My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Adepts and Cybereyes, Official opinion |
 Nov 3 2004, 05:07 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Immoral Elf  Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486  |
That is the subject of my third question, to which the response was basically 'He can't'.
The reason the ruling is specific to cybereyes is because the question did not mention other senses. I would assume that if an Adept has Improved Sense: Glands-on-his-nose-that-resembles-thermographic-vision, then replacing his eyes wouldn't affect that sense, as it isn't eyes related, but is related to the glands on the nose. If these were replaced cybernetically, the the Adept would lose the magical sense. There has been no canon ruling in regards to Improved Sense: Ultrasonic vision, or if there has, I missed it. As such, it can be ruled to work in whatever mysyical, non-technological manner you'd like, and is not strictly limited to cybereyes. I think the problem is semantics. Doc is saying that if a sense is listed as being a cybereye mod, then by canon that sense has to exactly correspond to the Adept's eyes. I read the canon as saying that the Improved Sense Power can mimic any sense (non-tech) available through cyber (or bio). it does not state how this sense is mimiced, nor are any limitations implied other than the technical caveat. |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:11 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Of course this leaves entirely aside the debate over whether an ultrasound emitter can accurately be describes as a "sense" as well... how 'bout we just leave Ultrasound Vision and Thermosense out of the thread entirely, hmm?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:18 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I didn't bring it into the thread, and was one of the people that pointed to that very lack of info in regards to UV. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:18 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Only based upon what you were complaining about in the other thread, Fortune. In that thread, I was saying the same thing you're now claiming; Improved Sense does not have to correspond exactly with the cybernetic equivalence. Just because it's normally a cybereye accessory (Thermographic Vision, Ultrasound Vision, etc.), that doesn't mean the Improved Sense mimicking its effects has to originate from his natural eyes.
But like I said earlier in this thread, if they do choose one that's focused on their eyes, then yeah, I'm completely behind having them lose it if they replace their eyes. I just don't care for these blanket rules, that's all. I'd be just as up in arms if there was a FAQ/quasi-FAQ entry that said Killing Hands *had* to be focused on your hands and/or Partial Cyberlimbs would completely nullify it. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:23 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
So adepts are mutants now? then des increased att strength make you bulkier? does strength boost turn you green and stupid? I was under the impression that adept powers were magical in nature, not variant mutant rules from the ones in critters
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:24 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I don't think they were meant to be 'blanket rules' as opposed to being answers to my (in hindsight) too specific questions.
I think they can be easily extrapolated out to include (logical) sense loss for the respective cybernetic replacements, which with ears could be argued back and forth on an individual basis. Also remember (this isn't to you Doc) that this ruling is only for full cybernetic replacement, not retinal mods, which should be totally compatable with any Adept Powers. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:27 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Doc ... I'm surprised you have no comment about the answer to question 1, and its (possible) inclusion in upcoming canon.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:31 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
I will admit I like the balance advantage from this but I see a can of worms being opened by it
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:34 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
of course the answer to 1 opens can of worms "why the listings for eyelights and natural low light in the vis mod table?" my ruling is that retinal mod eye lights were more like skull lights
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:08 AM
Post
#35
|
|||||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I'm not saying you have to describe them as physiological characteristics at all. It's the beauty of the adept concept; you can explain most of their powers in all kinds of interesting and creative ways. Improved Sense (visual sense of choice) can be an improvement to your eye, a new sensory organ altogether, or even a mystical third eye that has no physical presence whatsoever. Killing Hands can simply be you knowing where to hit a target with exceptional skill, a glowing magical aura around your fists, bone shards jutting from your hands, or anything else you like within reason.
If #1 is a genuine oversight, I have no problem with it. In the other thread I was only pointing out that, as written, it's not exclusive to cybereyes for the two main reasons already mentioned (it's not in the Game Effects unlike every other mod that's specific to cybereyes, and the Visibility Modifiers Table).
Assuming this was a legitimate request and not something along the lines "do better or shut up," I'd probably answer along these lines (keeping in mind that I'm not very graceful with my words and that this is meant to be a FAQ as opposed to On-the-Fly Rules Changes): 1) Normally, such as in the case of Eye Datajacks and Eye Laser Systems, the Game Effects specify if a retinal modification is only available if the user has a replacement cybereye. While this is hinted at in the description for Eye Light Systems, you'll note that the Game Effects section makes no such mention. Likewise, the Visibility Modifiers Table (p. 49, M&M) have an entry for natural Low-Light Vision modified for Eye Light Systems. It thus seems fairly clear that the original authors intended Eye Light Systems to be available as a retinal modification. Another portion of the descriptive text also goes out of its way to mention that the implant produces a very low amount of heat, which seems to reinforce that intention as well. 2 & 3) When an adept develops the Improved Sense adept power, he has the option of duplicating a sensory cyberware improvement. By default, all adept powers are supernatural in origin but become a natural part of themselves over time (p. 168, SR3), but not necessarily natural in the way a dwarf's Thermographic Vision or an elf's Low Light Vision sensory improvements are. They are still magical powers afterall. This leads to a really big question: When is an adept's power considered magical, natural, or augmented? As you may have guessed by now, there is no detailed answer for this question. Perhaps the best way to handle any situation like this is to talk with the player and discuss with them how they envision the power working. If the player describes their Improved Sense (Thermographic Vision) as a physiological improvement to the retinas of their eyes, it's best to treat that power as a natural visual improvement for purposes of determining the consequences of installing replacement cybereyes. If not and they give a convincing and plausible explanation (keeping in mind that adepts are a type of magician, so some leeway can be allowed), you may be convinced to allow them to keep the power even if they do have a new set of cybernetic eyes installed. In essence, use your best judgement and go with what feels right to you and your players. There is no right or wrong answer to these questions at the present time. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:18 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Of course, that write-up is not what he asked for. He asked for one that would explain his interpretation better (which really isn't needed in any other way than expansion to include other senses). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:25 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
EDIT (and corrected -- dyslexia strikes again): Yes, he did, but as far as I'm concerned it's his answer that's flawed, not the way he says it.
In my opinion, that one is a better answer considering the purpose and nature of a FAQ. FAQs aren't -- shouldn't -- be a place where one semi-anonymous guy (much as I may respect him outside of such dealings) gets to throw down a bunch of house rules and thus give them a semi-official standing. They should answer the questions based upon the published material first, and offer suggestions on how to resolve situations not covered by that material without violating said material or inventing new rules second. As far as I'm concerned, flat out saying that adepts should lose their Improved Sense because that's how the one semi-anonymous guy decided to interpret the rules is inappropriate for an official FAQ. This post has been edited by Doctor Funkenstein: Nov 3 2004, 06:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:31 AM
Post
#38
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Seems pretty clear to me. :) [edit]No problem. :)[/edit] This post has been edited by Fortune: Nov 3 2004, 07:01 AM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:33 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
See, that's his job. He's specifically there to make official rulings and post them under the Official FAQ (because, as you say, the Errata is for correcting mistakes in the text itself).
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:38 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
>>>Insert partial threadjack here<<<
Shadowfaq: I must admit to disagreeing with a few of your rulings. I was hoping however to have an honest discussion about this with you at some point to openly share views, crunch numbers, and talk about such things like rules interpretations and similar. If you would be amenable to such please PM me with a way to contact you on a IRc channel, on MSN on AIm or on Yahoo, hell on ICQ if nothing else... and please add in good times (and relavent time zone) to get in touch. Awaiting your reply with some anticipation Kremlin K.O.A. >>>We now return you to your regularly schedualed thread<<< |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 06:43 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
See my correction above. And if that's the way they wish to treat the FAQs, they need to come up with a new name for it. FAQs are meant to answer questions about the rules. They shouldn't be used as a platform to experiment with new rules, especially with answers given off the cuff. If it were me, I'd have at least four different categories. FAQs for answering and clarifying rules questions within the boundries of the rules. Unofficial Rule Fixes for throwing up house rules for situations not covered by the official rules. Official Rules and Rule Changes for giving hardcore changes to the rules that have been well researched, discussed, and playtested to make sure they work properly. And finally Errata for fixing legitimate typos, printing errors, and possibly cut material that finds their way into the books. But then again, I'm anal retentive. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:09 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Still, ultimately someone has to make the ruling, and put it somewhere. You know by now that I don't agree with all of the rulings contained therein (especially called shots!), just like I don't agree with all the core rules. I do think there needs to be an official ruling on certain things (for Shadowrun: Missions and the like), even if it's only a basis for comparison when making up one's own house rule. The present location for such is the Official Shadowrun FAQ. The official rules format might change in the future (and that would be a good thing in my opinion), but as it stands, it's all we've got in the way of anything that can be considered 'official'.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:16 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Ideally if they do insist on putting them together, it'd be nice if they clearly answered the question and then clearly offered a house rule. Using my response to #1 above, something like this would be cool:
Official Answer: Normally, such as in the case of Eye Datajacks and Eye Laser Systems, the Game Effects specify if a retinal modification is only available if the user has a replacement cybereye. While this is hinted at in the description for Eye Light Systems, you'll note that the Game Effects section makes no such mention. Likewise, the Visibility Modifiers Table (p. 49, M&M) have an entry for natural Low-Light Vision modified for Eye Light Systems. It thus seems fairly clear that the original authors intended Eye Light Systems to be available as a retinal modification. Another portion of the descriptive text also goes out of its way to mention that the implant produces a very low amount of heat, which seems to reinforce that intention as well. Unofficial Answer: Personally, I don't share that belief and if the topic came up in my game, I would alter the Game Effects for Eye Light Systems so that they included the cybereye stipulation that other similar implants have. As far as the Visibility Modifiers Table goes, the entry for natural Low-Light Vision w/ Eye Light Systems would be treated as a mistake and removed. (Format look a little familiar?) :P |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 07:25 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I'd have no problem with that (although I'd switch the responses :P ;))
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:15 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Er, I'm not really sure how you could, actually. I'd say the preponderance of evidence is in Doc's corner, and thus must be the "Official" answer. On a similar vein, the famed "Option 2" for called shots in the FAQ is also an "Unofficial" answer, because there is absolutely no concrete evidence for it in the book at all.
That said, Funk, you are being rather unfair to the "Unofficial" answer. There *is* a note made in the flavor text entry for eyelights which assumes that they are exclusively a cybereye accesory. You will note that the bonuses for LL+eyelights and Natural LL+eyelights don't really "line up" well with the bonuses in the low-light/natural low-light column, which indicates to me that the eyelights were thrown in as little more than an afterthought anyway. The arguent does exist, even if it's technically not as well supported by the RAW. Simply dismissing it out of hand like that is just as dishonest as using your opinion in place of fact, which is what you objected to in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:24 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Considering we are discussing the response from a person (ShadowFAQ) who does have the capacity to give an 'official ruling' as far as canon goes, and considering his ruling is exactly opposite that which Doc wrote, I don't see how you can claim Doc's answer in any way 'official'.
As was even written in the quote (in the first post), ShadowFAQ's ruling was submitted for inclusion in the next printing of M&M. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:34 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
I claim it as official in the sense that it's what is written in the book. No offense to ShadowFAQ, but after the "ruling" on Called Shots that's included on the website I refuse to consider his/their opinions any more valid than the Wizards Customer Service rulings for D&D games. Note that I am *not* dissing the ruling on Called Shots included on a more recent emailing that has been posted here btw; that one is actually pretty good, so the FAQ guy(s) may actually be improving.
Either way, though, I'm still going to rely more on what the books say than some guy who may or may not be able to make official rulings on anything and everything ever written by Fanpro. And the books say that Funk is right, whatever opinion this guy may have on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:40 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
To be fair, the called shot ruling in the FAQ was made by Rob Boyle, the current Line Developer of Shadowrun (ie. The Man in charge).
The books actually can be read to say either view is right, hence the need for the question in the first place. The books are unclear on the matter, so Doc's answer is in no way 'better backed by canon' than the opposite response. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:57 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
yeah well apparently ShadowFAQ is a new FAQ guy, so let's all give him a chance, kay?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2004, 05:58 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Even if God Himself came down from Heaven, with angels trumpetting his coming and sinners wailing in anguish as his stare, and made the Called Shot ruling on the website I'd *still* ignore it. :) So you can keep your Rob Boyle, and I'll live in a world where a sammie with a hold-out *can't* use a Called Shot to destroy a main battle tank in one shot. :D
As for eyelights, the actual canon issue is very clear: by page 44M&M, "Unless stated otherwise, any eye modification can be purchased as a retinal modification for natural eyes or as a cyber modification for cybereyes." Further, at no less than two other places in the same book this rule was specifically invoked to ensure that noone would take an eye datajack or eye laser as a retinal modification. This condition was not met for eyelights, so therefore by canon eyelights can be a retinal modification as per the general rule on p.44. Now, should they be or were they intended to be only cybermods... that's a question that's very much up for debate. But unless it's an actual official errata I'm not going to just accept some random guy's word over what it says in my book unless he's my GM. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 09:20 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.