Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Where are the rules on how much a focus costs to buy?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Banaticus
Where are the rules on how much a focus costs to buy? Not at character creation, but later on. I can find out how much it costs to bind it to myself with karma and all sorts of rules for crafting them myself, but nothing about buying one.
Cardul
A Focus costs the same, subject to the same availability and cost modifiers of any other item, as it does in the
equipment section in SR4a. It should be like the last page of the price listings. This means you might be able
to get it for less if you are good at negotiation, or you might get it for more if you want it fast/roll poorly. There
is no "street index" in SR4/SR4A.
Glyph
They use the same rules (availability test, street value, etc.) that you would for, say, buying a pistol after character generation.
Ol' Scratch
Yeah... I'm a little confused with why you're having trouble here. The prices and availabilities are all listed on page 348 of SR4A.
Banaticus
Because the word Focus isn't in the index and p348 isn't one of the pages listed under Foci in the index. I went back and forth over character creation, where it talked about the BP cost and the Awakened section where it talked about bonding them and making them and the whole Street Magic section on making them, but I didn't see anything about how much it would cost about buying them or where that information might be found.

I never thought to look in the equipment section, but it would have nice if that had been one of the pages listed in the index.
Tanegar
You never thought to look in the equipment section for information on a piece of equipment?

*facepalm*
Ol' Scratch
Don't forget the fact that "Foci" is clearly listed in the index, and in exactly the same spot as the word "Focus" would have been found. Seriously; the very next word is Focused Concentration. Or that in the table of contents "Magical Equipment" is clearly labeled under Gear Listing.

Yep. They were really crafty about hiding it...
Yerameyahu
Ouch. He said he found Foci. smile.gif
svenftw
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ May 19 2010, 07:39 AM) *
Don't forget the fact that "Foci" is clearly listed in the index, and in exactly the same spot as the word "Focus" would have been found. Seriously; the very next word is Focused Concentration. Or that in the table of contents "Magical Equipment" is clearly labeled under Gear Listing.

Yep. They were really crafty about hiding it...


He found that, page 348 isn't listed under Foci. Your snark is unwarranted.

Dumpshock has a bad reputation all over the internet gaming community because of posts like this. People can't come here and get simple help for simple problems, they have to put up with hardheads giving them the business every time they want to say something.

Why?
vanillared
Th movie clerks clearly tells us that we should always point other people's short comings in rude snarky ways. This exhibits our superiority and how large our dice bag is.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (svenftw @ May 19 2010, 10:13 AM) *
He found that, page 348 isn't listed under Foci. Your snark is unwarranted.

And yet it's still clearly labeled in the table of contents and easily found in the gear chapter, which is where -- you know -- gear is found.

QUOTE
Dumpshock has a bad reputation all over the internet gaming community because of posts like this. People can't come here and get simple help for simple problems, they have to put up with hardheads giving them the business every time they want to say something.

Why?


Because it's not just this thread. This is an off-shoot of another thread where the same poster was going on and on about how magicians need to be completely retooled due to his superior take on how the rules for them work. Yet he didn't even know how much a damn focus cost.

So yeah. Sorry. "Snarkiness" deserved. In spades.
Yerameyahu
In spades, eh?
Nixda
QUOTE (svenftw @ May 19 2010, 06:13 PM) *
He found that, page 348 isn't listed under Foci. Your snark is unwarranted.

Dumpshock has a bad reputation all over the internet gaming community because of posts like this. People can't come here and get simple help for simple problems, they have to put up with hardheads giving them the business every time they want to say something.

Why?



I'm new to this forum and I dont feel badly treated or unwelcome in any way or form. In fact, I very much enjoy it here.

I think it has more to do with other threads the OP posted before, I remember one where he complained about the spirit types that have counterspelling and no method suggested to him to deal with those was good enough because they seemed so horribly unbalanced to him.

And not finding equipment in the equipment section is indeed a bit ...lacking the will... to solve the problem before coming here and asking about it.
Banaticus
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ May 19 2010, 08:39 AM) *
Don't forget the fact that "Foci" is clearly listed in the index, and in exactly the same spot as the word "Focus" would have been found.

Thanks, but as another person pointed out, I had already stated that I'd found Foci in the index. nyahnyah.gif

So I posted in another thread that I think magicians are overpowered compared to adepts and samurai? Yeah, I'll say it again, I think they're completely overpowered, even without any using any foci at all. I hardly see what bearing that has on whether or not the SR4A index lists everything that it should list (it's usually pretty good, this is just one of those few spots where it slips up) or on how snarky your responses are. wink.gif
Tanegar
It's not so much that you think magicians are overpowered (a sentiment I've seen echoed by many other posters), it's that your proposed solution was ridiculously bad.
vanillared
DnD is to Shadowrun as Engineering class grades are to Design studio class grades

Essentially a rule system like Shadowrun is not designed to be 100% balanced as written, whereas s gaming system like DnD is designed to completely balanced.

In the case of Shadowrun it is up to the game master to maintain balance when managing and weaving their story. Also the creators have suggested several ways to curtail magicians. E.G. Plus 1 drain DV for each net hit on direct combat spells.

However, any GM is going to be taxed trying to assimilate all of the standard rules, optional rules and then house rules. Its a tough job and requires allot of diligent reading even when your PCs are not trying to derail the game.
Nifft
QUOTE (vanillared @ May 19 2010, 02:37 PM) *
Also the creators have suggested several ways to curtail magicians. E.G. Plus 1 drain DV for each net hit on direct combat spells.

I think that's a core rule now, rather than just a suggestion.
Tanegar
QUOTE (Nifft @ May 19 2010, 03:59 PM) *
I think that's a core rule now, rather than just a suggestion.

Nope, still an option. See page 204, SR4A, top of the first column.
Nifft
QUOTE (Tanegar @ May 19 2010, 03:11 PM) *
Nope, still an option. See page 204, SR4A, top of the first column.

Yep, we're looking at the same text.

What I don't see is anything indicating that it's optional rather than mandatory.
Tanegar
QUOTE (Nifft @ May 19 2010, 04:14 PM) *
Yep, we're looking at the same text.

What I don't see is anything indicating that it's optional rather than mandatory.

Really?
QUOTE ('Shadowrun 20th Anniversary Edition @ p.204')
As an optional rule, every net hit applied also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.

That indicative enough for ya?
Nifft
QUOTE (Tanegar @ May 19 2010, 03:16 PM) *
Really?

That indicative enough for ya?

Mine looks like this:
QUOTE (SR4A @ p.204)
Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a damaging effect. Affecting the targetís being on this fundamental level with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.


End of paragraph.

Different printings perhaps? Oh joy.
otakusensei
QUOTE (Nifft @ May 19 2010, 04:21 PM) *
Mine looks like this:


End of paragraph.

Different printings perhaps? Oh joy.


Mine reads like this, at least the PDF version I have does. How do I tell what printing it is?
Nifft
QUOTE (otakusensei @ May 19 2010, 03:24 PM) *
Mine reads like this, at least the PDF version I have does. How do I tell what printing it is?

No clue, that info is usually on the page just inside the front or back cover, but I can't see that info anywhere in either my print or PDF versions.

Oh ho ho, my print book agrees with the text Tanegar posted, but my PDF doesn't.

Well that's a nice find.
Tanegar
Faaaaaabulous. Two copies of (ostensibly) the same book disagree. ohplease.gif
Nixda
QUOTE (Tanegar @ May 19 2010, 10:28 PM) *
Faaaaaabulous. Two copies of (ostensibly) the same book disagree. ohplease.gif


Maybe we should start trying to differentiate the books. My SR4A text agrees with yours Tanegar. It's a fairly recent purchase (1-2 months ago) and the ISBN number on the back cover reads as "ISBN 978-1-934857-31-1"

Edit: this is a hardcopy, not a pdf, btw.
Tanegar
My hardcopy SR4A also bears ISBN 978-1-934857-31-1. I'm not sure if this changes between printings or only between titles. I don't have a PDF of SR4A, but I am unable to locate ISBN numbers on my PDFs of Digital Grimoire or Eclipse Phase. I suspect electronic files are not required to have ISBN numbers.
Caadium
If you got back to the original PDF release of SR4A you will find that it was not an optional rule and that it cause MUCH hatred and flame wars. In response, it was changed to an optional rule in the PDF and for the print version. This means that some of the older PDFs don't have optional in it, but I believe you could redownload it after the correction. I also think that there were a few typos corrected but I could be wrong on that.

Basically, the first release of the PDF is not the final release. The final release matches the hardcover.
otakusensei
QUOTE (Caadium @ May 19 2010, 06:30 PM) *
If you got back to the original PDF release of SR4A you will find that it was not an optional rule and that it cause MUCH hatred and flame wars. In response, it was changed to an optional rule in the PDF and for the print version. This means that some of the older PDFs don't have optional in it, but I believe you could redownload it after the correction. I also think that there were a few typos corrected but I could be wrong on that.

Basically, the first release of the PDF is not the final release. The final release matches the hardcover.

Ah. Right. So where can I download the correct version of the PDF now? Battleshop says that the link for the PDF I bought with my LE expired in March last year. Think I should email Tara?
Caadium
QUOTE (otakusensei @ May 19 2010, 04:45 PM) *
Ah. Right. So where can I download the correct version of the PDF now? Battleshop says that the link for the PDF I bought with my LE expired in March last year. Think I should email Tara?


I would.
Nifft
Maybe I'll buy a new one and run the old one & new one through diff.
otakusensei
QUOTE (Caadium @ May 19 2010, 07:50 PM) *
I would.

I did. I sent over my order number and explained the situation and my download was reactivated. The new version includes the rule as optional.
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