 3 body.






I actually read it as (Str+Agi)*2, sorry for not including the parenthesis. Basically I assumed take out body, replace Str+Agi, exactly like I said in my post.




Wrong. The bones only apply body for damage resist tests. They don't actually increase your encumbrance. So you can get at most +1 body with the hyperthyroid, which is hard to get and expensive. The max body you're looking at on a troll is 11. That gives 22 encumbrance. Incidentally, 15 strength plus 7 agility gets you exactly the same.




Except it really doesn't. Sure, dwarves now have +2 strength, giving +2 encumbrance. They already have +1 body, which is +2 encumbrance. Look at that the net result for them from racial mods is the same!

And you're still ignoring anyone who doesn't need str/agi (ie all the mages and hackers, for whom survivability was actually an issue anyway) are actually worse off now, having to spend twice as much for the same protection. All the changing and shifting and you solved absolutely nothing!

The only people this really benefits are combat specialists sitting at 9+ agility who didn't want to invest in body who can now leave it at 1 without worrying about losing anything of value or being squishy.



Yet I thought the point was that people who didn't currently want to get body could get by without needing an extra stat? I'm still waiting to hear what the hell exactly you think your change actually accomplishes?

Posted by: pbangarth Aug 29 2011, 02:34 AM

Sorry, but can someone remind me where SR4A says this?

Posted by: Seerow Aug 29 2011, 02:53 AM

Okay discussed it a bit further with a fellow player, and think we came up with a good alternative armor solution:


Softweave armor is changed to act as follows: Softweave is a modification that may be applied to light armors, making it easier to wear for weaker individuals. Armor with this modification is treated as half its value for purposes of determining encumbrance. This modification may only be applied to an item with 6 armor or less. If your total armor value exceeds 6, then this modification has no effect. Form Fitting Body Armor may be affected by this upgrade, reducing encumbrance on that armor to 1/4 armor value if all armor worn has the modification. Form Fitting Body Armor does not count against the maximum limit of 6 for purposes of this modification.

Then, SecureTech armor may be affected by softweave, but is counted towards total armor for determining if your armor can be affected by softweave.



Okay that write up is really ugly and probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Some help rewriting it to make it clearer would be appreciated. But in the mean time, here's some examples that should clarify the intent:

Example 1: Character with body 2 feels really squishy, decides to get some softweave armor. He picks out a lined cloak, with 6/4 armor, and applies softweave. He also picks up a underbody half suit for 4/1 armor, and applies softweave to that as well. Putting both of these on gives him 10/5 armor, but for encumbrance purposes, it counts as (6/2 = 3 and 4/4 = 1) a total of 4 armor, which is acceptable for a 2 body character to wear without penalty. The character can choose to pick up some Securetech gear with softweave, such as helmet, and Shin Guards, with softweave which would give him an additional 3 impact armor, bringing his total up to 8/2 = 4, so he wouldn't be encumbered. However, if he picked up Leg and Arm Casings, his ballistic armor would be raised to 7, so even if he had softweave on everything, the basic limitation (total not counting underarmor cannot exceed 6) has been violated, so he would face full encumbrance.

In essence, this basic setup (ending with 10/9 maximum armor) is the armor that someone at 2 to 4 body will expect to have. Beyond that, it becomes more efficient to use non-softweaved armor


Example 2: A character with 4 body can choose to wear the setup described above, but he can actually afford to wear it without any encumbrance without the softweave. So he decides to abandon the softweave to save some nuyen, and use the capacity slots on other upgrades.

Example 3: A character with 6 body gains nothing from wearing the softweave, easily wearing that with no encumbrance, and instead grabs an Armored Jacket, Undersuit, and SecureTech, for a total of 14/12 armor. Just like now.




tl;dr: Softweave gets changed to make lower body characters able to wear roughly 10 armor (a 1 body character can get away with about 6), without being able to be taken advantage of by higher strength characters. This both lowers the cheese available to high body characters, and increases the lowerbound of armor. This can be introduced pretty easily, and works well with either augmentable body, or with body as a derived stat. The big benefit is getting more armor for low body characters across the board without nullifying the benefits of higher body, rather than only boosting some character types while continuing to leave others far behind in the dust.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 29 2011, 03:56 AM

It doesn't; not unless it was another ninja-errata, that is.

To OP: I still say you should 21 armor Segway it up.

Posted by: Medicineman Aug 29 2011, 05:48 AM

Nowhere
Thats pure Imagination from Hermit
He might have mixed it with the optional Rule of capped Dice (20 or 2x nat Attribute & Skill )

HokaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: Seerow Aug 29 2011, 02:51 PM

Really? Here I figured it was just a rule my group commonly overlooked, as I know there's several of those. It's especially funny since that rule was cited not once but twice precluded by "read the damn books"

Posted by: suoq Aug 29 2011, 03:16 PM

You get used to that here. It's why I try to include book/pg number in my answers, even if the answer is not actually how we do things at our table. If someone just tells you what a "rule" is, chances are they're just describing how their table plays, possibly under the theory that their table is playing the one true Shadowrun.

Frequently you see great posts like "The authors were wrong", "They didn't understand their own rules", or "That's not a rule, that's just fluff" when a rulebook contradicts how someone plays.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 29 2011, 03:20 PM

Those are all valid statements (especially the third one, oy). It's only a problem if someone is confused by the difference between RAW and not.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 29 2011, 03:44 PM

I walk that thin, fine line.

Posted by: Hida Tsuzua Aug 29 2011, 04:46 PM

To be fair, all of those are true too despite misuse of those lines.

Posted by: Bodak Aug 30 2011, 02:06 AM

This one is actually pretty clear. All sustained spells (and permanent spells being sustained before they become permanent) whether being sustained by a spell lock / focus, or Quickened (which, when talking about magic in SR, pretty much always refers to the Metamagic) are assensable on the Astral plane. That can be made more difficult using Masking (by which I mean the Metamagic, not plastic kiddy disguises) and high initiate grades. But if the description Dakka Dakka quoted ("a glowing field of magical energy") had anything to do with Astral perception / assensing, then that text would appear in the description of every sustained spell and would be redundant: the rules already make it clear each spell is "a glowing field of magical energy" (or similar) on the astral. The glowing effect is definitely an optical one.

That said, the spell design rules in Magic in the Shadows / Street Magic don't include a discount for "distinctive spell: obvious visual signature" (only one for whether illusions are realistic or not). So there's no real reason why the Armour spell should have a visible glowing field around it. Just take Spell Design knowledge skill in SR3 or Arcana active skill in SR4 and design your own Armour spell that doesn't have the glowing effect. Since spell formulae are often available on the Matrix in SR4, it's plausible some mage out there somewhere has designed and published a less "shoot me first!" version of the spell than appears in the books.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 30 2011, 02:54 AM

See, creating an identical-but-better version of a canon spell is bad. The GM could never allow it; if he wanted that, he'd just houserule the glow away from the real spell. The spell design rules in general are just a mess waiting to happen.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 30 2011, 03:06 AM

Spell design rules are not all that bad. You just need a competant GM to vet the resulting spells.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 30 2011, 03:09 AM

That's more or less the definition of bad rules. They're slightly better than nothing, yes, as long as you do have such a GM.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 30 2011, 03:12 AM

Having played a game where the Spell design rules took up huge sections of the book, I am very happy with the rules in Shadowrun. I will take simplicity over tedious and "realistic" any day.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 30 2011, 05:59 AM

False dilemma. The SR rules aren't simple, they're just incomplete and full of loopholes. They also don't match the canon spells in many cases. I didn't ask for 'realistic' nor huge.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 30 2011, 07:10 AM

Intertsesting because I didn't see many places where the spells differed from the given mechanics. I mainly looked at Combat spells though...

Posted by: Dakka Dakka Aug 30 2011, 01:02 PM

The point is not that you cannot recreate the canon spells with the same drain code but that you can create spells that are more powerful than the canon spells. There is for example the hidden Armor spell or the (Improved) Undetectability Spell. The former has the same drain code as the canon spell. the latter costs a mere +1 drain.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 30 2011, 01:30 PM

That, but I was also under the impression that various combat (esp. Indirect) came out wrong. If I'm mistaken, the other problems still exist.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 30 2011, 03:59 PM

They didn't from what I saw. The way to "fix" them, and the way they run at my tables, is to switch the drain code for Direct and Indirect in the spellcraft rules. It comes out to all Indirect spells get -2 DV and all Direct get +2 DV, making Indirect more desirable.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 30 2011, 04:00 PM

Which is why you have the spells vetted. Either do not allow the "More Powerful for same Drain Code" spells, or increase the drain. Why is that so hard? AS I said before, having a system where everything is delineated, and everything is codified, casues just as many, if not more, problems. I think the Shadowrun Spell System is very simplistic and quite easy. Can you get Edge cases out of it? Sure. But that applies to any system. Use some common sense to bring custom spells in line with the Canon Spells and you should have absolutely no problems whatsoever.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 30 2011, 04:44 PM

TJ, again, that's exactly my point. The spell rules shouldn't require direct GM interaction to fix the problems inherent in the spell rules. Fixing this issue would *not* require some superhuman complexity, which you keep implying. I *agree* the GM can handle this, just like the GM can handle *every* conceivable issue; that's saying nothing.

A good customization system, by definition, shouldn't allow unacceptable things in the first place. If the vehicle mod rules didn't have any restrictions on weapon mount count or minimum vehicle size, the GM could still decide in every case. There's no reason to force that, though, when you can just say (Bod/3, round down).

Posted by: hermit Aug 30 2011, 04:55 PM

Hrm, that could work, even though it uses stuff from Bogota! and hence opens a wholly new can of worms.


My bad, I mixed this up with the cap on skill+bonus.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 30 2011, 04:59 PM

Well it uses the name/fluff from something from WAR!, the mechanic was changed drastically. If you're afraid of someone taking liberties and claiming if you allow that the rest of WAR! should be allowed, it's not hard to change the name to something else.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 30 2011, 05:01 PM

"Flexicloth."

Posted by: hermit Aug 30 2011, 09:30 PM

SecureTech Plus

Even though Slow was simply cut from the German release, there's still enough crap in this book, yeah. But a name change and changed mechanic might work ok. Will propose this to the group.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 30 2011, 09:49 PM

Angryyyyfaaaaaaace.

The plural of "bonus" is "bonuses", not "boni." Boni is a totally different - and latin - word. I know this is anal of me but it drives me crazy every time I see it, like the fad of calling multiple boxes "boxen" in the late 90s was to computer nerds.

Continue calling it boni if you like, but I wanted to point this out on the off chance people didn't know.

Posted by: pbangarth Aug 31 2011, 01:10 PM

Good for you, Adarael. Someone has to keep the language pure.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 31 2011, 03:37 PM

Wait? English was ever pure?

I thought she was the dockside doxy of the linguistic world, rolling her johns for spare words they had in their pockets?

Posted by: Neraph Aug 31 2011, 03:38 PM

I like following the law, so language rules are always intertesting to me. I figure most people on the internet can't spell so it doesn't surprise me when I see them use incorrect spelling and grammar.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 31 2011, 03:41 PM

After working tech support, I'm surprised people remember how to breathe and work the "Funny Picture Box That Makes The World Come To Me, And Where I'm Always Right".

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 31 2011, 03:47 PM

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology!

Posted by: CanRay Aug 31 2011, 03:53 PM

"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 31 2011, 03:57 PM

For the life of me I can't remember the quote correctly or who said it (Terry Pratchett?) but it went something like:
"English is that language that lures other languages into a dark ally, beats them over the head, and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

Edit, found it.
"English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows other languages down dark alleys and knocks them over and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

Posted by: Neraph Aug 31 2011, 03:57 PM

The philosophy I use is this: a word is simply a sequence of sounds meant to convey a meaning. Regardless of what sequence of sounds I make (and phonectically make through typing on the internet), if I mean to convey a certain meaning and that meaning is conveyed, I just used a word.

That being said, whenever possible I like to try and use the more common, "official list", as it were.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 31 2011, 03:58 PM

Somebody on the forums here has it in his sig... TJ?

EDIT: Yeah, TJ has it and he's the first poster on this page.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 31 2011, 04:05 PM

Hey, I didn't even notice.
And it's sourced, too!

Posted by: CanRay Aug 31 2011, 04:06 PM

Cribhouse whore, dockside doxy, same-difference.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 31 2011, 05:12 PM

No, it's not equally valid. It's as valid as saying the plural of bonus is "buttsex", because I said it was. In order for a word to be "correct" it has to be generally accepted by the public at large. Boni as plural of bonus is restricted to gamers and nerds, in my experience. It's certainly not accepted as a pluralization by any dictionary - and if it ain't in the dictionary, you can't call it correct, because it means it hasn't been widespread enough to be included in the public record.

Edit: if we wanna get correct and say we're speaking latin, bonus has to be bona, as bonus is gendered. Then the plural becomes bonum.

Posted by: suoq Aug 31 2011, 05:31 PM

Provably false. The words at http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html are "correct" and generally unknown by the public at large. Some words grow in popularity (such as "labelmate" and "manga" and eventually get put into the dictionary along with other perfectly cromulent words.


By your own logic, in order to be included in the public record, it needs to have widespread use first. That means widespread use of "incorrect" words needs to be acceptable for the language to evolve. Since language is clearly evolving, you may want to rethink what you mean by "correct". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 31 2011, 05:39 PM

I was gonna respond to Adarael, but I'm good with suoq's answer. I won't have to repeat any of it.

I will add this: dictionaries are not special. They do not determine, prove, or dictate what's 'real', 'right', etc. I also think you're misunderstanding my use of 'valid': all words are equally invalid, so it doesn't matter. You can only talk about how useful (==used) they are, which is not correlated to the nonexistent 'validity'. You're not wrong that language is democratic and mass use matters, but you're forgetting that every conceivable subgroup votes separately and repeatedly. Maybe my brother and I use 'fratzit', my soccer friends all say 'boogle', and my whole town says 'snarpull'… but all of these are miniscule compared to the group that you scoffed at 'gamers and nerds' (whatever the hell that is).

Posted by: Adarael Aug 31 2011, 07:20 PM

False equivalencies. The majority of these words are not and have not ever been adopted into modern English, for one. At one time, they *were* common, which is why they were recorded and put into use. If they were not common, they were at least created according to specific linguistic rules - such as Boustrophedon. My problem with "boni" is that it is based on a misunderstanding of proper language rules, rather than the actual rules. As I mentioned, it should properly be bona -> bonum.

Bonus to boni is a gendered construction which indicates a grouping of *good men*, not additive values.

As to the remainder of these words on the site you linked, they identify specific things. A liripipe identifies a specific thing and therefore must be used to identify it, much like saying "I like that katana" identifies a particular type of sword. Calling a katana a ken may also be correct linguistically, but deciding to call it a japachopper does not suddenly become correct when twenty others decide to use it. At least not until such time that those twenty people become twenty million.

(Labelmate, for the record, is a trademark like Xerox, and therefore is a proper name and *must* be considered a real word consequently.)



Dictionaries recognize and codify accepted public speech. They are determinate in that they react to public language *use*, and thereofre dictate what is "right" far more accurately than personal opinion. And that is why they are valuable in the context of this discussion.

Posted by: Critias Aug 31 2011, 07:24 PM

So, how 'bout those armor ratings, huh? And nice weather lately, don't you think?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 31 2011, 07:28 PM

Nope.

Many 'real words' are based on misunderstandings; this isn't a reason for or against them.

If 20 people use it, it's 'correct'.

Anyone can write a dictionary, or publish one. Just like the words themselves, they have only the value people give them, and 'more value' isn't really better anyway. Just like the words themselves, a given dictionary can be used by 20 or 20 million. It's true that dictionaries react (… usually) to actual language use, so they're not worthless. They're just not *special*, as I explained. A google search is as 'good' as a dictionary. UrbanDictionary is as good as the OED, in terms of 'worthiness'.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 31 2011, 07:29 PM

Isn't that how the Merriam Webster dictionary came about (at least, the same process)?

Posted by: suoq Aug 31 2011, 07:46 PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labelmate

It's in the dictionary. Clearly you've never heard of the word under the meaning in the dictionary. Willing to bet the majority of the public also doesn't know the word.

What you believe is not necessarily knowledge.

Posted by: suoq Aug 31 2011, 07:46 PM

D.P.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 31 2011, 08:11 PM

I admit, I am not familiar with this meaning. I don't think I've heard it outside the context of the trademark.

But what I believe is that Labelmate would be a real word regardless of appearing in the dictionary, since it's a proper name. Which is also true.

Anyway. Back to discussing armor.

Posted by: hermit Aug 31 2011, 08:29 PM

How often did distressed people confess to you they deleted the internet?


Not to mention English has strong dialects and no centrally instituted orthography (unlike other multinationally spoken languages like German or French), and hardly any dependable grammatical rules (including plurals). Keeping English pure is a futile effort anyway, even more than in German, or French.


Boni clearly is the most commonly spoken version of Latin, bad Latin. Also, it follows one of the several German plural rules (which hardly any native speaker manages these days, yet we expect poor foreigners to know so they can be naturalised).

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 31 2011, 09:26 PM

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg and then skip to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTBsm0LzSP0.

Posted by: hermit Aug 31 2011, 09:36 PM

Priceless.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 31 2011, 11:15 PM

It's my favorite TV show of all time.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 31 2011, 11:24 PM

"Why is no one laughing?"

Because they all have MBAs!

Posted by: Neraph Sep 1 2011, 01:18 AM

To all those that were speaking of words: http://www.waywordradio.org/.

Posted by: Draco18s Sep 1 2011, 02:48 AM

You have NO idea. One professor (who teaches MBA students) didn't even know what room he taught in. Once tried to tell me that he was in a room on a floor that didn't exist of a building he wasn't in.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 1 2011, 02:51 AM

I did tech support for over two years, taught most of my teachers how to use computers in High School, and was stuck in one business course in College which taught me all I ever needed to know...

That I never, ever wanted to take another one ever again.

Posted by: Draco18s Sep 1 2011, 03:21 AM

At least you never got to the "Ethics of..." courses. Not that I took them, but a friend did. They're not about having good morals, they're how to go about pinning the blame on someone else so that your company takes as little PR flak as possible.

Oh, and there's one course that they take twice (it's got different numbers, but is essentially the same thing): design a company and simulate its growth for the semester. As a freshman, everyone manages to go bankrupt (just about, anyway, as no one knows what they're doing). As seniors they've learned what it takes to succeed.

My friend made a multi-million dollar company as a freshman. His strategy: "Be WalMart. Sell for less than cost, drive the competition out of business, then once that's done, skyrocket the price."

Posted by: CanRay Sep 1 2011, 03:23 AM

And people wonder how we got into the situation we're currently in economically...

Posted by: Draco18s Sep 1 2011, 03:37 AM

Indeed.

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Sep 1 2011, 05:39 AM

For the OP I'd go with steampunk line overcoat+pants or shirt for 4/4 armor then level 2 form fitting for another 4/1 armor but still only 6 armor worth of encumbrance. Add in secure tech forearm and shin guards for another 2 impact and you would be at 8/7 armor. Not bad and it would all be fairly subtle. If you have access to the fashion spell you can get by with just that, without it I feel the need for around 3 sets of armor to fit into different situations. High fashion armor doesn't blend to well in the barrens. For 2 backup outfits outside the steampunk, 2 different sets of Victory line heavy armor clothing provide 4/2 so you would lose 2 impact and be at 8/5 if the rest were the same. But you could have Heavy Armor clothing wage slave outfit, heavy armor clothing physical labor outfit. With the steampunk rounding out your fancy side, that would cover most situations.

Posted by: Fatum Sep 1 2011, 08:53 PM

Pah, "I deleted the internet" is one of the least complex support requests I've encountered. At least the user knows what's wrong, what happened, and the desired result.
Now, when it comes to "I uh... I can't find that thingy, you know, the blue one up there in the upper left corner of my display, do something!", - it gets a little bit funnier. But most users just go "Everything's not working, immediately fix!"

Posted by: Draco18s Sep 1 2011, 08:58 PM

"I...I...it's not working! *click*"

Same guy as the guy who told me he was in a room that couldn't possibly exist (fortunately we knew who it was and what the problem was, as by this point he was having the same issue every week for over a month).

Posted by: Bodak Sep 1 2011, 11:31 PM

... even if what they have said makes no sense and has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually went wrong, what happened, and the desired result.

Posted by: Draco18s Sep 1 2011, 11:41 PM

Actually it is pretty clear what the guy did. He deleted his Internet Explorer icon.

Posted by: Seerow Sep 1 2011, 11:43 PM

That's a pretty big assumption. He COULD be a master hacker who literally deleted the entirety of the internet, then thought a random tech support guy could undo it. You never know!




Hrm.... this sounds like a fun character concept. I want to play a hacker who believes the Matrix is evil, and his goal is to crash the Matrix entirely and free humanity from... wait this sounds familiar...

Posted by: Bodak Sep 1 2011, 11:59 PM

It sounded to me like he had moved the shortcut to his web-browser to the bin. If that's the case, it isn't deleted; the program it links to isn't deleted either; neither the shortcut nor the program it links to are a global network infrastructure itself, even if they graphically lay out resources stored on such an infrastructure, such as text and image files transferred via http and ftp.

It's like if someone phones you up saying they have destroyed all the roads in the world when all they have actually done is lost the keys to their car that allows them to drive on those roads. They've totally misdiagnosed what's wrong, what happened, and the desired result.

Posted by: Draco18s Sep 2 2011, 12:02 AM

I did say "icon." 99% of the time the one on the desktop (which is a shortcut).

Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2011, 01:16 AM

No, they wanted to undo the Matrix as it was the shackles that held Loki and start Ragnarok.

Posted by: Fatum Sep 2 2011, 06:17 AM

Look, users are bad at explaining their problems. They call their Internet Explorer shortcut "the Internet" and their PC "a processor", 90% of them don't know about Ctrl+F, and such.
But diagnosing what is actually happening is not a user's job, at least not for the majority of users. That's what tech support is there for. That's what they (hey, not "we" now!) are paid for. The users care naught for the network infrastructure, what they care about is clicking the familiar-looking shortcut and receiving their pictures of cats with funneh captions (or work-related information, supposedly).
In the given example, the user is at least capable of describing the problem he's experiencing understandably - he is unable to access the internet because he can't find the shortcut he usually clicks for that, and he supposes that it's gone because of his previous actions, - and once you understand what's wrong, actually solving the problem is the easiest part of the job, especially if you can walk over or connect remotely.
The problems are very rarely so clearly described with typical users. "That... uh... thingy you installed... is not working... I can't do my job, the whole company depends on it, fix it fix it fixitfixitfixitfixit!" is a more typical description.
If you don't have a lot of patience, tech support is not a job for you.