Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: shinryu on <08-14-13/1525:08>
-
i only want devs or freelancers to reply in this thread, since only they know what they are talking about with regard to the intent of this rule. anyone else is SPECULATING and that is not what i need. looking for word of god here
presuming that the faq/errata's forthcoming publication does not prevent discussion of this in some way, i would like the definition of touch triggers to be clarified. specifically, some people read "next living thing" to touch the preparation as "next living thing OTHER than the mage" that touches it, while others read it as "next living thing INCLUDING the mage" that touches it. this has obvious implications for the use of such preparations.
in addition, it would be nice to clarify the definition of "touching" here. skin contact, through gloves, through armor, aura contact, within ten meters? depending on the person i've seen basically all these definitions, and official rulings would be greatly appreciated. thank you.
-
You realize the GenCon just started, right?
-
The definition of Touch trigger is the same as a touch only spell p. 281
"Some spells can only be cast on targets that you’re touching. You don’t need to see these targets, but you might need to make an unarmed attack to make contact with an unwilling target. Touching a target through clothing, armor, or a layer of paint is acceptable."
As for who, "Next Living Being" includes the mage. Once the preparation is complete and the mage lets it go of it, it's live.
ex. Mage handing the preparation to another person or if you're going to save it, put it in a box or jar.
You can also work in the direction of a Touch spell with a command trigger. ex. something to throw at a person or put on a person and then trigger with a simple action. that way you wouldn't worry about the preparation accidentally going off and still have -4 to drain
Hope this helps.
-
The definition of Touch trigger is the same as a touch only spell p. 281
"Some spells can only be cast on targets that you’re touching. You don’t need to see these targets, but you might need to make an unarmed attack to make contact with an unwilling target. Touching a target through clothing, armor, or a layer of paint is acceptable."
As for who, "Next Living Being" includes the mage. Once the preparation is complete and the mage lets it go of it, it's live.
ex. Mage handing the preparation to another person or if you're going to save it, put it in a box or jar.
You can also work in the direction of a Touch spell with a command trigger. ex. something to throw at a person or put on a person and then trigger with a simple action. that way you wouldn't worry about the preparation accidentally going off and still have -4 to drain
Hope this helps.
Are you a developer of freelancer?
-
Are you a developer of freelancer?
Why yes, I developer freelancers ^^
-
Its a tough job. 8)
-
The definition of Touch trigger is the same as a touch only spell p. 281
"Some spells can only be cast on targets that you’re touching. You don’t need to see these targets, but you might need to make an unarmed attack to make contact with an unwilling target. Touching a target through clothing, armor, or a layer of paint is acceptable."
As for who, "Next Living Being" includes the mage. Once the preparation is complete and the mage lets it go of it, it's live.
ex. Mage handing the preparation to another person or if you're going to save it, put it in a box or jar.
You can also work in the direction of a Touch spell with a command trigger. ex. something to throw at a person or put on a person and then trigger with a simple action. that way you wouldn't worry about the preparation accidentally going off and still have -4 to drain
Hope this helps.
Are you a developer of freelancer?
Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question. The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably. If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about. They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.
-
Anyone who could answer the question to shinryu's standards (assuming that there were such a person) is probably at Gencon.
-
noticing a little trend here with Shinryu.....
-
Now now, let's not get personal shall we? 8)
-
First, it's called a Contact Trigger. Be clear what you are talking about.
Second, the rules are currently pretty clear if you read more than that one line.
Page 281, "Choose the Target" states "Touching a Target through clothing, armor or a layer of paint is acceptable" in regards to targeting Touch-Spells. Assuming that the same rules apply to Contact Triggers is hardly a stretch, since the mechanics are named the same throughout the entire chapter.
Nowhere does it say or suggest that the maker of a Contact-Preparation is immune to it's effects. Assuming that you can control the finishing of the Preparation sufficiently that you don't blast yourself is not a stretch because they would otherwise be utterly unusable.
Nothing says that transporting a Contact-Preparation isn't possible. In fact, one sample preparation implies that you can: "A DeathTouch alchemical spell with a touch trigger bound to a credstick, acid-etched with a haiku in kanji. It is left in some barrens, just waiting for someone to pick it up." That implies that it's carried to that location and then left there.
Yes, a FAQ or even an Errata is highly desirable - if only to make it clearer for those of us who don't connect the dots spread throughout the magic-chapter.
-
Actually, it could have just been created on the spot, no problem.
-
Actually, it could have just been created on the spot, no problem.
Could have, yes. Given that it takes a few minutes of obvious arcane activity, it seems unlikely to me. But yes, that's the weakest link of evidence - without the others it'd be meaningless.
-
Now now, let's not get personal shall we? 8)
I try to never get personal.... and we will have shall have to see if I am correct.... not gonna say anything more.
-
Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question. The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably. If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about. They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.
Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.
tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us
My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.
-
That may be the case for your group, but I can assure you shinryu definitely meant to insult when he said only devs or freelancers should reply.
-
Insult might not be the right word. I think Shinryu was frustrated at having things he was saying shot down by multiple people perhaps? But then, it's a forum. What can you do? My pet peeve was seeing the same thread starting on about 5 different forums in the hopes that one of them would produce the desired outcome. Of course, if there's a forum rule stating that the creator of a thread has the right to deny replies on that thread...well...I must've missed it.
-
Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question. The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably. If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about. They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.
Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.
tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us
My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.
But the odds of anyone hearing from any tier higher than 4 is pretty slim. Might as well listen to the rule lawyer debate and see who comes up with the most convincing argument. If you don't like what the other rule lawyer came up with, ignore it and go by your own interpretation.
The whole point of a forum like this is to do rule lawyering to figure out what RAW and RAI are. Its pretty rare to get the word of god in every post about every ruling, especially if the rule is left intentionally vague to allow GMs a degree of leeway in interpretation, say vehicle combat. The rules are a guideline to help frame the world. House ruling will come up to settle fringe cases, so you'll have to break RAW sooner or later anyway. And I'm sure there are times when RAW and RAI conflict with each other in ways the writers didn't predict.
-
Actually the Devs and freelancers are around pretty frequently.
-
Actually the Devs and freelancers are around pretty frequently.
While this is DEFINITELY true, the vast majority of 'official' answers are only going to come in 'official' channels. Like when the formal errata is released. So it's a good way to get the question out there, but I think patience will be key to getting the answer.
-
That may be the case for your group, but I can assure you shinryu definitely meant to insult when he said only devs or freelancers should reply.
I think you are reading way too much into it. Wanting an official response instead of back and forth between players when both sides have equally valid opinions on this is not an insult, it is just asking for the RAW.
-
Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question. The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably. If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about. They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.
Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.
tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us
My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.
Wow... we really have a different approach. Goes like this.
Tier One - GM's call
Tier Two - Official Ruling in some form or manner
Tier Three - Forum discussions
I see official rulings to be highly unlikely for the most part (though the upcoming 5th ed faq is promising and Aaron's quick answers have been great). Usually I make a call and we move on. Its a game with no winners/losers, so its not like the rule calls matter, just so long as I maintain some form of internal consistency.
I find the best source of info to be the Forum discussions. It allows me to determine the best intepretation of a rule, the one that works well for my game and my team. And then its just a matter of maintaining the internal consistentcy.
I would actually hate to be so constrained in my interpretation of the rules. I also don't think is fair to put responsibility too heavily back on the writers. They wrote the book, their job is finished. I like them to provide a FAQ and update any obvious errors in later reprints... but 'like' only. I can live without rule clarifications.
-
Wow... we really have a different approach. Goes like this.
Tier One - GM's call
Tier Two - Official Ruling in some form or manner
Tier Three - Forum discussions
I see official rulings to be highly unlikely for the most part (though the upcoming 5th ed faq is promising and Aaron's quick answers have been great). Usually I make a call and we move on. Its a game with no winners/losers, so its not like the rule calls matter, just so long as I maintain some form of internal consistency.
I find the best source of info to be the Forum discussions. It allows me to determine the best intepretation of a rule, the one that works well for my game and my team. And then its just a matter of maintaining the internal consistentcy.
I would actually hate to be so constrained in my interpretation of the rules. I also don't think is fair to put responsibility too heavily back on the writers. They wrote the book, their job is finished. I like them to provide a FAQ and update any obvious errors in later reprints... but 'like' only. I can live without rule clarifications.
The GM rule is above tier one and always takes precedence. As a GM I like to play by RAW with a nod to RAI when they can be reconciled definitively. Our group also operates in a rotating GM format so rulings need to be standardized for the sake of continuity. Combine that with the fact that many of us also play in organized campaigns like Missions, and it makes officials ruling / clarifications very important because the flexibility of making rulings is somewhat limited.
When reading questions on the forum I assume that GM fiat is not a simple option for the OP. If it was they wouldn't ask the question. Either that or the GM wants to make a ruling as close to official RAW as possible.
I have also found the forums a great venue for getting these rulings from the Developers. I have yet to ask a question of them that has not been answered. The time it takes to get that answer has varied, but they have never refused to answer them.
-
Honestly there are maybe 2 or 3 people who can answer your question. The guy who wrote the chapter, and jason hardy probably. If you have been following the discussions on these boards it seems clear that being a freelancer or developer is not enough since each person had their own little job and what happened in other sections of the book they really aren't sure about. They can make a better guess than others but actually know the answer, meh most likely not.
Yes but there is a hierarchy in the value of opinions.
tier one - J Hardy, Bull, and chapter writer
tier two - Developer
tier three - Freelancer
tier four- All the rest of us
My group will play by RAW based on tier one rulings, accept tier two ruling if they make sense to the group by consensus, and use tier three as guidelines until we can get tier one or two rulings. Tier four opinions are mostly irrelevant to us because they are based on interpretation of the same rules we ourselves are reading and interpreting with no additional knowledge of what went into the design process. Many of them are good ideas, but they are just as much conjecture as our own ideas. Please don't take that as an insult, we just prefer to play RAW, and RAI and none of us can say definitively what the RAI is because we didn't write or develop them.
Wow... we really have a different approach. Goes like this.
Tier One - GM's call
Tier Two - Official Ruling in some form or manner
Tier Three - Forum discussions
I see official rulings to be highly unlikely for the most part (though the upcoming 5th ed faq is promising and Aaron's quick answers have been great). Usually I make a call and we move on. Its a game with no winners/losers, so its not like the rule calls matter, just so long as I maintain some form of internal consistency.
I find the best source of info to be the Forum discussions. It allows me to determine the best intepretation of a rule, the one that works well for my game and my team. And then its just a matter of maintaining the internal consistentcy.
I would actually hate to be so constrained in my interpretation of the rules. I also don't think is fair to put responsibility too heavily back on the writers. They wrote the book, their job is finished. I like them to provide a FAQ and update any obvious errors in later reprints... but 'like' only. I can live without rule clarifications.
perfectly said.
-
Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.
-
Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.
I agree "GM's Call" sounds spur-of-the-moment, and it can be a really bad environment to play in when you're never quite sure how your GM will handle something. Houserules are handed down by the GM, but known by all and consistent in their use.
-
Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.
I agree "GM's Call" sounds spur-of-the-moment, and it can be a really bad environment to play in when you're never quite sure how your GM will handle something. Houserules are handed down by the GM, but known by all and consistent in their use.
sometimes "spur of the moment" is what is need to keep things moving forward. And as long as the GM applies that Spur of the moment call across the board (to the PCs and the NPCs) the effects of a bad GM decision are mitigated until you can get an official ruling. Just cause you call something on way, doesn't mean the GM can't take 5 min next game session and revisit the situation and the call and change it when he has had a chance to research it now closely. ("He guys, last week I said that if you have shooting while doing a handstand, it was a -8 dice pool. found out it's supposed to be -6.... So from now on, handstand shooting will be done at -6. Sorry about that.")
-
Agreed. Stopping the session to argue about rules interpretation is never a good idea. At some point you just have to say "We'll run it this way for now, and when we have more time we'll look into it more." If there's a legitimate disagreement it's also a good idea to make sure the in the moment ruling doesn't completely hose a player as well. I always give the player the option to take back the action if the ruling isn't what he was expecting.
-
No one's suggesting you pause the game and look for an official ruling during the session: however, putting GM's call above official ruling implies something different than you think it does - namely, that if a GM goes "that's a -8", and then someone say "no, I read an official ruling about this, and it's actually a -6", the GM will go "well I said it's -8 >:(".
-
No one's suggesting you pause the game and look for an official ruling during the session: however, putting GM's call above official ruling implies something different than you think it does - namely, that if a GM goes "that's a -8", and then someone say "no, I read an official ruling about this, and it's actually a -6", the GM will go "well I said it's -8 >:(".
Which in the context of the session is appropriate. If after the session the player and or the GM go and check the ruling and change it for next time that's fine (and probably what should happen), or if the GM wants to go "ok I'll take you're word for it" that's ok too.
Stopping the action to confirm a players claim that the official ruling is different from the GMs call is something that frankly should never happen, and unfortunately sometimes people misremember or misunderstand an "official" ruling, or even misinterpret what's official and what's off the cup. The GM should do the best he or she can to run a fast, fair and fun game and arguing about the rules and making everybody wait while people look things up on forums is almost never part of that.
The fast, fair and fun part of that does mean that the GM should never punish a player because their interpretation of a rule was different than his ("we're going to run it this way for now, do you still want to try that") and should typically err on the side of the players if possible. For that table on that night the GM has to be the final arbiter of the rules.
-
No one's suggesting you pause the game and look for an official ruling during the session: however, putting GM's call above official ruling implies something different than you think it does - namely, that if a GM goes "that's a -8", and then someone say "no, I read an official ruling about this, and it's actually a -6", the GM will go "well I said it's -8 >:(".
Which in the context of the session is appropriate.
I disagree. I think the priority levels should be as follows:
If it first comes up during a session:
Tier One - Houserule
Tier Two - someone knows the official ruling, and can quote it
Tier Three - GM's call
Tier Four - someone "knows" the official ruling
Tier Five - group consensus
Tier Six - search for an official ruling
Tier Seven - spitball it
Tier Seven - search for an online consensus
Long term:
Tier One - Houserule
Tier Two - Official ruling
Tier Three - Freelancer ruling, GM's call
Tier Four - informed group consensus (check Tiers Five and Six, then decide for yourselves)
Tier Five - properly argumented online consensus
Tier Six - online consensus
-
The problem is that tier two can't be confirmed in session without stopping the action to look up the ruling, Being able to quote something doesn't mean you've quoted it correctly, nor does it mean that you've correctly identified the most current official ruling.
9 times out of 10 the best thing for keeping the game moving is to either just let it go and talk to the GM afterward, or to inform the GM respectfully of what you believe the correct ruling is, and then move on using the GMs new ruling, which may or may not change.
Take as a for instance how many people are reporting Aaron's posts as "official rulings" when they are explicitly the well informed thoughts of a freelancer involved in the creation process, but in no way official.
-
The problem is that tier two can't be confirmed in session without stopping the action to look up the ruling, Being able to quote something doesn't mean you've quoted it correctly, nor does it mean that you've correctly identified the most current official ruling.
That is a matter of trust - if you don't trust what your players are saying, you're dealing with Tier Four, not Tier Two (and either need to work on your trust issues, or have untrustworthy players).
-
If I as player go "That's X, I know for sure" and the GM refuses to listen, then depending on the tone he takes he's just lost a player. If, on the other hand, I go "I think it's X but not entirely sure" and the GM goes "I'll use Y and we'll check later", that's fine.
-
The problem is that tier two can't be confirmed in session without stopping the action to look up the ruling, Being able to quote something doesn't mean you've quoted it correctly, nor does it mean that you've correctly identified the most current official ruling.
That is a matter of trust - if you don't trust what your players are saying, you're dealing with Tier Four, not Tier Two (and either need to work on your trust issues, or have untrustworthy players).
It's not actually an issue of trust so much as an issue of recognizing that people are fallable and that forums can be confusing places. If you think your GM is wrong during the session is the wrong place to deal with it. Stopping the game to depate rules isn't fun for anyone and shouldn't happen.
slipped.
What if the player is wrong? Should he be in a position where he's "lost a GM." The GM should certainly be conscious of tone, but "I'll use Y and we'll check later" should always be an acceptable answer regardless of the facts of the matter.
-
I never said anything about debating things with your GM: if the player thinks the player might be wrong, it's Tier Four, and Tier Three overrules it. No debate.
If, however, you're obviously dealing with Tier Two, and the GM stubbornly shuts them down anyway, it'll be a lot more harmful for the group dynamic than if the GM decides to trust the player and it turns out the player is wrong later. The whole "one tier will turn vicious, while the other will be friendly" thing can easily swing the other way. And I, for one, would not feel comfortable in a group where saying "actually, I think it's X, because..." isn't allowed out of fear that it'll lead to a debate. If the GM is wrong, you should be allowed to tell them, especially if their mistake might have a serious effect on the outcome.
Honestly, it's a full-scale spectrum, with the ideal place in the middle, but your posts sound like you think the vast majority of events will fall on the rules-lawyering-players side, while I fear the GM-is-a-dictator side.
-
So what you're saying is that the player is sure he's right, and the GM is sure he's right the GM is always wrong?
-
So what you're saying is that the player is sure he's right, and the GM is sure he's right the GM is always wrong?
Only in your mind - in the real world I said that a GM who doesn't allow any criticism during the game even if he's completely wrong isn't a GM I'd want to play with.
-
9 times out of 10 the best thing for keeping the game moving is to either just let it go and talk to the GM afterward, or to inform the GM respectfully of what you believe the correct ruling is, and then move on using the GMs new ruling, which may or may not change.
Which would be actually a completely different thing than I said here Ze.
-
9 times out of 10 the best thing for keeping the game moving is to either just let it go and talk to the GM afterward, or to inform the GM respectfully of what you believe the correct ruling is, and then move on using the GMs new ruling, which may or may not change.
Which would be actually a completely different thing than I said here Ze.
I apologize, I must have missed that sentence. I now await your apology for completely misreading me despite my attempts to show my opinion is far more nuanced than you seem to think it is.
-
I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.
-
If you think your GM is wrong during the session is the wrong place to deal with it.
It's not a matter of the GM being wrong as the GM apparently refusing to trust the player. If I state future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation, and the GM goes "you shouldn't listen to idle gossip, we're not doing that", he's pissing me off. If I say Dwarves are supposed to have thermographic vision and he scoffs at me, I walk. And if the errata are out, I got a section from them memorized and the GM refuses to trust a single word I say, I walk. If the GM doesn't trust me and acts condescending, I do not see any reason to stay at that table.
-
I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.
I will do no such thing. I have made EVERY effort short of putting an explicit disclaimer in each post to make it clear that that was NOT what I was saying, and quite frankly, I am offended that you would think otherwise.
-
If you think your GM is wrong during the session is the wrong place to deal with it.
It's not a matter of the GM being wrong as the GM apparently refusing to believe the player. If I state future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation, and the GM goes "you shouldn't listen to idle gossip, we're not doing that", he's pissing me off. If I say Dwarves are supposed to have thermographic vision and he scoffs at me, I walk. And if the errata are out, I got a section from them memorized and the GM refuses to trust a single word I say, I walk. If the GM doesn't trust me and acts condescending, I do not see any reason to stay at that table.
First of all, why are you assuming that the GM is being a jerk. Either the GM or the Player could be a jerk, but the issue of not being a jerk is completely separate from the issue of whether you should be able to overrule the GM at the table during a game he's running.
If you say "future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation" and the GM says "ok let me look into that after the session and we'll see what rule we decide to go with in future sessions" is that going to piss you off?
-
I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.
I will do no such thing. I have made EVERY effort short of putting an explicit disclaimer in each post to make it clear that that was NOT what I was saying, and quite frankly, I am offended that you would think otherwise.
I'm sorry if I offended you Ze, it wasn't my intention.
So what is your opinion of what should happen if both the player and the GM think their reading is correct (and they have equal supporting materials at the table).
-
Actually, I would put GM's call below official ruling, and perhaps even below forum consensus: houserule goes at the top.
I agree "GM's Call" sounds spur-of-the-moment, and it can be a really bad environment to play in when you're never quite sure how your GM will handle something. Houserules are handed down by the GM, but known by all and consistent in their use.
sometimes "spur of the moment" is what is need to keep things moving forward. And as long as the GM applies that Spur of the moment call across the board (to the PCs and the NPCs) the effects of a bad GM decision are mitigated until you can get an official ruling. Just cause you call something on way, doesn't mean the GM can't take 5 min next game session and revisit the situation and the call and change it when he has had a chance to research it now closely. ("He guys, last week I said that if you have shooting while doing a handstand, it was a -8 dice pool. found out it's supposed to be -6.... So from now on, handstand shooting will be done at -6. Sorry about that.")
That would mean the house rules didn't cover the case, in which case you of course default to a lower tier.
-
whether you should be able to overrule the GM
I never spoke about overruling the GM. Please don't put words in my mouth.
If you say "future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation" and the GM says "ok let me look into that after the session and we'll see what rule we decide to go with in future sessions" is that going to piss you off?
I have been very clear on the matter before. Please read my posts again.
-
whether you should be able to overrule the GM
I never spoke about overruling the GM. Please don't put words in my mouth.
If you say "future errata will include that damaging a lynchpin destroys the preparation" and the GM says "ok let me look into that after the session and we'll see what rule we decide to go with in future sessions" is that going to piss you off?
I have been very clear on the matter before. Please read my posts again.
I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.
-
I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but you have to admit that looking at what I actually wrote and your responses to it it wasn't an unreasonable reading.
I will do no such thing. I have made EVERY effort short of putting an explicit disclaimer in each post to make it clear that that was NOT what I was saying, and quite frankly, I am offended that you would think otherwise.
I'm sorry if I offended you Ze, it wasn't my intention.
So what is your opinion of what should happen if both the player and the GM think their reading is correct (and they have equal supporting materials at the table).
In that even, obviously you should just go with the GM call for now, then look it up afterwards.
-
In that even, obviously you should just go with the GM call for now, then look it up afterwards.
Then we're in agreement.
-
I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.
If you think that little of me, please don't ever talk to me again.
-
I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.
If you think that little of me, please don't ever talk to me again.
I'm seriously just trying to understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to be insulting in any way.
-
I've read your posts. What I'm trying to parse out is whether you're objecting to the GMs tone, or the GM not going with your ruling.
If you think that little of me, please don't ever talk to me again.
I'm seriously just trying to understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to be insulting in any way.
You may not try to be insulting, but when you say what amounts to "so do you take offense with the GM being a jerk to you, or are you simply throwing a hissy fit because you're not getting your way?" to someone who believes they made it perfectly obvious it's the first, it is completely logical that they will be insulted.
-
So why is it logical to include the GM being a massive jerk by default into a discussion about where GM calls rank at the table. Of course the GM shouldn't be a jerk and neither should the players.
I don't see why a discussion about the GM being a jerk is relevant to the discussion and I guess that's what's confusing me.
-
Well, hopefully you are playing with adults, and you all have the same objective (to have fun together). But, yes there will always be those dictator GMs and insolent players.
But part of the GMs job is to keep things moving forward... And sometimes that means making a call that may be unpopular or even wrong! However, as long as the call is applied to all sides, any harm is mitigated. A good GM should also use his down time to look up the actual rule and then revisit the call made with the players and discuss the differences between what he called and the actual rule.... Sometimes everyone will agree that the call "better" and thus house rule that way perminately.
Being wrong is a fact of life, we will all be wrong at some time. It's how we handle being wrong that matters.
-
The definition of Touch trigger is the same as a touch only spell p. 281
"Some spells can only be cast on targets that you’re touching. You don’t need to see these targets, but you might need to make an unarmed attack to make contact with an unwilling target. Touching a target through clothing, armor, or a layer of paint is acceptable."
As for who, "Next Living Being" includes the mage. Once the preparation is complete and the mage lets it go of it, it's live.
ex. Mage handing the preparation to another person or if you're going to save it, put it in a box or jar.
You can also work in the direction of a Touch spell with a command trigger. ex. something to throw at a person or put on a person and then trigger with a simple action. that way you wouldn't worry about the preparation accidentally going off and still have -4 to drain
Hope this helps.
Are you a developer of freelancer?
He has some insight on the matter, considering he wrote a significant portion of that chapter. :)
-
Speaking of touch triggers, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that health spells require you to touch the target, while healing spell preparations can only use the Command trigger. Anyone got any idea how this works?
-
I think, and again not a dev, that that's a balance factor. The spell still requires the mage to touch the target with the preparation, but you can't make a "healing potion" that functions without the mage being there to give the command.
-
Speaking of touch triggers, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that health spells require you to touch the target, while healing spell preparations can only use the Command trigger. Anyone got any idea how this works?
The requirements of the spell are not superceeded by the preparation's trigger. A spell with a range of touch still has to be touched to resolve normally regardless of the trigger. The same goes for Rituals with the Spell keyword.
So with alchemy the closest trigger allowable for health spells is a command trigger.
Bottom of p. 305 "When the spell is released from the preparation, it goes off as though it were cast by a magician."
Both Crunch's interpretation and the magician commanding the activation of the prepartion given to a target would be acceptable.
-
At least you can give healing charms to allies who are off in a different part of the facility, then when they signal trouble through comm you can astrally project to them and give the Command that way.
-
Or use magewires or whatever they're called again. Are they in SR5 Core, by the way?
-
Mage Sight Goggles exist, although they only get 10, 20 or 30 meters of myomeric rope wrapped around the fiber-optic cable.