 FAQ Attack!, In consideration for the hard work... |
  |
 Mar 3 2005, 09:01 PM
Post
#1
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118  |
In consideration for the hard work and effort undertaken by the writers of the FAQ to produce rulings designed to resolve age-old questions about the intricacies of the Shadowrun 3rd Edition rules system, I am going to violently attack a number of the newer rulings, because I strongly disagree with them. It's nothing personal, as I don't really know any of the FAQ authors that well. My point of view on the matter is thus: The point of the FAQ, so I'd imagine logically, is to clarify and simplify complex and inexplicable situations that arise as a result of unanticipated interpretations of, and interactions within, the rules. This latest FAQ update, however, seems to do the opposite. I was just going to post to the new Invisibility thread, but I realized that I wanted to talk about a number of the FAQ rulings and it would be better if I simply addressed them all in this thread, avoiding cluttering up a thread devoted to only one of them. Without further ado...
I agree with this (though it's still open-ended as to why a character with martial arts and a sword, or brawling and a club, is less able to beat the bejesus out of people with their off-hand/legs in the same statistical manner as a character with a sword is able to beat the bejesus out of people with their off-hand club, or at least gain bonus dice for having it). What I do not agree with is specifically mentioning shock gloves, but failing to mention hardliner gloves. Jackasses will now still feel justified saying that the rules allow them to dual-wield hardliner gloves, or, for that matter, bone-laced fists and feet. The ruling was too specific. Terminology like "weapons that modify unarmed attacks, such as shock gloves" would have settled the issue entirely. As it is now, people arguing for gaining bonus dice from a pair of unarmed sources still have a few legs to stand on.
Just my two cents, I like clean progressions. 3, 6, 8, 10 is not as clean as 3, 6, 9, 12. The FAQ ruling also doesn't make deltaware as nigh-undetectable as most flavor text seems to indicate it is. I think that a (+3 per grade beyond Standard) type progression(3 for standard, 6 for alpha, 9 for beta, 12 for delta) would have been better.
I strongly disagree with this. I see how it's necessary, for the next mind-warping ruling, but I feel it's about as unnecessary as the next one. Sure, if you cast a combat spell that unleashes ravening death upon all in a certain radius, you might be subject to it yourself (though that is questionable), and if you cast a spell that fills a radius that you are within with searing flame, then you're definitely in trouble. Weaving illusions so real that you, yourself, their author, are fooled? I'm skeptical. That seems somewhat along the lines of "Oh, you just levitated yourself 60 meters in one casting? Well, you just accelerated from 0 to infinity to transpose that distance so quick. Your neck breaks. Roll a new character up." It might be more realistic to make invisibility work like this, but you have to add all sorts of self-detrimental effects to other spells as well. When you cast Armor, it ought to start rendering you immobile. When you use a spirit's Movement power, it should de-flesh everyone involved from sheer airspeed friction. When you cast flame aura, it should burn you into ash... right? Sometimes, for greater fun and less worries about the myriad possible consequences of such an action, magic should just take care of itself. If you're going to rule all of a sudden that your own illusions fool you, though? At least be nice enough to give us some general rules for the TN# penalties to all physical actions one will be incurring (and trust me, when you can't see your arms/legs/holstered weapons/carried weapons, you'll incur plenty just trying to move around) for it. I'd say that +4(half of Blind Fire) might be a good start, but I'd rather just ignore the ruling rather than trying to shore up some of its complications.
This just complicates things on so many levels. First of all, you can now cast spells through solid walls. Jesus Christ. Moreover, you just need to fool yourself (i.e. the Willpower-resisted purely illusory Invisibility, versus the pseudo-light-bending Intelligence-resisted Improved Invisibility) in order to pull this off. Sensors will see you waving your hands, and people on the other side of the wall will die screaming. This is one of those rulings that creates a whole school of complications that will surely lead to many burnings, lynchings, and heated forum debates. Secondly, this interpretation favors statistically weaker characters with unbalancing abilities. Characters with astral sensitivity, and the various benefits that confers, will be out of luck (this includes both astrally perceiving/projecting magicians, when they use that power, and dual-natured creatures at all times) since they'll still be faced with the unchanged astral version of the wall, blocking LOS that way. Likewise, characters badass enough to resist their own illusions will have a much harder time than those who are weak enough of will or perception to succumb to relatively minor castings. Billy-Bob's become a potent initiate of the greater mysteries, so he can't cast spells through walls anymore like his twelve-year-old barely literate sorceror of an uncle-cousin, Joe-Bob. That doesn't seem right.
This ruling covers a lot of bases, and introduces a lot of threadworthy complications and potentials for misinterpretation (er, well now they're correct, albeit insane, interpretations, that can be backed up and are that much more difficult to deal with). I'll call them as I see them. First off, this handily does not come close to addressing the issue of Invisibility affecting physical things (sensors, cameras, etc...) that have no Intelligence rating. Sensors, one can reasonably assume, use their rating. What about cameras? Anyhow, I'm not here to try and resolve that, I'm just suggesting that as long as the issue was brought up, it might have been good to resolve it, instead of (or at least in addition to) creating a really bad precedent. I'll cover that precedent now. This suggests that invisibility is targetted on a by-object basis. Under this suggested usage, it's easy to argue that when invisibility is used on the caster, in addition to them now having no idea where their hands are grabbing, their feet are placed, or their weapons are pointing, they now face the issue that they're the only ones invisible, walking around with a full set of visible equipment, such as a carried sword. You're either going to have to go naked, or quicken/sustain a whole lot of spells, in order to achieve that "not a floating set of clothes and guns, with a pair of earrings hovering above" look. Another suggestion might be that you have to consider, individually, the ORT values of all carried gear, so that, if you happen to be carrying something with some computer/circuitry parts, you'll need a Force 6 invisibility spell, bare minimum to hide it. Otherwise, people will wonder why that communications rig and display shades are floating around, and why there's a hovering smartgun adapter with no attached gun(or hand!)
I dislike this, because I like things that seem similar to be related. I've always liked the idea that Armor is now, in SR3, the Pesonal version of Physical Barrier, and that Astral Armor, conversely, is the Personal version of Astral Barrier. Successes applying to the armor rating (or not) aside, this is pretty much how it works. However, now, while Astral Barrier causes a TN# increase for spells cast through it, astral armor does not. Does this mean that astral armor is a seperate sort of spell than prior thought, and that if one wants to grant magic resistance to someone with a quickened spell, a custom spell is needed?
This ruling seems designed to curtail a clever use of the Barrier spell that I've encouraged in my games. I can only imagine stopping the use of Levitation as a cheap plane ticket is not far off. The problem this ruling creates is that, all of a sudden, the Force 10 barrier than can stop .50 machine gun rounds dead forever without being whittled away can be shattered like a soap-bubble if Bubba the bone-laced cybertroll decides to throw his full weight(~450 kilograms for a big, muscular, titanium-filled troll) against it. Perhaps upping it to Force x 75 kilograms or even Force x 100 kilograms would prevent excessively heavyweight characters from developing the sudden ability to rend asunder otherwise impenetrable barriers with sheer mass and momentum.
Since when did "spell defense" become so practive/offensive, virtually leaping off the aura of the caster to do battle with the spell and destroy it before it can affect anyone else? Oh, that's right, since this FAQ ruling. Why would a magician caught in an area-effect spell, given this ruling, ever shield anyone but themselves (in point of fact, under this ruling a magician cannot ever shield just themselves against area spells they are caught in)? While this may be explicable from an in-character, "how magic works" perspective, mechanically, this idea is like suggesting that a street samurai's dermal sheathing dice should be granted to everyone that's unlucky enough to be caught, with him, in the radius of a grenade. It might not be as absurd from a standpoint of how it could work, in a stylistic sense, but from a rules perspective it seems to both increase a mage's power and reduce their flexibility in area effect spell resistance situations. If they don't want to protect their hated enemy from the spell they've brought down on them both, they have to forgo their own spell protection.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting really tired of Shadowrun creating rules for the creation and play of various "critter" races, such that a player-character version of the "critter" is totally statistically different from the baseline. Their regeneration works differently. Their allergies work differently. They have different statistics, different powers. They're the same in certain ways, but they're oftentimes very far from the basic critter statistic block that people were looking at when they said "Hey, I'd like to play one of these!". I can just imagine it now:
Doctor: Oh, well, nurse, that one is suffering from PCism. It's a genetic defect common in ghouls, shapeshifters, and drakes. They're pathetically weak compared to their healthy brethren. Mother nature simply did not intend for them to prosper. Sad thing, really. Anyhow, that's my opinion on the recent rulings that really didn't sit well with me. I don't like to spit bile and vitriol, but I also don't like to stand idly by and not comment on things, when lack of comment could be somehow construed as tacit approval. I don't approve. |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:17 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Much as I despise the FAQ and all it represents, I have to disagree with your take on invisibility: the way illusions work is that they don't fool anyone. If someone fails the resistance test, it doesn't matter whether or not they know it's an illusion, they see what the illusion says they see. There's absolutely no reason the caster should be exempted from this.
And no, you're not right. The consequence of Invis is logical. The consequences of the others, save for Movement at really high speeds, are utterly nonsensical. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:18 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 19-July 04 From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901' Member No.: 6,496 |
I think a lot of these issues with the FAQ stem from the fact the rules the FAQ covers were poorly written / implemented to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:20 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Not nearly so poorly as what comes out of the FAQ.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:33 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 19-July 04 From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901' Member No.: 6,496 |
Maybe, maybe not.
I've always thought the invisibility rules were poorly done--we wouldn't have a new thread on it every other week if they weren't. They really should just errata the way invisibility works so we all have a common, reasonable, mechanic for using it. Of course, that might be easier said than done--but one only needs to look at the invisibility thread(s) to see it's really needed. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:24 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
In the same way that Armor doesn't give a TN increase like Physical Barrier does (+1 Visibility Modifier)? MitS as the spell Spellshield, I believe, which does what you are saying. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:33 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm with Endgame on this one. for instance, the effect and mechanics of the invisibility spell were never fully considered. i disagree with some of the FAQ's conclusions, but that's probably because i've got a different concept of how invisibility actually works. nothing in the book makes my concept more valid that the FAQ writer's concept. i do think, however, that the FAQ writer's concept needs to be posted in the FAQ.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:34 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 123 Joined: 23-November 03 From: Chicago (post bug/pre nuke) Member No.: 5,839 |
i would like to add that as much as i might disagree with the FAQ , i don't want the faq writers to think that their work falls upon deaf ears. I do like the fact that someone is trying to clarify these rules, even if I don't like the rulings. I'm pretty sure that most if not all of us appreciate their effort and good intentions, despite the venomous posting :D
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:47 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
I always assumed that the +1 TN# increase from Physical Barrier was a visibility/cover type modifier, based on the idea that you could choose a barrier to be either transparent or crackly/glowy/translucent. I've never granted the TN# penalty for spellcasting against targets behind barrier spells if the caster has chosen that "I am Neo, I stop bullets with my mind" effect, rather than the "I am the green lantern, my glowing green shield makes me invincible!" effect. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 3 2005, 09:50 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Still, that's an additional effect granted by Barrier that isn't granted to Armor. Also, Armor isn't Hardened compared to Barrier (which is). The spells are analogous, but they aren't direct representations of each other, despite the logical stepdown in Drain Code. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:08 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
[quote]
Do you see yourself when you've cast Invisibility on yourself? What about others you cast it upon? Invisibility affects everyone--caster, subjects and bystanders--alike. In order to see someone who is invisible, the viewer must successfully resist the spell. This applies to the caster and anyone made invisible by the spell. [/quote] I agree with you here - the caster of any illusion spell should not be fooled by their own spell. [quote] The Shadowrun FAQ says... How much weight can a Barrier spell hold if it is used to make a ramp? Not much. Barriers are meant to be obstacles, not load-bearing supports. As a general rules, a Barrier can support the weight of a metahuman or animal, but not a car or large vehicle. If you need specifics, go with Force x 25kg. This ruling seems designed to curtail a clever use of the Barrier spell that I've encouraged in my games. I can only imagine stopping the use of Levitation as a cheap plane ticket is not far off. The problem this ruling creates is that, all of a sudden, the Force 10 barrier than can stop .50 machine gun rounds dead forever without being whittled away can be shattered like a soap-bubble if Bubba the bone-laced cybertroll decides to throw his full weight(~450 kilograms for a big, muscular, titanium-filled troll) against it. Perhaps upping it to Force x 75 kilograms or even Force x 100 kilograms would prevent excessively heavyweight characters from developing the sudden ability to rend asunder otherwise impenetrable barriers with sheer mass and momentum.[/quote] [/QUOTE] I'll disagree with you here... I watched a show called "Mythbusters", where they explored Hollywood's love of bodies being thrown backwards by bullet impacts. They created a special hook, and hung a full-sized dead pig on it. Just the lightest push by hand caused the pig to fall off the hook. They shot it with pistols, magnum pistols with 240 grain rounds, rifles, sniper rifle, assault weapons (at one point using three assault weapons at once against the happless pig). None of them caused the pig to come off the hook. The only thing that knocked the pig off the hook (and not backwards like H'wood movies) was a solid slug deer-hunting shotgun round. Even then, after examining it in slow motion, they couldn't be sure that the slug itself knocked the pig off the hook - they believed the slug hit the hip bone, jostling the legs secured to the hook, causing it to fall off. After all that, they put Buster, a crash test dummy, with a bullet proof vest on, and hung him from the same hook. Once again, a slight push by hand would cause him to fall off. Poor Buster was shot with everything from handguns to assault weapons. All hit the vest nicely, and didn't even budge Buster. Only the solid deer slug fromthe shotgun caused Buster to fall off - straight down, and not backwards. So it's reasonable to expect a barrier spell to block incoming fire and remain intact, while a waddling, effeminate, limp-wristed Dwarf will plow through the same barrier with no problems. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:05 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
What jackasses? Where are those jackasses who would prefer to roll twice against the same opponent with a +2 to TN in a context where the opponent would get to roll twice himself without the +2 to TN. Never mind that if you roll less successes than your opponent you will get smacked by a counter attack. If such jackasses exist, I say let them do it until they learn some basic lessons about math and probabilities. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:10 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
ShadowGhost: The question is not whether the HMG will push the barrier down, it's whether it will simply reduce the barrier to nothing. Reducing a brick wall to rubble, for example, might take a while with a HMG, but it's certainly doable.
As to the weight support thingy: note that it actually means a Physical Barrier spell can stand Force x 250 Newtons. Stopping a 250kg troll moving at 5m/s (15m/CT) in 0.5 seconds (solid shoulder-first tackle) takes 2,500 Newtons of force, i.e. a Force 10 Physical Barrier. Charon: Dual-wielding melee weapons only gives you +50% skill dice, no additional rolls or TN modifiers (as long as you have the required skill, or the Ambidexterity Edge). Or, in the case of cyberimplant weaponry +50% Strength for Power calculations in addition/instead (depending on how you want to interpret the rules). |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:24 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i don't know what two-weapon rules you're using, Charon, but they don't apprear to be the ones in CC.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:34 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
Considering that the quote from the FAQ is located in the combat section and not in the cannon companion section, I am assuming that this FAQ question refers to the SR3 corebook rules about fighting with two weapons, not the melee rules for two weapons fighting presented in CC. If I'm mistaken, my bad. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:38 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
yeah, but your description doesn't match the rules in SR3, either. in SR3, you just get +50% to the power of the attack. no TN mods or rolling twice or anything else. i think you may have muxed ip the rules for two-gun shooting and two-weapon melee.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:44 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Now Spell Defense is god against Detection Spells and Indirect Illusions. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:38 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
The rules you're suggesting (a character with two melee weapons is entitled to two full melee attacks at +2 TN# due to the usage of two weapons) are not the way two-weapon melee combat works, either in the main book or the Cannon Companion. In the main book, there's no particular rule one way or another, except that when you use a pair of cyberweapons, you add 50% of your Strength to the power of the attack. In Cannon Companion, you can use an Off-Hand (Weapon) skill as a complementary skill for making melee attacks, though the main skill and damage code are determined by your primary weapon. If you happen to have at least 6 points worth of the Ambidexterity edge, then you need not pick up an off-hand version of a melee weapon skill in order to employ it in two-weapon fighting. In that case, the off-hand weapon uses the base skill for a weapon of that type, which is added, complementary, to the character's main attack roll. A good example: Cyberd00d the street samurai has Strength 8, Cyber-Implant Weapons(Cyberspurs) 4/8, and a pair of retractable cyberspurs, at 8M damage. He also has Off-Hand Cyber-Implant Weapons(Cyberspurs) 2/4. Under the main book, that would mean he would roll 8 dice(Cyberspurs) and deal 12M damage. Under the cannon companion, if he had no ambidexterity he would roll 10 dice(Cyberspurs + 1/2 Off-Hand Cyberspurs) and deal 8M damage. Under the cannon co mpanion, if he had ambidexterity 3 or 4, he would roll 12 dice(Cyberspurs + 1/2 Cyberspurs) and deal 8M damage. It is supposedly okay to apply the +(1/2 Strength) modifier to melee combat using the CC rules, though most GMs disallow this. That means he could, in theory, end up rolling 12 dice and dealing a base damage of 12M. I hope this clears things up. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:40 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
Oh, and to double-post, if Cyberd00d's identically statted, knife-focused brother, Knifed00d, came by with a pair of Cougar Fineblades(since they deal equal damage to cyberspurs), and had Edged Weapons(Cougar Fineblade) instead of Cyber-Implant Weapons(Cyberspurs), he'd be dealing 8M damage across the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 10:42 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,011 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 7,087 |
*flip page* Well, whaddya know. I missed that rule. Though technically it is only about cyber-implant weapons so that should have been mentionned in the answer. I was assuming the FAQ was talking about using the same rules as those for a second firearm. Of course, if it was the case, the easy answer would have been that this rules applies only to firearm and that would have been mentionned. So I guess the answer is no but I'm not quite sure what the question was. :| |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 3 2005, 11:01 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
I have never used the barrier rules for bridges, roads or ramps, or the kind of ramp that would flip a car. I do think the force of the barrier spell should relate to the barrier rating of construction material. IMO, the weight rating seems puny.
[edit]And the invisibility answers seem to make the spell about useless for what I figure is its standard use, but now gives a bunch of silly benefits? When players start mastering these new interpretations, I see things getting even messier than they are now. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 3 2005, 11:17 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
especially when you start looking at the kg of pressure applied by bullets. i mean, i dunno. i can see a barrier being weaker against a slow, steady pressure than a sharp, sudden pressure that doesn't last for very long, but only 25kg per point doesn't work for me.
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Mar 3 2005, 11:25 PM
Post
#23
|
||||||
|
Guests |
I think he meant the literalist jackasses. The ones who don't assume anything, and only read the question within the narrow context of shock gloves. People like, say, me. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 4 2005, 12:01 AM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Did you happen to see the passage about Spell Defence and Detection Spells? :D As for the Armor/Physical Barrier and Astral Armor/Astral Barrier correlation, I have never viewed one to be a limited form of the other. The Armor spell grants a straigt Armor rating equal to the Force, while the Barrier spell grants a Barrier equal to Force plus successes/2. Different spells in my opinion. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 4 2005, 12:09 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
I think I'm just going to rule that Spell Defense and such can only affect spells at the time they are slung.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th May 2026 - 11:29 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.