I asked where, because I couldn't find it at shadowrunrpg.com, can I get a link? As thats typically the netiquette thing to do when someone asks where something on the net is located.

OK, sorry.

http://www.srrpg.com/

And you must be mental, because the link is right there on shadowrunrpg.com, too.

And if you still can't find it, try this:

http://www.srrpg.com/resources/downloads/f...sr_critters.pdf

Directly off both srrpg.com and shadowrunrpg.com.

Indeed, thanks a bunch, and, stun would infact regenerate from my understanding of the rules. Basically, every combat turn, if it isn't dead, its perfectly 100% healthy. Thanks. I suppose he could inject himself with atopine before bed... every 15 minutes until cured he'd take 7d from it, and then he could inject the antidote in the morning.

Given a PP cost of 6, the Adept better be concentrating on Initiating quickly, as any magic loss beforehand will result in a total loss of his abilities. Regenerating from a Deadly wound does not mean the Adept still doesn't have to roll for Magic loss.

I still say that a person with a Geas doesn't break that Geas every time they are exposed to a condition where it could be broken.

A person with a 'Night only' Geas doesn't break his Geas when he goes out in the daytime. He is merely 'in a condition to break his Geas'.

A character with the 'Lotus position' Geas is not breaking his Geas every time he gets up to take a crap. He is merely 'in a condition to break his Geas'.

Someone with the 'Fasting' Geas doesn't get busted each time he slurps down a stuffer bar. He is merely 'in a condition to break his Geas' for the next 24 hours.

Each of these actually break their Geasa it if they attempt to use their Magic Skills in any way while 'in a condition to break his Geas'.

A night only geas is broken during the daytime. This is explicit in MitS.

~J

i'm still unconvinced that it can't be rules-lawyered out. there've been two unanswered, very strong strikes against it--or, rather, one strong strike against it, and one nullification of a defense used to justify it.

right. i'm pointing out that there hasn't been an answer to your point (nor mine), so a neutral third party would have to conclude at this point that the geas is not rules-legal.

The geas is not rules legal. It in no way compromises the efficacy of the power under any circumstance, therefore it may as well not be in existence. And since it is in no way measurable and has no effect except to reduce penalties for taking the power, or reduce the karma required to do it, all it is is a house rule decreasing the power points required to take an adept power that is just too damn hot anyway.

There, third party, unbiased, etc, etc.

you still haven't proved that damage is seperate from injury in the rules, either. stress is, until you can prove otherwise, an injury, because damage and injury are used interchangeably. therefore, there's never a time when the character would have any damage that the regen won't heal; therefore, the only-when-injured geas is redundant, and can't be taken for the regen power.

Indeed.

Another example would be a geas on killing hands that is Must make a melee attack. There is never a time you could use killing hands without making a melee attack.

For the same reason that geas isn't allowed, is why you can't have regen geased as only when uninjured.

On the contrary. When you're defending, you aren't making a melee attack and thus the Killing Hands would be inapplicable.

~J

i'm not assuming anything. you're assuming that they're different, even though the books state nothing of the sort. you can't use implications in rules-lawyering. as i've said, differentiation between the words "injury" and "damage" is only one explanation for the way the two words are used. if injury is seperate from damage, why do we use the term Physical Damage Overflow? shouldn't it be Physical Injury overflow? why does it state, on page 125, that "Damage is cumulative"? since it's referring to living things, shouldn't that be "Injuries..."? or that "Characters whose Physical damage has overflowed the Physical column..."? heck, they even use "wounded" instead of "damaged" or "injured" on page 126.

are all these typos?

The books do not state they are the same by your same argument. If they are the same why doesn't the vehicle damage table use the same condition monitor as the normal one? If injury and damage weren't seperate, why is the table called the Vehicle Damage Table p147? You will also note that in the usage of the Damage in Damage Level and Injury in Injury Modifier. If they were the same, there would be no need for the Target Number modifier for the Vehicle Condition Monitor.

Unless they are stated that they are the same, it is reasonable to assume that they are different. If p125 were purely talking about injuries, then it would be then necessary to reprint the Damage Level Table in the Vehicle Section, since Damage and Injury are the same and quite evidently vehicles do not have injuries. That they are manifestly different is why Damage is used only in Levels and Injuries as Modifiers. Injury is not seperate from Damage. Injury is close but distinct from Damage.

If injury and damage is interchangeable, then why is it Damage code, not Injury code? Damage is a general term, but injury is a specific situation which is derived from damage.

BTW, did you ever win a Polaris argument?

except that they use different words for the same thing, throughout that section. you need to explain away the specific examples i cited above, which show that "damage" and even "wound" is used where you say "injury" should be.

injury is the real-world term for trauma caused to the human body from an outside source. damage is the game term for the same thing, except the definition for damage also includes vehicles and other objects with a condition monitor. when explaining what damage is in terms of living things, they use the word "injury" because that's the real-world term. when talking about vehicles, they don't use "injury" because that's not the real-world term for what happens to your car when it gets t-boned.

me and polaris got banned simultaneously, last time we clashed. i'll call that a draw! i've mellowed a bit in the interim, though.

To anyone still here: You've read this thread! You can't un-read it!

untrue. careful application of steel wool to brain tissue can remove unwanted memories. also, muscular control.

Youngster. I watched the famed Polaris debates unfold in all their splendor. This has nothing on those.

~J

Damage, Injury, Damage, Injury, Damage, Injury, Damage, Injury, Damage, Injury, Damage, Injury, Damage, Injury, who got us started on this debate?

GM: "You take a light injury."

Player: "A what?"

GM: "An injury. A light injury. Mark off a box."

Player: "You mean a wound, right?"

GM: "Yes, you take damage. Get it? Mark off a box."

Player: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. You just said I took a light injury. Now you're saying I'm damaged too! How much punishment do I actually take?!"

GM: "Look, just mark off a light box. You know what I meant. Notate the wound so we can continue playing."

Player: "Oh sweet gods of confusion! Now you're saying that I have a wound as well!? What are you doing to my character?! I now have an injury, damage, and a wound?! Will the lords of neptune save me?! Am I doomed to this accursed cheatance by my GM?!?"

<incredulous stare>

GM: "You're dead."

that pretty much sums up my side of the argument.

GM: Most of the time when I'm not careless with my words and when I approve things on paper: You take damage. You suffer from injury. When it is physical damage, you are wounded.

By the way, I started this debate! ME! ME! ME!

And I won a Polaris argument -> He got banned, I didn't.

Drinking? Game? Me too!

First, please understand that I'm not a GM, only a player--no flames, thanks.

I always thought that Regeneration in a non-shapeshifter PC (i.e, werewolves, Wendigoes, and the like) was something akin to the regenerative powers of Wolverine and Sabretooth in the comics. That is, any wound that isn't immediately fatal regenerates fairly quickly, depending upon the location and severity.

(Although the amount of regenerative ability possessed by those two would probably be a little much for an SR GM--Wolverine alone has regenerated a lost eye on at least one occasion, and has successfully recovered from being clinically dead (i.e., his heart stopped for several minutes because of the severity of his injuries, or something of the sort) on at least three occasions that I personally recall.)

I realize that immunity to disease, as well as to poisons/toxins, is dealt with separately in SHADOWRUN, so I won't go into that.

Would anyone care to clarify the issue for a confused player?

--Foreigner

Ooo! Ooo! I just actually read some of this. I want the Dumpshock drinking game, too!!

With Regeneration, you could theorectically have overflowed all the way into Hell, but the beginning of the next combat turn (as long as you didn't roll thr wrong number), you'll be up and about.

When Injured Inc. - Regenerating Free Beer for Shadowrunners since 2064.

Sorry, Kagetenshi.

My bad.

I must have worded it wrong.

What I meant to say was that the Regeneration Adept power was essentially the same as the regenerative ability found in Animal Shapeshifters and Werewolves, as well as Wendigoes, Dzoo-Noo-Qua, Bain Sidhes, and the like (in other words, pretty much anything infected with HMHVV (I think )), but without their vulnerabilities to sunlight, silver, fire, or what-have-you.

--Foreigner

Ah, I see. As written, correct.

Except Ghouls don't regenerate.

~J

Aha.

NOW I get it....

I think.

Thanks again, Kagetenshi.

--Foreigner

Hello again !

Incidentally, if you folks think ordinary Regeneration is imbalanced in a non-Shapeshifter character, check this out:

Advanced Regeneration:

Cost: 10 points

This power quadruples healing time, makes death almost impossible, and the only wounds that the character takes are those inflicted to the heart. Yes, this means that the brain, spinal cord and other central nervous system things are indestructible. Of course, along with this ability comes a strict diet of meat, as without the consistent flow of essence the power is useless.

(Emphasis mine.)

And here's what Sahandrian, the GM of our campaign, had to say about it:

This one worries me. If I read this right, only called shots to the heart can possibly injure the character.

(Of course, I'm not a GM, but what I *think* the Website owner meant by "...quadruples healing time..." was that it quadruples the healing rate; i.e., that an Adept with this ability heals injuries at four times the normal rate for his/her Metatype, or in one-quarter the normal healing time for such an individual, or however you want to say it. Anyway, I think that "Fallen Bishop", the person who came up with it, had his/her terminology wrong.)

For those of you who might be curious, here's where I found it (along with several other seriously imbalanced Adept and Magical abilities):

Killjoy's Shadowrun Center

You'll find it in the Archives section under "Adept Powers".

Personally, I think that some, if not most, of the folks who post RPG modifications such as these on the Web must be frustrated powergamers, semiretired Munchkins, or something of the sort. either that, or they just derive a perverse pleasure out of making the GM's job really complicated and/or difficult.



--Foreigner

Mmmmm..... meat.

BitBasher:

Beats me.

What I posted was quoted verbatim from the Website mentioned in my previous post.

--Foreigner

Sounds like this guy wants a ghoul/wendigo with uber regen.