For instance, say you have one reaction and take zen, is there any effect other than getting no dice from that attribute?
Or if a mage drains an attribute down?

I'm not sure if 4th Edition addresses it, but I remember in previous editions you become temporarily paralyzed if any of your attributes hit 0. The exact effect/description depending on which attribute it is.

Personal Opinion: Incapacitated.
But I am not aware of specific rules of the top of my head.

Somebody set up us the bomb.

Oh, like you weren't expecting it.

IIRC, the issue is addressed in the SR4A entry for the spell Reduce Attribute. Can't check atm.

Yes, it is addressed for decrease attribute spells:



This isn't stated as a universal rule; its a spell effect. But the GM would certainly be free to take it as a guideline.

Mongoose is correct on this; as written, it is an effect of the spell decreasing an attribute to 0, not an effect of an attribute being decreased to 0.

There are a few other examples, such as Paralyzing Howl & Armor Encumbrance, where if the attribute is decreased to 0, the character cannot move/is incapacitated. But as far as I am aware, there is no overarching rule for the effects of decreasing an attribute to 0, so outside of those effects that specifically list the character being incapacitated in one manner or another, Rules as Written, they simply get 0 dice from the attribute to all linked tests, nothing more.

There's nothing at all wrong for extrapolating a rule from related rules when none exists. It's pretty clear that the intent of having an attribute hit 0 is that you become incapacitated in one form or another. Logically, it makes sense. Related rules where the subject comes up demonstrate that it's very much an intended effect. So pointing to the lack of a core rule, when related rules cover the situation, and attempting to use that to rationalize no effect is pretty foolish.

It's one thing to do that to overwrite a rule. But when one doesn't exist? Common sense prevails. It's one of the perks of having living, breathing, thinking GMs in an RPG. This isn't a video game for crying out loud.

Whip out your back-up runner? You do have one right?

What does common sense say about having an attribute reduced to 0 and having an attribute at 0? My common sense says that there is no difference, what does yours say?

What the living Hell does that have to do with anything I said?

There is no base rule for what happens if you have an attribute that hits 0, largely because having an attribute at 0 isn't possible under normal circumstances. You certainly can't create a character with one. Most -- not all, but most -- of the rules that can result in an attribute of 0 say the same basic thing, however. But there are some times you can hit a score of 0 through a method that doesn't discuss it. I don't think any of the drugs that give you a penalty to an attribute mentions it, for instance. So what do you do? Muspellsheimr suggests the proper thing to do is ignore all those related rules. Common sense and basic logic, however, says otherwise. The incapacitation isn't a result of the effect that reduces your attribute to 0, it's the result of your attribute actually hitting/being 0.

No need to fly off the handle, DF. It is just a relevant question, because while you cannot create a PC with attribute 0, I remember there being NPCs with attributes at 0. So how are you playing/going to play them?

I can't think of any notable examples that don't get around the paralysis in one form or another. The most notable example I can think of (and I'm not sure whether or not they actually have 0/no Physical Attributes) is a Jarhead. And they are, most definitely, physically incapacitated. But they get around that via a drone/vehicle body and a control rig. So problem solved. And please read the last part of my very first post in this thread before continuing.

Possible example/reference: House of the Sun by Nigel Findley, a mage called "Quinn Harlec";) casts a paralysis spell that makes it so that the victim can't even breathe. Maybe not quite the same thing, but I think it works.

The point I am trying to make is that common sense doesn't tell everyone the same thing. Sure, the GM can use his common sense but it might not be the same as what his players common sense might tell them. Someone with a Logic of 0 may just react by instinct, for example.

And no DF, while I can't remember what stat block that was (except it wasn't an April Fool's one) but I distinctly remember it wasn't a Jarhead and it wasn't an incapacitated NPC.

Great choice! Nigel D. Findley was the God of Shadowrun as far as I am concerned.

Microdrones have a Body of 0 and are capable of movement.

Every "Small Vermin" (beginning p.96, Running Wild) have a Body & Strength of 0.

I still have not thoroughly gone through Running Wild yet, but I would assume that flies & other "Small Insects", if even statted, would have a Body & Strength of 0.

There is no rule against having a Base Attribute of 0, except that playable characters all have a minimum of 1.

QFT

Remember : Common Sense Isn't.

Yes, and none of those are player characters. They're all special cases of the rules trying to give a stat to something that's so weak or ineffective that it's not comparable to a metahuman's levels.


The point is that every time the possibility for a metahuman to gain an attribute of 0 occurs, and the rules bother to address it, the end result is the same. But because the rules never address it in certain circumstances, you're arguing that that logic and those other rules should all be completely and utterly ignored. I'm arguing otherwise. In fact, the general rules never even acknowledge the possibility, and the other circumstances that result in a score 0 do the same thing.

If there was a general rule that said a metahuman with an attribute of 0 was fully functional, and it was just a few quirky side rules that said the opposite, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case here. Not by a long shot. This is a case of a complete and total lack of a general rule, not contrary rules.

Just sayin, but if a metahuman goes pretty much catatonic at 0 Logic (or any mental attribute), then every Logic 1 troll or orc who took even 1 appropriately-sized dose of Hurlg (-1 Log, +1 Will) would be sitting around drooling for a few hours.
Doesn't seem that likely to me.

First, they'd be sitting there confused and bewildered for the duration. Which is a perfectly acceptable repercussion of taking a swing from such a ridiculously powerful drink filled with large amounts of a hallucinogenic. Second, an ork or a troll with a Logic of 1 is an outlier and every bit as rare as a troll with a base Strength of 10. Third, why is it okay to accept a spell that produces the exact same affect would have an extremely different effect? It's "Decrease Logic" not "Decrease Logic and Leave You Confused and Bewildered."

*loves the notation about common sense, in an rpg forum as applied to possible magical effects on metahumanity and what not. Grins*

One of the posters above did have a nice point. What's common sense for some of us (( Incap in one fashion or another)) Might not be for others.

No. I am arguing that, in those instances where it is not addressed, Rules as Written, "logic" & those other rules should all be completely and utterly ignored.

And I am correct. The rules make no mention of any special effect, such as incapacitation, being made if a character (PC or otherwise) possesses an attribute value of 0, reduced to or otherwise. Because there are no rules for it, there is no such special effect.

Logically, it can easily be debated & justified why this is the case just as easily as it can be debated & justified why they should be incapacitated.


Put simply, incapacitating a character due to an attribute being reduced to 0 from an effect that does not include incapacitation is a House Rule. Common Sense or not.

Then your point is wrong. Because this isn't an issue of the rules as written. It's an issue of the "rules that don't exist." Lack of a rule != a rule.

No. But lack of a rule does equal lack of effect.

You are attempting to argue that lack of a rule does indeed equal another rule because it is similar.

I am arguing that lack of a rule regarding an effect means that there is no rule for it to cause that effect, and thus does not cause that effect.

I have to agree with Muspellsheimr here. There are a few instances where spells or adept powers reduce an attribute and then say that when the attribute is reduced to 0 the target is incapacitated. There are also instances of drones and animals having attributes at 0 and being functional. If the latter weren't the case I'd go with the established pattern of the spell but because it is RAW that a being can function with one or more of its attributes at 0 it follows that any being can function with one or more of its attributes at 0 considering there is nothing specifically stating otherwise.

So, tiny drones are your proof of concept against every single "if attribute is reduced to 0, target is incapacitated" reiterated throughout the book?
Seems pretty weak.. but whatevs.

Here's a semi-related question that I've been mulling. Can you burn Edge down to 0?

Is it bad when double posts become so common that you hardly even notice them anymore?

So can a tiny drone lift a human body?

If we use logic here, 1 is 'pathetic', and 0 would be like a squirrel, and unable to lift human limbs.

If you want to use a stretched example, when magic is reduced to 0, you can't do anything involving magic.

So if your Strength was reduced to 0, you couldn't do anything involving strength. Which would mean your body would be limp on the ground, incapacitated.

If charisma was reduced to 0, you would collapse in a shivering ball as your shattered persona tried to figure out if it was Bill or Gangrous the Runner or Greg the wise guy.

(Along these lines I would also say that if you reduced Edge to 0, you wouldn't be able to do anything relating to edge and would auto-fail any edge tests. Edge would be something you could presumably live without, but would most likely die without any sort of luck in the runner business. Just my opinion.)

No way, dude. Who cares if you don't have the Strength to move a single muscle of your body? You can still swing your sword just as fine as you please! Who cares if you don't have the Logic to figure out how to perform even the simplest of tasks? You can still code a Rating 6 Decryption program as easy as ever! Who cares if you don't have the Intuition to so much as realize that you even exist? You can spot that micro-drone hiding in the shadows with the best of 'em!

It all makes perfect sense now, man. Rules as written? Pfft! Who needs that when you can rely on the rules as unwritten!

It seems to m e like 0 in an attribute seems fine, edge included, unless it specifies differently.
If it was universal that if an attribute was reduced to 0 it had an effect, that effect should be listed in the attribute section and wouldn't need to be specified with spells.

While I realize it is bad to compare SR to DnD, it makes me think of the disintegrate spell, if it kills you, you disintegrate, but that doesn't mean you always disintegrate when you die.

It's not listed as a general rule because 1) the writers for Shadowrun rarely, if ever, think things all the way through and 2) the only time it comes up is in special circumstances, most of which talk about the exact effects if an attribute hits 0. And when a rule actually acknowledges that an attribute can hit 0, the effect is the same: You're incapacitated in one way or another depending on the attribute.

The problem is that every instance of a negative modifier to an attribute doesn't acknowledge the fact that it means an attribute can hit 0. See point number one above. But hey, who cares right? Ignorance is bliss (when it suits your argument anyway).

The "RAW" can suck my balls. I don't give a damn what they say -- or in this case, don't say -- in circumstances like this. Namely, a circumstance where they simply don't acknowledge the possibility at all. Keeping the game playable with an internal consistency is way more important to me. I'm not here to argue the "RAW." I don't give a flying fuck about it. I'm here to discuss the game and how to properly handle situations that come up where the rules are fuzzy or illogical. I'm also not an idiot. I know and repeatedly state that the base rules don't cover it. So yes, keep rattling on mindlessly about the "RAW." It's doing precisely two things to help you in this discussion: Jack and Shit.

While I realize it's bad to compare SR to DnD, DnD has rules for when your Stats hit 0. You die, you go into a coma, you lose control of all your muscles, your mind shatters, you collapse to the ground either in a spasm or your muscles completely tensing and unable to move. Depending on the stat.

Logic on Logic.

Logic Attribute:

It is reasonable to assume that the logic attribute at 2 is 'underdeveloped', as it is stated in the sourcebook. Underdeveloped would most likely be around 50-80 IQ, borderline to able to function in menial jobs in society, useful as meat shields for corps or janitors or something.

At 1, 'Pathetic', they would be around from 20-50 IQ. You point him in the direction of what you want done with a club.

At 0, the suggested pattern would lead me to say that at 0-20 IQ, he would resemble a vegetable. Maybe a carrot. Maybe slightly more responsive than the normal vegetable.


This is my rationalization.

Of course, there are also no rules for actual death, just 'dying' that I could find on a cursory look through the SR4 manual. So obviously, I can run around after I've gotten my heart shoved out of my chest, I'll just get massive wound modifier penalties to everything, right? Absolutely no problem.

I've found nothing that would disallow this.
Of course, Edge is a special case, as it is can be reduced at will and only rarely comes up in regular tests.

Animals or drones with a strenght of 0 also seem to be a special case to me.
They are obviously not incapacitated, but that may be due to the fact that they evolved resp. where constructed to function with STR 0, which humans aren't. I guess that if you'd cast Reduce STR on a squirrel, one net success would immediately immobilize it.

In fact, the only cases which aren't clearly handled seem to be drones, animals, spent Edge and drugs.
At least these are the ones i can think of right now, feel free to add any other cases you can find.
I didn't skim the books for every possible example. But the ones given here should make it obvious that there are qualitatively different cases of Attribute 0, which would call for a different handling in each case.

Animals and drones seem to work fine with a 0 Attribute.
There are some tasks that they clearly cannot perform, but i would not exclude a squirrel from making Athletics tests. It's obviously nonsensical and if RAW disallows this, fuck RAW.
I apply the rules correctly wherever possible, but if they are so obviously inappropriate, i will modify them with the group's consent.

Edge is a difficult case. I'd say someone with 0 Edge is shit out of luck in the most literal sense and would autofail any test directly involving Edge, but that would be about it. I don't see how having bad karma would completely immobilize you.

This leaves drugs.
Can drugs incapacitate you to the point where you cannot act anymore, both physically and mentally?
Sure as hell (try this out the next time you go out drinking. But don't say i didn't warn you).
In fact, the side effects of some drugs come much closer to what Reduce [Attribute] does than any other example here, because they are the only example here where an outside force is reducing an Attribute that previously had a value >0.
Based on this assumption, i wouldn't mind if a GM rules that REA=0 through zen intake means that you are lying around immobilized while you are staring at the fractal patterns that restructure themselves in the ceiling.

Of course, the SR4 drug rules, while being more plausible than anything in previous editions, are still wonky as hell and don't really come close to an accurate depiction of how drugs work. They also rely on a lot of GM handwaving and plausibility calculation in the first place (e.g., when to call for an addiction test).

I have to agree with side of incapacitation on this. On pg.67 of the SR4A, it lists the descriptions of the attributes. Looking at them and applying the fact that a "0" in any of them means "none," you have the following:

Agility: represents fine motor control, manual dexterity, flexibility, balance, and coordination = none. I don't know about you but if you have no balance (none not just bad, but none what-so-ever) you cannot get up to move. That says incapacitated to me.

Body: resistance to outside forces, cardio fitness & endurance, immune system, how well you heal, tolerance for drugs and alcohol = none. Again, without the ability to heal, you will die. Your cardio fitness is non-existent and you have no (again not just low, but none at all) endurance. The slightest movement would cause you to collapse. Again, to me that says incapacitated.

Reaction: physical reflexes = none. No reaction means no dodging, no reacting to any situation. If you cannot dodge, you are frozen in place and are therefor incapacitated.

Strength: denotes what the characters muscles can do = nothing. There is really nothing else that needs to be said here. With a "0" strength your muscles cannot do anything, cannot move, etc. Once again...incapacitated.

Charisma: more than just looks, represents personal aura, self-image, ego, willingness to please others = none This one was kind of hard, but once I re-read it I noticed the "Personal aura" entry. According to the aura reading section, all living things have an aura. This would be saying that your personal aura is non-existant, therefore you would be dead or an automaton. The ego is defined as "the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world" and if you are not reacting with the outside world or having experiences with the things around you, you are pretty much incapacitated.

Intuition: mental alertness = none. If you have no mental alertness you are a vegetable (as was mentioned above) and are therefore incapacitated.

Logic: represents the memorizing ability and raw brain power = none. You cannot memorize anything and you have no brain power... definitely incapacitated. "How do I walk again? Wait, how am I talking?"

Willpower: keeps you going when you want to quit, allows for control of emotions and habits = none. You will always quit and there would be no control of habits or emotions. Reading further, you would not want to take charge of your life and there for would do nothing... incapacitated.

So I am sorry, but any of the attributes at a 0 would be an incapacitating situation.

AFAIK, any animal or drone with Bod / Str 0 uses special rules (such as not having a damage track, as any damage will kill it). I'd say that's a strong indicator that metahuman's can't function when their stats are reduced to 0.

I'm not going to continue on here beyond saying that, regardless of what "makes sense" or not (which will vary between people/games), it is not Rules as Written for a character to be incapacitated from an attribute being reduced to 0, unless the effect that reduced the attribute specifically states otherwise.

Dr. Funkenstein, at least, finally acknowledged that his position is not RAW. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you continuing to insist it is.


No, actually, they don't.

Can you point to a place where it defines what a 0 in an attribute means or where it says that a character can even have a 0 in an attribute (other than those areas that have been specifically described in other examples such as the Reduce Attribute spell)? If you are going to apply the RAW then it is not possible to have a 0 in an attribute except in the circumstances where the RAW addresses it. And I never said that my position was RAW or was not RAW. I merely pointed to where the SR4A clearly describes what the attributes do and applied the meaning of 0. That is what is called an opinion and I have used the area in SR4A as something called evidence.

You stated in an earlier post that "lack of a rule does equal lack of effect," and "that lack of a rule regarding an effect means that there is no rule for it to cause that effect, and thus does not cause that effect." Would you agree then that the lack of a rule means the cause cannot exist? I would say that since there is nothing listed in the RAW that says how you can get an attribute below 1 (again excepting those areas where it is explicitly covered) and the RAW consistently describes the attribute range as 1 to 6 modifying max by racial mods, then by RAW you cannot have an attribute of 0 (excepting in the cases where it is covered).

I would also like to point out that:


So critter with a Bod of 0 have no condition monitor as Mongoose pointed out. Drones on the other hand only use body to track damage, so a body 0 drone would only have 8 boxes for damage. And that is RAW as lited on pg. 167 of SR4A.

Is this paraphrase getting your point straight: If it isn't covered in the rules, it can't affect you?

Muspellsheimr, how would you deal with an Attribute being reduced to zero by means other than the means listed above that explicitly state incapacitation?

No. If there are no rules, there are no mechanical effects.

There are no rules for wiping your ass. Wiping your ass has no mechanical effect.



There is no rule prohibiting an attribute from being reduced to 0. There are effects that can reduce attributes (none of which specify to a minimum of 1). There are no rules for any special effect (such as the claimed incapacitation). Some of the effects have an additional effect (incapacitation) if they reduce an attribute to 0.

Reducing an attribute to 0 from an effect (such as drugs) reduces all derived statistics from that attribute, such as dice pools, damage track, etc. It does not do anything else unless noted otherwise.

@ Mu - are there any rules that say an attribute could not be reduced to less than zero? Say I had a logic 1 character, which was reduced to 0 by a Reduce Logic spell, and then I was injected with drugs to reduce my logic still further?

No. While rules for effects of an attribute at 0 might be an oversight of the rules, this I know is one. Rules as Written, it is entirely possible to have a -3 Body attribute. Even better, the Decrease Attribute spell incapacitates them if their attribute is reduced to 0; it does not do so if their attribute is reduced below 0.

Feel free to point out a post where I didn't state and acknowledge that the base rules were lacking in this regard. (Don't waste your time, because I never once did.)

Unlike a couple of posters on this forum, I do not give a flying fuck about the "RAW". Any idiot can blindly adhere to nonsensical or nonexistent rules and wrap themselves in it in order to justify voluntary ignorance or outright stupidity. This is doubly true when those same individuals point these rules (or lack thereof) out and then proceed to insist on adhering to it, then spend countless posts trying to belittle and convince everyone else that they have to adhere to it or, somehow, they're horrible people who have no idea what they're talking about.

On a different unrelated note, there is no listed mechanical effect for drowning. It details what happens when you are forced to hold your breath, but how can we reasonably extrapolate the mechanics of drowning from rules about not being able to breathe freely?

It is a mystery...

Are there any specific rules for death? Because I can't find any. There's plenty on dying, but nothing on actual 'death'. Because there's a lack of rules on this, unless anyone can find anything else, I'll be running around with my characters after their head has been removed. I figure that 'death' is just massive wound modifiers.

By the rules, you will be toasted over drinks at your favorite shadowrunner bar.

Awesome. I just hope I'll be able to drink along with them with my head missing and massive internal hemorrhaging.

Are you still debating whether 0 attribute=vegetable by RAW?

I technically, I agree with Mus. If one source of attribute loss specifies 0=vegetable while another source does not, then common interpretation is that it applies to the specific source and not anything else.

As for the RAI... I agree with Funk&co. It's probably just an oversight (sigh).

But really the way drugs work it becomes a bit silly than getting a -1 to your low stat will make you useless. It would be like a someone with low intuition or logic passing out after smoking a joint. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Changing 6 to 5 is a lot less dramatic than changing 1 to 0 or 3 to 2. Now do you want your average troll and orc ganger being that easy to knock out with drugs? Drugs that they are specifically said to be resistant to...

So really I can't see any situation outside Magic where you'd need to do anything about an attribute hitting 0 temporarily. Could even be a fun roleplaying experience, having the stupid troll tank suddenly try to be EVEN more stupid than normal. As in "ouch fire hot! Fire indeed hot!" stupid.

There are rules for death. Also, death is word with obvious meaning in this game. Since there is no specific Shadowrun "Death" concept in game, there are no need for rules for it.

On the other hand, "my attribute is now 0" is not self-explanatory in the same way. Attributes are game concepts defined by rules.