Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Snap Blades vs Cyber Spurs
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Hound
Workin' on makin' my first 5th ed character, wantin' to go with a Physical Adept who uses unarmed, but I was hoping to have some kind of unarmed weapon. I saw earlier that cyber spurs still use the unarmed skill and are actually pretty good, but when I checked their non-implanted counterpart, Forearm Snap Blades, they were much worse and apparently use the Blades skill. Considering that the first line of the Snap Blade description compares them to spurs ("These are essentially like spurs, only they’re external—painless to install or remove.") I don't really understand why they are so much worse/different. Is there some factor I'm not seeing here? Would you, as a GM, allow a character to use the Cyber Spur stats on a similar non-implanted weapon?
FuelDrop
QUOTE (Hound @ Apr 6 2014, 10:42 AM) *
Workin' on makin' my first 5th ed character, wantin' to go with a Physical Adept who uses unarmed, but I was hoping to have some kind of unarmed weapon. I saw earlier that cyber spurs still use the unarmed skill and are actually pretty good, but when I checked their non-implanted counterpart, Forearm Snap Blades, they were much worse and apparently use the Blades skill. Considering that the first line of the Snap Blade description compares them to spurs ("These are essentially like spurs, only they’re external—painless to install or remove.") I don't really understand why they are so much worse/different. Is there some factor I'm not seeing here? Would you, as a GM, allow a character to use the Cyber Spur stats on a similar non-implanted weapon?

Okay, can we get a bit of a definition on what you consider to be an 'unarmed adept'? If everyone's clear on what you want then we should be able to help more effectively.
First thing I'd look into for an unarmed adept if I were going to sacrifice essence would be bone lacing. Increases your durability and unarmed damage in one fell swoop. Just a thought.

Also, isn't 'unarmed weapon' an oxymoron?
Hound
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Apr 5 2014, 10:55 PM) *
Okay, can we get a bit of a definition on what you consider to be an 'unarmed adept'? If everyone's clear on what you want then we should be able to help more effectively.
First thing I'd look into for an unarmed adept if I were going to sacrifice essence would be bone lacing. Increases your durability and unarmed damage in one fell swoop. Just a thought.

Also, isn't 'unarmed weapon' an oxymoron?



By "unarmed weapon" I mean a weapon that uses the Unarmed skill in combat, like Cyber Spurs. I hadn't thought of the bone lacing idea, I suppose that would accomplish my goal, but I'm hoping to avoid losing any essence with my adept, I want to go full magic. I'd also like the weapon to be able to be a weapon focus, so Bone Lacing is out for that. I didn't mean to imply with my original question that I was considering using cyber spurs on my adept. It just seems that forearm snap blades are almost exactly the same thing, yet their stats are quite different, most notably in the fact that they use a different skill and therefore have to have an accuracy rating, rather than just using the physical limit like "Unarmed Weapons" (Spurs) use. I realize "Unarmed Weapon" is an oxymoron, but I can't think of another phrase to get across what I mean.
Faelan
QUOTE (Hound @ Apr 5 2014, 10:15 PM) *
By "unarmed weapon" I mean a weapon that uses the Unarmed skill in combat, like Cyber Spurs. I hadn't thought of the bone lacing idea, I suppose that would accomplish my goal, but I'm hoping to avoid losing any essence with my adept, I want to go full magic. I'd also like the weapon to be able to be a weapon focus, so Bone Lacing is out for that. I didn't mean to imply with my original question that I was considering using cyber spurs on my adept. It just seems that forearm snap blades are almost exactly the same thing, yet their stats are quite different, most notably in the fact that they use a different skill and therefore have to have an accuracy rating, rather than just using the physical limit like "Unarmed Weapons" (Spurs) use. I realize "Unarmed Weapon" is an oxymoron, but I can't think of another phrase to get across what I mean.


Weapon Focus never works with Unarmed in SR5E.
Hound
QUOTE (Faelan @ Apr 5 2014, 11:17 PM) *
Weapon Focus never works with Unarmed in SR5E.


Oh? Could you tell me where you read that? Either a page or a general area? The section on weapon foci (p. 320, SR5 core) just says it has "the form of a melee weapon." I would assume that something like Knucks would be considered a melee weapon.
Umidori
Yeah, I think a citation is kind of necessary, if only because I've heard this argument a thousand times back in 4E.

"Hardliner Gloves can't be weapon foci!" - cue circular logic and pedantry from all sides.

~Umi
Faelan
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 5 2014, 10:30 PM) *
Yeah, I think a citation is kind of necessary, if only because I've heard this argument a thousand times back in 4E.

"Hardliner Gloves can't be weapon foci!" - cue circular logic and pedantry from all sides.

~Umi


I screwed up thought I read it somewhere.
Hound
QUOTE (Faelan @ Apr 5 2014, 11:35 PM) *
I screwed up thought I read it somewhere.


No worries, happens. I think it makes a lot more sense in SR4 when most of the adept powers didn't apply to non-unarmed attacks and so weapon foci were kind of a way to buff sword-adepts and such. But in SR5, from my fairly cursory knowledge of it so far, it seems like most adept powers have been expanded to include all melee attacks and even sometimes ranged attacks.

But yeah, how about those Snap Blades am I right?

Do you know if cyberweapons can be foci? Seems to me that the blade part of a spur for example would be able to be a focus. I assume there's no written rules in the books governing this I guess.
Rubic
QUOTE (Hound @ Apr 5 2014, 11:41 PM) *
No worries, happens. I think it makes a lot more sense in SR4 when most of the adept powers didn't apply to non-unarmed attacks and so weapon foci were kind of a way to buff sword-adepts and such. But in SR5, from my fairly cursory knowledge of it so far, it seems like most adept powers have been expanded to include all melee attacks and even sometimes ranged attacks.

But yeah, how about those Snap Blades am I right?

Do you know if cyberweapons can be foci? Seems to me that the blade part of a spur for example would be able to be a focus. I assume there's no written rules in the books governing this I guess.

In 4e, iirc, it was possible to enchant the blade of a spur as a weapon focus. It had to be enchanted prior to implantation, and could not be substantially changed when implanted. I haven't heard or noticed anything different in 5e (granted I've not payed much attention to this route, personally).
Umidori
It's a shame that the Snap-Blades are so bizarrely different and inferior to cyberspurs in 5E.

It's kind of like how in SR4, there were 3 different forms of Fangs (Vampire, Changeling, and Cyber), and none of them matched in terms of Damage Code, Reach, and Weapon Skill.

*shakes head sadly*

~Umi
Hound
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 5 2014, 11:52 PM) *
It's a shame that the Snap-Blades are so bizarrely different and inferior to cyberspurs in 5E.

It's kind of like how in SR4, there were 3 different forms of Fangs (Vampire, Changeling, and Cyber), and none of them matched in terms of Damage Code, Reach, and Weapon Skill.

*shakes head sadly*

~Umi


Yeah this seems like a case where I'll probably just house rule it. Cause there seems to be zero reason for them to be that completely different.
Manunancy
If you trace the things back to their 'street samourai catalogue' origin (not sure if it's really from that supplement, but it's that time period), there's a good reason for the snap blade being worse off : the weapon's 'suer comment section' metioned (not textually but close' 'sure thy look good, but without the spur's strengthening of the arm's bones, be cautious about lever effects if you don't want to break your forearm'.
Umidori
Surely that's already reflected in the slightly reduced DV? As I recall, Spurs in 4E always had an extra point of damage over snap blades.

Also, surely having one operate as Unarmed and the other as Blades makes no sense, even operating off that bit of fluff? They used to both use the Blades skill in SR4 (unless a spur was installed anywhere other than the wrist, in which case it became a god awful Exotic Melee Skill for some reason).

~Umi
Stahlseele
How many characters did you seriously consider going for built in weaponry over their external counterparts?
That's why that was changed i guess. The ONLY thing SPURS do BETTER than Forearm Snap Blades is that they can not be taken from you.
You can probably see how that's a problem if people are trying to subdue you and know you can not be disarmed.
"Is it worth the hassle? No? He was resisting arrest, shoot him 'till he drops, then slap some handcuffs on him and see if he survives"

Everything can be a focus. Yes, even Cyber-Limbs.
The advantage of the cyber-spur there is the fact that after the implantation, swapping the blades should be a quick and easy procedure.
No need to wire everything up completely new, just detach blade from mount and re-attach after you are done with whatever you needed to do to them.
Umidori
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Apr 6 2014, 03:24 PM) *
The ONLY thing SPURS do BETTER than Forearm Snap Blades is that they can not be taken from you.

Well, actually, they do more damage, they're more concealable while retracted (the snap-blades still are visible as externally worn objects), and they go from full concealed to fully visible much quicker (in that you'd have to unequip the snap blades for the same level of concealability, then re-equip them to use them).

Then of course, there's the fact that now in 5E for some reason spurs use the Unarmed Skill instead of the Blades skill, which could be either a benefit or a hindrance depending on the rest of your build due to having to split skills.

As for your points about "disarming" someone with cyberspurs, there are specially made restraints for use against cyberlimbs - or at least there were in 4E. And in either case, if someone is trying to disarm you and take you alive, you're going to resist just as hard either way, so I don't really think it's much of a factor. In fact, the stealth aspect of the spurs probably works in your favor.

"Okay, the target is in sight and is visibly armed with a pair of fore-arm snap blades. Wait for backup."
...versus...
"Okay, the target is in sight and is not visibly armed. Move in and grab them before they can slip away."

~Umi
RHat
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 5 2014, 09:30 PM) *
Yeah, I think a citation is kind of necessary, if only because I've heard this argument a thousand times back in 4E.

"Hardliner Gloves can't be weapon foci!" - cue circular logic and pedantry from all sides.

~Umi


The argument was to do with whether they'd work with the unarmed exclusive powers, like Critical Strike. This argument is not a thing for SR5, at present.

You CAN have Knucks/Hardliner Gloves as Weapon Foci in SR5, and have it stack with your one damage from Critical Strike.
Umidori
QUOTE (RHat @ Apr 6 2014, 04:26 PM) *
The argument was to do with whether they'd work with the unarmed exclusive powers, like Critical Strike. This argument is not a thing for SR5, at present.

You CAN have Knucks/Hardliner Gloves as Weapon Foci in SR5, and have it stack with your one damage from Critical Strike.

Excuse me if I read "Weapon Focus never works with Unarmed in SR5E" to mean that Faelan thought you can't make a Weapon Focus out of an Unarmed Weapon in 5E. Ambiguous phrasing plus the ubiquity of that argument in the last Edition made it seem the obvious reading. biggrin.gif

That said, we appear to be in complete agreement. If you want to have a Weapon Focus + Adept Powers and whatever else in 5E, it doesn't matter if the weapon is Unarmed or Melee.

~Umi
RHat
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 6 2014, 05:32 PM) *
Excuse me if I read "Weapon Focus never works with Unarmed in SR5E" to mean that Faelan thought you can't make a Weapon Focus out of an Unarmed Weapon in 5E. Ambiguous phrasing plus the ubiquity of that argument in the last Edition made it seem the obvious reading. biggrin.gif

That said, we appear to be in complete agreement. If you want to have a Weapon Focus + Adept Powers and whatever else in 5E, it doesn't matter if the weapon is Unarmed or Melee.

~Umi


Now, Street Grimoire or whatever may reintroduce that argument - if things like Elemental Strike work only while unarmed, the argument exists; the balance reason behind that restriction doesn't exist anymore, however, so having Blast, Fire, and Light on a Combat Axe might be a thing.
Umidori
QUOTE (RHat @ Apr 6 2014, 05:37 PM) *
Now, Street Grimoire or whatever may reintroduce that argument - if things like Elemental Strike work only while unarmed, the argument exists; the balance reason behind that restriction doesn't exist anymore, however, so having Blast, Fire, and Light on a Combat Axe might be a thing.

There was a balance reason? Really? What was it? biggrin.gif

Because for as long as I can remember, it was smarter in pretty much every way for a Melee adept to go Unarmed than to use a weapon.

Want to do more damage? Put away that sharp piece of metal and just magically punch harder! What's that? You say that if you can punch harder, you should also be able to stab harder with your sword? Silly adept! Magic doesn't work that way!

Want to inflict special Elemental damage? Magically envelop your hands in Fire, Ice, Lightning, or any other Elemental damage type you like! Works on hands, doesn't work on things held in your hands! Why? Who knows! If you want a Fiery sword, go play a goddamn Mage and teach yourself [Element] Aura, you self-entitled freeloader!

Want to turn your melee attacks into ranged attacks? Don't expect to be doing any of those stylized samurai sword swings that cut the enemy with a blast of air or with a shockwave! That'd be silly! No, instead you just need to throw Dragonball Z punches which work "because magic"! You're uh... "projecting your aura" or some shit! Yeah, that's the ticket! Nevermind that attacking this way is based entirely on your Physical Attributes, and therefor it makes no sense that you can't do the exact same thing with a sword!

So what's the point of using a melee weapon? I'm glad you asked! There is none! They don't do as much damage as Magic Fists, they don't let you deal Elemental damage, they don't let you make ranged melee attacks, and they aren't automatically -Infinity Concealability! Even bonus dice from Weapon Foci aren't exclusive to melee weapons, because Unarmed get weapon foci too! They're literally worse in every single way imaginable!

4th Edition - Fair and Balanced! rotfl.gif

~Umi
RHat
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 6 2014, 05:56 PM) *
There was a balance reason? Really? What was it? biggrin.gif


Accuracy - weapons gave you Reach and Weapon Focus bonuses, while being unarmed gave you the various effects of the unarmed specific powers. It was easier to hit with, say, a Weapon Focus Claymore - especially if you were attacking multiple enemies, because you'd get the Reach and Focus bonuses onto each individual attack - but your unarmed attacks had things like elemental effects and Critical Strike.

Actually, a Force 6 Weapon Focus Nodachi in the hands of a Troll with an applicable Specialization, Agility 5(7), and Blades 6(9) would be able to attack, say, 8 guys with a dice pool of 13 against each of them (Attribute+Skill being split, modifiers being applied after the fact).
Umidori
No weapon I am aware of ever statted out had a reach greater than 2.

Since Hardliner Gloves could serve as Weapon Foci, no melee weapon ever could have more than 2 extra dice on an attack test (or 2 fewer dice on the enemy's defense test) compared to unarmed.

So your Nodachi Troll could just as easily use Weapon Focus Hardliner Gloves to attack those same 8 guys with a dice pool of 11 against each of them, but deal an extra 3DV against each of them thanks to Critical Strike.

And with Distance Strike, the enemy defends as if against a Ranged Attack, so they don't get to roll Dodge of their Melee weapon skill unless they go on Full Defense. That means on average anyone you attack is going to lose more dice than the 2 dice they would lose from reach - and remember, that's net reach.

So your Nodachi Troll could use his Reach against guys with knives to reduce their Defense pools by 3 (counting the Troll's natural Reach modifier), but he could just as easily use Hardliner Gloves to reduce their defense pools to just their Reaction (which means the more skilled they are at Melee or Dodge, the more dice they lose), all while still doing more damage.

And with Elemental Strike, the enemy defends against the special Elemental -half AP. Sure, you can't combine it with Distance Strike, but it means that on top of dealing an extra 3DV compared to a friggen +6 concealability Claymore or Combat Axe, you're also beating out the piddling -1AP they have by a huge margin. Oh, and you also get the benefits of an Elemental Secondary Effect. Ah, and since the Element you choose also determines the damage code, you could use something like Electricity to overwrite the Physical damage of your weapon and change it to mere Stun as needed!

So yeah, melee weapon adepts can get +2 to hit compared to unarmed adepts. But they pay so very much for it that it's absurd.

~Umi
RHat
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 6 2014, 06:41 PM) *
No weapon I am aware of ever statted out had a reach greater than 2.

Since Hardliner Gloves could serve as Weapon Foci, no melee weapon ever could have more than 2 extra dice on an attack test (or 2 fewer dice on the enemy's defense test) compared to unarmed.

So your Nodachi Troll could just as easily use Weapon Focus Hardliner Gloves to attack those same 8 guys with a dice pool of 11 against each of them, but deal an extra 3DV against each of them thanks to Critical Strike.

And with Distance Strike, the enemy defends as if against a Ranged Attack, so they don't get to roll Dodge of their Melee weapon skill unless they go on Full Defense. That means on average anyone you attack is going to lose more dice than the 2 dice they would lose from reach - and remember, that's net reach.

So your Nodachi Troll could use his Reach against guys with knives to reduce their Defense pools by 3 (counting the Troll's natural Reach modifier), but he could just as easily use Hardliner Gloves to reduce their defense pools to just their Reaction (which means the more skilled they are at Melee or Dodge, the more dice they lose), all while still doing more damage.

And with Elemental Strike, the enemy defends against the special Elemental -half AP. Sure, you can't combine it with Distance Strike, but it means that on top of dealing an extra 3DV compared to a friggen +6 concealability Claymore or Combat Axe, you're also beating out the piddling -1AP they have by a huge margin. Oh, and you also get the benefits of an Elemental Secondary Effect. Ah, and since the Element you choose also determines the damage code, you could use something like Electricity to overwrite the Physical damage of your weapon and change it to mere Stun as needed!

So yeah, melee weapon adepts can get +2 to hit compared to unarmed adepts. But they pay so very much for it that it's absurd.

~Umi


I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but my argument is specific to the context that Elemental Strike, Distance Strike, Critical Strike, and so on do not function with Hardliners. Since it is, you know, an argument regarding the balance reason for those powers not working with Hardliners.

In that context, a Weapon Focus Hardliner was clearly outclassed by other melee weapons; it may have provided more flexibility than unarmed adepts were really due, however. What you've done is amply demonstrated why no reasonable GM should be ruling Hardliners would work with those powers - even if they think the rules permit it, they should houserule it out.
Umidori
Except they... do... work with Hardliners?

*head scratch*

Moot point, let's not go down that road, that was 4E. In 5E it doesn't matter, because the powers apply equally to any kind of melee attack, armed or not, as do weapon foci.

~Umi
FuelDrop
Monowhip: Reach 4.
RHat
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 6 2014, 06:51 PM) *
Except they... do... work with Hardliners?


... Except that the whole discussion started with a reference to the argument as to whether they do or don't?
Umidori
QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Apr 6 2014, 06:54 PM) *
Monowhip: Reach 4.

*applauds*

I stand corrected.

~Umi
Umidori
QUOTE (RHat @ Apr 6 2014, 05:54 PM) *
... Except that the whole discussion started with a reference to the argument as to whether they do or don't?

No, it didn't.

The original topic was contrasting Spurs and Snap-Blades as being wanted "as some kind of unarmed weapon". Hound clarified "unarmed weapon" to mean something he can use the Unarmed Combat skill with and that can become a Weapon Focus. Faelan mentioned "Weapon Focus never works with Unarmed in SR5E", and then immediately after Hound and I asked for a citation said "I screwed up thought I read it somewhere".

The original discussion was about having a Spur be a Weapon Focus - and in both 4E and 5E, yes, you can make an implanted spur into a Weapon Focus. Now, in 4E a Spur used the Blades skill. In 5E, it uses the Unarmed skill. So working simply off of that example, it is possible in 5E to have an "Unarmed Weapon" that is a Weapon Focus.

And if you can have a spur that uses Unarmed Combat be a Weapon Focus, why can't you have Hardliner Gloves / Knucks be a Weapon Focus?

That's pretty cut and dry in my book, and I'm not gonna argue this any further short of you providing some really stellar counterpoint with cited rules and direct evidence.

~Umi
Smash
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 6 2014, 01:52 PM) *
It's a shame that the Snap-Blades are so bizarrely different and inferior to cyberspurs in 5E.

It's kind of like how in SR4, there were 3 different forms of Fangs (Vampire, Changeling, and Cyber), and none of them matched in terms of Damage Code, Reach, and Weapon Skill.

*shakes head sadly*

~Umi


This can't be so as we all know that 4th Ed was completely infallible.
Umidori
QUOTE (Smash @ Apr 6 2014, 07:28 PM) *
This can't be so as we all know that 4th Ed was completely infallible.

Well, yeah. I mean - have you ever known CGL to put out a bad book?

~Umi
Hound
I can kinda handle the idea that they're weaker because they don't have the bones to strengthen them. Though since the snap blades are retractable, I would assume they have some pretty significant gauntlet/bracer kind of thing to retract into, which could seemingly be just as reinforced as bone...

The weirdest things to me are the fact that spurs are unarmed while snap-blades are blades and the fact that the snap blades only get 4 accuracy. I don't understand why a small, light knife would have the same accuracy as the huge "medieval" combat axe.
Curator
QUOTE (Hound @ Apr 8 2014, 03:26 AM) *
I can kinda handle the idea that they're weaker because they don't have the bones to strengthen them. Though since the snap blades are retractable, I would assume they have some pretty significant gauntlet/bracer kind of thing to retract into, which could seemingly be just as reinforced as bone...

The weirdest things to me are the fact that spurs are unarmed while snap-blades are blades and the fact that the snap blades only get 4 accuracy. I don't understand why a small, light knife would have the same accuracy as the huge "medieval" combat axe.


yea it seems like the ability to use implanted spurs would be easier then a wearable counter. less reinforcement and more encumbrance

i think the accuracy is the range of abilty to do damage compared to it's actual bulk damage. so as to why the wicked sharpness of a katana is way higher to score a critical hit instead of just picking up a bar stool and swinging it. both can kill but not in comparison to a skilled trained fighter

my opinion snap blades/spurs should be a blades weapon and not unarmed
Slide_Eurhetemec
QUOTE (Hound @ Apr 8 2014, 02:26 AM) *
The weirdest things to me are the fact that spurs are unarmed while snap-blades are blades and the fact that the snap blades only get 4 accuracy. I don't understand why a small, light knife would have the same accuracy as the huge "medieval" combat axe.


That makes sense to me. You can maneuver a sword or knife in ways you can't with something fixed in place on the side of your hand, allowing more precise strikes.
Umidori
Except that Snap-Blades and Spurs are both equally fixed in place - the only real difference is that one is endoskeletal while the other is exoskeletal.

Also, Hound wasn't actually referring to a literal "knife" that you hold in your hand - rather that a small blade strapped to your forearm shouldn't be as "inaccurate" as a giant, top heavy, cumbersome, two handed combat axe. (And also that it shouldn't be less accurate than one implanted inside your forearm.)

~Umi
Slide_Eurhetemec
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 8 2014, 10:23 AM) *
Except that Snap-Blades and Spurs are both equally fixed in place - the only real difference is that one is endoskeletal while the other is exoskeletal.

Also, Hound wasn't actually referring to a literal "knife" that you hold in your hand - rather that a small blade strapped to your forearm shouldn't be as "inaccurate" as a giant, top heavy, cumbersome, two handed combat axe. (And also that it shouldn't be less accurate than one implanted inside your forearm.)

~Umi


Yeah, I guess I should note that I think spurs should have a fairly low accuracy too (higher than 4, though) - things fixed in place in that way are just not going to be wonderful for precision stabbing (powerful stabbing, definitely...). Also, realistically, no way are they equally fixed in place. Spurs are anchored to your bones. Snap-blades are in a housing on the back of your arm, which will be held in place with straps and so on - which simply cannot be too tight without injuring you and/or impairing your hand movements in a fairly serious way. So for my money they should do less damage and be less accurate than actual spurs (probably 1 point less in both cases).

Still, if one uses unarmed, so should the other, I agree with that.

EDIT - Further, another reason spurs might be more accurate is that you could (and probably should/would) wire them up to the body's proprioception and touch senses, meaning they would be vastly more "part of your body" than snap-blades are.
Jaid
spurs should use your physical limit, if i'm not mistaken. while that isn't necessarily going to be huge, it can certainly be much better than 4 without much difficulty.
Stahlseele
Err . . i would not want to wire something to my sense of touch that i use to cut not only people but also things with O.o
Slide_Eurhetemec
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Apr 8 2014, 02:10 PM) *
Err . . i would not want to wire something to my sense of touch that i use to cut not only people but also things with O.o


You wouldn't wire it at 100% or 1:1 or whatever, because yeah that might be a bit extreme, but you would want some sense of touch for it - it would let you know how well you were cutting things and so on, and you'd be able to use it much better. Wired into proprioception you'd be able to sense where they were, too, like you can with your limbs, which again, would make it better - plus you retract them and pop them at will (unless there's some wireless bullshit associated with that...) which would let you do various cunning tricks.
Rubic
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Apr 8 2014, 10:10 AM) *
Err . . i would not want to wire something to my sense of touch that i use to cut not only people but also things with O.o

I'm sure there's plenty of people in Shadowrun that would WANT to feel it cutting through people and be willing to suffer or tone it down for cutting through things.
Umidori
QUOTE (Slide_Eurhetemec @ Apr 8 2014, 05:26 AM) *
Also, realistically, no way are they equally fixed in place. Spurs are anchored to your bones. Snap-blades are in a housing on the back of your arm, which will be held in place with straps and so on - which simply cannot be too tight without injuring you and/or impairing your hand movements in a fairly serious way.

You're forgetting that this is 2075, and they have things like Gecko grips that allow you to adhere things to your flesh with easy removal and no ill effects. It doesn't have to be tight, it just has to have a large surface area with the bracer being like a sheath for your entire forearm. Then, anywhere your arm moves, it moves too in perfect unison, and no amount of force you can exert by normal usage of the weapon will dislodge it.

I could see your point if we were talking strapping a knife to your arm, but this is more like a full on bladed arm guard held in place with superglue (that can be conveniently turned on and off at will.)

~Umi
Slide_Eurhetemec
QUOTE (Umidori @ Apr 8 2014, 08:48 PM) *
You're forgetting that this is 2075, and they have things like Gecko grips that allow you to adhere things to your flesh with easy removal and no ill effects. It doesn't have to be tight, it just has to have a large surface area with the bracer being like a sheath for your entire forearm. Then, anywhere your arm moves, it moves too in perfect unison, and no amount of force you can exert by normal usage of the weapon will dislodge it.

I could see your point if we were talking strapping a knife to your arm, but this is more like a full on bladed arm guard held in place with superglue (that can be conveniently turned on and off at will.)

~Umi


I'm not, really.

Using gecko-tape-type deals to attach a device like this to your arm is asking for a very very very serious injury. I might go as far as to say that it's nuts. Even if you have some kind of cuff that surrounds the entire forearm, without straps that are really tight (which let you quasi-anchor to the bone/muscle), preferably with a handle in the palm, you're anchoring directly to SKIN - not flesh, not bone, not muscle, skin. The moment you try to force that through an armor plate or get parried by a troll or whatever, you are potentially going to get all that skin twisted right off. I've seen industrial injuries like that and it is absolutely nothing you want to get involved with. At least with a harness and straps, whilst they reduce mobility, they're likely to break before you do.

So whilst you could incorporate gecko-tape stuff to help precision a little, (I sure wouldn't, though), you'd still need the kind of strapping I've described to keep it in place.

I mean, seriously, have you ever seen what happens when something that is superglued to someone gets ripped off them? I really suggest you don't look it up, because it will not improve your day! Sure, you can turn it off at will, but you're going to be doing that every time you hit something, then you're going to have to use a simple action (or even a complex one) to reposition/re-fit the weapon.
Umidori
Gecko Grip / Tape is not superglue, though. Its adhesion will fail before it damages your flesh.

There are even rules for this in 4E - a Gecko Grip on a firearm makes it harder for you to get disarmed, but it doesn't make you lose all the skin off your palm if you do get disarmed.

The entire argument here is revolving around weapon Accuracy. I'm positing that Gecko Tape allows for you to secure the weapon in such a way as to make it as Accurate as the implanted version, without ill effect. It doesn't have to be immoveable, it just has to make the motions of using a snap-blade as similar to a spur as possible.

You yourself admit that it ought to aid precision, you just believe that anchoring with Gecko Tape is inviting injury. As I understand the rules and operation of Geck Tape, it in fact is not. But even if it were, Gecko Tape is only one many 2075 tech advancement - surely there are other ways of securing a snap-blade in place from the outside. (Heck, upon reflection I'd even suggest that basic weapons do not employ Gecko Tape, if only because it will almost certainly be an upcoming available weapon mod in the form of Gecko Grip.)

The very fact that Snap-Blades exist suggests that they come with some reasonable ways of securing them in place - I'm just not convinced that whatever method they use accounts for their insanely low accuracy.

Aside from all that, there are mechanical comparisons that can be made. Why is it that a sword has the same accuracy as a spur? It's not securely bolted to your bones - it's held in your hand! So something you hold can be just as accurate as a grafted implant, but something you strap to your arm can't? What nonsense is that?

And if we take the comparison a step further, how is a Katana even more accurate than an implanted spur? If there's some special factor of a weapon that influences Accuracy, it sure isn't how well "fixed in place" the weapon is. So it has to be something else entirely.

~Umi
Curator
well you can cut someone's head off with a katana. or arm. it's almost like comparing a katana to a scimitar. a katana was for disabling and defense; guards. scimitar is for killing by guaranteed disembowelment. katana vs scimitar. katana will win due to improved range and capabilities. i would be much more scared of a talented swordsman then anyone with a blade less then 8inches with fear. you could get a spear. someone with 2 spur blades would be scary though
psychophipps
Wireless bonus: Snap blades stop sucking.
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