Hardliner Gloves, Hardliner Gloves question Options

[Ol' Scratch]

Except Personalized Grip specifically states "melee weapons that include a handle or grip" with "grip" being used contextually to mean something you hang on to while using the weapon (so don't bother trying that argument (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ). Toxins can be used with practically anything, weapon or otherwise.

[Yerameyahu]

I'm not trying it, but I guarantee that others do. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You're gripping the glove, after all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Think of the context, man. There is literally no shame.

[Makki]

ofc i wont wear the glove, but gripping it at the end and slapping people!

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well fact is:
By RAW its allowed. (I haved waited long for saying this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )
Your decision is a houserule.

You are as always free to house rule anyway you like, but by RAW absolutely anythink can be made into a weapon focus.
There is no limit on what item can be made into what kind of foci.

SHOW me where it says that you can use ANYTHING for a weapon Focus... Give me a Quote.

Despite The fact that I think that Enchanting a Chainsaw is Stupid and ignorant, it remains a weapon, so in that regard, yes, it would be a bias on my part. And one that I would enforce. But there is NOTHING in any of the books that I have seen that says you can enchant ANYTHING into a Weapon Focus. By its very definition it must be a weapon to be a weapon focus.

FOCI in general can be crafted from anything, Weapon Foci (Specific) must be a weapon. Not a House Rule unless you can prove it is. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Makki]

what about the Improvised Weapons table? sure, a sausage is not a weapon, but my pen or my chair can be...

[Mardrax]

Give the sausage to a throwing adept, however...

[Inncubi]

It's generally not a good idea to make such a monstrous blunder when trying to act like a grammar or spelling Nazi. No one ever makes typing mistakes or accidentally jumbles words. Ever

Also, it's "incubi" not "inncubi." If, you know, we're going to be nitpicky jerks.

That said, I'm confused by how you think a lack of using two-weapon techniques in unarmed combat stops someone from making a Drizzt clone. How, exactly, does that work?

My nick's spelling was made intentionally. It avoids putting names into it. But thanks for pointing it out.

I am one of the worst typing mistake makers. Then again when they are pointed out I don't get angry, and I think my post lacks any nazi nitpicking about jumbled or mistakenly typed words. I tried to be clear about that, seems it failed utterly.
To be clear, there was no nazi-jerk undertone when explaining how some words are written. Simply wanted to point this out.

And the part about Drizzt is simply a joke...

[Sephiroth]

FOCI in general can be crafted from anything, Weapon Foci (Specific) must be a weapon. Not a House Rule unless you can prove it is. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

False! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There is not a single line anywhere in either SM or SR4A that says that a weapon focus must be a weapon. Only one that says it requires a complex action to use, just like any other melee weapon.

BUT HEY! You know what IS a melee weapon? A brick! You know what else? A laser welder! You know what else? A chair! You know what else? A potted plant! You know what else? A metahuman body! They all appear in tables of melee weapons, they even all have their own weapon stats (well, except for the brick...). They all qualify as weapons, and therefore as weapon foci. And you know what else qualifies as a weapon...

Exotic Melee Weapon Reach Damage AP
Monofilament Chainsaw 1 5P –2

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

And a stupid one, so let them have it. Better off with a monowhip or something… like a gun.

[Ol' Scratch]

False! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There is not a single line anywhere in either SM or SR4A that says that a weapon focus must be a weapon. Only one that says it requires a complex action to use, just like any other melee weapon.

The problem comes from the implication of lines like "the damage of the weapon is the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world." It also means that a single weapon focus can be used with any combat skill, since its the adept/magician being augmented by the focus rather than a specific weapon, which clearly isn't the intention of the rules. (I, personally, house rule it so that it works exactly like that, but trying to say that's what the rules intend is pretty much dead wrong.)

There's also the simple fact that every single weapon focus mentioned in the game is an actual weapon.

[Sephiroth]

The problem comes from the implication of lines like "the damage of the weapon is the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world." It also means that a single weapon focus can be used with any combat skill, since its the adept/magician being augmented by the focus rather than a specific weapon, which clearly isn't the intention of the rules. (I, personally, house rule it so that it works exactly like that, but trying to say that's what the rules intend is pretty much dead wrong.)

There's also the simple fact that every single weapon focus mentioned in the game is an actual weapon.

This is where a player has his GM take the closest thing from the improvised weapons table to <insert desired weapon here> and adjust the stats and negative modifiers as appropriate, as per RAW on pg 17 of Arsenal. And no, it can't be used with any combat skill, it can only be used with one, as per pg 17.

[Ol' Scratch]

If you're allowing "anything" to be a weapon focus, that implies that you're allowing "anything" to be a weapon focus. From a melee weapon, to a weapon's hilt, to a silk glove, to a necklace, to an eyepatch, to... well, "anything." Which means you are, or at least were even if unintentionally, saying that the focus is augmenting the adept and their use of a weapon skill rather than a specific weapon.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

BUT HEY! You know what IS a melee weapon? A brick! You know what else? A laser welder! You know what else? A chair! You know what else? A potted plant! You know what else? A metahuman body! They all appear in tables of melee weapons, they even all have their own weapon stats (well, except for the brick...). They all qualify as weapons, and therefore as weapon foci. And you know what else qualifies as a weapon...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

And you will notice that I acknowleged a Monofilament Chainsaw as a Weapon, just not one that I would approve as a Weapon Focus. There is Ignorance, and then there is moronic ignorance (Not aimed at anyone, just a comment) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for Any of the "Improvised" weapons on the aforementioned Table; Moronic and Ignorant. Improvised means at hand, not "I am going to spend thousands of Nuyen and possibly weeks, if not months, constructing a Weapon Focus Brick to make it a better weapon for splitting spirits' skulls." Are you really telling me that you would allow such a stupid idea to even take hold at your table?

[James McMurray]

And you will notice that I acknowleged a Monofilament Chainsaw as a Weapon, just not one that I would approve as a Weapon Focus. There is Ignorance, and then there is moronic ignorance (Not aimed at anyone, just a comment) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for Any of the "Improvised" weapons on the aforementioned Table; Moronic and Ignorant. Improvised means at hand, not "I am going to spend thousands of Nuyen and possibly weeks, if not months, constructing a Weapon Focus Brick to make it a better weapon for splitting spirits' skulls." Are you really telling me that you would allow such a stupid idea to even take hold at your table?

I'm not Sephiroth, but I'd allow it in a heartbeat. I try not to screw my viking hat on too tight when I GM. It's "our table" not "my table." If they want something ludicrous and it's within the rules, they're welcome to go for it. They might lose some street cred or get laughed at by people they respect if it's something really silly, but I see no reason to flat out forbid something just because I'm not a fan of it.

[Adarael]

Really, all it seems to take to make a focus of any kind is to have the requisite materials and make the rolls. I mean, functionally the difference between a Weapon Focus rolling pin and a weapon focus club is near zero - both are made of wood (usually) and are used to hit people in the head.

As to how foci work, and Ol Scratch's comment about a weapon focus enhancing the adept and not the weapon, and not the weapon skill... yes, exactly. That is *precisely* what a Weapon Focus does. It enhances the person bonded to it, not the actual weapon itself. Witness that a focus does no extra damage, has no extra AP, and has no special effects other than "extra dice" for the person bonded to it. And if someone not bonded to it picks it up? It's every bit as good or crappy as a mundane equivalent to it. Further evidence of this: if I make a weapon focus bayonet, right, and I stab you with it, I'm rolling AGI+Blades+Weapon Focus Force, because it's a knife. If I attach it to a pole, or a rifle, I'll be rolling polearms, because it doesn't magically shut off once I snap it on. It doesn't enhance my skills seperately. It doesn't even enhance itself. It just makes me, the whole unit of me, better at stabbing.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's what all foci do, definitionally: improve the owner's ability to perform certain tasks, but not the owners *skill* at those tasks.

[Ol' Scratch]

Erm, no.

Weapon Foci definitely improves the weapon, allowing its wielder to use it more effectively in combat. The bonding simply "awakens" the magic within the weapon. Using your logic, one could bond to a weapon focus, keep it sheathed, and just use another weapon in its stead... which most definitely isn't the intent anymore than allowing someone to use an amulet as one.

[Adarael]

I think you're thinking about this wrong. It's a matter of opinion on the metaphysics, and I believe there is more evidence to support my view than yours. Here's why:

A weapon focus, as I have pointed out, is no more damaging, armor penatrating, or special than a mundane weapon of the same base material. You gain nothing but bonus dice on attack rolls made with that weapon. Ergo, the weapon itself cannot be considered special save as for how it interacts with the owner's attack rolls. You're trying to put words in my mouth about "by my logic". That is not my logic at all. The rules are explicit: any attack or defense roll made using the weapon focus are increased by a number of dice equal to the weapon focus's rating. So you obviously, patently, can't use a different weapon and gain the bonus dice from the focus. However, consider this: no other focus requires you to 'use' it, because they can take the form of whatever the hell you want. A ring. A feather wrapped with wire. A wand. A cube of metal. Hell, a rabbit's foot. The shape and form of the object doesn't matter, because the magic isn't enhancing the ITEM'S ability to do whatever. No item adds dice to drain tests like a Drain Focus. No item adds magic like a Power Focus. Ergo, foci add power to their wielder, within their symbolic purview: the foot grants power, the ring grants clarity, the sword grants skill. But the items themselves are special only insofar as their ability to boost their owner's power. Not in and of themselves.

[Sephiroth]

I'm not Sephiroth, but I'd allow it in a heartbeat. I try not to screw my viking hat on too tight when I GM. It's "our table" not "my table." If they want something ludicrous and it's within the rules, they're welcome to go for it. They might lose some street cred or get laughed at by people they respect if it's something really silly, but I see no reason to flat out forbid something just because I'm not a fan of it.

Exactly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And you will notice that I acknowleged a Monofilament Chainsaw as a Weapon, just not one that I would approve as a Weapon Focus. There is Ignorance, and then there is moronic ignorance (Not aimed at anyone, just a comment) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As for Any of the "Improvised" weapons on the aforementioned Table; Moronic and Ignorant. Improvised means at hand, not "I am going to spend thousands of Nuyen and possibly weeks, if not months, constructing a Weapon Focus Brick to make it a better weapon for splitting spirits' skulls." Are you really telling me that you would allow such a stupid idea to even take hold at your table?

Tymeaus, you seem to need reminding of the Zeroth Rule Above All Rules, One Rule to Rule Them All and In the Darkness Bind Them:

Thou shalt have fun.

Words like 'moronic' and 'ignorant,' with all their prejudiced and arrogant connotations, are not befitting for someone in a role that requires as much objectivity as GMing.

A weapon focus brick is an extreme case, and there are many and much better options available, but if a player truly wishes to have a character proficient in the wielding of an enchanted brick than I have no reason as a GM to veto the idea.

[Garvel]

SHOW me where it says that you can use ANYTHING for a weapon Focus... Give me a Quote.

Despite The fact that I think that Enchanting a Chainsaw is Stupid and ignorant, it remains a weapon, so in that regard, yes, it would be a bias on my part. And one that I would enforce. But there is NOTHING in any of the books that I have seen that says you can enchant ANYTHING into a Weapon Focus. By its very definition it must be a weapon to be a weapon focus.

FOCI in general can be crafted from anything, Weapon Foci (Specific) must be a weapon. Not a House Rule unless you can prove it is. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The FAQ says anything can be any focus, there is no restriction.

Can I have _____ as a focus? How much does it cost?

A focus can take any form: a ring, a dagger, a commlink, a cyberlimb, etc. For most foci, it is assumed the cost of the telesma (the physical basis of the focus) is incorporated in the cost of the focus. If the player wants the focus to be anything particularly large or expensive, however, then the cost of the item should be added to the cost of the focus.

Snowblood wants a Force 2 monofilament sword weapon focus; the talismonger tells her it would cost 20,750¥-750¥ for the telesma (monofilament sword) and 20,000¥ for the enchantment (Force 2 weapon focus).

RAW says that anything can be a focus. As long as they don't forbid explicitly non-weapon-stuff to be weapon foci, it isn't forbidden. I don't have to give you a quote were they say that anything can be a weaponfocus.

If you conclude that a weapon-focus has to be a weapon, because it has "weapon" in it's name, you probably conclude that a spirit-focus has to be a spirit too. Ok, probably you wont do that. Because a name is just a name and hasn't any RAW meaning.

FOCI in general can be crafted from anything, Weapon Foci (Specific) must be a weapon.

They don't differentiate foki and weapon-foki. A weaponfokus is a Fokus in general too. Its only special characteristics are, that it gives bonus dice to close combat attacks and it ignores immunity to normal weapons of targets it hits. Note that you can turn a sword into a powerfocus and it still won't ignore immunity to normal weapons.

And it has a good reason that they don't demand that a weaponfocus has to be a weapon. Because almost anything can be a weapon, and it's impossible to draw a sharp line some were. If they did, no one knew what counts as a weapon by raw and what not.
Arsenal page 17

Nearly any apparently harmless object (as well as many that are obviously dangerous) can be used as an improvised weapon when the shit hits the fan.

The Improvised Melee Weapons table offers a sampling of possible weapons and their potential effects.

I know this is total nitpicky RAW and I hate that, but I think it's a legal response if other people try to forbid CS+HLG with arguments like "unarmed combat" isn't "Unarmed Combat" since it hasn't capital letters. (Yes the authors use "unarmed combat" insteat of "Unarmed Combat" to show us what they mean. That's how they work. Of course.)

RAW is really all that matters in this forum

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif)

[tagz]

Really, all it seems to take to make a focus of any kind is to have the requisite materials and make the rolls. I mean, functionally the difference between a Weapon Focus rolling pin and a weapon focus club is near zero - both are made of wood (usually) and are used to hit people in the head.

As to how foci work, and Ol Scratch's comment about a weapon focus enhancing the adept and not the weapon, and not the weapon skill... yes, exactly. That is *precisely* what a Weapon Focus does. It enhances the person bonded to it, not the actual weapon itself. Witness that a focus does no extra damage, has no extra AP, and has no special effects other than "extra dice" for the person bonded to it. And if someone not bonded to it picks it up? It's every bit as good or crappy as a mundane equivalent to it. Further evidence of this: if I make a weapon focus bayonet, right, and I stab you with it, I'm rolling AGI+Blades+Weapon Focus Force, because it's a knife. If I attach it to a pole, or a rifle, I'll be rolling polearms, because it doesn't magically shut off once I snap it on. It doesn't enhance my skills seperately. It doesn't even enhance itself. It just makes me, the whole unit of me, better at stabbing.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's what all foci do, definitionally: improve the owner's ability to perform certain tasks, but not the owners *skill* at those tasks.

Erm, no.

Weapon Foci definitely improves the weapon, allowing its wielder to use it more effectively in combat. The bonding simply "awakens" the magic within the weapon. Using your logic, one could bond to a weapon focus, keep it sheathed, and just use another weapon in its stead... which most definitely isn't the intent anymore than allowing someone to use an amulet as one.

Both seem like possible fluff explanations.

Weapon foci add magical power to an Awakened character's melee attacks.
When used in physical combat, weapon foci grant the character a dice pool modifier to melee attacks equal to their Force. The character still relies on her Physical attributes and skills in combat; the weapon focus merely makes her more effective. This also applies to astrally perceiving characters fighting an opponent on the astral plane. Weapon foci are effective against astral forms and continue to add their Force in dice against such enemies.
An astrally projecting character takes her weapon focus with her to the astral plane. Making an attack with a weapon focus in astral space relies on the character's Astral Combat + Willpower dice pool (see Astral Combat, p 193), but this dice pool is increased by the Force of the weapon focus. The damage of the weapon is the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world.

I bolded the parts that support Adarael'S position, underlined Scratch's. To me, it appears as Adarael's supporting statements are more clear about the intent of the power of the foci being given to the character.

On a personal note I prefer Adarael's view, but I can see where Scratch is coming from.

Using your logic, one could bond to a weapon focus, keep it sheathed, and just use another weapon in its stead... which most definitely isn't the intent anymore than allowing someone to use an amulet as one.

As far as I can tell from RAW, that looks to be a valid interpretation. At least with it's use on the physical plane. The RAW says that it enhances the dice pool of the character's melee attacks when used, not the melee attacks made with that weapon focus. "When used" can easily be interpreted as "when used as a weapon" or as "when activated as a foci", making no distinction. Course, we all know what the RAI is but there is a valid RAW interpretation that allows weapon foci to enhance physical attacks when it is just active. Can't be done on astral targets, the underlined line takes care of that, sorta. Silliness.

[Ol' Scratch]

You didn't emphasize the most important line in the rules: "The damage of the weapon is the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world." Considering you can't take a mundane sword with you when you project, or that it doesn't do jack squat to astral forms while dual-natured, that line doesn't make a lot of sense with your interpretations.

[tagz]

In what way? I never said it was a mundane weapon, or behaved like one.

The weapon has an astral form. That form is naturally as strong as it's physcal counterpart. This fact is not mutually exclusive with your interpretation.

Please explain how the weapon having an astral form means that the dice added are only a reflection of the weapon's effectiveness and cannot possibly be a reflection of an increase in effectiveness of the character using it.

[Ol' Scratch]

I think we're talking at cross points here. What I was saying in the things you quoted from me is that the weapon itself must be the focus, courtesy of the very last line of the description for Weapon Foci. Namely because there's no way for mundane weapons to work as described unless they, themselves, are the focus and thus have an astral form. So no, you won't benefit from a sheathed Katana Weapon Focus when wielding another weapon. The bond between a Weapon Focus and its wielder is where the bonuses comes from as they work in synergy with each other. Without one, the other is just a regular schlub. This is a unique trait of Weapon Foci.

If one piece of the rule doesn't work, none of it does. You can't pick and choose what to use and what to ignore if you're going to cite the rules in question.

[tagz]

Yes, I fully accept that as RAI. As it should be.

RAW however, there's wiggle room. The weapon having the same damage as it's physical counterpart doesn't mean anything in terms of rules beyond that the weapon has the same damage code in the astral as it does in the meat. Anything else is extrapolation made from out of nowhere. While RAI is clear in the intent that you strike with the weapon, RAW offers no such requirement.

The rule in question basically means that if I strike with the weapon focus it will use it's damage code in the astral plane. It doesn't change anything else, so no other weapon magically granted a form or anything like that. But for adding the extra dice, all that is required is that it is "in use". Again, valid interpretations are "using the weapon focus as a weapon" or "the weapon foci is activated". So, by the second interpretation you COULD use a mundane sword on the physical with the benifit of the weapon foci's dice, it adds to melee attacks without distinction (though it SHOULD say "made with the weapon foci", by RAI).

Couldn't do that for astral, the mundane sword isn't there, obviously. You could punch while perceiving (I suppose a phys-adept might want to do this) or using Astral Combat if you're projecting (though I don't see why you wouldn't want the benefit of the weapon's damage code in this case), again the rules for weapon foci fail to require the foci be the weapon making the attack, only it's "use" in combat. Which is open to interpretation.

Don't get me wrong, I think that interpretation is foolish and won't be using it. I'm just saying it's a valid way to view the rule.

[stu_pie]

Thanks to everyone who posted, after reading through all the rules and lookin at balance, I dont think HLG do stack but thinks like bone lacing and bone spikes would (because it part of you). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)