So in making up changeling ideas of late, I noted the wording on Class III surge:


Emphasis mine.

So at least 30/15? So if I wanted 45/30, could I do it, so long as I keep the 15 point spread (and thus maintain the changeling quality cost balance)?

Well, I would read that as "the surge III positive quality is good for 30 points of positive and 15 points of negative mutagenic qualities. You can then take more mutagenic qualities, but they come out of your normal qualities budget for your character."

I admit however, it is written in such a way as to allow some interpretation. But reading it as "you have a 15 point difference between positive and negative" seems a poor choice. If you extrapolate what I believe your proposed logic is out you could end up with like 75 points positive, 60 negative, and that is an insanely high number of qualities.

The three levels of the Changeling Quality all show a 2:1 ratio of Positive to Negative Metagenic Qualities, not a 15 point spread. (RC, p. 73.)

True. But the ratio is there to maintain the value of the quality. 5bp for Class I (10 pos, 5 neg, overall 5 pts), etc. Class 3 however is the only one that specifically says "at least" which would indicate you can go above 30/15. The problem is that if you maintain the ratio of 2:1 while allowing it to exceed 30/15, you screw up the value of the quality.

So while yes, it's a 2:1 ratio, it's *also* the difference in values of positive to negative, which is why I mentioned the 15 point spread.

No. All the Changeling quality levels are setup this way - they grant you the indicated number of "free" Positive & Negative qualities (these are included in the cost of the SURGE, & thus do not count against the normal starting maximums; they are also mandatory). Beyond that, by taking a SURGE quality, you may also take additional Metagenic qualities - these additional however are treated as normal qualities, and do count against your normal 35 Built Point limit, charging or granting Build Points as normal.

No offense, Muspellsheimr, but that doesn't address the issue at hand. I know full well how they work, that they give X positive and Y negative qualities. I know they don't count against normal quality amounts as well. That wasn't the question.

The question was whether or not the Written Text in RC of "at least" allows you to go beyond the 30/15 values listed.

All levels of SURGE allow you to go beyond the listed values, they just start to count against your normal limits on qualities.
Just like Musp just explained.

That seemed pretty clear to me.

No offence, but which part of that did you not understand Jhaiisiin?

Taking the 15 point Class III surge does not in and of itself allow you to continue nabbing up surge qualities beyond the 30/15 for free. Anything beyond the initial 30/15 must be paid for (or... sold? for) as a regular qualities just like aptitude and gremlins.

So, all surges allow you to go over the 10/5, 20/10, or 30/15 point values, but anything past that value must be paid for as separate qualities and are no longer considered directly part of the initial surge purchase (other than the fact that the purchase must be made to have access to them)

That clear it up a bit? Maybe? I don't know how good I am at explaining, Jhaiisiin seemed clear to me, maybe different wording will help.

Emphasis added.

Edit: The actual quote to help support what everyone is saying.

Maybe it's me who is not making himself clear. Let me try again.

Surge Class 1 and 2 make NO mention of "at least" X BP of qualities. None. Zero. Zilch. Each quality grants exactly 10 or 20 (respectively) positive BPs in metagenic qualities and requires you to take 5 or 10 (respectively, again) BP's of negative metagenic qualities.

This I understand, and I'm not sure how anyone missed me stating that.

It's Class 3 Surge that suddenly says "at least" 30 BPs of positive metagenic qualities. At least, AKA "no less than" AKA "or more." The wording might be a mistake, and may have needed to have been removed, but right now it's there, and right now it leaves it open to the idea that you can take more than 30 points of positive metagenic qualities WITHIN THE SURGE QUALITY and NOT be in violation of RAW.

RAI may be exactly 30/15. RAI may ALSO be that there are only 3 levels, and once you're at 3, you can be EXTRA freaky, so long as you are still balanced out at 15 net points (The cost of the quality). But Rules As Written say AT LEAST, meaning you can take more and no one can say drek about it.

Honestly, I started this hoping to get opinions on those irritating 2 words.

I take away that DS in general is disregarding their existence. I'm cool with that, as it keeps in line with the 2 lower classes of Surge. Maybe this is something for the Errata.

While it does indeed say 'at least' it doesn't indicate any sort of ratio to follow, so RAW as you are interpreting it means I could take the 15 point class III surge and get every single positive quality (that doesn't conflict) and only 15 points of negative qualities. This is still 'at least' 30 points of positive qualities and 'at least' 15 points of negative qualities.

The fact that it can very easily interpreted this way seems to indicate that it means 'at least' as in 'you must take these 30/15 points, and then you can spend regular quality BP after that'. I figure this also means that you can't take more than the 10/5 or 20/10 points with the two lower class surges, and if you want more than that you have to bump up to class III.

I believe that 'at least' is also allowing for taking one of the negative qualities that are over 15 points, having the first 15 count towards your class III surge, and the rest count towards normal negative quality BP. Same goes for the one (I think) good quality that is over 30 points.

So yes, your right that 'at least' could be slightly better defined, but a lack of better definition along the lines that you are interpreting it seems to indicate that your interpretation is incorrect.

The most likely reason that those two itty bitty words were included in only the SURGE III entry is to make it clear that you can be MORE mutagenic then a SURGE III. That is to say, you get to be the biggest freak on the street, and then take more mutagenics if it really floats your boat.

Otherwise, you could contend that it doesn't make sense that you are more then a class III tiger girl rhino fish thingy, and someone might try to stop you. But now, you can say "nah-ah-ah, this specifically states that I can go above and beyond class III" even at char gen people can fear the wrath of your tiger girl rhino fish manahole lizard fly! Look out! Its easy to kill! I mean...a perfectly valid character option.

In the end, there is only one way to read the rule, when you take into account all the other rules that are around it. If you just look at that sentence, yes, there are multiple interpretations. When you look at the other quotes that have been put up, yeah, just one way that ruling could go. (at least at any table I run in)

Additionally, if the "At least" words were meant to indicate that you could take other qualities, but have to pay for them separately, then the text on pg 110 of RC would be redundant.



EDIT: For the record, I support the 30/15 limit, and would vote for the removal of "at least" to clarify it. If it was intended, then we'd need a clarifying sentence stating what has to happen after 30/15.

Yes, just like a shitlode of other area's in SR4. Seriously, look at spell selection as an example - by RAW, every spell is subject to Object Resistance (unless specifically stated otherwise, of which there are none). Yet, there are numerous spells that in their description state that they must overcome Object Resistance.

Merely one of a great number of redundancies in the text (not to mention the shitty writing of numerous rules).





Back to the original topic - yes, with SURGE III, you can take more than the given 30/15 Metagenic qualities - just as with SURGE I & II. Yes, SURGE III is the only one to explicity state so in the quality description, but nowhere does it even remotely indicate that any additional are subject to the "free" aspect, or a ratio of any kind.

Rules as Written is quite clear on the subject, if redundant. Any Metagenic qualities you take beyond the SURGE allotment are for all purposes treated as normal qualities.

Actually, RAW is not quite clear, as is obvious given this thread. I agree that the consensus interpretation is correct, but I also understand the source of the confusion. If "at least" is meaningless, then why have it there? If it means nothing, get rid of it, otherwise an equally valid (on its face) interpretation is that since the designers included the phrase, obviously it must have some sort of meaning.

To be fair, the developers shouldn't be criticized too harshly; it's incredibly difficult to write clear, concise rules. Almost eevry game I've ever played has had moments of rules interpretation like this.

I'm going to try and make this a bit clearer...



SURGE I - The character must take 10 BP worth of Positive Metagenetic qualities and 5 BP worth of Negative Metagenetic qualities.
SURGE II - The character must choose 20 BP worth of Positive Metagenetic qualities and 10 BP worth of Negative Metagenetic qualities.
SURGE III - The character must take at least 30 BP worth of Positive Metagenetic qualities and 15 BP worth of Negative Metagenetic qualities.

SURGE I/II give caps to limit themselves--if you take SURGE I and 20 BP, then you're pushing into SURGE II territory. SURGE III gives no caps, but instead enforces minimums. Referencing the quote from the section immediately before the description of SURGE classifications should clarify everything for you.

SURGE I - If you take 15 BP of Positive qualities instead of 10, you must pay the extra 5 BPs from your normal limits for qualities.
SURGE II - If you take 25 BP of Positive qualities instead of 20, you must pay the extra 5 BPs from your normal limits for qualities.
SURGE III - If you take more than the 30 BP of Positive qualities, you must pay the extra BPs from your normal limits for qualities.



--==--

Redundancy is often added to reinforce ideas and remind the reader, not to single something out as different than others. In the example of Magic, if the player skimmed through the chapter, they may have missed the paragraph about Object Resistance and when it applies. When that player reads the spell descriptions, they will notice that several spells reference back to the OR section. This will get the player to then go back and read that section more fully. (This is from my perspective as a reader and writer. Others may of course disagree, though this statement is redundant in that DSF always gives the opportunity to disagree.)

I agree that redundancy is handy in a core rulebook.

That said, I disagree with Bishop's statement about disagreement. He's just nay saying. I need you to site references McQ!!!

If the game designers had intended for SURGE III to mean what the original poster suggests it might, I think they would have made that more specifically clear. They would not have relied on just two or three ambiguous words.

This wouldn't be the first time ambiguity has obscured the designers' intent.

Well, it seems obvious that that no amount of pointing out all the things that are wrong with your interpretation will dissuade you, so I'm going to stop trying. If you want to add your own rules into the game to make a couple of words mean whatever you want them to, that's up to you.

I'll give one last parting try of 'There is no rule for what kind of ratio you might need to maintain, nor is there even any mention that any sort of ratio would need to be maintained, thus you can get an infinite number of good quality points with only 15 bad quality points, all falling well within your interpretation of the words 'at least' while following the rules. I think it is blatantly obvious that if the devs had intended those words to be interpreted as you want to, they would have included this very important ratio and make more mention of it, as they rarely intend to rely one a word or two to define entire swaths of rules.'

I would have to join this bandwagon. I must have missed this sentence the whole time.

Wow, good job completely misreading what I posted.

I didn't say unlimited positive for 15 negative. I said a 15 point spread. 30/15. 40/25. 55/40. Etc. I'm interpreting the words "At least" at their LITERAL meaning. I'm not magically adding definitions to those words. I'm also not randomly creating idiotic rules for the game.

ALSO, as I stated, I'm all for the 30/15 hard limit. I simply posted this whole thing as a way to get feedback and see if anyone else saw the potential interpretation. Apparently most didn't, that's fine. I had no intention of going beyond it in the first place, I was simply nitpicking words on a page.

So next time you want to get all snippy, maybe try actually *reading* and *understanding* the point you're attacking.

*sigh*

Agreed.

I did read your posts Jhaiisiin. You're the one who didn't seem to read all of mine. The LITERAL meaning of 'at least' is 'no less than' which my statement of getting all the good qualities and only 15 BP of the bad ones fits perfectly. The LITERAL meaning of 'at least' is not 'pick some random ratio to use that happens to fit two point (Which I could make an infinite number of) and keep using it.'

My point is that nowhere in the -entire- book is a 'positive qualities - negative qualities = 15' actually stated as being the correct ratio on which to get free traits above 30/15. Without a statement of a correct ratio it is obvious that you aren't intended to go above 30/15 for free.

I know I said I wouldn't post, but I don't like being insulted because I am pointing out that RAW doesn't really support your interpretation, especially when the insults revolve around me being incompetent in reading or understanding when I did both perfectly well.

It also doesn't explicitly state that there is any ratio at all. It doesn't say "qualities are at a 2:1 ratio." It seems to be that. But it is also just as easy to say that there is a 5, 10 or 15 point difference in the amount of positive to negative qualities. I attacked you because you distorted my point all to hell, specifically saying that I was claiming infinite positive for 15 negative, and it torqued me off. For what it's worth, I'm sorry I fired back.

So yeah, guess this issue is closed. I'll just assume that "At least" was a mistake in inclusion, that it NEVER should have been there, and move on.

Didn't I already say I was okay with this?

My *sigh* was more about the inevitability of misunderstanding and the devolution of discussion into argument in such a forum than any individual's position.