Weapon Focus Opinions, Are vibro-blades doable? Options

[Shortstraw]

Like I said singing swords are the way to go allows you to use the crunch as written but gives a nice fluffy coating.

[Dakka Dakka]

Like I said singing swords are the way to go allows you to use the crunch as written but gives a nice fluffy coating.

what singing sword are you talking about? What crunch?

[Shortstraw]

CAPTAIN CRUNCH!

[Neraph]

Still using enchanted cyberware after it is implanted should also be impossible for the reason Stahlseele mentioned. You could however enchant a cyberarm and use it as a club, but that would be a pretty expensive club. The removable blades of the Projectile Spur might be an edge case.

I disagree. What about the implantation would make the enchantment fail?

[Dakka Dakka]

The implantation makes it part of the person it is implanted into. For the purpose of magic it is no longer a separate entity.

[_Pax._]

The implantation makes it part of the person it is implanted into. For the purpose of magic it is no longer a separate entity.

However, RAW say it still works.

[Dakka Dakka]

However, RAW say it still works.

Where? FAQ is not necessarily RAW.

[Yerameyahu]

There's no great reason for it to be allowable, anyway. Any benefit to the game/world? Weird exploits are not a benefit.

[Stahlseele]

Hmm, only if Weapon-Foci could be bount to mundanes . .
Sick your Samurai with a magical Spur against a Spirit and see it fall to pieces of ectoplasma . .

[_Pax._]

Where? FAQ is not necessarily RAW.

If it's the Official FAQ ... then yes, really, it is RAW.

[Dr.Rockso]

If it's the Official FAQ ... then yes, really, it is RAW.

I was under the impression that the FAQs were always RAI, whereas only the rare and coveted Errata was RAW.

[Dakka Dakka]

I was under the impression that the FAQs were always RAI, whereas only the rare and coveted Errata was RAW.

Exactly, FAQ can and should clarify the rules as written to better understand them. FAQ cannot state anything that contradicts the RAW. If they do this is irrelevant. Rules changes belong in Errata or new editions.

The SR FAQ contradict the rules as written in several points (Specialization and dice pool splitting, MAG attribute for Mystic adepts to name a few) besides the one above.

[_Pax._]

I was under the impression that the FAQs were always RAI, whereas only the rare and coveted Errata was RAW.

Okay, that's a distinction I can accept. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

The implantation makes it part of the person it is implanted into. For the purpose of magic it is no longer a separate entity.

What about nanites that only work on cyberware then? It should affect the person's cyberware since that 'ware is now part of the person, and people aren't affected by that nanite.

[Yerameyahu]

Um… nanites aren't magic. Tech doesn't obey magic's 'unity' rule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Dakka is proposing that because implantation makes something magically unified, it means pre-existing enchantment breaks. This is pretty reasonable, to me; there's also no reason it shouldn't be so.

[SpellBinder]

Hmm, only if Weapon-Foci could be bount to mundanes . .

You should check up on the Kurokawa on page 9 of the Digital Grimore (and the follow-up story on page 75 of Street Magic).

Sick your Samurai with a magical Spur against a Spirit and see it fall to pieces of ectoplasma . .

I know a GM who's quite fine with weapon focus cyber spurs. His logic behind it is that the whole assembly of the weapon (save the spur/blade) is where the essence cost is, and the actual spur/blade itself is a separate piece that is replaceable and enchantable on it's own.

[Neraph]

Unnecessary mental gymnastics.

[Yerameyahu]

Wait. Coming from you, is that an insult or a compliment? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Falconer]

Exactly, FAQ can and should clarify the rules as written to better understand them. FAQ cannot state anything that contradicts the RAW. If they do this is irrelevant. Rules changes belong in Errata or new editions.

The SR FAQ contradict the rules as written in several points (Specialization and dice pool splitting, MAG attribute for Mystic adepts to name a few) besides the one above.

This is an incorrect asesrtion... Rockso has it correct. The FAQ only serves to clarify. Only in *TWO* spots does it *CLEARLY* (emphasis mine) contradict the rules. The two you list... there are no 'few' other. In all other cases a variety of readings are possible. The only people who constantly assert it doesn't are people who don't like some of it's answers. (and I admit I don't like some of them... but I accept that the author did a bang up job of keeping errata/rules changes out of it).

Rockso you are right, the FAQ is RAI. It's purpose is only to clarify ambiguous rules even it's author asserts this. It does not function as errata. (search up the threads by "Ancient History" when it was first introduced, and you'll find that most of us rules lawyers went over it with a fine tooth comb looking for contradictions with the rules... and came up with only two... all the rest were grey).


As far as the comment earlier... I don't see a problem with implanted weapon focus cyberlimbs. Hell we have a lot of people on this forum who think that a weapon focus hardliner glove... allows an adept to stack up his improved 'unarmed' damage, with the weapons base damage... simply because it uses the unarmed skill. (it's a weapon attack using the unarmed combat skill... not an 'unarmed attack').

If an adept wants to spend essence for a cyberlimb then do it.. I'm fine with it. The faq makes it clear that it's working is AS INTENDED.


Dakka: my search fu is failing me... where exactly is the bit about cyberware merging with the target. Only bit I can think of is Street Magic under Mana Spells in the design section.

[Yerameyahu]

It's a general principle of magic and Essence-paid implants.

[Falconer]

Yera: Cite it...

I'm aware of the 'general knowledge'... I'm looking for the specifics. As in what's in the 3rd printing SR4a book... or street magic or any of the other main core supplements.

The only bit I've found so far is "Mana spells work against cyber-modified living beings because the cyberware was paid for with Essence and so is considered to be integral to the being's organic system."

[Yerameyahu]

Seems like plenty to me.

[Falconer]

No it's not... that by itself would mean that any spell which targets and damages cyberware does it's damage to it's host as it's integral to it's organic system. Nothing there saying a spell can't target the cyberware without targetting the host. (not saying it does... just pointing out that by itself is only partial... and my search fu is failing me).


Nothing there about targetting limitations. Or about it merging it's aura's... (in fact reading the assensing section... you'll notice cyberware shows up as 'holes' in the characters essense... So the assensing section would actually counsel against that the cyberware merges it's aura with the host. Similarly, I see no reason that hole couldn't be replaced with a weapon focuses magical aura.

[Yerameyahu]

No it's not... that by itself would mean that any spell which targets and damages cyberware does it's damage to it's host as it's integral to it's organic system. Nothing there saying a spell can't target the cyberware without targetting the host.

Like I said, I'm fully happy for both of these things to be true: you *can't* target implanted cyberware with (non-indirect) spells, so the first sentence is a non-issue.

To say that 'there are holes so you can put auras in them' is totally meaningless, though, whichever side of the argument you're on.

[Falconer]

No it's not Yera. And it shows you merely impose your views without regard to the RAW/RAI.

You've declared a principle then provided nothing to support it... and a lot of people hop onto it.


To give an example... it's entirely possible to have say a piece of cyber... say a dermal sheath... and then have a spell cast and quickened on it (like say the harden spell or something similar)... Then have it installed. What happens ACCORDING TO THE ASSENSING RULES... when someone assenses that target?