 New ShadowFAQ Rules Q's and A's, Let the flames begin! |
  |
 Jan 8 2005, 04:20 AM
Post
#1
|
|||||||||||
|
Immoral Elf  Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486  |
I have been collecting questions to send away to ShadowFAQ at info (at) shadowrunrpg.com. I have just received a response to these, and am posting both the answers and my questions (word-for-word) for your viewing pleasure/displeasure. Question 1: In regards to Enhanced Aim, and other Directed Detection spells [range code D, as opposed to A]. Are these spells resisted by their targets [not subjects]? There seems to be some debate over whether it makes sense for them to be, or not.
Question 2: Does the shock damage from Stun Gloves stage upwards in addition to the actual melee damage from the attack [which would stage normally]? If so, what mechanic is used to stage both?
Question 3: When using an attack program in the Matrix, there is some confusion because of the specific wording in the books. Does the Decker use his Computer Skill for the attack [just like he would with any other test], or is it the Rating of the Attack Program itself that is used?
Question 4: Is Dermal Sheathing obvious or not? No Concealability rating is listed, but it is described as being more subtle than Dermal Plating, which does have a Concealability rating.
(*Note: I could not find them either after looking again, but I am sure they must be listed somewhere, as this has been mentioned by others here as well. :() Question 5: The big one [in my opinion]! Does the Force of Improved Invisibility [or any other Indirect Illusion] have to equal or exceed the OR/2 of any technology such as cameras to be effective. This restriction is not listed in the spell description, but it is included in the Sorcery section. The official Shadowrun Missions Campaign [co-coordinated by Rich Osterhout] is ruling that the Force is unimportant in this regard, and only the number of successes comes into play [which is immaterial to non-living objects].
|
||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:25 AM
Post
#2
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Hello naked mages. (And yes, I am suppressing a rant.) This post has been edited by Kanada Ten: Jan 8 2005, 04:28 AM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:31 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Maybe Dermal Plating has had a Concealability rating in an earlier edition? It doesn't in SR3, and I do not remember ever hearing about it having a Conc rating in SR3. Someone might even have confused it with Orthoskin in one of those threads.
As for Q&A #5: That's weird. I could see how the Force would not matter, since the Force vs. OR limitation is mention in a paragraph about Target Numbers, but the paragraph also makes it clear that this limitation comes into play based on what the spell is cast against. I do not see how Improved Invisibility is cast against the subject. Meh. It's all about interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:35 AM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Especially when you read the description for Mask, which is almost identical to Invisibility - except it says "against" in place of "affects". <deep breaths> |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:38 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
The "Answer" to numero 5 puts a lot of arguments to rest in the Invisible to cameras" topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:40 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
No offense at all, but it really shows you're new to Dumpshock. We don't let the FAQ come between us and argument. Errata? Yes. FAQ? No. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:41 AM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Which is why I finally decided to send the question(s) off now instead of waiting for more. None of these answers surprise me, as they are consistent with how I have always run things in my games, with the exception of Enhanced Aim. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:43 AM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
And not even that with any reliability. Witness the Called Shot Vs Armor argument/flamefest. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:44 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
Yeah, I'm newish. And I don't always like seeing a dead horse flogged, but I like it here... ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 04:44 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
If you have Magic in the Shadows, the tables for Detection spells on pages 165 to 166 list which of them are resisted (they have ( R ) after the Target Number). It kind of boggles my mind that Night Vision is a resisted spell... so you can see in the dark, but might not be able to see everybody in the aforementioned dark. Okaaaay.
The Concealability Rating for dermal sheathing is found on the table on page 28 of Man & Machine. The confusion comes from it having a Concealability Rating of "-". If, for example, you look at the cyberskull on the same table, the synthetic one has a Concealablity of 8, while the obvious one has a Concealability of "-". So, the same "-" can mean either not concealable at all, or mean that Concealability is not applicable at all. If you agree with that answer, that is. Personally, I have a problem with a semi-synthetic skin sheath over non-bulky dermal plating (the description of dermal sheathing) being more concealable than orthoskin. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 05:39 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 596 Joined: 18-February 03 Member No.: 4,112 |
Aye, usually when people are not in favour of a ruling, they fall back to the "FAQ is not canon, and therefore has no relevance." Ultimately, it is a matter of what the individual GM decides what is right for his game. Still, its nice to see the pyrotechnics.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 05:54 AM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Yeah, that's what I said... It doesn't matter that I've been saying it applies to one or the other since first posting the F=OR/2 in relation to Indirection Illusions. The FAQ can be both relevant and wrong, but it would be better if they quoted rules to support their case... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 06:02 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 596 Joined: 18-February 03 Member No.: 4,112 |
Meh. At the risk of sparking further argument, I would say, especially in the case where the 'canon' rules are ambigous or make no statement on the matter, that the line developer has some weight in the clarification of existing rules, or creation of new ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 06:08 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Oh, certainly. This isn't one of those cases though. In fact this actually raises more inconsistancies in the current rules than already exists.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 06:14 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Man, deja vu all o— yeah, you get the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 07:21 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Glyph just a minor niggle I am an old time player and I can say the ambiguity of Dermal Sheath is Entirely Mike Mulvihill's fault... in his desire to reduse the length of books he made the descriptions for many things shorter... dermal sheath was one as it's original description in Shadowtech had the sheath ad only being detectable as a "slight sheen in the skin under certain lighting."
oh and SHadowFAQ is doing a pretty damn good job if this reply is anything to go by... the only one I have a prob with is the enhance aim answer because of the Nightvision implications mentioned earlier Keep up the good work ShadowFAQ, but please remember your answers don't exist in a vacuum |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 07:50 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 15-September 04 Member No.: 6,663 |
Thanks for the kind words. I try. Post #5
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 09:21 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
Hey just being honest... with both the praise and criticism
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 02:10 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
Personally I still have issues with personal detection spells like Enhance Aim and Nightvision being resisted. For one thing, when are they resisted? Every time you look at the target? Going to slow combat right down. Once per encounter? Watch the spellslinger bow out of a fight because he can't see diddly.
Realistically, most opponents aren't going to successfully oppose a decently cast spell anyway - even my phymage, with sorcery (spellcasting) 4 and allocating 4 dice from spell pool is going to average 4 successes on his Force 4 Enhance Aim, and realistically (considering he uses a sustaining focus) is going to have significantly more if only by doing a karma reroll to get a good result. The average security guard (according to SR2, since SR3 didn't have the Contacts section with so many examples in it) has a Willpower of 2 - forget it. All a resistance test is doing is slowing the game down. (Assuming Force 4 Enhance Aim because that gives you, with 4 successes, the equivalent to a smartlink). Even a Guest Star is going to have stats comparable to the PC's. Sticking with the Force 4 Enhance Aim example, let's look at the templates for starting characters. Mercenary - Will 4. 50% successes = 2. Spell's still up. Sprawl Ganger: Will 3. Being generous and rounding up, 2 successes. Investigator: Will 5. Again rounding up, 3 successes. If you didn't exceed the basic 4 successes needed for your -2 modifier, these guys may conceivably reduce your bonus to -1, but I have to ask: is the slowdown worth it? The only characters that have a respectable chance to resist your spell are other magical types with Willpowers of 6 and spell defence. And frankly, if they DO use spell defence against your enhance aim, your team mage should be buying you beers all night for screwing with the opposition's defence. Just not convinced that it's worth the hassle, myself. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 06:22 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The inclusion of #3 in the FAQ is wholly inappropriate. Given that the text explicitly states the opposite, this is the sort of thing that goes in the errata, and into the next printing of the book, not on some web site somewhere.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 09:07 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the book doesn't say the exact opposite. it says:
not only is it repetive repetitive, it doesn't actually come out and tell you in clear terms what you're supposed to roll. the way it's being read for the FAQ is that you make a test using the offensive program for an attack the same way you'd make a test using your firearm. i'm not saying that's the most obvious interpretation. but it is one possible interpretation, and it's the one that provides a sweet, soothing balm of sanity for my mind. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2005, 09:16 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I've never even seriously considered doing things any other way in my games. It's the only way that makes sense to me, and is consistent with the rest of the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2005, 09:21 PM
Post
#23
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
(examples below imply Imp. Invis.) woah, first off - you can't cast Invis. on a tree limb or a computer - Invis. spells can be cast on a person or an area of effect, not directly on an object, therefore, no OR test is necessary for the tree limb, you just cast it on the area that the tree limb is in. The tree limb is NOT the subject of the spell - you cast an Area of Effect, and the target number is 4, with no threshold. likewise, when you are casting the spell on a person or AoE, you're not casting the spell on the camera itself, you're casting on the person or AoE only, and the camera is treated as the viewer. maybe i'm just having trouble getting my point across...but your examples above have nothing to do with the problem of whether to use OR or the rating of the camera or sensor to detect invis. oh, and i'm the Campaign Director - not co-coordinator...I report directly to Rob/FanPro - i have no co-coordinator... :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 8 2005, 10:33 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
he's right.
furthermore, it's the viewers of an indirect illusion spell that make the spell resistance test; and according to SR3 pg 183, that makes the viewers of the illusion the targets of the spell:
if a camera is viewing the subject of an invisibility spell, it is a target of that spell. and for a spell to affect an inanimate target, the force must be greater than half of the target's OR. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 9 2005, 12:53 AM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
OK, i think i see the cause of the confusion...remember that the paragraph that talks about inanimate objects and using the OR Test on page 182 is errata'd...there is a sentence missing which adds the above quote's requirements, that the Force of the spell must be greater than OR/2 to even affect the object. this same paragraph, however, also says the TN is the OR. Well, since the TN for the spell is predefined, does that rule out the second part of that paragraph, that the Force must exceed OR/2?? NO! if this is what people meant in the original discussion, then i misunderstood, because i thought they were saying the TN to affect the camera was its OR, and the rating of the camera played no part... so, in summary, i propose the following example: Joe Runner is about to make a run against MeanieCorp. MeanieCorp has just installed a new security system, complete with cameras (Rating 5). These are just standard optical video cameras, based on today's tech level, so we'll call their Object Resistance an 8. Joe decides he wishes to cast an Improved Invisibility spell on himself to try and sneak past the cameras. First, he must cast the spell at Force 4 (or higher) to even attempt to trick the cameras - he decides Force 4 is enough. He will roll his Sorcery (let's say 6) and Spell Pool dice (let's say he uses 3) and must achieve a Target Number of 4. Joe's attempt at casting the spell is 2,2,3,3,4,5,5,7, and 8, thus giving him 5 successes. Outcome 1: Joe wins The camera (the observer)now resists the spell, using 5 dice and rolls 2,3,4,4, and 5, giving the camera 3 successes. OK, Joe has 3 Net Successes, and therefore the spell works and the camera does not notice Joe. Outcome 2: Camera wins The camera (the observer)now resists the spell (TN is the Force of the spell), using 5 dice and rolls 4,4,5,5, and 8, giving the camera 5 successes. OK, Joe has 0 Net Successes, and therefore although he cast the spell, and he hopes it is working, the camera does "see" him and Joe will have some surprises waiting around the next corner... Now, if this is correct, it begs some questions: 1. First, are there any Device Rating for cameras, unless you want to muddy the argument by calling them sensors (see below). It does mention that cameras can have various accessories and modes, such as low-light, thermo, etc, but these don't change the rating of the camera. All of the cameras in the basic book seem to have no Device Rating, although some may reason that it is implied (as do I). A higher rating would mean that the camera has better quality optics or CCD chip, options such as low-light and thermo, etc. 2. I'm assuming that no one is watching the camera in the above example. Therefore, just because the spell fails, does not mean anyone sees what the camera sees - it just does its job - if Bob the guard is asleep at his post, then he's not going to see Joe on the monitor that shows the camera's angle of view. if the picture is being recorded, then if someone reviews the recording later, they will of course see Joe crossing in front of the camera. Right?? 3. OK, now what if instead of just a camera, we're talking about an active guard watching a monitor that is displaying that camera. If he is awake and only watching the one camera, who is actually doing the perceiving of Joe?? If the camera does not "see" Joe, then the guard doesn't either, right? Does the guard automatically see him if the camera does?? I say yes to both. 4. OK, now there is a guard watching a bank of 4 monitors that each monitor about six cameras. For this, I would first see if the camera "sees" Joe through the spell, and then give the guard a Perception test to see if he catches it on the monitors, right?? 5. The micro-camcorder says that it can be programmed to record upon recognizing movement, so i postulate that there is some kind of programming involved for image recognition to determine a change in the picture. If you're using such a program, or if the camera feed is being processed by some sort of security program or even smart frame, how does this affect the scenario (other than you should obviously increase the Obj Resist of the camera to 10 or above, based on its technology - is this all that needs to be done?? What about the rating of the program/frame - how is it resolved, extra dice for the camera's resistance test??) 6. OK, now what about those that would treat the camera as a Sensor, or just say that Joe is encountering Sensors. Since they are (in the above example) Rating 5 sensors, whether or not a guard is watching is immaterial, as you make an Active Sensor Test against the Signature of the target (for a standard meta, a 6). Or do you continue to use the Rating to resist the spell. Or do you do like in the guard example above, where you resist the spell first, then see if you can pick up the Signature - that hardly seems "fair"... This is where I begin to have my problem. Sensors are somewhat "intelligent". But with the Improved Invisibility spell, it has a flat TN of 4, regardless of the Rating of the Sensors, and the Force of the spell required doesn't change either, without GM option - it just falls under "10 or above". So, Joe can go into a Stuffer Shack with a Force 5 spell and a TN of 4, and succeed almost every time, as the Shack would probably only have Level 1 Sensors (1 die to resist), and must get not only a 5, but then has to get a 6 to detect the Signature (yeah yeah, based on Perception mods, it might be lower - or higher!). Joe can then go into an Ares facility that has Security grade sensors (say, Rating 6) and cast the spell with the same parameters, with the only difference being that the sensors now have 6 dice to resist the spell (compared to Joe's 9) and then turn around and make a Signature test against a TN of 6. Odds definitely favor Joe or any spellslinger as long as they have more dice to throw than the sensors, as the target number is still a 4, no matter the rating of the sensors - this is what i don't like... However, I have some suggestions: 1. Maybe i'm misunderstanding or reading it wrong - should the camera/sensor/what have you be resisting the Force of the spell? I ask because although that is the definition as per pg 182, I'm feeling as though I could be convinced that is for Directed Illusions only. Maybe Indirect Illusions should be resisted against the same TN as the caster needed to cast, since you are "looking at a reflection" so to speak. Having cameras/sensors or even living creatures resist a TN of 4 would be VERY balancing... 2. I would propose starting sensors at a 10, and adding their level/device rating to the Object Resistance test. That would make the required spell to trick them much higher, and greatly decrease those that can do so. Imagine in the above example that now going into a Shack required a Force 5 spell (10 base + 1 sensor level, divided by 2), but going into the Ares secret facility would require a Force 8 spell (10 base + 6 sensor levels, divided by 2). What's nice about this is that it makes the mage more dependent on teamwork, as you'll want a rigger/decker/techwiz around to perform EW on the sensors in order to lower their effective rating or knock them out all together... OK, i'm zipping up the asbestos suit now... ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th September 2025 - 04:31 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.