Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Lightning Reflexes
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Jaid
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 25 2012, 02:38 AM) *
See, if you had said this at the start, that might have been it. But that you felt the need to post so many references at first, it seems you felt it's not actually so clear. Wouldn't it be simpler if there were one sentence in the rulebook saying this?

The flying thing, come on. I'll pretend you didn't bring this silliness up. I agree with you about rules not always having to be explicit, it's even part of my sig. Really obvious things, like your flying or Damage overflow example, I agree those don't need explicit rules. But I think this IP part isn't so obvious and could use some explicit rules.

As for your EDIT EDIT, I actually agree with you here, and I agree this section of the rules could also use some refinement in editing and clarification.


so because he went the extra mile to kill it extra dead, it must have been nearly impossible to prove otherwise?

what the hell kind of logic do they have where you live, exactly?

why would the rulebook have a sentence about this specifically? can you show me a sentence anywhere that tells me that agility or body or intuition increases stack?
phlapjack77
QUOTE (Jaid @ Dec 26 2012, 02:02 AM) *
so because he went the extra mile to kill it extra dead, it must have been nearly impossible to prove otherwise?

what the hell kind of logic do they have where you live, exactly?

why would the rulebook have a sentence about this specifically? can you show me a sentence anywhere that tells me that agility or body or intuition increases stack?

Yes, I'm saying that because he felt the need to post 14+ references for a ruling, I think this shows the rules for this could be improved and made more clear. It's not like he presented a concise bit of evidence, I argued against it, THEN he posted the wall o' references. He went there from the very beginning.

You say "so because he went the extra mile to kill it extra dead, it must have been nearly impossible to prove otherwise?". I'm not saying that. I'm saying because of the way it was proved, and other confusion I've seen about this situation, that the rules could be better in this instance.

I can't believe you would get so up in arms for a simple statement like "the rules could be clearer".

What the hell kind of politeness do they ascribe to where you live, exactly?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 25 2012, 08:24 PM) *
Yes, I'm saying that because he felt the need to post 14+ references for a ruling, I think this shows the rules for this could be improved and made more clear. It's not like he presented a concise bit of evidence, I argued against it, THEN he posted the wall o' references. He went there from the very beginning.

You say "so because he went the extra mile to kill it extra dead, it must have been nearly impossible to prove otherwise?". I'm not saying that. I'm saying because of the way it was proved, and other confusion I've seen about this situation, that the rules could be better in this instance.

I can't believe you would get so up in arms for a simple statement like "the rules could be clearer".

What the hell kind of politeness do they ascribe to where you live, exactly?


Except that most of us think that the rules are already clear in this regard. Neraph went overboard in his "proof," nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that. But becasue of it you seem to think that the rules for this are not clear enough. I think this is where the disconnect is. *shrug*
Neraph
All I did was bring all the available evidence for my position to the table at the beginning instead of building up to it. You can accept that interpretation or not, but please don't let it turn into something nasty.
Jaid
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 25 2012, 10:24 PM) *
Yes, I'm saying that because he felt the need to post 14+ references for a ruling, I think this shows the rules for this could be improved and made more clear. It's not like he presented a concise bit of evidence, I argued against it, THEN he posted the wall o' references. He went there from the very beginning.

You say "so because he went the extra mile to kill it extra dead, it must have been nearly impossible to prove otherwise?". I'm not saying that. I'm saying because of the way it was proved, and other confusion I've seen about this situation, that the rules could be better in this instance.

I can't believe you would get so up in arms for a simple statement like "the rules could be clearer".

What the hell kind of politeness do they ascribe to where you live, exactly?


still waiting on that rules quote that tells you that any other attribute bonus stacks. if it isn't a problem for them, it isn't a problem for the initiative pass attribute.
phlapjack77
QUOTE (Neraph @ Dec 27 2012, 03:43 AM) *
All I did was bring all the available evidence for my position to the table at the beginning instead of building up to it. You can accept that interpretation or not, but please don't let it turn into something nasty.

Yeah, it's cool. I accepted your interpretation of the ultimate ruling, no problems with that.

QUOTE (Jaid @ Dec 27 2012, 08:38 AM) *
still waiting on that rules quote that tells you that any other attribute bonus stacks. if it isn't a problem for them, it isn't a problem for the initiative pass attribute.

I think there's a long history of things like attribute bonuses, "to hit" bonuses, etc stacking. The concept of +1 Str, +1 DexAgi, those are familiar. I feel like IPs are different enough to warrant their own sentence in the rules for drugs.

But ok, several people think it's clear enough. My vote is still for a more concise rule in 5th nyahnyah.gif
Jaid
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 26 2012, 09:06 PM) *
I think there's a long history of things like attribute bonuses, "to hit" bonuses, etc stacking. The concept of +1 Str, +1 DexAgi, those are familiar. I feel like IPs are different enough to warrant their own sentence in the rules for drugs.

But ok, several people think it's clear enough. My vote is still for a more concise rule in 5th nyahnyah.gif


+1 attack (which is pretty close to +1 IP) is also a familiar concept, at least to me.
SpellBinder
Could be worse, like in the Palladium system where it's possible for a character to be attacking at the equivalent of several times per second and not even be a combat oriented character. nyahnyah.gif
FuelDrop
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Dec 27 2012, 06:04 PM) *
Could be worse, like in the Palladium system where it's possible for a character to be attacking at the equivalent of several times per second and not even be a combat oriented character. nyahnyah.gif

Rigger with 5 IP and a humanoid drone doing boxing. WITH CHAINSAW FISTS!!!
Halinn
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Dec 27 2012, 12:45 PM) *
Rigger with 5 IP and a humanoid drone doing boxing. WITH CHAINSAW FISTS!!!

monofilament chainsaw fists.
Miri
I've been pondering equipping the humanoid drone body my Rigger wants with a Monowhip. As odd as it sounds all attacks are done with the Gunnery Skill, including melee apparently. Have a Machine Sprite in the drones node with me as I rig it to stage glitches down and.. well.. some potentially ugly CQC action there.
Lionhearted
QUOTE (Miri @ Dec 27 2012, 08:05 PM) *
I've been pondering equipping the humanoid drone body my Rigger wants with a Monowhip. As odd as it sounds all attacks are done with the Gunnery Skill, including melee apparently. Have a Machine Sprite in the drones node with me as I rig it to stage glitches down and.. well.. some potentially ugly CQC action there.

"Oh that thing? I call it the windmill, Of carnage!"
Miri
QUOTE (Lionhearted @ Dec 27 2012, 01:08 PM) *
"Oh that thing? I call it the windmill, Of carnage!"


It slices! It Dices! I hate Julian fries so no, it can't make them... grinbig.gif
All4BigGuns
You could fly a rotor drone into melee to slice-and-dice enemies with its propulsion system nyahnyah.gif
Miri
QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Dec 27 2012, 01:22 PM) *
You could fly a rotor drone into melee to slice-and-dice enemies with its propulsion system nyahnyah.gif


*chuckle* custom made rotors that have leading edges like a Monosword eh?
NiL_FisK_Urd
You could take 2 Lockheed Optic-X Drones, span 10m monwire between them and fly through a pedestrian area - at ankle height.
Neraph
QUOTE (Halinn @ Dec 27 2012, 10:08 AM) *
monofilament chainsaw fists.

Dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists.
phlapjack77
QUOTE (Neraph @ Dec 28 2012, 10:37 AM) *
Dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists.

Possessed Dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists.
FuelDrop
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 28 2012, 10:52 AM) *
Possessed Dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists.

There is no kill like overkill.
Halinn
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Dec 28 2012, 04:35 AM) *
There is no kill like overkill.

There is no overkill, only "open fire" and "I need to reload"
Jaid
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Dec 27 2012, 05:04 AM) *
Could be worse, like in the Palladium system where it's possible for a character to be attacking at the equivalent of several times per second and not even be a combat oriented character. nyahnyah.gif



eh, no, not really. not unless you get an extremely improbable set of factors all working together to give you temporary boosts, including things external to your character, at any rate.

the palladium system has many problems that the GM will likely need to deal with in some way or another as you play (because there's nothing to tell you it's a problem until you run into it). this is not one of them.
SpellBinder
True, but using drugs in SR to get similar boosts are just as temporary. Difference being that there's a rule for SR4 stating that, baring a few special circumstances (matrix only), you're limited to 4 IPs at the most. I never saw anything in a Palladium book saying you were limited to X attacks a turn, and that's a number that at worst can easily go well into the hundreds.
Jaid
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Dec 28 2012, 03:18 AM) *
True, but using drugs in SR to get similar boosts are just as temporary. Difference being that there's a rule for SR4 stating that, baring a few special circumstances (matrix only), you're limited to 4 IPs at the most. I never saw anything in a Palladium book saying you were limited to X attacks a turn, and that's a number that at worst can easily go well into the hundreds.


again, if you're not deliberately building for cheese, you're not going to get stupid amounts of attacks per melee. it just doesn't happen. it is a non-problem. palladium has lots of problems: unclear writing, contradictory rules, terrible editing, terrible science (which may or may not be a problem for a given reader), poorly-thought-out writing, and lots of other stuff. getting hundreds of attacks per melee round really is not something that regularly happens. palladium has problems, but this really isn't one of them.

and if you are building for cheese. that's a problem with the player, not the system (that is, you will have that problem no matter what system you're in, so long as that player does not change. the exact effects will vary with the system, but the basic underlying problem will always be there). or are we pretending that things like the pornomancer don't exist in shadowrun, and the system is completely immune to any form of abuse?
Neraph
QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 27 2012, 08:52 PM) *
Possessed Dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists.

This is the essence of the DS forums - theoretical character optimization to an extreme.

Inhabited by a Great Form blood/toxic/bug Spirit Dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists.

EDIT: ... which also has a weapon comm and a weapon personality which plays hardcore trogg thrashmetal.
Halinn
Rocket-powered inhabited by a great form blood/toxic/bug spirit dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists with MRSI software

Also weapon comm and its own theme music.
Neraph
QUOTE (Halinn @ Dec 28 2012, 11:28 PM) *
Rocket-powered inhabited by a great form blood/toxic/bug spirit dikoted monofilament chainsaw fists with MRSI software

Also weapon comm and its own theme music.

The A-Team.
FuelDrop
QUOTE (Neraph @ Dec 29 2012, 01:29 PM) *
The A-Team.

Nah, I'd keep getting it confused with my ring tone. nyahnyah.gif
Umidori
Ya know, if you can hit someone with a pair of MRSI arrows for double damage, why the hell couldn't you hit them in the face with two fists at the same time for double damage?

Stupid War! and it's broken idiocy...

~Umi
FuelDrop
QUOTE (Umidori @ Dec 31 2012, 09:27 PM) *
Ya know, if you can hit someone with a pair of MRSI arrows for double damage, why the hell couldn't you hit them in the face with two fists at the same time for double damage?

Stupid War! and it's broken idiocy...

~Umi

Why stop at 2 fists? IIRC you can get up to 6 arms...
Halinn
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Jan 1 2013, 02:07 AM) *
Why stop at 2 fists? IIRC you can get up to 6 arms...


Getting a great form blood toxic bug spirit for each of them is a bother.
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