I'm rereading sr3 for the first time in years and I figure I'll have more questions so I'll add to the thread as needed.

Pools
Is spell and control pool availible outside of combat? It say it refreshes per the standard pool refresh rules which talk about pools refreshing every combat turn.

Skills
How does the alertness specialization work?
Say someone has a stealth(alertness) of 3(5) what do they add to int for perception rolls?

[edit]

Combat
pg.53 "if there are multiple characters acting within one combat phase, the characters declare their actions in reverse order"
same page "a. declair actions b. resolve actions c. declare and resolve actions for remainin characters"
doea the top statement apply only when both characters have an initiative of 12 or is a 14 and a 12 considered the same phase?

As far I could see, Pools were exclusively for combat.
There may not be a fluff explanation for it, but that was RAW I think.

The case can be made for either method :

Pools use outside of combat, represent a mechanical method of using the extra time available while still limiting the effects.
(i.e. a mage could just endlessly try to cast and sustain a maximum force spell until he had the desired result)

NO pools outside of combat , same as above, the GM just concludes that the Mage has the time and resources available to achieve a desired result... and recover from the drain in a reasonable time.

My preference is option two. but I guess it's personal choice

The answer to that is a clear "Yes". Beyond "RAW" (see point 1) some other things to consider as well

1. As per page 44 of SR3 neither the description for Spell Pool nor Control Pool references any form of restriction of use with regards to "combat" vs. "non-combat" => RAW does not limit the usage of either pool to combat.
2. Hacking pool may explicitly be used for any MATRIX-related tests like System Tests ... which do occur in- and outside of MATRIX combat
3. The general idea of pools not being available outside "combat" would actually somewhat defy their existance (think Task Pool) or even contradict their description (think Initiate's Pool, Hacking Pool)
4. Beyond "drama" as part of the game experience it becomes rather difficult to justify why a character suddenly becomes up to 100% more effective just because a situation is suddenly considered to be "combat". Example: Why would a mage suddenly be better at casting an Invisibility spell upon himself just because the GM has called out initiatve rolls and thus shifted to "combat"?
5. Any game situation can be resolved under the combat resolution mechanics, so technically you can create a game environment where Pools without doubt would be available all the time. It would just be very tedious to have people roll Initiative for every 3 seconds of inplay time and have all role-play interaction under combat regulations.

A more interesting question would have been: Can a character use Combat Pool dice outside of "combat"?




As per page 231 (last sentence) such a spezialication could be added as Complementary Skill for certain perception tests (GM's call where and when, no details given). Standard rules on Complementary Skills apply => the character would roll 5 dice against the same TN as his main Perception Test (based on Intelligence). For every full 2 successes achieved with those 5 dice he'd get an additional success awarded - provided that the Perception Test itself at least generated 1 success.

Sounds reasonable, gotta check out the general Pool rules again, I thought there was something against that.

Edit:

I found something:



The first sentence implies that that they are meant specifically for when things are 'hot'.
The second one specifically mentions 'encounters'.

I didn't say that there wasn't something "against" it. I just saw now reason to lead a discussion about conflicting RAW, what can or must be considered by implication and inference and the resulting necessity of making decissions beyond RAW. That's why I limited myself to the individual pool definitions and the overall considerations one should not neglect.

But since it obviously can't be helped ...

The general introduction on Dice Pools (page 43) does indeed state:

[..]Dice pools initially become available for use at full value as the first step of the first Combat Turn of any encounter. Characters can then draw from them, as appropriate for the type of pool, during the Combat Turn. Once dice are drawn from, those dice are no longer available for use until the pool refreshes at the beginning of the next Combat Turn.[..]

That - and some other details in the general introduction - does indeed suggest a limitation to "combat" for all Pools. But at that point you'll have to lead an endless discussion whether detailed Pool descriptions either supersede the more general rules or these detailed rulings always being under the limitations of the general rule. Let's just say that the general consensus more than often is that specialized rules always beat general ones and you'd face serious problems with introducing any form of advanced rules that alter (or even contradict) general rules if you weren't to accept that. Even if you bother with having that discussion you'll have changed nothing about pool descriptions not mentioning "combat vs. non-combat" and you'll still have to accept that the following information on Hacking Pool does indeed create precedence for the general description being "wrong" and specific information superseding more general rules (highlighted the important parts that have "out of combat" significance):

[..]Generally, Hacking Pool dice may be added to any test made in the Matrix - System Tests, Attack or Defense Tests, maneuvers, programming, or even Attribute Tests.[..]

Programming is normally not conducted during combat. System Tests occur both in- and outside MATRIX-combat and "any test made in the Matrix" is as explicitly unrestricted as it can get.

You'll find similar things in the descriptions for Task Pool and Initiate's Pool (and possibly other pools as well) which will ultimatley make it a flip decision on whether or not the lack of explicit reference to "combat" in the descriptions for Spell Pool and Control Pool is due to the general description being in effect or those descriptions creating their specialized rulesset for that pool and thus superseding the general one.

So for the sake of completeness I'll rephrase my original verdict: (Just) By RAW it's both a clear "Yes" and "No" for which Mr. Schroedinger will kill another cat and in order to find your own verdict you might particularly want to consider the points raised in 4. and 5. of my previous posting.

Cochise summed it up 100%.

I can agree to a Yes/No as well.

LOL thats exactly why I was asking I to went huh, i could go either way.



Thanks! I was confused as to if the full value counted or if you had to subtract stealth leaving you 2 dice to add to perception tests. Because its seems a little weird if i had a high stealth and bought a specialization with karma I suddenly get a lot more dice.

Well, technically the GM could even allow an unspecialized Stealth Skill to be used in a Complementary Skill Test since in SR the base skill rating always also represents the current rating of potential but currently not existing specializations with the base skill's scope. So having the specialization is no actual functional requirement for the use of Complementary Skills in general or this particular case. It's just that this specialization has a rather "obvious" connection to "Perception" and it's rather common practice in SR rulebook to name both the relevant base skill as well as the best suited specializations. Tends to be slightly more intuitive than just naming the base skill that might be used in such a manner.

I'd use Stealth (and further, alertness) as complementary skill for perception that involves some stealth from the opposite side, like making an ambush.

I think i know the answer to this one but would like some clarification

Combat
pg.53 "if there are multiple characters acting within one combat phase, the characters declare their actions in reverse order"
same page "a. declair actions b. resolve actions c. declare and resolve actions for remainin characters"
doea the top statement apply only when both characters have an initiative of 12 or is a 14 and a 12 considered the same phase?

In general this reversed order declaration indeed only applies to characters that have an identical effective inititiative score during an initiative pass - provided that those characters haven't acted during that same initiative pass yet. So two characters with an initiative score of 12 would be subject to this rule unless one of the characters already acted during the initiative pass already but dropped to a recalculated initiative score of 12 ... for example due to taking a wound.

Initiative scores of 12 and 14 in normal sequence do represent a different Combat Phase. So two characters A and B with these scores would not reverse declaration order ... unless A with initiative of 14 during his Phase declared a delayed action and then during the Combat Phase of the character B with the score of 12 decides to use the delayed action as a reaction to whatever B just declared. In this case the reversed declaration order is established automatically.

Sidenote: The reversed declaration order does create problems more than just occasionally due to the fact that it enables characters to react to things that haven't yet occured and thus make it a kind of clearvoyance thing by the character who ultimately overrides what was declared by others. In a large number of cases the declared actions of those who had to declare them first simply can no longer occur in their originally intended form. Depending on how the declaration that was declared last but resolved first affects the character(s) who declared first you'll face situations where they have to either redeclare new actions or force them into inaction due to the impossibility of going through with their already declared actions.

See, I read this ... and read it again ... and came to the conclusion, I need more Coffee!"

Remember to apply this first:



With that you determine who 'technically has the higher initiative'.
After that, the ones with the 'higher initiative' have an advantage over the ones with 'lower initiative'.
The ones with the higher ones are fast enough to see what the others are up to,
and may act to prevent them from successfully doing it.


@tete:
Remember with this though, in this situation, that when you are the GM,
you do not have to tell your players all the actions the NSCs are taking, just the ones the players are aware of.

The 'A. Declare Actions' and 'B. Resolve Actions' happen in reverse order.
This is a similar mechanic to how MTG handled spells a few editions back, I do not know if they still do it that way.
-> The spells that were played first, were resolved last, so something that disrupted a spell, was played before the spell could take effect, which makes sense.
In Shadowrun this works in a similar way to the Delayed Action mechanic, where you can act before someone, even though you declared your action after they did.

Edit: Goddamnit, pls delete.

The idea is more to allow characters having delayed their actions to react to what the opponent does (it's the point of delayed actions btw).


On a general note (unrelated to SR RAW), I don't agree to this statement.

Actually, I find it to be the most realistic way to handle an action. No action is trully instant.

Let's say their's a fight between 2 parties. But let's focus on 2 opponents: a mage and a samourai:
Mage has initiative 8, Samourai 21.

Say a mage wanna cast a spell.
x--Start of turn----Starts casting------------------------------------>Initiative 8: Spell cast.

With a reversed declaration, we can consider that the samourai:
x--Start of turn----Sees mage casting->Initiative 21->Shoots


And If I should modify my action, I should have a penalty for it.




To give a concrete exemple (sports). When I play basketball, wanna dribble my opponent to the right but he's way quicker, he's able to block my path and I either I stop my move, make a pass or a shot, but it's harder because I had to change my plans. And you can't consider it to be an delayed action, because the quickest of the two is usually able to react to what his opponent does while acting himself.

Exemple 2: Quicker attacker dribbles right, sees opponent trying to stop the drive, crosses over and rushes to the left.

The declare actions thing is something I just don't do in my game. Combat can already take an ungodly amount of gametime so the less complications the better in my view.

From a simulationist perspective it is a pretty good mechanic, but you are right, it takes an ungodly amount of time.

Also, it does not come up that often.

My game last weekend, the team were escaping from an Aztech factory and encountered a couple of HTR teams. 5 runners, 6 leopard guards, 3 NPCs; 6 combat turns in total. Took almost 5 hours

Though I will admit there is a quite a bit of time to be knocked off for food breaks, side conversations and other tomfoolery to be added in there.

I'm not quite sure if this actually serves this thread's purpose. So tete, if you feel that this should stop, just give notice.

________________________



What exactly is the problem with what I wrote? Bad grammar?

________________________



I didn't comment on what the "idea" behind the mechanic is. I'm well aware of what this is supposed to do and how that reversed declaration order rule for tied initiative scores ties in with the delayed action mechanic. I merely commented on the - in my opinion - negative effects that either mechanic can and will have in more than just "some" instances..



Which particular aspect don't you agree with? Because what you wrote next has little to do with what I stated.



I didn't comment on the degree of "realism" of these mechanics. Simply because any sequential combat resolution mechanic will never be able to model things that occur in parallel. Actions not truly being "instant" is just one of the things that cannot be modelled to a truly satisfying degree. Other things are mental processing times in order to adapt to changes in the environment or the inability of doing so.



There are some major problems with that "realistic" example (which additionally is not RAW conforming as you noted yourself):

1. Regardless of wether or not the act of spell-casting is "instant" (=actual time requirement equals 0s) you're stipulating that the involved mage makes his decision at a fixed time X and starts casting. Unfortunately - given his lower "reflexes" / "reaction" one could easily stipulate that his decision making also takes longer and thus his actual decision and start of action occurs at X+Y after the Combat Turn has started. This could easily be some time after the point where the samurai gets his first action due to his enhanced reaction / reflexes.
2. In your example the samurai appearently becomes aware of the mage's intend at fixed time X as well. He's acting upon something that the mage only just decided but by no means has even begun to do. That's a clearvoyant act from the samurai's side, particularly if the samurai doesn't spend part of his initial action to try and assess the situation with regards to the magicians intention, because ...
3. ... unless the mage is under some form of Geas that forces him to make destinct gestures, audible incantations or starts exhibiting something like the Shamanistic Mask his act of spell casting doesn't give any sensory cues that directly relate to his intend. So whatever the mage "does" in the short timeframe between start of the Combat Turn and getting to the samurai's first Combat Phase with initiative score of 21 there isn't much for the samurai that would allow him to get knowledge about what the mage is up to and then making the successful decision of countering exactly that. Actually ...
4. ... declaration of actions occurs on the meta-level between players and then characters start acting upon that meta-knowledge. So it's a direct breakage of one of the most basic concepts in roleplaying: The separation of player knowledge vs. character knowledge

Don't get me wrong there, I'm not juding this to be "bad roleplaying". I'm merely pointing out the inherent flaws of sequential gameplay and where they show. The mechanic of reversed action declaration - both under RAW conditions of tied initiative scores and non-RAW conditions where GMs enforce this for all initiative scores - is one of those flaws that shows the weakness rather easily.



Trust me, the character whom's declared actions gets overridden is usually penalized more than enough. he'll be lucky to even get a chance of declaring a different action. Just look at your own example with the mage and the samurai: Once the samurai has successfuly shot at the mage what will happen?

• Option A: The mage survives the attack unharmed and thus can go through with his initially declared action.
• Option B: The mage survives the attack but is harmed in the process. Since wounds instantly modify his initiative score the RAW situation of tied initiative score would be resolved and he'd get to re-declare - a potentially different - actiion during his now newly determined "next" Combat Phase. In case of your non-RAW variant he'd be unable to make a new declaration (since that would break the reverse order premise). In either variant he would have to perform the declared action with a wound modifier.
• Option C: The mage is simply killed or at least totally incapitated and thus unable to perform whatever action he declared

In two out of three cases the mage suffers penalties (wound modifiers or being dead) and only in one he'd be able to modify his action (which would be the RAW one) while suffering from wound modifiers.
____________________________



I guess you actually didn't drop the "declare actions" part bceause that would make it impossible to resolve combat. You've most likely just removed the reversed declaration order on initiative ties. So your players always declare and resolve their actions at the same time. And yes, this seems a rather common solution to avoid the bloated combat inflating even more.

Aye that's the one.

not at all Sir,

a combination of ..
too early,
no caffeine
and my finding it hard to follow something as simple as this

We don't regularly play this way, with reverse ordered declared actions, as has been noted it seems to invoke clairaudience
and we prefer to by a bit more loose with the reactions to actions rather than deciding between 6 players and innumerable NPCs
who is doing what and who else knows who else is thinking about doing what else!

Reaction checks often leave me at a loss as to who can attack whom and is defenceless against whomever else! (sp).

playing by RAW can sometimes reduce you to a gibbering wreck if you let it.
But then by the same token, players expect a certain adherence to the rules in case of perceived unfairness.

there's a balance somewhere ... but I think there's a DropBear on one end and the other has a Rhinocerous tap dancing on it!

I guess the important part is constantly finding and constantly re-evaluating your group's balance point ... and in the past years I noticed a tendency amoung my players and different gaming groups for making things as quick and easy as possible. So in recent time ignoring the part about reversed declaration order on initiative ties was indeed something that happened more often than during the earlier days of my SR gaming career.

I don't agree to this part, especially not the bolted part:

Sidenote: The reversed declaration order does create problems more than just occasionally due to the fact that it enables characters to react to things that haven't yet occured and thus make it a kind of clearvoyance thing by the character who ultimately overrides what was declared by others.




I'm aware that both approaches (total reversed declarations (each initiative pass) and declarations per initiative) can't be 100% realistic. My favor goes to reversed nonetheless (non RAW, which is a clear thing).

Wait I must really highlight that we're not RAW. We must discuss it as if it was house ruling and trying to build a consensus around that. If you think I'm wrong because it's not written that way in the rulebook, the discussion is closed because I agree that it is not written that way.

First off, I don't consider that casting a spell is ""instant" (=actual time requirement equals 0s)", because if I consider that to be the case, you could technically do truckloads of other thing. Count up to 3 (for the 3 seconds of Combat turn). If that spell cast counts for 0 secs, you'd certainly able to shoot with a firearm to, wouldn't you?

"=>you're stipulating that the involved mage makes his decision at a fixed time X and starts casting."

yes.

"=>Unfortunately - given his lower "reflexes" / "reaction" one could easily stipulate that his decision making also takes longer and thus his actual decision and start of action occurs at X+Y after the Combat Turn has started."

partially. In the exemple, it's more like if he pointed with his finger in the direction of the samourai, the fireball starts to grow, and finally the fireball starts flying to the samourai, which took X+Y.

"=>This could easily be some time after the point where the samurai gets his first action due to his enhanced reaction / reflexes."

exactely, the samourai notices and is so quick that his own X' (own reaction time) +Y' (time to perform the reaction) is actually lower than mages X+Y. So he shoots at him while the mage was raising his finger in his direction.

"=>In your example the samurai appearently becomes aware of the mage's intend at fixed time X as well. He's acting upon something that the mage only just decided but by no means has even begun to do."

So here we have a different perception of it.

"=>That's a clearvoyant act from the samurai's side, particularly if the samurai doesn't spend part of his initial action to try and assess the situation with regards to the magicians intention, because ..."

Per Raw, you'd have to spend a free action to make a perception test. I would simply consider it as free but:

"=>[*] ... unless the mage is under some form of Geas that forces him to make destinct gestures, audible incantations or starts exhibiting something like the Shamanistic Mask his act of spell casting doesn't give any sensory cues that directly relate to his intend. So whatever the mage "does" in the short timeframe between start of the Combat Turn and getting to the samurai's first Combat Phase with initiative score of 21 there isn't much for the samurai that would allow him to get knowledge about what the mage is up to and then making the successful decision of countering exactly that. "

Yes as a GM I consider whether my NPC could have noticed it or not (eventually rolling) and same goes for the PC. If the spellcasting is hard to notice for whatever considerations, the PC has to roll in order to counter it.
Exemple:
PC Mage: Initiative 5: I ll cast fireball
GM: Initiative 9: goons are going to shoot. Samourai, roll a perception test TN6
PC Samourai (initiative 18) : 3 successes!
GM: One of them is actually a mage and will throw you a fireball.
PC I'll shoot him!


=>"[*]... declaration of actions occurs on the meta-level between players and then characters start acting upon that meta-knowledge. So it's a direct breakage of one of the most basic concepts in roleplaying: The separation of player knowledge vs. character knowledge"

Honestly, I handle it quite well. I don't use it when it's not requiered (like nobody has anything special that makes reacting a very usefull thing) but when I do, it doesn't lead to much metagaming as I keep it in check by beeing fair.

=>"Trust me, the character whom's declared actions gets overridden is usually penalized more than enough. he'll be lucky to even get a chance of declaring a different action."

Definitely, yes. That's why I always warn the mages. The "shoot the mage" mentality makes their life dangerous. And even harder if the mage has to change his action. I consider them as hasted ones (hence the penalty). Say the samourai shoots at 21. He's done it in about 1 second out of the 3. So this time, the new action is done quicker hence a penalty.

Yes it has holes (why couldn't the samourai re-react with his second pass?). But that's the point where rules would become too ruly at my taste. So I consider that the samouri had enough advantages for beeing quick.



--------------------------

Otherwise: my fights doesn't last long usually because most of the times, they don't go past 2 Combat turns. Fights are very lethal in SR3

Had to split this in two postings ;(


So (re-)acting against a yet not performed action with no direct sensory data to even make the judgement upon is no clairvoyant action in your book?



There seems to be yet another misconception because my statement had nothing to do with "preference" either. So there's no need for defending your preference there.



I'm not thinking that your wrong based on the fact that you opt for using a non-RAW resolution method, but I don't see a requirement to build a consensus around this either. This discussion is at this stage pretty much pointless because neither one of us will change the individual perception with regards to the "clairvoyant aspect" of the inherent flaws of sequential resolution mechanics. I will however comment on some of the things you wrote because I do think that you're opperating under some false premises when trying to "argue" against my statement. Thus causing yourself to argue about something completely different instead.



I never suggested that you consider the act of casting a spell as being "instant". So there's simply no need for such a clarification.



I didn't claim otherwise either. The real problem however will be that those 3 seconds within the combat resolution mechanics will accelerate and decellerate time requirements for actions depending on the number of involved parties and the number of initiative passes the Combat Turn has ... right to the point where the act of casting a spell will indeed functionally become "instantaneous". That's just another one of the inherent flaws of any sequential combat resolution model.



And such a stipulation is anything but "realistic".



Now you're trying to make it a special case of casting an Elemental Manipulation like Fireball. Replace that with Stunbolt, Manabolt as harmful targeted spell or - "worse" - something like an Increase Reflexes spell upon himself ... all things that are not automatically linked to any sensory cues that the samurai could ever pick up. And you're still neglecting the fact that the Mage (or any other character for that matter) could - based on his slower Reaction/Reflexes - come out of his decision making process way after the point where you demand him on the meta-level to make that decision and allow another character to act against that decision in full meta-knowledge about said decision. The problem there is that no matter what the mage actually decides to do the samurai - due to the meta-knowledge of his player - will make a decision based on information that from ingame perspective simply is not available.



No, your initial example had the samurai decide at the very same time X where both the samurai and the mage had decided to act in certain ways react to the mage's decision. My reference to X+Y on the mage's side however indicated that at time X only the samurai actually had made up his mind for any kind of (re-)action and since he's quite obviously reacting to a decsion that might even not have been made at all, he's acting with premeditative powers.



Quite obviously and I'm not certain what could change that.

And now try to recount the number of times where you or your players used a free action to make any such perception test after having heard the action declaration in reversed order.

Btw. the free action is just for a general observation of a situation. One could certainly argue that in order to deduce the mage's intention of casting a spell will require the samurai to make use of a "observe in detail" single action instead of the free one ... particularly for all cases where the mage infact doesn't provide direct sensory cues and the samurai not even knowing that he's dealing with a magician in the first place.



Your example seems to be a bit off because at least one of the initiative 9 goons obviously just made a false action declaration: You say they shoot. Then you let the samurai make a situational test which turns that declaration into "casts fireball" and let the samurai then make a reaction to that action that still is only declared but certainly not in an exectional state that would allow the samurai to make this perception test. Your example clearly shows the clairvoyant aspect in what the samurai is doing.



~hmm~ And you handling that "well" (within your personal perception) changes what exactly about the fact itself?



With your fixation on mage vs. samuraiu I somehow have the feeling that you're trying to turn this into a "Geek the mage first" issue. My initial comment however only ever concerned the general flaws that reversed action declaration have with regards to what you called "realistic". My "objections" to said mechanic are totally unrelated to archetypes of any kind.



Next time try to look at how long of real time you and your group spend on thise 2 Combat Turns. More than often - even if you were to neglect things like taking cover or any form of bad condition - you're still facing several minutes in order to represent 3 to 6 seconds of ingame time. With players and npcs that operate a maximum strategic and tactical level one can easily end up with 2 to 4 Combat Turns taking hours of real time until they are resolved. Additionally slowing that down with reverse action declarations and re-declaration of actions is not necessarily what players like.

Anecdote that I often reference in such discussions: Somewhere between 2000 and 2002 a group of German SR players made the attempt of playing an Combat Bike game with the standard SR combat rules during one of the house conventions (RatCon) held by Fanpro (Germany). Initially 18 players plus IIRC 1 referee entered the game in Combat Turn 1. It took about 2,5 hours to resolve the Combat Turns 1 and 2. By the end of Turn 2 one team - let's call them Team A - had been completely annihilated while the others (Team B) suffered no real casualties beyond some minor injuries. The majority of Team A could not even remotely go through with any of their intended "declared actions" and had Team B known their intentions the outcome would not have been different but the time it would have taken for that exact same result would certainly have been much higher.

1. I've always played spell and control pool being useable outside of combat. In combat, it's important to track how often they refresh. Outside of combat, unless time is a factor, I would generally assume they had their full pool available.

2. To be honestly, I've never had anyone use that specialization. I'd say use it as a supplemental to the intelligence test, with every 2 successes from Alertness counting as an automatic success on the perception check.

3. This was a rule I never paid any attention to. Everyone rolled their initiative and I noted it down. In the rare cases where two people got the same initiative, I'd quietly bump the NPC's score up or down, depending on how difficult I expected things to be. If it was between 2 PCs(even rarer), I had them dice for it.

It tends to favor everything over, for example, lock-picking or summoning though,
which you get no Pool dice on, except karma.
Also, it devalues high magic skills outside of combat, in general,
since you can weigh them up with attribute points easily.
From a balancing standpoint, I would argue against it.

I would also argue against it from a conceptual standpoint.
Generally speaking, all skills, which require time, and calm, to a certain extent, get no pool dice.
This includes the aforementioned, as well as any technical skill you can come up with, and Charisma-linked skills.
All situations however where you are under mental, or bodily stress, and need to show a mental and physical edge,
which may be fueled by adrenaline, or sheer force of will, have assigned dice pools.
The way I interpret it, which of course is only my opinion, is that the dice pools represent the amount of strain the characters can put themselves through to excel, when it is truly needed.

The way I see it is this:

A control pool is the advantage conferred upon you by your VCR. It represents your augmented ability in all situations where it is applicable.

A spell pool represents your natural ability with magic, your raw potential instead of your training (sorcery skill) or mental fortitude (Willpower). Which is why you can't use more pool dice than you have points in the skill: the better you know what you're doing, the better you can apply your power. This also is what gives high magic skills their value; you can't make full use of spell pool without skills to match.

In the case of control pool, I feel that taking it away in non combat situations benefit neither affects balance nor degrades other skills. It does make you inherently better at driving than non-augmented characters at all times...but then, isn't that kind of the whole point? The VCR represents a high-quality tech advantage that consumes a great deal of nuyen and essence. Restricting its benefits actually seems unbalanced in the opposite direction, since while combat is the most obvious use of the VCR, it is far from the only one.

In the case of spell pool, the difference between using magical skills and nonmagical skills is that with magical skills you run a significant risk of inflicting drain on yourself. There are a lot of situations where you may not be in combat at that exact moment, but knocking yourself unconscious would be a Bad Thing. Spell pool allows for you to decide if you want to try to boost the effectiveness of the spell or resist the drain. This is a legitimate decision to make at any time, given the circumstances, and I don't see how it devalues non-magical skills.

I present:
The explosives skill. Less dice means an exponentially higher chance of 'The rule of one' happening. Could mean you explode .
Biotech. You fail, they die.
Athletics. You try jumping over a gap between a couple of houses. *player rolls* 'Oh!'

The control pool is a good argument though,
since it does not apply for non-Riggers.

I guess I just feel the extra time is enough of an advantage already.
Getting extra time AND the pool dice is an unnecessary double-whammy in my mind.
(Getting defensive here )

So the moral of the story is if your buddy wants to do something between battles, shoot at him.

Your helping by activating his dice pool.

1. Well, unless you're rolling with a magic skill of 3 or below, it's not like the dice pool is making all that much difference, at 5-6 dice you have such a low chance of getting Rule of 1 that it's practically indistinguishable from rolling 10+ dice. It does help with the rigger, but why would the rigger have a low Drive skill in the first place?

2. Biotech outside of combat conditions is far preferable than biotech in a firefight.

3. If you're jumping without cyberware or magic boosting you, and it's a long jump? Yeah, it IS a huge risk, and should be. If you have some kind of boost, then you have much less to worry about.

I think what it comes down to is just that some skills get pools and others don't. Why do pistols get combat pool? Why do computer skills get a hacking pool? Why do magic skills get spell pool? In a pinch, I'd say it's to lend tactical flexibility to the core skills of certain archetypes: when a sammy fires his gun, when a decker cuts IC, when a rigger drives, and when a mage throws a spell, you want it to be more than just "Roll a number of dice equal to skill and check the target number." You want some level of input from the player that allows them to say "I'm going to put a little more into THIS action so I can street it towards THIS result."

Let me ask you this: if a Sammy wanted to do some trick shooting to impress a johnson at a meet, would you not let him use combat pool?

Come to think of it, if the street sammy wanted to plink cans off of a fence in his free time or to impress a Johnson or whatever, I'd still give him combat pool.

Also, don't worry, this isn't meant to be some kind of attack. I've honestly never thought about restricting pools in that ways, and its an interesting idea. My only quibble is that I'd rather players had flexibility when using their core skills.

I have a raw question of my own:

What skill is used for lockpicking?

Lock Picking. Not being a smartass, just going by NSCRG. Under technical skills, linked to quickness. Didn't find it in the main book, not sure where it came from.

That - by RAW - depends upon the type of lock:

Maglocks with all their variants do require a (stupid) combination of "Electronics" and "Electronics B/R", including suitable specializations.

Classic cylinder locks (which are said to be a rare commodity) use the [mechanical] Lockpicking skill with further specialization possibilties with regards to the exact cylinder lock type. IIRC that skill was introduced in one of the final SR3 products: State of the Art 2063 ... the book that also brought stuff like crowbars.

Well Cochise, I did read most of your arguments and:

a- you turn it way to much into an ego-fight for my taste. It's exactely what displease me in Dumpshock. And I don't think anyone execpt both of us are still reading us.

b-I have not much more to add. I developped my argument about why I don't concider it as clairvoyance with my "X+Y versus X'+Y' acting times", gave an exemple too (and yes, if it was a stunbolt and beeing cast discretely, the samourai couldn't react to it). You still consider me wrong. Well, I have hence nothing more to add.

c- But well, I handle my combats pretty well and I keep them in check in length. The reversed order declaration I use is very dependent of the situation. It doesn't happen often, only if their's something important that could occur. But it's not for everyone, I agree. I know my rules very well and calculate everything quickly enough. So well, on a personal level, it works well. Can say so for everyone.