Hi! As Dumpshock is meant to be the definitive surviving bastion of SR3 mechanics and lore, I'd like to pick your collective minds on a few things that happened during play last week.
Happy to get both RAW and RAI answers, and personal considerations too.

1) My character dumped Strength (2) for ridiculous Quickness (15)... Started at 6, +2 Night One, +1 Exceptional Attribute, +1 Bonus Attribute Point, +4 Muscle Toner, +1 Suprathyroid Gland. Considerations on the preceding math aside, I was wondering if a Monofilament Whip (yeah, I know) can be used defensively in melee. I've not found it explicitly stated anywhere that you couldn't, so general melee weapons apply, in which case you can. But it did cross my mind that a whip is mostly a weapon of grace and precision, not really useful for parrying. On the other hand, given the fluid nature of melee combat in SR, it could be interpreted defensively as in: the whip creates a "threat range" as the wielder spins it around, intimidating while it waits for an attacker to slip into range. The defender winning the attack would mean basically that he struck the attacker with the whip as he dodged out of the way. What do you guys think? Can a whip be used defensively in melee?

2) We were surprised by a pack of Barghests at some point. This is a scripted event from (spoiler) one of the adventures in Super Tuesday (/spoiler) so the whole thing starts at "defend from paralysing howl howl then roll initiative". There's no rolling perception to see them before they see you, no running away before they're in howl range, nothing. What happened was, out of 5 runners, only one escaped the howl through sheer luck (he rolled four 6s in a six dice pool). Everyone else took a 6 point penalty to Quickness (beast's Essence), which was enough to get 3 of them frozen and unable to act. Luckily, my character has god-like Quickness and took it in stride, so he mopped the floor with the barghests hand-to-hand while the other lucky guy, the mage, cast silence around us. It ended up being a great scene, because there was real tension, but we triumphed through coolness, tactics, and just the right amount of luck. Now... IF the mage bollocksed his roll (the statistically likely outcome), the barghests would have been able to use their paralysing howl repeatedly, each once per turn, meaning my character would too succumb to paralysis after a third hit. THAT - IS - MAD! The damned dogs would have just sat back, crooning the soundtrack to Frozen until we were all helpless, and then dine on us at leisure. Straight away TPK. What am I missing here? Is it really meant to be this brutal?

Thanks for having read this far. Cheers.

Hi

Ad 1: As I understand the melee combat section in the core rulebook, specifically pp.123-124, you can indeed go on full defense with a whip (mono or not) in hand. >I'm not sure why you'd want to, unless your skill is pathetic, but whatever fills your credstick, omae

Ad 2: Sounds like your GM takes the written word a litte too literally to me. I believe that the situation you describe qualifies as what the kids call a 'dick move' on the part of the GM - although it may not have been intentional, of course! I don't know the adventure, and it's certainly possible that the authors negleted to mention that the GM should call for Perception rolls or give the PCs some other way to prepare for an encounter, but your GM should, IMHO, still allow the players some chance to see the trap before they walk into it.

The consideration on that preceding math however says: That list of modification only gets you to Quickness of 14 not 15 under RAW.



Under RAW of 3rd Ed any of the available melee weapons can be use "defensively" in two ways:

1. with standard melee where you roll your melee related skill in opposition to any attacker. This option includes the possibility of harming the aggressor in the process.
2. with the melee combat option for full defense wherein you'd use the whip for defense but cannot ever do damage to the aggressor

The melee rules in SR3 are an abstraction. They don't waste time on details like how suitable a specific weapon is and which types of movements are involved. You could easily describe various movement and whipping patterns that are aimed at keeping an aggressor at bay instead of directly hitting him. Just do yourself the favor and don't overthink this for purposes of "realism".



Simply put: Yes



While a GM certainly can handle things that way going by the "Tell it to them straight" intro to "Rude Awakening" that's not exactly how things are supposed to go there: Albeit the text indeed says that one of the Barghests "lets loose a low mournful howl" there's nothing in there that actually says that this particular howl is in fact also the use of the critter's power "Paralyzing Howl".



Another aspect that strikes me as a bit off: The text of "Tell it to them straight" most definitely mentions the runners registering the Barghets prior to them charging in to attack (and howling for that matter). Hence I'm inclined to say that the GM - even if he insisted on having one of the Barghets successfully going through with its howl as its first action - should have gone with a surprise test prior to the actual rolling of initiative and the onset of the howl's effect.



This data is unfortunately insufficient when trying to determine whether or not things were in accordance with the rules:

1. What where the exact Willpower stats of all 5 Runners?
2. Did the Barghest really successfully hit 3 of 5 Runners there? It's an opposed test after all:
   
   • How many successes did the Barghest score against said Willpower stats for each Runner?
   • How many successes did the Runners roll with WilLxd6 against TN of 6?

You're not necessarily missing anything there. Some critter encounters are indeed supposed to be brutal - and in certain cases even outright lethal. There are special considerations to be had here in particular:

1. Super Tuesday is aimed at (very) experienced Runners. So it's not the best idea to have starting characters / low Karma characters going into some of those published adventures. In particular: Your account doesn't mention the use of Karma Pool for re-rolling and/or adding dice to the Willpower tests. A reasonably large Karma Pool of experienced Runners would have made it possible to oppose the howl way easier.
2. The module is actually a 2nd Ed module and thus was originally resolved under a slightly different initiative system that - depending on the involved characters' initiative values - could have gone way easier or far worse.
3. Many of the official modules have a distinct lack of balance to themselves. Thus a GM should actually benchmark encounters prior to the actual game session in order to avoid such nasty surprises - unless he and the players want the degree of lethality things like that can entail.

Btw. be thankful that you didn't face a critter with the Confusion power.

I'd be very dubious about the math on the Quickness stat as well.

Starting max rating = 6. Add two for racial mods, takes you to 8. Add BAP, takes you to 9.
Exceptional attribute does NOT give you a point of quickness, it just adds to the RANGE of your racial max stat and absolute max. So a normal human has a racial max of 6, and an absolute max of 9. An elf has a normal racial max of 7 and an absolute max of 11. With EAP, that would rise to 8 and 12.

Muscle toner is bioware - and bioware counts as "natural" attributes (P77 Man and Machine). The way we play at our table is that bioware can only take you up to your normal racial max - so in the case of taking EAP, that would be 8 for an elf (which you're already at). Now, it doesn't specifically say that, so you could take the +4 and boost to the absolute limit, which would put you on 12. But if you did, then you certainly shouldn't be taking the +1 from Superthyroid as well.

So, the answer depends on how you interpret how far bioware can push you - the racial max or absolute max. As said above, at our table you can boost to the racial max with bioware, after that you have to pay karma and time - and lots of both, to train naturally. Cyberware is a flat bonus on top because it's machine augmentation, so taking Muscle Replacement from the core book would be a fair alternative.

As to the whip and using it defensively - absolutely. Whyever not.

Regarding the paralysing howl - I would have interpreted it as the paralysing howl can give you a quickness penalty based on net successes to a max rating of (Essence of creature) - it can't stack up indefinitely. Still bad, but not quite as terminal.

With Exceptional Attribute (as opposed to the also involved Extra Attribute Point) the Racial Maximums have gone up to 9(14) [one of the cases where things get rounded up] on a Night One.
So it's 6 from base attributes + 2 from Night One + 1 Bonus Attribute Point (which doesn't take him over normal racial attribute limit created by Exceptional Attribute) + 4 from Toner + 1 from the Gland. All in all a legal natural 14 Quickness attribute at the absolute Racial Maximum ... just not 15.



The debate on whether or not Bioware can exceed the "natural absolute Racial Maximums" is not involved here.



Well that's certainly a solution - just not RAW .. and there's little indication to that being RAI either.

The others have already answered, but I can't think of any melee weapon that can't be used defensively with the same skill you'd use for an attack. So that's okay for a whip as defense, and that'd probably work as you described: your whip would threaten the attacker more than generating an effective "parry".



That's just wrong. There is a mechanic for surprise in the BBB that has to be used in these cases, and a mechanic for perception, which, arguably, should have given you an opportunity to make a test. The way the GM played it is unfair, but maybe it was just a mistake, in any cas you might want to tell him.

In any case, the paralyzing howl certainly is brutal.

BUT: If I read the adventure correctly, there should have been less Barghest than there were runners. And if I'm reading the critter power correctly, it can affect only one target per complex action. So, in any case, at least one of you shouldn't have had to make a test to resist. In addition to that, the text in the adventure only mention one barghest using its power and the rest simply "attacking".

I'm all against ennemies using suboptimal technics to give more chance to the players, in the case where the enemy is human and at least a little combat hardened. But for critters, it can make sense that the barghests would not take on a bunch of human in the best possible ways. Humans, and in particulars a bunch of skillful runners, shouldn't be their usual meal, especially in the described context, where they seem to be savage animals.

Four in total to be precise.



Debatable ...

General single target aspect in RAW:

Page 7, Critters -> Range:
[..]Critter powers generally affect only one person or thing per action, except as noted in the individual power's description

Basis for multi-target exception:

Page 13, Critters -> Paralyzing Touch/Howl:
[..]Some creatures have a version of this power known as Paralyzing Howl. In this case, the being can affect any target able to hear it.[..]

Without further qualifiers the underlined word can be interpreted as multi-target within RAW under the condition that potential targets can hear the Howl. The rest of the text doesn't provide cut and dry qualifiers for or against such an interpretation under RAW.



So this - in any case - is merely a conclusion drawn upon the interpretation of an ambigious rule. One ...



... that ultimately is of no consequence if a GM decided to interpret "any" as being the basis for a multi-target exception for this power's usage.

Now add this general caveat:

Page 6, Critters -> Powers of the Awakened (also in the core rules):
[..]The game mechanics given on the following powers are intended as guidelines for gamemasters. Players should never be absolutely certain of the capabilities of a paranormal opponent; there's always a chance a power might work slightly different from critter to critter. (Uncertainty is a wonderful dramatic rule)[..]

At this point the GM is well within RAW when having that Barghest's Howl affect all runners without even invoking "Rule No. 1".

The power description doesn't note that it can affect several people or things per action. "Any target" doesn't mean that this can be several target. So by RAW, that's still only one.

You're right that the gamemaster is within his right to decide that it affects several target at once. He could also decide that it kills on the spot, or reduce quickness by three times the creature's essence or by 100 too.

Sorry, but I have to repeat myself there: The use of "any" in that particular sentence can be interpreted as being the "description" you claim that the power doesn't note. So ...



... RAW is too ambiguous to make the claim that you are making there.



And he'd still be within RAW. Remember?! You were the one who tried to make this about RAW by making claims about what RAW says on Paralyzing Howl and what it doesn't?

Don't get me wrong here: I'm not saying that I'm necessarily in agreement with what the GM obviosuly did there, I'm merely objecting your absolute approach to what you think is "RAW" but cannot be fully supported by actual "RAW".

No, it isn't, as it can mean a singular person, and is then not noting it as an exception to the rule of "one person per power use". Noting that the power can affect several people cannot be ambiguous.

Otherwise, for example, powers just mentionning "victims" instead of "a/the victim" could be considered to affect several victims while they don't by RAW.

Your interpretation is redundancy, freudqo.
There is no need to even mention that the howl can affect any target if it's only singular, because by definition it can already only affect targets that can hear the howl.

It's also not ambiguous because of this: The barghest howls and doesn't need to choose a target because all are affected, except if for some reason it wants to NOT affect one. Say ... pack mates.

No, if you don't put this sentence, the barghest can affect any target that is in its line of sight. Here the book specifies a condition: the target should be one that can hear it.

Alright, believe what you like

I will, thank you. Though, I don't see how the right to believe what I like is related to what is written in the rules and the fact that what you said was wrong.

Because it wasn't wrong (*), despite what you might think, and we're in belief territory now: When you need to bring up LOS for a sound based power to prop up your argument, I see no reason to engage in that argument any further.
So, instead I'll just leave you to it, since it doesn't matter to me either way. OP will be able to form an opinion based on what was presented here easily.

Cheers, man.

Edit: (*) To clarify: I don't BELIEVE I am wrong, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

We are dealing with RAW here, and you know it. What was wrong was the fact that the sentence was supposed to be redundant and that the "any target" had to reflect a situation with multiple possible targets. This relied on the fact that the sentence wouldn't be of any use otherwise, while it is indeed if you want to precise that the target should be able to hear the howl. And that's not even looking at the true meaning of "any+singular"…

I could stop here, but I'd like to precise two things:
- A redundancy can perfectly happen for no reason or for the sake of teaching by repetition. The blindness power thus states: "As this name suggests, the Blindness power induces blindness in a single target.". Why do they say it's a single target while it is in the general power rules? This is redundant.

- There are many reasons to believe the howl power could work with deaf targets. Sound doesn't only affect your ears, as anyone attending a loud concert surely would notice. Additionally, the other sound-based powers (sound projection and hypnotic song) very explicitly state that they can affect several people who can hear the sound (notice that the rules make quite little sense in the case of hypnotic song, but well, that's what comes from simplifying the rules from old sourcebooks…).

Finally, if you're not convinced, you can remember that the powers described in the critters sourcebook actually derive from the powers in the "paranormal animals of Europe" sourcebook for sr2 (where hypnotic song makes more sense). And there, you'll notice that the "any target" mention doesn't exist and that very clearly only one target can be affected.

I knew Dumpshock wouldn't let me down So...

1) Cochise hit the nail in the head, I was overthinking the answer to a question no one posed. Abstract combat, right! It's just that Monofilament Whips are the only melee weapon that uses Quickness instead of Strength, and my "usually-GM" brain immediately decided there had to be a caveat. "Shadowrun players aren't allowed to have the cake and eat it too", I must've thought.

2) The GM actually played it as suggested by 'Read it to them straight': one howl to open hostilities, then normal attacks. It was me (again, GM brain taking over) who looked at the math of Paralyzing Howl and thought "Holy shit the potential for TPK is off the wall". One single howl knocked out 3 out of 5 runners in the 60+ earned karma range, none of whom has Willpower under 5. The two unaffected were, one, a guy who has enough Quickness to lose 6 full points of it and still move, and two, a Willpower 6 guy who beat the GM's 2 successes with some very unlikely 4 of his own. A very fine point that was made, though, was that if there ever was a time to spend karma pool, this should have been it. Karma pool is something we as group often forget. Our bad.

Regarding the debate that ensued here, we've played it as affecting anyone who hears it. To be honest, none of us reading the power description interpreted it in any other way than affecting everyone who hears it, though I see how the term "anyone" can be read that way. It feels to me like one of those things the 6th World can pull that is still able to put the fear of Zeus into the heart of hardened cityslickers.

0) I'm well aware of the old debate surrounding Exceptional Attribute and Bonus Attribute Point. Let's just say that in my group the rules are:

- Bioware is limited by absolute maximum like cyberware, not racial/natural maximum of 6 + racial modifier. It's part of the augmented attribute calculation, even though it adds directly to the natural attribute.
- EA adds 1 to the racial max of each of the attributes you buy it for. You can buy it once per attribute. You can then spend character creation resources to effectively raise that potential. So a human could start at 7 in all stats, provided he had 42 attribute points at creation.
- BAP adds 1 straight up, regardless of the current value. It can only be purchased once per character. It can also potentially raise the absolute maximum, if it rounds up when multiplied by 150%.

So let's say, in this order: maxed out Quickness [6], Night One +2 [8], EAP and spent point in it +1 [9], BAP +1 [10]. Natural Quickness for this guy is 10, and absolute maximum would be Natural x 1.5, right? Which would be 15, no? Or is 14 the absolute maximum Quickness ANY character can ever have, period?

I could very well have stated the guy wrong, and will definitely look to fix him. This is purposefully a munchkin character, I only bust him out every now and again when I'm not GMing so I'm perfectly fine with obvious cheese... but cheating is not cool and not my intent at all.

Sorry, just to get a clearer post regarding my Quickness math. I went about it in this order:

- Maxed out Quickness 6 = [6]
- Night One racial modifier +2 = [8]
- Exceptional Attribute and one build point spent +1 = [9]
- Bonus Attribute Point +1 = [10]

Summed up, Natural Quickness for this guy is 10, right?
And we get Absolute Maximum by multiplying Natural x 1.5, correct?
So we 10 x 1.5 = 15. Or am I missing something here?

If so, can someone please confirm that 14 the absolute maximum Quickness ANY character can ever have in SR3?

No, you get Absolute Maximum by multiplying Racial Modified Limit by 1.5 round up. In your case, Racial Modified Limit is calculated as 6 + 2 (Night One) + 1 (Exceptional Attribute) = 9. So Absolute Maximum is 9*1.5 = 13.5 rounded up to 14.

Furthermore, there is no debate as to what Exceptional Attribute and Bonus Attribute Point can do:
- BAP: You get one attribute point. You can only use it once per attribute, and you can only use it once to raise one single attribute past Racial Modified limit. This does allow you to overcome the limit of 6 attribute points being spend into each attribute (only once though…).
- EA: Your racial modified limit is upped by one, and your Absolute Maximum is modified accordingly, and you can do it only once per attribute. In any case the only way to reach this new limit is to use BAP, which you can only do once for this attribute.

The only "debate" that I've heard of was if you could use BAP for several different attributes.

Thanks freudqo, the absolute maximum 14 does make sense and I'll change the character accordingly.

I'll still go with our group's take that, EA allows you to fill that +1 potential with normal build points, and BAP can be added on top of that (it just won't contribute to the absolute limit).
For us, hypothetically, with infinite build points a character creation human could buy EA for all six attributes, then buy a point in each attribute, thus starting with 7 all around and absolute maximum of 11.
That same human could then buy BAP once, to get one of those attributes to 8. Absolute maximum would still be 11 all around (THIS was the part I thought I might've bollocksed).

Anyway, thanks a bunch, everyone.

Let me clarify: I'm just telling that the rules don't allow for what you say. You can't spend more than 6 attribute points on any attribute. That's written somewhere in BBB.

I think the most you can do by the book is having 3 attributes at 7 and 3 at 6 (for a human) before Cyber/Bio/Adept, if you ignore the recommandation of 60 Building Points spent in attributes. That can be done by spending all your edges on 3 BAP and 2 EA, and considering that BAP can be applied several times.

In general, I'm all for house ruling that you could spend as much points as you want on Attributes. Honestly, if you're willing to do that and to give up on the rest and still make an interesting character, why not?

But then why would the core book include the following bit [sr3.244]?



The part about not being able to put more than 6 points into any one ability refers exclusively to character creation, methinks. It's part of the "Creating a Shadowrunner" section, in which it's also said that skills cannot start above 6, and yet no one's arguing that skills also cannot ever be raised above 6, right?

Errrr? Are we not talking about character creation since the beginning? I don't think you can acquire an edge such as BAP or EA after character creation, we never talked about karma, only about building points and attribute points.

The problem is: Just as "any" can mean a singular person in that sentence it can also mean all persons that fulfill the other explicitly stated target restriction (can hear). So the RAW sentence has two distcint yet "legal" interpretations. That's what's typically called "ambiguity". And with Raw being ambiguous you're simply not correct when claiming that "by RAW the power is still single target".

And that's just based on the sentence I quoted because I could take it further by pointing out that the power in question is - albeit magical - also a physical effect that happens to be connected to another phyiscal phenomenon that by its very nature already is "area-effect": a howl. A howl - with or without the paralyzing effect - is an accustic phenomenen that can and will be perceived by anyone within audiable reach and not "protected" in some way.
When we look at the various standard limitations of SR magic in general or spellcasting in particular (the later also the mechanical foundation for Critter powers unless exceptions are explicitly stated) we can also make the following observations:

1. Without explicit reference magic users cannot exclude valid targets from the effects of their "spells". This is of particular relevance for area effects.
2. Physical combat spells with a spell duration of "instant" and area effect can and will hit targets within the spell's area of effect even if LOS requirements for the caster are not met but the spell effect can still reach a potential target.
3. Critter powers default to spell casting rules and regulations when and wherever their particular rules do not say otherwise and/or the GM doesn't invoke the also already mentioned rule that GMs - under RAW - are allowed to alter the RAW power descriptions.

So what does that amount to? Well that turns the howl into the equivalent of a pyhsical "sonic ball" spell that targets any person that can hear the physical aspect of the spell with the spell's center being the Barghest. And the spell's effect is that it lowers Quickness in accordance to the power description on whichever target is in audio reach and fails to resist.



You're confusing "should not" with "cannot". The RAW wording most definitely is ambiguous and thus you simply can longer claim that "by RAW the howl is (definitely) still ony a single target power".

Ah OK, I probably should have said this before... Since I'm integrating into an ongoing campaign, I started with +50 karma, +250'000¥, and some leniency on character creation limits.
Anyway, I've toned the guy down to a less divisive 12 Quickness.

In the meanwhile I did come up with some new doubts regarding the augmentation and attributes:

- Bioware is considered an addenda to the natural attribute, unlike cyber. Does this mean it impacts the karma cost to raise its attribute? What about a linked skill?

- Which Body value do I use to stabilise wounds: Base + racial mod; Base + racial mod + bio; Base + racial mod + bio + cyber?

- Do bio and cyber contribute to the number of Physical Damage Overflow boxes?

- (bonus question) Tailored Pheromones are the only bioware in NSRCG that shows its modded value in brackets, as if it was cyberware... is this a simple mistake or am I missing some footnote somewhere?

Once again, thanks in advance for looking into this.

You don't understand, I'm not contesting that any can have two different meanings in this sentence. I'm contesting that it is a valid point to contradict the general rule, which is necessary for it to be bypassed. The basis for my claim is the general power description, which states that exception to the rule will be noted in the power description. Since the formulation used in the power description can perfectly fit the general power description, and doesn't explicitly contradict it concerning the number of simultaneous targets that can be affected, that doesn't count as an exception.

The RAW wording of the specific power is ambiguous indeed if we used it as the only base for determining the number of possible targets. But that would be forgetting that there is a general rule that should clearly be contradicted. If you're going RAW, you should just read the power description waiting for an exception to the general rule. Here all you have is a sentence which can perfectly fit the general rule. No reason to count it as a contradiction.

On the rest of your argument: there is a sound based spell that's called thunderbolt that only affect one target. So your "sonic ball" could perfectly be a kind of "sonic bolt" and not necessarily affect all that can hear it.

Furthermore: the paralyzing howl doesn't have to be totally similar to a normal howl. I would really suggest you read the original description of the howl and the barghest in sr2 core (and also in paranormal animals of Europe). It states that the barghest will use its howl to induce fear in its prey, and then, once it is cornered, it will shift in pitch inducing catatonia. Sure, prey can be understood as a plural, but the wording of the power is unambiguous there.

And finally, if you want to go all physical about this: the barghest can use a form of echolocation. And for many (most?) such animals (as bats and cetaceans), echolocation can be quite directional, the dolphin skull acting as a focusing "sound lens". So it can perfectly be a valid argument to say that the barghest can direct the sound it emits, and furthermore even needs to do so to induce catatonia. Amusingly enough, pitch change will affect the directionality of sound for several (all?) sonar using mammals.

Glad that I helped at least with some of the issues



I'll put it this way: Both possible interpretations do have their own ramifications that can lead to serious debate:

1. Let go with freudqo's approach and say that the power is indeed only affects a particular target (that would have to be conciously chosen by the Barghest): this creates a situation where a physical magic effect (the paralyzation) is not in sync with it overall physical manifestation (the audible "howl") that cretaes the effect. And it also sets precedence for selectively ignoring targets on a spell-like magic use that would generally be considered "valid targets" for spell-casting purposes.
2. Now lets take the multi-target approach and things aren't as shiny either: Since the power lacks any clear indicators that a Barghest's howl does not affect members of his own species we're facing a situation quite similar to a magician casting invisibility onto himself: He cannot resist the spell itself when casting it (otherwise it would fissle completely) but technically he has to resist the spell's effect with Intelligence just like any other potential observer or otherwise he'd be unable to see himself -> The Barghests howl would have affected the three other Barghests as well. unless they succeed in their resistance test against the power or simply can't actually hear the howl.

Due to quote-Tag limiations I have to split this posting into two parts ... Next one will be about the Quickness-math

Although part of this has been covered by freudqo I'd still like to comment on this for various reasons.



First flaw right there: Bioware is defined to be natural so the argument there revolves it not being able to exceed the "(natural) absolute racial maximum" whereas cyberware most definitely can exceed said "(natural) absolute racial maximum". The racial modified limit is of no relevance in either case.

An example to clarify: A human with a "natural" strength of 6 has reached the racial modified limit (modifier=0). Now in order to raise his strength without raising it via Karma he could get either muscle augmentation (Bioware) or Muscle Replacement (Cyberware). Due to bioware being "natural" he'd be limited to getting 3 levels of muscle augmentation to bring his strength up to 9 in accordance with his absolute racial maximum and that value of 9 would apply to pretty much every test that you can think of. With the cyberimplant however he could get to 6[10] making his strength 10 in all situations where he is allowed to use not only his natural but also his augmented attribut value. => Cyberware (and Magic unless explicitly noted otherwise) can exceed those (not so) "absolute racial maximums".



Anything that affects the natural attribute automatically affects the augmented attribute as well (outside explicit exceptions mainly with the derived attribute "Reaction").



It adds +1 to the racial modified limit and simultaneously sets the (not so) absolute attribute maximum tp 1.5 x the new racial modified limit [rounded up].



Incorrect. The core rules (p. 55; SR3 and also confirmed for point built system on p. 14 SRComp) explicitly state that during character creation a player can only ever spend 6 attribute points prior to applying the racial modifier (or any other modifier for that matter). The Exceptional Attribute edge does not provide an exemption of that rule. There are however two distinct exceptions to said core rule:

1. The Extra Attribute Point Edge does allow to add a seventh attribute point prior/at the same time as racial modifiers but additional limitations of the edge do apply.
2. The high power character creation rules Mr. Johnson's Black Book raise the limit from 6 to 7 prior to racial modifiers

Some people argue that there's another exception under specific conditions within the Otaku creation rules but RAW doesn't actually support that.



No he couldn't, even if a GM were to allow going over the recommended limit of 30 attribute points under the Point Build system: The first limiting factor is that you're limited to a maximum of 5 edges and 5 flaws in total -> You could only ever have 5 of the 6 standard attributes associated with the EA edge and thus he'd still be limited to a maximum of 41 attributes. But since the rule on p. 55 core rules still applies for any not "high powered" character the sole solution would be in conjunction with BAP as (at least) one of the 5 possible edges. Depending on how BAP is interpreted an otherwise unaugmented human could come out of chargen with three base attributes of 7 and the rest depending on what the GM enforced with regards to the max 30 attribute point rule.

(Caveat: you could get it to all 7 with SURGE and when lifting the 30 point limitation, but then he technically would no longer qualify as strictly "human").



Correct - at least until the debate starts.



This is where the debate about BAP usually revolves around: The wording of the edge is split in two parts. Part one says what you just wrote about BAP adding +1 to the current attribute value regardless of its current value. The second paragraph deals with going over the racial modified limit and then says that only one attribute can be affected in this manner. Now the problem is - due to the paragraph - it's a valid (and slightly better supportable) interpretation that you can actually take the BAP edge up to 5 times (for 5 different base attributes) but can only ever raise one of the affected attributes above racial modified limit. Technically this latter interpretation actually means that you could have a human character with five attributes at 6 and the last one at 5 without violating any aspect of the BAP edge wording.



No, BAP has no influence on absolute maximum whatsoever.



Well, that depends on which rulebooks the GM uses and how he treats access to certain "gear" based modifications that RAW doesn't explicitly allow or prohibit. When it comes to the highest possible absolute maximum on Qucikness (without the attribute actually being that high) the math looks like this:

(6 + 2[Night One] + 1 [Exceptional Attribute as Edge {Quick}] + 1 [Exceptional Attribute as SURGE effect {Quick}] + 1 [Phenotypic Alteration]) * 1.5 rounded up = 18

The augmented attribute value can in theory exceed that via Cyberware and magic but you cannot combine muscle replacement with muscle toner, so you'd have to get up to an actual attribute value of 15 without muscle toner and then exceed via muscle replacement (or magic)

The highest natural attribute value that you can get within RAW in a starting character would then look something like this:

6 + 2 [Night One] + 1 [BAP Edge {Quick}] +1 [BAP Surge {Quick}] + 4 [4 levels of muscle toner bioware] + 1 Supratyhroid Gland = 15 .. provided that the character also has at least two of the three above mentioned "Exceptional Attribute"-like effects working for him as well.

As far as your character description goes however, you're stuck at 14 instead of 15 due not actually being allowed to put more than 6 attribute points plus 1 BAP into Quickness and you top out at 14 as current absolute max.

Even with 50 Karma and having some of that going into a post creation attribute increase you actually couldn't do that, because your already reached the absolute racial maximum of 14 under the conditions you presented.



Strictly speaking: Yes to both ... Affects and raises for attribute raising costs. Affects and lowers linked skill raising costs.



Seemingly easy question complicated answer. Depends ... if you're talking about stabilizing yourself at 10+ boxes of phyiscal damage after a failed attempt of stabilzing via Biotech(First Aid) then it's supposed to be unaugmented / natural attribute that would normally include racial modifiers, Edges, Bioware, Geneware and SURGE. One could try to start a quite fruitless discussion about core rules saying that Bioware and Geneware not working on this self stabilization test but that wouldn't serve any purpose.

If you're talking the First Aid test for stabilizing then the full augemented attribute would be the reference point for TN modifiers.



Yes to both. The number of overflow boxes is based on the augmented attribute value unless a specific implant says otherwise.



Not a real mistake but not consistent with other aspects either. The general problem is that SR normally only distinguishes between unaugmented (natural) attribute vs. augmented attribute. Tailored Pheromones is a (very) special case due to being Bioware and thus normally being considered as affecting the unaugmented / natural attribute value but explicitly not working for magic related stuff like Conjuring that normally uses the unaugmented / natural attribute. If you were to write down your characters stats in more than the X[Y] notation you could account for all those various excemptions and special conditions but the NSRCG coder obviously went the pragmatic way, since pretty much every non.magic augmentation to the Charisma attribute - while counting as natural - is at the same time exempt from affecting magic and thus for large parts acts as if it was an augmented attribute despite its bioware related classification.

Put like this, I admit it can be troubling (though I'll repeat it worked exactly that way in sr2). One could also add the very surprising fact that sound-dampening devices and the likes, which can protect from sonic projection and from hypnotic song don't help defending from the howl. That's disturbing, but several rationalization can exist here. I'll put here the description of the barghest's behaviour in sr2:

"The barghest's howl induces a fear reaction in humans and many animals. The beast uses the howl to herd prey, the pitch shifting once the prey is cornered and often causing near catatonia in its victim".

The power description relating to paralyzing howl:

"The aural form of this power is called paralyzing howl and requires a test pitting the critter's essence against the target's willpower and vice versa, in order to be effective. The critters needs only 1 success to affect the target".

And after all, it's fairly possible that everyone hears a thunderbolt while only one person is stunned.

If I'd have to give my rationalization, I'd say two things:

- The howl can be heard by everybody, but the fear-inducing and the paralyzing components are directional in essence, and linked to the echolocation abilities of the barghest. So only the person at the focus of the sound is affected.

- There is a "communication part" in the howl, whether it induces fear or catatonia, and it has to be tailor made by the target. The magical part of the power is actually the instinctive ability of the barghest to precisely pitch the sound for a specific target.

And there's no actual basis for such a contest: The general rule demands that a particular power requires a (more or less) explicit (or arguably even only an implicit) reference of being a multi-target power in order to override the general rule.
You have just agreed that "any" can have (at least) two "slightly" different semantic meanings in this sentence. One being "any" as in "all" and one being "any" in "one of the available". So if one reads "any" as meaning "all" then this demand is actually met because then that sentence is the very note within the power's description that the general rule just referenced. There is simply no need for any further qualifier to create such a dedicated "note" with regards to the general rule.



And that's where we obviously disagree and you seemingly are the minority here because I'm saying that the sub paragraph on Paralyzing Howl uses an ultimately ambiguous terminology that can be interpreted as referring to either a singular target or multiple targets the very use of that terminology creates the required "contradiction" that you'd demand and thus also creates the exception. Bonus elements come from all the stuff about powers being related to spell casting, physical effects within magic and a very mundane but also physical element called "howl".



The misconception you seem to have is that the general rule does demand a "clear" contradiction. It only says that exceptions would (somehow) be "noted" as part of the power's description. If such a note turns out to be ambiguous (which it is here) then you're faced with the overall ambiguity of no longer being able to discern whether or not the general rule applies or not. Subsequently you're no longer able to make the absolute claim to being RAW for either interpretion.

At that point you'll have to take further looks at what either interpretation will lead to and how that relates to other RAW elements. If that doesn't help you can go even back to older material or simply any logic construct that serves your purpose but you're no longer talking RAW then.



And I found such an "exception" at the point where it says that "some creatures have a version of this power known as Paralyzing Howl. In this case, the being can affect any target able to hear." Right there, the power makes the required "note" that not only single targets are affected. So what do have here is a sentence that can fit both the single target ruling of the general rule as well as serving as the necessary note to invoke the exception withing said general rule.



No, that spell and its effect are actually not "sound based" but rather create sound as a byproduct. The spell's effect revolves around the rapid expansion a.k.a. explosion of gas (the "element" air for SR magic purposes) at the point of impact. The audible sound is here just a secondary physical effect to others that might witness that localized explosion on the target. The Paralyzing Howl on the other hand is an already centered emission of sound that transports a particular magical effect to any target that can hear it and it distinctively lacks any reference to the Barghest being forced to meet LOS requirements for single targeted spells as he would have to if his power worked like a single target elemental manipulation



Not quite



And I suggest that you limit yourself to RAW when making claims about RAW and stick to the Edition that you're asked about. I'm well aware that many things were different in SR2 (or any of the other Editions for that matter) ... in some cases I can even remember the particular differences to the minutia. But that doesn't serve any purpose here: Albeit being a 2nd Ed module the game was played under 3rd Ed rules and we got questions concerning RAW and RAI in that context. I would not even have objected your claim about a Barghest's howl individually being interpreted as single target if you had referenced your preference as possible RAI based on additional 2nd Ed material ... but you were and stil are trying to reference it as 3rd Ed RAW.


At this point I will also stop this particular subset of the discussion because as bannockburn correctly put it: This no longer serves any purpose in terms of making up one's personal mind on what (3rd ED) RAW says or doesn't and how that will reflect in your individual games.

the barghest howl says any target, not any targets. i'd take that as a strong contextual clue that it is singular. and it isn't just "can affect any target", it's "can affect any target able to hear it". in order to indicate multiple, it would be *every* target able to hear it, not "any". the any is not just sitting there on its own, it is to indicate that the target must be able to hear the howl for the howl to work.

in much the same way that if i tell you that i can eat any steak weighing less than 1 pound, there is no grounds to insist that i have claimed to be able to simultaneously eat every single <1 lb steak in existence.

As I said: I have no interest in dragging this out further but for the fun of it look at what are official synonyms for "any" and compare that to what you just wrote - pay attention to the word "every"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/any

Cochise, mate, thanks a bunch for your very detailed reply. Let me just throw these two out there as well:

- Grapple gun... How does it work? What skill does it use? In this case, under-barrel on a sniper rifle, do I just use the Rifles skill, and provided I get one success, I hit where I intended?

- Cyber-compartment injector... it says it must cause damage for the toxin to apply, but how? I just picture it as being a tiny needle you surprise people with, probably not even in combat. Go for a cheeky handshake and *pinprick" out he goes. What I mean is, damage code being 5L, unless there's a skill test to potentially stage it up, it will be resisted 99% of the time, meaning the toxin doesnt even come into play.

- Capsule rounds... Isn't it mad that injection vector stuff still has to be converted to contact via DMSO, before it can be loaded into a capsule round. Isn't there something like dart-tipped rounds or something like that, that allow injection vector to work through bullet penetration?

we're not talking about definitions or uses of words in a vacuum, we're talking about using it in a sentence.

we don't need a synonym for "any", we need a synonym for "any target able to hear it". the fact that any can sometimes be used in the same place as every is irrelevant. it is "any target", not "any targets", meaning it is singular, which eliminates the possibility of it meaning 'every' in this specific instance. just as 'happy' has synonyms including 'joyous' and 'favourable', but those two words are synonyms for different meanings of 'happy' and are not entirely interchangeable, the fact that 'every' can be used to replace 'any' in some sentences should not be mistaken to mean that it can replace 'any' in *all* sentences. only the ones where any is actually used in the same way.

i can certainly understand how someone in a hurry could make the mistake. but it is still a mistake.

glad to be of service ...



That's one of the cases where RAW simply doesn't provide an answer because it's never clearly addressed which skill is used for the standard grapple-gun or its under-barrel cousin. Personally, I always treated it like this:

1. Stand-alone grapple guns used the Projectile Weapon skill due to page 293, SR3 explicitly referencing cross-bow ranges and a grapple-hook along with the line certainly is some form of dart- / arrow-like "projectile" rather than a bullet.
2. Under-barrel grapple guns would also use said skill but as an exception to RAW I would allow characters to default to the weapon skill of the weapon that the grapple gun was attached to at the standard +2 TN modifier for using skill defaulting.

As for actually hitting a target:

For immobile targets like a desired anchor point on a building that you want to scale? Well there's indeed only one success needed to hit - allthough any suitable TN modifiers should be applied: range, visibility, wounds, etc.
Once you try to hit mobile targets (like a human being) it becomes a standard ranged attack with a projectile weapon (including damage staging that could knock the target unconscious) that also uses all suitable TN modifiers. The target will not be hit by the grapple-hook if it successfully dodges the attack. If the target doesn't successfully dodge (or doesn't even try) the hook hits and attaches itself to the target and a standard damage resistance against 5M Stun is in order. Even if the target completely negates the stun damage the hook is still in place and does open up the target and the shooter to strength test based interactions during consecutive action phases.



Ah, the "joys" of chem-based attacks *lol*. The problem here quite obviously is the necessity of exposure to the toxin and dealing damage to get said exposure.
Now as usual things are up to the fineprint there:

p.106, Man & Machine - Exposure via Weapon
[..]If the attacker strikes the target and the target does not completely dodge the attack, he is considered exposed to the drug and must resist its effects.[..]

So the physical damage of the used weapon (injector needle) doesn't need to cause actual damage on the damage track in order to deliver a drug / toxin and its effects. However, the worn armor on the target will affect both the damage resistance test against that needle damage as well as the drug's / toxin's power level.
Since you're picturing it as a surprise for people that should already indicate how the whole thing should be resolved within the rules:

1. First of all you make a standard "surprise test" between you as attacker and your intended target. This already largely determines whether or not and to what degree your target will be able to defend against your attack. if you successfully suprise the target it's prohibited from combat pool usage => there simply can no longer be any dodging the attack because without combat pool the target can no longer use the dodge part of melee option of "full defense" which would allow him to completely dodge the attack.
2. Next comes a standard melee attack from which you need to come out as the one landing a successful strike. If you miss (target scores more successes than you on melee test) or the target dodges (not successfully surprised in step 1 and makes a successful dodge roll as part of "full defense"): no successful strike -> no exposure. It's up to the GM whether or not the intended target goes for the "full defense" option here. Personally I treated unsuspecting victims always going with that option and thus never being able to inflict damage to the would be attacker regardless of whether or not the target then was allowed or prohibited to use combat pool for a dodg attempt.
3. Next it's time to determine the kind of damage you'd do. Under chem-tech rules your net-successes won't stage the needle's damage¹ but every 2 net successes will stage the power level (not the damage level!) of the drug / toxin.
4. Next the target is facing two separate damage resistance tests: One against the base damage code of the needle (lowered by impact armor) and a second one against the toxin / drug (lowered by half impact armor rounded down) once the time that the speed vaule of the drug / toxin has elapsed.

¹ The chem-tech rules do allow you to utilize the "called shot" option melee to either raise the damage level of the weapon delivering the drug / toxin or negating the target's impact armor on the associated damage resistance tests. There are two things to consider on that: the TN modifier in melee drastically reduces your chances of actually successfully striking your target and the armor bypass rule in this special rule sets bad precedence (later also incorporated in the advanced melee rules of Cannon Companion) that breaks the abstract nature of SR armor values.



Not necessrily. Think of capsule rounds as being paint-ball ammo. Under normal circumstances those penetrate skin either. Hence the "injection" vector isn't met.



No general purpose ammo type that includes an injector needle. But there certainly is the standard Dart Gun (p. 116 Man & Machine).


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

@Jaid:

~sigh~ Really? Do I really have to spell out the synonymous (partial) sentence for you? "every target able to hear it". The nature of "any" and "every" as adjective is that they do not require the usage of a plural form on the associated noun in order to reference multiples. Like in "Any player can do this or that". No plural needed there either. Can we please stop this now? Because this certainly isn't going anywhere.

Again, Cochise, good sir, thank you! You are a gentleman and a scholar!

1) Your take on the Grapple Gun sounds logical. I don't think my Str 2 character will very often use it "Get over here!" Scorpion style, but for sniper positioning and infiltration it's a fantastic tool to have.

2) On the needle, I find it kind of crap that the rules explicitly demand an attack, even for subterfuge use. The fact that there's the need to roll melee even outside combat in order for it to be effective severely impacts its usefulness for my Str 2 character whose only melee skill is Whips. Rolling 2 dice at +4 TN and no pool really wrecks the chances of it ever breaking skin. This completely invalidates dozens of pretty cool melee-less character concepts. But hey, them's the brakes I guess. Per the rules, your assessment is flawless. On the called shot to bypass armor option, I've decided not to go with it (as the original GM on this campaign). From experience, it cheapens things a bit, changes combat completely to a race for headshots.

3) Yeah, I just thought some kind of dart round that could be loaded into any gun (not just dart guns) would be cool. Its just flavor really, since mechanically you already can apply any chemical whatsoever to whatever gun you want, by using DMSO + capsule rounds. I just like the visuals of some dude being grazed by a sniper shot, not believing his luck, and then the Seven-7 kicks in...

I wouldn't necessarily say that the rule calls for an actual attack from an ingame perspective but rather the various combat related rules in this case provide the general means to resolve a situation should the GM (or the player for that matter) find it necessary that this has to be resolved via tests in order to properly reflect the uncertainty of things. Not strictly RAW but your GM (or you in the same position) could just as easily demand some variation of the standard surprise test or a opposed Quickness test and in case you're the winner simply say that you have fullfilled the exposure requirement and then directly go for damage resistance.



The armor bypass in the chem-tech rules actually creates absurd situations when it comes to attempting a called shot to the head:

1. In standard ranged attacks called shots to the head do not negate armor at all.
2. In standard melee rules they don't either until you introduce the advanced melee rules from Cannon Companion. But in melee this option is rather useless anyway because in pretty much every situation that you manage to win the opposed melee test including the called shot modifier that typically means that you'd wreck the opponent in the same test without said TN modifier.
3. Make the ranged attack a chem-tech attack and now you can suddenly bypass all armor - including any type of armor in the target location => The weapon of choice becomes a heavy cross-bow with poisoned arrows.
4. A chem-tech based attack in melee is not necessarily less of an absurd situation but is still impacted in the same manner as in point 2

except it isn't perfectly synonymous. one of those is telling you that you can select one target from those that hear the sound. the other is saying you can select all targets that hear the sound.

a word being a synonym does not mean you can replace it without losing any meaning in every situation. "every player can do this or that" implies that they can all do it. "any player can do this or that" implies that any one of them can do it individually. very similar, but no, not identical; for example, "i don't have any choice" has a different meaning from "i don't have every choice". "choose any card" is not the same as "choose every card". "close any door" is not the same as "close every door". i mean, if you sit there and sort of try to work through the logic, you can eventually reach the conclusion that they could mean the same thing,

if a barghest can choose any target that hears the howl, it implies they can choose a target. if a barghest can choose every target, that implies it can choose all of them at the same time. it certainly isn't *impossible* to interpret it the other way around, but in typical use, any means pick one, every means all of them.

Final statement: You are trying to argue against the official defintions and thesaurus of the English language where the words "any" and "synonym" are concerned by making the claim that only one of the several valid meanings / interpretations of "any" applies within a particular expression and try to use the expression itself as proof for said claim. Circular logic meets ignorance towards spoken and written language's ambiguity. This cannot lead anywhere. Please just agree to disagree

i have presented my evidence. are you saying that "pick any card" is the same thing as "pick every card"?

if not, then they are not identical in meaning, and no, you cannot just swap them out willy nilly. the definition of a synonym is "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language".

nearly the same is not the same thing as identical. any and every can often be used in the same way. but they are not the same. they are not just interchangeable. every means all, any does not, and in common usage means one. "choose any house on the street" does not mean you should choose all of them. "any target that hears a sound" likewise does not mean to pick all of them. that would require it to say *every* target that hears the sound. you can sort of squint at it funny to make it mean something, particularly because the right modifiers can actually make "any" refer to multiple things; like "take any cards that have clubs on them" or "have you reached any decisions", but you'll note that those use *plural* nouns to indicate that you get more than one. if i said "take any card that has clubs on it", that would mean you should choose one card, and that card should be a club, not a heart or a diamond or a spade.

"any" is not the same as "every". it has a similar meaning, and with the right tweaks, any can frequently be used in the same sentences where you would use every. but it isn't the same. it is only "nearly the same", which is why it doesn't have the exact same definition.

the ability works on any target that hears the sound. target is singular, not plural. therefore, the ability is directing you to choose one target from any of the things that can hear the sound.

now, if you're not paying attention, say, you're a GM busy trying to make a published adventure work, keeping in mind the motivations of a dozen different NPCs, planning strategy for a pack of monsters you may not be familiar with, trying to remember 500 or more pages of obscure rules that your players keep forgetting about, and track the actions of half a dozen PCs, i can certainly understand how someone could quickly glance over it and assume that the howl works on multiple targets because it makes intuitive sense that if the howl has a paralyzing effect it could work on more than one thing that hears it.

but it is still not a correct reading of the ability.

So you are unwilling to agree to disagree and insist on making claims that contradict the various semantics of "any" that the English language knows. From here on out I will simply ignore you. Thanks for your participation.