Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Monofiliment Whip Weapon Foci?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Demon_Bob
Something started on another thread that seemed to be taking it off subject.

Besides, being no specific rules against it. I could see it as being possible.
Any special weapon materials needed for the weapon foci could be in the handle and weight. A thin mystical link could run along the wire between the two. Causing it to have enchanted properties.
stevebugge
I think rules wise it is technically possible, but would be very difficult to make, difficult to find, expensive to bond, expensive to make, much more expensive to buy, and make you quite the target for everyone else who wanted one.
Demon_Bob
QUOTE (stevebugge)
and make you quite the target for everyone else who wanted one.

thats the fun bit
Squinky
There are no specific rules that bar my street sam from being able to shoot lasers from his eyes....Nowhere in the book does it say I can't do that...

Regardless of that, in my opinion I think it would be okay to have a mono-whip focus....
eidolon
QUOTE (Squinky)
There are no specific rules that bar my street sam from being able to shoot lasers from his eyes....Nowhere in the book does it say I can't do that...

Actually, there is a book (M&M) that says that you can do exactly that.
emo samurai
M&M?
caramel frappuccino
Man & Machine.

However, eidolon forgot to mention that it is a 3rd edition book, so its applications in a discussion of 4th edition rules are dubious.
eidolon
Apologies. Yes, it is 3rd edition.

I neglected to clarify because I refuse to accept the nonsense level required to "forget" how things have worked in a game world that's been established for years. The world doesn't change just because the target number did. wink.gif
caramel frappuccino
You must be bellowing with rage every time you flip the page in the SR4 corebook then. wink.gif
eidolon
I did for a while. Then I just stopped trying to think I could ever like any of it. biggrin.gif

QUOTE (my sig)
!SR4


Now I ignore the fact that it exists. Sad in a way, since I'll never be able to just buy myself a shiny new SR sourcebook. Nice in a way, since now I can just write my own and there'll never be an "official" contradiction.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (eidolon)
The world doesn't change just because the target number did.

Oh, yeah. Take a look at SR1.
eidolon
Fine, Mr. I like to create an argument of semantics when the point being made was obvious.

The world doesn't regress just because the target number changes.
Liper
ah, here's a good answer as in, awakenings page 102.

QUOTE
technological enchancments to melee weapons such as monofilament edges, laster attachmetns, dikote and so on do not allow the character to inflict additional damage when fighting a manifest spirit...  Any other damage enchancments do not carry the force of the characters living will and cannot affect the spirit


So you could make a monofilament focus, it'd just act like a piece of string with a wieght at one end and a handle at the other as far as damage to the spirit!
FrankTrollman
That's:

1. Out of context, because it refers to the "attack of will" action that currently does not exist in SR4.
2. 2nd edition material.

We aren't talking about using your willpower to hurt a spirit in melee with a mundane item, we are talking about using a frickin weapon focus. Remember that in 4th edition, the rule that spirits ignored the armor penetrating capabilities of APDS is gone. So a magical monowhip would do the damage of a magical monowhip. And even in 4th edition, the rule you are (mis)quoting only applied to mundane weaponry, not to weapon foci.

And indeed, a 4th edition weapon focus says:

QUOTE
The damage of the weaponis the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world.


-Frank
Lilt
IMHO weapon foci work either because they convey the concept of 'weapon' or because creatures in astral space can still be harmed by the physicality of weapon attacks (IE: they are hurt by being cut/blugdgeoned just like any physical being is hurt). In either case, the fact that different-weapon weapon-foci have different damage codes shows that physically or conceptually different weapons do different amounts of damage.

If both the concept and physicality of the monowhip say that it does 8P damage, then IMHO a monowhip weapon focus should do 8P damage on teh astral plane.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (eidolon)
The world doesn't regress just because the target number changes.

..you didn't take a look at SR2, did you?
Eddie Furious
Now, it has been a long time, but I thought that in order for weapon focii to be viable (ie, "present" on the other planes) they had to be made of a specified quanitiy of orichalcum. Now I know one could make an orichalcum monogilament, but would it have sufficient material strength to be viable as a monofilament? And if so, would there be suffiecient orichalcum present to be effective in the other planes?
6thDragon
I guess it all depends on your view of a weapon focus. In previous editions, weapon foci required orichalcum be present in the weapon. It never explicitly said that the business end of the weapon needed to be made of orichalcum, but many people translated the rules as such. The arguement here over a monofilament whip starts because by definition, the business end of a monofilament whip must be monofilament. I would be inclined to say it is not allowed, but that's my opinion.
blakkie
QUOTE (Eddie Furious @ Dec 3 2005, 10:54 AM)
Now, it has been a long time, but I thought that in order for weapon focii to be viable (ie, "present" on the other planes) they had to be made of a specified quanitiy of orichalcum. Now I know one could make an orichalcum monogilament, but would it have sufficient material strength to be viable as a monofilament? And if so, would there be suffiecient orichalcum present to be effective in the other planes?

By RAW you don't need the molecules on the business end per say, and as pointed out in the other thread on this forum that spawned this one the damage isn't the same on the astral as it [remains] on the physical. However exactly what the damage code is is more open to interpretation.

P.S. The topic has come up before on DSF, wink.gif and SR4 doesn't seem to change much outside of having less to say about it since there's there is still only the BBB.
Liper
QUOTE
So this means that core rulebooks like SR3, Magic in the Shadows, Cannon Companion, Man & Machine, Rigger 3, etc. will no longer be useful, unless you want to keep playing SR3. Any books that are primarily source material will still be useful.



Contemplate that for a second, the mechanics from previous editions may be out the window but the concepts, ideas remain.

Foci have always had to "work" within the aura of the wielder, second Tech in all editions has been rather impervious or immune to most magic (monofilament tech is still considered high tech)

The material as it stands you have to let go until a newer book comes out that says something opposite.

Just cause we switched to sr4 doesn't mean that submarines don't exist cause it's not in the book yet. Same with how tech and magic works.

You can make a monofilament whip, nothing ever has said you can't, but you don't have any nifty thing in the astral with you, and no advantage in the physical world other then more dice to wield it.

eidolon
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Dec 3 2005, 10:49 AM)
QUOTE (eidolon @ Dec 3 2005, 11:46 AM)
The world doesn't regress just because the target number changes.

..you didn't take a look at SR2, did you?

Look, you understand my point. Stop trying to appear to be clever by posting little "tee-hee-hee" comments.

I own multiple copies of the first three editions, and the pdf of the fourth. The mechanics change throughout all editions. That would be the reason they make them. (Well, except for SR$...wink.gif). When they did remove things from the game, technology wise, it was because the game designers had decided they were mechanically broken. However, unlike SR4, the previous editions included reasons in the story (even if they were a bit silly and contrived), and generally the removals weren't overwhelmingly apparent.

When they were, or even if you just liked the stuff and wanted it back, you'd just "un-remove" it and make new stats for it for the new edition. That's what I'm saying you should do now. It makes [b]no sense whatsoever[b] that you could get a cybereye laser system five or six years ago, but (in a world of constantly advancing technology) you can't get the same (or better) "now". It's fucking stupid, and I pity the players under any GM that is saying "well...it's not in the 4th edition game, so you can't have it".

I'd say I pity that GM for being an idiot too, but I don't. He/she's an idiot. Practically the only excuse for that kind of "OMGzorz it's not in the bookz" defense for not, say, allowing a cybereye laser, is if you just got into the game with SR4 and don't know any better.
Eddie Furious
QUOTE (6thDragon @ Dec 3 2005, 12:07 PM)
I guess it all depends on your view of a weapon focus.  In previous editions, weapon foci required orichalcum be present in the weapon.  It never explicitly said that the business end of the weapon needed to be made of orichalcum, but many people translated the rules as such.  The arguement here over a monofilament whip starts because by definition, the business end of a monofilament whip must be monofilament.  I would be inclined to say it is not allowed, but that's my opinion.

I admit, I would translate it the same way due to my interpretation that orichalcum doesn't "radiate" in any fashion to make the rest of the weapon effective, otherwise we would see orichalcum based "masers" being used to take out spirits.

Also, I personally don't allow monofilament weaponry in the game due to the inherent difficulty involved in controlling and storing such devices. Besides, it just seems so... 80's... yeah.

wobble.gif
FrostyNSO
QUOTE (Eddie Furious @ Dec 3 2005, 07:21 PM)
Besides, it just seems so... 80's... yeah.

...and that also happens to be exactly the reason they kick so much ass!
nick012000
I'll point out that if a monofilament wire is some variety of buckytube, it'll be hollow, so you could probably fill it up with orichalcum like milkshake through a straw. The trick would be to do so without breaking the wire, but magic can take care of that pretty easily.

So, I responded with 'Yes'.
6thDragon
QUOTE (nick012000)
I'll point out that if a monofilament wire is some variety of buckytube, it'll be hollow, so you could probably fill it up with orichalcum like milkshake through a straw. The trick would be to do so without breaking the wire, but magic can take care of that pretty easily.

So, I responded with 'Yes'.

This is what a monofilament whip is made of in shadowrun scroll to bottom, under science fiction I don't think you could "fill" a single strand of molecules with anything.
emo samurai
But nanotubes, which ARE real, are tubes of carbon atoms linked together more strongly than carbon atoms in diamond. So, is you decide to use real-world science instead of Larry Niven science, you'll be fine.
hyzmarca
I'm not sre about SR4 but it SR3 weapon foci didn't need orichalcum at all.
Liper
Say what~!? you're freaking retarded if you think weapon foci didn't use orichalium in sr3.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (Liper @ Dec 4 2005, 12:36 AM)
Say what~!? you're freaking retarded if you think weapon foci didn't use orichalium in sr3.

I guess a lot of people are just retarded then. While the basic book of SR3 states that
QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 191)
All weapon foci require the magical metal orichalcum (or-i-cal-cum) in their construction.

The advanced enchanting rules declare the use of orichalcum as optional, and give a discount on enchanting foci (including weapon foci) if you use it.

So no, the orichalcum is not required. If you use the rules for making magic items at all, you can make weapon foci that don't have orichalcum in their construction (it just costs more Karma than the example Weapon Foci in the basic book).

-Frank
caramel frappuccino
Ouch, right in the nuts.
Gothic Rose
I will admit that I have only read the weapon focus rules once and not recently (in SR4) but does it ever mention, in the new edition, needing orichalcum?
Liper
it doesn't mention one way or the other in sr4.

In SR3 unless you want to pay a buttload of karma.

Orichalium simply makes it easier to make a foci, and easier to bond it to a user.

Gothic Rose
QUOTE (Liper)
it doesn't mention one way or the other in sr4.

In SR3 unless you want to pay a buttload of karma.

Orichalium simply makes it easier to make a foci, and easier to bond it to a user.

Then I'd say that you could have one.

I don't care what the rules in SR3 are. SR4 is not SR3, therefore the rules presented in SR3 matter not one whit, and continuity be damned.
Liper
It still doesn't change the fact that the DAMAGE of the weapon wouldn't bypass critter immunities, or have any damage to speak of in the astral.
Gothic Rose
QUOTE (Liper)
It still doesn't change the fact that the DAMAGE of the weapon wouldn't bypass critter immunities, or have any damage to speak of in the astral.

I thought weapon foci did normal damage to things on the astral. Huh.
Squinky
QUOTE (Liper)
It still doesn't change the fact that the DAMAGE of the weapon wouldn't bypass critter immunities, or have any damage to speak of in the astral.

It actaully would change both of those things... If a weapon foci were no longer required to have orcalcium in it, then it would function completely the same as any other weapon foci.
6thDragon
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
QUOTE (Liper @ Dec 4 2005, 12:36 AM)
Say what~!? you're freaking retarded if you think weapon foci didn't use orichalium in sr3.

I guess a lot of people are just retarded then. While the basic book of SR3 states that
QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 191)
All weapon foci require the magical metal orichalcum (or-i-cal-cum) in their construction.

The advanced enchanting rules declare the use of orichalcum as optional, and give a discount on enchanting foci (including weapon foci) if you use it.

So no, the orichalcum is not required. If you use the rules for making magic items at all, you can make weapon foci that don't have orichalcum in their construction (it just costs more Karma than the example Weapon Foci in the basic book).

-Frank

It says orichalcum is required for weapon foci in the original book and does not contradict this in MitS. MitS gives many other options for reducing bonding costs. I don't see anything that would override the core rulebook. It looks like this was something that might have been overlooked in the rules expansion, and as a result is somewhat vague. If I'm missing something please point me in the right direction.
Liper
QUOTE
It actaully would change both of those things... If a weapon foci were no longer required to have orcalcium in it, then it would function completely the same as any other weapon foci.


Orichalium or not, the rules state...
QUOTE
technological enchancments to melee weapons such as monofilament edges, laster attachmetns, dikote and so on do not allow the character to inflict additional damage when fighting a manifest spirit...  Any other damage enchancments do not carry the force of the characters living will and cannot affect the spirit


Which means, since the damage of the monofilament can't be applied to a focue vs astral things (ie astral space, and it's denizens), you simply can't have a monofilament whip do anything beyond add extra dice to your attacks.

The damage enchancment (or in this case all the damage) is a technological based enchancment and has no basis as the astral world is compared.
FrankTrollman
Again and still, that only applies when using a mundane weapon against a spirit, and only when playing in a previous edition.

In SR3, a magic monowhip did its normal damage against spirits because it did "regular damage against astral forms" and was therefore not subject to the rules for mundane weapons against a materialized spirit. In SR4, the rule you are quoting doesn't even exist.

-Frank
Apathy
As I remember it...
  • Using a mundane monowhip against a materialized spirit, treat damage code as though it were a normal whip. The spirit would get it's normal Immunity to Weapons bonus.
  • Using a mundane monowhip when battling a spirit with the contest of wills was much smarter, since the damage code of the weapon was immaterial, and the reach advantage still counted.
  • Using a weapons focus monowhip would have allowed the character to slice and dice with the weapons normal (insanely high) damage code, and would have bypassed the Immunity to Weapons protections.
  • The only impediments to building weapons foci out of ultra-high tech materials like monofiliment whips is that the target number to successfully build and bond the weapon becomes nigh-impossible, and time/materials/karma used in a failed attempt are just wasted.
  • I wouldn't require orichalcum to be in the actual monofillament (which I believe couldn't be done) in order to be used in the building process. Instead, they could have the counter-weight made out of it. However, because of the small size I wouldn't allow more than one unit of orichalcum to be used.
Liper
QUOTE
In SR3, a magic monowhip did its normal damage against spirits because it did "regular damage against astral forms" and was therefore not subject to the rules for mundane weapons against a materialized spirit. In SR4, the rule you are quoting doesn't even exist.


Where in 3rd edition did it say it, in sr4 there is no rule, which is the whole debate here, thanks for pointing the obvious =p
tisoz
QUOTE (6thDragon @ Dec 4 2005, 11:33 AM)
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
QUOTE (Liper @ Dec 4 2005, 12:36 AM)
Say what~!? you're freaking retarded if you think weapon foci didn't use orichalium in sr3.

I guess a lot of people are just retarded then. While the basic book of SR3 states that
QUOTE (SR3 @ p. 191)
All weapon foci require the magical metal orichalcum (or-i-cal-cum) in their construction.

The advanced enchanting rules declare the use of orichalcum as optional, and give a discount on enchanting foci (including weapon foci) if you use it.

So no, the orichalcum is not required. If you use the rules for making magic items at all, you can make weapon foci that don't have orichalcum in their construction (it just costs more Karma than the example Weapon Foci in the basic book).

-Frank

It says orichalcum is required for weapon foci in the original book and does not contradict this in MitS. MitS gives many other options for reducing bonding costs. I don't see anything that would override the core rulebook. It looks like this was something that might have been overlooked in the rules expansion, and as a result is somewhat vague. If I'm missing something please point me in the right direction.

Points to MitS, page 43 under Material Basis, especially Mundane Telesma. It is also generally accepted that rules in a later published book supercede previous rules, especially books that go into greater detail on a subject.

QUOTE (Liper)
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
In SR3, a magic monowhip did its normal damage against spirits because it did "regular damage against astral forms" and was therefore not subject to the rules for mundane weapons against a materialized spirit. In SR4, the rule you are quoting doesn't even exist.

Where in 3rd edition did it say it

Points to SR3 page 191 under Weapon Foci, the second paragraph.
QUOTE (SR3 page 191)
A weapon focus inflicts its base damage (per weapon type) in both physical or astral combat (see Astral Combat, p. 174), and the defenses Awakened critters have against normal weapons do not protect them against weapon foci (see Powers, p. 260). When the owner of a weapon focus astrally projects, the astral form of the focus goes along and can be used in astral combat.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (Liper)
Where in 3rd edition did it say it, in sr4 there is no rule, which is the whole debate here, thanks for pointing the obvious =p

QUOTE (SR3)
A weapon focus inflicts its base damage (per weapon type) in both physical and astral combat


This really isn't open for debate. In SR3, weapon foci did normal damage against spirits. Not flooby "no technological enhancements" damage - normal damage. Which was a crap tonne of damage.

The flooby anti-spirit damage was:

1. Just for spirits. Not even for other critters that have immunity to normal weapons, nor for other creatures that have astral forms.
and
2. Only for attacks which are entirley mundane. A magical attack (or an attack with a weapon focus) bypassed that entire rule.

So in SR4, not only is the rule you are talking about not around, but the rule you are talking about never even applied to people using weapon focus monowhips.

-Frank
FrostyNSO
Isn't a normal sword just another technological enhancement? The first weapons were made of stone, so does that mean everything afterwards doesn't count?
Liper
if you're going to point to SR3 as why you think you can make a mono whip weapon foci look at the target number to create it.

17 at the least.

In sr4 it's 4+ successes needed at least also (not a easy task if possible at all)

Second you couldn't add any radicals to it to reduce the enchanting test number, since the weapon (which is the monofilament) can't have anything added to it without becoming ineffective.

QUOTE
In SR3, weapon foci did normal damage against spirits. Not flooby "no technological enhancements" damage - normal damage. Which was a crap tonne of damage.


Nothing ever addressed if techno improvments to affect damage would apply to astral forms, save in sr2... so since the only rule addressing it is in sr2, you have to go by that one.

The removal of technological damage improvments to weapons actually makes more sense in sr4 because it doesn't mean as much as it did in sr3. a mono-sword damage wise is the same as a regular sword, you just wouldn't get the -1ap from it against a spirit, but because it's a focus you'd by pass the immunity to normal weapons ability.

As a whip though it means the damage code changes radically, first there is no whip damage code (regular whip) and the -4ap definatly goes I'd bet.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (FrostyNSO)
Isn't a normal sword just another technological enhancement? The first weapons were made of stone, so does that mean everything afterwards doesn't count?

Yes. That's why this entire line of reasoning was removed from the game mechanics and the fluff. It simply did not stand up to close analysis.

QUOTE
if you're going to point to SR3 as why you think you can make a mono whip weapon foci look at the target number to create it.


Why? Sure, game mechanically it was very hard. Although you could buy successes (plural) and get it done with absolute certainty if you were willing to spend enough Karma.

QUOTE

Second you couldn't add any radicals to it to reduce the enchanting test number, since the weapon (which is the monofilament) can't have anything added to it without becoming ineffective.


That's horse shit. While you can't add any radicals to the mono-line, I think it best that you recall that there are three sections of a monowhip - the monowire, the handle, and the endweight. You can't put any alchemical radicals or pieces of Orichalchum into the monowire, but alchemical gold in the endweight would work very well. Alchemical mahogony would make a very pleasing and ergonomic hilt.

If you can put herbal radicals into the hilt of a sword focus - and you can - you can put herbal radicals into the handle of a monowhip. This is a serious non-problem you've created.

QUOTE
Nothing ever addressed if techno improvments to affect damage would apply to astral forms, save in sr2... so since the only rule addressing it is in sr2, you have to go by that one.


Well no. That's like saying that there aren't any rules for Staging numbers in SR4 so we have to use the first edition ones. In third edition, a lack of rules regarding what technological enhancements did against spirits would cause you to use the normal damage rules of SR3! Which means that APDS was fully functional against Spirits.

But again and still, none of that applied to a monowhip weapon focus, because:

QUOTE (Immunity)
Immunity to normal weapons has no effect against Combat Spells or Weapon Foci.


Please. You've got nothing. You are grasping at straws from previous editions where it was also legal to make monowhip weapon foci to try to prove that the current rules where you can make monowhip weapon foci are somehow against design intent. They aren't. Monowhip weapon foci are totally sweet, and I'm pretty sure that the designers approve.

-Frank
tisoz
QUOTE (Liper)
if you're going to point to SR3 as why you think you can make a mono whip weapon foci look at the target number to create it.

17 at the least.

In sr4 it's 4+ successes needed at least also (not a easy task if possible at all)

Are you talking about creating the weapon or enchanting it? I did not realize there were enchanting rules in SR4. You do not have to create the weapon, you can go buy a mundane one and enchant it.

QUOTE
Second you couldn't add any radicals to it to reduce the enchanting test number, since the weapon (which is the monofilament) can't have anything added to it without becoming ineffective.

Radicals or orichalcum do not have to be added to the focus, they can simply be consumed during the enchanting process.

QUOTE
QUOTE
In SR3, weapon foci did normal damage against spirits. Not flooby "no technological enhancements" damage - normal damage. Which was a crap tonne of damage.


Nothing ever addressed if techno improvments to affect damage would apply to astral forms, save in sr2... so since the only rule addressing it is in sr2, you have to go by that one.

Please see SR3 page 191 about weapon foci damage that has been pointed out and quoted several times as well as pointing out that your 2nd edition quote concerns resorting to Force of Will attacks which are quite different.
Azralon
See, in my sessions, I skirt issues like this by just not having anyone with enchanted monowhips until the expansion book comes out that covers them.

Did dikoted spurs exist within the continuity? Yes. Do they exist now? Sure, just all off-camera until their rules show up.
TheHappyAnarchist
I'm wondering what is stopping you from using Orichalcum in a monomolecular string?
Couldn't you just string the orichalcum out and reinforce it's bond with magic until it was monomolecular width?

Thus making the actual whip orichalcum as well? Or am I missing something.
Kleaner
It's a lame idea which screams of munchkin powergaming. I'm glad none of my players have come up with this idea. I hate bitch slapping friends.

As for any kind of "reasoning" you want to put behind it, whatever, it's just mental masturbation.

The level of technology need to maniuplate molecules on this level, and to create such an incredibly strong bond of wire falls under Clarke's third law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So stop trying to reason building one, 'cause you have no idea how it'd be made. (I'm pretty sure it's not just a string attached to a weight).

Even if they do publish rules for them, I'm not going to allow them, it'd be freaking cheesy.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012