Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Thoughts on Current Vehicle Customization
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Drogos
I'm just kind of curious on the general consensus here from those who are familiar with the Rigger series of books. Is what is in Arsenal enough to completely rule out any need for Rigger 4? I'm just curious what everyone's takes are on this. I'll likely be ignored though biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
CanRay
I felt it was missing one thing.

So I wrote it up myself:

Harley-Davidson Shadowrunner (With Game Stats)

Buddy and I went through it with a fine-toothed comb, and it pretty much answers everything we wanted to know.
Shiloh
I personally feel that the vehicle modification rules are distinctly substandard.
Drogos
QUOTE (Shiloh @ May 2 2008, 06:43 AM) *
I personally feel that the vehicle modification rules are distinctly substandard.

Any particular reasons/comments/concerns?
Fortune
I think Arsenal's rules are adequete enough that a dedicated Rigger book is not necessary.
vladski
I'd say from the looks of things, it is all we are gonna get.

I still want seating/doors on the tables. To me, that was a ridiculous oversight. Not a huge personal issue since I have the Rigger 2 adn 3, but for a guy that's new to SR... it is. There's no way the arguments that either "it wouldn't fit in the book" or "they could confuse folks trying to fit in 4 trolls when it's meant for 4 humans" stands.

Overall, tho' the book isn't bad. I always tended to abstract the rules anyway.

I will say something that jsut came up recently in my mind while making up a list of books from old editions that are pertinent and usable for SR4 for a new GM: The books from about halfway through SR3 to the current stuff are not as "readable" to me as the stuff from SR1,2 and early 3. While they are solid (most all of them a 3.5 on a 5 point scale), they lack a certain something "special." I would be hard pressed to say any of them are 4 or 4.5 books. I apologize to the current writers, some of which I know are regulars on these forums. I am not slamming your writing. They ARE good books, they jsut don't... capture me as much as some of the older ones.

Vlad
DireRadiant
Since SR5 has not been announced, Arsenal has certainly not replaced Rigger 4.
Shiloh
QUOTE (Drogos @ May 2 2008, 12:56 PM) *
QUOTE (Shiloh @ May 2 2008, 12:43 PM) *

I personally feel that the vehicle modification rules are distinctly substandard.

Any particular reasons/comments/concerns?

The whole "slots" mechanic is pretty spurious. The costs (in slots and nuyen) in the tables look mostly arbitrarily assigned: tuning a suspension (if I remember the example I worked through) costs more than the entire car does, for example, yet other mods seem to have trivial prices. Without GM intervention, you can't, as far as I could see, put together "staples" of the genre (the anonymous but tricked-out sedan). Now, I've nothing against GM intervention, but it cuts in at such a low level of modification that the designers might as well just have saved the table space and the wordcount describing the limitations and used it to flesh out the descriptions some more, and simply list the mods alpabetically in one big table.

For my money, there aren't enough examples of the commonly useful/used vehicle types. My previous edition Rigger books are in storage so I can't really go to them for objective comparisons, but the *feeling* I have is that there were a lot more vehicles that runners might actually encounter. More than one cruiser bike, more than one trailbike, more limo's, more SUVs...

QUOTE (vladski @ May 2 2008, 02:13 PM) *
The books from about halfway through SR3 to the current stuff are not as "readable" to me as the stuff from SR1,2 and early 3. While they are solid (most all of them a 3.5 on a 5 point scale), they lack a certain something "special." I would be hard pressed to say any of them are 4 or 4.5 books. I apologize to the current writers, some of which I know are regulars on these forums. I am not slamming your writing. They ARE good books, they jsut don't... capture me as much as some of the older ones.


I can't speak so much for v3 books, but v4 certainly seem to be trying to cram too much into the space available. Topbars with the pictures in works (mostly) for the weapons section, but fails badly in the vehicles. The selection of which entries to illustrate and which to leave the pictures out for seems odd, somehow and having pictures not on the same page as the description *some of the time* is just confusing. The typesetting in all the books is sometimes substandard, again because, possibly, of space issues, and the readability suffers. The armour set tables were not intuitively laid out, nor self-explanatory.

I can see the pressures the designers were working under: there's a lot more "standard" stuff to include in the "basic" rules. In all the rule expansions, for that matter. But I'm not convinced the typography and page layout were necessarily the best they could be.
Speed Wraith
Hell, I still don't get how the stupid slot system works, but since a dedicated book isn't likely (or at least isn't at this point in time) then I'll just have to work with it. I wouldn't put a new RBB at the top of my must have list, but it would appear on that list somewhere.
Shiloh
QUOTE (Speed Wraith @ May 2 2008, 04:16 PM) *
Hell, I still don't get how the stupid slot system works...


That's probably cos it mostly doesn't... smile.gif (IMO, YMMV etc)

QUOTE
, but since a dedicated book isn't likely (or at least isn't at this point in time) then I'll just have to work with it.


I won't be. I'm just going to use the lists as a source of inspiration for stuff. Some of the numbers too, maybe, but it's probably less effort to have a look at auto parts prices than to struggle with the tables as they is writ if you want to bother at all about verisimilitude.
Synner
QUOTE
Hell, I still don't get how the stupid slot system works,

Maybe you could be more specific about what your problem is?

The slot system is intended to be simple and intuitive (and work along the lines of Capacity in cyberlimbs). Each vehicle has a number of slots equal to 4 or its Body Rating (whichever is higher). Each modification in Arsenal lists a cost in slots that it takes up (ie. A vehicle with Body 6 allows for 6 slots worth of modifications.)

The total number of modification slots can even be exceeded, if the gamemaster allows, through overmodification (though such excessive modifications have an increased nuyen cost, instalation Threshold, demand the next better level of tools than usually required for that modification, and come with additional drawbacks at the gamemaster's discretion).

We are aware of some complaints about specific lack of limitations/nuyen pricing/slot costs for a handful of the modifications offered in Arsenal (some of which we will be taking under consideration when the errata comes out), but I think the modification/slot system itself is simple, functional, easy to implement, and works. If you have constructive criticism to offer please feel free to do so.

QUOTE
For my money, there aren't enough examples of the commonly useful/used vehicle types. My previous edition Rigger books are in storage so I can't really go to them for objective comparisons, but the *feeling* I have is that there were a lot more vehicles that runners might actually encounter. More than one cruiser bike, more than one trailbike, more limo's, more SUVs...

We specifically chose to present a wide variety of vehicles and instead of redundantly introducing 3 limos or SUVs with a minimal variation in stat lines we chose to list similar models under each entry. Many other "redundant" vehicles were worked up and we may release them in the future in some form or another but for Arsenal we chose to offer diversity in basic vehicle types over presenting multiple variants of the same vehicle type. This is not to say we didn't offer a few "repeats" and that covered everything we wanted to cover—various military grade vehicles are a notable absence—but we have plans for those too.
HentaiZonga
I'm glad for the new system, because it lets me make this:


Base Vehicle: Hyundai Shin-Hyung (Base Cost: 17,000)
Slots: 14
Body 10 / Armor 5
Acceleration 10/25 / Speed 80
Handling +2 / Sensor 1

Mecha #1: - 63,750 Nuyen
Body 10 / Armor 5
Acceleration 15/35 / Speed 95
Handling +3 / Sensor 1
Mod Slots Cost
Walker 2 5,000
Mechanical Arm 2 4,000
Mechanical Arm 2 4,000
Pimped Ride (2) 1 5,000
Ram Plate 1 2,500
Engine Customization
Acceleration (15/35) 2 13,750
Speed (95) 2 9,500
Nitrous Injection 1 2,500

Mecha #2: - 60,000 Nuyen
Body 10 / Armor 5
Acceleration 10/25 / Speed 80
Handling +3 / Sensor 1
Mod Slots Cost
Walker 2 5,000
Mechanical Arm 2 4,000
Mechanical Arm 2 4,000
Pimped Ride (2) 1 5,000
Body Stabilizer (3) 3 9,000
Gyro Link 1 8,000
Gyro Link 1 8,000


Mecha #3: - 60,000 Nuyen
Body 10 / Armor 20 (Passenger compartment: 50 + 11)
Acceleration 10/25 / Speed 80
Handling +3 / Sensor 1
Mod Slots Cost
Walker 2 5,000
Mechanical Arm 2 4,000
Mechanical Arm 2 4,000
Pimped Ride (2) 1 5,000
Armor (20) 1 4,000
Passenger Protection (6) 2 12,000
Personal Armor (10) 2 5,000
Enhanced Rigger Cocoon 2 4,000
DocTaotsu
I'm glad that there isn't a Rigger 4 because I really have only played with a handful of people who actually cared enough about Rigger 3 to use even a fraction of the rules contained therein.

Or they made flying monkeys that pissed acid.

I also didn't like how it made rigger combat this fantastically long series of events that took place in some alternate universe, presumably where all the deckers hung out and sucked the life out of my early SR experiences. You shouldn't need 3 GM's to run a game damnit!

No, Arsenal will be sufficient. The slot system lets my players make some fairly reasonable and far reaching modifications to their vehicles. Nothing fell off when I dropped the book into our game and as long as it keeps running I'll be perfectly fine.

But I will grudgingly agree that leaving off capacity, let alone seating is annoying. I can see why they left it off of the core book (Jackrabbit seats 4, 5 if you have a dwarf in the party). But when you start rolling around in cargo jets and APC's... it'd be nice to have at least a ballpark figure without having to resort to wikipedia.

An errata would be sufficient to fix that though.
Larme
Slots are not very realistic, and they're pretty arbitrary. Chameleon paint takes 2 whole slots while adding a whole extra fuel tank to the vehicle takes 1? And some things seem like they should cost 0 slots. Like enhanced image screens isn't exactly crowding out the mechanical mods you want to add, and it's not useful enough that it's actually worth a slot. I'm also annoyed that a concealed flexible turret is not available at chargen. That means that riggers can't start with highly discrete yet armed vehicles, unless they want a fixed mount. Which there are no rules for, btw. I know it would be good to have the mount be flexible, but what's the system disadvantage to fixed? Can a rigger just aim his fixed mount by moving at "walking" speed? Does he need a "take aim" to aim it if the target moves? I think that's a much bigger oversight than doors.

I still can't get past the whole bitching about exit and entry point thing though. Do you need a book to tell you that sports cars have two doors and vans have 4 door and a back door? Some things are a little confusing, like the Banshee, because the description of the banshee is so short you don't know if it works like a fighter jet or more like a transport helicopter. But the Banshee is the GM's "fuck you, die" option anyway, so it's probably not going to matter.

Despite its shortcomings, however, the slots system beats the SHIT out of rigger 3. With Rigger 3, it took HOURS to make a single vehicle. You had to calculate both load and cargo (no idea why it needed two stats to keep track of what you can put into a car) and deal with a lot of really tiny details that made it more pain than fun to make a Rigger. A few people might have enjoyed it. But because Rigger 3 was so awful, it made Riggers into the least popular archetype after deckers.

I also think the slots system is more balanced. Rigger 3 had so many options the devs could not have playtested them all. The default van created by Rigger 3 was immune to bullets, had a turret, was impossible to trace, was fast, and could still carry the whole team. Of course if you wanted to create a sports car, you could forget about it. They were so obsessed with making a realistic vehicle that they gave sports cars pathetic load and cargo ratings, so a sports car would be worthless as a combat vehicle. And vans had such ridiculous load and cargo that, despite being pretty unimpressive per their base stats, they became 100k+ monsters of invincible combat death that would be able to immediately ruin the enemy's plans. Unless of course the enemy had AV ammo, in which case they were instantly destroyed and were much too expensive to even think about repairing.

Slots strike a balance. A sports car can have a turret and some useful mods. It won't be the toughest vehicle, but it's definitely viable. And vans are good, but you can't fit everything and the kitchen sink into them. It isn't like a default "duhhh... bulldog" when you're selecting what vehicle you want to rig anymore. Honestly, SR3 seemed focused around making everyone really bland, wearing black trenchcoats and driving around in modified GMC bulldogs. One thing that the SR4 system and arsenal do is lessen the differences between options. By having only 1-2 DV difference between guns, by having a limited number of slots no matter what vehicle you choose, SR4 lets you take the options that you like without smacking you in the face with a single, painfully obvious best option. People can feel free to stylize their characters without really sacrificing their usefulness.
DocTaotsu
Exactly... people actually open both Arsenal and the BBB when we play. No one makes an immediate beeline to Arsenal because the BBB only has lame n3wbie gear you get by doing the starting quests. People get some options, some customization, I don't get 4 page spreadsheets detailing the basic outline of their vehicle and it's 3 basic mods. Nor do I have to scribble "Show your work" at the top because I have no idea if it's legal or not.







kigmatzomat
I just wish they'd have been consistent with the slots and made tires a "slot" item rather than per-tire. Do dobermans have tires? What about the vehicles with no artwork? Is the tire for a Doble Revolution really the same price as a tire for a Horseman?

Other problems with arsenal:

-should have described what configuration the BBB weapon mount is. Concealed fixed w/remote, Flexible obvious, what?

-Who's idea was it to give the Morgan a "fixed" weapon mount with no remote trigger? The "gunner" can't aim the gun except by yelling directions to the driver, who can't pull the trigger.

-lack of onroad/offroad handling for vehicles that have an optimized suspension. Is a Growler +1 onroad, +3 offroad, +0/+2 or something else?

-lack of any cargo/passenger info. No need to go the whole CF route but 1m^3/person is a decent guideline.

-vague data on solar charging. Suncell operation is clear but it goes on to say all vehicles have basic solar capacity. What's that mean? Do regular vehicles get 1 hour of charge per day of sunlight? per week?

-Why wasn't the stormcloud given the Suncell as a standard option since it's stated to be a solar blimp?

-What is an "atmosphere sensor" in relation to the new sensors listed?
Larme
I'm actually a little confused by the above "mecha." Can you turn a 4-door car into an anthroform walker? And if so, why does it cost the same number of slots as chameleon paint? question.gif
CanRay
BAH! Wimpy four-door.

'Should go with a nice MUSCLE CAR as the head! Megas XLR!!!
Fix-it
i found the weapon mount rules in R3 to be easier to understand. or maybe I just need to re-read the arsenal ones a few more times.

Heath Robinson
QUOTE (Larme @ May 2 2008, 11:49 PM) *
I'm actually a little confused by the above "mecha." Can you turn a 4-door car into an anthroform walker? And if so, why does it cost the same number of slots as chameleon paint? question.gif

As I understand it, the "walker" system actually means that the wheels are mounted on "legs" that are controllable to the extent that it allows the vehicle to better handle larger obstacles, rather than becoming a biped or quadruped. The slots represent the extensiveness of the mod, chameleon coating requires that you cover the car and add a bunch of control electronics beneath the coating and then tie them into a computer that draws power from the normal car systems.
Sombranox
Arsenal 146:
The transport mechanism of the drone or vehicle is completely
swapped out for one that turns it into a walker, or at least
provides it with multiple independent wheels or tracks so that
it can handle most obstacles with the same ease as a human.
For smaller drones, the walker option can feature multiple legs, with
a configuration similar to that of an insect or spider, while larger
drones or vehicles are typically made bipedal, turning them into
the classical representation of robots.

So yeah, mechas in some cases, though it implies that a multi-wheel system works as well.

Though the thing I'm confused about with the actual mecha sorts a bit is whether switching them to walker mode makes them Pilot Anthroform or if they stay as ground craft.

Since it describes them as still being wheeled like Heath mentioned above, I'd still call them ground craft, but the ambiguity was kind of annoying.

That aside, I overall like the slot system, though like Larme said, some of it seems horribly arbitrary like chameleon coating taking up more slots than a number of other things that seemed like they'd use a lot more space.
fool
no rigger 4 it'll mean a new edition, and I can't afford it.
Larme
QUOTE (Sombranox @ May 3 2008, 01:16 PM) *
Though the thing I'm confused about with the actual mecha sorts a bit is whether switching them to walker mode makes them Pilot Anthroform or if they stay as ground craft.


I think anything that uses legs is anthroform. Obviously anthroforms are also going to be ground craft as well, but the pilot(ground) skill does not cover them.

But I always come back to the central question behind mechas in Shadowrun: ARE YOU STUPID? DO YOU WANT TO GO TO JAIL? IF NOT, DON'T GO STOMPING AROUND IN A BIG WALKER TANK!
DocTaotsu
Go to jail? How about getting swarmed by yellowjackets loaded with APDS and AV rockets smile.gif
HentaiZonga
QUOTE (Larme @ May 3 2008, 12:15 PM) *
ARE YOU STUPID? DO YOU WANT TO GO TO JAIL? IF NOT, DON'T GO STOMPING AROUND IN A BIG WALKER TANK!


Awwwww.....
Eyeless Blond
It's a minor issue, but the mechanical arm option needs its cost based on Body, first because the resulting arm's strength is equal to the vehicle Body, and second because the rules as written make manipulator arms for most smaller drones more costly than the drone itself, which is silly.

But I agree, the biggest problems with vehicle customization are the lack of rules differentiation between fixed/flexible weapon mounts, the lack of even cursory passenger/cargo details for the more outlandish vehicles (submarines, boats, helicopters, etc), the Sensor rules (which hopefully we'll be seeing an errata on soon), and some of the particulars regarding slots and tires.
Cabral
QUOTE (Synner @ May 2 2008, 12:06 PM) *
Maybe you could be more specific about what your problem is?

The slot system is intended to be simple and intuitive (and work along the lines of Capacity in cyberlimbs).

Well for me that's the problem. I grew up with the notion that RPGs should be mentally stimulating and this trend towards simplification may make good financial sense but does not make me happy as a gamer and future parent of gamers. Rigger 4 should have the guts to include exponents.
Larme
You should talk to the people who draft laws. They also agree that "really complicated" is the same as "good." nyahnyah.gif
CanRay
Not to mention, "Full of loopholes" as "Good" as well.
Larme
Anyway, I don't think anyone can argue that the game has been transformed into some kind of ultra simple MMO style thing that any sub-average intelligence 13 year old could use. It still takes effort to understand, and a lot more effort to crack the system and learn to optimize. You shouldn't look at it as dumbing down. I think a system which is actually just a bunch of different systems band-aided together is dumb. A unified system is actually a smart thing, and smart people should be able to appreciate that.
CanRay
Also, you gotta sell to your market. Which is in competition WITH MMOs now.
DocTaotsu
Oh no! Simplification is bad! Mental stimulation only comes from arcane rules with exponents.
/sarcasm

I completely agree that a unified system is better than some hodge podge of special cases and intricate subsystem rules.


And CanRay I couldn't disagree more. People who play MMO's aren't necessarily the same people who play tabletop RPG's and vice versa. There's plenty of crossover of course but making your roleplaying game more like WoW is not going to win you more players IMO. I think Shadowrun is a very very long way from becoming D&D 4e otherwise known as "WoW, but with dice rolling"
There will always be people who are content to sit infront of a computer and grind out quests and levels for high class loot, pouring over stats, analyzing hit/crit percentages and generally number fucking the shit out their games. They're typically going to like WoW... or war gaming. For people who only want to blow a couple hours over the weekend living out an alternative world with pink mohawks and dragons, they'll always be Shadowrun.

The key selling point for games like WoW appears to be "Work hard at this game and every 15 minutes you'll feel like you've accomplished something". That's not necessarily a bad thing, that's just not at all how I characterize tabletop gaming.
Cain
QUOTE (Fortune @ May 2 2008, 04:16 AM) *
I think Arsenal's rules are adequete enough that a dedicated Rigger book is not necessary.

Wow, we're about to disagree. How shocking... sarcastic.gif

QUOTE
I still can't get past the whole bitching about exit and entry point thing though. Do you need a book to tell you that sports cars have two doors and vans have 4 door and a back door?

Current vans can have anywhere from 3 entry points to 5. Some only have a driver, passenger, and back door (like a UPS delivery van) and some add one or two sliders to it. So some confusion is well-warranted.

QUOTE
Despite its shortcomings, however, the slots system beats the SHIT out of rigger 3. With Rigger 3, it took HOURS to make a single vehicle. You had to calculate both load and cargo (no idea why it needed two stats to keep track of what you can put into a car) and deal with a lot of really tiny details that made it more pain than fun to make a Rigger. A few people might have enjoyed it. But because Rigger 3 was so awful, it made Riggers into the least popular archetype after deckers.

I also think the slots system is more balanced. Rigger 3 had so many options the devs could not have playtested them all. The default van created by Rigger 3 was immune to bullets, had a turret, was impossible to trace, was fast, and could still carry the whole team. Of course if you wanted to create a sports car, you could forget about it.

True, and true. However, in R2, I successfully created a fair representation of the Knight Industries Two Thousand, so sports cars could take a fair amount of modification. I know I could make a motorcycle that could go Mach 1 for short periods of time.

Slots do try and strike a balance, but they need more work. You are still very limited in what you can do; and after a point, the book basically throws up its hands and says: "We can't be bothered, you guys figure it out." Better and firmer rules for overmodification would have helped immensely. As it stands, Riggers are going to be the only archetype without their own dedicated book. An expansion of the slots system could, and should, take up a fair chunk of a book all to itself.
Fortune
QUOTE (Cain)
As it stands, Riggers are going to be the only archetype without their own dedicated book.


Really? Where's the dedicated book purely for Adepts? Hermetics? Shamans? Street Samurai? Faces? Etc. etc.

Unwired is intended to be (and is being billed as) in part a book for Riggers.
Speed Wraith
QUOTE (Synner @ May 2 2008, 12:06 PM) *
Maybe you could be more specific about what your problem is?

The slot system is intended to be simple and intuitive (and work along the lines of Capacity in cyberlimbs). Each vehicle has a number of slots equal to 4 or its Body Rating (whichever is higher). Each modification in Arsenal lists a cost in slots that it takes up (ie. A vehicle with Body 6 allows for 6 slots worth of modifications.)


I had understood until I came across the text for the Ferret. I wasn't sure which was the misprint, but a Body of 1 should be a 4 slot maximum. The text says the Ferret has 4 additional slots for a total of 10. 4+4=10? So I assumed the text was wrong, but hadn't bothered to verify. nyahnyah.gif Which does leave me with the question, does the Ferret have 8 or 10 slots?

My venom in that post comes from the fact that I'm an old-school rigger from SR1/2 days who also misses access points and seating, not to mention free up extra CFs by removing amenities, etc. cyber.gif
Larme
QUOTE (Cain @ May 6 2008, 09:32 PM) *
Current vans can have anywhere from 3 entry points to 5. Some only have a driver, passenger, and back door (like a UPS delivery van) and some add one or two sliders to it. So some confusion is well-warranted.


If you know that vans have between 3 and 5 entry points, how could you be confused? Sure, if you don't know how many doors a van has (i.e. you live under a rock) then you're up a creek. But because they didn't tell us how many doors the Bulldog has, doesn't it show that it's really not important? Just tell the GM "I want the 5-door Bulldog," and your GM says "ok." Kinda like how cars work IRL. You pick two door, four door, full trunk, hatchback, sunroof, moonroof... Did they really need explicit rules to model that? It's such a simple nothing part of the game to decide how many doors a vehicle has. There is no need to make RAW on it, at least for consumer cars. It just wastes pages.

Now, I wish the vehicles were more detailed when it comes to less common things like airplanes and submarines. Some of the more exotic vehicles give you only the very barest of hints about how many people and how much cargo they hold. While everyone can imagine about how much stuff you can fit into a van, it's a lot harder to imagine how much you can load into a speedboat or helicopter for those who don't have experience with either.

Then again, on the other hand, having a cargo and load rating is sorta crap as well. It's still totally up to the GM to arbitrarily decide how much something weighs. If you're stealing a drone, how much should it weigh? 100 kg? 750 kg? Who knows? Stealing a shipment of grain, how much is there? And for that matter, what does grain weigh per unit? Simplifying vehicles really takes a concrete, numbers-based, possibly very confusing question and turns it into a much simpler but still confusing question. Instead of asking yourself "does it weigh more than 500 kg," you just have to ask, "do I want this to fit in the vehicle?" So in some ways, abstractness will go a long way towards simplifying play. Nuts to those who thought that SR3's snail's pace was a good thing nyahnyah.gif
IC-Pick
I get messed up by certain ones.... one example that I remember (at work) is the Tower drone... it has 1 weapon mount and multilaunch drone rack. It has enough body to have only one of the above..... It is obviously an overmodification... but I think it would help to have stated that in the entry itself.

One question... if you remove an item ie. the multilaunch, do you gain the 5 slots that it took for something else? I think house rules will say yes, but I wanted the ideas from the gestalt.
XON2000
QUOTE (IC-Pick @ May 7 2008, 01:49 PM) *
I get messed up by certain ones.... one example that I remember (at work) is the Tower drone... it has 1 weapon mount and multilaunch drone rack. It has enough body to have only one of the above..... It is obviously an overmodification... but I think it would help to have stated that in the entry itself.

One question... if you remove an item ie. the multilaunch, do you gain the 5 slots that it took for something else? I think house rules will say yes, but I wanted the ideas from the gestalt.


I don't believe that the "stock" vehicles and drones adhere to the rules for customization, since they benefit from having been built from the ground up. So a drone can have more built-in features than you'd be able to add to it through customization. I would guess that the by-the-book answer is that removing a built-in feature does not give you more slots.

(I believe that even Rigger 3 stated that the pre-statted vehicles were not built using the construction rules; if you used the construction system to put together a vehicle with identical stats to a pre-made model, it would cost a lot more, because the latter is a mass-produced model, rather than something that was built from scratch.)
IC-Pick
Very valid answer. thank you.
Fortune
QUOTE (Speed Wraith @ May 8 2008, 03:14 AM) *
... not to mention free up extra CFs by removing amenities, etc.


You can still do the same kind of thing in SR4 ...

QUOTE (Arsenal pg. 131)
In addition, the Lifestyle of the vehicle can be lowered by one down to Squatter (the level usually seen in mass transit vehicles such as buses or cargo planes) in order to double the passenger capacity.

Eyeless Blond
Of course the meaning of Lifestyle on the vehicle is also ambiguous. Example: the RV and the SUV both have Middle Lifestyle amenities. Does this mean that the SUV has a built-in toilet, kitchen, water heater and bed(s), or that the RV has none of those?

Though I'd absolutely love to see a 16-seater minivan (8[base] * 2[Squatter amenities]). biggrin.gif
reepneep
It's flawed, sure, but there is enough material here that adding a dedicated rigger book would be an exercise in redundancy. Any extra rigger stuff should be a chapter in Unwired IMO.

The thing I really wish they would have listed was the passenger capacity. Knowing exactly how many SWATStars can fit in the back of a Citymaster would be very useful.
CanRay
Dwarf SWATStars or Trolls SWATStars?

Oh, wait, sorry, forgot. LS isn't exactly an equal opportunity employer. nyahnyah.gif
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