What is it about 3rd Edition? Options

[Stahlseele]

Err, Combat Pool only applies to base skill, not to specialisation/concentration in SR3 i think.
And yeah, i was asking about the SR3/20 dice as well, getting 30 dice or so in SR4/5 is pretty trivial . .

[Cochise]

For 20 dice, 5/7 skill/specialization, 7 dice from Combat Pool, and 6 dice from a force: 6 weapon focus. Obviously, it needs to be an aspected magician with A: Resources. It is a bit counter-intuitive, because you would normally think adept, but adepts can only get to 19 dice, since their bonus dice from improved ability are capped at the base skill.

The main reason I asked is:

SR3, p.43: The maximum number of Combat Pool dice that a player can add to any offensive test is equal to his or her character's rating in the skill for which he is making the test.

The distinct lack of words like "base" or "specialization" does open that sentence to interpretation. And from my experience in discussions on that matter it's easier to argue for a limitation of Combat Pool usage to the base skill than arguing for specializations being the relevant rating. This would limit your example to 18 dice (same for Adepts btw.) [edit: when ignoring the fact that a weapon focus is actually a skill increase].

Another interesting aspect of that sentence is the use of "offensive test" when trying to look at Combat Pool limitation during melee when being attacked.

[Stahlseele]

So, the highest Dice Pool for an SR3 CharGen is always an adept with a weapon focus then i guess.
No other way to get +12 dice for anything.

[Cochise]

So, the highest Dice Pool for an SR3 CharGen is always an adept with a weapon focus then i guess.
No other way to get +12 dice for anything.

No, when restricting yourself to SR3 core rules it's Glyph's aspected magician with 18+X dice because physical adepts have no legal way of binding a weapon focus during chargen and improved ability definitely cutting off at a max skill rating of 6 and not benefiting from a 5(7) specialization which limits him to 18 dice max (skill + improved ability + combat pool).

The saving thing for Glyph's build is actually something I previously quoted: a weapon focus adding to the skill level of the associated skill instead of being a mere bonus ... thus increasing the upper limit for Combat Pool beyond 5 in his example right up to 11 (or 12 if you aren't using a specialization). So the upper limit is higher than 20 when going "one trick pony" in numbers there if you manage to increase Combat Pool beyond his assumed value of 7. Which is possible via attributes as well as a Combat Sense spell plus sustaining focus

The challenge there would be: Try to determine the sweet spots for such combinations as well as the average and upper limit of such a build.

[Stahlseele]

The Sweet Spot due to diminishing Returns is 18 Dice.
For everything above that, you pay through the nose in both ressources and versatility.
And if you can't land a hit with 18 dice, chances are you won't hit with more dice either.
And if you do hit with 18 dice, let us be generous and say you get 12 hits (2/3), it does not matter how low the power of the attack is either.
Let's take the worst case scenario. 2l Damage on 1 hit. On 2 Hits, that is 2M, on 4 it is 2S, on 6 it is 2D. And now you have still 6 hits left.
There was a rule somewhere that melee combat damage rises in power for each 1 net hit above deadly, so that would be 8D damage then.
Else you stop at 2D Damage, and now whoever you hit still has to roll 12 or more body dice to have a chance to stage it back down to nothing.
If you hit somebody who does not have double digit body, the probability of it being a one shot kill is high enough, even with 2l BASE damage.

And even if the focus/adept improved ability allowed it, i still probably would not use more than 6 dice of combat pool for an attack roll either.
Because shit can still go wrong and i could still need more dice in defence, if the poor sucker on the other side is either not alone or ungodly lucky.

[Glyph]

Hard maxing rarely reaches the "sweet spot", although in both the SR3 and SR5 cases, the builds are viable ones without glaring weaknesses. Stahlseele is dead on about paying too much for overkill, though. I tend to have dice pools more in the high teens, so I can broaden out my characters more.

The SR3 weapon-focus dude is good, as long as you stick to a Reach 0 or 1 weapon; Reach 2 is doable, but leaves the character more bare-bones. In SR3, you actually can make sorcerers who are good at hand-to-hand combat.

The main problem with the SR5 version is that it is a character with an Edge of 1 who will usually roll more hits than his/her physical limit. And while the character doesn't have any glaring weaknesses or omissions, I still feel the opportunity costs. Not having a super-high initiative and passive dodge, not having a troll's massive damage code, and not having a human's super-high Edge.

[Cochise]

The Sweet Spot due to diminishing Returns is 18 Dice.
For everything above that, you pay through the nose in both ressources and versatility.

Actually being versatile and not wasting resources however wasn't the premise when trying to maximize said dice pools in hard-maxed character types that deserve the label "one-trick pony". Their "sweet spots" simply do not lie in ranges where normal game play occurs. Just look at my dwarfs: They literally cannot do anything beyond melee and a bit of spell defense and would suffer at pretty much everything else (even without resorting to hanging them by their flaws).

And if you can't land a hit with 18 dice, chances are you won't hit with more dice either.

But you will seriously alter the outcome if you actually do hit. And that's were larger dice pools do the actual killing beyond your 18 dice "sweet spot".

And if you do hit with 18 dice, let us be generous and say you get 12 hits (2/3), it does not matter how low the power of the attack is either.
Let's take the worst case scenario. 2l Damage on 1 hit. On 2 Hits, that is 2M, on 4 it is 2S, on 6 it is 2D. And now you have still 6 hits left.
There was a rule somewhere that melee combat damage rises in power for each 1 net hit above deadly, so that would be 8D damage then.

For the record: In melee it takes two net successes to increase power level by 1 after you have staged to damage level D with net successes. For the sake of your example let's assume that those 12 successes with 18 dice are also net successes against your opponent and really assume that (after deduction of armor rating) the opponent would have faced 2L against a single net success or a draw in the opposing melee test => The final damage code would be 5D in case of 12 net successes. Note that - unless the optional "deadlier over damage" rules come into play - melee damage in SR3 will never demand more than 8 successes to completely resist damage. Ranged combat vastly differs there.

The consequence of that is: The more dice you can actually throw against an opponent the better because it makes it progressively harder to resist damage. Up to point were diminishing returns actually kick in a meaningful way. One such diminishing return point would be the exploding dice requiring to at least hit another 2 after rolling a six. If you really want to get to 8D in your example you'd need another 6 successes and since you operated under the assumption that only 2/3 of all available dice actually show successes that would require 9 additional dice above your 18 => 27 ... let's just not wonder why my dwarfs were built with the aim to get to that number as close as possible without having to resort to Combat Pool usage (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But you don't necessarily have to stop there, because a much safer point of diminishing returns would occur at the next exploding dice transition to TN of 14 after armor deduction and for that you'll need - depending on base strength and weapon of choice - some more dice .. particularly once you no longer assume that your melee opponent doesn't create any successes during the opposed skill test.

And even if the focus/adept improved ability allowed it, i still probably would not use more than 6 dice of combat pool for an attack roll either.

That's why one would try to aim at not having to use Combat Pool in the first place or having an abundance of available Combat Pool dice (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As a side note: SR3 does have some nice features that would allow for some rather creative ways of countering my dwarfs in their field of expertise with the template that Glyph used for getting to his 20 dice.

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, in Melee, getting Net Hits ain't all that hugely important in SR3.
Getting your POWER Level up is WAY more important. More than the Damage Level even.
This is why Trolls were the undisputed Melee Monsters in SR3. Low skill does not matter.
As long as you can reliably hit, even one Net Hit from a Troll(STR10) with an Axe with Dikote will usually mean 11D before armor to resist.
After Armor, because IMPACT ARMOR was usually lower than Ballistic, it was closer to 7-8D to resist against. Which is hard enough, but doable.
Instead of doing that, you could always go with Bone-Lacing. Ceramic will make that 13M Stun to resist before armor. Which is harder to do already.
Or Titanium Bone-Lacing for 14M Stun before Armor. And now we get to the point where the lower damage output does not matter as much, because in the end you will be dealing more damage consistently, because the enemy TN to resist rises higher than your actual damage does.

[Cain]

Don't forget that Body was actually meaningful in SR3. When you soaked damage, all you got was Body. Armor reduced the TN, but if you couldn't get enough successes to soak, you would get hurt. So, regardless of armor, someone with Body 2 couldn't stage the damage more than once. Starting with SR4, body simply became another factor, so piling on the armor became much more effective.

[Stahlseele]

Yes, i know.
I prefer the 3rd edition system, i know less about SR4 and 5 together than i think i know about SR3 <.<

[Cain]

Yes, i know.
I prefer the 3rd edition system, i know less about SR4 and 5 together than i think i know about SR3 <.<

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

No worries, I was just posting that for the benefit of those here who have't played SR3.

[Stahlseele]

Oh. Right. Yes.
I forgot we allow that kind of people here now <.<;,

[sk8bcn]

And "you" making such decisions would be something that "I" would have agreed upon when accepting "you" as current GM. However, that neither changes the fact that per RAW "I" would get the focus' bonus regardless of which hand it's wielded in nor the fact that I personally would opt not to play with you (note the distinct lack of quotation marks here) as GM if you were to make such decisions "just because".

I 95% agree.

I guess we wouldn't play together.


The 5% remaining is because of:

I personally would opt not to play with you (note the distinct lack of quotation marks here) as GM if you were to make such decisions "just because".

Not "just because", because I would overrule the RAW rule by deciding that the magic sword helps using that sword, not granting a bonus to the skill.

I don't think the spirit is exactely the same than a Magic Focus. If it was the case, we could imagine an amulet being a weapon focus (what I never saw).


And if despite of this reasoning, you'd say: "I won't play with you", I would answer: nice seriously, it's better that way. Because turning down a game because the gamemaster house rule a thing that limits your 27 dices to 21 something... erm, yeah, just leave...


ps: I have no intention to be offensive and really, don't read it that way. It's a difference in perception I've already discovered between my view of gamemastering and several dumpschockers around. I have no problem with altering the rules I don't like (but I always want to understand RAW before doing it) whether several here are very attached to RAW.

[Cochise]

Not "just because", because I would overrule the RAW rule by deciding that the magic sword helps using that sword, not granting a bonus to the skill.

Such an "overruling" yet again assumes that I as player would actually allow you to make such a particular call without consulting the group - including myself - and without providing serious reasons prior to making the change.
As of now and within my perception you haven't presented any such serious reasons and firmly remain in "just because" territory of "your" alleged GM-powers. Matter of fact there: It's unlikely that I would accept you making that call and subsequently would still exercise my individual right of not playing with you.

I don't think the spirit is exactely the same than a Magic Focus. If it was the case, we could imagine an amulet being a weapon focus (what I never saw).

You're bringing nothing new to the table there: An amulet as weapon focus doesn't work within RAW due to the "wielding in combat" requirement. So your not providing any "reasoning" that explains as to why I should accept your decision that RAW should be replaced in that particular manner.

And if despite of this reasoning, you'd say: "I won't play with you", I would answer: nice seriously, it's better that way. Because turning down a game because the gamemaster house rule a thing that limits your 27 dices to 21 something... erm, yeah, just leave...

Your misconception there is, that I'd actually be demanding to play either one of those two dwarfs in one of "your" games. Our clash in philosophy concerning you exercising your "gamemaster house rules" rights would start way before that, so you wouldn't even get to point of making such a comment.

ps: I have no intention to be offensive and really, don't read it that way.

I haven't perceived that as an attack and haven't read it that way either. I'm just being rather blunt myself there.

It's a difference in perception I've already discovered between my view of gamemastering and several dumpschockers around. I have no problem with altering the rules I don't like (but I always want to understand RAW before doing it) whether several here are very attached to RAW.

Yet another serious misconception as far as my person is concerned. I certainly am somewhat "attached" to "RAW", but that's due to the fact that over a rather long period of time I acted as GM in several SR groups simultaneously and had my fair share of convention play, thus making the smallest common denominator (RAW) with as little house ruling as possible the best choice in order to keep things easy for me as well as my fellow players. Additionally RAW also happens to be the common ground for internet discussions, so I'll put my focus there until the premise is explicitly changed. There have been numerous times where I provided non-RAW suggestions to players and GMs who asked for a particular house rule on an issue that they perceived as a problem.

In this particular case however we're clashing right at the point where I as a GM see myself as part of the group and subsequently have to rationalize whatever change I suggest as a "primus inter pares" and not simply based on the role as GM. In turn my fellow players actually do get the right to propose changes of their own. I'll only exercise the GM-rights in direct gaming situations where the available rules either are lacking or their application would interfere with the current narrative. And that's something my players have to subscribe to before we start playing (or they can opt for leaving the table just as I would leave yours). The question whether or not a character like one of the presented dwarfs or even a seriously toned down version should get focus bonuses as per RAW regardless of which hand he's holding the weapon in is no such thing of direct gaming situation or ("one-time") change for sake of narrative. That's a fundamental question I'd want to resolve before play starts - both as player and as GM - and so you'd have to convince me ... which you haven't. So my choice would be restricted to leaving.

[Jaid]

I dunno, I'd say it's a pretty major thing in SR3 at least to have focuses apply to the skill rather than the weapon.

weapons with high reach have a significantly increased cost to bond as a weapon focus. if I can bond, say, a combat knife with reach 0 (an edged weapon), and have that apply to a combat axe (another edged weapon) with reach 2, that's pretty insane karma savings (also, I'd probably have to be pretty massive myself to wield both of those weapons at the same time, but that's beside the point (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) )

it's also a pretty significant impact if you're crafting your own; you can use a poorly-made stone knife into a weapon focus (considerably easier to do) and who cares if it turns out to be a piece of junk, you're using it to augment your use of a superbly crafted dikoted katana which would normally be substantially harder to enchant.

[Cochise]

I dunno, I'd say it's a pretty major thing in SR3 at least to have focuses apply to the skill rather than the weapon.

It certainly is, but there are several constraints that come with that.

weapons with high reach have a significantly increased cost to bond as a weapon focus. if I can bond, say, a combat knife with reach 0 (an edged weapon), and have that apply to a combat axe (another edged weapon) with reach 2, that's pretty insane karma savings (also, I'd probably have to be pretty massive myself to wield both of those weapons at the same time, but that's beside the point (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) )

Constraints there:

1. No legit way of dual-wielding a reach 2 combat axe with a reach 0 knife, not even as troll due to the allowed primary, secondary weapon combinations (under RAW). The best you can get is a difference in one reach point.
2. Unless the character in question doesn't also posses an ambidexterity edge of level 3 or 4 a weapon focus held in the off-hand would only increase the appropriate skill which then happens to be "off-hand [edged weapons]" and not "edged weapons". And the bonus would still be halved for the dice pool calculation
3. Even in situations where someone successfully utilizes ambidexterity plus an off-hand wielded weapon focus he'd still only get the dice but none of the other magical weapon focus effects which tend to be of more importance - at least within my experience

So the question would be: How often do you actually see an adept or a mage (who both happen to be karmic black holes anyway) displaying that kind of melee proficiency so that it's a "must" to remove a bit of karmic saving and removing that commonly rather small dice bonus? From personal experience I can count the number of times where weapon foci beyond power 3 (which would amount to a maximum of 4 additional dice while dual-wielding) were actually used on a regular basis with two hands.

it's also a pretty significant impact if you're crafting your own; you can use a poorly-made stone knife into a weapon focus (considerably easier to do) and who cares if it turns out to be a piece of junk, you're using it to augment your use of a superbly crafted dikoted katana which would normally be substantially harder to enchant.

Significantly enough to warrant a house ruling against it?

[Glyph]

I wouldn't quite call it a house rule. The sentence at the heart of the dispute is "An active weapon focus adds its Force to its owner's appropriate combat skill when wielded in combat." This could be taken to mean that if you have a weapon focus in hand, the skill increases, so the off-hand weapon gets the usual half of it (if it is the same kind of weapon). It could also be taken to mean that you only get the skill increase for the weapon focus that is actually being wielded. I lean slightly towards the first interpretation, but I could see where the GM was coming from if he/she favored the second interpretation.


Out of curiosity, because I don't have Run and Gun yet - did they make two-weapon style ludicrously overpowered, like it is in SR3 and SR4?

[Sendaz]

You be the judge.....

Two weapons style using as offense uses the following
Each weapon (club / blades only) can only have a reach of 1 or 0. Two-weapon style combat treats both weapons as one. When attacking, use the lesser Reach of the two weapons, but add 1 to the Accuracy and Damage Value of the longer weapon. The character must be able and ready to use a weapon in each hand in order to perform this style of attack.

On defense they do :
The character receives a 2 dice bonus when using Full Defense against Close Combat attacks. The character must be able and ready to use a weapon in each hand in order to perform this style of defense.

[Jaid]

Constraints there:

1. No legit way of dual-wielding a reach 2 combat axe with a reach 0 knife, not even as troll due to the allowed primary, secondary weapon combinations (under RAW). The best you can get is a difference in one reach point.
2. Unless the character in question doesn't also posses an ambidexterity edge of level 3 or 4 a weapon focus held in the off-hand would only increase the appropriate skill which then happens to be "off-hand [edged weapons]" and not "edged weapons". And the bonus would still be halved for the dice pool calculation
3. Even in situations where someone successfully utilizes ambidexterity plus an off-hand wielded weapon focus he'd still only get the dice but none of the other magical weapon focus effects which tend to be of more importance - at least within my experience

So the question would be: How often do you actually see an adept or a mage (who both happen to be karmic black holes anyway) displaying that kind of melee proficiency so that it's a "must" to remove a bit of karmic saving and removing that commonly rather small dice bonus? From personal experience I can count the number of times where weapon foci beyond power 3 (which would amount to a maximum of 4 additional dice while dual-wielding) were actually used on a regular basis with two hands.

you don't have to dual-wield them. you just have to wield both of them. and so you swing your axe (or katana, or whatever) in your main hand, and hold the knife in your off hand. depending on situation, you may be able to pull off even more (for example, if you were to make a stone bayonet and mount it on one of those special gun arms you can have. can't recall the supplement, but it does exist and was around before SR4).

other possibilities might include extra arms from SURGE, a toe blade, wielding a weapon in a prehensile tail, etc... and just not using them for a dual-weapon attack. after all, if the argument is that you don't need to be using the weapon to make the attack for it to give the bonus, then why do you need to be using the weapon to make *any* attack to receive the bonus? if all that is required to receive the bonus is to wield the weapon, then all of these (very cheesy) tricks should be possible, and probably others that I haven't thought of.

[Cochise]

you don't have to dual-wield them. you just have to wield both of them. and so you swing your axe (or katana, or whatever) in your main hand, and hold the knife in your off hand.

The crux there would be that going by the rule setup and used terminology you'd be hard pressed to support the notion that you can fight with just one melee weapon (using standard melee rules) while being considered to actually wield that off-hand weapon as well.

depending on situation, you may be able to pull off even more (for example, if you were to make a stone bayonet and mount it on one of those special gun arms you can have. can't recall the supplement, but it does exist and was around before SR4).

The articulated arm? That one was limited to characters with a cybertorso. Not the "best" (or likely) combination for a magically active character but certainly possible as long as the rules allow you to incorporate that arm into melee and can be considered as fulfilling the "wielding" requirement.

after all, if the argument is that you don't need to be using the weapon to make the attack for it to give the bonus,

However, that wasn't the argument. The argument was that you'd get a weapon focus' bonus for a skill regardless of which hand you're holding it with as long as you're actually wielding it in combat. Merely holding it wouldn't qualify just like having it on you doesn't .

then why do you need to be using the weapon to make *any* attack to receive the bonus?

That appears to be a "magical" RAW condition associated to weapon foci in SR3 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

if all that is required to receive the bonus is to wield the weapon, then all of these (very cheesy) tricks should be possible, and probably others that I haven't thought of.

I guess that would still depend on the semantics of "to wield". And last time I checked that verb included the notion of something actually being used during the associated action and not just being present ~shrug~

[Glyph]

You be the judge.....

Two weapons style using as offense uses the following
Each weapon (club / blades only) can only have a reach of 1 or 0. Two-weapon style combat treats both weapons as one. When attacking, use the lesser Reach of the two weapons, but add 1 to the Accuracy and Damage Value of the longer weapon. The character must be able and ready to use a weapon in each hand in order to perform this style of attack.

On defense they do :
The character receives a 2 dice bonus when using Full Defense against Close Combat attacks. The character must be able and ready to use a weapon in each hand in order to perform this style of defense.

That actually sounds a lot more reasonable than the SR3 and SR4 versions, which gave massive bonuses.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That actually sounds a lot more reasonable than the SR3 and SR4 versions, which gave massive bonuses.

For SR4, it was not about the bonuses as much as it allowed an Attack AND Full Parry action (IIRC) in the same pass. The bonuses were just icing on the cake after that.

[Glyph]

For SR4, it was not about the bonuses as much as it allowed an Attack AND Full Parry action (IIRC) in the same pass. The bonuses were just icing on the cake after that.

That's the bonus I'm talking about, and it is a huge deal. Melee combat is basically skill + Attribute vs. skill + Attribute, so it is hard to hit someone of equal skill using passive defense. When they get to add their skill dice again, the defender has a huge advantage. Not to mention how even more broken it can get when you combine it with the disarm maneuver and the martial arts advantage that lets you do damage on a disarm; or the adept counterstrike power, which lets you take your extra defensive successes and add them to your attack dice pool.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's the bonus I'm talking about, and it is a huge deal. Melee combat is basically skill + Attribute vs. skill + Attribute, so it is hard to hit someone of equal skill using passive defense. When they get to add their skill dice again, the defender has a huge advantage. Not to mention how even more broken it can get when you combine it with the disarm maneuver and the martial arts advantage that lets you do damage on a disarm; or the adept counterstrike power, which lets you take your extra defensive successes and add them to your attack dice pool.

Then we are in agreement. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[sk8bcn]

In this particular case however we're clashing right at the point where I as a GM see myself as part of the group and subsequently have to rationalize whatever change I suggest as a "primus inter pares" and not simply based on the role as GM. In turn my fellow players actually do get the right to propose changes of their own. I'll only exercise the GM-rights in direct gaming situations where the available rules either are lacking or their application would interfere with the current narrative. And that's something my players have to subscribe to before we start playing (or they can opt for leaving the table just as I would leave yours).
(...)
That's a fundamental question I'd want to resolve before play starts - both as player and as GM - and so you'd have to convince me ... which you haven't. So my choice would be restricted to leaving.

You summarize the problem well I think.

You see the gamemaster as a part of the group with one additional power that is, interpreting rules and validates new one when RAW is lacking.

I don't see it that way. The gamemaster has, for me, a power superior that is the control of the game. To me, his duty is to make the game fun for the group.

For that, I did:
> houserule things to limit overpowered options in game (like heavy multiple attacks in Earthdawn that was totally OP compared to spellcasting).
> did ask players not to munchkin if it wasn't into the theme of the game
> said to some players, prone to group betrayal, not to do it because it destroys a campaign quite easily.

I don't feel like the GM is part of the group. The success is only mesured on the fun at the end of the day.

(ps: And it's not an ego-thing, because I accept all this as a player too).