Thanee
Jul 10 2006, 10:52 AM
By the book, a weapon focus deals normal weapon damage (just using Cha instead of Str) in astral combat. It seems a bit weird, but ok...
Now, if a magician has a monowhip as weapon focus this rule really starts to break down. It simply makes little sense (to me anyways) that a monowhip has the same effect on the astral plane.
I'm thinking about changing astral weapon damage entirely to (Cha+Rating of Weapon Focus)/2, making it irrelevant what the actual weapon is (it still affects Reach, though).
What do you think?
Bye
Thanee
Abbandon
Jul 10 2006, 11:05 AM
A weapon focus is just a mundane item that has been enchanted so that it has an astral body which can make it hurt things as well as it does in the mundane.
Why does it make since to you that a knife can be a power focus but a monowhip cant? And yea you have to use mental attributes on the astral plane because your meatbody isnt there.
I see absolutely no reason to change things myself.
Thanee
Jul 10 2006, 11:53 AM
I have no problem with a monowhip being a weapon focus.
I have a problem with a monowhip working like a monowhip on the astral.
Bye
Thanee
ornot
Jul 10 2006, 01:15 PM
I usually go with what I feel to be the intention behind the rules. The concept of weapon foci seems to be linked with magic swords or daggers and so on. Namely low tech melee stuff. A monowhip is rather too high tech IMHO to properly incorporate magic into it.
There are a number of similar issues that might arise but usually don't because people have a feeling for what is appropriate. For example, a mage has cyber spurs implanted and wants to use them on the astral, because he's paid essence for them and they're part of him, or a gun bunny phys ad wanting to get weapon focus pistols, leading to a mage wanting pistol foci so she can shoot astral forms while projecting.... and so on.
booklord
Jul 10 2006, 01:23 PM
While I realize this might be a throwback to SR3 I would never allow a mono-whip weapon foci.
The problem is that orchilium or at the very least alchemical radicals are supposed to be used in the construction of a weapon foci. I doubt the weapon foci needs to be made purely of the stuff but I imagine you'd at least need a vein of it along the blade or cutting edge.
Well the mono-filiment part of the whip can't possibly be made out of any enchanted materials so when you went astral you'd be holding a monofiliment whip handle with a reach of 0.
Good chance this will be mentioned in the enchanting section of "Street Magic"
TBRMInsanity
Jul 10 2006, 01:29 PM
QUOTE (Thanee) |
By the book, a weapon focus deals normal weapon damage (just using Cha instead of Str) in astral combat. It seems a bit weird, but ok...
Now, if a magician has a monowhip as weapon focus this rule really starts to break down. It simply makes little sense (to me anyways) that a monowhip has the same effect on the astral plane.
I'm thinking about changing astral weapon damage entirely to (Cha+Rating of Weapon Focus)/2, making it irrelevant what the actual weapon is (it still affects Reach, though).
What do you think?
Bye Thanee |
The mono-whip has too many moving parts to be created into a weapon focus. All the damaging parts must be made of oricalum as since oricalum is very fragile you could not make it into a monofilament string needed in a mono-whip. So the rules stay intact.
Thanee
Jul 10 2006, 02:39 PM
There is no rule about orichalcum to be necessary in the construction of a weapon focus in SR4 AFAIK. I'm fairly sure, that this wasn't a requirement in SR3 either. In fact, I recall something like you can just take a weapon 'off the shelf' and enchant it. Or was that SR2?
Bye
Thanee
Thanee
Jul 10 2006, 02:42 PM
Either way... it isn't the question whether you can make a monowhip into a weapon focus or not.
It's the question whether a weapon's *physical* statistics should determine its effectiveness on the astral. This also comes into effect when you look at combat axes, monoswords, katanas and whatnot.
Should it matter, how sharp a blade is? Or how big? Or only how well it is enchanted (as my proposed house rule above)?
Bye
Thanee
Ratio
Jul 10 2006, 03:19 PM
What you (and the world at large) believe in has always been a component to SR’s magic system. Gator has always been a viable urban totem (obviously talking pre sr4) because people believed in the urban legend of gators inhabiting urban sewers. By extension, the same could apply to weapon foci. A force 2 katana may do more astral damage than a force 2 nerf bat simply because people believe (and have more confidence) that a katana can do more damage than a nerf bat.
Just a thought. I’m not trying to argue you out of your house rule. If it works for you, use it.
booklord
Jul 10 2006, 03:29 PM
QUOTE |
What you (and the world at large) believe in has always been a component to SR’s magic system. |
Actually in SR2 weapon foci damage was a mix of Force and Charisma and had nothing to do with weapon type. I personally liked it better that way.
Abbandon
Jul 10 2006, 04:08 PM
A weapon foci isnt doing the same damage on the astral as it is in the mundane because it has the same sharpness. Its doing that much damage because thats how much damage it is "designed" to do. It has astral properties that determine how much damage it inflicts. It was told to mirror how this item works in the mundane.
Again this is a game based on fantasy and it doesnt matter if the monofilament wire could technically be made out of mage ore and still be as effect or even work. Just pretend it does or stop pretending you can get cyber or use magic or be attacked by vampires and dragons.
I havent read the stuff on cybernetics and the astral but i would assume they dont work on the astral. Your not giving your essense to your spurs. Your sacrificing it permanently. bye bye its gone. Spurs are no more connected to your astral being than a mundane sword held in your hands. I'd only let you use cybernetics in the astral if they were made with mage ore.
Do cybernetic or bio implants count towards your astral attributes? The ones that increase logic or charisma? Bio i could see but not cyber.
ornot
Jul 10 2006, 04:31 PM
I rather made the point about astral cyber spurs to suggest that you could attempt to stretch the rules well past the breaking point of the spirit of the rules.
If your players are in a position to make cyberwear out of orichalcum or the like, you're giving them way too much money and karma!
'Ware boosting astral attributes? Somewhat tricky that one, Abbandon. I'd actually be somewhat inclined to institute a cap on astral traits derived from magic, much as a technomancer's living persona is limited by resonance. That would be self limiting in terms of tricking out your mage with implants and the precedent exists in the technomancer rule.
Thanee
Jul 10 2006, 08:11 PM
QUOTE (booklord) |
I personally liked it better that way. |
Yep, it just seems so much more *astral* that way.
If your physical self has no impact on the astral, why should the weapon's physical self?
Bye
Thanee
Shadowmeet
Jul 10 2006, 08:14 PM
When you go into the astral, and you leave your body behind, does your weapon focus rest in your hands or on your person in the physical(And thereby seperating it's physical and astral form as does a magician), or does it's physical self dissapear, and go into the astral with you?
Shrike30
Jul 10 2006, 10:04 PM
*blink, blink* I never considered that.
If the physical representation stays with your body, and someone steals it, do they walk away with a "normal" weapon, and leave you with a weapon focus that exists only on the astral?
DireRadiant
Jul 10 2006, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (Shrike30) |
If the physical representation stays with your body, and someone steals it, do they walk away with a "normal" weapon, and leave you with a weapon focus that exists only on the astral? |
What if someone moves your body and leaves the weapon focus behind?
Samaels Ghost
Jul 10 2006, 10:13 PM
Foci have to be on your person to be active so I would say no.
Shadowmeet
Jul 10 2006, 10:14 PM
QUOTE (Shrike30) |
*blink, blink* I never considered that.
If the physical representation stays with your body, and someone steals it, do they walk away with a "normal" weapon, and leave you with a weapon focus that exists only on the astral? |
Also, part of my point was going to be this. If the weapon stays physical, and seperates from it's astral as well, then You might be able to make an argument for damage being not based on the weapon, but on the force and the person weilding it; or you can stick with RAW here as well.
However, if the physical aspects of the weapon enter the astral during such a situation, then the weapon in the astral would be the stats of the weapon in the physical, only with CHA instead of STR, so RAW would be more likely.
Also, several things about theft and moving bring up other questions.
For instance, based on the seperate auras model
If someone moves you, then when you return to physical form, are you then seperated from your weapon, or is it seperated at the point when you are moved or it is stolen? (Ah! My sword has gone AWOL. Someone must be near my body)
Samaels Ghost
Jul 11 2006, 01:22 AM
If your focus loses contact with your body then it becomes inactive. If it were stolen "while you were out" then it would definetly disapear as soon as it went inactive.
If they moved your body you'd have to find it via astral tracking or smarts.
Actually you could also find yourstolen focus via astral tracking as well. There exsists a link between you and any foci you have bonded.
WorkOver
Jul 11 2006, 02:15 AM
but the real question is why is everyone so god damned quick to house rule crap?
The rukes are written as they are written, use em, or just make your own game up and quit wasting your money on a book you will just change every other page.
Everyone is a critic, its no wonder pen and paper games are going the way of the albatros.
to change a video game, you need a cheat device, and of you finish the game, you still suck, because you didn't play the game, the cheat device did.
Pen and paper games, people butcher and cut apart with no remorse.
I would hate to even attempt to try and run in a game ran by 75% of the people who post here.
booklord
Jul 11 2006, 02:54 AM
QUOTE |
but the real question is why is everyone so god damned quick to house rule crap? |
Well off the top of my head .....
1) To correct percieved game imbalance.
2) To clear up some points of SR4 that aren't exactly clear.
3) To handle topics that were obviously left to be handled in later editions.
4) game concepts I liked better in SR3
5) some game mechanics that just don't work out
QUOTE |
The rukes are written as they are written, use em, or just make your own game up and quit wasting your money on a book you will just change every other page. |
SR4 does have some great game mechanics in it. And the writers deserve some serious kudos for putting it together. Now having said that.... I'm still going to house rule some stuff. But I wouldn't even be able to come close without the foundation provided by the core rules.
QUOTE |
to change a video game, you need a cheat device, and of you finish the game, you still suck, because you didn't play the game, the cheat device did. |
Actually you can change a video game with a MOD too. These programs often don't change the game to make it easier. For example I remember reading about a MOD for Morrowind that adds dragons to the game. Adding dragons almost never makes things easier.
Samaels Ghost
Jul 11 2006, 04:04 AM
QUOTE (booklord @ Jul 10 2006, 09:54 PM) |
Adding dragons almost never makes things easier. |
How does attacking a focus work, Work Over?
Does it have a condition monitor?
Does it just deactivate if it takes damage?
Can you show us a page where these rules may be found?
Do the albatros have huge albatros conventions? Do companies make tons of money off realeasing supplement after supplement for albastros products tons of customers are already using?
I can't stand convoluted house-rules either. I think full-auto works just fine. I think edge is broken period. I think summoning spirits is far too easy. And I think that hacking actions should have SOMETHING to do with the Logic attribute. How 'bout you? Are you content on sitting on your hands and being bugged by rules that make the game a little less fun? I will on occasion rule that something out of the book should be
temporarily changed for a game session or two until we figure out what the rule really is or what our misconceptions are.
While I agree that people here are quick to jump the house-rules-gun, I think that snapping at them and comparing them to cheaters is just about as constructive.
Samaels Ghost
Jul 11 2006, 04:35 AM
Back to the topic.
Is it fair that a mono whip does the same damage on the astral plane as the physical? Sure, astral bodies are solid for other astral bodies. Our Astral enemies receive damage from our Astral monowhips just like on the physical plane, what's wrong with that? Something made of solid astral matter (mana, whatever) and so thin should shear away astral flesh just the same as it would work with their physical counterparts.
As for making a monowhip focus, be creative. Maybe the metal used is merely enchanted. MAybe orihalcum isn't used but some other magical metal that is more appropriate is. Maybe magical jewels or other magical thingies on the handle bestow awesome Weapon focus powers on the fine monowhip. Maybe, like was said before, it is merely all in your head that the focus works and that's why it does. It's freakin' magic! The only other alternative is that this is being overthought a bit. Many things in SR are taken for granted. Nanomachines? Simsense? How does THAT work? There doesn't need to be an explaination because there is no real explaination. Even writting the fiction that is the canon cannot begin to shed light on how these things work. You can't even try because there is no real world equivalent. And of all the concepts/systems in the book, magic is the one left open to the most interpretation. Hermetics, shamans, voodoo priests, catholic theurges, etc. They all do things a completely different way. WHo's to say that there's one way to bond a focus? Who's to say that there is a limitation to what can be used? You can't really say, and neither can I. I think it's safe to say "It works like magic."
Derek
Jul 11 2006, 07:39 AM
QUOTE (WorkOver) |
but the real question is why is everyone so god damned quick to house rule crap?
The rukes are written as they are written, use em, or just make your own game up and quit wasting your money on a book you will just change every other page.
Everyone is a critic, its no wonder pen and paper games are going the way of the albatros.
to change a video game, you need a cheat device, and of you finish the game, you still suck, because you didn't play the game, the cheat device did.
Pen and paper games, people butcher and cut apart with no remorse.
I would hate to even attempt to try and run in a game ran by 75% of the people who post here. |
That's all nice and good, if thats the way you like it. However, please don't even bother to try and enforce your silly sense of "the way things should be" on the rest of us.
Now, back to the topic at hand.
My impression of it is like this: when a weapon is enchanted, it gains a real astral aura, just like anything else that is dual natured. So much so, that when in the hands of a magician who can astrally project, the weapon can project as well. So, whatever it is that is projected when a mage projects (his astral form, his soul, his spirit, etc....) the same thing gets projected by the weapon. The weapons soul, in effect is being projected along with the mage.
However, the key part here is that this only works when in the hands (or claws, or whatever) of a projecting mage. As soon as that weapons leaves the hands of the mage, the soul of the weapon returns to the actual physical form of the weapon. So, when the weapon is removed from the mage's physical body, the astral form of the weapon dissappears from the mages astral form.
As for why I think the weapon should use it's actual stats in the astral plane, again it goes back to the spirit, or soul of the weapon. An enchanted long sword has the astral form of a long sword (reach, damage, etc...) and it's "intent" or soul, or spirit, or whatever you want to call it, is that of a long sword. So, to me, it would retain it's form and all characteristics, even in the astral plane.
Finally, enchanting a mono-whip....well, I don't see any reason why not; I mean, there have been other combinations of technology and magic before in SR (cyberzombies, anyone?...) and while rare, I could see it happening.
ornot
Jul 11 2006, 09:52 AM
Everything you have said is very intuitive Derek, but I would suggest that cyberzombies are a special case and not for players anyway, and as a consequence of the tech and magic involved a monowhip foci should remain out of reach of players.
That being said, I don't feel there would really be all that much difference in terms of game balance for a mage to use a monowhip, they've spent the points on weild monowhip, after all, which are skill points not placed elsewhere.
Thanee
Jul 11 2006, 04:27 PM
QUOTE (WorkOver) |
I would hate to even attempt to try and run in a game ran by 75% of the people who post here. |
I know a quick solution to your problem: Stop reading/posting here.
Bye
Thanee
deek
Jul 11 2006, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Thanee) |
QUOTE (WorkOver @ Jul 11 2006, 04:15 AM) | I would hate to even attempt to try and run in a game ran by 75% of the people who post here. |
I know a quick solution to your problem: Stop reading/posting here. Bye Thanee |
WorkOver...realize there is a difference between in game issues and the theories/debates being discussed on this board. I doubt that 80% of these discussion, coming up during a game, would have as much banter, so don't draw the conclusion that just because some of us enjoy to debate and test the rules on this forum, that it in any way affects the kind of game any of us would run.
I mean, honestly, just the fact that a player/GM takes their own time to get other's opinions on rules or objects, should generally put them in a better class of player/GM. IMO, that at least shows, no matter how outlandish they may appear here, they are spending some out of game time to improve or better understand their games!
Or, as Thanee suggested, you could just stop reading and posting:)
WorkOver
Jul 11 2006, 05:17 PM
QUOTE (Thanee) |
QUOTE (WorkOver @ Jul 11 2006, 04:15 AM) | I would hate to even attempt to try and run in a game ran by 75% of the people who post here. |
I know a quick solution to your problem: Stop reading/posting here. Bye Thanee |
or you can eat shit. Is that okay?
QUOTE |
I mean, honestly, just the fact that a player/GM takes their own time to get other's opinions on rules or objects, should generally put them in a better class of player/GM. IMO, that at least shows, no matter how outlandish they may appear here, they are spending some out of game time to improve or better understand their games! |
Oh yeah, I feel that. I like debate and things of that nature. The point I am trying to make, is that 90% of the debate on this SR4 board is complaining and rules to make SR4 back into SR3.
The rules are different. Period. Learn the rules. Play with the rules. An average game I run is about 6 hours. Of the 6 hours, there will be about 1-2 fights, total. I believe in stories based on players.
I literally base my campaigns off the backgrounds of players. I will integrate my NPCs and my story arc intertwined with what my players want to do.
In the end, I have a dice way out of fights, and I have a non dice way out of fights. If players take the dice way out, I will use the rules of the system we are playing. Screw a house rule.
Screw SR3. That game was so horribly unbalanced that it needed to go the way of the albatros.
SR4 has a few issues, namely the lack of rules in certain places. This is when you need house rules. On this board, however, people just wanna change what already exists.
In SR3, attributes counted for resisting drain, doing melee damage and soaking damage. The whole skill costs based off linked attribute crap did not make attributes important.
Also, SR3 turned into a game of MI:4/Delta Force 3, except everyone played either a cyber zombie or a complete mage. No room for detectives, no room for anyone with no cyber or no magic. The game had turned into a jumbled mess.
I got off subject here. Back on track, here the posts are mega complaints about the system and the attempts to turn it back into SR3.
Try using the rules. You lose all of your dice due to dice pool modifiers? Great, you actually can use the long shot rules with edge. It works out well. Edge will give you a one time a game long shot to do something ridiculous. You can not jump 15 meters as an unaugmented human, its impossible without magic and cyber. That is okay.
Once a game you can be falling from a building, be on fire, blinded in one eye, wounded, arm broken, while being shot, and can squeeze off a shot and hit someone in the eye if your edge is high enough. It will happen once in a blue moon, not once a combat if your SR3 dice pools are up and you have enough karma pool to continually re roll failures.
Magical monowhip? great, this is a techno fantasy game, dragons run mega corporations who have cyborg security gaurds on the north doors, Hellhounds in the south doors. The cyborg smaurai supports the elven combat mage. This is techno fantasy.
That mage wants to enchant a monowhip, thats awesome. Why house rule it out? It says no where in those rules that it needs to be made from anyspecial material, and if it did, why can a monowhip not be made from orcalcium?
People need to just accept the fact that SR3 is thankfully dead, shot, and laid out to pasture. The rules of SR4 maintain a very delicate balance in a game that can easliy be thrown out of whack with a very simple house rule. Let it ride, use the rules as written, and add rules for situation where a rule does not exist.
I honestly beleive that the problem with SR4 is people are spoiled on the Playstation generation and are too god damn lazy to read the rules. Its too easy to just make stuff up as you go along, instead of reading and understandig.
Us older gamers are old enough to have remebered what pen and paper games where like before the video games destroyed our imaginations, and made people to lazy to read a book and attempt to undertand it.
I wish Fanpro actually stayed on the ball, they should have included rules for destroying a weapon, or breaking a focus. Then poor Samuel wouldn't have to worry about it. Also in the internet age you should be able to email the OFFICIAL rules people, and get a clarification, in time Fanpro should be able to compile a list of emails they have gotten, included the rules judgement and then made a list of them available to quell these types of situations, and then players hould do thier part and use SR4 as written, or quit crying and use the years worth pf SR3 rules that already exist. SR3 has everything needed to never need another SR3 product to be released again.
WorkOver
Jul 11 2006, 05:23 PM
Oh and Derek, I am not trying to enforce my "silly" version of the way things should be. If I had it my way, people would use the RAW. Its not my way things should be, its the owners of the IP's way. I actually use a set of rules I payed 30.00 USD for. Whats silly is the way people actually payed (or illegally downloaded) for rules JUST to complain about them.
They say you make a character up this way, they say you roll this attribute plus this skillm they say you use this rule for jumping, they say you have fixed target numbers plus threshold, they say you can not spend more than 1/2 your build points on attributes, they say humans hard cap is 9, they say everything, so its not my "silly" version at all, its FanPro's.
Thanee
Jul 11 2006, 06:15 PM
QUOTE (WorkOver @ Jul 11 2006, 07:17 PM) |
Oh yeah, I feel that. I like debate and things of that nature. The point I am trying to make, is that 90% of the debate on this SR4 board is complaining and rules to make SR4 back into SR3.
People need to just accept the fact that SR3 is thankfully dead, shot, and laid out to pasture. |
Your implications are... amusing. At best.
Maybe you should try some of your 'advice' there, and start reading and understanding... and then
maybe... consider to post. Really, you are
so far off with your assumptions. You make up stuff there that is just completely ridiculous.
90% of the posts of this board are complains and try to turn SR4 into SR3?
Right.
QUOTE |
I honestly beleive that the problem with SR4 is people are spoiled on the Playstation generation and are too god damn lazy to read the rules. Its too easy to just make stuff up as you go along, instead of reading and understandig. |
Did I mention 'far off' already?
QUOTE |
The rules of SR4 maintain a very delicate balance in a game that can easliy be thrown out of whack with a very simple house rule. Let it ride, use the rules as written, and add rules for situation where a rule does not exist. |
I'm reasonably sure, that there will be no balance issues with my house rules (most likely less than when using SR4 by-the-book; some of that 'delicate balance' isn't very balanced at all... explosive ammo and armor penetration, anyone?). Many of them are just for style or to deliver a certain feel, though. And no, none of them have the purpose of turning SR4 into SR3. In fact, my SR2 house rules could be said to have turned SR2 into SR4 (we used many of those 'modern' concepts back then already).
QUOTE |
Magical monowhip? great, this is a techno fantasy game, dragons run mega corporations who have cyborg security gaurds on the north doors, Hellhounds in the south doors. The cyborg smaurai supports the elven combat mage. This is techno fantasy.
That mage wants to enchant a monowhip, thats awesome. Why house rule it out? It says no where in those rules that it needs to be made from anyspecial material, and if it did, why can a monowhip not be made from orcalcium? |
This is rather off topic and has very little to do with my original post (as explained already, have you even read that?).
Is there even
any point to your posts (except throwing around random insults and complains, which (90%) are based on completely different topics here, and total non-understanding that people can have a different opinion from yours (and still have fun and play great games with lots of story-based role-playing) - hard to accept, I suppose).
Peace!
Bye
Thanee
ornot
Jul 11 2006, 07:08 PM
Gee Workover. Angry much?
While I agree that SR4 has a number of advantages over SR3, it does suffer from overly vague rules at times. While I imagine that these will be lessened with the release of later supplements that doesn't much help us now, and regardless of how extensively the game may or may not have been playtested prior to release, certain inequalities will have snuck through. Such is the way of complex systems and I have no problem with people bringing up their rules queries or offering up their houserules for scrutiny.
To lambast the Dumpshock community in the way you have is inappropriate, unnecessary and almost certainly off topic. We are not all unreasoning sheep that will blindly follow every crackpot houserule mooted. We are capable of our own decisions based off our own understanding of the RAW and what works best with our own groups.
Toshiaki
Jul 11 2006, 07:13 PM
WorkOver...wow. Just wow.
Why does it bother you so much that people you don't know and don't game with enjoy different things than you? Also, why do you feel the need to assume that everybody is retconning SR4 to SR3? Sure, there are a number of people doing it. Some have made what I feel are good changes, using SR3's clarity to resume something ambiguous or left out of SR4. Sometimes the SR3 concept just
works better for a particular gaming group. I like some of the house rules, I hate some of the other ones. There is a simply solution to the ones I (or you) don't like: don't use them and move on. If you feel compelled, do something useful and start a poll about house rules.
I was particularly amused about how being an old-school gamer made you superior to everyone else on the boards. I'm willing to bet lots of shinies that a number of the people you're trying to show the errors of their ways are more old school than you. House ruling has been around before D&D got the Advanced out in front of it. Heck, it was how the hobby started. By your logic, we should all stick to war games, since some idiot way back when house ruled those to get what SR4 derived from. Silly innovators.
Stop getting so over worked and go back to having fun.
Derek
Jul 11 2006, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (WorkOver) |
Oh and Derek, I am not trying to enforce my "silly" version of the way things should be. If I had it my way, people would use the RAW. Its not my way things should be, its the owners of the IP's way. I actually use a set of rules I payed 30.00 USD for. Whats silly is the way people actually payed (or illegally downloaded) for rules JUST to complain about them. |
So what that the RAW are the IP owners. Does that make them the Holy Bible, Never To Be Changed? No, it makes them just another book, that I like to base things off of and change from there. I happen to enjoy thinking for myself.
If blind, mindless obedience is your way, that's fine, it works for you. For many of people here, it doesn't work.
Oh, and before you get off on your "older gamer" tangent, I dare say there are a number of people here that have been gaming longer than you. I know I've been playing D&D ever since poor ol Gygax came out with his little rules for miniatures, and you know what, that has little, if anything to do with whether my style of gaming is better than yours. So get the hell off your high horse.
Thanee
Jul 11 2006, 07:21 PM
BTW, from The Holy Pages of the Shadowrun 4th Edition rulebook:
QUOTE |
If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better - go for it! |
So, all we do, when we make up house rules is following the rules... to the letter!
Bye
Thanee
Apathy
Jul 11 2006, 07:32 PM
Back to the original topic at hand... I think declaring that weapons foci damage in the astral has nothing to do with the physical form could create some absurd scenarios:
Player: I swig my Wet-Spagetti-Noodle-of-Destruction at the spectre.
GM: Your noodle-fu is strong, young one. The spectre shatters into a million pieces, yet another victim of 'Death by Pasta'.
fool
Jul 11 2006, 07:37 PM
iirc, hich tech items in sr3 (yeah i know it's the earlier version) couldn't be enchannted specifically anything dikoted. If you can't enchant a dikoted item you certainly cant enchant anything that is a monofilament.
Thanee
Jul 11 2006, 07:45 PM
QUOTE (Apathy) |
Back to the original topic at hand... I think declaring that weapons foci damage in the astral has nothing to do with the physical form could create some absurd scenarios:... |
Only if you allow non-weapons to be enchanted as weapon foci.
Bye
Thanee
Geekkake
Jul 11 2006, 07:47 PM
QUOTE (Derek) |
QUOTE (WorkOver @ Jul 11 2006, 07:23 AM) | Oh and Derek, I am not trying to enforce my "silly" version of the way things should be. If I had it my way, people would use the RAW. Its not my way things should be, its the owners of the IP's way. I actually use a set of rules I payed 30.00 USD for. Whats silly is the way people actually payed (or illegally downloaded) for rules JUST to complain about them. |
So what that the RAW are the IP owners. Does that make them the Holy Bible, Never To Be Changed? No, it makes them just another book, that I like to base things off of and change from there. I happen to enjoy thinking for myself.
If blind, mindless obedience is your way, that's fine, it works for you. For many of people here, it doesn't work.
Oh, and before you get off on your "older gamer" tangent, I dare say there are a number of people here that have been gaming longer than you. I know I've been playing D&D ever since poor ol Gygax came out with his little rules for miniatures, and you know what, that has little, if anything to do with whether my style of gaming is better than yours. So get the hell off your high horse.
|
If understanding comforts you, he's a legal beagle, by trade. Consequently, his position makes total sense from that perspective, though I don't agree with him and he annoys the ever-loving shit out of me.
WorkOver
Jul 11 2006, 08:21 PM
now wait a sec, following a set of rules is blind obediance now? Wow, way to argue. You like the use of tangents? That has nothing to do with anything.
My whole point is: stop making house rules up, use the rules as written, the game works great as written.
yikes, am I not the only one who remebers them old d&d rules? 1978 was a great year eh? Hell, Micheal Jackson was still black back then
BTW, being an old school gamerdoesn't make me superior to anybody, I never implied that, don't make assumptions and attribute them to me. I just said that young people are generally lazy, just like older people tend to be set in thier ways, this no way means these rules apply to every single person out there.
Just like I didn't say that EVERYONE was trying to make SR4 back to SR3.
As for lambasting the dumpshock community....eh what? I am lambasting a certain few instances, as I would no doubt by most of you beers if I ever got the chance to meet you. Well, some of you may drink liquor, which means I would be buying shots, either way, this community is actually pretty cool.
I told Thanee to eat shit because I didn't like his condensending smily added to the end of a post that defineatly had a negative vibe to it. I would still buy him/her beers in real life though, as there is no anger toward anyone.
BTW, Dikote items absolutely could be dikoted in SR3. Magical ninjas with dikoted weapon foci swoards weilded in pars using the dual weapons rules from fields of fire produced some nasty results. Perfect blend of techno fanatsy.
As for non weapon being made into a weapon foci, I beleive that in the old fluff it was implied that a weapon was a weapon in astral form because it was intended to be a weapon. Almost like on the astral plane a sword a sword because its "pattern" ala earth dawn, was that it was a weapon. I forget where i read that, or even if it was fan written or not, I don't remeber now, or if I am crazy and didn't read it at all
deek
Jul 11 2006, 08:31 PM
Based on the small blurb on weapon foci on pages 191-192, it does specifically say melee weapons. Granted, that is open to interpretation, but I read that as being inclusive to those weapons.
I tend to agree with WorkOver here...SR4 doesn't need many, maybe even most, of the houserules I have read here. And really, the houserules that I have found useful are really only "needed" for players that are trying to abuse certain game aspects...I really don't care what game system I am running, if I get a player arguing with me for more than 5 minutes on a rule and he won't just agree to move on, then there is a problem with the player, not the rules, IMO.
The game does work quite nicely as it is written. Granted, I have read through the book a couple times and read through certain sections more than a few times to get a solid grasp, but overall, I think it works fine and I like the system.
Geekkake
Jul 11 2006, 08:34 PM
That's all well and good, WorkOver. We understand that you like the RAW unchanged, and that's cool. If it works for you, awesome. I'm sure the folks over at FanPro are appreciative that you enjoy their efforts. Fact is, doesn't work for everyone. Different groups like different styles of gameplay. And here's the important part: you're not playing in their game. You're (presumably) playing in a different group that doesn't want to add a lot of rules or even overhaul the system as some folks wanna do. So it doesn't affect you. Result: You sound like a whiny bitch trying to make everyone do things your way. Which, ironically, appears to be what you're whining about. Understand that the rest of us (presumably) paid our $30 as well, and the rules are ours to fuck with as we see fit.
Your reconciliatory tone is noted and appreciated, however, and a step in the right direction. And if you're ever in Phoenix, I'll be cashing in on that free bourbon.
WorkOver
Jul 11 2006, 09:11 PM
I defenitely not a whiny bitch, and I am not trying to make anyone play with out house rules. I am also not whining about anyone else using house rules. Stop abusing internet tough guy slang.
I could give a damn if anyone uses house rules, I was just asking why everyone is so fast to house rules stuff, with out trying to understand why the rule was written in the first place.
The rule as written, the original rule in the beggining of this thread, is one of the rules where I totally do not see why a house rule would be neccessary. Not allowing magical mono whips just seems like the creme de la creme of house ruling.
See the thread where that fellow discusses his interrprtation of the matrix rules, his take on them, plus the holes he tries t fill make sense. Picking and choosing what weapon can and can not be house ruled don't make any sense. Magical mono whips would be awesome, plus extra dice would increase the chance of a glitch, and I don't know about any of you, I LIVE for the day a players glitches or botches a roll with a monowhip.
That's not whining, thats stating an opinion.
Funny you mention Phoenix, I will be down that way to visit my man Jason. He says its very cool down there, its gotta be better than cold ass Flint, MI, so in August, I maybe shoulda oughtta be sending you a PM eh?
Geekkake
Jul 11 2006, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (WorkOver) |
Funny you mention Phoenix, I will be down that way to visit my man Jason. He says its very cool down there, its gotta be better than cold ass Flint, MI, so in August, I maybe shoulda oughtta be sending you a PM eh? |
Absolutely. I don't know about it being cool, I find it cripplingly boring, but no doubt more going on than Flint. Looking forward to it.
Moon-Hawk
Jul 11 2006, 09:17 PM
No, you weren't just asking. "Just asking" is asking a question in a polite tone. You were insulting, inflammatory, and generally being a typical troll.
I don't care whether people use house rules or not, it's their house, their rules. What I'm sick of is people who think that just because it's the internet they don't have to act like a real grown-up person and be civil to each other.
So now everyone's being mean and hostile to you. Big surprise. You made these enemies for yourself in the quickest way possible.
edit: Sorry, I'm not contributing to the thread. I am all for monowhip weapon foci, and I hope when Street Magic introduces focus creation rules that creating a monowhip weapon focus is a lot more difficult than a low-tech whip focus, but in the meantime I'm content.
Thanee
Jul 11 2006, 09:29 PM
QUOTE (WorkOver @ Jul 11 2006, 11:11 PM) |
I could give a damn if anyone uses house rules, I was just asking why everyone is so fast to house rules stuff, with out trying to understand why the rule was written in the first place. |
And what exactly do you base this on?
What makes you think, that I havn't tried and understood the rules as written and why they were written in the first place?
QUOTE |
The rule as written, the original rule in the beggining of this thread, is one of the rules where I totally do not see why a house rule would be neccessary. Not allowing magical mono whips just seems like the creme de la creme of house ruling.
Picking and choosing what weapon can and can not be house ruled don't make any sense. |
Since you obviously still havn't got it...
The above-quoted part has absolutely *nothing* to do with my original post!
It's totally *not* what I have proposed (and asked for opinions about) there.
In no way is it implied there, that I want to disallow monowhip weapon foci.
You either havn't understood my post (which I find hard to believe, actually, it's not that hard to understand, really, if you take the time to read it), or you havn't even read it (which also seems unlikely at best, you probably didn't thoroughly read it, though), or you superimpose some weird image you got from other posts or from the depth of your imagination over my post there and look at that instead of my actual post (
).
I really don't know what it is...
Bye
Thanee
WorkOver
Jul 11 2006, 09:54 PM
Oh dear Thanee, I am not talking about you specifically being very fast to house rule stuff, I made a general blanket statement with some made up on the spot percentage.
I am not sure if you tried to underatand it or not, I appologise for making it seems like you didn't.
I am aware that your original post was to change the base weapon code. My tangent was based on Booklord's post:
QUOTE |
While I realize this might be a throwback to SR3 I would never allow a mono-whip weapon foci.
The problem is that orchilium or at the very least alchemical radicals are supposed to be used in the construction of a weapon foci. I doubt the weapon foci needs to be made purely of the stuff but I imagine you'd at least need a vein of it along the blade or cutting edge.
Well the mono-filiment part of the whip can't possibly be made out of any enchanted materials so when you went astral you'd be holding a monofiliment whip handle with a reach of 0. |
Boy did I ever go off topic on this one.
Shrike30
Jul 11 2006, 09:58 PM
3/4 of the house rules I propose in various topics here are house rules I don't use in my own game.
If someone comes along and says "I want to change how this works," I think about it and propose a modification to the existing ruleset that might make it more enjoyable for him. I might have no problem at all with the rules he's dithering with (and I'll usually let him know if that's the case) but that doesn't keep me from being able to propose a possible alternative way of doing things. Just commenting on a topic to inform someone that I think the rule he wants to fiddle with is fine, and he should leave it alone, doesn't accomplish much.
Thanee
Jul 12 2006, 03:26 AM
QUOTE (WorkOver) |
I am not sure if you tried to underatand it or not, I appologise for making it seems like you didn't.
I am aware that your original post was to change the base weapon code. My tangent was based on Booklord's post: ... |
I see, then you probably got a little confused on the way.
QUOTE |
...the original rule in the beginning of this thread... Not allowing magical mono whips... |
Bye
Thanee
Apathy
Jul 12 2006, 03:38 AM
QUOTE (Thanee @ Jul 11 2006, 02:45 PM) |
Only if you allow non-weapons to be enchanted as weapon foci.
Bye Thanee |
There's plenty of precedent for non-weapons being used as weapons in SR4. Bottles, chairs, frying pans...they've all got damage codes. The spagetti noodle might be a bit of a stretch, but if you jabbed me in the eye with an uncooked strand I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it. On the physical plane, any use would break it immediately, and your damage code would be something like ((Str/8 )-6)S. But it wouldn't matter if I only used it for astral combat.
WorkOver
Jul 12 2006, 03:44 AM
QUOTE (Apathy) |
QUOTE (Thanee @ Jul 11 2006, 02:45 PM) | Only if you allow non-weapons to be enchanted as weapon foci.
Bye Thanee |
There's plenty of precedent for non-weapons being used as weapons in SR4. Bottles, chairs, frying pans...they've all got damage codes. The spagetti noodle might be a bit of a stretch, but if you jabbed me in the eye with an uncooked strand I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it. On the physical plane, any use would break it immediately, and your damage code would be something like ((Str/8 )-6)S. But it wouldn't matter if I only used it for astral combat.
|
Holy crap, yeah, I misspoke, my bad man