Combat Sense I can see but you should decide whether you want Increase Reflexes at all. Synaptic Boosters work as well or even better.

LOL "Orichalcum Out The Wazoo", I never read the thread before, thanks for the link!

Welp, there goes my plan for world domination by using an army of ally/task spirits to churn out obscene amounts of orichalcum every month.

Well the spell is good:
Force 3 (3 threshhold) give you +2 Initiative +2 IP.
Force 4 (4 Threshhold) give you +3 Init, +3 IP. Getting 3 successes on a spellcasting+magic isn't THAT hard, you only need a 12 to autobuy, and a 9 to be fairly confident.

It costs you a Force 3 sustaining focus, (which is better than quickening it) because of Wards.
Sustaining Focus bonding is only 6 karma. (and is cheaper via BP) and 30K (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) at 12R (that doesn't even require a restricted Gear quality).

That's really reasonable, compared to: Wired Reflexes2, costing you 3 essence.

That reminds me of when the guy at the customer service counter at Walmart tried to tell me the defective external hard drive I was returning wasn't a computer component it was part of a computer. If it adds to the dice pool what can it be except a modifier? It modifies the pool by adding dice to it.

A skill modifier. It still boosts the dice pool, but only because the skill rating is added to the dice pool. You are literally correct, but where most systems wouldn't bother with a distinction SR definitely does and so 'dice pool modifier' means more than the sum of those three words. For example, muscle replacement modifies lots of dice pools but it is not termed a dice pool modifier.

I agree with you on tradition-specific foci for fluff reasons. It doesn't seem right that a heretic mage would be fine and dandy wielding a tribal mask covered in feathers and pseudo-philosophical poetry. If there is enough of a link to tradition that the form of the focus is entirely dependent on it then it makes sense that the link runs deeper.

That said, I play this one RAW because I believe that works better. Otherwise players are going to be heavily dissuaded from playing the more obscure/foreign traditions for fear of their supply options being limited to non-existent. On top of purchasing issues they would have more trouble selling their old foci (a rare but not unheard-of desire) and any foci they gathered from fallen foes and B&E jobs would be of no interest to them besides the nuyen value. I think it's a lot more interesting to separate them from traditions - still have a broad range of styles and forms that covers all known traditions and then some, but instead of a talismonger's customer saying 'But that's a Wuxing focus!' they'd say 'Have you got one that's a bit less ... Chinesey?'


PS - Thanks Dakka Dakka; that's almost exactly the rebuttal I would have written!

It's more like the distinction between "computer component" and "computer accessory." They're calling a RAM module a mouse.

The writers used imprecise language. You perform two main steps in figuring out how many dice to roll. First, you construct the dice pool out of attribute, skill, specialization, some augmentation bonuses, foci, and probably others I'm not thinking about. Then, you modify the dice pool with situational bonuses and penalties -- visibility, range, some other augmentation bonuses, reach, smartlinks or laser sights, and pretty much anything else that exists in a table.

The problem is that the Shadowrun-specific phrase "Dice Pool Modifier" means the stuff on the situational modifier tables, but it can also be read literally as "anything that adds to or subtracts from the dice pool." Basically, it's the fault of equivocation.

And see, this is where most people who disagree with you do so.

1. Does the XXX modify the Skill Directly? Then it is a Skill Modification. (Some Augmentations, Some Adept Abilities, Magic)
2. Does the XXX modify the Attribute Directly? Then it is an Attribute Modification. (Some Augmentations, Some Adept Abilities, Magic)
3. Does it add DICE to the Pool? Then it is a DICE POOL MODIFIER. (ANYTHING ELSE)

By the book (Ignoring the FAQ), Foci add Dice, not Attribute points or Skill points. Specialties add DICE, NOT SKILL. Smartlink ADDS DICE (If, as you contend, that a smartlink is a dice pool modifier, then so are Foci, since they perform the same function). Visibility Modifiers Remove DICE... These all have to do with DICE, not Skill or Attribute. As such, they are Dice Pool Modifiers.

Seeing a trend here?

Well there's your problem.



Smartlinks are irrelevant, because they can't be used during a split. Comparing something to a smartlink doesn't really work.

For the vast majority of the system, it doesn't matter if a bonus is to an attribute or skill or if it's a dice pool modifier. There are only two clear instances where you split your dice pool. It doesn't matter if your bonus to Athletics is added to the skill rating because of a Reflex Recorder or is a +1 dice pool modifier from having comfortable shoes. You'll never have to split an Athletics pool.

So the very small part where they should have tightened up the language, they didn't. They say things like "provides a bonus." They do not use precise language like "provides a positive dice pool modifier equal to its rating." It's ambiguous.

The FAQ clears up their intent. You're ignoring the developers' intent in order to gain additional power at the table.

And you're doing it in a ludicrous way. Math via your reasoning:

Let's say you have Magic 6 and Spellcasting 6. You take a Specialization in Combat Spells and buy a Power Focus at rating 4. That's 16 dice to cast one spell. Well, you can split that dice pool 6 ways. That gives you 2 dice per spell, plus 6 to each for the specialization and focus, so 8 dice per spell.

Without the rating 4 Power Focus or specialization, you'd have to come up with Magic + Spellcasting = 48 to replicate that. What's the Karma value of that?

Drop the power focus. Just consider the specialization. You split the pool 6 ways again, so you have 6 pools of 4. That's the equivalent of Magic + Spellcasting 24. Not bad for 2 Karma.

Or you could do it the right way, and make people buy multiple foci if they want to do some serious multicasting.

You can't even come close to hitting that kind of abuse with guns. Defending it is ridiculous.

I think automatic weapons and shiva arms with specialties, reflex recorders, and high levels of recoil compensation come close. Getting bonuses to split pools is easier with melee.

Agree to disagree then, because I've had plenty of characters start that way in my games and they did just fine. I also prefer guns over spells for dealing damage, but guns are so narrow in application that I don't think the situation is as ridiculous as you are making it out to be.

According to their other posts, specialization would be a Skill Modification instead of a Dice Pool Modification, so wouldn't those not be used anyway?

That's the very argument at hand. The book says DP modifier, the FAQ says skill modifier, opinion is divided.

And here where you not understanding how the system works shows it self, there's a big difference between those too sources of bonus dice, name the fact that first one is limited by skill*1,5 augmented maximum while latter isn't, meaning if you have skill of 6 the latter can be combined with improved ability power at level 3, while the former caps that power to level 2.

If specialization is a skill modifier and not a dicepool modifier, then you actually need a mimimum skill of 4 to actually get the full +2 benefit and i kinda think thats somethink they would mention in the rules if in fact specialization was a skill modifier like you claim.

Even ingnoring that, adding spec before split can lead to some very wierd situations:
For example my gunslinger has both pistols and automatics at rating 4 with specialisations for semi-automatics and machine pistol respectivly, so now if all he has are non smartlinked pistol and machine pistol, he can actually get 1 extra dice for shooting his machine pistol if he also shoots at something with his pistol at the same time(The pool doesn't have to be split in half, so you can use only one dice for shooting that pistol)

oh, I thought they were only divided about the Foci, not the Specialization.

Actually, it is yours...

Because the rules are so ambiguous, and because there examples do not matrch up, a FAQ is not the way to go. The FAQ actually CHANGES the rules that are right there in the book, as many have said before. Changes are not the domain of an FAQ, but of Errata. Until an Errata comes out, this argument will continue every 2-3 weeks, on one topic or another, because the issue has yet to be FIXED...



Wrong again... You must split pools if you are doing two things simultaneously. Here is an example. Driving and shooting a gun at the same time. You use the LESSER of your Dice Pool, and then split from there. Some towards the Driving and some towards Shooting. Same for Athletics, when you are jumping and shooting at the same time. Split Pools. There are a lot of instances where you may be called upon to split the dice pools. You just apparently do not recognize them as such. As for the Smartlink. A Smartlink will apply to a single target shot, even if you are splitting your pools between shooting and Driving, so it is a relevant point.



No, I am ignoring their attempt to change the rules with a FAQ. Big Difference.



And again you are wrong. As you forget to take into account the drawbacks of splitting those pools. 6 Spells, at a minimum of 7 Drain Each... Please have that character cast those, I really want to watch that character stroke out... You provide examples, without including all the facts. The reason that casters do not split pools 6 ways is because of the Drain, not because they can't.



Just Remember... FAQ's CANNOT CHANGE RULES, ONLY ERRATA CAN...

Is that a rule, or just your own personal FAQ?

Interesting analysis, the numbers make a strong case but they're not enough on their own. Just because option A is greatly more efficient than option B where action X is concerned one can't conclude that one of the options must be erroneous. There are always better and worse ways to do things.

And whilst the ratios presented in your example are extreme, it is an extreme example (that few would survive at reasonable Force) of one sub-aspect of magic. Ultimately it makes for a small incongruence in a very few occasions of a less than usual action. Which is not enough to so conclusively deduce it mustn't be permitted.

Joke all you want, but it is an established fact in the industry.

Guys, we're just talking in circles right past each other, at this point. Is it fair to just say "opinions differ" on this rule, and call it a day? 'Cause personally, I don't see TJ or Epicedion changing one anothers' minds any time soon, and everyone else reading (without a dog in a fight, who may have had their mind changed by this debate) has already read both arguments about six times.

It's how these think work.
Errata is for changing the rules and will always be included into the next printing of the book.
FAQ is for answering question about the rules, based on the rules in the books, sadly this isn't the case with SR4 FAQ, so it's not worth a damm.

Critias, which do you think is better for a combat mage:

Sustaining Focus R3, and the Increased Reflexes spell

Or Wired Reflexes 2

Point Taken Critias... consider me chastised... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

Synaptic Booster?
Wireds cost like 3 times more essence than you can afford to loose

Synaptic Boosters cost you 1 essense, for 160K

That's a LOT of BP/Karma