 Monofiliment Whip Weapon Foci?, yay or nay? |
  |
 Dec 4 2005, 04:31 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019  |
But nanotubes, which ARE real, are tubes of carbon atoms linked together more strongly than carbon atoms in diamond. So, is you decide to use real-world science instead of Larry Niven science, you'll be fine.
|
 |
 
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 04:33 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
I'm not sre about SR4 but it SR3 weapon foci didn't need orichalcum at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 05:36 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
Say what~!? you're freaking retarded if you think weapon foci didn't use orichalium in sr3.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 05:51 AM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
I guess a lot of people are just retarded then. While the basic book of SR3 states that
The advanced enchanting rules declare the use of orichalcum as optional, and give a discount on enchanting foci (including weapon foci) if you use it. So no, the orichalcum is not required. If you use the rules for making magic items at all, you can make weapon foci that don't have orichalcum in their construction (it just costs more Karma than the example Weapon Foci in the basic book). -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 4 2005, 08:37 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 21-October 05 From: In a Starbucks™ café near you Member No.: 7,870 |
Ouch, right in the nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 09:12 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 3-October 05 From: Ann Arbor, MI Member No.: 7,803 |
I will admit that I have only read the weapon focus rules once and not recently (in SR4) but does it ever mention, in the new edition, needing orichalcum?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 09:47 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
it doesn't mention one way or the other in sr4.
In SR3 unless you want to pay a buttload of karma. Orichalium simply makes it easier to make a foci, and easier to bond it to a user. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 09:48 AM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 3-October 05 From: Ann Arbor, MI Member No.: 7,803 |
Then I'd say that you could have one. I don't care what the rules in SR3 are. SR4 is not SR3, therefore the rules presented in SR3 matter not one whit, and continuity be damned. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2005, 10:15 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
It still doesn't change the fact that the DAMAGE of the weapon wouldn't bypass critter immunities, or have any damage to speak of in the astral.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 4 2005, 10:23 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 3-October 05 From: Ann Arbor, MI Member No.: 7,803 |
I thought weapon foci did normal damage to things on the astral. Huh. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2005, 05:09 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,479 Joined: 6-May 05 From: Idaho Member No.: 7,377 |
It actaully would change both of those things... If a weapon foci were no longer required to have orcalcium in it, then it would function completely the same as any other weapon foci. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 4 2005, 05:33 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 16-April 02 From: DC Member No.: 2,605 |
It says orichalcum is required for weapon foci in the original book and does not contradict this in MitS. MitS gives many other options for reducing bonding costs. I don't see anything that would override the core rulebook. It looks like this was something that might have been overlooked in the rules expansion, and as a result is somewhat vague. If I'm missing something please point me in the right direction. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 03:47 AM
Post
#38
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
Orichalium or not, the rules state...
Which means, since the damage of the monofilament can't be applied to a focue vs astral things (ie astral space, and it's denizens), you simply can't have a monofilament whip do anything beyond add extra dice to your attacks. The damage enchancment (or in this case all the damage) is a technological based enchancment and has no basis as the astral world is compared. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:19 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Again and still, that only applies when using a mundane weapon against a spirit, and only when playing in a previous edition.
In SR3, a magic monowhip did its normal damage against spirits because it did "regular damage against astral forms" and was therefore not subject to the rules for mundane weapons against a materialized spirit. In SR4, the rule you are quoting doesn't even exist. -Frank |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 05:38 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
As I remember it...
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 07:14 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
Where in 3rd edition did it say it, in sr4 there is no rule, which is the whole debate here, thanks for pointing the obvious =p |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2005, 08:01 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Points to MitS, page 43 under Material Basis, especially Mundane Telesma. It is also generally accepted that rules in a later published book supercede previous rules, especially books that go into greater detail on a subject.
Points to SR3 page 191 under Weapon Foci, the second paragraph.
This post has been edited by tisoz: Dec 5 2005, 08:22 AM |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 08:08 AM
Post
#43
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
This really isn't open for debate. In SR3, weapon foci did normal damage against spirits. Not flooby "no technological enhancements" damage - normal damage. Which was a crap tonne of damage. The flooby anti-spirit damage was: 1. Just for spirits. Not even for other critters that have immunity to normal weapons, nor for other creatures that have astral forms. and 2. Only for attacks which are entirley mundane. A magical attack (or an attack with a weapon focus) bypassed that entire rule. So in SR4, not only is the rule you are talking about not around, but the rule you are talking about never even applied to people using weapon focus monowhips. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:02 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Isn't a normal sword just another technological enhancement? The first weapons were made of stone, so does that mean everything afterwards doesn't count?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:23 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
if you're going to point to SR3 as why you think you can make a mono whip weapon foci look at the target number to create it. 17 at the least. In sr4 it's 4+ successes needed at least also (not a easy task if possible at all) Second you couldn't add any radicals to it to reduce the enchanting test number, since the weapon (which is the monofilament) can't have anything added to it without becoming ineffective.
Nothing ever addressed if techno improvments to affect damage would apply to astral forms, save in sr2... so since the only rule addressing it is in sr2, you have to go by that one. The removal of technological damage improvments to weapons actually makes more sense in sr4 because it doesn't mean as much as it did in sr3. a mono-sword damage wise is the same as a regular sword, you just wouldn't get the -1ap from it against a spirit, but because it's a focus you'd by pass the immunity to normal weapons ability. As a whip though it means the damage code changes radically, first there is no whip damage code (regular whip) and the -4ap definatly goes I'd bet. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:41 AM
Post
#46
|
|||||||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Yes. That's why this entire line of reasoning was removed from the game mechanics and the fluff. It simply did not stand up to close analysis.
Why? Sure, game mechanically it was very hard. Although you could buy successes (plural) and get it done with absolute certainty if you were willing to spend enough Karma.
That's horse shit. While you can't add any radicals to the mono-line, I think it best that you recall that there are three sections of a monowhip - the monowire, the handle, and the endweight. You can't put any alchemical radicals or pieces of Orichalchum into the monowire, but alchemical gold in the endweight would work very well. Alchemical mahogony would make a very pleasing and ergonomic hilt. If you can put herbal radicals into the hilt of a sword focus - and you can - you can put herbal radicals into the handle of a monowhip. This is a serious non-problem you've created.
Well no. That's like saying that there aren't any rules for Staging numbers in SR4 so we have to use the first edition ones. In third edition, a lack of rules regarding what technological enhancements did against spirits would cause you to use the normal damage rules of SR3! Which means that APDS was fully functional against Spirits. But again and still, none of that applied to a monowhip weapon focus, because:
Please. You've got nothing. You are grasping at straws from previous editions where it was also legal to make monowhip weapon foci to try to prove that the current rules where you can make monowhip weapon foci are somehow against design intent. They aren't. Monowhip weapon foci are totally sweet, and I'm pretty sure that the designers approve. -Frank |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 09:41 AM
Post
#47
|
|||||||||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Are you talking about creating the weapon or enchanting it? I did not realize there were enchanting rules in SR4. You do not have to create the weapon, you can go buy a mundane one and enchant it.
Radicals or orichalcum do not have to be added to the focus, they can simply be consumed during the enchanting process.
Please see SR3 page 191 about weapon foci damage that has been pointed out and quoted several times as well as pointing out that your 2nd edition quote concerns resorting to Force of Will attacks which are quite different. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:11 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
See, in my sessions, I skirt issues like this by just not having anyone with enchanted monowhips until the expansion book comes out that covers them.
Did dikoted spurs exist within the continuity? Yes. Do they exist now? Sure, just all off-camera until their rules show up. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:58 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 203 Joined: 18-November 05 Member No.: 7,978 |
I'm wondering what is stopping you from using Orichalcum in a monomolecular string?
Couldn't you just string the orichalcum out and reinforce it's bond with magic until it was monomolecular width? Thus making the actual whip orichalcum as well? Or am I missing something. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 04:59 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,887 |
It's a lame idea which screams of munchkin powergaming. I'm glad none of my players have come up with this idea. I hate bitch slapping friends.
As for any kind of "reasoning" you want to put behind it, whatever, it's just mental masturbation. The level of technology need to maniuplate molecules on this level, and to create such an incredibly strong bond of wire falls under Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So stop trying to reason building one, 'cause you have no idea how it'd be made. (I'm pretty sure it's not just a string attached to a weight). Even if they do publish rules for them, I'm not going to allow them, it'd be freaking cheesy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st May 2026 - 01:26 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.