So, pg. 94 states:

"...First, when purchasing augmentations such as cyberware and bioware, each attribute rating (Mental and Physical) can only receive an augmentation bonus of up to +4. If the attribute being raised has not reached its natural maximum limit, the attribute can be raised naturally with Karma; but at no point can augmentations exceed the +4 bonus cap." [emphasis mine].

However, the street drug Kamikaze gives an effect [emphasis mine] of +1 Body, +1 Agility, +2 Strength, +1 Willpower, +2 physical limit, +2d6 initiative, and high pain tolerance 3.

I have 2 questions.

First: if I already have my attribute at it's augmented maximum, does a drug have any effect, or is that the limit of that race's physiology? I.e. does a human with a modified strength of 10 become effective strength 12 when he is on kamikaze? I guess some clarity around "Augmentation" vs. "Effect" would be useful.

Second: Kamikaze grants an effect of +2 physical limit. Is this on top of the increase to physical limit the other effects have (effectively +2), or is it just stating the effect that increasing your strength, agility, and body by that amount cause? In other words, does kamikaze give you +2 to your physical limit, or +3?

Thanks,
DrZ

I want to say drugs can take you over the augmented max, because that'd be cool. But I don't think drugs can affect your cyber. So if you are a human and have a +3 str cyber arm, Kamikaze isn't going to add anything, except to your other body's meat parts. While that makes sense, I can't help but feel that takes away from some of the fun of drugs. But if you were able to hit the limit with bioware and qualities...hm...I think it'd be really cool to take it over the augment max, but I don't think it can, since it's called a max for a reason.

As for the limit question, I'd say they stack, since limits usually aren't that unbalancing of a deal to raise, especially for something as addictive as Kamikaze.

You have to use it two weeks strait before you even have to roll.

Is it two weeks straight, or twice in two weeks? I thought it was the second one.

DrZ

Hear's the strait dope, so to speak, fresh from 5E.



Now, this is very confusingly worded. Let me see if I understand this properly.

You take a dose of Kamikaze, which has an Addiction Rating of 9 and an Addiction Threshold of 3. That sets your "Addiction Timer" to 11 - 9, which equals 2 back-to-back weeks, during which time you need to make an Addiction Test any time you take a dose of Kamikaze?

Except that doesn't make much sense, does it? Kamikaze is supposed to be highly addictive, so why is the time period you risk addiction only 2 weeks long? Meanwhile, drinking alcohol, which has only an Addiction Rating of 3, would mean that you make an Addiction Test every time you drink during an 8 week period? So that can't be how this operates.

Okay, wait. I think I got it now. You risk Addiction after having spent X number of weeks, back to back, taking at least one dose of the drug per week? So if you take a dose of Kamikaze one week, and then another one a week later, you have to make an Addiction Test. Meanwhile you have to partake of alcohol for 8 weeks in a row before you run the risk of addiction and have to make a test to resist it?

So.. what's all the mumbo jumbo about the timer counting down? Lemme see... I think I've made sense of it. Let's say you have a drink. That sets you at an eight week timer. During that time, if you drink every week, you'll ultimately have to make an Addiction Test against a Threshold of 2 to avoid being addicted. If you drink the first week, but then don't drink the second week, the eventual Addiction Test threshold drops by 1. So if you spend two weeks during that eight week period not drinking, you drop the Threshold to 0, meaning you can't become Addicted until such time as you take more of the drug and start a new Addiction Timer.

However! If you start out with a drink in week one, then only take one week off of drinking, and then on week three hit the bottle again? The drop in Addiction Threshold you earned by not drinking in week two is eliminated - the threshold returned to it's full, original power when you partook again.

But now I don't understand the bit about getting hooked on Kamikaze in a single dose, though. Unless... okay... so if you take a dose of Kamikaze, even just one, at the end of 2 weeks you have to make an Addiction Test? So you take one dose in the first week, and then in the second week you stay clean. However, that only reduces the Addiction Threshold from 3 to 2, so you still have to make an Addiction Test - which you can fail, thus becoming addicted from a single dose? Is that what they mean?

Okay, let me sum up where I currently stand in terms of understanding this...

Step 1: Take a drug.
Step 2: Set a Timer for 11 - Addiction Rating weeks, at the end of which you may need to make an Addiction Test.
Step 3: For every consucutive week spent clean before the test, reduce the Treshold for the Addiction Test by 1.
Step 4: If the Threshold hits 0 before the Timer is up, you no longer have to make an Addiction Test. Congratulations!
Step 5: If at any time you take more of the drug before the Threshold reaches 0, it returns to full.
Step 6: When the Timer goes off, make an Addiction Test at the modified Threshold.
Step 7: Either meet the modified Threshold and be clean, or fail your Addiction Test and gain the Addiction Negative Quality.

Except... this doesn't mesh well with the way the rule is worded!

Can a dev come explain explain this mess?

~Umi

Then you get the fun stuff:

What happens if you take a hit of Kamakazi every hour for 6 days strait, then go clean.

Why is that less addictive for taking one hit every Sunday?

Just say No to Drugs and Drugs Math

There have been other threads talking about how confusing the addiction rules are. We really need an errata and a well detailed example showing how it is supposed to work. The OP also asks a great question whether "effect" is the same as "augmenting".

Augment, increase, add to... all mean the same thing. +4 maximum, it ain't hard to understand.

I'd like to voice my support for an explanation of the addiction rules in the errata or FAQ or whatever.

I've always felt that stuff that was a temporary plus (drugs, adrenalin pump) shouldn't count against the +4 cap.

I agree with that one. Its Shadowrun, everything has its price and drugs have a pretty hefty one, IF they ever clear up the addiction rules

they should have had an "addiction power" stat. that applies to the addiction test. like alcohol is days, but the aforementioned kamikaze is days. meaning you have to drink alcohol for 8 weeks strait, or kamikaze 2 days in a row.

Hi LordlierPie - You state that kamikaze is "days" not "weeks". I don't see that in the rules anywhere. All I see is that if you use kamikaze for 2 *weeks* in a row, you make a test. Which, accordingly, you could go on a kamikaze binge for 7 days without ever taking a test.

Can you please cite the page number of where you found that kamikaze is days not weeks?

Thanks!
~j2klbs

I can only speak to authorial intent, but this mirrors discussions with other writers in the development stage.


Yep. The drugs were meant to be scary in their effects, and were meant to be able to (temporarily, at some sort of cost) make you into a monster. So yeah, your modified human would be sporting a 12 STR while on the drug. At least that's what I had in mind.

It gives you a base +2 to the limit. If the stat increases bump your limit up (they didn't always, when I was fiddling with my spreadsheet, but I could have been doing something wrong), then the +2 is added to the new (temporary) limit. And when you crash after the drug wears off, the negatives stack, too.

A word on the addiction rules, since questions have arisen about those in a few threads: I didn't write those. The addiction rules I turned in were a fairly straight port of the SR3 addiction rules from Man & Machine, updated to reflect the current mechanics. I always like those, and they made drugs a little more vicious, IMO.

However, while I was working on my chapter, CGL published a wonderful little e-book called Sim Dreams & Nightmares, which featured addiction rules for SR4. It was decided in editing (and it's a decision I agree with) that the book that just came out a few months before the new edition should be the basis for the rules in the new edition, if for no other reason than continuity. So the rules from Sim Dreams were modified in editorial and plugged into the appropriate section of "Helps & Hindrances".

He didn't. He said "should." As in "it is not that way, but it should be."