Does the adept power Combat Sense stack with the spell Combat Sense?

I searched, but couldn't find a ruling. Usually spells and adept powers stack, but I wanted to know if there was any text indicating that this is not the case since I could not find it.

Things in shadowrun stack unless they say otherwise.

Yea, but do they say otherwise? Is there a rule about same name powers/spells?

Neither of them say they don't stack, and ones a power and ones a spell, so they are different bonuses.

I personally think it's a developer oversight naming them both the same thing(as it's needlessly confusing), but they stack.

Thanks OOB.

That's only what powergamers want everyone to believe.

It is not as bad as Mystic Armor (Adept Power) and Mystic Armor (Critter Power). Those two don't even do the same thing.

Prove there is a rule saying otherwise.

And that's only what the roleplay drama queens want everyone to believe.

Them's the rules. I think they should take a cue from D&D and name bonuses for 5e and same named bonuses don't stack but for 4e unless specified they stack.

Both interpretations are valid and everything in between too.


Yes, I guess that would have been a good idea.
Like:
A sticks with everything.
B sticks not with itself.
C:does not stick with anything.



Well, doing it your way SnS would have an armorpenetration of (armor+X)/2 or even armor/2+X. X be the armorpenetration of the rifle you fire it with.

There is a lot of stuff, where it is more than questionable if everything sticks. Healing tests are another thing to consider.
If you go really RAW partial darkness and full darkness would scould tick too.

There is no real rule, but you may have a lot of arguments about this topic anyway...

that's what your GM and group is for ... to discuss this type of thing and make a houserule on it.

This much is definitely not possible, even for the RAWest of interpretations as the two states cannot co-exist. The darkness is either full or partial, but not both.

@Aerospider
Depends on the definition...

I'm intrigued. Please provide a definition that calls for both modifiers.

Partial credit if you can describe a situation in which any single and specific element is in both a full and a partial state simultaneously.

See, I read that as being subject to one or the other, but not both... *shrug*

Exactly the point I'm arguing. Stacking those two modifiers is akin to imposing the long range shooting penalty and the extreme range shooting penalty at the same time. You can't be at more than one range at once and you can't be in two different levels of darkness at once. Don't expect RAW to ban things that are not possible by definition - the book can only be so big.

Partial darkness: less than light than X.
Total darkness no light.
If you have no light it is also darker than X.

Is this definiation somewhat strange? Yes, no question about it. There are a lot of things where it is questionable if they do or should stack. (And there is nothing said about it)


Lets go to my favorite example, shall we:
Healing wounds:
During combat in a swamp in the middle of a severe storm.
No do I get: -4 or -10.
Both can be argued for.

Funny how people don't ask if negative, 'unfun' things stack against them.

Nope the rules say otherwise:

Wrong as well. There is no modifier for partial darkness. It is a modifier for partial light (SR4A p. 152). The conditions Partial Light and Full Darkness cannot exist at the same time.

On a related note Target Hidden and Full Darkness do stack of course.

@Healing Modifiers: Yes RAW is -10, but the problem here is that the conditions are weighed (good to terrible) which are mutually exclusive and give examples which can of course stack (combat, in a swamp, that is burning)

@Dakka Dakka

Depends on how you define it. Sorry for not looking up the correct wording.
I would not go into the "but the wording says" kind of argument. There are a lot of those in the book.


Not really. A fight in a swamp is thougher than a fight in a steril invironement.
And sorry, actually there is nothing telling so.
So if you go with stacks unless something else is said, it stacks.

@Yerameyahu
Like nobody is interested in the restriction in the spell description....

Now this is very high pedantry and not something I take heed of, but technically damage value and armour penetration are distinct elements. I already checked and RAW really doesn't state explicitly that the AP of S'n'S ammo replaces that of the weapon. Or the type of armour used for that matter.

@Yerameyahu
Just a note: Because there is a lot of those. If you really go with RAW at a rule lawyer, he will probably cry, because his char won't even get out of bed without hurting himself.
There is a lot of stuff, which is just ignored because it "can not be that way".

Funny how they always find the stackings that *help* them, though. No matter how many of those there are. And they never ignore *them*, no matter how obviously things 'can not be that way'. I'm just saying. TANSTAAFL.

It is pretty obvious that the rules quoted earlier for SNS actually replaces the normal damage/effects from the weapon with the SNS Effects. Not sure how you could read it any other way.

You must be thinking of a different thread because the only quote here mentions only damage value. Other than that, in RAW I can't find any text that says to treat the stats for SnS any differently to other ammo, which is cumulative with the weapon's AP. I don't play it that way, but we were talking rules-lawyerage. If you have a quote that is explicit please do provide.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Simple: By just reading the rules and not start with an interpretation up front...

@Yerameyahu
Because most do not have a problem with their character beeing too good. But most have a problem with everyone beeing really bad.

Maybe... But I read the rules for SNS as replacing the complete Damage value, whcih includes the AP of the Round...

The problem is that Damage Value does not actually include Armor Penetration.

Irrelevant...
The SNS round has both, and it replaces the original standard rounds used, rather than adding/subtracting. Therefore, SNS replaces both...

That's the only sensible way to do it, but what I/we am/are saying is it's not strictly RAW. Weapons have their own AP and it is made clear that the AP figure of the ammunition stacks with it, but it does not make clear that SnS is an exception to this. The damage value gets replaced, but again I ask, where does it say the same for the AP?

So, we have two options. Either you've discovered yet another Broken Rule, or you're confused and everything works as normal. Everyone has said they'd never play by the Broken version anyway, so… doesn't really matter, right?

Right...

Yep.

Isn't it great when we all just get along sometimes?

Lmao

You kidding? That's RAW, totally what we're going to play them as in my games from now on.




Unfortunately in my games SnS has already been banned, so making them more broken helps me not at all.

Which is RAW, though? Replacement is RAW, but can be interpreted 2 ways, one of which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (or is at least less intuitive).

Jesus christ:
If you say the rule is that modifiers always stack unless noted otherwise the amorpenetration of stick and shock is half + armor penetration of weapon, since everything stacks unless noted otherwise.
So thats the reason I brought it up.
Yes, nobody would rule that way, right.
So the general statement about stacking is bullshit too.
It should stack if it is reasonable to assume it does. There are no rules about stacking or not stacking in the book.

Heh... Just so we are clear....