Magic fingers and unarmed combat Options

[Mardrax]

Please do try and keep it civil folks.

The caster has an ability that states that when he uses his Unarmed Combat skill, X, Y, or Z happen.

If you could actually produce a quote (any quote whatsoever) from any adept power whatsoever, specifically requiring, or even referencing, the use of Unarmed Combat skill, this would lend you some more credence. As it is though, you're simply wrong.
Across the board, they say they do doing stuff to "his unarmed combat attacks" or something equivalent, tying the use of the abilities to the adept's self.
And once again: Unarmed Combat != unarmed combat. If a drone punches something, it's not unarmed combat.

In this case, you're using a manifestation of psychokinetic force to attack someone. This effect describes it's used 'as if they were real hands'. The again, so are a drone's. In fact, the latter [u]are[/b] real hands.
This does nothing to reduce the fact that it's
A) not unarmed combat, as you're attacking with something outside of the body
B) it's not the adept striking anything
C) it's not the adept participating in unarmed combat, as he can be reclining in a deck chair 3 rooftops away
D) it's not his base DV being used

Now if anyone would want to rule otherwise, it's their choice. But until someone comes up with a way of meeting these conditions through the spell, the powers that require them simply don't work.
A is the only argument you have tried to refute, saying it is unarmed combat, through use of the Unarmed skill. Disregarding the simple fact that Unarmed skill being used does not make something unarmed combat, (which is an absolute statement so bears no exceptions. Alas, the drone rigger) you still haven't satisfied the other conditions.
Do you have anything to offer that does?

[phlapjack77]

Does nimble fingers (adept power) stack with magic fingers? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Also: On gills and fur - those Powers are retrofitting those things onto creatures that do not originally have them. Gills are an addition to creatures that have lungs originally, and Fur... is fluff (quasi-pun intended). There's hardly any game benefit to it at all (although there are a couple that do have benefits and, you guessed it, animals that do not have those special furs mentioned do not get to participate in those benefits).

I completely agree, I was just commenting on the absurdity of the logic being used, though I am pretty sure it was Tongue in Cheek... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Wrong. Spells have their own distinct auras (hence being able to assense them), they just bear the signature of their caster.


Partially wrong. The caster uses his skills to control the spell's effect.


Actually it says they can use the spell "as if" they were their real hands, meaning if you can turn a door knob with your hands, the spell can, too. Not that they are their real hands, nor that they are an extension of their own body. As previously stated, the spell is an independent entity, one in which the caster can manipulate with fine control using their own skills. And even then there are special rules, such as needing to make an Agility Test to pick up a coin.

You're the one making stuff up and claiming that it's the rules as written.

The spell literally states that it creates a set of psychokinetic invisible hands complete with their own set of attributes. Those aren't the caster's hands. No matter how blue in the face you get claiming otherwise. It's right there in black and white.


Wrong.

Incidentally, I like how you're complaining about people reading the spell's description and actively telling them to ignore it, all the while thrusting out your chest and claiming that you're reading it as written and intentionally ignoring context and the rest of the game.

"Magic Fingers creates a psychokinetic effect like 'invisible hands' that can hold or manipulate items." That's the RAW. Not your misinterpretation thereof.

And this is my Stance on the Discussion. Magic Fingers are seperate from the Body. Ergo, no Adept abilities used through them.

[Mardrax]

Does nimble fingers (adept power) stack with magic fingers? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Debatable. Since it directly enhances Palming skill tests: yes. Since wether or not Magic Fingers actually require manual dexterity is highly debatable, so is getting the bonus. After all, possessing the Palming skill has no bearing on te ammount of Agility you have, just that you have a good grasp of how Palming works, and how you should be applying it.
The free actions? Yes.

That's my reading anyway.

That said, it's also something I have a lot less difficulty accepting fluffwise. It's a power that enhances an adept's ability, while this ability is used to control the spell. I don't see it as a break from how magic works. Just like Improved Ability would help you out.

[Seth]

OK as the OP I am trying to make sense of the views above.

The view that seemed the simplest is that:

• Critical strike helps unarmed attacks
• Magic fingers uses unarmed to strike
• Therefore it works

Some of the counterarguments seem very weak:

• Saying that if you think it should work on magic fingers, it should work on stunbolt, is really poor. Stunbolt doesn't use unarmed combat skill, Magic fingers does
• Saying that the fact that there are adept powers out there that do similar effects, and therefore you shouldn't allow it also weak. Compare gecko climb to walk walking, or levitate to gliding, or elemental aura to killingstrike + elemental strike + critical strike. In general spells tend to be much better on a bp basis, but you need to invest in being able to cast spells.
• Using fluff arguments "you summon a spirit instead of doing it yourself" is a way of justifying the answer you decide. My view on magic fingers is that I am creating a magical exoskeleton out there YMMV
• Arguments on "game balance" seem quite weak to me, as this is by no means an awesome spell. (I'd fix stunbolt first).
• "Its not unarmed combat as you are using something outside the body" is weak as shock cuffs work, knuckle dusters work, distance strike works, cyber implants work. Its unarmed if you use the unarmed skill
• "Its not his base DV being used". I'm not even sure why that is listed
• "It's not the adept participating in unarmed combat, as he can be reclining in a deck chair 3 rooftops away". He may be reclining, but he is still working hard: sustaining the spell, striking with a -2 penalty. The reclining might be to free his mind so that he can do this better. I can use unarmed combat while reclining in a deck chair anyway.

Some seem a lot less weak, but still not convincing

• Its not the adept striking something. Yes it is...his magical energy is striking the opponent. When he attacks with his fists its his magical energy striking too. It's his skill he rolled, and his managic enery that attacked

So when GMing I think I would allow it. When playing I'll ask the GM. Remember this only works for a mystic adept how is specializing in unarmed combat, who would probably be better off casting a stunbolt.

[Irion]

Well, lets post the rules:

This power uses magic to increase the Damage Value of
your unarmed attacks, as you strike with more proficiency and
power. Each level of Critical Strike increases the character’s
Damage Value in unarmed combat by +1. Critical Strike may
be used with Killing Hands (p.188), and may also be used in
astral combat. The use of Critical Strike must be declared with
the Unarmed Combat attack.

So nowhere is a role mentioned. You do not even have the skill "unarmed" to use this power. It strictly applys to unarmed attacks. The question to be answered is simple: Do spells qualify as unarmed.
But as a matter of fact the rule text of critical strike does give us the answer.

as you strike with more proficiency and
power.

You, not your spell, your drone or something.
@Seth

Saying that if you think it should work on magic fingers, it should work on stunbolt, is really poor. Stunbolt doesn't use unarmed combat skill, Magic fingers does

So hitting somebody with a spell is an unarmed attack or not? There is no in between. You have to make a call here.

[Halinn]

Well, lets post the rules:

So nowhere is a role mentioned. You do not even have the skill "unarmed" to use this power. It strictly applys to unarmed attacks. The question to be answered is simple: Do spells qualify as unarmed.
But as a matter of fact the rule text of critical strike does give us the answer.

What of the last sentence where you must declare the use of it with the Unarmed Combat attack? Note capital letters denominating the skill.

[Irion]

@Halinn
What is about it. It just stats when to declare it.

[Seth]

@Seth
So hitting somebody with a spell is an unarmed attack or not? There is no in between. You have to make a call here.

I think its quite easy. "Do you use the skill unarmed combat to make the attack." With stunbolt I use spellcasting to make the attack. With magic fingers I use unarmed combat. Its not about "in between", the question is which skill do you use.

Am I right? I don't know. The rules aren't clear (and they cannot be clear on everything otherwise they would be 10 times as big, and too difficult to read). So go with what feels right. A mystic adept who specialises in unarmed combat using magic fingers "feels" about as right as an adept using distance strike. YMMV

Another very similar example is using elemental aura. You cast the spell first (like magic fingers) then use unarmed combat to attack (like magic fingers). Is this an unarmed attack? I would say yes. Like magic fingers you are not attacking with the spell (thats the purview of combat spells) you are using magic to add something to the attack. Elemental damage in the case of the aura, and range in the case of the magic fingers. So in my world view these are the same, I suspect that in yours they are different. Again I think its just something that the GM should decide on, and I would be happy either way.

[Halinn]

@Halinn
What is about it. It just stats when to declare it.

And if I declare using it when making an Unarmed Combat attack with Magic Fingers? What part of the description says that it won't work in that case?

[Irion]

@Seth
So if I am using elemental aura (4 hits, electrical) and magic fingers (6 hits), I am able to strike somebody in LOS for 6/2+4=7 damage?

If this is true I give you, that you stay consistent.

[LurkerOutThere]

Honestly it's discussions like this that pretty much convince me Shadowrun needs a top down rewrite, starting with the magic system. To many authors, not enough editing, not enough clear definition of how magic works in the setting and what it can and cannot do etc etc. It's just gotten unmanageable.

[Seth]

@Seth
So if I am using elemental aura (4 hits, electrical) and magic fingers (6 hits), I am able to strike somebody in LOS for 6/2+4=7 damage?

If this is true I give you, that you stay consistent.

Actually no. A simple reading of the elemental aura spell shows that its an aura around you. A reading of critical strike implies that through some magical means your unarmed attacks do more damage.

Please note that I am not passionate about this. I asked the question because I couldn't decide. A load of arguments were put forwards. I came away with the impression that its not well decided and most of the arguments against it were very weak. So if I am GM I will go ahead, and in any game that I was to use it (which won't be often) I will ask the GM.

[Irion]

@Seth

Actually no. A simple reading of the elemental aura spell shows that its an aura around you. A reading of critical strike implies that through some magical means your unarmed attacks do more damage.

So you rule this way here and the other way around somewhere else.

I mean if you would really be looking at the arguments you would have realized, that even you found only one pro (which you streched to three points) and seven against it.

The one argument in favor of it you do not consider in any other case to be even remotly of any value.
Furthermore you use the same arguments (described here as weak) to arguee against the possibility of combination in a second case. (to be more precice fluff spell description)


@LurkerOutThere
No, it actually does not.
Rules do not give you an electroshock if you read them wrong. They can not defend themselves. So if you want to missread them, you are more than able to.

Here you have one argument going against seven or more. And this argument boils down to "they use the word unarmed combat in the adept power and in the spell description". So please tell me, how you would like the rules to be written?
One spell on ten pages, to be sure you did not miss to declare every unthinkable combination illegal?

Well, then the first book would introduce the playable race human and the rules to walk down a street.
Sorry, but at some point it is not the mistake of the people who write the rules, but the one of the people who read them.

[Seth]

The information about elemental aura is not fluff: its pretty precise in its description of how that spell works. In my reading I cannot see how it would work with magic fingers.

Critical strike is also described quite well, and in its reading I can see how it works.

However YMMV

[Irion]

Each level of Critical Strike increases the character’s
Damage Value in unarmed combat by +1.

This fiery
aura does not affect the subject, but increase the DV of any
melee attacks by the caster’s hits.

As a matter of fact, I was mistaken. Elemental aura is even more likly to effect magical fingers rulewise, since it increases any melee attack.
RAW this could really be argued.

The character's damage value is not affecting the damage the magical fingers may deal, so there is no way at all.

[Seth]

The fact that two people read the same stuff and come to different conclusions is not unusual. Thats what has happened here.

I have no great desire to continue arguing. The summary I concluded with above states my position, and I am afraid that the arguments you are using here are not persuading me: they were presented before, and just repeating them doesn't increase their validity. Exploring consequences such as the elemental aura was interesting, but again we have come out with separate opinions from the same events. Retreating to philosophy, we are falling into the trap that Karl Popper called "confirmatory reasoning": given any event it supports the view that we currently hold. Arguing about any subject is the best way to get people to believe in their viewpoint more: its very rare that people will change based on verbal debates. In the real world we could resolve this easily: we could do an experiment designed to exaggerate the differences. Sadly in shadowrun we cannot do an experiment. Thus I posted the question on dumpshock to get more minds to work on the problem.

The conclusion I have come up with is that it is such a corner case that there is no RAW each GM should decide based on the flavor they want in the game / their own styles. As a GM I would allow this. You would not. Thats what happens in fantasy games: different people have different interpretations. I think that both of us would disallow the elemental aura + magic fingers (at least I hope you would).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

@Seth...

Here is the main DIfference between Critical Strike and Magic Fingers.

Critical Strike Increases the CHARACTER's Damage Value...
Magic Fingers has its OWN Damage Value, based upon its Strength, based upon the spells effect.

The Character's Damage value is NEVER applied to the Magic Fingers effect.

How much more clear does it really need to be. I too, do not agree with LurkerOutThere. The rules are fairly well written, and it is only the Edge Cases that are slightly wonky, or cause problems. Problem is, you will ALWAYS have edge cases if you look for them. The mechanics of Critical Strike are very, very clear. To augment the PERSON. Magic Fingers is not the Person.

Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

That was the brunt of what I was saying as well. Magic Fingers is like a spirit or a drone. It is in no way an extension of the caster's body. It has its own stats, and even its own unique aura (which obviously bears the caster's signature). It's simply a "dumb" spirit or drone that needs the caster to control it completely. The caster can't say "pick up that coin" to it; it has no intelligence of its own. Instead, he has to concentrate and make it pick it up, and the rules use his own skills as the basis for determining success in doing so.

Allowing something like this is exactly like allowing an adept to use his powers through a summoned, non-possession spirit. Heck, even a possession spirit can't benefit from those powers without Channeling, and even then only if the adept is using his own skills during the channeling.

[phlapjack77]

speaking of drones...

adept with critical strike is jumped into an anthroform drone, drone is in unarmed combat. allowed?

only relevant text I could find was about cyborgs, which says, "Cyborgs using anthroform bodies may use the relevant weapon skill for any weapon they wield instead of Gunnery." To me, this says Unarmed Combat is ok, and thus critical strike would work.

[LurkerOutThere]

@LurkerOutThere
No, it actually does not.
Rules do not give you an electroshock if you read them wrong. They can not defend themselves. So if you want to missread them, you are more than able to.

Here you have one argument going against seven or more. And this argument boils down to "they use the word unarmed combat in the adept power and in the spell description". So please tell me, how you would like the rules to be written?
One spell on ten pages, to be sure you did not miss to declare every unthinkable combination illegal?

Well, then the first book would introduce the playable race human and the rules to walk down a street.
Sorry, but at some point it is not the mistake of the people who write the rules, but the one of the people who read them.
[/quote]


Your using a spurius argument but I used a brief one. This discussion is hardly the first, and likely not the last on the steaming pile of crap that is SR's magic system. How elese do we have 3-4 spells related to mind control many of which are flat out better that accomplish the same task in the very same book, very same chapter. How else do we have spells that somehow co-opt enemy electronic targeting systems, magical hacking anyone. Or spells that violate basic principles of line of sight which is supposed to be one of the few hard and fast rules of "how magic works."

A system can be solid and well written and have and not have some of the glaring issues that SR does. I don't have a perfect fix, I would hope when they sit down to right the next edition, which i hope the game gets. They sit down from jump and ask themselves how does magic work in the setting, what are the baselines. If the proper examination of the metasystem is set up from jump then you could begin to fix the rules issues that seem to have cropped up.

[Irion]

This discussion is hardly the first, and likely not the last on the steaming pile of crap that is SR's magic system. How elese do we have 3-4 spells related to mind control many of which are flat out better that accomplish the same task in the very same book, very same chapter. How else do we have spells that somehow co-opt enemy electronic targeting systems, magical hacking anyone. Or spells that violate basic principles of line of sight which is supposed to be one of the few hard and fast rules of "how magic works."

I do not know all of this discussion. But not all of them are the fault of the rules.
I remember me arguing for beeing able to Shapchange in a Human/Elf/Troll etc.
Baseless. Obviously not RAW nor RAI. I had no real argument and the discussion raged on and on.
As I read the new FAQ I found myself stroke down. A baseless claim was hold up by a half offical source. This was the day, when the FAQ died for me.

To the discussion about mind control, half the arguments, that influence is so strong are based on just ignoring the god damn rules as written.

And yes there are some spells, ignoring the basis. This always happens if someone want to make some very special spell.

Allowing something like this is exactly like allowing an adept to use his powers through a summoned, non-possession spirit. Heck, even a possession spirit can't benefit from those powers without Channeling, and even then only if the adept is using his own skills during the channeling.

You are mistaken here. The magic attribute is replaced and so all the powers are gone.

[Ol' Scratch]

Hmm?

When being possessed that's true (the spirit has no access to the host's abilities aside from raw physical stats which it amplifies), but when using Channeling the host is free to use his own abilities. He just uses the gestalted entity's current attributes in place of their own as appropriate. The only real limitation is that the host cannot directly access the spirit's powers and abilities, and the spirit cannot directly access the host's. Whereas when simply being possessed, the host is completely repressed.

If it worked the way I think you're implying, Channeling would be next to useless. Mainly because the gestat would be using the spirit's Mental Attributes, meaning it wouldn't be using the host's (so he'd have Logic 0, Intuition 0, etc.; basically, a vegetable). And I'm pretty sure that's not the case, either specifically or implied.

[Neraph]

@Neraph

No, you are not. Like 90% of the time, you are making shit up.

You are reading two or three words of the rules an start making an interpretation on this words only. Leaving the rest of the rules rotting in the dark.
Then you start claiming, your interpretation to be RAW.
Yes, it is RAW. RAW of three to five words you picked, while ignoring the rest. Well, guess what: Acting like this everything is RAW.

I'd like to see you quote page references to back up your claims at any point in time.

I've made my points. Go back and re-read the part where I extensively quote the rules. You gentlemen have decided to take a RAI interpretation of the fluff over a pure-crunchy-goodness RAW section, quoted from the book, to claim a house rule is the RAW. There is nothing wrong with house ruling things... except for when you incorrectly state that a house rule is in fact the RAW.