Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: JeroenduChatinier Sep 30 2003, 09:15 PM

Hey there people,

I have a question about the Increased Reflexes +1/2/3 spell. I have tried to search for it and I've browsed the archives a bit, but I couldn't find anything. So, here goes!

Why would anyone buy Increased Reflexes at higher then 1 force? There are no restrictions for a low force (as in increased attribute). Am I missing something vital about spellcasting here?

I hope you can help me out.

-Jod

Posted by: CanvasBack Sep 30 2003, 09:18 PM

I think that at a lower force, an enemy mage would have a very easy time dispelling it. Can't think of anything else though...

Posted by: Lort Gob Sep 30 2003, 09:21 PM

*imagines a mage with only force 1 spells*

*POOF*

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Sep 30 2003, 09:23 PM

As Canvas said, low force is easy to break. A weak ward, opponent spell slinger, or any other opposition that can theoretically disrupt a spell will disrupt a spell at force 1.

Posted by: The White Dwarf Sep 30 2003, 10:27 PM

Theres at least 2 other threads on this, its like the question of the month or something. Higher force makes it harder to dispell, easier to get the spell through a ward, harder to destory in astral combat if its on a focus, and maybe a few other things I cant think of. So yes theres a reason to be higher than force 1, how big of an issue is up to you in your games.

Posted by: Siege Oct 1 2003, 01:13 AM

To be fair, if a hostile wiz has time to disrupt your reflex spell, the gun bunnies aren't doing something right.

-Siege

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 1 2003, 02:55 AM

if your team can take out their mage before he can take out your reflex spell, then his muscle is also not doing something right.

Posted by: Siege Oct 1 2003, 03:47 AM

True.

Would a hostile mage waste time blowing a reflex spell and not something a bit more terminal to the mage in question?

Idle curiousity since I don't play mages.

-Siege

Posted by: FlakJacket Oct 1 2003, 04:34 AM

Posted by: JeroenduChatinier Oct 1 2003, 10:20 AM

Thank you all very kindly for your swift replies! Seems like I haven't gone bonkers.

The dispelling part never cropped up much yet, but I think I will give it another good look.

Sorry to have regurgitated an old topic..

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 1 2003, 10:27 AM

As I say on all these threads....

You need at LEAST a Force 3 to survive the common Force 5 Ward. Anything lower and you won't even make it into most secure buildings with the spell.

I took Force 6 because of the Quickening rules. I have +3D6 Quickened for 12 Karma. Nobody short of a Dragon is dispelling it.

Sphynx

Posted by: JeroenduChatinier Oct 1 2003, 12:43 PM

Sphynx, could you tell me where I can find more info on Wards? Is it in the main book? It'd be appreciated.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 1 2003, 12:59 PM

Best reading is Magic in the Shadows, page 83 under Pressing through a Barrier, and then page 176 of the main book under Astral Objects to find out how much Karma your Foci has for pressing through the barrier.

Sphynx

Posted by: Morphling The Pretender Oct 1 2003, 02:15 PM

Well, there is a funny converse to that, in regards to illusion spells. For the sake of seeing through the illusion, having a force 2 spell with 10 successes means they aren't gonna see ya (who has the Int necesseary to have the chance to get the 10 succs?). Though you'll be easy prey for the mage, everyone else is hosed. Besides, the mage would see the 4 5's as easily as the 10 2's.

Posted by: Synner Oct 1 2003, 02:22 PM

That's pretty good casting you got there Morphling, since the Target for most Illusion spells is Willpower (plus LOS modifiers), Intelligence (plus LOS modifiers) or 4 (if Indirect Illusions). How many dice did you roll to get those ten successes?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 1 2003, 09:14 PM

Guys,

As it is written, there really isn't any good reason to take any Increased Reflexes spell other than +3 and there is likewise no good reason to buy it above force 1.

It is true that a force 1 spell is dead easy to dispell. OTOH, who cares? You marry that with a force 1 sustaining focus, and you can turn this spell and focus off whenever you don't need it. Also the drain code at force 1 is light enough (2D IIRC) that any mage with any reasonable will should not feel any problem with recasting this spell in combat.

I also remind everyone that spells and foci can only be targeted when they are active and in this case that is only going to be in combat most likely.

Given that, you as an enemy mage have a choice:

You can attempte to dispell that focus....doing nothing else this pass.....or you can attempt to simply kill the mage. That is not a hard choice....which is why in all my experience I have seen dispelling all of twice in about 40+ combats.

The fact is that this spell/focus combination is a moderately serious (and well known) balance problem and IMX is one of the more commonly houseruled things in SR.

-Polaris

Edit: Don't forget that a mage with even one grade of initiation and masking can completely hide that force 1 focus and spell which means it can not generally be targeted anyway.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 1 2003, 10:31 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 1 2003, 11:10 PM

Posted by: Fu-Man Chu Oct 2 2003, 01:27 AM

Does this spell work in the Astral? Ie. if a mage with Increased Reflexes sustained via a sustaining focus projects - and then at some time gets involved in Astral combat, do he get the Init bonus for the spell? I would think yes, but I have heard that it does not.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 2 2003, 04:49 AM

No. The spell affects the meat body (check the definition of Health spells), and so has no effect on astral initiative (although it does make an astrally perceiving mage faster).

One exception, though. A mage who begins a turn in his physical body, then projects (a complex action), uses his physical initiative for the remainder of the turn.

Posted by: Cain Oct 2 2003, 04:53 AM

Dispelling isn't a big issue, but low-force foci are big targets for Spirits. An opposing mage could order an elemental or spirit to take you out, starting with your foci, as one service.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 2 2003, 06:03 AM

Guys,

1. Dispelling as Cain correctly noted is not really an issue so it should not be considered as a balance argument.

2. There is nothing about health spells that restricts them to the physical plane only. Thus a strict reading of the spell would imply that it would apply in astral form too.

3. Spirits can not target what they can not see. Even a grade 1 initiate can completely hide the focus.

4. 65,000 nuyen for +3d6 Initiative is in fact chump change even if you assume the limitations are more serious then they in fact are. Compare with wired reflexes, move-by-wire, or other reflex enhancing bioware or cyberware and you will see that I am right. Even better this focus is always legal (no permit is even required in fact) which is something no equivalent bio or cyber modification can say which means you can buy it off the street for cost.

5. Whenever you people say that leaving on sustaining foci all the time is a disadvantage, it is everything I can do not to roll on the floor laughing at you guys. The fact is that sustaining foci are not really disadvantageous. Either they are weak enough that you can turn them on and off again with very little problem *OR* they are strong enough that they will plough through astral barriers with ease. The situation gets worse with quickened spells. In fact sustaining lots of spells through foci at low karma levels and graduating to quickened at high is the most effective way to min-max a mage.

6. How often will you really be in a situation where you have to go into a fire-fight right within a combat round after going through a ward? Really, how often?

I have never seen it happen. There is usually some lead time, so the time it takes to recast (a single complex action) is irrelevant.

7. I don't care what the dumpshockers say and I never have (as most of you well know). I know that in my experience every GM I have seen has houseruled increased reflexes just as soon as they saw how I could abuse it.....every time. I would submit that if you haven't seen the same, then your magic using players are simply not up on their min-maxing tricks. It is really that simple.

Thus in short, all the reasons given here don't amount to a proverbial hill of beans. If you are a smart and canny mage, you will buy Increased Reflexes +3 at force one along with the associated force 1 sustaining focus. For what you get, it is dirt cheap and there is no reason not to do it. [I remind you that spells and foci are dual natured by the way which is yet one more reason this would persist in astral space. I also remind you that you can order a spirit to attack a person or target a focus. To do both would require two services.....and that is assuming the spirit could even see it.....and the defending mage can always defend that focus....read the rules on astral combat if you doubt.]

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 2 2003, 06:27 AM

Polaris is right in that the +3D6 does confer to Astral Form. He's also right in that the spell needs House Ruling to work like Increased Attributes with the Force/Successes limitation.

But Pol, you're not right on a couple of other issues. First, as Bit said, you can't assume every initiate knows Masking. Hell, I even saw a character roll all 1's for learning Masking meaning he'll never ever be able to learn it.

I don't care about balance issues, so the costs/etc are mute points.

Leaving a sustaining focus on all the time isn't a disadvantage, I agree, but it's just not possible to do in games like ours where Force 5 Wards are commonplace (no need to go into the arguement about how likely that'd be, in a world where the GM doesn't want Sustaining Foci everywhere, they are common )

Admittedly, dispelling pre-ward and recasting after a ward is a good strategy IF you can take the drain. with a TN 5 (the average Mage reaction it seems) and a Drain of 2D, you need to allocate at LEAST 10 dice to drain (unless you have a Trauma Dampener) and 5 dice to casting. With 12 and 8 being a bit closer to an 'assured' casting/resisting. Not a risk I'd recommend for a non-minmaxxed mage, but a good strategy if you have the 20 dice for the 2 tests.

Sphynx

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 2 2003, 06:40 AM

Still not seeing the point of this. Yes people like to go fast, but having more actions as a mage isnt always useful. Your spell pool and sorcery dont refresh as fast as you go, often youll wind up shooting for some actions with your gimped mage gun skill. Trying to win initiative to act first is likewise not always a good idea, using reaction in a surprise test is a better idea and this spell doesnt boost that.

I will concede that, should you desire to have the initiative, this spell is a good bargin (in whatever combo you use, focus, sustained, quickened, etc). It offers a fairly large increase for the investment to get it. However so does a smartlink, or the blindness spell. Not everything is equal, and really it cant be. Assualt Rifles are always better than Pistols at shooting... the whole concealability issue depends on your group's style much like Sphynx and wards/magic.

So yes, there is a reason (a few actaully) to take the spell above force 1. No, most of the time its not worth doing as a general concensus. But yes, there are times when force 1 will screw you. How often depends on your style of play and take on the game world. A hidden enemy mage dispelling this on his surprise turn (or ordering a spirit to take down the focus) could seriously swing the encounter, for instance, but isnt something that will likley occur often.

Again, youve seen the issues on both sides, make a call on what works for you.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 2 2003, 06:41 AM

Sphynx,

1. Balance is the issue here so I felt and feel that cost, legality, ect are very valid and cogent points.

2. The target number of 5 is not hard. Even without spell pool, a socerer with 7 dice (which is normal for a starting sorcerer) will get at least two successes without the use of pool dice.

In addition to that, even if you don't have your will boosted with sustained increased will foci (and I almost always do....and at force 6, I will blast through force 5 wards with the greatest of ease), a good solid starting mage is almost assured of having a starting will of 7 (and you can get up to 9 with no trouble at all strictly speaking....10 if you allow gnomes). That means that you are looking at a spell pool of at least 6 and more likely 7 or 8.

That means you can toss 13 dice (7 from will, and 6 more from pool) to absorb 2D of Drain. That is as close to a sure thing as almost anyting in the game.

Finally, I think it is a safe bet that the first or second (at worst) metamagic technique an initiate will pick up will be masking. The technique is too darned useful. That is especially true if he is using a force one increased reflexes focus. Thus I feel my assumption about masking being the first thing any initiate picks up is quite reasonable really.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 2 2003, 11:40 AM

Just realize that you're talking about the +2 version of the spell, not the +3 version (unless you take the time to create a 'caster only' version of the spell, or your GM allows that at char-gen). +3 version would have a drain of 4D for a Force 1 spell (though some people's interpretation would have it at 3D). Need a good 16 dice to resist that drain (or 12 dice if you interprete it as 3D) and that's only for a 50% chance.

As for masking, nah. in my experience only 2 of well over 15 initiates I can think of having existed in games I've played in, had Masking. I don't question how useful it is, but I do question how common you think it is.

Sphynx

Posted by: Polaris Oct 2 2003, 04:22 PM

Sphynx,

In shadowrun, you always round down so 1/2 would be zero plus three becomes a drain of 3D for the "+3" version of the spell.

Thus I do stand corrected at least in part, but you should as well. OK, so look at it....you get to toss at least 13 dice with a target number of 3. You are still virtually certain of getting no drain which makes this a good bet. If you have a min-maxed mage, you are looking at tossing about 20 dice at target number three which is as close to a sure thing for no drain as the game allows.

-Polaris

Edit: As for masking, all I can suggest is that your mages didn't know their business then. Masking in my experience is common as dirt for PCs. This would be especially true if they had a force one increases reflexes foci up so I stand by what I said. If you have such a foci, masking should be the first (or second at worst) metamagic technique you learn.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 2 2003, 04:31 PM

Like I said, dependant on your interpretation. And although I personally agree with you, in most games I've played in, that's a +4D because people feel even a round-down has a minimum of 1.

I am curious though how a min-maxxed mage (out of char-gen) has 20 dice to resist drain. Can't count Exp-Foci since we're talking about something to drop/recast regularly, and not likely to put THAT much into other foci since it's been the assumption it's a non-aspected earth who'd put the Foci into Manip spells. Nor Elementals really, for the same reason.

I think a min-maxxed converts it to 3D w/ Trauma Dampener to only require 6 successes and rolls 6+(8?) Willpower and Spell Pool of 6ish for 14ish dice. Even with a 10 WP (that's poor min-maxxing IMHO) that's barely 16 dice. Personally I stick to 6 Willpower and 5 Spell Pool with a Trauma Dampener as my min-maxxed and roll 11 dice TN 3 needing 6 successes, a sure thing still (but not assured if it's 4D needing 6 successes).

Sphynx

[Edit]Masking first?!? Hell, Shielding is the most common first in our groups. The 2nd is pretty random it seems, that's the more likely spot to see Masking, but only by people like you and me who rules-lawyer the books. Hell, I see more Quickening than Masking since the average player thinks Masking is just to hide who you are, and don't think it's about stealthing through Wards.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 2 2003, 04:40 PM

Sphynx,

20 dice? Easy. Here's how going strictly min-max.

You have an albino Dwarf with the edge "bonus attribute point: willpower" and you put six base points into willpower. [This is all fairly standard actually]

That gives you a "natural" willpower of 9 right off the top.

You then have a force six increase willpower spell and sustain that with a force six sustaining focus. This (especially if you use an ally to temporarily decrease you will while doing this) can be used to magically boost your willpower by six more to 15.

You happen to be a Crab Shaman which gives you one more dice for all resistance checks (including drain). That's one more.

You now have an Int of 6, Magic of 6, and Willpower of 15 for a Spell Pool total of 9.

15 (Will)+1(totem)+9 (pool) gives you a grand total of 25 dice.

This isn't even trying very hard. I can easily add one or two more dice to this.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 2 2003, 04:56 PM

Show me the start character who can get 6 successes, TN 9 (natural WP) otherwise you can subtract 5 right there as you get that whopping 1 success.

Reduce that Combat pool acordingly for a 7 and end up with 17 by hardly trying.

I dont' consider 'albino' nor 'gnome' nor 'bonus attribute point' to be standard. Our Run-Fu must be weak.

Anyhows, 20 isn't at all probable at char-gen, sorry.

Sphynx

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 2 2003, 05:01 PM

To be fair you cant use the extreme of something to say its broken or common. Yea thats possible but you can only have so many albino-dwarf crab shamans in a game with a will boost.

A more fair situation would be a Int 6, Willpower 8 dwarf with a force 2 focus and a skill of 6 in sorcery. This gives you 14 dice to split with a will of 8 for drain. Its not hard to start off at grade one which bumps the value to 15 dice from the magic increase. However its also easy to use a self-only version of the spell with a 2D drain code, which allows you to cover it easily enough (if you take spell design anyhow).

All that aside, I still fail to see how adding an average of 10 to your initiative is oh so unbalancing. So what if its easy to do, whuppee one more action per turn. With no dice refreshing. For the investment it takes to get its certainly a fair trade, and while perhaps "better" than some things theres things Id pass this for without looking back. Trying to prove that its easy to cast is kinda pointless, cause like it is. Im more interested in seeing how having its a problem, cause its not.

Posted by: sir fwank Oct 2 2003, 05:07 PM

Posted by: Cain Oct 2 2003, 05:46 PM

As Polaris correctly points out, having a high-force Increse Reflexes spell is useful is you don't care at all about sublety, and just intend to plow through any ward you encounter, triggering alerts left and right. The same applies to any high-force sustaining focus. If they're a problem in your game, start enforcing the Focus Addiction rules and add Imps. (Remember, since anything over a force-2 foci is technically illegal, more powerful Imps will need to seek out more powerful foci in the open, which usually means shadowrunners. The more powerful the focus, the more likely it is that an Imp will seek it out.)

If you intend to be sneakier about things, the lower-force version is better, since the drain is much easier to deal with and can be cast "on the fly" much more readily. You do have to worry more about most spirits, though.

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 2 2003, 05:55 PM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 2 2003, 07:11 PM

Well that and his "I can mask a force one focus" when the example of how he cast that forse one focus involves already having a force 6 focus saustaining increased willpower. Kind fo defeats the point.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 2 2003, 08:02 PM

Guys,

Cut the crap will you? I was asked specifically how I could get 20 dice to resist drain on the Increased Reflexes +3 spell. I showed how.

As for drain, it is always force of the spell divided by two round down. That is why a force 5 spell has a base drain power of 2. Thus a force 0 spell has a base drain power of zero.

In addition, using the extremes is always a valid way to show if something is or is not balanced. Indeed that is the preferred way, or am I the only one that has ever heard the maxim, "You understand a system best when it is most unstable"?

In addition to that, I use Shadow Run companion rules (the point buy system), and that is a standard and canonical way to generate character. My Dwarf Shaman was prefectly legal going by those rules....and yes albinism and the bonus attribute edge are both standard features in this game. If you don't like it complain to FanPro, not to me.

As for the rancor, some of this is a side effect of a much earlier debate where I showed that the strongest mage is one that had lots of sustaining foci (and you can do this without running into focus addiction) on pretty much all the time....but that was not the issue here.

In this case, the sustained force one increased reflexes is legal without the need for permits (and all magic is legal with the right permits which is much nicer than most weapons or cyber). Remember that this got started with the idea that I can turn it on and off again without any problem.

1. I can indeed with spell design get a caster only version. That lowers the drain code back down to 2D which even an average mage can do easily.

2. A Human mage with a will of 7 can easily boost that will to a 10 with a focus. When you factor in an additional 6 dice from spell pool, you have 16 dice to drain 2D or 3D and both are virtually certain things. This is not "min-maxed" at all.

3. Sphynx, I am sorry to say that your run-fu is weak. Here is how you get a character with a Will of 9 to get +6 (especially with an expendible focus) on Willpower.

A. You have your level 2 contact/shaman cast Decrease Will on you at force 6 (or have the other mage/shaman do it if one is in the party). This will reduce your willpower to 3.

B. You now cast (no other foci active yet) Increase Willpower using the expendible foci. You may have to blow a karma pool (unlikely but worth it if you must). This will get you 6 (from the skill)+5 (from the pool)+6(from the focus) or 17 dice at target number three. You are likely to get the needed 12 successes and you certainly will with karma.

C. Have your friend/ally stop sustaining the decrease Willpower spell.

Voila, you are done and your new will is now 15.

4. As for masking, I think all of you are missing the point, so I will say it once more. You can not target what you can not see. Even a grade one initiate can hide that force one increase reflexes focus all the time with no action or concentration on his part. That means that the foci can not be targeted.

It is that simple.

-Polaris

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 2 2003, 08:36 PM

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 2 2003, 08:59 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 2 2003, 09:28 PM

Sphynx,

Actually any game that uses the rules as written has to allow my decrease/increase combo. It is legal by the book. I challenge anyone here to deny it.

Secondly, you can always hire someone to cast that decrease attribute spell if you want. In addition to that, if you have more than one mage/shaman in the party (which I have found to be the usual case), then you can boost each other.

Thus, I find that a force 1 sustaining focus for increase reflexes +3 is not only very doable, but a very attractive deal. Thus your run-fu is no where near as mighty as you think it is.


Break what focus? You have to see it first, and if I just broke through a ward, then the focus will not be active (which is the point isn't it?) Secondly according to MIPS page 78, you must assense the enemy mage in order to see through the masking. That is at least a simple action. No spell casting for you. Furthermore, you have to know enough to assense the person and you have to be willing to do that instead of casting a spell.

All are very unlikely in the extreme.

As for having it active all the time, this is the bloody point. You don't have to have the force one focus active all the time and you lose very little by turing it off before wards or even in general (and then turning it on afterwards).

Besides especially with a caster-only version (assuming Spell Design which seems likely to me), even with 16 dice, you can still easily drop and recast this focus bypassing wards altogether.

-Polaris

Posted by: Cain Oct 2 2003, 10:19 PM

We're still debating starting characters, and I have yet to see a starting mage with Masking. It's quite popular IMG, but not for starting mages, even when initiation is allowed. Most will opt for Centering instead.

So, anyone capable of astral perception will know that you have a sustained spell active on you. That's not really argueable, or the point. Without resorting to Evil GM tactics, low-force Increase Reflexes +3 spells are not a major problem; a few wards here and there, a few malicious wandering spirits, and strict use of the surprise rules will prevent it from being an overwhelming advantage.

Remember, surprise can happen at any time, and suprise tests are handled through a Reaction roll, not Initiative. The spell doesn't help at all on surprise tests, which pretty much means for the first action of any combat, the mage will be incapable of action. Reaction-enhancing cyber does help, however.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 2 2003, 10:52 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 2 2003, 11:30 PM

Here's something to consider: When was the last time you saw a mundane gunbunny go, "Ah, screw this expensive cyber stuff. I'll just get the mage to sustain Increase Reflexes on me."?

Posted by: Polaris Oct 3 2003, 05:19 AM

Bitbasher,

Maybe you and those like you should start giving a rat's ass. If the game system encourages you to make characters that are antithetical to the genera and you gain definate advantages by doing so then the game system needs to be altered. If you don't care, then the problems do not get fixed.

BTW, I find Champs to be just as broke in some respects as SR, but at least in Champs some effort is made to balance Char-Gen w/r/t the genera sought.

Cain,

In combat, you are right. Unless you have masking (which a starting character can technically get btw), it is not hard for a mage to pick it up if he has astral sight (either assensing, perceiving, or projecting).

That said, the focus can be down pretty much at all other times which was really the point. In combat, attacking the focus is usually pretty lame. You are almost always better off attacking the magician directly (especially since you may want that focus later to sell....especially in the case of a force 1 focus since you can hawk that on the local street corner with no paperwork required). In short, in almost all cases, this focus simply will not be targeted.

John Cambell,

There are several reasons. In the first place almost no mage will place an increased reflexes spell on his mundane buddy. The reason has nothing to do with the cost benefit of the spell. Rather most mages dislike leaving a material link (and a focus is always a material link) out of thier direct control. In addition to that, the spell does not stack with cyberware or bioware and since cyberware also in general gives reaction increases, you are almost always better off as a mundane character doing that. In addition to that a mundane can not turn on or off the spell (for wards and such) while a mage can. In addition to that, the mage can turn the spell off at any time.....leaving the mundane up a very brown creek.

In short, the reason you don't see a lot of mundanes with sustained Increase Reflexes +3 force 1 up is control....all the control goes to the enchanting mage who will not want a material link out of his immediate control.

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 3 2003, 05:33 AM

Because something is broken or has the potential to be abused doesn't require that you abuse it.

The game system that has a rule to cover every possible combination or contingency is an accounting nightmare that I'd rather not experience.

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 3 2003, 05:38 AM

Seige,

In shadowrun it does. After all, a runner (if he expects to survive) should look to get every possible edge he can find, and create any edges that he can not find. That directly implies that if you find an abusive loophole, then you as a player need to be using that loophole.

It also means that if FanPro wishes to preserve the Genera they want in SR, they need to fix abusive loopholes. The responsibility for solid rules falls on the developer not the player. Don't think for a moment that the player is somehow at fault for taking advantage of faulty rules. That fault lies with the GM and more importantly with the publisher and designer of the system.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 3 2003, 06:11 AM

Well, just an FYI, if you tried to Reduce Willpower/Increase Willpower in a game I ran, then I'd do the following:

Add the Force of the Decrease Willpower to your TN to cast the spell.
- and/or -
Allow you to negate the previous spell, extra successes being lost.

It just wouldn't happen, and I know that the majority of the GMs out there would use a similar rule or just not allow it at all. Regardless, in anyone's game but your own, your starting character wouldn't have access to a Decreased Willpower (unless you had the spell yourself) and wouldn't get to stack them like that even if you had the spell. THEREFOR, no way in hell for you to have 20 dice for drain.

Now, I know you'll argue further, unfortunately, I'm on my way to France for the weekend, so good luck convincing yourself how right you are. Nobody else is going to believe it because our Run-Fu is mightier than your DreamingYourAssOff-Fu.

Sphynx

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 3 2003, 06:27 AM

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 3 2003, 06:46 AM

NOBODY CARES about all this "I can get xxx dice crap". Its completly NOT relevent to the reflex dealy. Its been started that with a self only version of the spell the drain is moot, and even without a self only version it can be delt with via other avenues.

Going on and on about "this is the best way cause we do it in our games blah blah" means nothing, because (for most everyone here) were not playing in the same game.

Sombody prove how having the spell is a problem. Its been shown that theres a number of ways to obtain it, via casting, focus, quickening etc. Whether or not its masked isnt really important, that just impacts how you get the spell onto your guy. Point is once its there, whats the problem.

Answer: there is none. Havent seen one situation why this is an issue. And theres some arguments why not to do it (such as dice dont refresh anyhow, and it frees up resources to be better spend on other things if you only plan on casting one big spell a turn). This is hardly a "omg broken everyone will take it" situation.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 3 2003, 07:00 AM

John Campbell,

Read what I post before declaring "victory". The cyber or bio is better for a mundane character because:

1. The mundane can not turn off the spell which does create problems with wards and such (although less than you might think).

2. Most of your initiative is in the hands of someone else. No smart runner is going to do this especially when that someone else can turn it off at any time.

3. Most mages won't do this for a mundane at any price because of the linking issue making the issue moot for mundanes.

White Dwarf,

The combination of the focus and force 1 improved reflexes (+3) is so cheap, gives so much, for so little drawback that indeed every mage should take it. That makes this a balance problem. What else would you like me to prove?

The point is that +10 to initiative is not a huge deal for a mage although it is an extra pass which is always nice. OTOH, the price you pay for it (nearly nothing) makes it far too cheap....and therin lies the balance issue as I see it anyway.

Sphynx,

Bully for you on having a house rule that covers this. Really, I mean it and wish you well. My GM has a similiar house-rule (increase attribute spells always use the natural attribute not the actual one in his game). That said, when discussing rules we need to stick with the vanilla core rules and by that this system works. It is a loophole that needs to be closed, but until it is, it remains a perfectly valid way for a mage to boost his attributes through the ceiling.

-Polaris

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 3 2003, 09:57 AM

Alright, let me try a different approach. Lets examine what you get for what it costs, and compare.

You get:

To find what this spell actually does you have to start at the ground up for initative. Most mages have a quickness of 4 to 6, and an intelligence of 6. This means in total your base initiative values will range from 9 (base 5 with four 1's rolled) up to 30 (base 6 with four 6's rolled) after this spell is applied in its +3 dice version. In terms of minimum/average/maximum number of actions youre looking at 1/1/2 without the spell, and 2/2/3 with the spell. So in this case, the spell does add one action across the board. Im going to avoid the astral implications because its difficult to compare that to other enchancements, and also because the already inflated values will decrease the impact proportionally. Just make a note that it helps you there as well, on some level. Also note that it doesnt increase Reaction at all so is of no help on surprise tests.

Cost:

Theres several ways of going about obtaining and maintaining this effect on your character. The most obvious are to either obtain a force 1 focus to maintain the effect or by quickening the spell. Both have merits and interact differently with wards, so I will try to come up with a cost for both.

For the former, you would presumably take the knowedge skill spell design (at skill level 1 or more for this scenario) in order to craft a self only version of the spell. Since this would take time to do and there are no given rules for how much "time" a character has in the "past" before theyre created and put "into play" Im going to assume you simply do this ASAP once the game starts. During creation you would purchase a force 1 sustaining focus for 15000 nuyen, as well as a Force 1 Sorcery Library to use in the design for 1000 nuyen. The base design time is 60 days. Assuming 1 run per month, which is a fair standard, you would easily accumulate the karma for the next step. Once the spell is completed you pay 1 karma to learn it (base time 1 day) and 1 karma to bond the focus to it. Net result: you spend 1 knowledge skill point, 16000 starting nuyen, and 2 karma to obtain the setup for the third game session. If the GM required you to have the base spell learned already before allowing you to research a new variety, you would also have to invest 1 starting Spell Point. Also, if you wanted to counter many of the flaws of this setup you could initiate and learn quickening, but that would likley take another ~12 karma (depending upon joining cost and grade level and options used etc).

For the latter, you could start off with the tools. Now Im no expert no this so Im going to assume Sphynx knows his stuff in this department having playtested it far more than I. Presumably you would need the spell (base version is fine) at Force 6 and you would need to initiate to grade 1 to learn quicking, for a total cost of 18 starting Spell Points (6 for spell, 3 to join group, 9 for cheapest initiation possible). Now you would need 12 karma to Quicken the spell at maximum effectiveness. For comparative purposes one could assume it would take the same 2 months to earn this amount, although your milage may vary.

Conclusion:

The first method of this setup requires little more than some starting cash and a little in game dice rolling. However to really be effective you would probably wish to learn masking which takes some karma as well. The second method is money free, but at a cost of 18 of your initial 25 Spell Points- which means you either have to hold off on the initiation or spend starting cash to buy more spell points. Both of those methods up the investment by a fairly big margin in karma or build points, depending on what you do. Bottom line is that in both cases it is *likely* that you will sink the first 10 to 20 karma you earn setting it up in a manner that makes it, for most purposes, permanently on. Call it the first 3 adventures of karma.

Compare:

to Cyberware. To get the same +10 initiative I will turn to Wired Reflexes Level 2. It adds, on average, 10 to your initiative. To make a comparison I will assume a few things. Firstly, since the mage spent 30 BP on Magic, this character will spend the same 30 on Resources, leaving the same number of BP left for other areas (thus equal). Now, a Magician will likley not touch thier essence but are instead limited by Spell Points. The other character has no Spell Points but has 6 points of Essence to limit what he can improve. Thus, Spell Points are fairly relative to Essence Points; even so far as spending cash to buy more spell points or spending cash to alphaware cyber to get more; in terms of the analogy.

So compare the above spell to this 3 essence cyberware, with those ideas in mind. Keep in mind that this also adds to reaction, which not only aids in surprise tests but provides a better average value (its like the 3rd spell die always comes up 4) as well as a higher minimum (and thus garunteeing 2 actions even when wounded). It has the exact same 2/2/3 spread because while the high value is a few lower it doesnt change the number of actions per round. Also bear in mind that Spell Pool and possibly Sorcery dice will *NOT* refresh on this additional action.

Results:

Looking at the this post in total Ive decided a few things. 1) The spell certainly isnt broken. Either rig, while potentially available out of the box DOES take some in game effort to setup. They also take time and karma. 2) Wired Reflexes are way better than this spell. In terms of what investment of character resources they take, relative to mages versus sams, mages get screwed. 3) I cant really see myself taking the spell on a game advantage front anymore because theyre too ineffecient to start with. They just take too much of the valuble first karma I would get. Especically because the way I favor allocating my dice doesnt lend itself to chain casting spells before refresh. While it is something I would pickup at some point just to counter the low initiative frustration, and maybe so I can win against non-enchanced folks, its not something I would gun for as an intergral part of the character from the get go.

Posted by: Siege Oct 3 2003, 02:49 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 3 2003, 07:04 PM

Seige,

There is no one questioning the authority of the GM to houserule problematic rules. Certainly I am not.

That said in shadowrun, you need to build the most effective and efficient character possible just because of the dystopic nature of the game. That in turn means that you not only should but must take advantage of every means possible to increase your own character's personal power.

Sorry guy but that is just the nature of this genera and the play that it encourages. It is one impartant reason I actually dislike Shadowrun.

The main point here is that busted rules and the use thereof is not the fault of the player but the fault of the designer that wrote them, the developer that edited them, and the GM that failed to houserule them away. At least put blame where it belongs.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 3 2003, 07:23 PM

well herein lies the problem.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 3 2003, 07:24 PM

Polaris, from a pure look at the rules, you're right. However, many GMs don't hold that view and discourage it among their players. I have to say that I'm among that group. There is a concept of fairness between players and GMs insofar as players who insist on having an incredibly effective character may find that their foes are just as incredibly effective as they are. And while your points have to sum to some number, the GM is under no such obligation.

For example, my rigger has a mini-blimp drone. By your logic, I must mount a sniper rifle on it if given a chance. However, I will not do that because it would end up ruining the game when the GM makes it common for opponents to do the same. Where's the fun in walking out your front door and suddenly dying?

From this and other threads, though, it's clear this is one of those "agree to disagree" situations.

Posted by: Bölverk Oct 3 2003, 07:26 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 3 2003, 10:37 PM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 4 2003, 02:17 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 03:00 AM

Zazen,

The creators of the rule (the game designers) are ultimately at fault because it is their job (it's what we pay for after all) to give us a system that works and is balanced within the genera.

A GM can houserule (and usually does) but utlimately houserules are only patches and of uncertain quality since it is very difficult without extensive playtest to explore all the possible permutations of houserules.

In short, we pay for a good balanced rule set, and then FanPro doesn't deliver for whatever reason, then they are fundamentally at fault.

-Polaris

Posted by: Glyph Oct 4 2003, 03:39 AM

That may be true, Polaris, but we're not just talking about a rule, we're talking about your interpretation of a rule. Most of us use a bit of common sense when we look at a rule. Most of us do not interpret the FAQ on called shots as meaning that you can ignore an Armor spell that completely covers the target by calling a shot to bypass armo. Most of us do not think that you can cast Decrease Willpower on yourself, followed by Increase Willpower, then dispel the Decrease Willpower but still have the same number of "points" from the Increase Willpower spell. Why should the developers spend countless hours plugging holes that, apparently, only you see as such? Nearly every GM uses at least one house rule, anyways - there will never be a perfect set of rules.


As far as min-maxing, that too is campaign-dependent. If someone started a "street" campaign using BeCKS, I could do a traditionally min-maxed dwarven sorcerer, and annoy the GM, and invite foes and situations specifically created to beat down my character. Or, I could make a dwarven sorcerer with lots of skills, spellpoints, and contacts, capable of being very versatile, useful, and even dominant at that "street" level of play. Which would be the most effective use of min-maxing, for that campaign?


Back to the original question, the Increase Reflexes spell is useful for any combat-oriented spellcaster. It is harder to dispel at higher Force, but it is still useful as a Force: 1 spell with a Force: 1 sustaining focus. It is not unbalancing, though. Sure, nearly every combat mage will have one, but on the other hand, nearly every sammie will have a smartlink.

Posted by: Sammiel Oct 4 2003, 03:47 AM

for whatever reason you choose to manipulate the rules in a game-breaking fashion such as you do, for christ's sake, its GENRE NOT GENERA

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 04:40 AM

Sammiel,

Bollocks. You are just trying to lamely cover up a poor ruleset. The rules say what the rules say and what I said was perfectly legal by the book. That means that for the purposes of a public forum, it has to be allowed for and considered since every table has their own houserule.

I don't care if every other poster would disallow the combination I posted (hell I don't even allow it). The fact remains that it is legal by the book and thus is topical. You don't fix bad rules by hiding your head in the sand and ignoring the problem which is what most of you seem to wish to do.

Fine, it's genre. I am still right.

-Polaris

Posted by: Cain Oct 4 2003, 05:00 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 05:35 AM

Cain,

With an attitude like that, the problems with SR (and they are legion) never get fixed. That has direct and negative consequences to the game as a whole (IMX the game is widely regarded as a joke....even among so-called 'real' roleplayers).

-Polaris

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 4 2003, 06:04 AM

It isn't possible for any ruleset to cover all eventualities. Even if it were possible to create such a ruleset, the result would be totally unplayable because no one could grasp its full complexities. Any game would degenerate into constantly looking up irrelevant trivia in the rulebook. That being the case, people are expected to exercise their common sense and good judgement (if any) when playing or GMing.

This means that when a player attempts to do something so ridiculous that even people who are apparently incapable of telling the difference between munchkinism and roleplaying can recognize that it shouldn't be allowed, the proper response is not to say, "Uh, duh.... the rules don't say you can't. Oh no, Mr. Game Designer! You let my players get all out of control!" The proper response is to say, "Sweet zombie Jesus, no! Sit down and shut up," and wing it if you really need a rule to cover the results.

Asserting otherwise reduces the game to the level of computer games, which, while potentially entertaining, are severely limited in possibilities compared to human-arbitrated games, and for the same reasons... rules lawyers, like computers, lack common sense, and have to have everything spelled out for them. The only difference is that computers default to not allowing anything that isn't written, and rules lawyers are generally also munchkins, and default to anything being allowed if it's not written otherwise.

And in my experience, the common complaints about Shadowrun are either that the rules are too complex, or that they simply don't like magic in their cyberpunk. I think you're the first person I've ever seen allege that Shadowrun was severely flawed because the rules weren't complex enough.

Posted by: Siege Oct 4 2003, 06:46 AM

You're never going to convince Polaris he's wrong -- he fundamentally believes in what he says and will never accept an argument to the contrary.

It's like saying "the sky is blue" and the other fellow say, "no, it's red."

I've already made my feelings on the matter known.

-Siege

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 4 2003, 07:05 AM

I'm not sure about that "believes what he says" thing. I'm fairly convinced that he's willing to say anything that he thinks will score points against Shadowrun, whether he actually believes it or not. I am quite sure that you're right that he can't be convinced of anything. However, I'm bored and I find this mildly amusing.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 4 2003, 07:57 AM

Which is exactly why I started calling him Trollaris in a previous thread. He us absolutely, undeniable, a troll for argumentation. Any thread comes along and he will say whatever is necessary to inflame the most people, and he will always state it as an absolute fact regardless of whether or not it is entirely an opinion, or for that matter false entirely.

There is absolutely no other reason someone comes on a message board, insults the entire RPG the message board is based on, (which he did in his last post or 2) and deliberately incite non productive argument. That is the definition of being a troll.

EDIT: no need to reply to this Polaris, i'm talking about you, im not talking to you.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 09:20 AM

Bitbasher,

You are also namecalling which is a gross violation of nettiquette and IIRC is grounds for administrative action. I will not say that twice.

-Polaris

Posted by: Cain Oct 4 2003, 02:34 PM

Thank heavens for small favors....

Posted by: Zazen Oct 4 2003, 07:17 PM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 4 2003, 07:22 PM

I am making no personal attacks, nor am I name calling. I am referring directly to and using the terminology directly from the guidelines link at the top of the page. These Guidelines state:

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 07:26 PM

Zazen,

OK, you're point is taken, but I think mine should as well. Of course it is impossible to design a rule set that is playable and yet immune from abuse. That said, gross design flaws should be spotted and corrected in play test. To extend your power-tool analogy, while the user is responsible if he didn't follow safety procedures with said tool, the manufacturer would be responsible if that tool were faulty (causing injury) and/or proper instructions were not given.

The correct response when loopholes or rules abuses is not to shy away and pretent they don't exist. It also certainly is not to disparage those that find them as some sort of inferior life form.

The correct response is to aknowledge that the flaw exists and correct it in your game. The next correct response (at least by FanPro) would be to close the loophole with Errata.

The fact remains that houserules are beyond the scope of a public forum since houserules vary widely. Thus what is strictly legal by the book is the only consistant way rules can be judged by everyone here.

Now the main problem is the d6 pool system which makes target numbers less than 5 far to easy to rack up lots of easy successes with while making target numbers more than 5 difficult.....often too difficult to attain realistically. This is a problem in shadowrun because the system throws you more dice as you get better which is actually a losing proposition as the target number increases. To put it another way, gaining a bonus on the target number is much better than getting a bonus number of dice to roll.

That is why I have suggested an alternative system before the boards were switched. It is why I and others have championed the d10 (0-9, nines explode) system. It works very well I think you will find.

-Polaris

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 07:28 PM

Bitbasher,

Apparently the moderators disagree with you. That's all I have to say on that.

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 4 2003, 07:51 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 4 2003, 08:05 PM

Zazen,

Allow me to clarify something here. I am not advocating (and to my knowledge I never have) the deliberate exploitation of the rules in general for RPGs in general. Unfortunately in shadowrun, you have a dystopic world where the entire world is literally against the characters and that implies that you have take (or find) as many advantages as possible.

Thus smart and canny players should use loopholes in such a setting. That does not mean that this sort of play should be encouraged but rather as a warning to GMs that in a cyberpunk world, it is in the player's best interest to do so. I admit the distinction is subtle but it is there. That means that those that GM and publish cyberpunk type games have an even greater responsibility than ever to ferret out and fix such abuses....especailly the developers....and if they do not, then neither has any complaint coming when the players use said loopholes.

That is just the nature of the game. It is one reason (the generally advesarial relationship between the players and the GM) why the cyberpunk genre and shadowrun in particular is simply not my favorite (although clearly I do play them).

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 4 2003, 08:37 PM

Posted by: Glyph Oct 5 2003, 12:31 AM

And Polaris is the only one who sees them as loopholes. We're not talking about house rules here - we are talking about spell combos and rules interpretations that everyone else who has posted would not allow to work. No one else believes that casting Decrease Willpower, then Increase Willpower, then dispelling the Decrease Willpower, would let you keep all of the original successes from the Increase Willpower spell. No one else interprets the called shots FAQ on ignoring armor to mean that you can "ignore the armor" of a full body-covering Armor spell.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 5 2003, 12:35 AM

Glyph,

"Everyone Else" read the layering armor rules incorrectly as well. Just because "everyone else" doesn't agree with me doesn't mean I am wrong. Go ahead and ask FanPro and I think you will find that I am right on this combo and most of the other rules related stuff I have posted.

-Polaris

Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems as though this board often suffers from a bad case of group-think, and if I come across as an iconoclast, then this is the reason. I am trying to dislodge some firmly entenched "conventional wisdom"

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 5 2003, 02:40 AM