 Rules Question: Specializations and the Pool Cap |
  |
 Oct 17 2005, 10:01 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872  |
and the problem with adept abilities is it specifically gives its own cap of x2 the skill. Since you can have up to your skill level in adept bonus dice. Not up to 1/2 your skill level, so it may use the correct wording, though even that is poorly worded to show that, but it is an exception that goes past the x1.5.
|
 |
 
|
|
Oct 17 2005, 10:06 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
If that is the case (which it might be, I'm away from my book), then currently no augmentation works on Skills; but as I said elsewhere regarding the errata, if you want the fully monty you'll have to wait for the official update (or mail Rob Boyle once he gets back from Germany). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 17 2005, 10:56 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That is what I have been saying for a while. There is nothing in SR4 (so far) that is subject to the Augmentation Cap, as far as Skills are concerned. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 17 2005, 11:21 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 268 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Brisbane, Australia Member No.: 78 |
Which in turn is what I basically said in my very first reply to this thread :)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 01:33 AM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Yeah I know, but for some reason people keep on arguing with us about it. :spin: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 18 2005, 02:25 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I think they left out the word 'base' where i put in the underline. Especially considering that elsewhere it is explicitly mentioned that some Adept powers do come under the modified skill cap. Likely they intended to imply "base" given the last paragraph on page 106 refers to the natural Skill as the "rating". But the stuff that is capped at 1.5*Skill is refered to as "modified ratings" and in that context one paragraph later on page 109 they refer to what they called "ratings" before as "base ratings". Thus confusion. The book's terminology use regarding skills seems for-crap sloppy. The BBB has viciously vague wording in places, and the area of Skill cap is probably the most problematic since it's impact is so far reaching. You have to stop literal rules reading it and try to extract the intent, which seems to be inline what Synner has suggested in past threads. *shrug* In short to get Skill caps you must stop reading through the eyes of a lawyer and instead get your Rules Zen on. :wobble: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 18 2005, 03:29 AM
Post
#32
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 268 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Brisbane, Australia Member No.: 78 |
That still doesn't address the fact that the adept ability explicitly limits the maximum number of dice to your current rating in the skill, which is an outright and explicit contradiction to the 1.5x cap.
Which is again, what I basically said in my first post :) I have no intention of playing the skill rules as they are written, but more as I think they were /meant/ to be written :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 18 2005, 03:52 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
My houserules on the subject are that the augmented maximum is 3 more than your base skill.
Specializations count as part of the base skill. Adept Bonus Skill Dice count against the augmented cap. Bioware reflex recorders do as well. So does the Analyze Device spell. That seems to behave about how the rules imply they were intended to function. That's just a house rule, however. -Frank |
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 05:32 AM
Post
#34
|
|||||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
1) I have already discussed in previous threads the possible typo error (missing a single word). That Skill caps are based on the natural maximum, not current base ranking, given that the former meshes better with the examples. 2) If there are two limits in effect, and one is never reached because of another? *shrug* It isn't the only place that you'll find this logical artifact. In this case even more understable given that, IIRC, limiting the power's dice to the Skill rating is a copy-paste from SR3, right?
However in this case it is incorrect to assert that the RAW definatively states that Improved [edit]Ability[/edit] dice do not count towards the Skill cap. So in that case you actually get to play them as written. Well, hopefully with a bit less confusion anyway. ;) EDIT: @Rotbart van Dainig :P |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 18 2005, 05:47 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 268 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Brisbane, Australia Member No.: 78 |
They will certainly count in my games, but I still don't know that I agree that I'm reading the rules as written incorrectly :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 18 2005, 06:11 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
They don't, but thats implicit. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 18 2005, 07:29 AM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
You are floating down the river in Egypt? :D |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 18 2005, 07:55 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
No, I'm not NightRain. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 08:08 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 268 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Brisbane, Australia Member No.: 78 |
That one went straight over my head... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 18 2005, 08:27 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
'de Nile of course. :please:
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 08:32 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 268 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Brisbane, Australia Member No.: 78 |
So he was asking me if I was in denial? What's with the question mark? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 10:59 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,665 Joined: 26-April 03 From: Sweden Member No.: 4,516 |
don't mind me...I'm tired...
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 03:36 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
That's the definition of a modified skill, though.
I'm at a loss as to why adepts can get a power that's capped at 200% when a fundamental rule says 150%. My two guesses are: 1) Maybe the extra 50% is meant as a "debuff buffer," letting you offset some skill penalties by burning the skill buff first before eating into the 150% cap. 2) Maybe the original skill cap was 200% and the adept power writeup wasn't corrected before the printing. I find this more likely than #1. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 18 2005, 03:43 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Or the two rules were written without the people writing them ever referring to each other. This dismays me, because something as far-reaching as a total cap on all Skill and Attribute modifiers certainly *should* be mentioned to everyone, but it doesn't surprise me.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18 2005, 11:47 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,665 Joined: 26-April 03 From: Sweden Member No.: 4,516 |
...or, as was suggested, the 200% cap on Improved Ability is simply a 'cut-n-paste' from SR3 (and probably not the only one...)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 19 2005, 01:27 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
*cough*spirit stats*cough* :(
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 19 2005, 04:54 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
The entire Spirit rules (as far as stats go) need a good overhaul. They are just way too powerful on a number of levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 20 2005, 03:39 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 17-December 04 Member No.: 6,886 |
Considering that we have a large number of posting all basically coming to different interpretations (the only two that agree are of the opinion that the cap doesn't actually apply to anything yet :wobble: ) I can safely say
For the love of Pete, who can we get to straighten this out? With a _lot_ of examples? I can understand happy rules, but this is one area the language needs to be consistant and precise over the whole ruleset. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 20 2005, 04:53 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
What we agree on is that currently there are no skill modifiers as listed that count towards the Augmented Cap. This is based on reading the rules, and the words of Synner, one of the Freelancers, and his relaying of the words from Rob, the Line Director. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 20 2005, 06:29 AM
Post
#50
|
|||||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872 |
or maybe adepts should just get a bigger cap. There paying .5 magic for a specific skill bonus, things like the reflex recorder cost .2 essense for a skill group bonus. Who would I want to have a higher cap the guy paying .5 for pistols or the guy paying .2 for firearms.. Now the magic stat is effectively unlimited so in the incredibly long run that .5 is effectively cheaper but still it would take lots of initiation and magic stat increases to get to that point. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th July 2026 - 06:34 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.