Combat Sense, Adept Power and Spell stacking? Options

[mmmkay]

Does the adept power Combat Sense stack with the spell Combat Sense?

I searched, but couldn't find a ruling. Usually spells and adept powers stack, but I wanted to know if there was any text indicating that this is not the case since I could not find it.

[TheOOB]

Things in shadowrun stack unless they say otherwise.

[mmmkay]

Yea, but do they say otherwise? Is there a rule about same name powers/spells?

[TheOOB]

Yea, but do they say otherwise? Is there a rule about same name powers/spells?

Neither of them say they don't stack, and ones a power and ones a spell, so they are different bonuses.

I personally think it's a developer oversight naming them both the same thing(as it's needlessly confusing), but they stack.

[mmmkay]

Thanks OOB.

[Infornography]

Things in shadowrun stack unless they say otherwise.

That's only what powergamers want everyone to believe.

[Dakka Dakka]

I personally think it's a developer oversight naming them both the same thing(as it's needlessly confusing), but they stack.

It is not as bad as Mystic Armor (Adept Power) and Mystic Armor (Critter Power). Those two don't even do the same thing.

That's only what powergamers want everyone to believe.

Prove there is a rule saying otherwise.

[toturi]

That's only what powergamers want everyone to believe.

And that's only what the roleplay drama queens want everyone to believe.

[Shinobi Killfist]

That's only what powergamers want everyone to believe.

Them's the rules. I think they should take a cue from D&D and name bonuses for 5e and same named bonuses don't stack but for 4e unless specified they stack.

[Irion]

Both interpretations are valid and everything in between too.

I think they should take a cue from D&D and name bonuses for 5e and same named bonuses don't stack but for 4e unless specified they stack.

Yes, I guess that would have been a good idea.
Like:
A sticks with everything.
B sticks not with itself.
C:does not stick with anything.

Prove there is a rule saying otherwise.

Well, doing it your way SnS would have an armorpenetration of (armor+X)/2 or even armor/2+X. X be the armorpenetration of the rifle you fire it with.

There is a lot of stuff, where it is more than questionable if everything sticks. Healing tests are another thing to consider.
If you go really RAW partial darkness and full darkness would scould tick too.

There is no real rule, but you may have a lot of arguments about this topic anyway...

[Psikerlord]

that's what your GM and group is for ... to discuss this type of thing and make a houserule on it.

[Aerospider]

If you go really RAW partial darkness and full darkness would scould tick too.

This much is definitely not possible, even for the RAWest of interpretations as the two states cannot co-exist. The darkness is either full or partial, but not both.

[Irion]

@Aerospider
Depends on the definition...

[Aerospider]

@Aerospider
Depends on the definition...

I'm intrigued. Please provide a definition that calls for both modifiers.

Partial credit if you can describe a situation in which any single and specific element is in both a full and a partial state simultaneously.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This much is definitely not possible, even for the RAWest of interpretations as the two states cannot co-exist. The darkness is either full or partial, but not both.

See, I read that as being subject to one or the other, but not both... *shrug*

[Aerospider]

See, I read that as being subject to one or the other, but not both... *shrug*

Exactly the point I'm arguing. Stacking those two modifiers is akin to imposing the long range shooting penalty and the extreme range shooting penalty at the same time. You can't be at more than one range at once and you can't be in two different levels of darkness at once. Don't expect RAW to ban things that are not possible by definition - the book can only be so big.

[Irion]

Partial darkness: less than light than X.
Total darkness no light.
If you have no light it is also darker than X.

Is this definiation somewhat strange? Yes, no question about it. There are a lot of things where it is questionable if they do or should stack. (And there is nothing said about it)


Lets go to my favorite example, shall we:
Healing wounds:
During combat in a swamp in the middle of a severe storm.
No do I get: -4 or -10.
Both can be argued for.

[Yerameyahu]

Funny how people don't ask if negative, 'unfun' things stack against them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Dakka Dakka]

Well, doing it your way SnS would have an armorpenetration of (armor+X)/2 or even armor/2+X. X be the armorpenetration of the rifle you fire it with.

Nope the rules say otherwise:

The Stick-n-Shock replaces the weapon’s Damage Value with its own.

If you go really RAW partial darkness and full darkness would scould tick too.

Wrong as well. There is no modifier for partial darkness. It is a modifier for partial light (SR4A p. 152). The conditions Partial Light and Full Darkness cannot exist at the same time.

On a related note Target Hidden and Full Darkness do stack of course.

@Healing Modifiers: Yes RAW is -10, but the problem here is that the conditions are weighed (good to terrible) which are mutually exclusive and give examples which can of course stack (combat, in a swamp, that is burning)

[Irion]

@Dakka Dakka

Wrong as well. There is no modifier for partial darkness. It is a modifier for partial light (SR4A p. 152). The conditions Partial Light and Full Darkness cannot exist at the same time.

Depends on how you define it. Sorry for not looking up the correct wording.
I would not go into the "but the wording says" kind of argument. There are a lot of those in the book.

@Healing Modifiers: Yes RAW is -10, but the problem here is that the conditions are weighed (good to terrible) which are mutually exclusive and give examples which can of course stack (combat, in a swamp, that is burning)

Not really. A fight in a swamp is thougher than a fight in a steril invironement.
And sorry, actually there is nothing telling so.
So if you go with stacks unless something else is said, it stacks.

@Yerameyahu
Like nobody is interested in the restriction in the spell description....

[Aerospider]

Nope the rules say otherwise:

Now this is very high pedantry and not something I take heed of, but technically damage value and armour penetration are distinct elements. I already checked and RAW really doesn't state explicitly that the AP of S'n'S ammo replaces that of the weapon. Or the type of armour used for that matter.

[Irion]

@Yerameyahu
Just a note: Because there is a lot of those. If you really go with RAW at a rule lawyer, he will probably cry, because his char won't even get out of bed without hurting himself.
There is a lot of stuff, which is just ignored because it "can not be that way".

[Yerameyahu]

Funny how they always find the stackings that *help* them, though. No matter how many of those there are. And they never ignore *them*, no matter how obviously things 'can not be that way'. I'm just saying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) TANSTAAFL.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Now this is very high pedantry and not something I take heed of, but technically damage value and armour penetration are distinct elements. I already checked and RAW really doesn't state explicitly that the AP of S'n'S ammo replaces that of the weapon. Or the type of armour used for that matter.

It is pretty obvious that the rules quoted earlier for SNS actually replaces the normal damage/effects from the weapon with the SNS Effects. Not sure how you could read it any other way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Aerospider]

It is pretty obvious that the rules quoted earlier for SNS actually replaces the normal damage/effects from the weapon with the SNS Effects. Not sure how you could read it any other way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

You must be thinking of a different thread because the only quote here mentions only damage value. Other than that, in RAW I can't find any text that says to treat the stats for SnS any differently to other ammo, which is cumulative with the weapon's AP. I don't play it that way, but we were talking rules-lawyerage. If you have a quote that is explicit please do provide.