 Shadowrun 4 Errata, Post errors you've noticed here, please |
  |
 Oct 3 2005, 09:23 PM
Post
#251
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000  Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951  |
Most Clubs now do Physical Damage, too...
|
 |
 
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 12:57 AM
Post
#252
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 2-October 05 Member No.: 7,799 |
I apologize; there isn't any reference in the book. I've just never heard of a single shot revolver. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 4 2005, 04:19 AM
Post
#253
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Pueblo Corporate Council Member No.: 1,644 |
I assume that the SS mode of the Super Warhawk is more of a reference to its slow rate of fire than actually being SS.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 05:23 AM
Post
#254
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
The factor two seems to be a leftover. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:44 AM
Post
#255
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Revolvers were classified as SS in SR3 (and all previous editions) as well. SS limits the weapon to one shot per initiative pass, but still only takes a Simple Action for the shot. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2005, 09:01 AM
Post
#256
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Of course, pump-action shotguns were SA...
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 09:08 AM
Post
#257
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I didn't say it was logical! :P
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 09:11 AM
Post
#258
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Hmm, so I'll modify my super warhawk to be pump action too (however that would work) and make it SA :grinbig: It would then make kewl 'ka-chunk' noises as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 02:01 PM
Post
#259
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
I don't think you can add an additional "pucker factor" option under the gun design rules.
I could be wrong though. -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:03 PM
Post
#260
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,756 |
(About the Hacker in-game definition on the previous page)
Throw in a 0 BP positive quality and anyone can take it up during character creation (and add it during game play between sessions). Then you say the Cracking skill group skills require the Hacker quality, much in the same way that several skills are tied to other qualities (Assensing and Magicians come to mind). Now what you have is a game rules definition of a hacker, the same way we have a game rules definition of a magician. What does this resolve? It definitely points out who gets 5 BP and who gets 10 BP for taking the Scorched, Sensitive Neural Structure, or Simsense Vertigo negative qualites, all which give more BP for hacker and technomancer characters. Anyway, there's a discussion called "What is a hacker?" on the forum that responses to this should be addressed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:10 PM
Post
#261
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
But if it is a Zero Point Quality, what is to stop everybody from taking it, whenever they like?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:15 PM
Post
#262
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 44 Joined: 2-October 05 Member No.: 7,799 |
That would make it two handed, which is probably why you can fire it so fast. I think a character with ambidexterity and two Ruger Super Warhawks would get bonus points for coolness. Not to mention you can still fire twice per round (one SA for each hand). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:27 PM
Post
#263
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,756 |
That's the point -- there is absolutely no restriction on who could take it. The only thing it's there for is to determine if a character would get 5 BP or 10 BP for those negative qualities. Without defining what a hacker is in game terms, one cannot add those negative qualities to their character properly if one is playing a character that is "sort of" a hacker.
But then this is getting away from the point of the errata thread. The errata comment boils down to "SR4 has several negative qualities that function differently depending on defined character types including hackers, but while the rule book defines other character types by game terms, there is nothing in the rule book that defines a hacker in game terms." |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:30 PM
Post
#264
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Much simpler to just define it by each specific character's outlook, background, and knowledge skills.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 07:42 PM
Post
#265
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 18-September 05 Member No.: 7,756 |
This came up because the character's outlook, background, and knowledge skills could go either way.
Regardless, every character type that has some sort of special rule that affect only that character type can be defined by the game rules is defined by a positive quality -- except for the hacker. (The only special rules that this is a problem with is the BP per negative quality.) That is why I posted this in the Errata thread. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 08:18 PM
Post
#266
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 18-August 05 Member No.: 7,569 |
You don't need a hard definition of Hacker. Use some common sense. Or if you have none, find someone that does and ask them.
Calypso |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 08:48 PM
Post
#267
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I suspect the point of a hard definition is to negate any unfortunate GM-vs-Player debates over how many BPs a character should receive for a particular Quality. GMs can certainly make arbitrary declarations; that is their right and responsibility. Their lives are just easier if they have to make fewer of them. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 5 2005, 07:22 PM
Post
#268
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 338 Joined: 17-September 04 From: Pueblo Sector of Denver Member No.: 6,672 |
Pg 236:
There is no program called Transfer |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 6 2005, 03:57 PM
Post
#269
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
How about: "Must have at least three skills in the Computer or Cracking skill groups at 3 or better"? That way it costs you more points to pick up than you save, if you're never planning on touching a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2005, 05:44 PM
Post
#270
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 875 Joined: 16-November 03 Member No.: 5,827 |
This doesn´t make sense. Hacker is not a class like mage or technomancer, it is just a description of a specialised human (like streetsam or drone rigger or face). Just change the point value of the quality for technomancer/non-technomancer.
SYL |
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2005, 05:52 PM
Post
#271
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Or just remove that last 'class-specific' part of negative qualities.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2005, 02:20 PM
Post
#272
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
I don't see why that definition is a problem. Sure it's not as discrete as buying a specific Quality, but it's still a significant build point investment, particularly if you never plan on actually using those skills.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2005, 02:57 PM
Post
#273
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I rather like this solution; remove the higher-return version because: A) It negates the question of if someone is a hacker or not, B) It's a poor return on investment for a hacker to pick up, and C) Only non-hackers are likely to get it anyway. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 8 2005, 10:41 AM
Post
#274
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
There is no rule allowing the upgrade or replacement of ware without paying the full Essence cost again.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2005, 04:40 PM
Post
#275
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
That's not really errata though. That's an extra (though for sams it's be required) feature that you'll see in Augmentation, when it comes out.
Now for errata, maybe it should be considered that the whole concept of the Augmented Skill cap is violated in damn near every single place it's mentioned. Many many examples, for instance, show a guy with a skill of 3 and a xpecialization throwing 5+attribute dice at a test, when specializations are specifically mentioned to be capped, meaning they should only be throwing 4 dice before hitting the glass ceiling. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th November 2025 - 03:05 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.