Backgammon
Feb 8 2004, 07:52 PM
What's the bonus for using 2 sets of spurs? Add half the strenght? Where are the rules for that?
Bölverk
Feb 8 2004, 08:14 PM
Add 1/2 Strength, rounded down. SR3 p. 121.
Shockwave_IIc
Feb 8 2004, 08:15 PM
Combat rules pg121 SR3
Backgammon
Feb 8 2004, 08:43 PM
Thanks
kevyn668
Feb 9 2004, 09:29 PM
Bu you can still take Off Hand Implant Weapons and get the dice too.
Grey
Feb 9 2004, 09:50 PM
QUOTE (kevyn668) |
Bu you can still take Off Hand Implant Weapons and get the dice too. |

Really? So you can get the bonus dice
and the extra power to the attack?
kevyn668
Feb 9 2004, 10:04 PM
Doesn't say you can't anywhere....hey, wait a tick. Are you mocking me?!
as i recall, someone wrote into info-at-srrpg-dot-com and got pretty much that same answer--by the rules, you get both bonuses. the author added the caveat, however, that he'd suggest house-ruling it to one or the other.
Fortune
Feb 10 2004, 01:25 AM
QUOTE (mfb) |
as i recall, someone wrote into info-at-srrpg-dot-com and got pretty much that same answer--by the rules, you get both bonuses. the author added the caveat, however, that he'd suggest house-ruling it to one or the other. |
Um, no he didn't. I am the someone that wrote to Rob about this, and his response was that both rules were valid and did not contradict each other.
QUOTE |
Question: Now, the text in SR3 (pg. 121) states that when in melee using his Razors he would add half his Strength Attribute (rounded down) to the power of his attack (without having to purchase Off-Hand Razor skill). Cannon Companion (pg. 96) states that the benefits of fighting in melee with 2 weapons is that the character rolls all of his primary weapon skill dice, and rolls 1/2 his skill level dice with the secondary weapon (razors in this case are both primary and secondary). An ambidexterity of 8 means that the character doesn't need an Off-Hand Weapon skill. Since neither of these rules contradict the other, would Quik Rik roll 10 dice for skill, plus 7 dice from his Combat Pool (as I don't believe he gets to add more Combat Pool dice than his base skill), in an attack with the power of 10M? Answer: You got it right. That's 6L base + 3 Power (half STR) + 1 Power and one Damage level for the dikote.
:: Rob Boyle :: Shadowrun Developer for FanPro LLC info@shadowrunrpg.com ~ www.shadowrunrpg.com |
mfb
Feb 10 2004, 03:10 AM
...
well, heck. 'scuze me while i go make a razor-using adept salad-shooter.
Fortune
Feb 10 2004, 03:15 AM
Yeah, it's a pretty nice advantage for implanted weaponry.
toturi
Feb 10 2004, 03:37 AM
Another reason why Logan/Wolverine is so deadly.
Siege
Feb 10 2004, 04:41 AM
So -- are characters required to puchase the off-hand weapon skill or not?
-Siege
Fortune
Feb 10 2004, 04:43 AM
Nope. The Ambidexterity Edge at level 6 or 8 will give you the same benefit as the Off-Hand Weapon skill.
Siege
Feb 10 2004, 04:44 AM
So, if you _don't_ have Ambi at 6 or 8, the off-hand weapon skill is required?
-Siege
Fortune
Feb 10 2004, 04:51 AM
QUOTE (Siege) |
So, if you _don't_ have Ambi at 6 or 8, the off-hand weapon skill is required? |
I think it's required for the Cannon Companion part (extra dice in attack), but not just when adding to the Power of the attack itself as described in the BBB.
FlakJacket
Feb 10 2004, 07:10 AM
Well doubled, dikoted spurs could be fun with this. Although I think I'll still stick to Killing Hands since that doesn't set of the metal detectors.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 10 2004, 07:38 AM
Dual-wielded, Dikoted hand blades are even funnier. Coupled with some Nitro Boosted Cyclops Ghoul Adept Goodness, you can destroy any armored vehicles in melee. [Edit]Still can't sink ships, though, because even Corvettes have Hull 3 -> cannot do damage unless the Damage Level is Deadly + 1 Over-damage or more, which is unattainable with melee attacks.[/Edit]
Zazen
Feb 10 2004, 07:43 AM
Sounds like you've been improving the WALLHACKER!!!!!!21@!1 He used to be capable of destroying only small tanks, as I recall.
edit- well damn. Back to the drawing board, I guess.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 10 2004, 07:59 AM
The Wallhacker was improved slightly
here, but the Wallhacker 2.0 never left the beta-stage. Compared to the 42S or more that should be quite easy to squeeze out, the original Wallhacker with his 25 dice/28M is quite pitiful.
Unfortunately it seems there's nothing one can do about sinking ships with anti-personnel weapons (which, oddly, the Wallhacker is still considered to be). Anything with Hull 3 or more is completely immune to anything non-AV, and at Hull 4 or more nothing but ASMs can touch the ship.
Cochise
Feb 10 2004, 08:37 AM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
Um, no he didn't. I am the someone that wrote to Rob about this, and his response was that both rules were valid and did not contradict each other.
<snip> |
And the rules do still not cleary support that answer
~Wanders off~
Fortune
Feb 10 2004, 09:03 AM
In what way?
mfb
Feb 10 2004, 09:07 AM
in the way that they're both written down in black and white, and can be read by anyone with the books. how can it be anymore unclear?and the way the line developer stated that clearly and concisely how the rules interact, that just clouds the matter even further !!
Cochise
Feb 10 2004, 10:42 AM
QUOTE (Fortune) |
In what way? |
Without going into details (like quoting the rules involved) the quick answer is:
I still see two massive contradictions between the two rules just by their wording when being applied at the same time ...
For details: Use the search function of this board ...
FlakJacket
Feb 10 2004, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (Cochise) |
Um... Well... It just is! I can't be arsed, go look it up yourself. |
That's what I love about this place. The detailed, in-depth and knowledgeable responses that you get from questions you ask.
Cochise
Feb 10 2004, 02:39 PM
QUOTE (FlakJacket) |
QUOTE (Cochise) | Um... Well... It just is! I can't be arsed, go look it up yourself. |
That's what I love about this place. The detailed, in-depth and knowledgeable responses that you get from questions you ask.  |
~shrugs~
That's what the
Search function is for ...
I just don't want to discuss this issue again and again ... It has been beaten to death more than a dozen times now. My POV hasn't changed, the POVs of others like Dr. Funk or Fortune haven't changed. So why would I want to go through the trouble?
Btw. If you do quote with my name in it, than do me a favour and
stick to what I've written and don't make up anything that makes your comment look like it's witty and / or appropriate. Thank you!
Siege
Feb 10 2004, 02:40 PM
Ok, ignoring Cochise and looking at the intelligent responses on the board...
Psst...it's ok to quote the rules as long as you're not posting the entire magic section, for example.
-Siege
Cochise
Feb 10 2004, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Siege) |
Ok, ignoring Cochise and looking at the intelligent responses on the board... |
Here come another one ... ~great~
QUOTE |
Psst...it's ok to quote the rules as long as you're not posting the entire magic section, for example. |
Did I say otherwise?
kevyn668
Feb 10 2004, 10:10 PM
I knew this would happen....
Anyways, I think you should get the dice if you spend the points on it. Period.
There's no reason why you
shouldn't get the dice and there's no reason why you
should have to take a penalty for slashing someone w/ you left hand (if you're right handed). That's like saying you should take a penalty when you punch some one w/ you left hand...
~shrugs~
(heh. that does feel pretty good)
fourstring_samurai
Feb 10 2004, 10:21 PM
I agree. the main punch used in boxing is the jab-an offhand attack. maybe if i was using a weapon that wasn't coming out of my own body, but spurs and such IMO are an extension of the body, and would be used so.
mfb
Feb 11 2004, 12:45 AM
well, the point of that jab isn't really to hurt the guy; it's to occupy his attention and force an opening in his defenses, so you can clobber him with your good hand.
that said, it's still silly to penalize someone for using their off hand in tandem with their dominant hand, during melee combat. i might penalize someone for only using their off-hand, but not for using both.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.