[X] My Assistant

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The point is not that you cannot recreate the canon spells with the same drain code but that you can create spells that are more powerful than the canon spells. There is for example the hidden Armor spell or the (Improved) Undetectability Spell. The former has the same drain code as the canon spell. the latter costs a mere +1 drain.

Which is why you have the spells vetted. Either do not allow the "More Powerful for same Drain Code" spells, or increase the drain. Why is that so hard? AS I said before, having a system where everything is delineated, and everything is codified, casues just as many, if not more, problems. I think the Shadowrun Spell System is very simplistic and quite easy. Can you get Edge cases out of it? Sure. But that applies to any system. Use some common sense to bring custom spells in line with the Canon Spells and you should have absolutely no problems whatsoever.

[Yerameyahu]

TJ, again, that's exactly my point. The spell rules shouldn't require direct GM interaction to fix the problems inherent in the spell rules. Fixing this issue would *not* require some superhuman complexity, which you keep implying. I *agree* the GM can handle this, just like the GM can handle *every* conceivable issue; that's saying nothing.

A good customization system, by definition, shouldn't allow unacceptable things in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If the vehicle mod rules didn't have any restrictions on weapon mount count or minimum vehicle size, the GM could still decide in every case. There's no reason to force that, though, when you can just say (Bod/3, round down).

[hermit]

Softweave armor is changed to act as follows: Softweave is a modification that may be applied to light armors, making it easier to wear for weaker individuals. Armor with this modification is treated as half its value for purposes of determining encumbrance. This modification may only be applied to an item with 6 armor or less. If your total armor value exceeds 6, then this modification has no effect. Form Fitting Body Armor may be affected by this upgrade, reducing encumbrance on that armor to 1/4 armor value if all armor worn has the modification. Form Fitting Body Armor does not count against the maximum limit of 6 for purposes of this modification.

Then, SecureTech armor may be affected by softweave, but is counted towards total armor for determining if your armor can be affected by softweave.



Okay that write up is really ugly and probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Some help rewriting it to make it clearer would be appreciated. But in the mean time, here's some examples that should clarify the intent:

Example 1: Character with body 2 feels really squishy, decides to get some softweave armor. He picks out a lined cloak, with 6/4 armor, and applies softweave. He also picks up a underbody half suit for 4/1 armor, and applies softweave to that as well. Putting both of these on gives him 10/5 armor, but for encumbrance purposes, it counts as (6/2 = 3 and 4/4 = 1) a total of 4 armor, which is acceptable for a 2 body character to wear without penalty. The character can choose to pick up some Securetech gear with softweave, such as helmet, and Shin Guards, with softweave which would give him an additional 3 impact armor, bringing his total up to 8/2 = 4, so he wouldn't be encumbered. However, if he picked up Leg and Arm Casings, his ballistic armor would be raised to 7, so even if he had softweave on everything, the basic limitation (total not counting underarmor cannot exceed 6) has been violated, so he would face full encumbrance.

In essence, this basic setup (ending with 10/9 maximum armor) is the armor that someone at 2 to 4 body will expect to have. Beyond that, it becomes more efficient to use non-softweaved armor


Example 2: A character with 4 body can choose to wear the setup described above, but he can actually afford to wear it without any encumbrance without the softweave. So he decides to abandon the softweave to save some nuyen, and use the capacity slots on other upgrades.

Example 3: A character with 6 body gains nothing from wearing the softweave, easily wearing that with no encumbrance, and instead grabs an Armored Jacket, Undersuit, and SecureTech, for a total of 14/12 armor. Just like now.

Hrm, that could work, even though it uses stuff from Bogota! and hence opens a wholly new can of worms.

Since SR4A doesn't allow more boni than base attribute, you need a high body to profit from that.

My bad, I mixed this up with the cap on skill+bonus.

[Seerow]

Hrm, that could work, even though it uses stuff from Bogota! and hence opens a wholly new can of worms.

Well it uses the name/fluff from something from WAR!, the mechanic was changed drastically. If you're afraid of someone taking liberties and claiming if you allow that the rest of WAR! should be allowed, it's not hard to change the name to something else.

[Draco18s]

"Flexicloth."

[hermit]

SecureTech Plus

Well it uses the name/fluff from something from WAR!, the mechanic was changed drastically. If you're afraid of someone taking liberties and claiming if you allow that the rest of WAR! should be allowed, it's not hard to change the name to something else.

Even though Slow was simply cut from the German release, there's still enough crap in this book, yeah. But a name change and changed mechanic might work ok. Will propose this to the group.

[Adarael]

Angryyyyfaaaaaaace.

The plural of "bonus" is "bonuses", not "boni." Boni is a totally different - and latin - word. I know this is anal of me but it drives me crazy every time I see it, like the fad of calling multiple boxes "boxen" in the late 90s was to computer nerds.

Continue calling it boni if you like, but I wanted to point this out on the off chance people didn't know.

[pbangarth]

Good for you, Adarael. Someone has to keep the language pure.

[CanRay]

Wait? English was ever pure?

I thought she was the dockside doxy of the linguistic world, rolling her johns for spare words they had in their pockets?

[Neraph]

I like following the law, so language rules are always intertesting to me. I figure most people on the internet can't spell so it doesn't surprise me when I see them use incorrect spelling and grammar.

[CanRay]

After working tech support, I'm surprised people remember how to breathe and work the "Funny Picture Box That Makes The World Come To Me, And Where I'm Always Right".

[Yerameyahu]

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[CanRay]

"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain

[Draco18s]

Wait? English was ever pure?

I thought she was the dockside doxy of the linguistic world, rolling her johns for spare words they had in their pockets?

For the life of me I can't remember the quote correctly or who said it (Terry Pratchett?) but it went something like:
"English is that language that lures other languages into a dark ally, beats them over the head, and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

Edit, found it.
"English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows other languages down dark alleys and knocks them over and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

[Neraph]

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The philosophy I use is this: a word is simply a sequence of sounds meant to convey a meaning. Regardless of what sequence of sounds I make (and phonectically make through typing on the internet), if I mean to convey a certain meaning and that meaning is conveyed, I just used a word.

That being said, whenever possible I like to try and use the more common, "official list", as it were.

[Neraph]

For the life of me I can't remember the quote correctly or who said it (Terry Pratchett?) but it went something like:
"English is that language that lures other languages into a dark ally, beats them over the head, and rummages through their pockets for loose vocabulary."

Somebody on the forums here has it in his sig... TJ?

EDIT: Yeah, TJ has it and he's the first poster on this page.

[Draco18s]

Somebody on the forums here has it in his sig... TJ?

EDIT: Yeah, TJ has it and he's the first poster on this page.

Hey, I didn't even notice.
And it's sourced, too!

[CanRay]

Cribhouse whore, dockside doxy, same-difference.

[Adarael]

No language has ever been pure (not even magic Latin). 'Boni' (however silly and annoying) is equally *valid*; logical etymology is not an argument. Vast numbers of our current words are based on errors, misunderstanding, typos, and so on, including errors in the application of logical etymology! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

No, it's not equally valid. It's as valid as saying the plural of bonus is "buttsex", because I said it was. In order for a word to be "correct" it has to be generally accepted by the public at large. Boni as plural of bonus is restricted to gamers and nerds, in my experience. It's certainly not accepted as a pluralization by any dictionary - and if it ain't in the dictionary, you can't call it correct, because it means it hasn't been widespread enough to be included in the public record.

Edit: if we wanna get correct and say we're speaking latin, bonus has to be bona, as bonus is gendered. Then the plural becomes bonum.

[suoq]

In order for a word to be "correct" it has to be generally accepted by the public at large.

Provably false. The words at http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html are "correct" and generally unknown by the public at large. Some words grow in popularity (such as "labelmate" and "manga" and eventually get put into the dictionary along with other perfectly cromulent words.

you can't call it correct, because it means it hasn't been widespread enough to be included in the public record

By your own logic, in order to be included in the public record, it needs to have widespread use first. That means widespread use of "incorrect" words needs to be acceptable for the language to evolve. Since language is clearly evolving, you may want to rethink what you mean by "correct". I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Yerameyahu]

I was gonna respond to Adarael, but I'm good with suoq's answer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I won't have to repeat any of it.

I will add this: dictionaries are not special. They do not determine, prove, or dictate what's 'real', 'right', etc. I also think you're misunderstanding my use of 'valid': all words are equally invalid, so it doesn't matter. You can only talk about how useful (==used) they are, which is not correlated to the nonexistent 'validity'. You're not wrong that language is democratic and mass use matters, but you're forgetting that every conceivable subgroup votes separately and repeatedly. Maybe my brother and I use 'fratzit', my soccer friends all say 'boogle', and my whole town says 'snarpull'… but all of these are miniscule compared to the group that you scoffed at 'gamers and nerds' (whatever the hell that is). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Adarael]

Provably false. The words at http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html are "correct" and generally unknown by the public at large. Some words grow in popularity (such as "labelmate" and "manga" and eventually get put into the dictionary along with other perfectly cromulent words.

By your own logic, in order to be included in the public record, it needs to have widespread use first. That means widespread use of "incorrect" words needs to be acceptable for the language to evolve. Since language is clearly evolving, you may want to rethink what you mean by "correct". I do not think it means what you think it means.

False equivalencies. The majority of these words are not and have not ever been adopted into modern English, for one. At one time, they *were* common, which is why they were recorded and put into use. If they were not common, they were at least created according to specific linguistic rules - such as Boustrophedon. My problem with "boni" is that it is based on a misunderstanding of proper language rules, rather than the actual rules. As I mentioned, it should properly be bona -> bonum.

Bonus to boni is a gendered construction which indicates a grouping of *good men*, not additive values.

As to the remainder of these words on the site you linked, they identify specific things. A liripipe identifies a specific thing and therefore must be used to identify it, much like saying "I like that katana" identifies a particular type of sword. Calling a katana a ken may also be correct linguistically, but deciding to call it a japachopper does not suddenly become correct when twenty others decide to use it. At least not until such time that those twenty people become twenty million.

(Labelmate, for the record, is a trademark like Xerox, and therefore is a proper name and *must* be considered a real word consequently.)

I will add this: dictionaries are not special. They do not determine, prove, or dictate what's 'real', 'right', etc.

Dictionaries recognize and codify accepted public speech. They are determinate in that they react to public language *use*, and thereofre dictate what is "right" far more accurately than personal opinion. And that is why they are valuable in the context of this discussion.

[Critias]

So, how 'bout those armor ratings, huh? And nice weather lately, don't you think?

[Yerameyahu]

Nope.

Many 'real words' are based on misunderstandings; this isn't a reason for or against them.

If 20 people use it, it's 'correct'.

Anyone can write a dictionary, or publish one. Just like the words themselves, they have only the value people give them, and 'more value' isn't really better anyway. Just like the words themselves, a given dictionary can be used by 20 or 20 million. It's true that dictionaries react (… usually) to actual language use, so they're not worthless. They're just not *special*, as I explained. A google search is as 'good' as a dictionary. UrbanDictionary is as good as the OED, in terms of 'worthiness'.

[Draco18s]

UrbanDictionary is as good as the OED, in terms of 'worthiness'.

Isn't that how the Merriam Webster dictionary came about (at least, the same process)?