Please do try and keep it civil folks.


If you could actually produce a quote (any quote whatsoever) from any adept power whatsoever, specifically requiring, or even referencing, the use of Unarmed Combat skill, this would lend you some more credence. As it is though, you're simply wrong.
Across the board, they say they do doing stuff to "his unarmed combat attacks" or something equivalent, tying the use of the abilities to the adept's self.
And once again: Unarmed Combat != unarmed combat. If a drone punches something, it's not unarmed combat.

In this case, you're using a manifestation of psychokinetic force to attack someone. This effect describes it's used 'as if they were real hands'. The again, so are a drone's. In fact, the latter [u]are[/b] real hands.
This does nothing to reduce the fact that it's
A) not unarmed combat, as you're attacking with something outside of the body
B) it's not the adept striking anything
C) it's not the adept participating in unarmed combat, as he can be reclining in a deck chair 3 rooftops away
D) it's not his base DV being used

Now if anyone would want to rule otherwise, it's their choice. But until someone comes up with a way of meeting these conditions through the spell, the powers that require them simply don't work.
A is the only argument you have tried to refute, saying it is unarmed combat, through use of the Unarmed skill. Disregarding the simple fact that Unarmed skill being used does not make something unarmed combat, (which is an absolute statement so bears no exceptions. Alas, the drone rigger) you still haven't satisfied the other conditions.
Do you have anything to offer that does?

Does nimble fingers (adept power) stack with magic fingers?

I completely agree, I was just commenting on the absurdity of the logic being used, though I am pretty sure it was Tongue in Cheek...

And this is my Stance on the Discussion. Magic Fingers are seperate from the Body. Ergo, no Adept abilities used through them.

Debatable. Since it directly enhances Palming skill tests: yes. Since wether or not Magic Fingers actually require manual dexterity is highly debatable, so is getting the bonus. After all, possessing the Palming skill has no bearing on te ammount of Agility you have, just that you have a good grasp of how Palming works, and how you should be applying it.
The free actions? Yes.

That's my reading anyway.

That said, it's also something I have a lot less difficulty accepting fluffwise. It's a power that enhances an adept's ability, while this ability is used to control the spell. I don't see it as a break from how magic works. Just like Improved Ability would help you out.

OK as the OP I am trying to make sense of the views above.

The view that seemed the simplest is that:

• Critical strike helps unarmed attacks
• Magic fingers uses unarmed to strike
• Therefore it works

Some of the counterarguments seem very weak:

• Saying that if you think it should work on magic fingers, it should work on stunbolt, is really poor. Stunbolt doesn't use unarmed combat skill, Magic fingers does
• Saying that the fact that there are adept powers out there that do similar effects, and therefore you shouldn't allow it also weak. Compare gecko climb to walk walking, or levitate to gliding, or elemental aura to killingstrike + elemental strike + critical strike. In general spells tend to be much better on a bp basis, but you need to invest in being able to cast spells.
• Using fluff arguments "you summon a spirit instead of doing it yourself" is a way of justifying the answer you decide. My view on magic fingers is that I am creating a magical exoskeleton out there YMMV
• Arguments on "game balance" seem quite weak to me, as this is by no means an awesome spell. (I'd fix stunbolt first).
• "Its not unarmed combat as you are using something outside the body" is weak as shock cuffs work, knuckle dusters work, distance strike works, cyber implants work. Its unarmed if you use the unarmed skill
• "Its not his base DV being used". I'm not even sure why that is listed
• "It's not the adept participating in unarmed combat, as he can be reclining in a deck chair 3 rooftops away". He may be reclining, but he is still working hard: sustaining the spell, striking with a -2 penalty. The reclining might be to free his mind so that he can do this better. I can use unarmed combat while reclining in a deck chair anyway.

Some seem a lot less weak, but still not convincing

• Its not the adept striking something. Yes it is...his magical energy is striking the opponent. When he attacks with his fists its his magical energy striking too. It's his skill he rolled, and his managic enery that attacked

So when GMing I think I would allow it. When playing I'll ask the GM. Remember this only works for a mystic adept how is specializing in unarmed combat, who would probably be better off casting a stunbolt.

Well, lets post the rules:

So nowhere is a role mentioned. You do not even have the skill "unarmed" to use this power. It strictly applys to unarmed attacks. The question to be answered is simple: Do spells qualify as unarmed.
But as a matter of fact the rule text of critical strike does give us the answer.

You, not your spell, your drone or something.
@Seth

So hitting somebody with a spell is an unarmed attack or not? There is no in between. You have to make a call here.

What of the last sentence where you must declare the use of it with the Unarmed Combat attack? Note capital letters denominating the skill.

@Halinn
What is about it. It just stats when to declare it.

I think its quite easy. "Do you use the skill unarmed combat to make the attack." With stunbolt I use spellcasting to make the attack. With magic fingers I use unarmed combat. Its not about "in between", the question is which skill do you use.

Am I right? I don't know. The rules aren't clear (and they cannot be clear on everything otherwise they would be 10 times as big, and too difficult to read). So go with what feels right. A mystic adept who specialises in unarmed combat using magic fingers "feels" about as right as an adept using distance strike. YMMV

Another very similar example is using elemental aura. You cast the spell first (like magic fingers) then use unarmed combat to attack (like magic fingers). Is this an unarmed attack? I would say yes. Like magic fingers you are not attacking with the spell (thats the purview of combat spells) you are using magic to add something to the attack. Elemental damage in the case of the aura, and range in the case of the magic fingers. So in my world view these are the same, I suspect that in yours they are different. Again I think its just something that the GM should decide on, and I would be happy either way.

And if I declare using it when making an Unarmed Combat attack with Magic Fingers? What part of the description says that it won't work in that case?

@Seth
So if I am using elemental aura (4 hits, electrical) and magic fingers (6 hits), I am able to strike somebody in LOS for 6/2+4=7 damage?

If this is true I give you, that you stay consistent.

Honestly it's discussions like this that pretty much convince me Shadowrun needs a top down rewrite, starting with the magic system. To many authors, not enough editing, not enough clear definition of how magic works in the setting and what it can and cannot do etc etc. It's just gotten unmanageable.

Actually no. A simple reading of the elemental aura spell shows that its an aura around you. A reading of critical strike implies that through some magical means your unarmed attacks do more damage.

Please note that I am not passionate about this. I asked the question because I couldn't decide. A load of arguments were put forwards. I came away with the impression that its not well decided and most of the arguments against it were very weak. So if I am GM I will go ahead, and in any game that I was to use it (which won't be often) I will ask the GM.

@Seth

So you rule this way here and the other way around somewhere else.

I mean if you would really be looking at the arguments you would have realized, that even you found only one pro (which you streched to three points) and seven against it.

The one argument in favor of it you do not consider in any other case to be even remotly of any value.
Furthermore you use the same arguments (described here as weak) to arguee against the possibility of combination in a second case. (to be more precice fluff spell description)


@LurkerOutThere
No, it actually does not.
Rules do not give you an electroshock if you read them wrong. They can not defend themselves. So if you want to missread them, you are more than able to.

Here you have one argument going against seven or more. And this argument boils down to "they use the word unarmed combat in the adept power and in the spell description". So please tell me, how you would like the rules to be written?
One spell on ten pages, to be sure you did not miss to declare every unthinkable combination illegal?

Well, then the first book would introduce the playable race human and the rules to walk down a street.
Sorry, but at some point it is not the mistake of the people who write the rules, but the one of the people who read them.

The information about elemental aura is not fluff: its pretty precise in its description of how that spell works. In my reading I cannot see how it would work with magic fingers.

Critical strike is also described quite well, and in its reading I can see how it works.

However YMMV

As a matter of fact, I was mistaken. Elemental aura is even more likly to effect magical fingers rulewise, since it increases any melee attack.
RAW this could really be argued.

The character's damage value is not affecting the damage the magical fingers may deal, so there is no way at all.

The fact that two people read the same stuff and come to different conclusions is not unusual. Thats what has happened here.

I have no great desire to continue arguing. The summary I concluded with above states my position, and I am afraid that the arguments you are using here are not persuading me: they were presented before, and just repeating them doesn't increase their validity. Exploring consequences such as the elemental aura was interesting, but again we have come out with separate opinions from the same events. Retreating to philosophy, we are falling into the trap that Karl Popper called "confirmatory reasoning": given any event it supports the view that we currently hold. Arguing about any subject is the best way to get people to believe in their viewpoint more: its very rare that people will change based on verbal debates. In the real world we could resolve this easily: we could do an experiment designed to exaggerate the differences. Sadly in shadowrun we cannot do an experiment. Thus I posted the question on dumpshock to get more minds to work on the problem.

The conclusion I have come up with is that it is such a corner case that there is no RAW each GM should decide based on the flavor they want in the game / their own styles. As a GM I would allow this. You would not. Thats what happens in fantasy games: different people have different interpretations. I think that both of us would disallow the elemental aura + magic fingers (at least I hope you would).

@Seth...

Here is the main DIfference between Critical Strike and Magic Fingers.

Critical Strike Increases the CHARACTER's Damage Value...
Magic Fingers has its OWN Damage Value, based upon its Strength, based upon the spells effect.

The Character's Damage value is NEVER applied to the Magic Fingers effect.

How much more clear does it really need to be. I too, do not agree with LurkerOutThere. The rules are fairly well written, and it is only the Edge Cases that are slightly wonky, or cause problems. Problem is, you will ALWAYS have edge cases if you look for them. The mechanics of Critical Strike are very, very clear. To augment the PERSON. Magic Fingers is not the Person.

Anyways...

That was the brunt of what I was saying as well. Magic Fingers is like a spirit or a drone. It is in no way an extension of the caster's body. It has its own stats, and even its own unique aura (which obviously bears the caster's signature). It's simply a "dumb" spirit or drone that needs the caster to control it completely. The caster can't say "pick up that coin" to it; it has no intelligence of its own. Instead, he has to concentrate and make it pick it up, and the rules use his own skills as the basis for determining success in doing so.

Allowing something like this is exactly like allowing an adept to use his powers through a summoned, non-possession spirit. Heck, even a possession spirit can't benefit from those powers without Channeling, and even then only if the adept is using his own skills during the channeling.

speaking of drones...

adept with critical strike is jumped into an anthroform drone, drone is in unarmed combat. allowed?

only relevant text I could find was about cyborgs, which says, "Cyborgs using anthroform bodies may use the relevant weapon skill for any weapon they wield instead of Gunnery." To me, this says Unarmed Combat is ok, and thus critical strike would work.

@LurkerOutThere
No, it actually does not.
Rules do not give you an electroshock if you read them wrong. They can not defend themselves. So if you want to missread them, you are more than able to.

Here you have one argument going against seven or more. And this argument boils down to "they use the word unarmed combat in the adept power and in the spell description". So please tell me, how you would like the rules to be written?
One spell on ten pages, to be sure you did not miss to declare every unthinkable combination illegal?

Well, then the first book would introduce the playable race human and the rules to walk down a street.
Sorry, but at some point it is not the mistake of the people who write the rules, but the one of the people who read them.
[/quote]


Your using a spurius argument but I used a brief one. This discussion is hardly the first, and likely not the last on the steaming pile of crap that is SR's magic system. How elese do we have 3-4 spells related to mind control many of which are flat out better that accomplish the same task in the very same book, very same chapter. How else do we have spells that somehow co-opt enemy electronic targeting systems, magical hacking anyone. Or spells that violate basic principles of line of sight which is supposed to be one of the few hard and fast rules of "how magic works."

A system can be solid and well written and have and not have some of the glaring issues that SR does. I don't have a perfect fix, I would hope when they sit down to right the next edition, which i hope the game gets. They sit down from jump and ask themselves how does magic work in the setting, what are the baselines. If the proper examination of the metasystem is set up from jump then you could begin to fix the rules issues that seem to have cropped up.

I do not know all of this discussion. But not all of them are the fault of the rules.
I remember me arguing for beeing able to Shapchange in a Human/Elf/Troll etc.
Baseless. Obviously not RAW nor RAI. I had no real argument and the discussion raged on and on.
As I read the new FAQ I found myself stroke down. A baseless claim was hold up by a half offical source. This was the day, when the FAQ died for me.

To the discussion about mind control, half the arguments, that influence is so strong are based on just ignoring the god damn rules as written.

And yes there are some spells, ignoring the basis. This always happens if someone want to make some very special spell.


You are mistaken here. The magic attribute is replaced and so all the powers are gone.

Hmm?

When being possessed that's true (the spirit has no access to the host's abilities aside from raw physical stats which it amplifies), but when using Channeling the host is free to use his own abilities. He just uses the gestalted entity's current attributes in place of their own as appropriate. The only real limitation is that the host cannot directly access the spirit's powers and abilities, and the spirit cannot directly access the host's. Whereas when simply being possessed, the host is completely repressed.

If it worked the way I think you're implying, Channeling would be next to useless. Mainly because the gestat would be using the spirit's Mental Attributes, meaning it wouldn't be using the host's (so he'd have Logic 0, Intuition 0, etc.; basically, a vegetable). And I'm pretty sure that's not the case, either specifically or implied.

I'd like to see you quote page references to back up your claims at any point in time.

I've made my points. Go back and re-read the part where I extensively quote the rules. You gentlemen have decided to take a RAI interpretation of the fluff over a pure-crunchy-goodness RAW section, quoted from the book, to claim a house rule is the RAW. There is nothing wrong with house ruling things... except for when you incorrectly state that a house rule is in fact the RAW.

When your entire interpretation of a rule hinges on your interpretation that using Unarmed Combat skill makes an attack an unarmed combat attack, then your interpretation of RAW is debatable, if not plain wrong.
If you then proceed to claim that since an entity or force is directly controlled by a character, the attacks it makes should for all intents and purposes (except indicated otherwise) treated as if the character makes them himself, this just stacks the table against your argument.

The RAI part of the argument: that the argument you use should lead to the conclusion that an adept rigging an anthroform drone should share the same benefit is only secondary, and unneeded to support the main two issues.

Well at the start of this thread there were a lot of arguments in favour of, and against.

Now there are just arguments against. As it happens I still find the arguments against weak, but I find the for arguments weak as well. As I said shadowrun is a game, so I cannot run an experiment and work out what actually happens, instead I have to guess. So unless some "for" people shout out, I'll go with the against

You can't run an experiment to see how magic fingers works, but you can easily run repeated trials to see how the ruling works in play.

Nah. I, personally, have this really nasty habit of reading everything as a whole, then use this thing called a "brain" to interpret that data to come to a conclusion. You, on the other hand, are sticking your head in the sand and blatantly ignoring entire swathes of text to come to your conclusion.

There's a reason GMs are living, breathing people. There's a reason this isn't a video game. There's a reason all that text exists.

Saying you don't like it and house rule it is one thing. Trying to claim that it's what the rules are actually trying to say is another.

@Neraph
Take this thread for a start.

You hole argument was the word unarmed combat refering to the skill in one occasion and as a general term in the other (well and the third time mentioned it was an attack).

As Tymeaus Jalynsfein pointed out it is RAW to what the +1 DV is added. And this damage code does in no way influence magic fingers. It is more than obvious.

Well but to point it out:
Does magic fingers use your strength?
No, it does not.
Does magic fingers use your Damage Value in unarmed combat?
No, it does not.
It has its own strength and its Damage Value is calculated on this.
So RAW is CLEAR in this instance. It just takes a read of the rules.


An other thing would be your inhabitation spirit in the sword would take damage from hitting stuff.
So well, I was mistaken. You do not make shit up, you just ignore everything contradicting your interpretation and then take the point: Everything what is not forbidden is allowed.

@Halinn

Nothing. Because you can't declare it in the first place.

@Ol' Scratch

I do not get this. Spirits have mental attributes. They just do not have magic for adept powers. (But yes, this rule is stupid in the first place.)

Channeling (a specific metamagic technique with its own set of rules) is not the same thing as Possession.

When being Possessed, the host is completely subdued. He cannot use any of his abilities and, at best, is a silent witness to whatever the spirit is doing. If the host is also the summoner, he can issue commands to the spirit but that's the extent of it.

When Channeling, the host is not subdued at all. He's simple a part of a gestalt entity; a blending of both host and spirit. The host can perform actions, or the spirit can perfom actions. The only difference between Channeling and being completely unpossessed is that the host uses the gestalt being's Attributes in place of his own on any tests he makes, including those using Magic (which could be higher or lower than his own depending on the Force of the spirit he's Channeling). He in no way loses any of his abilities while Channeling. That would completely negate the entire point of Channeling.

@Ol' Scratch
Well, as a matter of RAW the (mental) attributes are still replaced as is the magic attribute.

My point is, that the adept powers are tied to the magic attribute. If your magic attribute is gone, so are the powers.
I think it becomes obvious if we look at a mystik adapt.
Before possession he has a magic of 3/3 (magician/adept). Now he is possessed by a Force 6 spirit.
What is his magic now? 6/6? 6/3? 6/0?0/6?
On what basis do you calculate the ItNW?
As a matter of fact, magicians do not have any problem, since casting just needs any magic attribute (not accounted to adept powers).

During possession he rolls (spirt's Force) whenever he rolls a test using Magic, because that's the Magic attribute the gestalt being has while Channeling. His actual Magic doesn't change one bit, nor does he gain or lose any powers; it's just "overruled" by the spirit's Force during the Channeling. The same is true of his other Special and Mental Attributes. He doesn't lose his Charisma, Logic, Edge, etc. simply because he's Channeling; he just uses the spirit's in place of his own when making tests instead. With the specific exception that any Resistance Tests made using Mental Attributes uses the weaker of the two beings.

If he's a social adept and wants to use, say, Enthralling Performance, he uses the gestalt Magic attribute (ie, the spirit's Force) when making his Skill + Magic Test. Just like he'd use his gestalt Agility (Host+Force) when shooting someone with his Pistols skill, or his gestalt Charisma (Force) when using his Con skill to smooth talk his way past a guard. If he gets shot, he has the benefit of the gestalt's Immunity to Normal Weapons (Force). If he wants to dodge, he uses either his skills with the gestalt attributes, or allows the spirit to use its skills with the gestalt attributes. etc.

@Ol' Scratch
So what is about overcasting?

@Ol' Scratch
So what is about overcasting?

What about it?

If I am a Mytic adept with 4/2 (adept, magician) and a Force 6 Spirit is possessing me.
What do I roll (spells/adept powers) and what are my limits when casting? What force is taken to calculate the power of my adept qualities. What Magic is taken for rolling spirit powers.

Personnally I would rule that anything that comes from you own abilities (spellcasting, adept power) use your personnal magic score, and whatever ability/power comes from the spirit use the spirit's Force.

Once again: While Channeling (<-- Channeling, not Possessing), you use the gestalt attributes. In this case, you use the spirit's Force because while Channeling, that's your Magic attribute. If the host is the one casting the spell, then he uses his skills and spell list. Everything else is handled as per the standard rules, including the results of Drain. In the case of Drain, which is a resistant test, he uses the lowest of the possible Mentral Attributes courtesy of the exception listed in the Channeling rules. So if he's a hougan and has Charisma 3 and Willpower 6, but is Channeling a Force 5 spirit, he would roll 8 dice (Charisma 3 + Willpower 5) for that test.

In your specific example, you would be rolling 6 dice on any Magic Tests you made, whether as the host or the spirit. Neither your adept powers nor the spirit's powers change in the slightest, save for their degree of success due to any changes in the dice pool caused by the Attribute changes. This is exactly the same as if you both had Unarmed Combat. Whichever one of you (host or spirit) that was initiating the action would use their Unarmed Combat skill plus their gestalt Agility score (Host+Force) to determine their dice pool. There's no difference between the two concepts.

That's why I wrote "personnally", as in "House Rule".

If you want to nitpick the deciption of Channeling says that you can use your own skills and have fine motor control over your body, but does not explicitely state that the host can use DNI (the possessing spirit cannot) or even activate non-permanent Adept powers...

@Dahrken
Sounds the most resonable.

@Ol' Scratch

Nope only on spell resistant test. As far as I understand the rules he would role 10 dices.

Is it limited to Spell Resistance Tests? I haven't read it in a while so misremembering isn't that big of a shocker.

I believe that it is for any Mental Test actually... But I could be wrong...

It's mana spell/powers resistance tests only : page 55 "Additionally, the vessel resists any mana spells or power with the lowest Mental attribute of the two minds (whichever is lower, the spirit's or the magician's)."

Well, there you go... Thanks