My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 [MAGIC]: Increased Reflexes and force, Why take I.R. +1/2/3 at higher then 1? |
 Oct 4 2003, 08:37 PM
Post
#76
|
|||
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123  |
I don't really find that Shadowrun encourages an adversarial player/GM relationship more than any other game. In my opinion, that entirely depends on the people you play with, not the game system. Have you considered that your policy of purposely exploiting loopholes probably encourages that sort of relationship? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Oct 5 2003, 12:31 AM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
And Polaris is the only one who sees them as loopholes. We're not talking about house rules here - we are talking about spell combos and rules interpretations that everyone else who has posted would not allow to work. No one else believes that casting Decrease Willpower, then Increase Willpower, then dispelling the Decrease Willpower, would let you keep all of the original successes from the Increase Willpower spell. No one else interprets the called shots FAQ on ignoring armor to mean that you can "ignore the armor" of a full body-covering Armor spell.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2003, 12:35 AM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 235 Joined: 1-June 03 Member No.: 4,664 |
Glyph,
"Everyone Else" read the layering armor rules incorrectly as well. Just because "everyone else" doesn't agree with me doesn't mean I am wrong. Go ahead and ask FanPro and I think you will find that I am right on this combo and most of the other rules related stuff I have posted. -Polaris Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems as though this board often suffers from a bad case of group-think, and if I come across as an iconoclast, then this is the reason. I am trying to dislodge some firmly entenched "conventional wisdom" |
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2003, 02:40 AM
Post
#79
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Err... there's no interpretation involved there. Going by the FAQ, that's exactly what it says. Which is obviously not what it's supposed to say (from context clues, common sense, etc), so it desperately needs to be changed. Any GM who wasn't already allowing it to happen that way has most likely house ruled it (I know I did) to something more in line with what the FAQ appears to want to say (but says wrong). As far as decrease and increase stat spells are concerned, I think an errata or FAQ answer is well worth having. I can think of quite a few instances where it might be useful to know how an increase cast on a decrease works (or vice versa). There currently aren't any canon rules keeping you from taking Polaris' point of view since it does appear to work the way he suggests... but there are also probably few, if any, GMs that will allow it to work that way in their games(through house rules, aka "common sense", aka "GM is always right"). Can a rules system avoid having holes? No. Can it errata/FAQ the spots where the rules are hazy and produce odd/counterintuitive/unbalancing results? Yes. I've never had a problem with rules loopholes (I rather like finding them, myself). However, suggesting that it's required for players to find and then use them is not something I agree with. Also, if I remember correctly, I don't agree with Polaris' reading of the armor layering rules. I'd look it up, but I believe the thread containing that viewpoint was removed. That, and this isn't the thread for that argument. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 06:33 PM |
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.