Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:30:36 EST
Okay, I snipped the question of Vehicle Laser requiring Laser Weapons or a
Gunnery skill. About half a minute after my previous posting (where I said
that we still would probably use Laser Weapons, due to their somewhat more
unique nature vs. Gunnery) some concepts and related questions suddenly came
to mind.

If using Gunnery to control a "Vehicle Mounted Weapon", and the character
possesses the "non mounted version" of the same skill, does the other skill
sudden become a Complimentary Skill?

Okay, case in point. Padre' has a Gunner Skill of 4 (I don't really recall,
this is just an example) and a Laser Weapons Skill of a 6. He is using the
Firelance that is on the Inspyre Helicopter (go to HHH vehicles pages yourself
for that one).

He rolls his Gunnery Skill, as per the rules as they are Canon. T# of a 4 in
this case, and he winds up with 2 successes. Now then, does he get to roll
Laser Weaponry (as he also possesses such) using the rules for Complimentary
Skills?

Adding on this little quirk of imagination, let's say the system is designed
with BattleTAC/Smartlink Integration, as so many military toys are. He gets
to reclaim his Combat Pool for the test. But now there are two, and he is
*REALLY* wanting to making things annoying for his target. Does he get to put
Combat Pool into -Both- skill test rolls, as they are working on the same end
goal?

I have looked in the SR3, and this does seem to be something that is not
addressed, or if it is, I cannot find it under skills or combat sections.

Me personally, I would actually say "Yes, he does", but then I like to give
the NPC's a chance as well.

And just imagine, IF this were true/possible, combining this with Sensory
Augmented attack rolls....???....

-K
Message no. 2
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:48:32 +0000
K in the Dark wrote:
> If using Gunnery to control a "Vehicle Mounted Weapon", and the character
> possesses the "non mounted version" of the same skill, does the other skill
> sudden become a Complimentary Skill?
*snip*
> I have looked in the SR3, and this does seem to be something that is not
> addressed, or if it is, I cannot find it under skills or combat sections.

It isn't addressed anywhere that I could find either.

I have a few thoughts on the subject of gunnery/laser weapons skill
as well as complementary skills.

Gunnery is one of the few remaining 'wide' weapon skills -
it covers not only ballistic weapons but also vehicle mounted launch
weapons. (The two are fairly similar since you can default from
launch weapons to gunnery, though.). That makes the argument that
vehicle mounted laser weapons should not use gunnery skill because
gunnery is mostly ballistics invalid, since gunnery is apparently a
lot wider than just ballistics. (Bad sentence!). OTOH laser weapon
skill is the only skill where it is not specifically stated that it
does not cover vehicle mounted weapons. Gunnery, though, handles
'ALL vehicle mounted weapons'. (Emphasis added by me.). So that means
one of two things - you can use gunnery OR laser weapon skill when
firing vehicle mounted lasers, or you can use gunnery only. At least
that's what I consider reasonable interpretations.

As for the 'proper' weapon skill as complimentary to gunnery when
firing that type of weapon.. it's a neat idea. It makes sense. But..
*cringe* it's a tad powerful. Rereading the bit on complimentary
skills I doubt it's intended used that way, but that's no surprise,
nor really important, I guess.

Hm.. using cpool on both tests. *ponder* I don't know. Why not.. you
get only half effect from pool spent on the complimentary skill
anyway.

Of course, if any of my players suggested this I'd just ignore them,
me being fairly conservative. If you decide to try it I'd love to
hear how it works, though. :)

Regards,
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 3
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:13:50 -0600
:If using Gunnery to control a "Vehicle Mounted Weapon", and the character
:possesses the "non mounted version" of the same skill, does the other
skill
:sudden become a Complimentary Skill?

Gee, if the character is using a hand held weapon, and has "Gunnery",
does he get "Gunnery" as a complementary skill, becasue the weapon CAN be
mounted on a vehicle? (And certainly if its on a tripod / bipod, its a
mounted weapon?) NOT.
But then, what if the rigger has NO skill (besides gunnery) that
aplies to the mounted weapon? Should they have to use 1/2 the default
penalty? I'd say if they get a benefit for knowing the weapon, they
should have a penalty for ignorance...
If it really bends you out of shape that the ex-merc / rigger is
better with UN-mounted machineguns, let them use the DIFFERENCE between
gunnery and the weapon skill as complementary dice.

Even better, for ALL gunnery tests, average gunnery and the normally
required weapon skill together. This cuts back on riggers not needing any
heavy weapon / missile skills, and gives those that do know the weapon a
(relative) edge. [HMM, that's not a half-bad idea...]

:Adding on this little quirk of imagination, let's say the system is
designed
:with BattleTAC/Smartlink Integration, as so many military toys are. He
gets
:to reclaim his Combat Pool for the test. But now there are two, and he
is
:*REALLY* wanting to making things annoying for his target. Does he get
to put
:Combat Pool into -Both- skill test rolls, as they are working on the same
end
:goal?

??? "Recalim his combat pool" ??? Are you saying he gets rigger AND
combat pool, on the same test. I hope not... I really don't see a rigger
interface (with computer assistance) being better than a (equally skilled)
ground pounder (with or without computer assistance) at aiming a gun.

BTW, is battle tac / smartlink interfacing more than a houserule?
Because IMO, smartlink data is pretty useless to anybody except the
smartlink user.
I could go off about the smartlinks bandwidth, and which simsense info
tracks it interfaced, but suffice to say, it's not a camera (note that it
cannot form a stand alone interface with a "snakeyes" system).

:And just imagine, IF this were true/possible, combining this with Sensory
:Augmented attack rolls....???....


My take on all this- KISS. Let the guy use whatever single best
possibility he can, for pool / TN / dice- but not all in combination.

Mongoose
Message no. 4
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:18:03 -0600
:If using Gunnery to control a "Vehicle Mounted Weapon", and the character
:possesses the "non mounted version" of the same skill, does the other
skill
:sudden become a Complimentary Skill?

Gee, if the character is using a hand held weapon, and has "Gunnery",
does he get "Gunnery" as a complementary skill, becasue the weapon CAN be
mounted on a vehicle? (And certainly if its on a tripod / bipod, its a
mounted weapon?) "Gunnery- the NEW firearms". NOT.
But then, what if the rigger has NO skill (besides gunnery) that
aplies to the mounted weapon? Should they have to use 1/2 the default
penalty? I'd say if they get a benefit for knowing the weapon, they
should have a penalty for ignorance...
If it really bends you out of shape that the ex-merc / rigger is
better with UN-mounted machineguns, let them use the DIFFERENCE between
gunnery and the weapon skill as complementary dice.

A sensable option would be, for ALL gunnery tests, average gunnery and
the normally
required weapon skill together. This cuts back on riggers not needing any
heavy weapon / missile skills, and gives those that do know the weapon a
(relative) edge. It also reflects that most vehicle mounted wepons take
MORE traing to use (afaik), not less. It's similar to deckers using
"computer" skill to control slave operations- they can use the applicable
skill, or 1/2 computer.

:Adding on this little quirk of imagination, let's say the system is
designed
:with BattleTAC/Smartlink Integration, as so many military toys are. He
gets
:to reclaim his Combat Pool for the test. But now there are two, and he
is
:*REALLY* wanting to making things annoying for his target. Does he get
to put
:Combat Pool into -Both- skill test rolls, as they are working on the same
end
:goal?

??? "Recalim his combat pool" ??? Are you saying he gets rigger AND
combat pool, on the same test. I hope not... I really don't see a rigger
interface (with computer assistance) being better than a (equally skilled)
ground pounder (with or without computer assistance) at aiming a gun.

BTW, is battle tac / smartlink interfacing more than a houserule?
Because IMO, smartlink data is pretty useless to anybody except the
smartlink user.
I could go off about the smartlinks bandwidth, and which simsense info
tracks it interfaced, but suffice to say, it's not a camera (note that it
cannot form a stand alone interface with a "snakeyes" system).

:And just imagine, IF this were true/possible, combining this with Sensory
:Augmented attack rolls....???....


My take on all this- KISS. Let the guy use whatever single best
possibility he can, for pool / TN / dice- but not all in combination.

Mongoose
Message no. 5
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:43:27 EST
In a message dated 12/11/1998 2:03:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> Gee, if the character is using a hand held weapon, and has "Gunnery",
> does he get "Gunnery" as a complementary skill, becasue the weapon CAN be
> mounted on a vehicle? (And certainly if its on a tripod / bipod, its a
> mounted weapon?) NOT.


There are moments Mongoose, where you simply do not seem to see the question
and go beyond it. This is one of them. Gunnery requires the use of
"Vehicles" in order for the skill to function at all. Each of the other
"firearmish" skill do not require anything but the gun.

> But then, what if the rigger has NO skill (besides gunnery) that
> aplies to the mounted weapon? Should they have to use 1/2 the default
> penalty? I'd say if they get a benefit for knowing the weapon, they
> should have a penalty for ignorance...

Actually Mongoose, IF they are using their VCR interface, then they DO get
half the penalty.

> If it really bends you out of shape that the ex-merc / rigger is
> better with UN-mounted machineguns, let them use the DIFFERENCE between
> gunnery and the weapon skill as complementary dice.

It isn't bending me out of shape, it is a question that suddenly just popped
into my head.

> Even better, for ALL gunnery tests, average gunnery and the normally
> required weapon skill together. This cuts back on riggers not needing any
> heavy weapon / missile skills, and gives those that do know the weapon a
> (relative) edge. [HMM, that's not a half-bad idea...]

Actually, NO, it isn't a half-bad or good, or even close to "well, kinda
okay".

> ??? "Recalim his combat pool" ??? Are you saying he gets rigger AND
> combat pool, on the same test. I hope not... I really don't see a rigger
> interface (with computer assistance) being better than a (equally skilled)
> ground pounder (with or without computer assistance) at aiming a gun.
> BTW, is battle tac / smartlink interfacing more than a houserule?

Actually, the Rigger does NOT get his Rigger Pool towards weapon-based
actions. It requires the Smartlink Integration kit, which can be modified
with FDDM/IVIS in other ways from there. It is NOT a House Rule, it's an R2
Rule. And under those rules (which also includes the Sensor-based
Augmentation to target numbers btw), what I've described is theoretically
possible.

> Because IMO, smartlink data is pretty useless to anybody except the
> smartlink user.
> I could go off about the smartlinks bandwidth, and which simsense info
> tracks it interfaced, but suffice to say, it's not a camera (note that it
> cannot form a stand alone interface with a "snakeyes" system).

Well, actually, it could with some programming mods options, but those aren't
out yet...

> My take on all this- KISS. Let the guy use whatever single best
> possibility he can, for pool / TN / dice- but not all in combination.

I'll remember that next time I see your name next to the phrase "for helping
to twist some rules and crunch some numbers."

-K
Message no. 6
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:29:26 -0600
:> Gee, if the character is using a hand held weapon, and has
"Gunnery",
:> does he get "Gunnery" as a complementary skill, becasue the weapon CAN
be
:> mounted on a vehicle? (And certainly if its on a tripod / bipod, its
a
:> mounted weapon?) NOT.
:
:
:There are moments Mongoose, where you simply do not seem to see the
question
:and go beyond it. This is one of them. Gunnery requires the use of
:"Vehicles" in order for the skill to function at all. Each of the other
:"firearmish" skill do not require anything but the gun.

And a weapon skill requires the "hands on" use of the wepon; the situation
is symetrical, and I just pointed out its (obviously ludicrous) mirror
image.
Actually, I thought this cut to the heart of the question; when is a
compliumentary skill apropriate? If the skilll used completely overides
the other skill (and I would assume one active skill, like "gunnery", does
overide another, like "launch weapons", especially if it can be used
"stand alone"), than the secondary skill should not, IMO, be usable as a
complimentary skill.

:> But then, what if the rigger has NO skill (besides gunnery) that
:> aplies to the mounted weapon? Should they have to use 1/2 the default
:> penalty? I'd say if they get a benefit for knowing the weapon, they
:> should have a penalty for ignorance...
:
:Actually Mongoose, IF they are using their VCR interface, then they DO
get
:half the penalty.

For certain vehicle tests, yes. There is is no VCR modifier on any ranged
combat table I could find.
AFAIK, the VCR only affects the TN (and default penalty) of handling type
tests.

:> Even better, for ALL gunnery tests, average gunnery and the
normally
:> required weapon skill together. This cuts back on riggers not needing
any
:> heavy weapon / missile skills, and gives those that do know the weapon
a
:> (relative) edge. [HMM, that's not a half-bad idea...]
:
:Actually, NO, it isn't a half-bad or good, or even close to "well, kinda
:okay".

I'm persoanally unhappy with the gunnery vs- normal weapon use thing. It
sorta makes sense if gunnery is all "joystick" contolled, but I certainly
don't like the idea of gunery being better in every way than normal
firearms use. (IE, broader, integrates with technical sytems easily, etc,
plus maybe allowing complimentary skill use now...)

:Actually, the Rigger does NOT get his Rigger Pool towards weapon-based
:actions. It requires the Smartlink Integration kit, which can be
modified
:with FDDM/IVIS in other ways from there. It is NOT a House Rule, it's an
R2
:Rule. And under those rules (which also includes the Sensor-based
:Augmentation to target numbers btw), what I've described is theoretically
:possible.

Ah, OK. Just what / where the CP would be used for was not clear to me (I
hadn't just read those rules, as you did).


<snip persoanl opinion stuff that will go nowhere>
The best rules to use are any that keep things fun for everyone concerned.
That usually means simple rules that keep power similar for most combats.
Of course, if 20+ dice attacks make your game better, then you can and
should use rules that allow them.
Us, we just say "dead is dead" and move on.

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Complimentary Skills (Re: Vehicle Laser), 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!