[EternalZiggurat]

Aparently, and when you put it that way, it sounds dubmer than I though. I was going to go back and remove overlaps and redundencies, but even if it saved me 6 bp, I don't need any of that crap. I might keep the 2 bp for a fall back id if I cause too much collateral damage.

I had bought whole bunch of b&e and covert ops gear. But I have base 14 dv fists, 21 unarmed dice, and smashing blow. If I need to get in to anything, 42 dv to a wall with average hits should do the trick. There is some one else on the team if they need it done quiet. And I'm dropping the influence group  so I really have 20 points to spend. I'm t thinking a bit more dodge, and maybe some perception.. Shoot, it might not be optimal, but I could put a good bp or 2 on cred sticks for after game starts, and call it savings from previous runs.

Gar. Too many options.

[Inconnu]

I'd suggest a rating one weapon focus if you don't have any-- Breaks right through Immunity To Normal Weapons. Just in case your GM decides to break out a 4e version of Mercurial... I need say no more.

[All4BigGuns]

I'd suggest a rating one weapon focus if you don't have any-- Breaks right through Immunity To Normal Weapons. Just in case your GM decides to break out a 4e version of Mercurial... I need say no more.

Being unarmed he might get screwed out of using a weapon focus for his primary attack since some GMs (mainly ones you find on these forums and on Dumpshock) poo-poo using Hardliner Gloves as a weapon focus--or at least still getting your unarmed adept powers with them...

[JoeNapalm]

I'd suggest a rating one weapon focus if you don't have any-- Breaks right through Immunity To Normal Weapons. Just in case your GM decides to break out a 4e version of Mercurial... I need say no more.

Being unarmed he might get screwed out of using a weapon focus for his primary attack since some GMs (mainly ones you find on these forums and on Dumpshock) poo-poo using Hardliner Gloves as a weapon focus--or at least still getting your unarmed adept powers with them...

Can I ask why Hardliners can't be a Weapon Focus, or is that just opening a huge can of wyrms?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[All4BigGuns]

I'd suggest a rating one weapon focus if you don't have any-- Breaks right through Immunity To Normal Weapons. Just in case your GM decides to break out a 4e version of Mercurial... I need say no more.

Being unarmed he might get screwed out of using a weapon focus for his primary attack since some GMs (mainly ones you find on these forums and on Dumpshock) poo-poo using Hardliner Gloves as a weapon focus--or at least still getting your unarmed adept powers with them...

Can I ask why Hardliners can't be a Weapon Focus, or is that just opening a huge can of wyrms?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

It is a can of worms, but basically it boils down to the fact that some people get all bent out of shape at the thought of an adept using them and their unarmed-strike powers like an extra +1 damage really matters a hill of beans (heck, the ones who throw hissy fits over it don't even like it if someone forgoes the damage of the glove). They Rules Lawyer their butts off saying that because the chart listing them has a DV listed, than that overrules the normal unarmed DV regardless.

[JoeNapalm]

No, no...

I definitely meant wyrms.

It is a huge can, after all...


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[UmaroVI]

or is that just opening a huge can of wyrms?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Some posters (mainly fanboys you find trolling every single thread that mentions "adept," "firewall," or "karma generation," even in passing, with inane ranting and raving about their persecution complex) are extremely touchy about their personal favorite flavor of questionably-rules-legal gouda.

[All4BigGuns]

or is that just opening a huge can of wyrms?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Some posters (mainly fanboys you find trolling every single thread that mentions "adept," "firewall," or "karma generation," even in passing, with inane ranting and raving about their persecution complex) are extremely touchy about their personal favorite flavor of questionably-rules-legal gouda.

Post reported.

While you may not like it, that is not an excuse for you to attack me. I was merely informing that some rule in that way so that the OP and the one mentioning the weapon focus would be aware, and then explaining the situation to the person who asked.

[UmaroVI]

If the Hardliner Glove fits, wear it.

[RHat]

I'd suggest a rating one weapon focus if you don't have any-- Breaks right through Immunity To Normal Weapons. Just in case your GM decides to break out a 4e version of Mercurial... I need say no more.

Being unarmed he might get screwed out of using a weapon focus for his primary attack since some GMs (mainly ones you find on these forums and on Dumpshock) poo-poo using Hardliner Gloves as a weapon focus--or at least still getting your unarmed adept powers with them...

Can I ask why Hardliners can't be a Weapon Focus, or is that just opening a huge can of wyrms?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

It is a can of worms, but basically it boils down to the fact that some people get all bent out of shape at the thought of an adept using them and their unarmed-strike powers like an extra +1 damage really matters a hill of beans (heck, the ones who throw hissy fits over it don't even like it if someone forgoes the damage of the glove). They Rules Lawyer their butts off saying that because the chart listing them has a DV listed, than that overrules the normal unarmed DV regardless.

The actual problem is that the tradeoff between weapon adepts and unarmed adepts is all the different attack-modifying powers unarmed adepts can get versus the extra dice that weapon adepts get.  Letting unarmed adepts get both means that you're either kicking armed adepts in the nuts, balance wise, or letting them use the unarmed adepts powers - which just makes everything the same, and that kinda sucks.

Umaro:  Uncalled for, man.  Seriously.

[JM_Hardy]

Some posters (mainly fanboys you find trolling every single thread that mentions "adept," "firewall," or "karma generation," even in passing, with inane ranting and raving about their persecution complex) are extremely touchy about their personal favorite flavor of questionably-rules-legal gouda.

Terms of Service rule 7 states:

7. Be constructive
When you post, add something substantive to conversations (“funny” counts as “substantive”). Please do not post without contributing to the forum, or the discussion at hand. If your posts add nothing, you may be wasting people’s time and our resources. Do not post here if your only intention is to be confrontational. This includes behavior considered trolling by the Mod/Admin team. Problem posts will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, the odd frivolous post won’t attract attention, but systematic behavior, picking fights, and thread hijacking will be addressed with warnings and Bans as necessary. Posts may be moved or deleted at the Moderator/Admin’s discretion in these cases (see Rule 12).

This post has the appearance of being confrontational, which is confirmed by a subsequent post. Also, it is a post about personalities rather than arguments, putting it in violation of Rule 1.

Umaro IV, this is your first warning.

Jason H.