And you still haven't provided a rule quote stating that in the context of the rules "unarmed attack" is somethink other then using Unarmed skill to attack your enemy.
So instead of demenading rules quotes from others(quotes that where actually provided already) maybe you should man up and post some yourself.

Happy now?
Unarmed Combat (with caps) is a skill, and unarmed combat (no caps) is combat without weapons. They're not the same. Generally, Unarmed Combat is only used for "only body" attacks. However, certain weapons use the Unarmed Combat skill to wield because the method of fighting is pretty much the same. That doesn't make those weapons "not-weapons" or anything like that, they're still weapons, which just happen to use a certain skill called Unarmed Combat to use. They extend the use of the skill, but don't rewrite the base definition of it.

Now, "unarmed combat" in the context of Critical Strike is not capitalized, and hasn't been defined explicitly in the rulebook as far as I've found. I'm pretty sure "unarmed attacks" haven't been defined.

So they use the meaning they'd normally have in English. After all, the books are primarily written in Natural English. And in English "unarmed" means "without weapons".

---

So much for arguments based on definitions. Those are always a little bit strained and shrill. You can really interpret that text anyway you like, that's why natural languages are so much fun. You can be convinced you're right; I'm convinced I'm right. You can't conclusively prove it based on the text, because it's just not precise enough to take away all doubt and opportunity for alternative interpretation.

---

Stacking a weapon focus, Critical Strike, Hardliner Gloves, BDA - oh joy. Seriously, that's ridiculous. I believe the intent of the game was to have different options, not a big list of things to stack.

BDA is there for mundanes, as are cyberspurrs.

Hardliner gloves could be a Weapon Focus - nice for Adepts and Magicians who want to save the precious Power Points for something else.

Critical Strike is very, very efficient in terms of Power Points to Damage. And with Killing Hands and Elemental Strike there's nothing you can't damage.


But if you can combine Critical Strike with a Weapon Focus, then all the weapon-oriented adepts would be left in the dust, unless you gave them access to Critical Strike too. Cue power creep.

If you can combine Critical Strike with BDA or a Weapon Focus, then mundane martial artists really have no way to be as good as adepts. Because anything the mundanes can do, the adepts can do better. Which I doubt was the intent of the writers.

From the american heritage dictionary:

un·armed

–adjective
1.
without weapons or armor.
2.
not having claws, thorns, scales, etc., as animals or plants.
3.
(of an artillery shell) not armed.

Since SR4A is written in English, we assume it uses the English definition of words. An unarmed attack is therefor an attack without weapons. Since CS never says anything about it's ability to be used with a weapon, or makes any other references, English is all we have. Luckily, English gives us the answer.

EDIT: By the way, re-reading the thread, the only page numbers posted for the anti-RAW stacking argument where done by Ol' Scratch a)after he ruined his legitimacy by gross hyperbole(which is why I missed it), and b)citing references which all support HLG not stacking with CS. He even bolded the portions that damn the stacking arguments. So long as you understand that unarmed combat, that is fighting without a weapon, and Unarmed Combat, the skill that with special exceptions can be used with certain weapons are different(and skills are always capitalized), there is no argument for stacking.

Nice to see you can't produce a single rule quote to support your position.

I did, I posted the description of Critical Strike awhile ago, it really says all you need to know.

It says that it boost your damage in unarmed combat, using HLG is included in being in unarmed combat.

Actually it says it makes unarmed attacks more powerful, then goes into more detail saying it gives +1 damage in unarmed combat(not the lack of capitalization, skills are always capitalized in SR). The only reference to the skill Unarmed Combat(which is capitalized natch), is in the last sentence which just explains the timing of Crit Strike and isn't descriptive as to when the power can be used.

Furthermore, the Unarmed Combat skill specifically states it is for use with no weapons, with the only exceptions noted being certain cyber-implant weapons(which goes along with the idea that if you paid essence for it, it's you). Hardliner gloves are a weapon, just like any other, listed as a weapon and whatnot, the only notable quality is that you use the Unarmed Combat Skill to make attacks with them.

The wording of CS is pretty clear that you can't use weapons, and HLG says nothing about it being a weapon. RAW is quite clear.

RAI is fairly clear too, as has been mentioned, critical strike makes for a very powerful character who can do a ton of damage with one attack. Allowing it to stack with a weapon that can be enhanced with weapon mods and made into a weapon foci(and duel wielding for that matter), would make for such a powerful character that no other melee adept would be able to compare in power. That is obviously not the intent of the rules as they have several examples of swordsmen adepts being just as good if not better then unarmed adepts, which would not be the case if HLG stacked with CS.

I din't make any references to Unarmed combat in my post, only unarmed combat.
By the rules of the game unarmed combat is using Unarmed combat to beat the crap out of your opponent.
You still havent provided a rule quote that says using HLG's to beat up your opponent isn't unarmed combat, it is after all using the Unarmed to beat the crap out of you opponent.
There is no rule distinction between unarmed combat while wearing HLG's and when not wearing them.

This was a long time ago in this thread. I couldn't resist.

The truth of the matter is:
Makki, the reason you get a penalty is a fully justified one. I makes scimitar-weapon focus, black-furred, rebel mystic adept night-ones, with purple eyes, who summon an ally spirit into a panther. The group includes a grumpy dwarf samurai and a female human... face?

The Dev's were right on that one, sacrifices were made, no fluff for cool boxing matches but on the plus side we get no certain undesirable's clones.



The correct term is "Hearsay", as in "just rumours", "speculative". Accusing someone of "heresy" nowadays is kinda... démodé.

Also, please, its "per se", or by itself, in Latin. Now I am not an expert in languages, and I certainly wouldn't be able to discuss it with some of you guys who actually did take Latin as a course, but I just see too many English speakers making the mistake of fonetically writing it.

Unless you're playing something Dark Heresy-related!
Hell, actually, Shadowrun has Pope death squads, too.

I was wrong at all. there is no off-hand malus for unarmed combat. the text only refers to wielding a weapon.

That's because there's no such thing as on- or off-hand with Unarmed. It's 'a series of actions' resulting in the attack DV. However, it does seem like there should be something like that if you're literally using specific body parts. I seem to remember a thread about Hardliner weapon focus *boots*, in order to munchkin out an extra 1 Reach.

Well, except for that whole "Reach" thing, not to mention that many melee weapons do more inherent damage in and of themselves. Nevermind the potential perks of Ambidexterity and the various martial arts maneuvers like Off-Hand Training, Two Weapon Style or half of Multi-Strike since, you know, Hardliner Gloves doesn't change the fact that the adept is still using Unarmed Combat which doesn't benefit from two-weapon combat techniques.

I'm also assuming you guys don't allow cybered adepts, particularly those possessing cyberlimbs, to use these same adept powers, eh? Because they gain similar benefits to Hardliner Gloves, particularly in the way of being able to be enchanted as a focus. Fear that +1 point of damage (as opposed to a free Killing Hands from a cyberlimb)! Boogity boogity! Gonna gitcha. Also, at which point does this mysterious inability to benefit from adept powers begin? A regular glove? An insulated glove? A glove with an Armor rating? A glove from a suit of Security armor? A glove from Milspec armor? I mean, if a thin piece of densiplast is all it takes...


Sure, if you ignore every other option in the game and just rely on tunnel vision to justify this tragic misreading of the rules. Or, you know, actually believe that a mundane martial artist has any hope against an adept martial artist even if you do house rule this. Because, clearly, adepts weren't supposed to be better than mundanes in their chosen field. (???)

It's generally not a good idea to make such a monstrous blunder when trying to act like a grammar or spelling Nazi. No one ever makes typing mistakes or accidentally jumbles words. Ever

Also, it's "incubi" not "inncubi." If, you know, we're going to be nitpicky jerks.

That said, I'm confused by how you think a lack of using two-weapon techniques in unarmed combat stops someone from making a Drizzt clone. How, exactly, does that work?

Let's all take a deep breath and calm down, everyone.

TheOOB, I'd like to remind you that there is precedent for not taking the fluff line of a given spell or power super-seriously from a mechanical point of view. In multiple cases, the beginning description and the subsequent mechanics of a given spell or power do not mesh well or are otherwise problematic. For example:

Critical strike + HLG weapon focus isn't stronger than normal weapon foci.

-Normal weapons get bonus dice though reach and Personalized Grip.
-They have damage codes up to (STR/2+5) and you can poison the blade if that isn't enough.
-Then there is the already mentioned option for Two-Handed-Weapon-Style, that really would be broken, if meele could be broken in SR.
-And of course there is the advantage that you don't have to spend KI-Points for critical strike.

Critical strike + HLG weaponfoci aren't stronger than blade weaponfoci. They only allow unarmed combat adepts to compete with blade adepts. But only if they spend KI-points for Critical Strike. I don't see what is wrong with that.

And by the way:
Nothing keeps you from turning a silk-glove into a weapon-fokus.
Just put it on and punch your opponents with it, and nothing keeps you from using Critical Strike, because it definitely is an "unarmed attack".
So we are not talking about the general compatibility of Critical Strike and weaponfocus here. We are talking only about the one bonus DV that the HGL gives, and maybe the fact that an adept with HGL looks less ridiculous than an adept with silk-gloves

I let the adept in my game commission a custom Hardliner-style set that covers all the striking surfaces for his brand of martial arts. That way there is no question that he gets the bonus for his unarmed attacks.

Maybe it is just me, But I would never allow someone to make a Weapon Focus, out of something that is not a Weapon... Maybe you are a bit more lenient on that, though...

You wouldn't allow someone to make a Weaponfocus out of a Chainsaw? How boring. Thats even an example in the FAQ. (Ok FAQ doesn't count here much).

My Comment: How Stupid...

Differnt Strokes for Different Folks...

Well fact is:
By RAW its allowed. (I haved waited long for saying this )
Your decision is a houserule.

You are as always free to house rule anyway you like, but by RAW absolutely anythink can be made into a weapon focus.
There is no limit on what item can be made into what kind of foci.

The last line in the description of Weapon Foci in the main sourcebook implies that it has to be a weapon. Though the actual rules for how they work can easily be said to work just like any other foci.

Of course, that last line is written in lower case, so the same people arguing in this thread that "unarmed combat" and "Unarmed Combat" are completely different things, and that "unarmed" is to be taken ambiguously, should be in full agreement that this use of "weapon" is equally ambiguous and thus calling a ring or a glove a "weapon" -- which they do in the case of Hardliner Gloves -- is perfectly acceptable. (But something tells me they won't.)

Garvel, you seriously underestimate people. The hardliner-focus-adept will certainly be claiming Personalized Grip (it's a weapon, it's a weapon mod), and toxins.

Except Personalized Grip specifically states "melee weapons that include a handle or grip" with "grip" being used contextually to mean something you hang on to while using the weapon (so don't bother trying that argument ). Toxins can be used with practically anything, weapon or otherwise.

I'm not trying it, but I guarantee that others do. You're gripping the glove, after all. Think of the context, man. There is literally no shame.

ofc i wont wear the glove, but gripping it at the end and slapping people!

SHOW me where it says that you can use ANYTHING for a weapon Focus... Give me a Quote.

Despite The fact that I think that Enchanting a Chainsaw is Stupid and ignorant, it remains a weapon, so in that regard, yes, it would be a bias on my part. And one that I would enforce. But there is NOTHING in any of the books that I have seen that says you can enchant ANYTHING into a Weapon Focus. By its very definition it must be a weapon to be a weapon focus.

FOCI in general can be crafted from anything, Weapon Foci (Specific) must be a weapon. Not a House Rule unless you can prove it is.

what about the Improvised Weapons table? sure, a sausage is not a weapon, but my pen or my chair can be...

Give the sausage to a throwing adept, however...

My nick's spelling was made intentionally. It avoids putting names into it. But thanks for pointing it out.

I am one of the worst typing mistake makers. Then again when they are pointed out I don't get angry, and I think my post lacks any nazi nitpicking about jumbled or mistakenly typed words. I tried to be clear about that, seems it failed utterly.
To be clear, there was no nazi-jerk undertone when explaining how some words are written. Simply wanted to point this out.

And the part about Drizzt is simply a joke...

False! There is not a single line anywhere in either SM or SR4A that says that a weapon focus must be a weapon. Only one that says it requires a complex action to use, just like any other melee weapon.

BUT HEY! You know what IS a melee weapon? A brick! You know what else? A laser welder! You know what else? A chair! You know what else? A potted plant! You know what else? A metahuman body! They all appear in tables of melee weapons, they even all have their own weapon stats (well, except for the brick...). They all qualify as weapons, and therefore as weapon foci. And you know what else qualifies as a weapon...

And a stupid one, so let them have it. Better off with a monowhip or something… like a gun.

The problem comes from the implication of lines like "the damage of the weapon is the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world." It also means that a single weapon focus can be used with any combat skill, since its the adept/magician being augmented by the focus rather than a specific weapon, which clearly isn't the intention of the rules. (I, personally, house rule it so that it works exactly like that, but trying to say that's what the rules intend is pretty much dead wrong.)

There's also the simple fact that every single weapon focus mentioned in the game is an actual weapon.

This is where a player has his GM take the closest thing from the improvised weapons table to <insert desired weapon here> and adjust the stats and negative modifiers as appropriate, as per RAW on pg 17 of Arsenal. And no, it can't be used with any combat skill, it can only be used with one, as per pg 17.

If you're allowing "anything" to be a weapon focus, that implies that you're allowing "anything" to be a weapon focus. From a melee weapon, to a weapon's hilt, to a silk glove, to a necklace, to an eyepatch, to... well, "anything." Which means you are, or at least were even if unintentionally, saying that the focus is augmenting the adept and their use of a weapon skill rather than a specific weapon.

And you will notice that I acknowleged a Monofilament Chainsaw as a Weapon, just not one that I would approve as a Weapon Focus. There is Ignorance, and then there is moronic ignorance (Not aimed at anyone, just a comment)

As for Any of the "Improvised" weapons on the aforementioned Table; Moronic and Ignorant. Improvised means at hand, not "I am going to spend thousands of Nuyen and possibly weeks, if not months, constructing a Weapon Focus Brick to make it a better weapon for splitting spirits' skulls." Are you really telling me that you would allow such a stupid idea to even take hold at your table?

I'm not Sephiroth, but I'd allow it in a heartbeat. I try not to screw my viking hat on too tight when I GM. It's "our table" not "my table." If they want something ludicrous and it's within the rules, they're welcome to go for it. They might lose some street cred or get laughed at by people they respect if it's something really silly, but I see no reason to flat out forbid something just because I'm not a fan of it.

Really, all it seems to take to make a focus of any kind is to have the requisite materials and make the rolls. I mean, functionally the difference between a Weapon Focus rolling pin and a weapon focus club is near zero - both are made of wood (usually) and are used to hit people in the head.

As to how foci work, and Ol Scratch's comment about a weapon focus enhancing the adept and not the weapon, and not the weapon skill... yes, exactly. That is *precisely* what a Weapon Focus does. It enhances the person bonded to it, not the actual weapon itself. Witness that a focus does no extra damage, has no extra AP, and has no special effects other than "extra dice" for the person bonded to it. And if someone not bonded to it picks it up? It's every bit as good or crappy as a mundane equivalent to it. Further evidence of this: if I make a weapon focus bayonet, right, and I stab you with it, I'm rolling AGI+Blades+Weapon Focus Force, because it's a knife. If I attach it to a pole, or a rifle, I'll be rolling polearms, because it doesn't magically shut off once I snap it on. It doesn't enhance my skills seperately. It doesn't even enhance itself. It just makes me, the whole unit of me, better at stabbing.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's what all foci do, definitionally: improve the owner's ability to perform certain tasks, but not the owners *skill* at those tasks.

Erm, no.

Weapon Foci definitely improves the weapon, allowing its wielder to use it more effectively in combat. The bonding simply "awakens" the magic within the weapon. Using your logic, one could bond to a weapon focus, keep it sheathed, and just use another weapon in its stead... which most definitely isn't the intent anymore than allowing someone to use an amulet as one.

I think you're thinking about this wrong. It's a matter of opinion on the metaphysics, and I believe there is more evidence to support my view than yours. Here's why:

A weapon focus, as I have pointed out, is no more damaging, armor penatrating, or special than a mundane weapon of the same base material. You gain nothing but bonus dice on attack rolls made with that weapon. Ergo, the weapon itself cannot be considered special save as for how it interacts with the owner's attack rolls. You're trying to put words in my mouth about "by my logic". That is not my logic at all. The rules are explicit: any attack or defense roll made using the weapon focus are increased by a number of dice equal to the weapon focus's rating. So you obviously, patently, can't use a different weapon and gain the bonus dice from the focus. However, consider this: no other focus requires you to 'use' it, because they can take the form of whatever the hell you want. A ring. A feather wrapped with wire. A wand. A cube of metal. Hell, a rabbit's foot. The shape and form of the object doesn't matter, because the magic isn't enhancing the ITEM'S ability to do whatever. No item adds dice to drain tests like a Drain Focus. No item adds magic like a Power Focus. Ergo, foci add power to their wielder, within their symbolic purview: the foot grants power, the ring grants clarity, the sword grants skill. But the items themselves are special only insofar as their ability to boost their owner's power. Not in and of themselves.

Exactly.


Tymeaus, you seem to need reminding of the Zeroth Rule Above All Rules, One Rule to Rule Them All and In the Darkness Bind Them:

Thou shalt have fun.

Words like 'moronic' and 'ignorant,' with all their prejudiced and arrogant connotations, are not befitting for someone in a role that requires as much objectivity as GMing.

A weapon focus brick is an extreme case, and there are many and much better options available, but if a player truly wishes to have a character proficient in the wielding of an enchanted brick than I have no reason as a GM to veto the idea.

The FAQ says anything can be any focus, there is no restriction.

RAW says that anything can be a focus. As long as they don't forbid explicitly non-weapon-stuff to be weapon foci, it isn't forbidden. I don't have to give you a quote were they say that anything can be a weaponfocus.

If you conclude that a weapon-focus has to be a weapon, because it has "weapon" in it's name, you probably conclude that a spirit-focus has to be a spirit too. Ok, probably you wont do that. Because a name is just a name and hasn't any RAW meaning.


They don't differentiate foki and weapon-foki. A weaponfokus is a Fokus in general too. Its only special characteristics are, that it gives bonus dice to close combat attacks and it ignores immunity to normal weapons of targets it hits. Note that you can turn a sword into a powerfocus and it still won't ignore immunity to normal weapons.

And it has a good reason that they don't demand that a weaponfocus has to be a weapon. Because almost anything can be a weapon, and it's impossible to draw a sharp line some were. If they did, no one knew what counts as a weapon by raw and what not.
Arsenal page 17



I know this is total nitpicky RAW and I hate that, but I think it's a legal response if other people try to forbid CS+HLG with arguments like "unarmed combat" isn't "Unarmed Combat" since it hasn't capital letters. (Yes the authors use "unarmed combat" insteat of "Unarmed Combat" to show us what they mean. That's how they work. Of course.)

Both seem like possible fluff explanations.


I bolded the parts that support Adarael'S position, underlined Scratch's. To me, it appears as Adarael's supporting statements are more clear about the intent of the power of the foci being given to the character.

On a personal note I prefer Adarael's view, but I can see where Scratch is coming from.


As far as I can tell from RAW, that looks to be a valid interpretation. At least with it's use on the physical plane. The RAW says that it enhances the dice pool of the character's melee attacks when used, not the melee attacks made with that weapon focus. "When used" can easily be interpreted as "when used as a weapon" or as "when activated as a foci", making no distinction. Course, we all know what the RAI is but there is a valid RAW interpretation that allows weapon foci to enhance physical attacks when it is just active. Can't be done on astral targets, the underlined line takes care of that, sorta. Silliness.

You didn't emphasize the most important line in the rules: "The damage of the weapon is the same on the astral plane as it is in the physical world." Considering you can't take a mundane sword with you when you project, or that it doesn't do jack squat to astral forms while dual-natured, that line doesn't make a lot of sense with your interpretations.

In what way? I never said it was a mundane weapon, or behaved like one.

The weapon has an astral form. That form is naturally as strong as it's physcal counterpart. This fact is not mutually exclusive with your interpretation.

Please explain how the weapon having an astral form means that the dice added are only a reflection of the weapon's effectiveness and cannot possibly be a reflection of an increase in effectiveness of the character using it.

I think we're talking at cross points here. What I was saying in the things you quoted from me is that the weapon itself must be the focus, courtesy of the very last line of the description for Weapon Foci. Namely because there's no way for mundane weapons to work as described unless they, themselves, are the focus and thus have an astral form. So no, you won't benefit from a sheathed Katana Weapon Focus when wielding another weapon. The bond between a Weapon Focus and its wielder is where the bonuses comes from as they work in synergy with each other. Without one, the other is just a regular schlub. This is a unique trait of Weapon Foci.

If one piece of the rule doesn't work, none of it does. You can't pick and choose what to use and what to ignore if you're going to cite the rules in question.

Yes, I fully accept that as RAI. As it should be.

RAW however, there's wiggle room. The weapon having the same damage as it's physical counterpart doesn't mean anything in terms of rules beyond that the weapon has the same damage code in the astral as it does in the meat. Anything else is extrapolation made from out of nowhere. While RAI is clear in the intent that you strike with the weapon, RAW offers no such requirement.

The rule in question basically means that if I strike with the weapon focus it will use it's damage code in the astral plane. It doesn't change anything else, so no other weapon magically granted a form or anything like that. But for adding the extra dice, all that is required is that it is "in use". Again, valid interpretations are "using the weapon focus as a weapon" or "the weapon foci is activated". So, by the second interpretation you COULD use a mundane sword on the physical with the benifit of the weapon foci's dice, it adds to melee attacks without distinction (though it SHOULD say "made with the weapon foci", by RAI).

Couldn't do that for astral, the mundane sword isn't there, obviously. You could punch while perceiving (I suppose a phys-adept might want to do this) or using Astral Combat if you're projecting (though I don't see why you wouldn't want the benefit of the weapon's damage code in this case), again the rules for weapon foci fail to require the foci be the weapon making the attack, only it's "use" in combat. Which is open to interpretation.

Don't get me wrong, I think that interpretation is foolish and won't be using it. I'm just saying it's a valid way to view the rule.

Thanks to everyone who posted, after reading through all the rules and lookin at balance, I dont think HLG do stack but thinks like bone lacing and bone spikes would (because it part of you).