Not really -- I'm making a distinct and clear difference between astral perception and astral projection.
I remember the rule, and I think it should apply -- when dealing with other astral entities. It's when crossing the boundry between astral and mundane that I referred to.
It weakens the astral spy slightly -- they can do layouts and pinpoint where an ambush is being prepared, or find someone, but can't listen in to a conversation and get the juicy details. You might allow something like manifesting, which gives physical senses as well, but that's in addition to things (and I'd probably make it require a metamagic).
Edit: SLJames -- of course it is. And that's the nice thing about it -- since the patterns and beliefs for a person won't change, you can just say what it is if you want, and have it understood that there's a whole wealth of symbolism and metaphor, while not having to spend time describing it.
Full Version: Shadowrun 3rd Revised
It seems that things that are transparent on the physical need to be transparent on the astral. Otherwise how could one see through normal atmosphere? Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. is present.
So when are we creating a sub-thread about Vehicles/drones/Rigging? If simplifying the vehicle/rigging rules is possible, that would be quite nice.
Driving a vehicle and doing anything more complicated than a parallel park is ridiculously complicated and clunky.
The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow?
Driving a vehicle and doing anything more complicated than a parallel park is ridiculously complicated and clunky.
The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow?
Kagentenshi, change your search to find 'opaque'. It doesn't say glass in the rule.
Nezumi, I don't have my books to give you quotes, but let's assume for a moment that there is no quote from the book that states 'intent' has the power I imply in the Astral Plane. Let's assume it's just a hypothesis.
Fact: You can see through windows from the Astral Plane.
Fact: Your Astral Senses quote shows that 'intent' does play a role.
You seek to destroy a fact because it makes no sense to your own perception of what Astral Perception should be.
I offer an explanation that does not go against anything the Astral Perception rules limit it from being. Hypothesis don't require proving, they require disproving (or an alternative possibility offered as a hypothesis).
Regardless, I see insufficient cause to remove the ruling as I've shown that thematically it fits with what the Shadowrun perception of the Astral is.
Nezumi, I don't have my books to give you quotes, but let's assume for a moment that there is no quote from the book that states 'intent' has the power I imply in the Astral Plane. Let's assume it's just a hypothesis.
Fact: You can see through windows from the Astral Plane.
Fact: Your Astral Senses quote shows that 'intent' does play a role.
You seek to destroy a fact because it makes no sense to your own perception of what Astral Perception should be.
I offer an explanation that does not go against anything the Astral Perception rules limit it from being. Hypothesis don't require proving, they require disproving (or an alternative possibility offered as a hypothesis).
Regardless, I see insufficient cause to remove the ruling as I've shown that thematically it fits with what the Shadowrun perception of the Astral is.
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| So when are we creating a sub-thread about Vehicles/drones/Rigging? If simplifying the vehicle/rigging rules is possible, that would be quite nice. |
Probably soon—I had originally wanted to finish off some aspect of the rules in its entirety before starting a new one, but that's a big task.
| QUOTE |
| The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow? |
Honest answer? I don't know. I haven't been using it for a while now, but I'm not sure that's the correct solution—it doesn't obviously break things, but it does substantially reduce the advantages of smaller, nimbler vehicles (since it's easy to get even big vehicles down to very low Handling). Maneuver score does an important job, I'm just not sure if it's important enough or if there's a better way to do it.
~J
| QUOTE (tisoz) |
| It seems that things that are transparent on the physical need to be transparent on the astral. Otherwise how could one see through normal atmosphere? Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. is present. |
Because it's a gas. I've ruled in my game opacity is based on density. One can faintly make out clouds as a slight blurring of the atmosphere. Water, while transparent, can be seen as something thicker that obscures vision at extreme depths (imagine real, clean water like in the Carribean, looking at it from above. Once it gets to 40 or so feet, the details begin to fade because light refraction and whatnot. 80 feet you just see a faint blue as the floor of the pool, no details at all of what lies on the floor.) An ice cube is opaque.
| QUOTE |
| Fact: Your Astral Senses quote shows that 'intent' does play a role. |
Intent plays a role in that you can read intent off of things, not that the intent of something affects its use. Your apologetic doesn't work because it doesn't apply universally. Things that have another intended use don't carry that use over, glass being the sole exception.
The first "fact" I'm questioning precisely because FASA failed to universally apply it's own rules. Physical vision applies in some places, but does not apply in others. "Intent" clearly isn't what separates one case from the other because a stop sign is intended to be red (but isn't on the astral) and glass is intended to be clear (but is on the astral). I consider this "disproof" of your hypothesis.
Considering SR4 has ammended this mistake, I'm clearly not alone.
I'm under the impression that the idea of being able to cast through glass has been taken from another source (I do recollect in earlier versions you could only use the optical magnification on cyber eyes because the image couldn't be eletronic, and before that I suppose it's related to the idea of it being somehow the 'essence' of a thing - light directly from the target, whether it bounces off a mirror or through a window, is from the target. Light from an electronic image like electronic binoculars, is from the device in representation of the target. Hence, eletronic binoculars are out, while optical ones are in. Because of how magic is from the astral plane, and attacks (oftentimes) the aura of the target (like in manaball) through the astral plane (so it doesn't have to go through glass barriers), it's "natural" to assume that astral perception can work similarly, it isn't stopped by transparent barriers. However, like I've pointed out, that premise goes against how they've defined astral perception.)
No, the intent of a stop sign is not to be red. It's intent is to provide order. The purpose of the sign was never to add a little red to the neighborhood. Astral perception of a stop sign would show crisp, clear feels and sight. Red has nothing to do with it.
Glass is not intended to 'be' anything, hence why you see no rules for it. Glass is not 'clear' in Astral space either, a computer monitor is grey, you don't see the lights behind it. The intent of that glass is not to be clear or to provide a sensory throughput.
However, the 'intent' of putting any opaque object within a barrier is to provide sensory throughput. Hence the rules for opacity. You've not disproved anything. You are throwing random mishmash together and calling it rebuttal. I don't think you understand what 'intent' means.
As for electronic vs optical magnification, I don't think you understand what electronic mag is. It takes a photo, uses a super-fast computer to enhance it, allowing you to see more miniscual details. Then sends that image to you via a monitor (or in the case of cybereyes, through direct neural interface). You're not seeing the object, you're seeing a modified copy of the object enhanced through computer modifications. Optical on the other hand, you may see the bird 2 miles away, but you couldn't see how many feathers it had on its wing.
Glass is not intended to 'be' anything, hence why you see no rules for it. Glass is not 'clear' in Astral space either, a computer monitor is grey, you don't see the lights behind it. The intent of that glass is not to be clear or to provide a sensory throughput.
However, the 'intent' of putting any opaque object within a barrier is to provide sensory throughput. Hence the rules for opacity. You've not disproved anything. You are throwing random mishmash together and calling it rebuttal. I don't think you understand what 'intent' means.
As for electronic vs optical magnification, I don't think you understand what electronic mag is. It takes a photo, uses a super-fast computer to enhance it, allowing you to see more miniscual details. Then sends that image to you via a monitor (or in the case of cybereyes, through direct neural interface). You're not seeing the object, you're seeing a modified copy of the object enhanced through computer modifications. Optical on the other hand, you may see the bird 2 miles away, but you couldn't see how many feathers it had on its wing.
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| However, the 'intent' of putting any opaque object within a barrier is to provide sensory throughput. Hence the rules for opacity. |
I assume you mean "transparent" object. I'd be rather worried if someone put an opaque object ina wall to allow 'sensory throughput'.
So assuming that, if I put up an advert for Soapy Suds, when you see it on the astral, would you want to buy Soapy Suds? Clearly that's the intent of the ad, to make you want to do that. Now what about something that forms naturally, like ice. A clear layer of ice forms on the glass. The ice was not put there with any intent, it was a natural reaction. Would it then be transparent? If I put on a disguise with the intent to hide who I am, would that work? If I put a camera on one side of the wall and a flatscreen TV on the other connected to teh camera, with the intent of seeing what is on the other side of the wall, can I gather information from the other side of the wall even though any transparency is artificial?
(The answers, according to canon, are no, yes, no and no, but from my reading of your rules, the intent of the object, the reason for which it was made, would shine through, and so it would be yes, no, yes and yes. If I'm wrong, maybe you're right and you need to give me your definition of intent.)
| QUOTE |
| As for electronic vs optical magnification, I don't think you understand what electronic mag is. |
I am well aware of how it works, and I assume you didn't bother reading what I wrote because that's precisely what I said. In the case of electronic zoom, what I'm seeing is a picture, and if I cast on it, I cast on the picture. None of the light hitting my eyes is from the target, the light is from the picture. However with optical, the light is from the target. I suggest you reread what I wrote.
Regardless, the line of reasoning from there is that since you can cast on the physical based off of the natural flow of light, as in you can cast on anything you have a LOS on, but NOT on something where your view is the result of an artificial manifestation (a picture, a hologram, electronic zoom, etc.). Ergo, you can cast through glass (which makes sense). The problem arose when you got on the astral because suddenly you're more restricted than before. After all, it clearly says that the astral has no basis on light levels. Light (like we know it) has no representation there (or does it? Since natural vision works "normally".) Therefore, we should not expect the laws that govern light to govern psychic emanations. Yet the rules disregard that and assume that in any case where light behaves a certain way, astral emanations behaves that same way - light passes through glass, therefore astral perception can as well.
This, not "intent" is why you can see through glass, you have limited vision through water, and endless vision into the air, fog can offer soft cover, but you do not perceive light. Otherwise they would have said "you can see through transparent surfaces, assuming they are intentionally transparent", rather than, "The basic rule of thumb is this: if you can see through it in the physical world, then you can see through it on the astral plane. If you can't see through it physically, then you can't see through it astrally, either." (SR3 FAQ)
As an aside, I recommend you drop the personal accusations. Since there are several people (including the SR4 devs) who have directly contradicted your ruling, it is clear that I am not the only one who "doesn't understand intent". I will not roll with the pigs, and if you cannot manage yourself as a gentleman, I will simply write you off as not being worth my time.
Soapy Suds advertisement/billboard: No. However, if it were done by an artist who really felt strongly for Soapy Suds, yes. However, the 'intent' isn't the ad, it's the board. A feeling of commercialism would be felt from the Astral Plane, but the creation of the board's current ad is too generic to leave intent.
Ice on glass: Yes, no intent change. You can see through the ice.
A disguise is more likely to send off feelings of 'hiding something', not actually hiding the person. However, in order for that to correlate to the 'seeing through glass' conundrum you have in your head, you'd have to change that to ask, "The hat I put on as a disguise, does it look like someone else's hat since I intend for it to?" (Intent of the hat, not your intent)
Camera to monitor. Again, as with nearly everytime, you do the same thing of mixing your intent with the intent of an object. This discussion is pointless because you are unable to seperate the two. And no, it wouldn't work, since that's not the 'intent' of the camera or monitor.
As for personal accusations, none were intended. I can see how my reply may have seemed harsh, I didn't mean it as so. You are, however, wrong. The book says you can see through things that a person can see through physical (that is intent). You're trying to bring in all sorts of non-related arguements to prove the book is wrong in order to see a change. There's no need for a change, not only because there is a perfect explaination of 'intent', but because there is no balance issues being broken.
I'm not being insulting when I say that, the book says you can see through windows, come up with your own explanation if you want, but nothing about that ruling breaks the logic of astral perception, except in your own head.
As for SR4, irrelevant. If I cared at all for what the SR4 writers did to the system, I wouldn't be playing SR3 still. They can agree with you all they want, it remains a fact though, that in 3rd edition, glass is see-thru via the Astral.
Ice on glass: Yes, no intent change. You can see through the ice.
A disguise is more likely to send off feelings of 'hiding something', not actually hiding the person. However, in order for that to correlate to the 'seeing through glass' conundrum you have in your head, you'd have to change that to ask, "The hat I put on as a disguise, does it look like someone else's hat since I intend for it to?" (Intent of the hat, not your intent)
Camera to monitor. Again, as with nearly everytime, you do the same thing of mixing your intent with the intent of an object. This discussion is pointless because you are unable to seperate the two. And no, it wouldn't work, since that's not the 'intent' of the camera or monitor.
As for personal accusations, none were intended. I can see how my reply may have seemed harsh, I didn't mean it as so. You are, however, wrong. The book says you can see through things that a person can see through physical (that is intent). You're trying to bring in all sorts of non-related arguements to prove the book is wrong in order to see a change. There's no need for a change, not only because there is a perfect explaination of 'intent', but because there is no balance issues being broken.
I'm not being insulting when I say that, the book says you can see through windows, come up with your own explanation if you want, but nothing about that ruling breaks the logic of astral perception, except in your own head.
As for SR4, irrelevant. If I cared at all for what the SR4 writers did to the system, I wouldn't be playing SR3 still. They can agree with you all they want, it remains a fact though, that in 3rd edition, glass is see-thru via the Astral.
Could you please post your precise definition of "intent", since that seems to be a point of confusion?
You have the right definition, but you keep using it against the wrong object. The intent of a thing, not the intent of other things, or of actions.
Intent of a red-wall: To act as an obstacle. Color is irrelevant.
Intent of a camera: To act as a storage medium (Could possibly use one to trap a spirit, hence the fear of some tribes to be photographed since it could steal your soul)
Intent of a monitor: To act as a data-translation medium (Could possibly be used by a ghost to 'pass a message' over to the other side, making the 'ghost in the machine' even scarier)
Intent of a camera attached to a monitor: Irrelevant. Intent is per-object
OF course I can't give the perfect definition of 'intent' in regards to the Astral plane. Just as 'of course' though, there's no way for them to have given examples of even a small percentage of possibilities with the Astral.
The game designers took an idea that breached multiple genres and attempted to do something no other game had done. Explain it. People like yourself (that is not intended as an accusation) needle their already-over-generous explanations to a point that it all breaks down. Whatever doesn't fit your concept of the Astral, get rid of. But don't, please, try to remove it from the game entirely for everyone else because of your inability to explain it. It turns into an SR4, and makes even less sense because it's all scientific/explainable.
As a side note, a 'House Rule' I use in the Astral. You can't go through walls unless you use the 'Pressing through a barrier' rule. Doors, regardless of material (unless it's specifically anti-astral material, such as FAB) you can go right through (intent). You can however go through ceilings and floors in my world. Material doesn't effect your passage, intent does. Walls are meant as barriers, floors and ceilings are meant as protection and stability, and since they're not barriers, going through them is easy. I find that more in-line with their expression of the Astral, but I wouldn't go asking Kage to change the rules for my interpretation of it.
Intent of a red-wall: To act as an obstacle. Color is irrelevant.
Intent of a camera: To act as a storage medium (Could possibly use one to trap a spirit, hence the fear of some tribes to be photographed since it could steal your soul)
Intent of a monitor: To act as a data-translation medium (Could possibly be used by a ghost to 'pass a message' over to the other side, making the 'ghost in the machine' even scarier)
Intent of a camera attached to a monitor: Irrelevant. Intent is per-object
OF course I can't give the perfect definition of 'intent' in regards to the Astral plane. Just as 'of course' though, there's no way for them to have given examples of even a small percentage of possibilities with the Astral.
The game designers took an idea that breached multiple genres and attempted to do something no other game had done. Explain it. People like yourself (that is not intended as an accusation) needle their already-over-generous explanations to a point that it all breaks down. Whatever doesn't fit your concept of the Astral, get rid of. But don't, please, try to remove it from the game entirely for everyone else because of your inability to explain it. It turns into an SR4, and makes even less sense because it's all scientific/explainable.
As a side note, a 'House Rule' I use in the Astral. You can't go through walls unless you use the 'Pressing through a barrier' rule. Doors, regardless of material (unless it's specifically anti-astral material, such as FAB) you can go right through (intent). You can however go through ceilings and floors in my world. Material doesn't effect your passage, intent does. Walls are meant as barriers, floors and ceilings are meant as protection and stability, and since they're not barriers, going through them is easy. I find that more in-line with their expression of the Astral, but I wouldn't go asking Kage to change the rules for my interpretation of it.
I do like your interpretation, although I disagree with it. More specifically, I would like your method if I used entirely your method (walls slow you down but doors don't). That's an extension of your explanation to its logical conclusion, and I do think that, for the most part, it seems logically sound. I could play in a game like that and enjoy it. My primary complaint would be how do you define intent? A glass beaker is made to contain acids and bases safely, as well as to serve as insulation. The fact that it's transparent is a happy coincidence. So would it allow a psychic reading to pass through it?
My primary complaint against your model, however, is that SR3 doesn't use it. If it did, I wouldn't complain it's internally inconsistent. It doesn't use my model either. My complaint has been that it uses two models, and jumps back and forth between them higgeldy piggeldy. That problem is something I would fix in SR4 (which was the prompt of the thread).
Now whether Kage decides to use your method or my method or no change at all is completely up to him, HOWEVER, in the spirit of the original thread, I feel it does need to be examined and at least considered, to get a sense of what would benefit the most players. Of course, should anyone not want to run with a particular SR3R rule, they are under no obligation to use it.
My primary complaint against your model, however, is that SR3 doesn't use it. If it did, I wouldn't complain it's internally inconsistent. It doesn't use my model either. My complaint has been that it uses two models, and jumps back and forth between them higgeldy piggeldy. That problem is something I would fix in SR4 (which was the prompt of the thread).
Now whether Kage decides to use your method or my method or no change at all is completely up to him, HOWEVER, in the spirit of the original thread, I feel it does need to be examined and at least considered, to get a sense of what would benefit the most players. Of course, should anyone not want to run with a particular SR3R rule, they are under no obligation to use it.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
Honest answer? I don't know. I haven't been using it for a while now, but I'm not sure that's the correct solution—it doesn't obviously break things, but it does substantially reduce the advantages of smaller, nimbler vehicles (since it's easy to get even big vehicles down to very low Handling). Maneuver score does an important job, I'm just not sure if it's important enough or if there's a better way to do it. ~J |
Ah yes. Specifically in motorbike vs. large vehicle. The maneuverability is all a yamaha Rapier holds over a Citymaster. If we take that away, then it destroys any semblance of balance.
Personally I just hate having to punch in the calculations every time any character makes an action.
Nezumi, honestly, I don't think that the people who created the Astral explanations (who helped me understand 'intent') would let you 'look through' a glass beaker. It would exude toxicity, especially if it had been used to hold acids and bases. Or happiness if it just held flowers. Either way, the aura around it, due to usage, would over-ride the transparency rule. If it were sitting, brand new on a shelf, un-used, I think it would be relatively invisible to the astral perceiver (fully transparent). Windows however, usually don't have those attachments, so simply remain transparent due to intent being so much stronger than emotional rubbing in those cases.
I don't see how any of the things I said would go 'against' the definition of the Astral presented in the books. Sure, the book says that transparent objects are transparent, but it also talks about auras. Much like in the physical plane, glass is transparent, but light also reflects off of glass, making it impossible to see through into a dark room when there's a bright light behind you. Doesn't make the glass less transparent, just stops you from seeing through it. Same principles in the Astral. Doesn't make the Physical Plane 'internally inconsistent' or 'higgeldy piggeldy'.
I don't see how any of the things I said would go 'against' the definition of the Astral presented in the books. Sure, the book says that transparent objects are transparent, but it also talks about auras. Much like in the physical plane, glass is transparent, but light also reflects off of glass, making it impossible to see through into a dark room when there's a bright light behind you. Doesn't make the glass less transparent, just stops you from seeing through it. Same principles in the Astral. Doesn't make the Physical Plane 'internally inconsistent' or 'higgeldy piggeldy'.
Why isn't this all in the magic/astral etc. sub-thread?
So are we going to revise the drug rules at all, to make them less... lethal?
So are we going to revise the drug rules at all, to make them less... lethal?
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| So are we going to revise the drug rules at all, to make them less... lethal? |
Yes. Absolutely. Or at the very least, to include some drugs that have mechanical effects that players might reasonably have their long-term characters use.
~J
Damn Kage you're quick.
It's not so much a case of wanting drugs to be very powerful in game terms, honestly it's more for the sake of roleplaying, but it should still have effects. I just want to get rid of the easy three step program of "take - addiction - new character sheet!"
I have no idea how, though.
It's not so much a case of wanting drugs to be very powerful in game terms, honestly it's more for the sake of roleplaying, but it should still have effects. I just want to get rid of the easy three step program of "take - addiction - new character sheet!"
I have no idea how, though.
Reorganization in progress, working on adding a running "in progress/resolved" section to the start of each individual-topic thread.
~J
~J
Sounds good, if I could assign Karma I would. When shall we start a melee combat revision? personally I think "cyber implant combat" should be a specialization of unarmed, and I can't say I'm the only one.
Post some proposed opening issues in the main SR3R thread and I'll probably open it up. That and Rigging are long overdue.
~J
~J
Personally, I think Cyber-Implant Weapons (Melee) should be a specialization of unarmed, whereas the various implanted ranged weapons should be specializations of what they're based off of.
It doesn't make much sense for a cyber-shotgun to be a specialization of unarmed (though that would be one hell of a punch)
It doesn't make much sense for a cyber-shotgun to be a specialization of unarmed (though that would be one hell of a punch)
Oh, yeah, I'm awake. Totally.
(For reference, I thought we were in the ranged combat section when I posted the above)
Anyway, we've got that, anything else we should have in the opener for Melee Combat?
~J
(For reference, I thought we were in the ranged combat section when I posted the above)
Anyway, we've got that, anything else we should have in the opener for Melee Combat?
~J
Idea for revised melee combat
For every 2D6 extra initiative dice you have over another combatant, you are able to cancel out 1 point of reach that combatant has against you.
Maximus, an unarmed street sam with Wired Reflexes lvl 2 is facing off in some corner of the sprawl against an unwired troll gang member armed with a butcher's knife (reach 1). With his extra speed Maximus is able to counter out the gang members natural extended reach. (reducing his base target number from 5 back to 4)
For every 2D6 extra initiative dice you have over another combatant, you are able to cancel out 1 point of reach that combatant has against you.
Maximus, an unarmed street sam with Wired Reflexes lvl 2 is facing off in some corner of the sprawl against an unwired troll gang member armed with a butcher's knife (reach 1). With his extra speed Maximus is able to counter out the gang members natural extended reach. (reducing his base target number from 5 back to 4)
| QUOTE (Chance359) |
| Idea for revised melee combat For every 2D6 extra initiative dice you have over another combatant, you are able to cancel out 1 point of reach that combatant has against you. Maximus, an unarmed street sam with Wired Reflexes lvl 2 is facing off in some corner of the sprawl against an unwired troll gang member armed with a butcher's knife (reach 1). With his extra speed Maximus is able to counter out the gang members natural extended reach. (reducing his base target number from 5 back to 4) |
I think that almost deserves its own thread. It's a real interesting discussion.
In the rules as written Bruce Lee would be helpless if he were bum rushed by four taekwondo soccer moms. In real life fighting against multiples is indeed highly likely to lead to your being used as a pinata but there's a difference between two soccer moms holding your arms and two soccer moms taking turns kicking your scrotum versus four soccer moms all just trying to hit you independently.
So, should we keep friends-in-melee and reach as UBER as they are now, or do we tone things down a bit?
I'm a little concerned that toning things down could make things more complicated. For example, if we want to talk about reach, a bo staff with reach two would be great for beating on a guy who is unarmed and who is so far away he can't fight back. But if the unarmed guy tackles you and begins grappling you the bo staff is suddenly a lot less useful. So would it be worthwhile to write in a minimum effective range for some melee weapons?
Something we did once as a House Rule but dropped entirely for some unknown reason was to have Friends in Combat reduce your effective skill by 1 for each additional friend, but only to half your skill rating. So BruceLee with his Unarmed of 8 against 5 TKD Soccer Moms with unarmed of 2 would still outclass the 5 mome since he'd be an an 'effective skill' of 4 (8-5 < 8/2).
It worked nicely, but I think our group was just too rarely in melee for us to remember that we were using those rules and just kinda forgot.
BTW, considering +1 is the most common Reach you see, rarely a +2 and almost unheard of for +3 or +4, I like the Initiative Dice idea. But I think maybe per +1dice over the opponent is better. It only negates the modifier, doesn't reduce the TN, so it's not unbalancing.
It worked nicely, but I think our group was just too rarely in melee for us to remember that we were using those rules and just kinda forgot.
BTW, considering +1 is the most common Reach you see, rarely a +2 and almost unheard of for +3 or +4, I like the Initiative Dice idea. But I think maybe per +1dice over the opponent is better. It only negates the modifier, doesn't reduce the TN, so it's not unbalancing.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| In the rules as written Bruce Lee would be helpless if he were bum rushed by four taekwondo soccer moms. |
How often does a martial arts master let himself get surrounded by enemies such that he needs to watch behind himself no matter which way he turns? Typically a competant fighter will maneuver around such that at most two opponents are a threat at any given time.
Exactly, hence a need to fix the rules, since unless you're playing with miniatures, that just can't be avoided. The changes to the rules symbolize that tactical manuevering.
Then just use the maneuvers in the CC. They cover fighting multiple opponents using the terrain, and other things that should be a part of any trained combatant.
My house rule with them is that the 2 karma cost is for the extra maneuvers and you get (skill/2) maneuvers free with your skill. The 8 karma cost would be applied if you want more maneuvers than you have levels of the skill or for maneuvers outside your skill.
My house rule with them is that the 2 karma cost is for the extra maneuvers and you get (skill/2) maneuvers free with your skill. The 8 karma cost would be applied if you want more maneuvers than you have levels of the skill or for maneuvers outside your skill.
Problem with the Martial Art manuevers is that 2/3rds of the arts would still get your butt handed to you by the soccer moms with their skills of 2. Most don't have "Whirling" in their list of manuevers.
So spend two skill points in one that does.
Alright, last month I began taking everything in the SR3R threads and putting them into succinct text files, as Kage requested, however my hard drive blew up two weeks ago, completely destroying that and one other file I had neglected to back up.
Since it's been a long wait since that, I'm giving official warning that I'm going to take a second whack at this, trying to condense everything in the thread into a list of short, easy to implement rules that Kage can do with as he pleases.
Anyone who is currently doing this, please tell me now so we don't repeat effort.
Anyone who would like me to take notes in a special way (for instance, list controversies that came up or who designed it or references as to which page of the forum has it) tell me now so I don't have to go back to correct it.
Kage (or anyone else who is in charge of SR3R), if this will not be especially useful, please tell me now so I can use my time reading rpg.net's motivational poster thread instead of doing something quite as time consuming as wading through and rewriting fifty pages of posts split up over four threads.
Since it's been a long wait since that, I'm giving official warning that I'm going to take a second whack at this, trying to condense everything in the thread into a list of short, easy to implement rules that Kage can do with as he pleases.
Anyone who is currently doing this, please tell me now so we don't repeat effort.
Anyone who would like me to take notes in a special way (for instance, list controversies that came up or who designed it or references as to which page of the forum has it) tell me now so I don't have to go back to correct it.
Kage (or anyone else who is in charge of SR3R), if this will not be especially useful, please tell me now so I can use my time reading rpg.net's motivational poster thread instead of doing something quite as time consuming as wading through and rewriting fifty pages of posts split up over four threads.
Well, I'll put it this way: take a look at what I've done with the first post of each thread (except for this one). If there's missing stuff or something you think would be added, go ahead and do it—it'd probably be useful.
~J
~J
So should this thread be summarized?
You said this in December:
4) If you're feeling really masochistic, try to sift out the agreed-upon changes from a thread and organize them into a distributable file (PDF, text, RTF, something universal—avoiding Word documents is the big thing).
I'm wondering if that option still stands, in which case I'd categorize them into non-agreed upon things and 'agreed upon things' (not that I"d be able to easily tell if something is agreed upon or not). Things not agreed upon can go on to be tested. Everything would be in an RTF file for easy editing and whatnot.
You said this in December:
4) If you're feeling really masochistic, try to sift out the agreed-upon changes from a thread and organize them into a distributable file (PDF, text, RTF, something universal—avoiding Word documents is the big thing).
I'm wondering if that option still stands, in which case I'd categorize them into non-agreed upon things and 'agreed upon things' (not that I"d be able to easily tell if something is agreed upon or not). Things not agreed upon can go on to be tested. Everything would be in an RTF file for easy editing and whatnot.
It'd probably be helpful—this thread mostly exists to collect enough issues for other parts of the system to open threads for those parts.
At least I think it does. Long day today.
While we're at it, calling again for issues with Rigging/vehicle rules and melee combat.
~J
At least I think it does. Long day today.
While we're at it, calling again for issues with Rigging/vehicle rules and melee combat.
~J
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| Exactly, hence a need to fix the rules, since unless you're playing with miniatures, that just can't be avoided. The changes to the rules symbolize that tactical manuevering. |
The Egyptian relative of the Cheshire Cat has caught t3h corr3ct.
| QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm) |
| So spend two skill points in one that does. |
That's neither elegant nor realistic. Surely, this aspect of the game deserves some streamlining.
i think you should have the choice of ignoring some combatants, thereby reducing or eliminating your friends in melee penalty at the price of not being able to counterattack those combatants. that way, if you're set upon by a pack of angry girl scouts, you can put the boot into them one at a time.
"You can't punch me I'm ignoring you!!"
| QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm) |
| So spend two skill points in one that does. |
Huh? Ok, so now you have a skill of 1 (can't use your skill-8 art with this particular technique) against the 5 TKD Soccer Moms with skills of 2. Still gonna take a major ass whoopin. O.o
I was thinking about this actually (aside from the wierd comment from the Herald....). What about not modifying the defense attacks? Bruce Lee would easily win because he'd not be offensive. Mom attacks, he gets full skill roll to defend, gets more successes and kicks her kick out of the air. As long as he's "pure defense" (no attacking himself) then he takes no negatives from 'friends in combat'. This also explains some stalemating when 2 groups of people face each other down....
*whew* Typed up this thread AND backed it up. Next I'll move on to the Ranged Combat thread.
So far I've gotten a few different things:
- Requests for clarification (how does foci work?)
- Specific problems (called shots are unbalanced)
- Rules to try (Hooper-Nelson rule can always be applied, no restrictions)
- Rules that are agreed upon and going in (called shots are being eliminated)
I haven't done the best job of organizing, and they're clearly in note format.
What should I do with these as I collect them? Or do we not care until I have the complete text document?
So far I've gotten a few different things:
- Requests for clarification (how does foci work?)
- Specific problems (called shots are unbalanced)
- Rules to try (Hooper-Nelson rule can always be applied, no restrictions)
- Rules that are agreed upon and going in (called shots are being eliminated)
I haven't done the best job of organizing, and they're clearly in note format.
What should I do with these as I collect them? Or do we not care until I have the complete text document?
As long as I'm looking through this, a skill related idea -
Our skills list is almost exclusively skills runners would likely use. When runners go outside of this area, things start to break down. A good example is biotech. The only way to represent a doctor instead of a very skilled field medic (looking at the book) is another three points in biotech, a specialization or two, and four knowledge skills. One spent six months training and maybe a year on the field, the other spent 8 years getting professional schooling, a residency, and a year or two of practice. There are many skills that fall under biotech, but should be broken out for when a player decides he's going to make his own street doc. There are other skills that should be broken out (but probably don't deserve to be listed unless people think it will come into play) related to the other duties people perform. In other words, it would make sense to make an expanded NPC skills list that players can use when they want to branch out of just shadowrunning.
Our skills list is almost exclusively skills runners would likely use. When runners go outside of this area, things start to break down. A good example is biotech. The only way to represent a doctor instead of a very skilled field medic (looking at the book) is another three points in biotech, a specialization or two, and four knowledge skills. One spent six months training and maybe a year on the field, the other spent 8 years getting professional schooling, a residency, and a year or two of practice. There are many skills that fall under biotech, but should be broken out for when a player decides he's going to make his own street doc. There are other skills that should be broken out (but probably don't deserve to be listed unless people think it will come into play) related to the other duties people perform. In other words, it would make sense to make an expanded NPC skills list that players can use when they want to branch out of just shadowrunning.
Another thought I had, edges and flaws -
Some of these costs need to be reworked. "Good looking and knows it" is a sample edge and should be scorched completely. Allergy flaws are too valuable, whereas flaws like 'invisible friend' aren't written down at all! Additionally, it should cost 10, not 20 karma to buy off flaws (or buy edges, if allowed). There is no edge that is cheaper at 10 karma a point than buying that value through normal means would be (assuming there are normal means). Since most flaws are 2-4 points, 40-80 karma is practically a whole campaign. I've used this house rule for years and have never seen anything bad come out of it, and I have seen some very good results as non-magic users have a new way to expand (buying ambidexterity or charisma linked edges) when they cap out their skills.
Armor stacking/encumbrance penalties should be based off of Strength, not quickness.
Karma pool CAN be spent like normal karma. This means that the 100 karma human isn't sitting on 10 karma pool, when he desperately needs 1 karma point to buy a new power he desperately needs. Karma pool should be a benefit, not a curse.
Fake SINs need SI and availability numbers (and should be included with equipment already!)
Some other new equipment I've allowed:
Latex face mask - Availability 8/1 mo. Street index 4 $500
This is a latex mask kit, including the materials necessary for a single cast. The latex mask can be matched to a single facial structure. Similar kits can be bought for hands (accurate down to the finger print level) for half the price.
Autopicker - Availability 6/1 mo. Street index 4 rating*$200
Also called a pick-gun. It's about the size of a light pistol down to an electric toothbrush, with a long, slender piece inserted into the key hole. With either a snap of a spring or an electric vibration, this snaps the cylinders into place. The user can use the rating of this device in place of the lockpicking skill on any locks not specifically designed to overcome them (generally rating 8 locks or above). These do make noises, and may be heard on a perception test with a TN of 4 (although likely not recognized). They can also be made at home with some basic electronics skill (the difficulty is based on the rating). It generally takes approximately 5 seconds to work.
lockpick set - Availability 2/1 wk. Street index 2 $30
This or the autopicker are required for lockpicking. This depends completely on the user's skill (lockpicking). The TN for picking is based on the quality of the lock. These are exceptionally simple to make at home assuming you have the tools and some basic skill, which makes them easy to pick up on the street. A lockpick set can be replaced by a lockpicking kit, shop or facility (standard prices), which also will decrease the TN of picking the lock. Lockpicking can be done almost silently, causing no more noise than the normal operation of the lock, but generally takes longer (this will be a test against a TN based on the lock. The basic time it takes is 10 minutes per attempt, divided by the number of successes. No penalty for multiple attempts.)
Chain saw - Availability 4/1 wk. Street inex 1.5 $300
It's a chainsaw. It cuts through things.
Some of these costs need to be reworked. "Good looking and knows it" is a sample edge and should be scorched completely. Allergy flaws are too valuable, whereas flaws like 'invisible friend' aren't written down at all! Additionally, it should cost 10, not 20 karma to buy off flaws (or buy edges, if allowed). There is no edge that is cheaper at 10 karma a point than buying that value through normal means would be (assuming there are normal means). Since most flaws are 2-4 points, 40-80 karma is practically a whole campaign. I've used this house rule for years and have never seen anything bad come out of it, and I have seen some very good results as non-magic users have a new way to expand (buying ambidexterity or charisma linked edges) when they cap out their skills.
Armor stacking/encumbrance penalties should be based off of Strength, not quickness.
Karma pool CAN be spent like normal karma. This means that the 100 karma human isn't sitting on 10 karma pool, when he desperately needs 1 karma point to buy a new power he desperately needs. Karma pool should be a benefit, not a curse.
Fake SINs need SI and availability numbers (and should be included with equipment already!)
Some other new equipment I've allowed:
Latex face mask - Availability 8/1 mo. Street index 4 $500
This is a latex mask kit, including the materials necessary for a single cast. The latex mask can be matched to a single facial structure. Similar kits can be bought for hands (accurate down to the finger print level) for half the price.
Autopicker - Availability 6/1 mo. Street index 4 rating*$200
Also called a pick-gun. It's about the size of a light pistol down to an electric toothbrush, with a long, slender piece inserted into the key hole. With either a snap of a spring or an electric vibration, this snaps the cylinders into place. The user can use the rating of this device in place of the lockpicking skill on any locks not specifically designed to overcome them (generally rating 8 locks or above). These do make noises, and may be heard on a perception test with a TN of 4 (although likely not recognized). They can also be made at home with some basic electronics skill (the difficulty is based on the rating). It generally takes approximately 5 seconds to work.
lockpick set - Availability 2/1 wk. Street index 2 $30
This or the autopicker are required for lockpicking. This depends completely on the user's skill (lockpicking). The TN for picking is based on the quality of the lock. These are exceptionally simple to make at home assuming you have the tools and some basic skill, which makes them easy to pick up on the street. A lockpick set can be replaced by a lockpicking kit, shop or facility (standard prices), which also will decrease the TN of picking the lock. Lockpicking can be done almost silently, causing no more noise than the normal operation of the lock, but generally takes longer (this will be a test against a TN based on the lock. The basic time it takes is 10 minutes per attempt, divided by the number of successes. No penalty for multiple attempts.)
Chain saw - Availability 4/1 wk. Street inex 1.5 $300
It's a chainsaw. It cuts through things.
Armour Stacking: Agreed, Strength should play a factor.
Karma Pool: Agreed, shouldn't have to put your karma into the karma pool. It should be a limit, not a finite.
Fake Sins: Agreed.
Karma Pool: Agreed, shouldn't have to put your karma into the karma pool. It should be a limit, not a finite.
Fake Sins: Agreed.
i disagree, re: armor stacking. i think it should be based off body. armor slows you down and tires you out over time; it's an endurance thing, not a power thing.
If we're adding new gear, here are my suggestions:
1. Tool laser. It keeps coming up, and people just make do based on the price of the cyber eye mod. It needs to have price, availability, concealability, etc. defined.
2. Fiberoptic probe in various flavors: Passive that lets you use your existing vision/vision enhancements, active with a camera and a display, cybernetic one that you can connect to a datajack, etc.
In fact, it ought to be available as a piece of DNI controlled cyber - it unfolds from a modidied cybereye or a cyber hand, for example, snakes over to where you want it to be, and you can see the results in your eye display.
1. Tool laser. It keeps coming up, and people just make do based on the price of the cyber eye mod. It needs to have price, availability, concealability, etc. defined.
2. Fiberoptic probe in various flavors: Passive that lets you use your existing vision/vision enhancements, active with a camera and a display, cybernetic one that you can connect to a datajack, etc.
In fact, it ought to be available as a piece of DNI controlled cyber - it unfolds from a modidied cybereye or a cyber hand, for example, snakes over to where you want it to be, and you can see the results in your eye display.
Can we have a Darkman latex mask that falls apart after too much exposure to sunlight?
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Can we have a Darkman latex mask that falls apart after too much exposure to sunlight? |
I think this deserves an explanation.
re: Armor stacking & body - I can see that, but there are two game balance flaws:
1) People with high body are already strong and really don't need the help soaking damage
2) It would make strength, which is a traditionally undervalued stat, especially with firearms specialists, actually relevant to something.
Something else that came up recently, credsticks. We all know what they are, but we don't have much of an understanding of how they work - and what we do know seems silly. It seems like they should be small, like the magic wand you use to pay for gas that has the RFID chip in it. Enough space for a thumb print, and a few buttons for basic functions like transfer of money, trade business cards, etc. I'd like to see a reasonable explanation for what this looks like and how it works.
From the artwork it seems that credsticks look like large sharpened coffee stirrers.
As far as I know they're like a ball-point pen, straight and metallic, with a pointed end, no buttons. I imagine a certified credstick would have a small lcd screen that displays the amount of money on the stick.
They basically work like a credit/debit card, but with other information stored, such as DNA, SIN, etc.
They basically work like a credit/debit card, but with other information stored, such as DNA, SIN, etc.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.