Unarmed Combat is abstracted for the ease of the player: an skill test usually consists of multiple strikes and parries, with the result being a representation of how many hits landed, etc.
I want to run a character who uses two cyberarms that have been enchanted as Weapon foci. The first hurdle is that "only one focus can add to a dice pool on any given test."* What if I wanted to treat them as Dual-Wielded weapons and split my dice pool? That should let each arm get its respecitve bonus. However, the FAQ (yes, I know it can be contradictory) says that foci are not dice pool modifiers, and therefore are not added after the split. I could see that as being useful for, say, casting multiple spells, but it feels a little wonky for dual-wielding Weapon foci.
*As a side note, does that mean that I can only apply either my Power or my Spellcasting focus on a spellcasting test? That seems silly. I would assume that their intention was to prevent the use of multiple Power foci or multiple Spellcasting foci.
So let's say I houserule that enchanted weapons add their respective bonuses to a test after the split. For example, a character with Blades 3, Agility 3, and a Force 2 dagger Weapon focus and a Force 1 sword Weapon focus, gets 5 dice for his dagger's skill test and 4 for his sword's skill test, if he splits the pool evenly. But let's not forget that -2 penalty for the off-hand. Ambidextrous quality - boom.
Does this sound legitimate?
inb4 melee sucks
Full Version: Unarmed Combat, Multiple Weapon Foci, and Ambidexterity
QUOTE (PresentPresence @ Sep 26 2011, 04:16 PM) 
Unarmed Combat is abstracted for the ease of the player: an skill test usually consists of multiple strikes and parries, with the result being a representation of how many hits landed, etc.
I want to run a character who uses two cyberarms that have been enchanted as Weapon foci. The first hurdle is that "only one focus can add to a dice pool on any given test."* What if I wanted to treat them as Dual-Wielded weapons and split my dice pool? That should let each arm get its respecitve bonus. However, the FAQ (yes, I know it can be contradictory) says that foci are not dice pool modifiers, and therefore are not added after the split. I could see that as being useful for, say, casting multiple spells, but it feels a little wonky for dual-wielding Weapon foci.
*As a side note, does that mean that I can only apply either my Power or my Spellcasting focus on a spellcasting test? That seems silly. I would assume that their intention was to prevent the use of multiple Power foci or multiple Spellcasting foci.
So let's say I houserule that enchanted weapons add their respective bonuses to a test after the split. For example, a character with Blades 3, Agility 3, and a Force 2 dagger Weapon focus and a Force 1 sword Weapon focus, gets 5 dice for his dagger's skill test and 4 for his sword's skill test, if he splits the pool evenly. But let's not forget that -2 penalty for the off-hand. Ambidextrous quality - boom.
Does this sound legitimate?
I want to run a character who uses two cyberarms that have been enchanted as Weapon foci. The first hurdle is that "only one focus can add to a dice pool on any given test."* What if I wanted to treat them as Dual-Wielded weapons and split my dice pool? That should let each arm get its respecitve bonus. However, the FAQ (yes, I know it can be contradictory) says that foci are not dice pool modifiers, and therefore are not added after the split. I could see that as being useful for, say, casting multiple spells, but it feels a little wonky for dual-wielding Weapon foci.
*As a side note, does that mean that I can only apply either my Power or my Spellcasting focus on a spellcasting test? That seems silly. I would assume that their intention was to prevent the use of multiple Power foci or multiple Spellcasting foci.
So let's say I houserule that enchanted weapons add their respective bonuses to a test after the split. For example, a character with Blades 3, Agility 3, and a Force 2 dagger Weapon focus and a Force 1 sword Weapon focus, gets 5 dice for his dagger's skill test and 4 for his sword's skill test, if he splits the pool evenly. But let's not forget that -2 penalty for the off-hand. Ambidextrous quality - boom.
Does this sound legitimate?
no, i would say you take the focus with the highest force add it to the Blades +Agility, and then split the pool. Mainly because if you have a normal weapon that happens to be str/2+3 and another weapon that is str/2 +1 you always use the highest DV, even if both rolls hit.
Actually, the first hurdle is a GM who will say "Yes" to the idea of using cyberarms as weapons foci.
QUOTE (EpicSpire @ Sep 26 2011, 05:24 PM)
no, i would say you take the focus with the highest force add it to the Blades +Agility, and then split the pool. Mainly because if you have a normal weapon that happens to be str/2+3 and another weapon that is str/2 +1 you always use the highest DV, even if both rolls hit.
Do you have a rules quote for this? That sounds pretty silly.
QUOTE (Kirk @ Sep 26 2011, 05:34 PM)
Actually, the first hurdle is a GM who will say "Yes" to the idea of using cyberarms as weapons foci.
Why not? Cyber implants can be enchanted before they are installed, and cyberarms have a damage code of STR/2P. What more does a GM need?
AFAIK, it's a house rule to allow weapon foci for 'Unarmed' under any circumstances, actually.
Yeah, I don't see anything in Arsenal about using the same DV for both attacks when wielding 2 weapons together. You make two totally separate attacks with a split dice pool.
Yeah, I don't see anything in Arsenal about using the same DV for both attacks when wielding 2 weapons together. You make two totally separate attacks with a split dice pool.
Man talk about expensive. Better hope no one ever sticks those arms in the old wood chipper.
QUOTE (PresentPresence @ Sep 26 2011, 06:14 PM)
Why not? Cyber implants can be enchanted before they are installed, and cyberarms have a damage code of STR/2P. What more does a GM need?
As your GM, I'd veto it under the principle that cyber is antithetical to magic. Cyber's installation destroys essence. Cyber leaves shadowy gaps in auras. Please, I invite you to show that cyber (specifically) can be enchanted and installed.
It's an FAQ quote, so take it with a grain of salt:
QUOTE
Can you enchant cyberware and bioware? What about nanotech or genetech?
You can enchant cyberware, but this must be done before it is implanted (after it’s implanted, it’s a part of you). Such a focus would be considered Mundane Telesma (pp. 83-84, Street Magic). Bioware is a living material and may not be enchanted.
Also from the FAQ:You can enchant cyberware, but this must be done before it is implanted (after it’s implanted, it’s a part of you). Such a focus would be considered Mundane Telesma (pp. 83-84, Street Magic). Bioware is a living material and may not be enchanted.
QUOTE
Can I have _____ as a focus? How much does it cost?
A focus can take any form: a ring, a dagger, a commlink, a cyberlimb, etc. For most foci, it is assumed the cost of the telesma (the physical basis of the focus) is incorporated in the cost of the focus. If the player wants the focus to be anything particularly large or expensive, however, then the cost of the item should be added to the cost of the focus.
Emphasis mine.
A focus can take any form: a ring, a dagger, a commlink, a cyberlimb, etc. For most foci, it is assumed the cost of the telesma (the physical basis of the focus) is incorporated in the cost of the focus. If the player wants the focus to be anything particularly large or expensive, however, then the cost of the item should be added to the cost of the focus.
I wouldn't outright deny cyber as a focus-however I wouldn't make it easy or convenient. I also, and my players i think would agree, would take an approach reminiscent of Earthdawn Artificers.
Grain of salt taken, and thank you.
Still twitchy enough I'd make it, well, difficult, but no longer impossible because of that. If you want I'll discuss what I'd do in that regard, but it's not your question and I'll not hijack the thread THAT badly (grin).
Still twitchy enough I'd make it, well, difficult, but no longer impossible because of that. If you want I'll discuss what I'd do in that regard, but it's not your question and I'll not hijack the thread THAT badly (grin).
To the original point: either you have one arm enchanted as one focus, or you have two arms enchanted as two foci. They are two separate objects.
Since you can only have one active focus at a time, the ability to dual attack is immaterial.
Since you can only have one active focus at a time, the ability to dual attack is immaterial.
QUOTE (Kirk @ Sep 26 2011, 07:35 PM)
To the original point: either you have one arm enchanted as one focus, or you have two arms enchanted as two foci. They are two separate objects.
Since you can only have one active focus at a time, the ability to dual attack is immaterial.
Since you can only have one active focus at a time, the ability to dual attack is immaterial.
You can have (Logic) foci active at one time, and the houserule changes how they affect dice pools.
Here's the character I created in karmagen, if anyone wants any context. It follows some special restrictions and is designed for a street-level campaign.
Donny "Double Decker" Douglas
Attributes
1) That's a good suggestion.
2) Another good suggestion.
3) Karmagen.
4) Good catch. You saved me 10 nuyen.
5) Whoops. AGI averages 4, STR 5.
I misstated what I meant, and for that I apologize.
I was thinking of the "one focus per dice pool" rule, SR4A 199. Your house rule will nullify that in circumstances where they are applied to separate sub-pools after a split.
So if I'm getting it right, the core question is: can you split unarmed combat if you've got two cyberarms? (or rather, can you do it without yet another house rule saying so). The purpose is to either attack two separate targets (or the same target twice) OR to get to use two separate foci.
The FAQ (when discussing using two shock gloves) would imply yes. Your house rule negates the 'one focus per dice pool' rule in this situation.
It increases the combat strength of the cyberlimbed character even more than 'just a focus', shifting the balance slightly. If the GM thinks that is either necessary or not a significant problem, then there is no problem. That is the nature of house rules.
I'm uncomfortable with it, but I'm not your GM.
What houserules with the karmagen? I missed that, assuming it was bp after seeing the cost for Orc. By default karmagen has metahuman costs for free.
Yeah like I said it was a incredibly nitpicky thing. But I saw it and had to say something
You're already bending the rules to call your cyberarms weapon foci, to get around the inability to enchant your unarmed strikes. If you're calling each cyberarm a melee weapon for purposes of being a weapon focus, I see no reason they wouldn't be treated as different weapons for two weapon style or offhand training.
Then why are you doing it?
Honestly, Unarmed adepts are just fine as-is (inasmuch as any adepts are just fine), thanks to Critical Strike. The fact your GM's already letting you double dip into Ways and Geasa at the same time means he's already doing you something of a favor. But you keep piling it on.
For a game that's supposed to be "street level," I think you're abusing things a bit at this point. Dumping Agility (but then making up for it with swanky arms), using Ways and Geasa (to make up for the campaign's Magic cap), using your arms not only as platforms to make up for your dumped Agility but also to create Unarmed weapon foci, dipping into Martial Arts for more damage, wanting to get the best possible interpretation of two-weapon fighting (for unarmed) to maximize all these various bonus dice you've scraped up, etc, etc... I might let some of that stuff fly in a standard game, but all of it in one where the GM's expressly asked for it to be "street level" and has custom rules in there to keep things (his idea of) reasonable... I dunno, man.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear a resounding no from the GM, regardless of what Dumpshock says.
You've got a strong theme to your character, and that sort of thing, which is cool. But I think you might be bending over the spirit of the campaign, with yet more optional/house rulings in your favor. You're already stretching things just stacking optional rules, and you're doing it over and over and over again. There've been pretty bloody threads around here about any weapon focus for Unarmed, any two-weapon stuff for Unarmed, and you're stacking, like, all of the controversy onto one character, in a "street level" game.
lol. FAQ's are supposed to clarify RAW, not confuse more.
To repeat, I made that post on the assumption that getting a weapon focus for each of his arms meant each of his arms was being counted as a weapon, and thus qualify. I don't think that was too much of a stretch, given the build is already currently in houserule territory. Your point was already brought up by the OP who said despite the houserule wouldn't do that, so it's irrelevant.
actually, shock gloves is "weaponed" unarmed combat.
Hardliner Gloves, on the other hand ARE Weaponized Unarmed Combat "Weapons." Weapons that could conceivably benefit from the CC Abilities of the Adept. But that dead horse has been beat multuple times over the years.
If the FAQ and errata got updated on a regular and timely basis, this would not be a problem.
However...
-k
On the other hand, the only game I'm aware of that does update errata frequently has a lot of complaints about how hard it is to keep up with the errata, and how awkward it is going from one group to another because of people giving up on following the errata after a certain point.
It really is a no win situation for a game company.
This is why I said "regular and timely".
Issuing errata too often can be bad as well, especially if you're doing it to just rebalance rules rather than correct mistakes.
Like, every 6 months is fine.
Updates would let them correct such problems, no?
-k
Donny "Double Decker" Douglas
Attributes
[ Spoiler ]
Qualities[ Spoiler ]
Magic[ Spoiler ]
Skills[ Spoiler ]
Resources[ Spoiler ]
Contacts[ Spoiler ]
1) Why not instead of taking Ambidexterous, taking Off-Hand Training martial arts maneuver? That does the same thing and saves you a little bp. You could even try to bump up your martial arts 1 further to get an extra +1 dv and 2 more potential maneuvers. (Two Weapon Style is a great one, letting you go full defense without spending an action any time you have an offhand weapon. You take the offhand penalty for doing so, but since you have off hand training, there is no penalty)
2) Why take dodge skill at all? You can use your unarmed combat in melee for blocking, which is better than your melee dodge even with the specialization. At range, you use athletics for gymnastic dodge, which is only 1 die less. Seems like a waste of BP unless I'm missing something.
3) You have the cost for your bound weapon foci as 6. Isn't bonding a focus at chargen only force in BP? So that should only be 2 BP, not 6.
4) Not that it really matters, but you have a Rating 3 earbud, with only 2 capacity used. It's a very minor detail, but feels wasteful.
5) How is it your limbs have the same str and agility, and agility starts lower, but agility averages higher? Shouldn't strength average out higher?
2) Why take dodge skill at all? You can use your unarmed combat in melee for blocking, which is better than your melee dodge even with the specialization. At range, you use athletics for gymnastic dodge, which is only 1 die less. Seems like a waste of BP unless I'm missing something.
3) You have the cost for your bound weapon foci as 6. Isn't bonding a focus at chargen only force in BP? So that should only be 2 BP, not 6.
4) Not that it really matters, but you have a Rating 3 earbud, with only 2 capacity used. It's a very minor detail, but feels wasteful.
5) How is it your limbs have the same str and agility, and agility starts lower, but agility averages higher? Shouldn't strength average out higher?
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 26 2011, 08:03 PM)
1) Why not instead of taking Ambidexterous, taking Off-Hand Training martial arts maneuver? That does the same thing and saves you a little bp. You could even try to bump up your martial arts 1 further to get an extra +1 dv and 2 more potential maneuvers. (Two Weapon Style is a great one, letting you go full defense without spending an action any time you have an offhand weapon. You take the offhand penalty for doing so, but since you have off hand training, there is no penalty)
2) Why take dodge skill at all? You can use your unarmed combat in melee for blocking, which is better than your melee dodge even with the specialization. At range, you use athletics for gymnastic dodge, which is only 1 die less. Seems like a waste of BP unless I'm missing something.
3) You have the cost for your bound weapon foci as 6. Isn't bonding a focus at chargen only force in BP? So that should only be 2 BP, not 6.
4) Not that it really matters, but you have a Rating 3 earbud, with only 2 capacity used. It's a very minor detail, but feels wasteful.
5) How is it your limbs have the same str and agility, and agility starts lower, but agility averages higher? Shouldn't strength average out higher?
2) Why take dodge skill at all? You can use your unarmed combat in melee for blocking, which is better than your melee dodge even with the specialization. At range, you use athletics for gymnastic dodge, which is only 1 die less. Seems like a waste of BP unless I'm missing something.
3) You have the cost for your bound weapon foci as 6. Isn't bonding a focus at chargen only force in BP? So that should only be 2 BP, not 6.
4) Not that it really matters, but you have a Rating 3 earbud, with only 2 capacity used. It's a very minor detail, but feels wasteful.
5) How is it your limbs have the same str and agility, and agility starts lower, but agility averages higher? Shouldn't strength average out higher?
1) That's a good suggestion.
2) Another good suggestion.
3) Karmagen.
4) Good catch. You saved me 10 nuyen.
5) Whoops. AGI averages 4, STR 5.
QUOTE (PresentPresence @ Sep 26 2011, 08:41 PM)
You can have (Logic) foci active at one time, and the houserule changes how they affect dice pools.
I misstated what I meant, and for that I apologize.
I was thinking of the "one focus per dice pool" rule, SR4A 199. Your house rule will nullify that in circumstances where they are applied to separate sub-pools after a split.
So if I'm getting it right, the core question is: can you split unarmed combat if you've got two cyberarms? (or rather, can you do it without yet another house rule saying so). The purpose is to either attack two separate targets (or the same target twice) OR to get to use two separate foci.
The FAQ (when discussing using two shock gloves) would imply yes. Your house rule negates the 'one focus per dice pool' rule in this situation.
It increases the combat strength of the cyberlimbed character even more than 'just a focus', shifting the balance slightly. If the GM thinks that is either necessary or not a significant problem, then there is no problem. That is the nature of house rules.
I'm uncomfortable with it, but I'm not your GM.
QUOTE (PresentPresence @ Sep 27 2011, 02:28 AM)
3) Karmagen.
What houserules with the karmagen? I missed that, assuming it was bp after seeing the cost for Orc. By default karmagen has metahuman costs for free.
QUOTE
4) Good catch. You saved me 10 nuyen.
Yeah like I said it was a incredibly nitpicky thing. But I saw it and had to say something
Houserules:
[ Spoiler ]
Actually, after looking over the Martial Arts rules again...
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 26 2011, 08:03 PM)
Why not instead of taking Ambidexterous, taking Off-Hand Training martial arts maneuver? That does the same thing and saves you a little bp. You could even try to bump up your martial arts 1 further to get an extra +1 dv and 2 more potential maneuvers. (Two Weapon Style is a great one, letting you go full defense without spending an action any time you have an offhand weapon. You take the offhand penalty for doing so, but since you have off hand training, there is no penalty)
Off-Hand Training can't be taken for Unarmed Combat. Two Weapon Style is for melee weapons, and I wouldn't call a cyberarm a melee weapon, just as I wouldn't call your hand or hardliner gloves melee weapons.
QUOTE (PresentPresence @ Sep 27 2011, 02:59 AM)
Actually, after looking over the Martial Arts rules again...Off-Hand Training can't be taken for Unarmed Combat. Two Weapon Style is for melee weapons, and I wouldn't call a cyberarm a melee weapon, just as I wouldn't call your hand or hardliner gloves melee weapons.
You're already bending the rules to call your cyberarms weapon foci, to get around the inability to enchant your unarmed strikes. If you're calling each cyberarm a melee weapon for purposes of being a weapon focus, I see no reason they wouldn't be treated as different weapons for two weapon style or offhand training.
This houserule is a little unbalancing as it is - I don't want to add too much more cheese. The cyberarm is exactly that - an arm. It's not even an extension of my arm. It's also why I wouldn't apply the bonus to my Shock Glove implant - it's not what's enchanted. Now, the real question is how these are handled if I smoke some Deepweed... 
QUOTE (PresentPresence @ Sep 26 2011, 09:13 PM)
This houserule is a little unbalancing as it is...
Then why are you doing it?
Honestly, Unarmed adepts are just fine as-is (inasmuch as any adepts are just fine), thanks to Critical Strike. The fact your GM's already letting you double dip into Ways and Geasa at the same time means he's already doing you something of a favor. But you keep piling it on.
For a game that's supposed to be "street level," I think you're abusing things a bit at this point. Dumping Agility (but then making up for it with swanky arms), using Ways and Geasa (to make up for the campaign's Magic cap), using your arms not only as platforms to make up for your dumped Agility but also to create Unarmed weapon foci, dipping into Martial Arts for more damage, wanting to get the best possible interpretation of two-weapon fighting (for unarmed) to maximize all these various bonus dice you've scraped up, etc, etc... I might let some of that stuff fly in a standard game, but all of it in one where the GM's expressly asked for it to be "street level" and has custom rules in there to keep things (his idea of) reasonable... I dunno, man.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear a resounding no from the GM, regardless of what Dumpshock says.
You've got a strong theme to your character, and that sort of thing, which is cool. But I think you might be bending over the spirit of the campaign, with yet more optional/house rulings in your favor. You're already stretching things just stacking optional rules, and you're doing it over and over and over again. There've been pretty bloody threads around here about any weapon focus for Unarmed, any two-weapon stuff for Unarmed, and you're stacking, like, all of the controversy onto one character, in a "street level" game.
Amen.
I'd boot that character right back to the drawing board. Cyberlimbs of awesome are a tough enough sell as it is in a street level game. Add cheesing them up with Foci and getting around the inability to dual-wield Unarmed and you're dead set on a powergame trip.
Also, even if the GM doesn't object, consider the effect a character like this has on a game. Especially see the reports Hyphz has been giving us on his games with powergamers in a medium-level opposition game.
I'd boot that character right back to the drawing board. Cyberlimbs of awesome are a tough enough sell as it is in a street level game. Add cheesing them up with Foci and getting around the inability to dual-wield Unarmed and you're dead set on a powergame trip.
Also, even if the GM doesn't object, consider the effect a character like this has on a game. Especially see the reports Hyphz has been giving us on his games with powergamers in a medium-level opposition game.
It may sound like I'm trying to get a Force 2 Weapon Focus in a game where you can only get Force 1 Foci, which is, to be honest, one of my motives, it's not total cheese, and only unbalanced in the sense that I'm slightly better than other unarmed combatants. I'm basically using a 5 BP quality to get one more die, and I suppose the ability to punch two goons at once without a modifier. What do I really want out of this rule though? A way to make my character cooler without making play less fun for my teammates. I'm not Johnny Instakill, my job is to wait for the gunbunny to soften up the opposition with suppressive fire while I mosey on up while they're distracted by bullets and bop them on the head - with style. But if that's my one job, I should be able to do it well. Almost all of the crunch of this character is rooted in fluff, and every attribute is a reflection of his story. The last thing that I want my GM to think is that I'm a powergamer. If he swats me down, if he thinks I'll unbalance the run, fine.
As for the cyberarms of awesome, you ain't seen nothing. Did I take Genetic Optimization, Metagenetic Improvement, Bulk Modification, Optimized Cyberlimbs, etc. etc.? No, because that's not what this character is about. I took BOTH arms, costing me a full two points of adept powers. I supplemented these lost points with geas. Why? Because my character, at his core, is insecure. All of his flash is meant to hide the truth that he is a clumsy, weak, wimp of an orc, and his limbs are a crutch. An effective crutch, but a crutch none the less. Ideal character development would involve the removal of the cyberlimbs and genetic restoration of essence.
I would list the dicepool and damage differences between unarmed combat and a shootout, but you guys already know the discrepancies. I'm not saying they should be close, but in a world where man meets magic and machine, an adept should be able to bring his cyberfists to a gun fight and maybe make it out alive. Is that so ridiculous?
As for the cyberarms of awesome, you ain't seen nothing. Did I take Genetic Optimization, Metagenetic Improvement, Bulk Modification, Optimized Cyberlimbs, etc. etc.? No, because that's not what this character is about. I took BOTH arms, costing me a full two points of adept powers. I supplemented these lost points with geas. Why? Because my character, at his core, is insecure. All of his flash is meant to hide the truth that he is a clumsy, weak, wimp of an orc, and his limbs are a crutch. An effective crutch, but a crutch none the less. Ideal character development would involve the removal of the cyberlimbs and genetic restoration of essence.
I would list the dicepool and damage differences between unarmed combat and a shootout, but you guys already know the discrepancies. I'm not saying they should be close, but in a world where man meets magic and machine, an adept should be able to bring his cyberfists to a gun fight and maybe make it out alive. Is that so ridiculous?
I'm not here to argue with you, I'm just saying that -- stylistic questions aside -- you should be aware that you're probably pushing your luck. Just because it could be worse, doesn't mean it's not kind of cheesy, and you said so yourself. Were I you, I'd just be willing to admit you're bending an awful lot of rules, and I'd be prepared for a GM to say "no." I'm not saying he should, I'm not saying he shouldn't, I'm saying it's a possibility and if I was presenting this character for a GM to okay, I'd be ready to make some changes.
I guess my response is, if you're *not* trying to gain an advantage, why are you bothering? Get *one* 'unarmed weapon focus' (if such a thing were house ruled to exist), or none. If it's only one more die, it seems like having cyberarms and adept powers are crutchy enough. But whatever. 
Some stories like to be told with reinforcement.
Some stories like to be told with reinforcement.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 27 2011, 03:03 AM)
1) Why not instead of taking Ambidexterous, taking Off-Hand Training martial arts maneuver? That does the same thing and saves you a little bp. You could even try to bump up your martial arts 1 further to get an extra +1 dv and 2 more potential maneuvers. (Two Weapon Style is a great one, letting you go full defense without spending an action any time you have an offhand weapon. You take the offhand penalty for doing so, but since you have off hand training, there is no penalty)
Besides the fact that neither ambidexterity nor off-hand training nor two weapon style work with Unarmed Combat, the off-hand training isn't even good value for your BP/Karma for an armed combatant. While it "only" costs 2BP/4Karma instead of 5BP/10 Karma, it only works on one specific Combat Skill. Ambidexterity works on every skill you use with your arms.
OK, first off, as a GM, I would tell you "No cheeze at the table, unless it's shared by ALL." 
And that is to include me. mmwwwaaahahahaa 
However, there seems to be a contradiction as to the Unarmed Combat and two weapon use.
Quoting from the FAQ:
Paired fists=no 2 weapons
Paired fists with gloves=2 weapons?
And that is to include me. mmwwwaaahahahaa However, there seems to be a contradiction as to the Unarmed Combat and two weapon use.
Quoting from the FAQ:
QUOTE
Even with two gloves, the damage is still just 6S DV per glove, but each counts as a separate attack (Two Weapon Melee Combat, p.163, Arsenal).
Paired fists=no 2 weapons
Paired fists with gloves=2 weapons?
FAQ =/= RAW most of the time.
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Sep 29 2011, 09:22 AM)
FAQ =/= RAW most of the time.
lol. FAQ's are supposed to clarify RAW, not confuse more.
You are right of course, but the people who write the SR FAQs have been doing an incredibly bad job at it for as long as I can remember.
I don't really see a problem with allowing 2 weapon combat with unarmed, growing up watching MANY martial arts movies (USA was wonderful for that back in the day) it's shown many times over.
Now, as for the original post, it just seems about as thin as a size S thread bare wet t-shirt on a 48DD dancer. But, if your GM says OK, that's all on him.
Now, as for the original post, it just seems about as thin as a size S thread bare wet t-shirt on a 48DD dancer.
But, if your GM says OK, that's all on him.
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Sep 29 2011, 01:23 PM)
Besides the fact that neither ambidexterity nor off-hand training nor two weapon style work with Unarmed Combat, the off-hand training isn't even good value for your BP/Karma for an armed combatant. While it "only" costs 2BP/4Karma instead of 5BP/10 Karma, it only works on one specific Combat Skill. Ambidexterity works on every skill you use with your arms.
To repeat, I made that post on the assumption that getting a weapon focus for each of his arms meant each of his arms was being counted as a weapon, and thus qualify. I don't think that was too much of a stretch, given the build is already currently in houserule territory. Your point was already brought up by the OP who said despite the houserule wouldn't do that, so it's irrelevant.
To allow them as weapon foci at all (as opposed to any other kind of focus) is to define them as weapons (though not necessarily *Unarmed* weapons). So, yes and no. Clearly, nothing is possible unless there's a house rule that allows Unarmed two-weapon combat, as well as 'weaponed' Unarmed combat.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Sep 29 2011, 09:48 AM)
To allow them as weapon foci at all (as opposed to any other kind of focus) is to define them as weapons (though not necessarily *Unarmed* weapons). So, yes and no. Clearly, nothing is possible unless there's a house rule that allows Unarmed two-weapon combat, as well as 'weaponed' Unarmed combat.
actually, shock gloves is "weaponed" unarmed combat.
QUOTE (Kirk @ Sep 29 2011, 05:22 PM)
actually, shock gloves is "weaponed" unarmed combat.
Actually no, it is a touch attack with an electrical device, making most CC adept powers unusable.QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Sep 29 2011, 08:37 AM)
Actually no, it is a touch attack with an electrical device, making most CC adept powers unusable.
Hardliner Gloves, on the other hand ARE Weaponized Unarmed Combat "Weapons." Weapons that could conceivably benefit from the CC Abilities of the Adept. But that dead horse has been beat multuple times over the years.
Agreed
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Sep 29 2011, 09:30 AM)
You are right of course, but the people who write the SR FAQs have been doing an incredibly bad job at it for as long as I can remember.
If the FAQ and errata got updated on a regular and timely basis, this would not be a problem.
However...
-k
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 29 2011, 07:28 PM)
If the FAQ and errata got updated on a regular and timely basis, this would not be a problem.
However...
-k
However...
-k
On the other hand, the only game I'm aware of that does update errata frequently has a lot of complaints about how hard it is to keep up with the errata, and how awkward it is going from one group to another because of people giving up on following the errata after a certain point.
It really is a no win situation for a game company.
The problem is not the errata or their lack. It is the fact that there are a lot of statements in the FAQ which blatantly contradict the written rules. IIRC this was even the case before the first erratum for SR4 was released.
QUOTE (Seerow @ Sep 29 2011, 03:37 PM)
On the other hand, the only game I'm aware of that does update errata frequently has a lot of complaints about how hard it is to keep up with the errata, and how awkward it is going from one group to another because of people giving up on following the errata after a certain point.
It really is a no win situation for a game company.
It really is a no win situation for a game company.
This is why I said "regular and timely".
Issuing errata too often can be bad as well, especially if you're doing it to just rebalance rules rather than correct mistakes.
Like, every 6 months is fine.
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Sep 29 2011, 04:45 PM)
The problem is not the errata or their lack. It is the fact that there are a lot of statements in the FAQ which blatantly contradict the written rules. IIRC this was even the case before the first erratum for SR4 was released.
Updates would let them correct such problems, no?
-k
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