 Monofiliment Whip Weapon Foci?, yay or nay? |
  |
 Dec 3 2005, 02:23 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226  |
Something started on another thread that seemed to be taking it off subject.
Besides, being no specific rules against it. I could see it as being possible. Any special weapon materials needed for the weapon foci could be in the handle and weight. A thin mystical link could run along the wire between the two. Causing it to have enchanted properties. |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 02:32 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
I think rules wise it is technically possible, but would be very difficult to make, difficult to find, expensive to bond, expensive to make, much more expensive to buy, and make you quite the target for everyone else who wanted one.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 02:47 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
thats the fun bit |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 02:54 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,479 Joined: 6-May 05 From: Idaho Member No.: 7,377 |
There are no specific rules that bar my street sam from being able to shoot lasers from his eyes....Nowhere in the book does it say I can't do that...
Regardless of that, in my opinion I think it would be okay to have a mono-whip focus.... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:10 AM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Actually, there is a book (M&M) that says that you can do exactly that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:18 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019 |
M&M?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:22 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 21-October 05 From: In a Starbucks™ café near you Member No.: 7,870 |
Man & Machine.
However, eidolon forgot to mention that it is a 3rd edition book, so its applications in a discussion of 4th edition rules are dubious. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:29 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Apologies. Yes, it is 3rd edition.
I neglected to clarify because I refuse to accept the nonsense level required to "forget" how things have worked in a game world that's been established for years. The world doesn't change just because the target number did. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:40 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 21-October 05 From: In a Starbucks™ café near you Member No.: 7,870 |
You must be bellowing with rage every time you flip the page in the SR4 corebook then. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:59 AM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I did for a while. Then I just stopped trying to think I could ever like any of it. :D
Now I ignore the fact that it exists. Sad in a way, since I'll never be able to just buy myself a shiny new SR sourcebook. Nice in a way, since now I can just write my own and there'll never be an "official" contradiction. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 09:32 AM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Oh, yeah. Take a look at SR1. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 09:46 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Fine, Mr. I like to create an argument of semantics when the point being made was obvious.
The world doesn't regress just because the target number changes. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 09:56 AM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
ah, here's a good answer as in, awakenings page 102.
So you could make a monofilament focus, it'd just act like a piece of string with a wieght at one end and a handle at the other as far as damage to the spirit! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 10:32 AM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
That's: 1. Out of context, because it refers to the "attack of will" action that currently does not exist in SR4. 2. 2nd edition material. We aren't talking about using your willpower to hurt a spirit in melee with a mundane item, we are talking about using a frickin weapon focus. Remember that in 4th edition, the rule that spirits ignored the armor penetrating capabilities of APDS is gone. So a magical monowhip would do the damage of a magical monowhip. And even in 4th edition, the rule you are (mis)quoting only applied to mundane weaponry, not to weapon foci. And indeed, a 4th edition weapon focus says:
-Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 12:41 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
IMHO weapon foci work either because they convey the concept of 'weapon' or because creatures in astral space can still be harmed by the physicality of weapon attacks (IE: they are hurt by being cut/blugdgeoned just like any physical being is hurt). In either case, the fact that different-weapon weapon-foci have different damage codes shows that physically or conceptually different weapons do different amounts of damage.
If both the concept and physicality of the monowhip say that it does 8P damage, then IMHO a monowhip weapon focus should do 8P damage on teh astral plane. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 03:49 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
..you didn't take a look at SR2, did you? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 04:54 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 140 Joined: 26-July 05 From: Calgary Alberta, CANADA Member No.: 7,519 |
Now, it has been a long time, but I thought that in order for weapon focii to be viable (ie, "present" on the other planes) they had to be made of a specified quanitiy of orichalcum. Now I know one could make an orichalcum monogilament, but would it have sufficient material strength to be viable as a monofilament? And if so, would there be suffiecient orichalcum present to be effective in the other planes?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 05:07 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 16-April 02 From: DC Member No.: 2,605 |
I guess it all depends on your view of a weapon focus. In previous editions, weapon foci required orichalcum be present in the weapon. It never explicitly said that the business end of the weapon needed to be made of orichalcum, but many people translated the rules as such. The arguement here over a monofilament whip starts because by definition, the business end of a monofilament whip must be monofilament. I would be inclined to say it is not allowed, but that's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2005, 05:17 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
By RAW you don't need the molecules on the business end per say, and as pointed out in the other thread on this forum that spawned this one the damage isn't the same on the astral as it [remains] on the physical. However exactly what the damage code is is more open to interpretation. P.S. The topic has come up before on DSF, ;) and SR4 doesn't seem to change much outside of having less to say about it since there's there is still only the BBB. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 06:59 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
Contemplate that for a second, the mechanics from previous editions may be out the window but the concepts, ideas remain. Foci have always had to "work" within the aura of the wielder, second Tech in all editions has been rather impervious or immune to most magic (monofilament tech is still considered high tech) The material as it stands you have to let go until a newer book comes out that says something opposite. Just cause we switched to sr4 doesn't mean that submarines don't exist cause it's not in the book yet. Same with how tech and magic works. You can make a monofilament whip, nothing ever has said you can't, but you don't have any nifty thing in the astral with you, and no advantage in the physical world other then more dice to wield it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2005, 07:10 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Look, you understand my point. Stop trying to appear to be clever by posting little "tee-hee-hee" comments. I own multiple copies of the first three editions, and the pdf of the fourth. The mechanics change throughout all editions. That would be the reason they make them. (Well, except for SR$...;)). When they did remove things from the game, technology wise, it was because the game designers had decided they were mechanically broken. However, unlike SR4, the previous editions included reasons in the story (even if they were a bit silly and contrived), and generally the removals weren't overwhelmingly apparent. When they were, or even if you just liked the stuff and wanted it back, you'd just "un-remove" it and make new stats for it for the new edition. That's what I'm saying you should do now. It makes [b]no sense whatsoever[b] that you could get a cybereye laser system five or six years ago, but (in a world of constantly advancing technology) you can't get the same (or better) "now". It's fucking stupid, and I pity the players under any GM that is saying "well...it's not in the 4th edition game, so you can't have it". I'd say I pity that GM for being an idiot too, but I don't. He/she's an idiot. Practically the only excuse for that kind of "OMGzorz it's not in the bookz" defense for not, say, allowing a cybereye laser, is if you just got into the game with SR4 and don't know any better. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 4 2005, 12:21 AM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 140 Joined: 26-July 05 From: Calgary Alberta, CANADA Member No.: 7,519 |
I admit, I would translate it the same way due to my interpretation that orichalcum doesn't "radiate" in any fashion to make the rest of the weapon effective, otherwise we would see orichalcum based "masers" being used to take out spirits. Also, I personally don't allow monofilament weaponry in the game due to the inherent difficulty involved in controlling and storing such devices. Besides, it just seems so... 80's... yeah. :wobble: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2005, 12:31 AM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
...and that also happens to be exactly the reason they kick so much ass! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2005, 02:57 AM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398 |
I'll point out that if a monofilament wire is some variety of buckytube, it'll be hollow, so you could probably fill it up with orichalcum like milkshake through a straw. The trick would be to do so without breaking the wire, but magic can take care of that pretty easily.
So, I responded with 'Yes'. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 03:32 AM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 16-April 02 From: DC Member No.: 2,605 |
This is what a monofilament whip is made of in shadowrun scroll to bottom, under science fiction I don't think you could "fill" a single strand of molecules with anything. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd May 2024 - 12:26 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.