IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Rule Questions
Kazum
post Mar 27 2007, 08:46 AM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



How can you use fake licenses? Is there a license for "carrying a gun and using it"?

Cybereyes come with "20/20" Vision. Wtf is 20/20 Vision? English ain't my native language, so maybe it is a common expression, but i don't get it.

There have been more questions on my mind, but i forgot them, well, i'll be posting them as soon as i remember.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack Kain
post Mar 27 2007, 08:57 AM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 906
Joined: 16-October 06
Member No.: 9,630



They just list the cost for a fake license they don't say what it has to be for,

Conceal and Carry would be one,
Spellcasting would be another
License to own hacking programs
License for a smartlink. Etc
Private Detective License.
They are all different licenses, the book justs lists one cost and Avail rather then have pages and pages of various license's.
If you want a rating six conceal and carry permit for your Aries Predator that will be 600:nuyen:
You also want to pick up a fake license for the smartlink, That will be another 600 :nuyen:
So for every Restricted thing or set of things it has a license.

20/20 is a measure of visual acuity, When there talking about cybereyes they mean it sees as well as normal healthy human eyes as 20/20 is seen as "normal" or perfect vision. I won't go into the reality of that here and now. But all it means is you won't need to wear glasses over your cybereyes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Mar 27 2007, 09:06 AM
Post #3


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



20/20 is a means of measuring visual acuity. That is, how well you can see. Anything less than 20/20 may require visual correction of some sort (glasses, contacts etc.)

Basically it means that your cyber eyes don't require visual correction.

Fake licences are for whatever your GM lets you buy them for. Most of my players like to buy fake concealed firearms licenses, and sometimes stuff like bounty hunting licenses.

What licenses you can get depend on your location and that is up to your GM. It is unlikely that you will be able to get a license for 'using' a gun, as discharging a weapon, especially into someone, tends to be regarded as a crime.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kazum
post Mar 27 2007, 09:34 AM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



And another question: Don't u think, that the stunball and the stunbolt is overpowered? In most cases it does not matter if u kill your enemy or just stun him AND it is often easier to stun AND killing could result in a angry con that seeks revenge, because you killed their employees.

So i would give stunball and stunbolt the same DV as Manaball and Manabolt.

Did i forgot something?

AND: Skinlinks: Can you add a skinlink to every cyberware? Or can you use Skinlink only with some elecronics like Commlink? Skinlinks are not expensive, so i would always use a skinlink with every piece of cw i posess, because it prevents a hacker completly from hacking my cw, am i right ? the only weak spot would be the commlink, which would be the hub of my cw, but do i have to link it to the commlink? and: if i do so, i could skinlink my commlink to myself and disable its wireless ability, i could not get informations from outside, but i could get informations about my cw. with a second comlink, which is "online" i could get informations from outside without endangering my cw.....right or wrong?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheUrbanMonkey
post Mar 27 2007, 09:41 AM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 4-December 06
From: ein Loch in der Wand
Member No.: 10,192



20/20 means that, at a distance of 20 feet, you can read letters that a person with "perfect vision" can read at 20 feet. 20/100 means that at 20 feet, the letters have to be large enough that a person with "perfect vision" can read them at 100 feet. Alternatively, 20/10 means that at 20 feet, you can read letters so small that a person with "perfect vision" must be no more than 10 feet away to read.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Mar 27 2007, 10:18 AM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



@ Kazum. You're entirely welcome to institute any house rules you like. Personally I'd just leave the spells the way they are. It's easier to recover from stun damage after all, and a pokey stim patch can negate a great deal of stun damage temporarily.

Typically I think skinlink is meant to work on devices, rather than 'ware. typically runners route all their 'ware and equipment through their commlink, as it is harder to hack a comm than stand alone 'ware. There have been a lot of threads about 'defeating' hacking involving a second comm.

Personally, I feel that you lose more functionality (due to lack of communications with team mates) that way than you do by just using one comm and risking a hacking attempt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anymage
post Mar 27 2007, 11:21 AM
Post #7


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 28-August 03
Member No.: 5,551



Aside from the fact that players are fond of dealing not only the most, but the most dangerous sort of damage available, if both choices were equal Stunbold would quickly take second place. It's also ineffective on things like foci and barriers, leaves behind people who can be witnesses or come after you later, and since most team members are likely to be doing physical damage, the separate damage tracks mean you won't be helping take the enemies down any faster. Keep all these in mind when you evaluate the drain codes.

Skinlinking cyberware would be totally unnecessary in most games, as cyberware is already wired into your body and is by nature no more hackable than your meat arm. You can decide that certain pieces of cyberware are connected to the outside world (and indeed, things like an implanted commlink would be useless without a connection), but that can be done on a case-by-case basis. (If you have a commlink in your cyberarm, you can leave the commlink in touch with the outside world without risking your control over your limbs, for example.) Rather, skinlinking is kind of like running a wire between any pieces of gear that are linked and touching your body. This means you can set them to only obey the skinlink and be unhackable, but you lose functionality as it can't communicate with any of your friend's devices. The only reason to have a piece of cyberware skinlinked would be if you had an external device you wanted to talk to your cyberware, but you didn't want one or both of them to talk to the outside world. It could allow you to, for instance, load a file from your cybereye to physical memory held in your hand or vice versa without leaving your commlink on, but most of the time if you want devices to speak to each other they'll either all be in contact with each other already, or else you'll want to share the data with teammates which requires being in touch with the outside world, and as such at risk of hacking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lorechaser
post Mar 27 2007, 02:25 PM
Post #8


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 19-August 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9,168



QUOTE (ornot)
@ Kazum. You're entirely welcome to institute any house rules you like. Personally I'd just leave the spells the way they are. It's easier to recover from stun damage after all, and a pokey stim patch can negate a great deal of stun damage temporarily.

Actually Stim Patches only let you ignore the damage mods from stun damage, they don't negate the damage at all. It's a subtle difference, but a very important one, and it's different than some of the older editions.

And Skinlinks can be put on anything that would normally be wireless, at the simpliest form.

You can set your ware not to broadcast without needing a skinlink - it's already wired in to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Mar 27 2007, 08:10 PM
Post #9


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



Seems I wasn't entirely clear. I know that stim patches don't heal stun, which is why I said negate temporarily. I meant that the -ve effects, ie. the dice pool modifier, goes away for a while. Obviously if you still take enough damage to knock you out then you still fall over.

Likewise I think you're entirely right about skinlinking 'ware. It's moot as, like you say, it's already wired to you. Maybe I should just let you post for me, as we seem to have a fairly similar outlook on things ;)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Mar 28 2007, 05:36 AM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



I wonder if you can set a sticky shock to the frequency of a skinlink. Fry them from a distance.

Personally I always hated them, they creep me out. I always think about what that skinlink would be doing to your bioelectric field. Would it mess you up?

I had an amusing idea for a team of thieves. Have a thug with skinlink attached to a commlink. He goes and "Mugs" people by grabbing them. His hacker friend goes through the connection and hacks their commlinks. The thug just has to go an grab a person for a few seconds and move on. He could make it look like an accident or be mean about it. He could bump his way through a crowd that way and be wealthy on the other side.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kazum
post Mar 28 2007, 10:13 AM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



Another question:

Smartlink: I was on a Con last Weekend, and they played the Smartgun as if there was a camera inside of the weapon, so that you would get kind of a picture to your eyes. This also means, that you could aim your gun around a corner, without seeing what is there, but the gun would see it and you would get the picture to your head. You could normaly fire, but get an "indirect fire" penalty.

I don't like it and i always understood the smartgun another way: I always thought, that you get kind of a crosshair projectet into your LOS, which shows you, where u are pointing that gun at. Thus would mean, when you are pointin your gun somewhere out of your LOS, you would not see a crosshair.

what is your opinion about it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Mar 28 2007, 10:45 AM
Post #12


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



Both are correct in 4th edition. The smartlink puts a crosshair in your field of vision and guncameras are standard on smartlinked weapons, allowing one to use indirect fire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FriendoftheDork
post Mar 28 2007, 10:48 AM
Post #13


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 4-September 06
From: The Scandinavian Federation
Member No.: 9,300



QUOTE (Kazum)
Another question:

Smartlink: I was on a Con last Weekend, and they played the Smartgun as if there was a camera inside of the weapon, so that you would get kind of a picture to your eyes. This also means, that you could aim your gun around a corner, without seeing what is there, but the gun would see it and you would get the picture to your head. You could normaly fire, but get an "indirect fire" penalty.

I don't like it and i always understood the smartgun another way: I always thought, that you get kind of a crosshair projectet into your LOS, which shows you, where u are pointing that gun at. Thus would mean, when you are pointin your gun somewhere out of your LOS, you would not see a crosshair.

what is your opinion about it?

I'm pretty sure you CAN do what they did, and there would still be a "crosshair". Remember that the Smartlink requires an Image Link, which is basically a camera that enables you to see the "feed" in your head, your lenses, goggles, etc.

Page 312 RB: Smartgun System:

"The camera allows for shooting around corners, without exposing yourself to return fire"

Looks pretty clear to me.

It doesen't say anything about an indirect fire penalty, after all you can see the targets and fire directly from your weapon to the enemies in a straight line (as opposed to shooting up in the air over something with a grenade launcher).

Besides, -6 blind fire is a bit harsh when you actually can see the target through the camera and aim accurately with the crosshair. I might use the -1 for Firing from Cover penalty, or simply double all uncompensated recoil since you're not bracing the weapon good enough.

By RAW though, I don't think there would be penalties at all. The cover penalty assumes that you have to duck out from cover and back again while firing, but you don't have to do that if you use the camera to fire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post Mar 28 2007, 11:33 AM
Post #14


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



QUOTE (Garrowolf)
I wonder if you can set a sticky shock to the frequency of a skinlink. Fry them from a distance.

stick-n-shock affects the person's gear that you hit already. most likely it will short them out for a few combat turns. which should be long enough, for combat purposes at least, that anything beyond that doesn't really matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eryk the Red
post Mar 28 2007, 12:28 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Joined: 23-February 06
Member No.: 8,301



QUOTE
By RAW though, I don't think there would be penalties at all.


This was a pretty major debate round here. No consensus was really reached, though a number of us (by no means all of us) concluded that there would still be a penalty simply because it requires holding the gun in an awkward way. No one suggested using the blind fire penalty, but -2 or -3 were the common suggestions. I like -2, personally. Others went further, increasing recoil penalties, but I personally don't care for that. It's enough that firing this way negates certain recoil compensators (stocks and shock pads, specifically), since you can't shoulder the gun.

Anyway, the rules are indeed unclear about this, but it is perfectly reasonable (in my opinion) for the GM to lay down some kind of penalty for performing the action under less than optimal conditions. Picking a lock while hanging upside down from a rope would get a penalty in my game. So would firing a gun in a weird position (and aiming around corners is definitely a weird position).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FriendoftheDork
post Mar 28 2007, 12:56 PM
Post #16


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 4-September 06
From: The Scandinavian Federation
Member No.: 9,300



QUOTE (Eryk the Red)
QUOTE
By RAW though, I don't think there would be penalties at all.


This was a pretty major debate round here. No consensus was really reached, though a number of us (by no means all of us) concluded that there would still be a penalty simply because it requires holding the gun in an awkward way. No one suggested using the blind fire penalty, but -2 or -3 were the common suggestions. I like -2, personally. Others went further, increasing recoil penalties, but I personally don't care for that. It's enough that firing this way negates certain recoil compensators (stocks and shock pads, specifically), since you can't shoulder the gun.

Anyway, the rules are indeed unclear about this, but it is perfectly reasonable (in my opinion) for the GM to lay down some kind of penalty for performing the action under less than optimal conditions. Picking a lock while hanging upside down from a rope would get a penalty in my game. So would firing a gun in a weird position (and aiming around corners is definitely a weird position).

good point. -2 seems an alright ad hoc penalty. However, this rule, while an OK temporary fix, does not take into account the difference between firing handweapons and shouldered weapons. Firing a pistol 'round the corner is alot easier than firing an Ak97 full auto around the corner.

This is why I think double recoil penalties is appropriate (in addition to negating stock and shock pad RC). Just as easy to remember as the -2 as well, right?

And firing a pistol semi-auto this way would mean that the second shot would recieve a -2 penalty anyway (unless compensated), while an AK97 long burst would give a -12 penalty (thus only covering fire or short bursts/SA would be effective). A White Knight firing a long burst wouldn't be a problem at all, as the recoil would be NIL.

Of course, if you fire in such a way as to have to use your off-hand on the trigger (like firing a MG to your right 'round a corner), the normal penalty would apply (-2 I think).

But each to his own I guess.

Oh, and picking that lock MI style would recieve a penalty not for it being unusual or awkward, but because you're less stable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fezig
post Mar 28 2007, 03:12 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 6-March 07
From: Seattle, UCAS
Member No.: 11,168



QUOTE (FriendoftheDork)
QUOTE (Eryk the Red @ Mar 28 2007, 07:28 AM)
QUOTE
By RAW though, I don't think there would be penalties at all.


This was a pretty major debate round here. No consensus was really reached, though a number of us (by no means all of us) concluded that there would still be a penalty simply because it requires holding the gun in an awkward way. No one suggested using the blind fire penalty, but -2 or -3 were the common suggestions. I like -2, personally. Others went further, increasing recoil penalties, but I personally don't care for that. It's enough that firing this way negates certain recoil compensators (stocks and shock pads, specifically), since you can't shoulder the gun.

Anyway, the rules are indeed unclear about this, but it is perfectly reasonable (in my opinion) for the GM to lay down some kind of penalty for performing the action under less than optimal conditions. Picking a lock while hanging upside down from a rope would get a penalty in my game. So would firing a gun in a weird position (and aiming around corners is definitely a weird position).

good point. -2 seems an alright ad hoc penalty. However, this rule, while an OK temporary fix, does not take into account the difference between firing handweapons and shouldered weapons. Firing a pistol 'round the corner is alot easier than firing an Ak97 full auto around the corner.

This is why I think double recoil penalties is appropriate (in addition to negating stock and shock pad RC). Just as easy to remember as the -2 as well, right?

And firing a pistol semi-auto this way would mean that the second shot would recieve a -2 penalty anyway (unless compensated), while an AK97 long burst would give a -12 penalty (thus only covering fire or short bursts/SA would be effective). A White Knight firing a long burst wouldn't be a problem at all, as the recoil would be NIL.

Of course, if you fire in such a way as to have to use your off-hand on the trigger (like firing a MG to your right 'round a corner), the normal penalty would apply (-2 I think).

But each to his own I guess.

Oh, and picking that lock MI style would recieve a penalty not for it being unusual or awkward, but because you're less stable.

I don't know about doubling the penalty like that. I mean look at it this way, if you are removing the bonus for the stock and the shock pad, those are the bonuses you get for firing the weapon correctly. If you fired it from the hip, or holding it away from your body, either way it would be an awkward position. Increasing the penalty beyond that I see as a bit unnecessary because 1- The penalties stack up pretty fast and get pretty nasty already and 2- It would essentially negate any reason for the option to exist. I mean really, what is the point of a mechanic allowing you to fire around a corner but not roll enough dice to have a chance at hitting anything.

Anyhow, I like the -2, and I'd probably describe the situation to the player and ask them how they are holding the gun, and give additional penalties for firing with their off hand, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kazum
post Mar 28 2007, 08:58 PM
Post #18


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



okay, this with the camera might be according to RAW, but i don't really like it.

And i would double the recoil mod or at least increase it, because you don't use your whole body to compensate the recoil. only your wrist is not enough. Try it out: Push someones wrist which he holds like he is shooting around a corner with a pistol. you could easily turn him around/ move his arm, or at least, easier as if he would hold it the real way you hold a gun: in front of your body.

EDIT:
Today was the first session of our groupe, and we played the first part of "on the run" and there is this ork-grunt guarding the dressing room of the ork-rocker. The team had a hard time to deal with him, or find a way to do it quietly. One idea was to Stun him some way and to put an invisible spell on him. I wondered: Is this possible? Can you: 1. Make someone invisible, who does not want to; 2. Make someone invisible who is unconcious 3. Make objects invisible, that don't touch you/ someone else youe made invisible ?

This post has been edited by Kazum: Mar 28 2007, 09:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lagomorph
post Mar 28 2007, 10:22 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 834
Joined: 30-June 03
Member No.: 4,832



AFAIK, you can make unwilling people, and objects invisible. Unwilling people get a willpower test to resist the spell, objects have the object resistance threshold.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiskeyMac
post Mar 28 2007, 11:59 PM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 433
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Iraq
Member No.: 1,789



I would just give them the -1 Firing from Cover modifier if it was the first SA shot or first Burst in the round. For the second SA shot, the Firing from Cover modifier would also stack onto the second SA shot in a round unless the gun had proper recoil comp. For the second Burst, any uncomped recoil would stack on top of the Firing from Cover modifier. For full auto fire I would give the Firing from Cover modifier, add a -1 modifier and double any uncomped recoil. Also, recoil comp from shock pads wouldn't apply, only Gas-Vent Systems would.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kazum
post Mar 29 2007, 08:04 AM
Post #21


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



Another Thing occured to me concerning (Combat)Spells:

Well, the basic Damage is always the Force you use with the spell... So regardless of which kind of spell you think, you will only make (Force+Nethits)Damage.

So the only difference between different combatspells are the DrainValue, Type, Range, Kind of Damage.

So you can NEVER increase the Damage of a Combatspell beyond double-magicattribute+ Net Hits. Right? Why aren't there any spells with ("Force+2"+Nethits)Damage (or +/-Whatever) ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FriendoftheDork
post Mar 29 2007, 10:45 AM
Post #22


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 4-September 06
From: The Scandinavian Federation
Member No.: 9,300



QUOTE (Kazum)
Another Thing occured to me concerning (Combat)Spells:

Well, the basic Damage is always the Force you use with the spell... So regardless of which kind of spell you think, you will only make (Force+Nethits)Damage.

So the only difference between different combatspells are the DrainValue, Type, Range, Kind of Damage.

So you can NEVER increase the Damage of a Combatspell beyond double-magicattribute+ Net Hits. Right? Why aren't there any spells with ("Force+2"+Nethits)Damage (or +/-Whatever) ?

I dunno, perhaps they wanted to balance them? How many weapons are there with damage code higher than 12? And spellcasters who initative can even raise that further...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kazum
post Mar 29 2007, 10:48 AM
Post #23


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



yeah, okay, might be right. just thought, that it is a little boring that they all have the same damage-code and only the skill of the caster makes the difference....


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Mar 29 2007, 10:54 AM
Post #24


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



What would you rather be the limiting factor on magic, if not the skill of the caster?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kazum
post Mar 29 2007, 11:15 AM
Post #25


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 26-February 07
From: Hildesheim, Germany
Member No.: 11,107



you've got a point there... :dead:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 11:18 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.