Broken Rules., Or where RAW just fails. Options

[Yerameyahu]

Oh, duh: you're doing nothing but Observing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Sorry, I misunderstood.

[Dumori]

It works quite well if a bot master if you have yor personal drone respond to quickly sent text messages or verbal sayings. Things not quite commands. For example if you built some back pack droen you could have it reload your gun with the message reload. It's there in RAW as you can give pilots scripts like agents.

[Yerameyahu]

Well, let's not speculate on the utility of imaginary backpack reloader drones. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But yes, I'm sure people can find uses for extra actions.

[Dumori]

Well, let's not speculate on the utility of imaginary backpack reloader drones. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But yes, I'm sure people can find uses for extra actions.

No that thread will come latter. I hash of ideas fro scripting agents/pilots to get them do you actions for free.

[KarmaInferno]

And here I was having my character use Multi-Tasking to check up on Facebook and post to message boards.

Hey, the character has the Media Junkie: Severe quality.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)




-karma

[Doc Chase]

It's really up to the GM to make that apparent though, since rolling 12-16 Perception checks every 3 seconds is a ridiculous waste of time. If instead you assume that the character has bought (say 4) hits on every object to cross his sight, then you're really starting to see what multitasking actually is. Perfect awareness.

I see I'm going to have to do some sliiight tweaking to my Caracas character. *thinks*

[codemonkey_uk]

The "Influence" spell seems pretty OP.

Get anyone to do what you want, force is largely irrelevant, with no counter spelling save, and no opposed test at all if there isn't something there to confront the character with the wrongness of the suggestion.

Or did I misunderstand it:

Influence (Mental)
Type: M • Range: LOS • Duration: P • DV: (F ÷ 2) + 1
This spell implants a single suggestion in the victim’s mind, like a powerful
post-hypnotic command. The subject will carry out this suggestion
as if it were her own idea and it will then fade. If confronted with
the wrongness of the suggestion, the subject can make a Willpower
Test to overcome it as described under Mental Manipulations, p. 210.
The caster can also withdraw the suggestion at any time.

I mean, who needs to bother with Negotiation or Con if they have this.

Face: "I'd like to negotiate a higher fee for the job please, mr GM".
GM: "Okay, make an negotiate skill + charisma roll"
(Face and GM rummage for dice)
Mage: Forget it man, I cast influence: "This job is worth more than that, you want to pay us your top price, we are worth the money". Cast at force 1. No need to roll drain, I use the buy the hits 4-for-1 rule.
GM: ...

[Dakka Dakka]

Influence is resisted by the target. At force one he only has to get one hit. The mage's hits are limited by the force of the spell.

And a Johnson who does not plan for that sort of thing is not worth the name. He could even try the same.

[CeeJay]

Get anyone to do what you want,...

A single command per spell...

... force is largely irrelevant, with no counter spelling save,...

I don't know, how you came up with this... Of course the target gets a resistance roll. Like any other Mana spell, Influence is resisted with Willpower + counterspelling (in any). Since force limits the number of hits on the spellcasting test, a higher force means greater chance to succeed in overcoming spell resistance.

... and no opposed test at all if there isn't something there to confront the character with the wrongness of the suggestion.

That's the time when am GM has to be creative...

-CJ

[Edit] Damn, Dakka was faster... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Aerospider]

The "Influence" spell seems pretty OP.

Get anyone to do what you want, force is largely irrelevant, with no counter spelling save, and no opposed test at all if there isn't something there to confront the character with the wrongness of the suggestion.

Or did I misunderstand it:

Influence (Mental)
Type: M • Range: LOS • Duration: P • DV: (F ÷ 2) + 1
This spell implants a single suggestion in the victim’s mind, like a powerful
post-hypnotic command. The subject will carry out this suggestion
as if it were her own idea and it will then fade. If confronted with
the wrongness of the suggestion, the subject can make a Willpower
Test to overcome it as described under Mental Manipulations, p. 210.
The caster can also withdraw the suggestion at any time.

I mean, who needs to bother with Negotiation or Con if they have this.

Face: "I'd like to negotiate a higher fee for the job please, mr GM".
GM: "Okay, make an negotiate skill + charisma roll"
(Face and GM rummage for dice)
Mage: Forget it man, I cast influence: "This job is worth more than that, you want to pay us your top price, we are worth the money". Cast at force 1. No need to roll drain, I use the buy the hits 4-for-1 rule.
GM: ...

I've underlined the crucial aspect here. The GM has a hell of a lot of scope for interpretting 'confronted' and 'wrongness'.

Does merely thinking the unthinkable count as being confronted, or does it actually take someone to say to them "that's crap"? E.g. if you suggest to someone that they should kill their children, should they be rolling to resist every time they think about it (which would be more combat rounds than not) or just when they actually attempt the act of infanticide?

Does wrongness mean 'contradiction' or only 'impossibility'? I.e. If the target thinks a window is open but can see that it's closed then that definitely counts, but what if they think they want a burger whilst remembering that they were vegetarian yesterday? It's entirely possible that they could want a burger (they're only metahuman after all) but they might personally consider the idea unthinkable for them.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that this spell is very easily tamed if the GM's on the case. He doesn't even have to be consistent about it if he wants to assert that the target's level of conviction in the subject matter is relevant, since this will vary wildly by target and subject matter.

[Lansdren]

Influence is not as powerful as people sometimes think.

There are two major parts to this

1) The GM is given massive amounts of leeway to allow resistance tests

Scenario

Female mage walks into the lobby smiles at the guard and casts influence "you want to let her through you trust her"
She tried to blag her way in with a flase ID and the hope she has jedi'd the guard.

In theory that would be enough to tip the social con in her favour as he would be less inclined to stop her or check correctly.

But

As a GM you can have anything from a supervisor come over at the wrong moment who hasnt been Jedi'd and ask why he's not checking up to a Spider on the comms asking why hes forgeting to check her id. It doesnt have to be railroading or GM cock blocking to make it hard to just wave your hand and get in to somewhere hard and thats not even counting astral watchers a simple watcher spirit with a command to alert people when a guard suddenly has a spell aura on him in the astral is pretty simple.

And

2) The books state over and over again that mental manipulations are some of the most mistrusted spells going they aint called mind rape for no reason. If a mage is getting a bit ott with the mental manipulation word will get round. All of a sudden the Johnson isnt meeting you in the flesh or your contacts will only deal by remote because they cant be sure they are thinking straight around you.


For getting out of a speeding ticket or something its cool but for really crazy shit its just not as powerfull as some people think

[knightofargh]

Would the mathematical improbability of succeeding at defusing a data bomb past rating 2 count as broken?

A technomancer with defuse threaded to 12 would have issues with a rating 3 data bomb and would set off a rating 4 data bomb pretty frequently. IMO defuse should be an extended test (rating x 2, 1 minute). Rather than the current (rating x 2) or die success test.

[sabs]

Would the mathematical improbability of succeeding at defusing a data bomb past rating 2 count as broken?

A technomancer with defuse threaded to 12 would have issues with a rating 3 data bomb and would set off a rating 4 data bomb pretty frequently. IMO defuse should be an extended test (rating x 2, 1 minute). Rather than the current (rating x 2) or die success test.

Well, but it should be dangerous to turn off a bomb, but not break it.

[knightofargh]

The issue comes in when I as a player spend ¥400 on a prgram that I then set on my commlink (per RAW data bombs can be set on a node) and now get to dump pretty much any hacker that tries to hack my commlink. Of course that almost always turns into an arms race with the GM and that's no fun for anyone.

[tagz]

Would the mathematical improbability of succeeding at defusing a data bomb past rating 2 count as broken?

A technomancer with defuse threaded to 12 would have issues with a rating 3 data bomb and would set off a rating 4 data bomb pretty frequently. IMO defuse should be an extended test (rating x 2, 1 minute). Rather than the current (rating x 2) or die success test.

This was addressed in SR4A (see p230 "Disarm Data Bomb (Disarm)"). It is no longer a success test and is now an opposed test. It is much easier now.

PC rolls Hacking + Diffuse vs Data Bomb's Rating x 2.

So in your example the TM (lets say skill of 4 in hacking) would have 16 dice to roll vs 6 dice (rating 3 Data Bomb) or 16 dice vs 8 dice (rating 4).

Even a mundane hacker with a skill of 4 and a program of 4 has the same chance as a Data Bomb R4 to succeed. Well, almost, the hacker needs 1 net hit so slightly harder.

[Saint Sithney]

Much easier, and much more deadly.

Now it does rating(x)d6 in damage. TM goes splat.

[tagz]

Much easier, and much more deadly.

Now it does rating(x)d6 in damage. TM goes splat.

Yeah, but with a little edge spent to reroll I doubt it's too big a worry. Unless you're in a VR minefield.

[jakephillips]

Data bomb should be dangerous! But it is dooable but dangerous.

[Yerameyahu]

The problem is that you easily *could* be in a minefield: databombs are easy to place on everything, as many as you want.

[Lansdren]

The problem is that you easily *could* be in a minefield: databombs are easy to place on everything, as many as you want.

I think abit of balance is needed when making a run.

Would any GM really Databomb everthing in a node just to mess with the Hacker? Its just as easy to put booby traps into rooms/safes/toilets with grenades for detonation from a GM's point of view but I cant say I've heard of a good one being such a ass.

[sabs]

wouldn't regular users just kinda die if a system was built that way?

[Yerameyahu]

That's my point. I don't *want* the Matrix to be a complete minefield; I'm just saying it's easy to make it one. :/ Vastly easier than actual explosive booby-traps.

[Lansdren]

Grenades and similar explosives can also be
rigged with a tripwire to set up as a basic booby-trap. This requires a
Demolitions + Agility (8, 1 Complex Action) Extended Test.


Assumming someone with a DP of 6 it would take four complex actions per trap (12 seconds).

Ten mins and you can have a room wired with multilpe tripwires rigged to blow.

Add in the various tech triggers to a grenade upto and including my fav the photoelectric trigger (trigger trips when exposed to light or light is blocked off depending on setting)

Demolitions is your friend

[Neraph]

wouldn't regular users just kinda die if a system was built that way?

No, since regular users would have the passwords so the databombs wouldn't explode. Or they could use AR.

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, but you have to actually buy the grenades and triggers and go to the places. Databomb is free.