NEWS

Continued debate with Hobbes?

  • 33 Replies
  • 7004 Views

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 820
« Reply #30 on: <04-19-20/1002:36> »
What Hobbes said. Past that, unless I have overlooked or forgotten something, Shadowrun 6e has very simple and specific general rules on what does not stack: attribute augmentation past +4 and skill augmentation past +4. That's it.

There are some specific case rules regarding things that do not stack written in the description of specific items, such as bone density not stacking with other bone modification, or muscle toner being incompatible with any other agility augmentation, but all of those specific cases are noted.

By RAW, I don't even see any wording that says you can't stack the same instance of the same spell with itself, such as 4 casts of combat sense stacking.

Personally I don't think the same instance of the same spell should stack with itself (no armor twice, but increase attribute of two different stats yes), but that is simple not what the rules state, so unless I missed appropriate language tucked away to prevent that somewhere, until errata occurs (sigh. . .), it works by the rule set, though your GM can house rule otherwise. The same thing applies to cyberlimb armor - it stacks into infinity. Not even initiative has a general rule of not stacking anymore, although most of the articles that increase state a specific rule preventing it.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
« Reply #31 on: <04-19-20/1218:54> »
Even if it does in this instance I'm not sure its that big of a deal. The first armor spell most likely got your character to the will earn edge vs most attacks stage. There is some value in making sure you get edge but covering most things is probably enough. Your DR has a serious diminishing return on its improvement.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 820
« Reply #32 on: <04-19-20/1451:00> »
I agree. Off the top of my head I can't think of a spell that would get especially broken stacking with itself, but it is quite possible I am overlooking something by not pouring over the book again before saying that.

Still, I'd prefer to see a ruling of only the best instance applying, simply as protection for the eventual power creep that comes to every game as source books continue to expand options.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
« Reply #33 on: <04-20-20/0043:18> »
agreed that a rule like that would be good future proofing and just generally a solid idea, though this is more of a closing the barn door after the escaped situation with SRs balance.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk