In consideration for the hard work and effort undertaken by the writers of the FAQ to produce rulings designed to resolve age-old questions about the intricacies of the Shadowrun 3rd Edition rules system, I am going to violently attack a number of the newer rulings, because I strongly disagree with them. It's nothing personal, as I don't really know any of the FAQ authors that well. My point of view on the matter is thus:

The point of the FAQ, so I'd imagine logically, is to clarify and simplify complex and inexplicable situations that arise as a result of unanticipated interpretations of, and interactions within, the rules. This latest FAQ update, however, seems to do the opposite.

I was just going to post to the new Invisibility thread, but I realized that I wanted to talk about a number of the FAQ rulings and it would be better if I simply addressed them all in this thread, avoiding cluttering up a thread devoted to only one of them. Without further ado...

Much as I despise the FAQ and all it represents, I have to disagree with your take on invisibility: the way illusions work is that they don't fool anyone. If someone fails the resistance test, it doesn't matter whether or not they know it's an illusion, they see what the illusion says they see. There's absolutely no reason the caster should be exempted from this.

And no, you're not right. The consequence of Invis is logical. The consequences of the others, save for Movement at really high speeds, are utterly nonsensical.

~J

I think a lot of these issues with the FAQ stem from the fact the rules the FAQ covers were poorly written / implemented to begin with.

Not nearly so poorly as what comes out of the FAQ.

~J

Maybe, maybe not.

I've always thought the invisibility rules were poorly done--we wouldn't have a new thread on it every other week if they weren't. They really should just errata the way invisibility works so we all have a common, reasonable, mechanic for using it. Of course, that might be easier said than done--but one only needs to look at the invisibility thread(s) to see it's really needed.

i'm with Endgame on this one. for instance, the effect and mechanics of the invisibility spell were never fully considered. i disagree with some of the FAQ's conclusions, but that's probably because i've got a different concept of how invisibility actually works. nothing in the book makes my concept more valid that the FAQ writer's concept. i do think, however, that the FAQ writer's concept needs to be posted in the FAQ.

i would like to add that as much as i might disagree with the FAQ , i don't want the faq writers to think that their work falls upon deaf ears. I do like the fact that someone is trying to clarify these rules, even if I don't like the rulings. I'm pretty sure that most if not all of us appreciate their effort and good intentions, despite the venomous posting

[quote]
Do you see yourself when you've cast Invisibility on yourself? What about others you cast it upon?
Invisibility affects everyone--caster, subjects and bystanders--alike. In order to see someone who is invisible, the viewer must successfully resist the spell. This applies to the caster and anyone made invisible by the spell.
[/quote]


I agree with you here - the caster of any illusion spell should not be fooled by their own spell.

[quote]
The Shadowrun FAQ says...
How much weight can a Barrier spell hold if it is used to make a ramp?
Not much. Barriers are meant to be obstacles, not load-bearing supports. As a general rules, a Barrier can support the weight of a metahuman or animal, but not a car or large vehicle. If you need specifics, go with Force x 25kg.


This ruling seems designed to curtail a clever use of the Barrier spell that I've encouraged in my games. I can only imagine stopping the use of Levitation as a cheap plane ticket is not far off. The problem this ruling creates is that, all of a sudden, the Force 10 barrier than can stop .50 machine gun rounds dead forever without being whittled away can be shattered like a soap-bubble if Bubba the bone-laced cybertroll decides to throw his full weight(~450 kilograms for a big, muscular, titanium-filled troll) against it. Perhaps upping it to Force x 75 kilograms or even Force x 100 kilograms would prevent excessively heavyweight characters from developing the sudden ability to rend asunder otherwise impenetrable barriers with sheer mass and momentum.[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

I'll disagree with you here... I watched a show called "Mythbusters", where they explored Hollywood's love of bodies being thrown backwards by bullet impacts.

They created a special hook, and hung a full-sized dead pig on it.

Just the lightest push by hand caused the pig to fall off the hook.

They shot it with pistols, magnum pistols with 240 grain rounds, rifles, sniper rifle, assault weapons (at one point using three assault weapons at once against the happless pig).

None of them caused the pig to come off the hook.

The only thing that knocked the pig off the hook (and not backwards like H'wood movies) was a solid slug deer-hunting shotgun round.

Even then, after examining it in slow motion, they couldn't be sure that the slug itself knocked the pig off the hook - they believed the slug hit the hip bone, jostling the legs secured to the hook, causing it to fall off.

After all that, they put Buster, a crash test dummy, with a bullet proof vest on, and hung him from the same hook. Once again, a slight push by hand would cause him to fall off.

Poor Buster was shot with everything from handguns to assault weapons. All hit the vest nicely, and didn't even budge Buster. Only the solid deer slug fromthe shotgun caused Buster to fall off - straight down, and not backwards.

So it's reasonable to expect a barrier spell to block incoming fire and remain intact, while a waddling, effeminate, limp-wristed Dwarf will plow through the same barrier with no problems.

ShadowGhost: The question is not whether the HMG will push the barrier down, it's whether it will simply reduce the barrier to nothing. Reducing a brick wall to rubble, for example, might take a while with a HMG, but it's certainly doable.

As to the weight support thingy: note that it actually means a Physical Barrier spell can stand Force x 250 Newtons. Stopping a 250kg troll moving at 5m/s (15m/CT) in 0.5 seconds (solid shoulder-first tackle) takes 2,500 Newtons of force, i.e. a Force 10 Physical Barrier.

Charon: Dual-wielding melee weapons only gives you +50% skill dice, no additional rolls or TN modifiers (as long as you have the required skill, or the Ambidexterity Edge). Or, in the case of cyberimplant weaponry +50% Strength for Power calculations in addition/instead (depending on how you want to interpret the rules).

i don't know what two-weapon rules you're using, Charon, but they don't apprear to be the ones in CC.

yeah, but your description doesn't match the rules in SR3, either. in SR3, you just get +50% to the power of the attack. no TN mods or rolling twice or anything else. i think you may have muxed ip the rules for two-gun shooting and two-weapon melee.

Oh, and to double-post, if Cyberd00d's identically statted, knife-focused brother, Knifed00d, came by with a pair of Cougar Fineblades(since they deal equal damage to cyberspurs), and had Edged Weapons(Cougar Fineblade) instead of Cyber-Implant Weapons(Cyberspurs), he'd be dealing 8M damage across the board.

I have never used the barrier rules for bridges, roads or ramps, or the kind of ramp that would flip a car. I do think the force of the barrier spell should relate to the barrier rating of construction material. IMO, the weight rating seems puny.

[edit]And the invisibility answers seem to make the spell about useless for what I figure is its standard use, but now gives a bunch of silly benefits? When players start mastering these new interpretations, I see things getting even messier than they are now.

especially when you start looking at the kg of pressure applied by bullets. i mean, i dunno. i can see a barrier being weaker against a slow, steady pressure than a sharp, sudden pressure that doesn't last for very long, but only 25kg per point doesn't work for me.

I think I'm just going to rule that Spell Defense and such can only affect spells at the time they are slung.

My whole point about the barrier was that a hail of bullets really doesn't exert much force - it's easier for the barrier to withstand a hail of bullets than it is for a even a puny dwarf to walk through it.

Real life physics here - a hail of bullets from three assault rifles didn't even budge a 150 lb pig hanging precariously from a hook .... simply pushing it was enough to knock it off and over..

Apply the same physics to a Barrier spell - it will have no problems stopping bullets, but anything with substantal weight will go right through it - your charging troll for example.

But the charging troll won't go through a vertical Barrier. The troll has to overcome the Barrier Rating as if it were a wall. The troll only automatically goes through it if he or she stands on top of a horizontal Barrier spell.

I say just compare the Barrier's rating to those listed in the chart and deduce what weight such materials would hold if built into a ramp or bridge.

Here is the problem with your pig example. The pig didn't STOP the bullets, the pig had the bullets put holes in it. Hang a piece of metal, that will stop all the rounds fired at it from a similar hook, and shoot it, and thats what the barrier would be taking.

As far as invis, theres a rule (in mits or sr3 I'm not sure) that STATES magic can NEVER grant LOS for casting of spells, the faq completely ignores this cannon statement, and as such, I will be completely ignoring the faq.

Kanada Ten still makes rulings that are not 100% agreed upon by everyone here.

Ignore my earlier replies on the Barrier Spell..... My head was so wrapped around another concept it refused to try and wrap around this.

If a Barrier can stop a charging troll, then it should be able to support a decent weight.

Perhaps Force x 25kg x Number of Successes when casting?

I.E a Force 4 Barrier Spell with four successes would support:

(Force) 4 x 25kg x 4 (successes) = 400Kg would be a better formula?

This way force would determine the strength of the barrier, and successes would define how much support a barrier has?

Convoluted rules, eh?

Well, we can convert strength into weight right? Let's go backwards then: (Weight/20) = Strength. Strength = power.

The Barrier will collapse when it reaches 1/2 strength or when the power (which will be reverse translated from weight to ~strength to ~power) exceeds the adjusted rating (in this case double for walking and normal for running, IMO).

So a 450 kg troll creates a power of 22.5 could walk across a Force 9 barrier with 8 successes, but would fall through if running or jumping.

This, of course, creates interesting questions about barriers and such, but...

i agree with eyeless, these rules make no sense. applying nearly half a ton to someone's ribcage should do way more damage than that.

I don't think for sitting no, but having a half ton laying on you can't be good.

Maybe we should halve the power since it's two feet, and fourth it for crawling?

you sure? the way the forum clock's been acting, you might not have.

Well, I also posted half a dozen posts before him, maybe that's screwed up too.

Sure, talk about me like I'm not here.

Basically. As we see over, and over, and over again, people don't search old threads. So we see the same things over and over and over again.

Forums for discussion, and a wiki for archiving the good bits.

So why can't the fan FAQ be on the Sixth World Wiki? Other than the original purpose of the Sixth World Wiki (canon-only references to the setting rather than rules).

Exactly. I'd like to keep the two distinct. Since they're both on the web they can link to each other, but I think they serve two different purposes and each will attract a different crowd of contributors.

Open to having my mind changed on the idea -- let's hear it.

Don't look at me. I think it's a good idea to keep the two separate from eachother.

For the FAQ, you could post generally accepted rules-calls. But if the rules question has differing views due to the ambiguity of the canon wording, then perhaps you can post the different arguments and tell the GM to pick the one that he is comfortable with.

If the Dumpshock Wiki ends up being JUST the fan FAQ, I think it would be better served as a page on the Sixth World Wiki. If there was more wiki content that we could put on there, then that would be a different matter. Maybe if you allowed Dumpshock members to put their campaign info on the Wiki or something like that to organize and collaborate their campaign efforts.

I would prefer the fan FAQ to show the many different house rules and interpretations, along with citations from canon and other sources. It should encompass different points of view, and provide a broad-base resource for people to use.

I think a better thing to do would be to start an official thread on Dumpshock pertaining to each question on the FAQ. Everyone could hash out exactly how the rules work, and then Rob (or his designated representative) could have a clear view of how people actually see things working.

This doesn't necessarily mean he has to agree with the consensus, but it might give him some insight into why the FAQ as it stands seems to generate such animosity.

Adam: This might be one of those types of things that you could link to from the Dumpshock front page, as you were talking about over on Underworld.

I don't understand the point of invisibility affecting the caster, should he cast it on himself. So, I'm with Wireknight on that one for sure.