My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Wired Reflexes and Hot Sim, Are they cumulative? |
 Jan 29 2006, 06:09 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000  Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951  |
You don't default from specializations if you don't have them. You just use the base skill, or the skill group - without the bonus dice from the specialization. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jan 29 2006, 08:08 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 18-April 03 From: The UV Nexus Member No.: 4,474 |
Okay. Maybe that explains why the sample riggers both have reaction enhancers, and also why they don't have wired reflexes. What a concept?: Rigging in full-VR. Your PCs drone becomes his persona icon, and the target drones looks like... running dobermans, and flying dalmatians against a virtual landscape! As the PC rigs his GMC Step-Van through the sprawl, his commlink's filter doesn't show pedestrians - information overload. Rush hour traffic looks like quicksand. I read the section on Matrix initiative this time, and that explains a lot. If you have wired reflexes, then you can just operate your drones using Augmented Reality at meat-body speeds, and keep up with the hackers using full-VR In that case PCs are issuing commands to the drone, and operate the drone using Command + Vehicle skill. The Command program is limited by the rating of the commlink's system (rather than the drone's pilot), and the System is limited by the commlink's response (rather than the drone's response). The stock maximum for a commlink is 4. Command + skill maxes out at at a measly 10 dice vs. 15 dice for a full-VR Rigger with Reaction 6 (9) from reaction enhancers. It is still better than the 6 dice the drone gets went it's on its own. Plus, with improved reflexes 3, an adept using AR mode gets one more pass than the full-VR Rigger. One more compensation is the fact that AR allows the PC to choose between AR and the real world for each action, while the hacker uses a simple action to log off, and a complex action to log back on unless he wants to accept a -4 modifier in the real world. Of course, I have been calculating maximum possible values. Actual values will be below maximum. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2006, 08:19 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 18-April 03 From: The UV Nexus Member No.: 4,474 |
You can't use a base skill IF the test calls for the specialization; you can't default from one skill to another. The Sensor test specifies the infiltration (vehicle) specialization for the opposed role in the case of a vehicle. It calls for the base infiltration skill for metahumans and critters. The way to default to the base skill is to get out of the vehicle and infiltrate on foot. On the other hand, the book seems to suggest that you can't default at all when the test calls for a specialization. The example that they give is brain surgery. It IS easier to rule that a vehicle can't oppose a sensor test unless the operator has the infiltration (vehicle) skill. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 29 2006, 09:26 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,486 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Michigan Member No.: 7,180 |
I'm pretty sure they just say Infiltration (vehicle) to let you know which specialization applies (if you have one) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2006, 09:32 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,193 |
I have to agree with Rotbart. If a character isn't specialized in, say, revolvers, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have the skill to shoot revolvers. A revolver is a pistol, and so the pistols skill is sufficient. By your reading, one of two things would happen: (1) a character with Pistols skill (and no specialization) couldn't shoot any pistols, because every pistol is of a specific kind (a hold-out, a revolver, a semi-automatic, or a taser); (2) a character with a specialization in Revolvers would still roll his Pistols skill even when shooting a revolver (since that is what the rules literally call for) and thus gain no benefit from the specialization. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2006, 09:40 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Oh, thats very interesting - I wasn't able to find such rule, yet. Would you mind presenting a reference? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2006, 09:44 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,193 |
While your defense is charming, I defer to the dictionary. Webster's, dictionary.com, and the free dictionary all confirm that the term is "duct tape" and not "duck tape." Of course, you probably already know this, but then why call it a "common misconception?" There is such a thing as the "etymological fallacy" in which one assumes that the meaning of a word is dictated by its etymological root. For instance, I cringe at the word "epicurean" since it has little to do with the philosophy of Epicurus, however there is nothing incorrect about it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2006, 09:59 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
When the book mentions a specialization for a skill test, it's simply telling you which specialization you need to roll two extra dice on that test.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 29 2006, 11:30 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 7-October 02 From: A figment of you imagination Member No.: 3,423 |
If you search for duct tape on wikipedia the article will begin with
The term duck tape is now a trademark of Duck Products, while duct tape became the catch all term for the item due to its use on ventialtion ducts (despite some states, including California, finidng the material inadequate for the purpose). While I wouldn't say that calling duck/t tape duct tape is an error or misconception, the original name was duck tape and it is no error to call it so (the dictionaries might not report the duck version due to the fact that it is a trademark and thus indicates a specific product and the other term became of common use, much in the same way they do not report coke or pepsi, despite the fact that often these names have become synonims with soda) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:34 AM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 18-April 03 From: The UV Nexus Member No.: 4,474 |
Okay, you win! A revolver is a pistol, a drone is a critter, and you would let a cosmetic surgeon operate on your brain tumor; a doctor is a doctor. That is the problem I was referring to in regard to full-VR rigging. Your commlink portrays the oncoming Abrams tank as an armadillo, so you figure your shotgun equipped drone can take it out. But it keeps on coming. Wait a sec, the commlink is portraying my shotgun as a pea shooter. The spitballs are just bouncing off the armadillo. Maybe I should switch to AR and see what I am really dealing with. Time to retreat. Not to worry, I know how to crawl on my belly. I can use that skill to default on the infiltration (vehicles) test. The tank won't be able to lock on to my drone. Looks good in full-VR. Now my drone looks like an ant crawling away from the oncoming armadillo. Uh oh! An Armadillo is an ant eater, isn't it. Frack, it's got a long tongue! It caught me. Lucky shot I guess. GAME OVER!!! Nothing virtual about that dumpshock. Frack and double frack! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:34 AM
Post
#36
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,193 |
Other examples (among many) include: "Band-Aid," "Kleenex," "Xerox," "Escalator," and "Windows" (in the Microsoft sense) being synonymous with "adhesive bandage," "facial tissue," "photocopy," "moving staircase," and "an independent graphical object." Your link proves that there is such a thing as "Duck Tape brand duct tape." Companies are precise in distinguishing between their products and the brand names that refer to them because otherwise they are in danger of losing their trademarks. For most purposes, either name is good enough for me, but I give preference to the one that is more precise. It hardly matters what the product was originally called, or that the original name persists as a trademark. I'll defer to someone else to start a thread about the Barrier Rating of duct tape. Until then... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:44 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
I never realized that escalator was actually a name brand for one of those things....
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 01:59 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 18-April 03 From: The UV Nexus Member No.: 4,474 |
[QUOTE=Churl Beck][QUOTE=Sigfried McWild,Jan 29 2006, 06:30 PM] [QUOTE]
Duct tape, originally known as duck tape, is a strong, fabric-based, multi-purpose adhesive tape... [/QUOTE] Other examples (among many) include: "Band-Aid," "Kleenex," "Xerox," "Escalator," and "Windows" (in the Microsoft sense) being synonymous with "adhesive bandage," "facial tissue," "photocopy," "moving staircase," and "an independent graphical object." [/QUOTE] Windows is the perfect example, because window was a computer term long before Windows came out. Similarly personal computer was a common term years before the IBM PC was developed. Duct tape was a generic term years before Duck tape was thought up. If you look at the timeline on that link, the companies marketing guy came up with the term Duck tape in 1985. So it is actually a case of Duck tape, originally known as duct tape. This is 4 years after IBM "invented" the PC, and 3 years before Al Gore "invented" the information super-highway. At least Al came up with an original term. PC? Windows? Duck? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:02 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,193 |
Most of this is incoherent to me, but I'm going to take a stab at replying anyway. As I understand it, when you learn a skill (in this case Infiltration), you are in fact learning all of the subskills which are encompassed by it (in this case Urban, Vehicle, Wilderness, Motion Sensors, etc.). You are a "jack of all trades" with regard to Infiltration. If you specialize in a skill, on the other hand, that just means that you've spent more time learning one aspect of it, hence you earn a rating that is 2 points higher than the others. That one skill is your specialty--you are a "master" of it. But at no point do you "unlearn" the other aspects of the base skill. Therefore, if you need to make an Infiltration (Vehicle) test, there is nothing stopping you from using your Infiltration skill to do so, since possession of Vehicle Infiltration is implied by possession of the Infiltration skill. At this point, you might complain that it makes no sense to group Urban Infilitration together with Vehicle Infiltration, on the grounds that the two are largely unrelated. That would be a fair observation. However, for the sake of simplicity it does not seem like a terribly important objection. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 02:52 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 619 Joined: 18-April 03 From: The UV Nexus Member No.: 4,474 |
Sometimes, the test requires a master - the brain surgery example. The only question is: is evading sensor lock in a vehicle such a case? Picture Will Smith evading the Alien in Independence day. Shadowrun would call that a infiltration (vehicles) test if the Alien was flying on instruments with the i-forget-what-they-called-them shutters closed. Keep in mind that as a rigger, your PC is (hopefully) the alien in this scenario. To me, it is a long stretch to call that "sneaking". This is not the general case where the target is evading detection. The sensors have already detected the target; otherwise, there would be no test. This is a special case where the target is evading sensor lock. The fact that there is no infiltration test involved during passive targeting confirms that the target has already been detected. If the target hasn't been detected, it would have no avatar on the vr landscape, or no IFF identification in AR. Forget this for a moment, and think about the sample drone rigger as Will Smith. He doesn't have the infiltration skill. What test does he use to avoid sensor lock? Do you agree it is Reaction +/- Handling - 1? My original point is that I don't think this rule needs a refit. I think that the tests are much less complicated than before. Whether success is harder, easier, or the same is an entirely different matter. What do you think? Do you like the new rigging rules? Do you like Sensor targeting? I'll shut up and listen for a while. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 04:58 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
There is a good reason why the HVAC duct tape is listed seperately for standard 'duct tape' The original formula simply doesn't meet building standards for air ducts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 06:22 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
An experiment for home. Put some plain old ordinary duct tape over your mouth and try breath through it. No I'm not suggesting you suffocate yourself, so don't tape over your nose too or do this if you have a cold. :cyber: That was the first civilian use for it. Ducts I mean, not gagging people. The military product it evolved from might have had the nickname duck tape with some military personal, I don't know about that. Sounds a bit sketchy, but sure it could be true too. But to suggest that it isn't used for ducting, even stuff that isn't the higher grade Professional HVAC, just is flat out wrong. I've seen it used. I have used it. It works fine to make a seal airtight enough as long as you are dealing with just air and not high pressure gases or something like that. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2006, 07:40 AM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
While rigging in full VR you don't experience any metaphors. Instead, you experience drone sensor data piped directly into your brain with no filtering except the minimum required for your brain to process it. When a rigger is jacked into the drone the rigger is the drone. Second, skills in SR are generic. They always have been generic. When you lean infiltration you learn every type of infiltration equally. Specializations only serve to add dice to a test and you can only have one specialization in a particular skill. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2006, 08:34 AM
Post
#44
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,193 |
This is not the best example to use, because the book does not say that brain surgery is a specialization. Presumably it is a base skill, because the context of the passage is about defaulting from a base skill to a linked attribute. To remove any further doubt, it says "These [overly complex] skills may not be defaulted on, as noted in the skill descriptions starting below." It then proceeds to list base skills and whether or not they can default to their linked attributes. The point is that there is nothing acknowledging the existence of a base skill which cannot "default" to a specialization. There only appears to be base skills which cannot default to a linked attribute. This is somewhat beside the point, but notice that a character with a skill of 1 will have 2 dice more than a similar character that is forced to default to an attribute. Similarly, a character with a specialization will have 2 dice more than a similar character without a specialization. I don't think that's a coincidence. One could say that the penalty for defaulting on a specialization is "built in" to the base skill.
You picked a movie that I saw once in the theater and vowed never to see again. But it sounds like you are describing Chase Combat, which is an opposed Vehicle Test. The attack test would then be done separately, but of course there is no need to use sensors (though it helps). Sorry if I'm completely misunderstanding your example.
In active targeting, the Sensor Test is used to lock onto the target, not to detect it. Big difference. Therefore (for the purposes of making a Gunnery Test) the presence or absence of a Sensor Test says nothing about whether or not the target is detected. I assume that if you are trying to shoot someone that you are already aware of their presence: you are merely using the vehicle's sensors to improve your aim. As I imagine it, active targeting is like a cheetah running down its prey, whereas passive targeting is like a trap door spider waiting in ambush. In active targeting, the computer (actively) acquires its target and keeps the gun pointed in that direction. In passive targeting, the computer just senses when the target has moved into its crosshairs and reacts by firing the gun. Admittedly this is a somewhat inventive interpretation on my part but it seems reasonable.
With the rules as written, that sounds right. But it is odd to see Reaction paired with Infiltration (rather than Pilot) and/or Infiltration paired with Reaction (rather than Agility). It might be an errata, or it might be devised to reflect a hybrid of Piloting and Infiltration.
I haven't formed an opinion yet. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 03:31 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.