This has probably been heavily discussed already, but my search-fu sucks.
Looking at the rules it makes perfect sense to just stick Improved Reflexes 3, at force 1, into a force 1 sustaining focus.
+3d6 initiative at the cost of 2 Karma and a single drain test = REALLY sweet, really cheap.
My solution for this is pretty basic. The force of the sustaining focus + force of the spell = How many initiative passes its active for.
That way you get 2 full passes of improved 3 before re-cast. Its not terribly restrictive in-combat, but it means you can't pre-cast it and walk around all day armed to the teeth.
This may or may not apply only to Improved 2/3, but I want to know a few things about this idea.
1: Do I have the rules interpretation right, or am I missing something?
2: If so, does this sound like a good way to restrict the use of sustaining foci?
3: Anchoring foci might (perhaps, not sure) remove this restriction, but it would cost more to obtain/make and more to bond, correct?
Full Version: Force 1 sustaining focus
1: nope, that's correct.
2: bleagh, that's pretty restrictive.
3: i am too lazy to look this answer up.
force 1 foci are good for cheap tricks like that, but cheap tricks like that are good targets for manabolt/astral attacks/other things which destroy a focus. i'm not saying you should do it all the time, but there's no reason an enemy mage wouldn't take a cheap shot like that, especially if s/he's got the advantage of surprise.
2: bleagh, that's pretty restrictive.
3: i am too lazy to look this answer up.
force 1 foci are good for cheap tricks like that, but cheap tricks like that are good targets for manabolt/astral attacks/other things which destroy a focus. i'm not saying you should do it all the time, but there's no reason an enemy mage wouldn't take a cheap shot like that, especially if s/he's got the advantage of surprise.
1) Interpreted correctly. Or as correctly as commonly held.
2) Very restrictive. Setting a dangerous precedent however.
3) Anchoring foci does not Sustain. So I do not quite get what you wish to accomplish.
2) Very restrictive. Setting a dangerous precedent however.
3) Anchoring foci does not Sustain. So I do not quite get what you wish to accomplish.
The enemy mage doesn't even have to be going for the focus. Remember, if you eat an area combat spell then your focus eats the same spell. Nothing like losing your reflex bonus while you and your entire team try desperatly to stage down damage from a deadly manaball.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jun 20 2005, 09:12 AM) |
| The enemy mage doesn't even have to be going for the focus. Remember, if you eat an area combat spell then your focus eats the same spell. Nothing like losing your reflex bonus while you and your entire team try desperatly to stage down damage from a deadly manaball. |
A physical plane mana spell will affect the focus.
A physical plane physical spell will affect any physical object including the focus.
An astral plane mana spell will affect the focus.
An astral plane physical spell will not affect the focus.
The problem with your solution is that it's an anomoly. Why does it work just this way for just this spell? If someone got a F1 Invisibility spell sustained by a F1 focus, would it only work for 2 combat turns before the target bacomes visible again?
Or is this by the nature of the spell? Should Increased Reflex spells now only work for (Force) combat turns? You've effectively made it a permanent spell (which can have such time limits on their effects; see the Makeover spell). What about other health spells?
Better to just houserule those spells into one Increase Relexes spell where the Force is relevent.
Or is this by the nature of the spell? Should Increased Reflex spells now only work for (Force) combat turns? You've effectively made it a permanent spell (which can have such time limits on their effects; see the Makeover spell). What about other health spells?
Better to just houserule those spells into one Increase Relexes spell where the Force is relevent.
I'm just going to Houserule the whole thing into one big spell, "Improve Reflexes", with 1 die of initiative gained per 2 (force levels of the spell cast-2) . Drain would be as per IR1, but casting IR3 would require a force-8 focus and the drain would be freakishly nasty anyway..
Well that certainly provides a good alternative, Spastic.
That way you A: Need a force 8 focus.
B: 8 magic rating to cast the spell without physical drain.
C: A good roll to resist the drain.
The only issue is: What happens for force 1 and 2? Does the spell just not work, or does it just provide a reaction bonus or something?
And the same goes for force 9, 10 and so on? Do you get extra dice, a la MBW, or do you just get extra reaction?
Other then that, I think you're on the right track.
That way you A: Need a force 8 focus.
B: 8 magic rating to cast the spell without physical drain.
C: A good roll to resist the drain.
The only issue is: What happens for force 1 and 2? Does the spell just not work, or does it just provide a reaction bonus or something?
And the same goes for force 9, 10 and so on? Do you get extra dice, a la MBW, or do you just get extra reaction?
Other then that, I think you're on the right track.
Like I've said before, it's not really that game-breaking. Unlike wired reflexes, you don't get the Reaction increase, so it doesn't help against surprise tests, and the highest version of it gives you something that is slightly less, on average, than you get from wired reflexes: 2. Any decent speed sammie will be way faster than that.
It costs a Force: 1 sustaining focus and 2 spell points (1 for the force: 1 spell and 1 to bond the focus). Additional spell points are 25,000 per point, so this combo actually costs the mage 65,000 Nuyen, or the equivalent, for an initiative boost with numerous disadvantages. Active foci are easy to attack astrally and can also be messed up by wards (not to mention alerting the creater of that ward). Note though, that area affect combat spells will only affect the focus if it is in LOS of the enemy spellcaster - a ring or brooch might be affected, but an amulet worn under a shirt might not be. They are still troublesome and prone to being damaged. And if you ever get captured, say bye-bye to it. And if they don't re-bond it, they can keep it to have a permanent way of finding you again. Yay.
I personally don't advocate going out of your way to screw over a mage with this combination. If they keep the focus active all of the time, they have to worry about astral attention, wards, and astral attacks. If they only use it right before the run, they still have to cast a high-Drain spell, and still have to deal with wards (and astral attacks, if the defenders have any concealment or other opportunities for surprise). All of this trouble and expense, for a comparatively weak initiative boost, so that they are still behind most of the sammies and adepts, but can still at least go more than once a round.
It costs a Force: 1 sustaining focus and 2 spell points (1 for the force: 1 spell and 1 to bond the focus). Additional spell points are 25,000 per point, so this combo actually costs the mage 65,000 Nuyen, or the equivalent, for an initiative boost with numerous disadvantages. Active foci are easy to attack astrally and can also be messed up by wards (not to mention alerting the creater of that ward). Note though, that area affect combat spells will only affect the focus if it is in LOS of the enemy spellcaster - a ring or brooch might be affected, but an amulet worn under a shirt might not be. They are still troublesome and prone to being damaged. And if you ever get captured, say bye-bye to it. And if they don't re-bond it, they can keep it to have a permanent way of finding you again. Yay.
I personally don't advocate going out of your way to screw over a mage with this combination. If they keep the focus active all of the time, they have to worry about astral attention, wards, and astral attacks. If they only use it right before the run, they still have to cast a high-Drain spell, and still have to deal with wards (and astral attacks, if the defenders have any concealment or other opportunities for surprise). All of this trouble and expense, for a comparatively weak initiative boost, so that they are still behind most of the sammies and adepts, but can still at least go more than once a round.
Yeah, but one could also quickly tack on an Improved Reaction: 6 spell and, with an intellegence of 6 have 4 foci left to bond if need be.
So for 14 Karma (6 + 6 for the spell and focus, then 1 + 1 for the IR3 and focus), a relatively minimal amount of gaming (depending on run difficulty, my groups net from 4 to 8 a run) one can match, roughly, a Street Sam's wired 3 or an Adept's investature of 5/6ths of his power points.
Needless to say, thats a slight bit unbalanced (Even if the Adept can initiate for another point at 9 Karma (Group + ordeal), and even if the Sam trades 14 Karma at 1:10,000 for a measly 140,000
.) because of the following issue.
Mages don't worry about Power Point limitations or Essence. Using 30 build points as the max for money, a gunbunny can buy ONE set of Wired Reflexes 3 alphaware, costing 4 essence. That's it. An Adept can dump 5 points into Improved 3, but that's that except maybe for, I dunno, whatever he might get for 1 point. Mages just dump 1/3rd of their focus ability, unless they have low intellegence.
As for the numbers, I'll use reaction 6 as an example and compare and Adept/Sam with level 3 improved/wired and a mage with improved reflexes 3 only. The average roll is a 3 or 4.
- So an average adept roll is from from 12-16. Same with a sam. Same with a mage.
- Automatically, their reaction is 6, so they are now from 18-22.
- The additional 6 from wired/improved raises the adept and sam to 24-28
Now for the minimum-maximum ranges.
- No reaction boost is from 4-24
- The reaction of 6 gives you 10-30
- The additional from wired/improved is 16-36.
I'm sure we all know this. So that kind of situation is what makes the Mage getting 10-30 for minimal cost so difficult when adepts and sams have to invest most of their power for 16-36. Then, heaven help you if you skimped on intellegence or quickness.
I think Spastic's system is the best, but it makes me wonder what 1-2 force points, as well as 9+ do? Do they add reaction? Is it something like an odd table:
1: +1 reaction
2: +2 reaction
3: 1d6 + 2 reaction
4: 1d6 + 3 reaction
5: 2d6 + 3 reaction
6: 2d6 + 4 reaction
7: 3d6 + 4 reaction
8: 3d6 + 5 reaction
9: 3d6 + 6 reaction
10: 3d6 + 7 reaction?
Though it reminds me of the slightly odd looking Boosted Reflexes table, these numbers almost sound sensible. What do you guys think about this?
So for 14 Karma (6 + 6 for the spell and focus, then 1 + 1 for the IR3 and focus), a relatively minimal amount of gaming (depending on run difficulty, my groups net from 4 to 8 a run) one can match, roughly, a Street Sam's wired 3 or an Adept's investature of 5/6ths of his power points.
Needless to say, thats a slight bit unbalanced (Even if the Adept can initiate for another point at 9 Karma (Group + ordeal), and even if the Sam trades 14 Karma at 1:10,000 for a measly 140,000
.) because of the following issue.Mages don't worry about Power Point limitations or Essence. Using 30 build points as the max for money, a gunbunny can buy ONE set of Wired Reflexes 3 alphaware, costing 4 essence. That's it. An Adept can dump 5 points into Improved 3, but that's that except maybe for, I dunno, whatever he might get for 1 point. Mages just dump 1/3rd of their focus ability, unless they have low intellegence.
As for the numbers, I'll use reaction 6 as an example and compare and Adept/Sam with level 3 improved/wired and a mage with improved reflexes 3 only. The average roll is a 3 or 4.
- So an average adept roll is from from 12-16. Same with a sam. Same with a mage.
- Automatically, their reaction is 6, so they are now from 18-22.
- The additional 6 from wired/improved raises the adept and sam to 24-28
Now for the minimum-maximum ranges.
- No reaction boost is from 4-24
- The reaction of 6 gives you 10-30
- The additional from wired/improved is 16-36.
I'm sure we all know this. So that kind of situation is what makes the Mage getting 10-30 for minimal cost so difficult when adepts and sams have to invest most of their power for 16-36. Then, heaven help you if you skimped on intellegence or quickness.
I think Spastic's system is the best, but it makes me wonder what 1-2 force points, as well as 9+ do? Do they add reaction? Is it something like an odd table:
1: +1 reaction
2: +2 reaction
3: 1d6 + 2 reaction
4: 1d6 + 3 reaction
5: 2d6 + 3 reaction
6: 2d6 + 4 reaction
7: 3d6 + 4 reaction
8: 3d6 + 5 reaction
9: 3d6 + 6 reaction
10: 3d6 + 7 reaction?
Though it reminds me of the slightly odd looking Boosted Reflexes table, these numbers almost sound sensible. What do you guys think about this?
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Remember, if you eat an area combat spell then your focus eats the same spell. |
... only if opposing mage can see the focus, yes?
In other words, if your focus happens to be a little turqoise stone you keep in your pocket, combat spells will not affect the focus unless the mage happens to be astrally perceiving at the time, yes?
And given that, if the focus is low enough level to be covered by masking, then unless the opposing mage manages to pierce the masking, it'll still be immune.
EDIT: Heh, didn't see that someone had already addressed.
As far as people who think this combination is to powerful goes, instead of attacking the combination directly, keep the following in mind:
1. Mages need speed increase too, and this is the only way to get reasonable speed increase for them.
2. Other mage goes "dispel". Poof, increased reflexes gone. Stopping this would require level two initiate masking at least -- one for focus, one for spell.
3. Wards. Wards will: A. Dispell the spell. B. Deactivate the focus. C. Destroy the focus.
4. Watcher spirits -- have enemy mage send them to attack focus while mage does other thing.
This combination is nice, but not overpowering at all. Keep in mind that wired reflexes and adept increased reflexes is VASTLY superior, even if it costs more.
Level 1 Wired/Adept = +3-8 increased initiative, average 6.
Level 2 Wired/Adept = +6-16 increased initiative, average 10.
Level 3 Wired/Adept = +9-24 increased initiative, average 15.
... and doesn't have to deal with all of the above crap.
Increased Reflexes +3, +3-18 increased initiative, average 9.
Does it really seem THAT overpowering now that you've looked at the numbers? Basically, Wired/Adept (3) assures at least an additional action per turn, if you have high quickness/intelligence averages two, and increased reflexes only averages an extra per turn. Also, Wired/Adept increases all of your suprise tests, quickdraw, vehicle tests, etc.
Yes, increased reflexes costs a lot less, but you suffer a lot for it, and you get a lot less also.
(Also, if you want to see TRULY abusive, do keep in mind that if you DESIGN an increased reflexes spell, if you make a self-only version, you get +4d6 with no additional drain complications, and can get an additional +1d6 for +2 power on the drain. On the right character you can do a +5d6 and have the drain be managable -- a munchkinned albino exceptional willpower gnome {10 willpower} sun shaman {+2 dice for health} could end up rolling literally 20 dice to resist the drain on it.)
The main drawback to the Increase Reaction spell is that to get the full potential +6 to reaction, you need to roll 12 6's (assuming a base Reaction of 6) - and if your base Reaction is lower, then you probably won't be competing with the sammies and adepts even if you get the full +6.
Personally, I wouldn't want to use that combo - mages don't have quite the same need for speed that sammies and gun adepts do, and I would rather stick with the low-Force focus that I can use Masking on when I initiate. For 6 Karma, I would also rather bond a specific spell focus, for some extra dice for my favorite Combat spell.
Personally, I wouldn't want to use that combo - mages don't have quite the same need for speed that sammies and gun adepts do, and I would rather stick with the low-Force focus that I can use Masking on when I initiate. For 6 Karma, I would also rather bond a specific spell focus, for some extra dice for my favorite Combat spell.
This spell got beaten with the nerf stick in our group.
Now the three spells are One, with 2 successes needed pr. bonus die, with a maximum no. of successes equal to Force.
Drain was reduced to M, and TN to 10-Essence.
This basically meant, that the mages stopped being fast, noone can afford a F6 Sustaining focus just now, yet the Adept and Sam are now super fast. As is most of our enemies.
Nerfing this spell, IMO, just weakens mages and puts more power on Adepts and Sams.
Drain from the +3 spell is Deadly, which means that unless you have 8 WIL or a Trauma Dampener, then you will take a Light Stun casting it. If you place it in a F1 sustaining foci, its still more fragile than a Sams wires or an Adepts improved reflexes.
Even Deckers and Riggers have access to more reaction dice that can't be taken away from them.
Instead of focusing on the spell, look instead on the balance where the mage is always going last in the round, and always having one action less, on average, than everyone else.
IMO this spell should remain just as it is.
Now the three spells are One, with 2 successes needed pr. bonus die, with a maximum no. of successes equal to Force.
Drain was reduced to M, and TN to 10-Essence.
This basically meant, that the mages stopped being fast, noone can afford a F6 Sustaining focus just now, yet the Adept and Sam are now super fast. As is most of our enemies.
Nerfing this spell, IMO, just weakens mages and puts more power on Adepts and Sams.
Drain from the +3 spell is Deadly, which means that unless you have 8 WIL or a Trauma Dampener, then you will take a Light Stun casting it. If you place it in a F1 sustaining foci, its still more fragile than a Sams wires or an Adepts improved reflexes.
Even Deckers and Riggers have access to more reaction dice that can't be taken away from them.
Instead of focusing on the spell, look instead on the balance where the mage is always going last in the round, and always having one action less, on average, than everyone else.
IMO this spell should remain just as it is.
What is stopping the Street Sam and/or adept from using the rules and buying their own Force 1 Sustaining focus containing the +3 Increase Reflexes Spell? Take a magician as a friend for life if you are worried about too much about it, and buy it from them. You could even pay them for the karma to bond the thing.
It would be cheaper to buy the contact, the two sustaining foci, and pay for the karma than a set os Wired Reflexes 3 costs. And then you could quit complaining that the magician has an advantage.
It would be cheaper to buy the contact, the two sustaining foci, and pay for the karma than a set os Wired Reflexes 3 costs. And then you could quit complaining that the magician has an advantage.
So long as you don't have to deactivate it for any reason whatsoever.........Thumbs downed to that.
Considering the drain for the spell, most mages would be unwilling to suffer the risk of casting and rolling poorly if it isn't for themselves.
Considering the drain for the spell, most mages would be unwilling to suffer the risk of casting and rolling poorly if it isn't for themselves.
Not to mention that its obligatory to cross Barriers every single run we do. Can't reliably turn on and turn off the bloody focus all the time.
The spell solution to reflexes is much weaker than the other choices. And yes, much cheaper. But not unbalancing. Again thats just MO.
The spell solution to reflexes is much weaker than the other choices. And yes, much cheaper. But not unbalancing. Again thats just MO.
Also that it's not compatible with, well anything else except the increase Reaction spell. It's a Mana spell so you can't use it if you have Reaction/Init-boosting cyberware; it specifically states it's not compatible with anything that increases your initiative dice; it has a high Drain and a low Force, so it's easily dispelled and the focus is easily attacked.
I would, however, make the simplifying assumption that attended objects don't take damage from area effect physical spells unless the subject botches his resistance roll. It's a bit of a D&D-ism, I know, and not really supported by the rules IIRC but otherwise I'd be forced to rule that the Sammy's gun, the adept's weapon focus, the decker's deck, etc etc all have a chance of being affected as well. Everyone would have to make a save for their armor, their clothes, their tools... ugh, no thanks.
Also keep in mind that manabolt et al. only affect living things (that's the definition of a mana spell), and thus not foci. (Edit: nevermind; just looked up the rules and this is false *facepalm*) Getting a spirit to attack and destroy it is a very good idea though, and a strategy that any particularly vindictive enemy mage would be sure to employ.
I would, however, make the simplifying assumption that attended objects don't take damage from area effect physical spells unless the subject botches his resistance roll. It's a bit of a D&D-ism, I know, and not really supported by the rules IIRC but otherwise I'd be forced to rule that the Sammy's gun, the adept's weapon focus, the decker's deck, etc etc all have a chance of being affected as well. Everyone would have to make a save for their armor, their clothes, their tools... ugh, no thanks.
Which is why its often clever to Mask your Foci. - And why its nice that the focus is only F1, so its nice and easy to mask.
| QUOTE (frostPDP) |
| So long as you don't have to deactivate it for any reason whatsoever.........Thumbs downed to that. Considering the drain for the spell, most mages would be unwilling to suffer the risk of casting and rolling poorly if it isn't for themselves. |
So you do see the downside to the cheap sustaining focus with the reflexes spell. You made it sound like it was too good, while totally overlooking the downside.
For all the reasons above, I think that it's been reasonably argued that the combination isn't too powerful on its own. I think it's also been established that the combination is primarily useful for mages.
The question you need to ask yourself at this point is: Do you really feel the need to nerf the mages in your group?
Basically, if you do that, you're stripping your mages of multiple actions per initiative pass unless they are willing to pay magic points for the privilege, either in the form of essense, bioware, or by requiring them to go magical adept. Is that your goal? Because that's certainly the effect.
The question you need to ask yourself at this point is: Do you really feel the need to nerf the mages in your group?
Basically, if you do that, you're stripping your mages of multiple actions per initiative pass unless they are willing to pay magic points for the privilege, either in the form of essense, bioware, or by requiring them to go magical adept. Is that your goal? Because that's certainly the effect.
*cough*My new character is a mag. adept for that reason*cough*
The thing that makes me chuckle about this is that this is not even nearly the most rediculous minmax you can do; it's just one of the most obvious. With some imagination, it's completely possible to get a concealability 7, reach 2, (STR+5)D melee weapon, for example. (And this is canon... or at least how I read it is 
)
)
| QUOTE (Vaevictis) |
| The thing that makes me chuckle about this is that this is not even nearly the most rediculous minmax you can do; it's just one of the most obvious. With some imagination, it's completely possible to get a concealability 7, reach 2, (STR+5)D melee weapon, for example. (And this is canon... or at least how I read it is ) |
Humm.. one-hand weapon using 2 hands.. no.. base concealment 7.. hmm.. nope.. obviously Dikoted to go up in Damage level, but not enough to get +5P though.. Nope. Been checking the CC, no weapon in there can be made to deal STR+5D.
You have to cough up additional details.
I wasn't planning on it since it's off-topic, but... basically, customize an assault rifle.
Edit: Aw, wait. I misread bayonet stats. Nevermind. It's (STR+4)S, reach 2, conceal 6 or 7 (or even 5, depending on reading). Still nasty, but not quite as bad.
Base concealability 3. Add Reduced Barrel, +2 Conceal. Add Bullpup Configuration, +2 Conceal, +1 RC. Add Melee Hardening, +1 Power in melee. Add Dikoted Bayonet; per cc.32, it behaves as a polearm in melee combat -- reach 2, (STR+3)M. Add melee hardening, dikote, you get (STR+5)S, reach 2.
You might hear arguments on the concealability; adding a bayonet reduces conceal by 1 per cc.32, but you CAN add it as an integral built-in design option per cc.83, and per sr3.280, the concealability modifer only applies if it's added after-market. Even so, it's still concealability 6.
Note that you still have room for Ceramic Components [1] after all this, and depending on how you read the rules for concealable holsters, you can also put this rifle in a concealable quickdraw holster (cc.33 comments quick draw holsters can hold "pistol sized weapons" as described in quick draw rules sr3.107, which states that "pistol sized" means concealability greater than or equal to 4). As such, under these rules, this weapon is ALSO eligible for quickdraw.
If you were feeling saucy, and you read the "integral components" rule like I did, you might find that stripping FA mode out (which I almost never use) and adding a sound supressor and extended range laser sight might be a nifty idea too. As usual, it's also completely possible to rig this thing up with 6 RC built in via bullpup/pers grip/shock pads/rc built in/heavy barrel.
It ends up being a VERY expensive weapon though, and you need to have a gunsmith facility (or know someone who does, but it's easy enough to buy a lvl2 contact at character creation...). But it is very, very nasty.
I have an adept I am toying with that has this thing fully tricked out; 6 RC, 9M SA/BF, (STR+5)S reach 2, sound supressor, laser, with adept quickdraw power for draw AND melee attack in one action... aptitude for polearms, mean mean mean.
EDIT: When I read the spiel on bayonet in cc, I misread it to mean, "reference sr3 pole-arm for stats." My error.
Edit: Aw, wait. I misread bayonet stats. Nevermind. It's (STR+4)S, reach 2, conceal 6 or 7 (or even 5, depending on reading). Still nasty, but not quite as bad.
Base concealability 3. Add Reduced Barrel, +2 Conceal. Add Bullpup Configuration, +2 Conceal, +1 RC. Add Melee Hardening, +1 Power in melee. Add Dikoted Bayonet; per cc.32, it behaves as a polearm in melee combat -- reach 2, (STR+3)M. Add melee hardening, dikote, you get (STR+5)S, reach 2.
You might hear arguments on the concealability; adding a bayonet reduces conceal by 1 per cc.32, but you CAN add it as an integral built-in design option per cc.83, and per sr3.280, the concealability modifer only applies if it's added after-market. Even so, it's still concealability 6.
Note that you still have room for Ceramic Components [1] after all this, and depending on how you read the rules for concealable holsters, you can also put this rifle in a concealable quickdraw holster (cc.33 comments quick draw holsters can hold "pistol sized weapons" as described in quick draw rules sr3.107, which states that "pistol sized" means concealability greater than or equal to 4). As such, under these rules, this weapon is ALSO eligible for quickdraw.
If you were feeling saucy, and you read the "integral components" rule like I did, you might find that stripping FA mode out (which I almost never use) and adding a sound supressor and extended range laser sight might be a nifty idea too. As usual, it's also completely possible to rig this thing up with 6 RC built in via bullpup/pers grip/shock pads/rc built in/heavy barrel.
It ends up being a VERY expensive weapon though, and you need to have a gunsmith facility (or know someone who does, but it's easy enough to buy a lvl2 contact at character creation...). But it is very, very nasty.
I have an adept I am toying with that has this thing fully tricked out; 6 RC, 9M SA/BF, (STR+5)S reach 2, sound supressor, laser, with adept quickdraw power for draw AND melee attack in one action... aptitude for polearms, mean mean mean.
EDIT: When I read the spiel on bayonet in cc, I misread it to mean, "reference sr3 pole-arm for stats." My error.
| QUOTE |
| Add Reduced Barrel |
Reduced Barrel shortens the weapon length, so you'd lose your +2 reach.
| QUOTE |
| Add Bullpup Configuration |
Up to GM interpretation, but I belive this would detract from the usability of a bayonetted weapon. I would reduce the power of a bayonet fixed on a weapon in bullpup configuration.
| QUOTE |
| Add Melee Hardening, +1 Power in melee |
Melee Hardening make the gun get +1 power as a melee weapon (club), not the bayonet.
| QUOTE |
| Note that you still have room for Ceramic Components [1] after all this, and depending on how you read the rules for concealable holsters, you can also put this rifle in a concealable quickdraw holster (cc.33 comments quick draw holsters can hold "pistol sized weapons" as described in quick draw rules sr3.107, which states that "pistol sized" means concealability greater than or equal to 4). As such, under these rules, this weapon is ALSO eligible for quickdraw. |
How could you argue that a 'pistol sized' weapon should have reach 2?
Hey man, I did NOT say it made any sense.
If I were the GM, I'd probably say "uh, no." But, as written, there it is.
Shortened barrel doesn't say anything about reducing reach on bayonet, nor does bullpup configuration.
Melee hardening, I can see your point. I would suggest that it is reasonable to interpret that it applies to the bayonet also, because it's obvious that the rifle itself is part of the weapon -- ie, bayonet sans rifle is just (STR)L, but with rifle, (STR+2)M. It's clear in the rules that melee is not just the single slash -- it's back and forth, cut, smash, punch, and at the END of it, you have a certain amount of damage. So it's reasonable to add melee hardening -- or not. It'd be GM ruling in the end, but I'd allow it.
Even if you knock that off, it's still (STR+3)S, reach 2, concealability >=5. That's still imbalanced as all get out.
All that's moot, really, because you're right -- it is bullsh*t, and as a GM I'd laugh in your face if you tried to do this. But the point is, it's possible to do if you adhere to the rules strictly.
Really, I'd probably give the thing an end rating of reach 1, (STR+3)S or (STR+4)S, concealability 5ish.
If I were the GM, I'd probably say "uh, no." But, as written, there it is.
Shortened barrel doesn't say anything about reducing reach on bayonet, nor does bullpup configuration.
Melee hardening, I can see your point. I would suggest that it is reasonable to interpret that it applies to the bayonet also, because it's obvious that the rifle itself is part of the weapon -- ie, bayonet sans rifle is just (STR)L, but with rifle, (STR+2)M. It's clear in the rules that melee is not just the single slash -- it's back and forth, cut, smash, punch, and at the END of it, you have a certain amount of damage. So it's reasonable to add melee hardening -- or not. It'd be GM ruling in the end, but I'd allow it.
Even if you knock that off, it's still (STR+3)S, reach 2, concealability >=5. That's still imbalanced as all get out.
All that's moot, really, because you're right -- it is bullsh*t, and as a GM I'd laugh in your face if you tried to do this. But the point is, it's possible to do if you adhere to the rules strictly.
Really, I'd probably give the thing an end rating of reach 1, (STR+3)S or (STR+4)S, concealability 5ish.
Heh, I'd like to poke a few holes in the plan. However, reach 2, STR+3S is not half bad.
But if you reduce the barrel, its clearly states that you shorten it. Thus you may no longer argue for Reach 2...
Again under adding concealment, its mentioned that that makes the gun smaller, again arguing vs. Reach 2.
Unless ofcourse the bayonet is made the longer to compensate.. fx if its hidden in the full length of the rifle and can pop out. Hm, ok so far.
Melee hardening for another point of P... Aha. And then dikoting That. It CAN be argued that a melee hardened rifle with a bayonet, vs. an unhardened one, can be more stiff and ergonomically suited to transfer power into an attack, thus allowing the +1P. But then Dikoting the rifle itself, that makes no real sense. You have to improve the structure of the weapon, not simply give it a harder surface. The "business" end of the rifle is already Dikoted.
Ok, I can end up at STR+4S without swallowing too many camels. However.. You have a huge advantage in that you use gun customization rules for this weapon, and normal melee weapons do not have access to that, by canon.
A "melee hardened" Dikoted Claymore would do +3D. Basically, if you allow it, you have to be ready to see all melee weapons have an improved version adding another +1 to their Power.
Normal Spear would do STR+6M Dikoted and improved.
Going the Other way, and looking at the improved melee weapon table, cc. p 11, the "rifle butt" deals STR+2M Stun. Improving it would get +3M Stun. Stun damage.
Thats fairly weak. But look at chainsaw, its STR+2M. Just like the baynet. Whoa, my bayonet is as dangerous as a chainsaw?!
I'm beginning to see some fairly large implied balance issues with the improved and dikoted bayonet weapon. The hardened melee weapon design option is meant to give a stun damage weapon +1 P, from +2 to +3 in all.
The bayonet is already, unmodified, better than a common spear, as it comes with a rifle attached. Hah.
Anyhow, I get down to the point where allowing Dikote is up to the local GM's, but using melee hardening, and a Second layer of Dikote to stack up bonus power, is just not good karma. And to my eyes, very much against the spirit of the rules.
That said, I still think STR+3S, reach 2 and ok concealability is damn fine for a melee weapon. - And now, sorry for derailing the thread.
But if you reduce the barrel, its clearly states that you shorten it. Thus you may no longer argue for Reach 2...
Again under adding concealment, its mentioned that that makes the gun smaller, again arguing vs. Reach 2.
Unless ofcourse the bayonet is made the longer to compensate.. fx if its hidden in the full length of the rifle and can pop out. Hm, ok so far.
Melee hardening for another point of P... Aha. And then dikoting That. It CAN be argued that a melee hardened rifle with a bayonet, vs. an unhardened one, can be more stiff and ergonomically suited to transfer power into an attack, thus allowing the +1P. But then Dikoting the rifle itself, that makes no real sense. You have to improve the structure of the weapon, not simply give it a harder surface. The "business" end of the rifle is already Dikoted.
Ok, I can end up at STR+4S without swallowing too many camels. However.. You have a huge advantage in that you use gun customization rules for this weapon, and normal melee weapons do not have access to that, by canon.
A "melee hardened" Dikoted Claymore would do +3D. Basically, if you allow it, you have to be ready to see all melee weapons have an improved version adding another +1 to their Power.
Normal Spear would do STR+6M Dikoted and improved.
Going the Other way, and looking at the improved melee weapon table, cc. p 11, the "rifle butt" deals STR+2M Stun. Improving it would get +3M Stun. Stun damage.
Thats fairly weak. But look at chainsaw, its STR+2M. Just like the baynet. Whoa, my bayonet is as dangerous as a chainsaw?!
I'm beginning to see some fairly large implied balance issues with the improved and dikoted bayonet weapon. The hardened melee weapon design option is meant to give a stun damage weapon +1 P, from +2 to +3 in all.
The bayonet is already, unmodified, better than a common spear, as it comes with a rifle attached. Hah.
Anyhow, I get down to the point where allowing Dikote is up to the local GM's, but using melee hardening, and a Second layer of Dikote to stack up bonus power, is just not good karma. And to my eyes, very much against the spirit of the rules.
That said, I still think STR+3S, reach 2 and ok concealability is damn fine for a melee weapon. - And now, sorry for derailing the thread.
Well, I was never arguing for dikoting the rifle. I guess you could do that, but I would argue that rifle+bayonet is one weapon for purposes of melee. You can dikote the edge and get the power bonus and damage level bonus, but dikoting the rifle itself won't get you any additional benefit except for in case of when you want to do stun damage and/or deal with barrier rating to see if rifle breaks -- as you said, it's already dikoted.
Melee hardening, I would argue for adding to the power of the bayonet, because the bayonet+rifle is one unit, but I could see the argument against.
Worst case scenario, as I said, is for a 5 concealability, (STR+3)S bayonet plus assault rifle all in one, and I think you can make a strong argument for greater than 5 concealability -- IF you adhere strictly to the rules.
Melee hardening, I would argue for adding to the power of the bayonet, because the bayonet+rifle is one unit, but I could see the argument against.
Worst case scenario, as I said, is for a 5 concealability, (STR+3)S bayonet plus assault rifle all in one, and I think you can make a strong argument for greater than 5 concealability -- IF you adhere strictly to the rules.
Oh, I know all the downsides to it. My char's the mage usually.
But I can't tell you how many times the physads/sams bitch "you spent WHAT to get what cost me most of my power?"
Yeah, its easily broken but its also easily re-attached. Its easily masked, but doesn't that make it easily found?
And I'm sure there are ways you can make a focus resistant to attempts to break it. If not, houserule-jutsu is about to be deployed.
Considering my games allow for multiple success per die (definitely not canon, I know...) the drain for even a force 8 increase reflexes 2 (as per Spastic's idea to keep the drain code for this one) is only 6S. Considering that to cast the spell at force 8 is to risk physical drain unless you are an initiate, meaning you are likely to have centering or anchoring or something else which will make this drain less of an impact (I think Anchoring foci essentially are sustaining, but no re-cast required. Not an expert on metamagic yet), you are essentially a likely candidate to turn out alright.
At that point its a force 8 focus and spell (16 karma as well as availability issues- You'd be surprised how often availability 6 stuff isn't found in my game...), a fairly draining spell which only an initiate of grade 2 (minimum is 20 Karma with two group/ordeals, maximum is 39) can reliably cast. Oh, and it has a TN of reaction, so there's a chance you'd mess up.
THAT balances the game for everyone. If a newb mage wants to dump 10 GK and 6 force points during chargen, they can bond a force 8 and learn force 8....But the drain risk is extreme.
But I can't tell you how many times the physads/sams bitch "you spent WHAT to get what cost me most of my power?"
Yeah, its easily broken but its also easily re-attached. Its easily masked, but doesn't that make it easily found?
And I'm sure there are ways you can make a focus resistant to attempts to break it. If not, houserule-jutsu is about to be deployed.
Considering my games allow for multiple success per die (definitely not canon, I know...) the drain for even a force 8 increase reflexes 2 (as per Spastic's idea to keep the drain code for this one) is only 6S. Considering that to cast the spell at force 8 is to risk physical drain unless you are an initiate, meaning you are likely to have centering or anchoring or something else which will make this drain less of an impact (I think Anchoring foci essentially are sustaining, but no re-cast required. Not an expert on metamagic yet), you are essentially a likely candidate to turn out alright.
At that point its a force 8 focus and spell (16 karma as well as availability issues- You'd be surprised how often availability 6 stuff isn't found in my game...), a fairly draining spell which only an initiate of grade 2 (minimum is 20 Karma with two group/ordeals, maximum is 39) can reliably cast. Oh, and it has a TN of reaction, so there's a chance you'd mess up.
THAT balances the game for everyone. If a newb mage wants to dump 10 GK and 6 force points during chargen, they can bond a force 8 and learn force 8....But the drain risk is extreme.
frostPDP, just break out a print out of this thread when the sammy/adept bitches about it.
I'd MUCH MUCH rather have wired/adept than increased reflexes, but on a mage, increased reflexes is the best you can do while still remaining a servicable mage.
The only real way to protect a focus is to
1. Masking.
2. Have a high level focus that can fight back in astral combat
3. Stay behind an astral barrier.
4. Don't ever activate it.
I'd argue that it's completely balanced the way it is. It's far, far too easy for someone to blow up the increased reflexes/sustaining focus combo, and it's got fairly high drain so you will probably NOT want to be casting it in combat.
I mean, cmon, if a sammy feels left out, just tell him to be creative and get boosted reflexes (2), synaptic accelerator (2), and a few levels of reaction enhancer. That's +4d6 dice, +2 reaction, and however many levels of reaction enhancer you can manage. A really clever sammy can go straight for the betaware, if they really want -- just get Connected (2) edge, a honking stack of gear and rake in the cash for the installation.
If the sammy is really, really feeling left out, just tell him to stfu and buy an anchoring focus with increased reflexes on it -- it'll cost him 151k at character creation, and if he still says, "But it's still more than the mage!", your response is, "Mage had to put A priority on magic; you had to put A priority on money. What's the difference?"
I'd MUCH MUCH rather have wired/adept than increased reflexes, but on a mage, increased reflexes is the best you can do while still remaining a servicable mage.
The only real way to protect a focus is to
1. Masking.
2. Have a high level focus that can fight back in astral combat
3. Stay behind an astral barrier.
4. Don't ever activate it.
I'd argue that it's completely balanced the way it is. It's far, far too easy for someone to blow up the increased reflexes/sustaining focus combo, and it's got fairly high drain so you will probably NOT want to be casting it in combat.
I mean, cmon, if a sammy feels left out, just tell him to be creative and get boosted reflexes (2), synaptic accelerator (2), and a few levels of reaction enhancer. That's +4d6 dice, +2 reaction, and however many levels of reaction enhancer you can manage. A really clever sammy can go straight for the betaware, if they really want -- just get Connected (2) edge, a honking stack of gear and rake in the cash for the installation.
If the sammy is really, really feeling left out, just tell him to stfu and buy an anchoring focus with increased reflexes on it -- it'll cost him 151k at character creation, and if he still says, "But it's still more than the mage!", your response is, "Mage had to put A priority on magic; you had to put A priority on money. What's the difference?"
Yeah, but still, the base force 1 cutout is just too easy for my tastes. Its a major advantage with minimal cost, even including the possibility of re-bonding (especially when masking comes into play)
Though I think I'd change the top 7 and 8 a little bit.
Force 7: +3d6+5
Force 8: +3d6+6
So it basically becomes a relatively (16 GK = 160,000 nuyen and 16 GK almost = One initiation for an Adept at base cost) cheap Wired/Improved 3, but with the downside that the focus can get busted/stolen/dispelled/lost/unable to pass through barriers/wards without setting them off. And the drain code is a 5S, not a laughable number at all - Especially since it has a TN of reaction and a 4S for the equivalent of wired 2.
That, all in all, seems fair enough to allow, cuz Anchoring foci are fun...
Though I think I'd change the top 7 and 8 a little bit.
Force 7: +3d6+5
Force 8: +3d6+6
So it basically becomes a relatively (16 GK = 160,000 nuyen and 16 GK almost = One initiation for an Adept at base cost) cheap Wired/Improved 3, but with the downside that the focus can get busted/stolen/dispelled/lost/unable to pass through barriers/wards without setting them off. And the drain code is a 5S, not a laughable number at all - Especially since it has a TN of reaction and a 4S for the equivalent of wired 2.
That, all in all, seems fair enough to allow, cuz Anchoring foci are fun...
For me, I don't have any problem with force 1 foci. I just dislike the Increased Reflexes spell. In my games, I usually house-rule it to give +1D6 per 2 successes, up to a maximum # of successes equal to spell force. (Yes, this means that if the high level initiate learns a force 10 Inc Reflexes spell, he can get +5D6 on his init. But he had to hit a TN of 20 to learn it and had to pay the karma to bond a force 10 focus).
I don't feel that this dicks over the mages, but understand that some of you will disagree.
I don't feel that this dicks over the mages, but understand that some of you will disagree.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.