I did a search for this and havent really seen an answer for it.

Can an adept use critical strike with the hardliner gloves in arsenal?

My view is that they are both part of unarmed combat so yes but i cna see the argument either way. There wont be any houseruling for this so i would like to stick as close to the books as possible.

And before you accuse me of so i am a slight powergamer but i play w/ other powergamers and i would love for these to stack so i can get those gloves as weapon foci.

Sadly No as the Hardliner gloves are a Weapon, it just uses the same Skill to attack with.

Because they are listed as items, the consensus most times I've seen this come up is "no, it doesn't work."

Yeah i was afraid of that basiclly you cant focus ur chi that way/ the gloves would break hitting that hard or something like that. ill just build a sword adept then itll take less karma for me to get him where i want him then

Don't forget to possess your sword for Extra damage and Armor Pen

Possess??

Throw a Possession Spirit or a Inhabiation Spirit into the item. It increases all of the items attributes/stats by its force as well as making practically indestructible and giving you access to whatever powers the spirit has like Movment or Magical Guard.

Ohh yeah that makes sense.

Well i was gonna go straight adept and was eventually gonna sacrifice a magic point for increased reflexes bioware at least r2 and if i can get it beta ware r3 that way i only lose one point of essence and get 3 to 5 magic poi9nts of the exact same thing just a base r2 increased reflexes is cheaper than the 1.5pp adept version

EDIT - Oh and i think the group as a whole doesnt like possesion type spirits. there is a slight limit on how far we will go lol

Don't ever spend essence on stuff like that, just use Magic. Increase Reflexes is the way to go, since you can also cast it on other people, thus being a force multiplier.

The adept version isnt castable it only affects u and is always on so from what i can see in this one case its actually better to go bioware

just cost a frikking lot of money to do it right

Okay what you do is cast Improve Reflexes at F1, you take your dice (10 or whatever) and add your edge into the roll. As per Shadowrun's own rules, because you added edge you are now allowed to bypass the 1 hit restriction on a F1 spell. You then get say...6 hits. This gives you +6 to Initiative and 4 Passes, you can now place your F1 spell with 6 hits into a F1 Sustaining Focus for 10k Nuyen.

Ta DA

you never suffer the minus for keeping it up, and you get to enjoy greater benefits as well. Ergo, Mystic Adepts are the shizz

I would prefer to spend those 1.5 PP on better things..such as improving a skill to 9 or 10.

Double Post??

Not everybody agrees these ideas are actual rules or allowed. Boomer, make sure to ask your GM how he feels about this.


Many people think phys ad + bioware is really the "best" option, so if you like the actual character idea, go with it. You can fit a lot of useful cyber + bio in one Essence point, esp. if you take the Biocompatibility quality. If you don't want to sacrifice essense, see if your GM will allow the Way of the Adept book, then pick up The Warriors Way quality, add a geas to the Increase Reflexes ability, and the PP cost is a lot lower. And if you're using the Adepts Ways and using cyber/bio, the Burnouts Way gives even more essence-loss reductions.*

*so I hear - don't have the book myself...

Finally, I can make up Thor the Troll Warrior Adept and Mjolnir, the Possessed Warhammer of Doooooom....

- J.

Indeed, phlapjack.

The GM decides what's appropriate.… Not the person holding the spirit. It can probably use powers for you, on its own initiative/turns, as Services as normal.

1) Obviously
2) Obviously



Whats keeping you then, its all easy enough



Edge Bypassing force is actually the rule, not even a optional one.

A good thread about possession and items (some good ideas / some bad ideas / many opinions) is here:
Possession of objects thread


Allowing an Edge-boosted Inc Ref spell to be put in a F1 Sustaining Focus is purely power-gamer made up, however.

Again, Boomer, see if your table allows this.

I don't see how as it is still a F1 spell, adding or not adding edge does not change this.

It's not obvious to everyone. I've seen many instances here on Dumpshock of people claiming that the possession-stat-boosts are pure RAW, and that possessed-item powers function for the wielder (esp. things like Elemental Aura). In the interest of helping players, the warnings from phlapjack and myself are completely valid.

Fair enough, I knew what you were talking about though. I do read things on occasion

Also go to bed Yerameyahu, its late

for an unarmed adept I recommend the Kick-Attack Martial Arts Maneuver. Or headbutting.

Seconded, Makki knows what he is talking about.

You can also just ask the GM to allow your Hardliner trick, if it's appropriate for your group and power level. What the rules say is less important than the group's and GM's will, especially if you're not being a munchkin about it.

You see a similar question when people want Hardliner weapon foci, yes. Same answers, IMO.

That's a very neutral stance, its also very dismissive at the same time. You're basically saying "Meh, I don't feel like arguing anymore, just ask the GM"

As a Aside, "Munchkin" is also a subjective term, it changes per person. What you consider a Munchkin, perhaps I don't, hence the problems with using such descriptor words.

No, it's a comment that comes at the end of a helpful thread where the other answers have been covered, and I agree with them. I felt it acceptable to remind the OP that the RAW is not god. (… The GM is!)

I'm okay with that. If I worried about slight variations in word meanings, I wouldn't be able to say anything. Wouldn't that be tragic?

Nah, it's really just a mature realization that people have different viewpoints and so most "rules" are really just agreements made at a certain table.

As an aside, most language (barring maybe mathematics) is subjective. Everybody uses subjective language all the time, "neutral", "dismissive", "basically"...etc. Hence the problems with lecturing people about these things...

Personally, I don't mind. Language is my favorite topic.

Makki, you forgot to suggest that he use a Hardliner *boot* weapon focus with Critical Strike and his Kick Attack!

Yes I was aware of the Irony

It has fairly recently become a favorite topic of mine as well. Nothing like living in a foreign country to make you stop and think about something you've taken for granted your whole life...


Really?

The real problem with that "edge on a f1 sustaining focus" trick is that you can't keep your spell up 24/7. Need to go through a ward? Say goodbye to that point of edge. Rating 1 background count? Bye bye. Need to sneak past anything that has astral perception? Hope you have more edge! It's got more than enough drawbacks.

For an adept, can you use ways? If yes, Increase Reflexes is debatable. If no, just get Synaptic Boosters.

Re: Possession boosting weapon damage, Digital Grimoire says no.

You do realize that you CAN get 4 passes for an Adept for the measly cost of 2pp right?

It's got more than enough drawbacks… if the GM remembers to use them.

The contention is whether you only get additional hits over Force cap from the EDGE Dice only, or for all Dice in the roll. It actually matters which interpretation you use..

Very Very True... I am a big proponent of using those drawbacks as well.

So is the fact, that you will be walking through around a dozen BC1 or two on your way to the run. Always screwing up your spell..

Additional to th stuff Tymeaus Jalynsfein mentioned (and which is all true to my knowledge) this is one of this "HaHa" tricks, unless the GM read the rule. To be forced to use edge whenever you need to recast your spells is a severe drawback. Since BC of 1 and more forces you to drop the spell, it gets even worse...

So, wait....if Hardliner gloves are generally understood *not* to work, is it then impossible for unarmed-focused adepts to gain the benefits of weapon focii?

I've ruled that you can get the weapon focus enchantment on gloves or rings. things that don't actually apply a bonus to your punching of things.

Yes, JonathanC, except for the GM houseruling things. This thread illustrates it pretty well: why should the unarmed adept get Adept powers (Deadly, Critical, Elemental) on top of a focus, when armed adepts don't?

If your GM and group aren't concerned about that (and you don't have to be), though, don't let it stop you. Many people are *not* concerned about physical adept power levels, because the poor guys tend to be no wild threat. (You could also let weapon adepts use unarmed powers with their weapons, or with weapon-foci-only?)

You really don't need the weapon focus. Use elemental sand and ignore armor. Done.

Sure, or light, sound, whatever. (Bleh, element creep.) But that doesn't stop people from wanting it. Moar numbers!

You're a poet and you do(n't) know it

Sound is almost too cheesy for words. Sand isn't bad, but I think Smoke is the perfect balance. Doesn't it have a chance to suffocate?


EDIT: Thanks for the reminder about unarmed-only powers; I'd forgotten about those. I probably wouldn't allow unarmed weapon focii either, to be honestly.

Yeah, I feel like it's a fair-ish tradeoff: you can either use weapons/foci (more DP, more DV, more AP), or you can use magic instead (Killing Hands, Elemental, whatever; no need to carry weapons). Both are cool.

Yeah, never underestimate that last part. Weapons can be confiscated, focii blocked, magicians masked, but you can always punch an overconfident Johnson in the skull.

Not convinced you can do that, or certainly at my table if a spirit possessed a weapon they wouldn't be quiet about it. That is, assuming I hadn't ruled out possession spirits full stop. Which I have.



Oh dear. Do you have a wet paper bag for a GM?

If you were in my group, we'd be having words.




Like in about 90% of the wording across the books, the interpretation is ambiguous at best. Most of the time, people read it how they want it to be. This is a perfect example of that. As a GM, i'd be tempted to rule out Edge-boosted spells being loaded into Foci. Kinda defeats the point in Edge really.




See wet paper bag comment above. Certainly if he lets it go.



That probably makes sense, I like the inventiveness certainly... but would that not OP Killing Hands and the like? IOW are there not Adept powers requiring no weapons already there to compensate for an unarmed Adept's inability to use Weapon Foci? It would be like allowing Killing Hands to be used with a Ultimax HMG-2, no?

Hehe, Kolinho, you just repeated everything said here in the last 12 hours.

You're wrong about mine, though: I specifically said, 'seek GM and group approval' and 'if you're not powergaming'. No wet paper GM action here.

That made me smile.

I like bio-adepts for the simple reason of knowing what you aren't going to lose if something screws with your magic. Plus there are some things that are not replicable with magic or just plain cheaper using cyber/bio.

Ach well

And I hope you didn't misunderstand me, I see you are the GM's word > RAW type of guy, as all should be. No time for powergaming myself, that's the sort of thing that should be left to 14 year olds and people with small penises to compensate for.

At my table, you wouldn't get critical strike etc using weapon foci gloves either. I might allow you to combine critical strike with a cyberhand made into a weapon focus, or perhaps have the focus grafted to your skeleton in some way. Good luck finding someone to make that for you though...


...or for a one-shot fool-around game

Aye, fair enough. I prefer character development and back story tie-ins so the idea off rolling über-toons for a one-off isn't really my kind of thing.

Perhaps the penis comment was a bit extreme