Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Axel Strack <strack@***.TU-FREIBERG.DE>
Subject: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 18:47:20 MESZ
Is it possible to have a weaponfocus as implantet cyberware (like retractible
razors or spurs) ?
The question arose when i decided to create a new shaman. I thought of giving
him a small weapon like a knive which could easily be hidden and doesn't show
his real powers to the mundane (Gangboss: "Hey guys, look at that toy ! Hahaha !
Do you wanna play ? Aaaaargh .. What the **** was that ?").
When i looked at the numbers for conceal i thought: why not get him some
retractible razors ? The cybersystem itself could be the standard version, only
the blades must be different (e.g. the focus). It is stated in the SSR that the
blades a easily replaced with other (normally improved) blades.
The only big problem i see : you are always wearing them. Nice, you say ?
That also means they are always active ! Could be a problem, neh ?

Kid Flash
strack@*******.tu-freiberg.de
Message no. 2
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 10:25:43 -0700
Kid Flash.
>Is it possible to have a weapon focus as implantet cyberware (like
>retractible razors or spurs) ?

Gary C.
I would say yes. There is no reason that you can't do this
the only restriction I would add would be that the Actual Cyber
portion would cost double (due to modifications) and you still
have to pay the full cost of the Focus.

>The question arose when i decided
>to create a new shaman. I thought of giving him a small weapon like
>a knive which could easily be hidden and doesn't show his real
>powers to the mundane (Gangboss: "Hey guys, look at that toy !
>Hahaha ! Do you wanna play ? Aaaaargh .. What the **** was that
>?"). When i looked at the numbers for conceal i thought: why not
>get him some retractible razors ? The cybersystem itself could be
>the standard version, only the blades must be different (e.g. the
>focus). It is stated in the SSR that the blades a easily replaced
>with other (normally improved) blades. The only big problem i see
>: you are always wearing them. Nice, you say ? That also means
>they are always active ! Could be a problem, neh ?

No actually they wouldn't be active until you activate it.
(takes a simple action) *just like a power focus* Yet you could
leave it on, or only consider it active when they are extended,
maybe part or the magical creation of it. (add 10% for auto
activation)

*By the book it requires a simple action to activate.*
*the rest are suggestions*

Thanks
Gary C.
Message no. 3
From: "Andrew W. Ragland" <RAGLAN45@*****.MMC.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:28:07 -0500
>Is it possible to have a weaponfocus as implantet cyberware (like retractible
>razors or spurs) ?

Foci are usually made from natural materials, rather thanhighly
manufactured. I'd give you a nasty resistance number to enchant a spur.

Also, you're going to lose Essence getting them put in, and that means loss
of Magic, so you'd better make it a big darned focus to offset the loss.

Andrew W. Ragland |GTW @*+(-) s++/+ a c++(++++)| _ Prayer Division|
Product Support Manager |G+ y* L e* W !N o+ K w++$ M+| /\ /\ Ariadne, |
R & M BioMetrics / BioQuant|O+$ V+ +PS- +PE- Y+ PGP @*+ | |-*-| Strengthen |
raglan45@*****.mmc.edu |5@ X+ R+++>$ h---- b+++ r+++| \/_\/ The Web! |
Message no. 4
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 13:30:32 -0400
Kid Flash wrote:

>The only big problem i see : you are always wearing them. Nice, you say ?
>That also means they are always active ! Could be a problem, neh ?

Actually, you can turn any focus on or off....doesn't matter that you are
always wearing them. Wielding a weapon doesn't automatically turn it on, but a
weapon focus MUST be wielded in order to be turned on. I am not sure what type
of action is required to turn a focus on or off, but I *think* it's a simple.

The spurs poses an interesting concept for my pc. He is allergic (severely) to
gold. Orechalchem (sp?) contains gold. Thus, he could never replace his spurs
with a weapon focus (due to the fact that they would constantly be in contact
with him, thus causing a serious problem). This makes for a neat dilemma. ;)
(I'm sure my GM loves it....) Keep in mind that just because it is implanted,
doesn't mean it can't be taken away -- painfully, even! ;)

Hope that helps!


Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- P? !L
!3 E? N+ K- W+ M+ V+ po---
Y++(+) t+@ 5 !j R+(++) G' tv-- b++>+++
!D B--- e+ u+ h- f? r+(*) N----
Y++

----------------------------------
"Now, I know I look good in blue.
That's no excuse for what you do."

--Eve's Plum
"Blue"
----------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 13:37:01 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Axel" == Axel Strack <strack@***.TU-FREIBERG.DE>
writes:

Axel> Is it possible to have a weaponfocus as implantet cyberware (like
Axel> retractible razors or spurs) ?

Sure. But do you really want to walk around with an active focus
*inside* your body should some high-powered mage come along and decided
to ground a hellblast through it?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBME8tZZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEIygP+NHt+ITKZwlJOCEM0mKlQgUfo9I8XyVDH
Zh2sSWATyC8/zFKTyO45M3of9bRXdSTx+7LM1Gyvjl3adPohgXFiN8GCXFa61naD
UX9KQzHdIa2/6nrSosdWXAxUXAtG8qFz10WWiULYquDBwZDk0tBJ265i3SoysXZ7
rayubzEtdvs=
=bOCW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ returned to its special container and
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ kept under refrigeration.
Message no. 6
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 13:44:48 -0400
On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> Actually, you can turn any focus on or off....doesn't matter that you are
> always wearing them. Wielding a weapon doesn't automatically turn it on, but a
> weapon focus MUST be wielded in order to be turned on. I am not sure what type
> of action is required to turn a focus on or off, but I *think* it's a simple.

It is indeed a simple action.

> The spurs poses an interesting concept for my pc. He is allergic (severely) to
> gold. Orechalchem (sp?) contains gold. Thus, he could never replace his spurs
> with a weapon focus (due to the fact that they would constantly be in contact
> with him, thus causing a serious problem). This makes for a neat dilemma. ;)
> (I'm sure my GM loves it....)

You're right. I *do* get a kick out of it. Heh.

> Keep in mind that just because it is implanted,
> doesn't mean it can't be taken away -- painfully, even! ;)

Same is true for anything.

Marc (sorry for quoting so much and replying so little...)
Message no. 7
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 10:48:33 -0700
>Andrew W. Ragland
>Is it possible to have a weaponfocus as implantet cyberware (like =
retractible
>razors or spurs) ?

>Foci are usually made from natural materials, rather than highly
>manufactured. I'd give you a nasty resistance number to enchant a
>spur.

Nah, :)
The only part your enchanting is the spurs, and that's made of
metal just like a Katana or a knife *and their not hard to =
enchant.*
The only thing that your doing differently is the deployment =
system
of the spurs.

>Also, you're going to lose Essence getting them put in, and that
>means loss of Magic, so you'd better make it a big darned focus =
to
>offset the loss.

Agreed, It would be silly to add a weapon focus (1) and lose
a whole magic point due to it.
Message no. 8
From: Axel Strack <strack@***.TU-FREIBERG.DE>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 19:49:46 MESZ
Thanks to all who replied to my question !

But there seem to be different opinions about the activation of weaponfoci.
As far as i remember a weaponfocus is active as long as you wield it.
Gary Carroll wrote that weaponfoci are activated / deactivated like other foci.
As i don't have the grimthingy with me, would somebody mind and look it up ?

Thanks in advance Kid Flash
strack@*******.tu-freiberg.de
Message no. 9
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 08:48:52 GMT
Axel Strack writes

> Thanks to all who replied to my question !
>
> But there seem to be different opinions about the activation of weaponfoci.
> As far as i remember a weaponfocus is active as long as you wield it.
> Gary Carroll wrote that weaponfoci are activated / deactivated like other foci.
> As i don't have the grimthingy with me, would somebody mind and look it up ?
>
officailly and i think its the main book not grimoire you should be
looking in, a magician can turn off any focus he/she has bonded at
any time as a 'simple' action. The focus need not be in LOS on even
on their person, and this applies to ALL foci.

Weapon foci however are a real pain played this way as foci
atuomatically deactivate if taken from where they were placed, which
means by the book you can quickdraw (free action) your waepon focus
but it then takes a simple to turn (no point turning it on till you
are) on meaning you spend a whole action just drawing weapon. Most
GM's (as far as i know) therefore rule weapon foci as on 'while held'
and off while not, ie making the activation part of 'i grab my ....'
though you can specifically turn them off while holding them (eg want
sword out to worry mundanes but don't want astral link', after all
the ganger just sees 'katana' and has no idea if its a focus or not.

hope this clears it up, as to GM's on the list i don't know but
unless proven otherwise i assume this is how you do it.

Mark
> Thanks in advance Kid Flash
> strack@*******.tu-freiberg.de
>
>
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:19:43 +0200
>Is it possible to have a weaponfocus as implantet cyberware (like retractible
>razors or spurs) ?

I think it would, but don't expect the things to cost as little as normal
hand razors :)

>When i looked at the numbers for conceal i thought: why not get him some
>retractible razors ? The cybersystem itself could be the standard version, only
>the blades must be different (e.g. the focus). It is stated in the SSR that the
>blades a easily replaced with other (normally improved) blades.

That would appear to be the most sensible way to build them, yes. So you
could probably replace the blades with foci blades just as easily. The
problem I see here would be: do you need 4 (or 5) weapon foci -- one for
each blade -- or just one? Or do all blades count as one focus?

>The only big problem i see : you are always wearing them. Nice, you say ?
>That also means they are always active ! Could be a problem, neh ?

You can switch foci on and off, costing a Simple Action per focus, without
having to rebond them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Let it all out
-> Unofficial Shadowrun Guru & NERPS Project Leader <-
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 09:01:50 EST5
"Mark" == Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK> writes:

Mark> officailly and i think its the main book not grimoire you should
Mark> be looking in, a magician can turn off any focus he/she has
Mark> bonded at any time as a 'simple' action. The focus need not be
Mark> in LOS on even on their person, and this applies to ALL foci.

no, according to SRII a focus can only be active if it is on the
magician's person. if the focus is dropped or stolen, it deactivates.
likewise, a magician must have the focus on his person in order to
activate it.

what you describe more closely matches the rules for activating _spell
locks_, which follow different rules than for other foci. weapon foci
are not spell locks. :)

Mark> Weapon foci however are a real pain played this way as foci
Mark> atuomatically deactivate if taken from where they were placed,
Mark> which means by the book you can quickdraw (free action) your
Mark> waepon focus but it then takes a simple to turn (no point
Mark> turning it on till you are) on meaning you spend a whole action
Mark> just drawing weapon.

you're misreading the rules, i think. a weapon focus would not be
automatically activated nor deactivated by the act of drawing it.
spell locks are the only foci which are deactivated by moving them.

Mark> Most GM's (as far as i know) therefore rule
Mark> weapon foci as on 'while held' and off while not, ie making the
Mark> activation part of 'i grab my ....' though you can specifically
Mark> turn them off while holding them (eg want sword out to worry
Mark> mundanes but don't want astral link', after all the ganger just
Mark> sees 'katana' and has no idea if its a focus or not.

i don't like this, myself. activating a focus requires some mental
concentration, and providing that as a Free Action seems to me to be
both unrealistic and inappropriate.

you can only quickdraw pistols, and enchanting pistols is pointless,
so i think you've got a misunderstanding there too. for _all_ melee
weapons, you can't both ready the weapon and then attack with it in
the same phase, because readying a weapon is a Simple Action, and
melee is a Complex Action. so you use one Simple Action to draw, and
the other (which you'd otherwise not use) to activate the lock.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet
be determined to make them otherwise. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Message no. 12
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 09:36:13 EST5
"Gurth" == Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:

Gurth> That would appear to be the most sensible way to build them,
Gurth> yes. So you could probably replace the blades with foci blades
Gurth> just as easily. The problem I see here would be: do you need 4
Gurth> (or 5) weapon foci -- one for each blade -- or just one? Or do
Gurth> all blades count as one focus?

i would do each side as one focus, as long as all of them were
manufactured and enchanted together.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the
world. Today there are 48,000. If the current trend continues, by the year
2010, one of every three people in the world will be an Elvis impersonator.
-- Michael Legault
Message no. 13
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:40:41 GMT
> From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>

> Mark> officailly and i think its the main book not grimoire you should
> Mark> be looking in, a magician can turn off any focus he/she has
> Mark> bonded at any time as a 'simple' action. The focus need not be
> Mark> in LOS on even on their person, and this applies to ALL foci.
>
> no, according to SRII a focus can only be active if it is on the
> magician's person. if the focus is dropped or stolen, it deactivates.
> likewise, a magician must have the focus on his person in order to
> activate it.
>
i think i made a comment on that it was rather pointless turning on
most foci if they are not touching you - exactly because of this
rule!

> what you describe more closely matches the rules for activating _spell
> locks_, which follow different rules than for other foci. weapon foci
> are not spell locks. :)
>
i was trying to save typing time and assuming folks new they were a
special case as i allowed for spell locks on other people.

> Mark> Weapon foci however are a real pain played this way as foci
> Mark> atuomatically deactivate if taken from where they were placed,
> Mark> which means by the book you can quickdraw (free action) your
> Mark> waepon focus but it then takes a simple to turn (no point
> Mark> turning it on till you are) on meaning you spend a whole action
> Mark> just drawing weapon.
>
> you're misreading the rules, i think. a weapon focus would not be
> automatically activated nor deactivated by the act of drawing it.
> spell locks are the only foci which are deactivated by moving them.
>
no i have not, you've misunderstood me, i indicated that 1 thing is
the offical rules and that i don't particularly like them so this is
i the solution i have used and seen others use.
note first sentance above.

> Mark> Most GM's (as far as i know) therefore rule
> Mark> weapon foci as on 'while held' and off while not, ie making the
> Mark> activation part of 'i grab my ....' though you can specifically
> Mark> turn them off while holding them (eg want sword out to worry
> Mark> mundanes but don't want astral link', after all the ganger just
> Mark> sees 'katana' and has no idea if its a focus or not.
>
> i don't like this, myself. activating a focus requires some mental
> concentration, and providing that as a Free Action seems to me to be
> both unrealistic and inappropriate.
>
fine you are allowed to disagree, i simply said what i like, as hand-
hand is a complex i think the poor sword users have enough problems
having to run up to the target as it is, realistic it might be but SR
combat is dangerous, you cannot afford to force peole to spend whole
actions just getting ready for combat.

> you can only quickdraw pistols, and enchanting pistols is
> pointless,
> so i think you've got a misunderstanding there too. for _all_ melee
> weapons, you can't both ready the weapon and then attack with it in
> the same phase, because readying a weapon is a Simple Action, and
> melee is a Complex Action. so you use one Simple Action to draw, and
> the other (which you'd otherwise not use) to activate the lock.
>
far too long since i actually read some of these rules :(, you might
be right though readying any weapon is a simple action, you can
instead quickdraw, easy it may seem but if you have penalties,
(running wounds etc) it soon reaches target 6 and easy to fail.


> k.
> --
> kelly martin
>

I think we have a case of too different opinions and crossed wires
here, that might explain why you seem to be busy telling me things i
know.
I could be wrong on quickdraw but usually prefere to play the game
rather than read rulebooks, and memory is never perfect. I do check
up on rules eventually if a problem comes up but don't have time to
regularly refresh my memory on everything (common problem ? hey :) )

Mark
Message no. 14
From: Bryan Linn Schuler <schu1545@****.GMI.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:49:25 -0400
Kelly wrote:
>you can only quickdraw pistols, and enchanting pistols is pointless,
>so i think you've got a misunderstanding there too.

I've never agreed with that you can only quickdraw pistols. I know of a few
japanese sword forms which are based on a quick-kill strike as you draw the
blade. The results are a usually lethal move starting from sword in sheath to
sword slashed through victem's vitals in usually about 1 second od movement.

That and a small SMG (like a MAC-10 or mini-uzi) in a side mounted holster can
easilly be drawn and fired twice in 3 seconds.

Same thing with drawing and throwing knives. It's usually one quick-fluid
movement to draw and throw. I know personally, I can draw and throw at least 2
in 3 seconds.

Just a few comments.
-Bryan
-Frobozz of Gridpoint (http://apollo.gmi.edu/~schu1545/shadowrun.html)
-Frobozz of TimeWarp MUD (telnet quark.gmi.edu 5150)
Message no. 15
From: David M Woods <spuwdsda@*******.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 17:01:32 +0100
On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Justin Pinnow wrote:

>
> The spurs poses an interesting concept for my pc. He is allergic (severely) to
> gold. Orechalchem (sp?) contains gold. Thus, he could never replace his spurs
> with a weapon focus (due to the fact that they would constantly be in contact
> with him, thus causing a serious problem). This makes for a neat dilemma. ;)
> (I'm sure my GM loves it....) Keep in mind that just because it is implanted,
> doesn't mean it can't be taken away -- painfully, even! ;)

Three points here.

1) As I read it oricalcum (I hope that's right :) is made
with an alchemic radical of gold. It doesn't contain gold as such, so at
the very least the allergy's damage code should be lowered.

2) Weapon focus do not need to contain oricalcum even if it is used in the
enchantment (see grim).

3) IMHO the spurs themselves are not in direct contact with the body. They
are contained within the mechanism of the retraction assemblely.


One problem, don't spurs come in a set of four (two each arm) ?. How many
blades are you going to enchant and bond?


- David
Message no. 16
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:23:23 -0400
On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, David M Woods wrote:

> 1) As I read it oricalcum (I hope that's right :) is made
> with an alchemic radical of gold. It doesn't contain gold as such, so at
> the very least the allergy's damage code should be lowered.

On the other hand, one could argue that the radical form of the metal
is the pure or 'true' form and would make the allergy even worse. On the
other other hand, one could argue that once incorporated into the
orichalcum, the gold no longer exists as it is now part of a larger whole.
This is getting pretty metaphysical. :)

--Craig
Message no. 17
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 15:09:01 -0400
On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, David M Woods wrote:

> Three points here.
>
> 1) As I read it oricalcum (I hope that's right :) is made
> with an alchemic radical of gold. It doesn't contain gold as such, so at
> the very least the allergy's damage code should be lowered.

I would view this the oposite way. The alchemical radical of
golld is like the distilled essence of all that is "gold," and thus if
anything, it would produce a stronger reaction. To keep things simple, I
balance that out with the fact that it is such a small amount. Thus it
produces a normal reaction. Nice and simple, neh?

> 2) Weapon focus do not need to contain oricalcum even if it is used in the
> enchantment (see grim).

Not so. Weapon foci are the obly kind of foci that *require*
orichalcum. No orichalcum, no weapon focus.

> 3) IMHO the spurs themselves are not in direct contact with the body. They
> are contained within the mechanism of the retraction assemblely.

This i'd tend to agree with, but most allergies (especially those
of higher severities) can cause reactions just by being in proximity to
the material in question. And since it's *in* your body, I'd think
that's close enough.

> One problem, don't spurs come in a set of four (two each arm) ?. How many
> blades are you going to enchant and bond?

Spurs come in several different varieties. There's the "robocop"
style, which has a single, long, wicked spike that is withdrawn along the
bones of the forearm. There's also the "wolverine" style that is
comprised of several slightly shorter blades that rest in the backs of
the hands. Either way, the costs (in both nuyen and Essence) are for only
a single set, i.e. in *one* arm. Symmetry has its price, neh?
But that's just mundane cost. I'd allow a character to enchant
the entire "spur" (regardless of whether is was one blade or three) as a
single enchantment because it's a single weapon. Thus, to enchant two
sets would take twice as much time and material (and orichalcum) and karma.

Marc
Message no. 18
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 15:11:19 EST5
"Bryan" == Bryan Linn Schuler <schu1545@****.GMI.EDU> writes:

Bryan> I've never agreed with that you can only quickdraw pistols. I
Bryan> know of a few japanese sword forms which are based on a
Bryan> quick-kill strike as you draw the blade. The results are a
Bryan> usually lethal move starting from sword in sheath to sword
Bryan> slashed through victem's vitals in usually about 1 second od
Bryan> movement.

i suppose i can accept this, but only to a very limited extent. i
would definitely require a skill test to pull that stunt off. it's
not consistent with the quickdraw rule, in that you can't "fire" a
sword with a simple action.

Bryan> That and a small SMG (like a MAC-10 or mini-uzi) in a side
Bryan> mounted holster can easilly be drawn and fired twice in 3
Bryan> seconds.

that's two simple actions: draw, and fire burst. firing a firearm in
anything less than full-auto is a simple action. also, if your SMG
has a concealability of 4 or greater, it falls under the quick draw
rule.

Bryan> Same thing with drawing and throwing knives. It's usually one
Bryan> quick-fluid movement to draw and throw. I know personally, I
Bryan> can draw and throw at least 2 in 3 seconds.

ditto; throw weapon is a simple action.

you can either (a) quickdraw and fire/throw, using one simple action
with having to make a reaction(4) test, or (b) ready and then
fire/throw, using two simple actions. i'd be willing to extend the
quickdraw to include thrown weapons like knives or shirukens.

i was incorrect when i said that you can only quickdraw a pistol.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

It is not by their choice that Scientologists
continue to practice Scientology.
-- Andrew Milne (a Scientologist), on alt.religion.scientology
Message no. 19
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 15:23:39 EST5
"Mark" == Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK> writes:

Mark> i think i made a comment on that it was rather pointless turning
Mark> on most foci if they are not touching you - exactly because of
Mark> this rule!

not only is it pointless, it's also not supported by the rules,
except in the case of a spell lock. i guess i still don't understand
what you're trying to say.

btw, "on the person" and "touching" aren't the same thing. i'd say
that "hanging from my belt" is on my person, even if i'm not actually
touching it.

>> what you describe more closely matches the rules for activating
>> _spell locks_, which follow different rules than for other foci.
>> weapon foci are not spell locks. :)

Mark> i was trying to save typing time and assuming folks new they
Mark> were a special case as i allowed for spell locks on other
Mark> people.

the rules allow for that too. spell locks can be anywhere, and that's
an exception to the general rules for foci.

>> you're misreading the rules, i think. a weapon focus would not be
>> automatically activated nor deactivated by the act of drawing it.
>> spell locks are the only foci which are deactivated by moving them.

Mark> no i have not, you've misunderstood me, i indicated that 1 thing
Mark> is the offical rules and that i don't particularly like them so
Mark> this is i the solution i have used and seen others use. note
Mark> first sentance above.

i'm just saying that i don't _like_ this change, and i think you're
using it because you misunderstood the foci rules, specifically in
that you seem to think a focus deactivates when you cease to touch it,
which isn't true.

imo, you don't have to be touching a weapon focus to activate it; you
could activate before you draw it if you wanted.

>> for _all_ melee weapons, you can't both ready the weapon and then
>> attack with it in the same phase, because readying a weapon is a
>> Simple Action, and melee is a Complex Action. so you use one
>> Simple Action to draw, and the other (which you'd otherwise not
>> use) to activate the lock.

Mark> far too long since i actually read some of these rules :(, you
Mark> might be right though readying any weapon is a simple action,
Mark> you can instead quickdraw, easy it may seem but if you have
Mark> penalties, (running wounds etc) it soon reaches target 6 and
Mark> easy to fail.

you can't quickdraw and enter melee, though; quickdraw only applies to
weapons which can be used with a simple action, and the only way you
could possibly use a sword in a simple action would be to throw it.
specialized moves aside, you can't fight with a sword you haven't
drawn yet.

Mark> I think we have a case of too different opinions and crossed
Mark> wires here, that might explain why you seem to be busy telling
Mark> me things i know. I could be wrong on quickdraw but usually
Mark> prefere to play the game rather than read rulebooks, and memory
Mark> is never perfect. I do check up on rules eventually if a problem
Mark> comes up but don't have time to regularly refresh my memory on
Mark> everything (common problem ? hey :) )

i've spent the last few weeks refamiliarizing myself with the rules,
since i've been out of it for a year or so and am decidely rusty. SR
combat rules are quite complex, and often ad hoc adjudications are the
best way to go anyway.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very
important part of your life. -- Brooke Shields
Message no. 20
From: Charles KcKenzie <kilroy@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 17:27:14 -0500
> One problem, don't spurs come in a set of four (two each arm) ?. How many
> blades are you going to enchant and bond?
>
>
> - David

No, razors come in sets of 4. It's easy to get a single long spur.

Kilroy
Message no. 21
From: Doug Miller <enigma@********.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 17:30:37 +0000
On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >Is it possible to have a weaponfocus as implantet cyberware (like retractible
> >razors or spurs) ?
>
> I think it would, but don't expect the things to cost as little as normal
> hand razors :)
>
> >When i looked at the numbers for conceal i thought: why not get him some
> >retractible razors ? The cybersystem itself could be the standard version, only
> >the blades must be different (e.g. the focus). It is stated in the SSR that the
> >blades a easily replaced with other (normally improved) blades.
>
> That would appear to be the most sensible way to build them, yes. So you
> could probably replace the blades with foci blades just as easily. The
> problem I see here would be: do you need 4 (or 5) weapon foci -- one for
> each blade -- or just one? Or do all blades count as one focus?
>
> >The only big problem i see : you are always wearing them. Nice, you say ?
> >That also means they are always active ! Could be a problem, neh ?
>
> You can switch foci on and off, costing a Simple Action per focus, without
> having to rebond them.

Theres another problem that people seem to be missing. A weapon focus
adds it's rating to the users Armed Combat Skill. Cyberspurs use the
Unarmed Combat Skill (Cyber-implant Weaponry concentration). The only
bonus I see in using an implanted weapon fucus is that you could use it
in the astral and it can damage critters that are immune to normal
weapons.
On the plus side, its there with you all the time and you don't have to
worry about losing it (normally).

Doug
Message no. 22
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 20:17:49 EST5
"Doug" == Doug Miller <enigma@********.JPL.NASA.GOV> writes:

Doug> Theres another problem that people seem to be missing. A weapon
Doug> focus adds it's rating to the users Armed Combat Skill.
Doug> Cyberspurs use the Unarmed Combat Skill (Cyber-implant Weaponry
Doug> concentration).

it's somewhat arbitrary (IMO) that spurs are considered "unarmed
combat", and i'd be willing to grant the weapon focus bonus in that
case.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

It is not by their choice that Scientologists
continue to practice Scientology.
-- Andrew Milne (a Scientologist), on alt.religion.scientology

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about focus question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!