Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Phasma Felis Oct 4 2003, 09:34 PM

The current Increase Reflexes thread has mostly turned into a flamewar, so I'm posting this in its own thread. Part of the issue there was that, unlike most other powerful spells, the Increase Reflexes spells had no intrinsic power gain from increased Force (although the Force still affects vulnerability to dispelling, wards, and so forth). Here's a possible solution.

Okay, in First and Second Edition, a lot of (currently) single spells were divided into three or four levels--e.g., Mana Dart/Missile/Bolt instead of Manabolt, or Heal Light/Moderate/Serious/Deadly Wounds instead of Heal. In Third, almost all of these were merged into one spell, with either a variable drain level or scaled effects depending on number of successes, capped by Force. The Increase Reflexes spells were the only ones not merged, that I can think of.

So, why not merge them into a single spell? Give it +1(D) drain (the same as Increase Reflexes +2, if anyone's counting) and say that every two successes increase the subject's Initiative dice by one, to a maximum of half the Force of the spell (rounded down), and by no more than three in any case.

This is modeled off the Increase Attribute spells, which add one to the target for every two successes and cap at the spell's Force. I've halved the cap and given it a hard maximum, given how powerful extra initiative dice can be. For the record, it now takes a Force of 5, Drain of 5D, and 6 successes to achieve +3 init dice, rather than a Force of 1, drain of 3D, and 1 success. Does that seem balanced?

Posted by: Adarael Oct 4 2003, 09:44 PM

Hmm. That's a decent idea - mostly because in my experience, adding to the force of a spell solely so it's harder to dispel is incredibly wasteful. If the enemy mages are trying to dispel your stuff and not actually kill you, they're screwed (in general) - and any mage worth his salt oughta suppress or shatter a ward before moving through it.

Personally, what I've done this this: each extra die is a separate spell, and in order to be effective at its' maximum level, it must be learned at a force equal to twice the extra dice it'll give you, and you must gather at least two successes per extra die you wanna get. I.E. if you learned Increase Reflexes +3 at force 6 (so you could gather the absolute bonus, given enough successes), and got four successes, you'd nab an extra two dice, but not three. The only reason to learn these spells at less than their required 'maximum effectiveness' force is so that you can later increase the force with a minimum of research (I.E. house rule - it's easier to increase the force of a spell you already know, research wise, than to research an entirely new spell.)

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 5 2003, 12:30 AM

Problem is, you're trying to fix something that isn't actually broken. While making the spell dependent on Force is more elegant, the solution you propose actually cripples the spell. You're increasing its cost while decreasing its effectiveness. As I pointed out in the other thread, when you figure up the resource costs of starting with Increase Reflexes +3 at Force 1, and a sustaining focus for it, it slots fairly neatly into the cost structure of cyber reflex enhancements. With your proposal, in order to get the same effect, you have to get Increase Reflexes at Force 6... which means paying six times as much for the sustaining focus, and using six times as many Spell Points to bond it, and six times as many Spell Points for the spell itself. And it uses up half of the Spell Points a Priority A full mage gets. If you want to have anything like a decent spell selection, you have to replace those... at 25,000Y a pop. Add in the price of the focus hardware, and you've just spent 390,000Y of your starting resources on a magical reflex booster that's inferior to Wired 2, which only costs 165,000Y. Hell, you can go alphaware on the Wired 2 and still come out ahead.

And consider that, if you're a full mage, you don't have that 1,000,000Y A Resources priority available to pay for all this, so that huge price tag is even more painful than it is for sammies...

Posted by: Glyph Oct 5 2003, 12:39 AM

I agree with John. The increase reflexes spell is not close to the level of speed that a sammie can get (especially if you allow bioware - which most GMs do). It lets the mage have a slightly better chance of surviving and an opportunity to do a few extra actions such as ducking under cover. A Force: 1 increase reflexes spell and a sustaining focus for it let a low-resource mage have a chance, and are only part of the arsenal that a high-resource mage needs to buy. Increasing its cost gimps the mage too much for what is a second-rate initiative boost.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 5 2003, 02:55 AM

The solution I always look at as most likely is this:

Increase Reflexes
Type: M * Target: Reaction * Duration: S * Drain: +1(S)
This spell increases the reflexes of a voluntary target. For every two successes in casting, the target gains one extra initiative die to a maximum number of additional dice equal to the force of the spell or three, whichever is lower.

Which means you now need a force 3 spell for +3 dice of initiative. The drain is lower, but you're also going to be rolling fewer dice to resist it because you need more dice on the casting. A force 3 sustaining focus is 45,000 and permit only. Six spell points run you 150,000 for a "cost" of 195,000 for the lot. This compares fairly well with the closest equivalent (wired reflexes 2 with a reflex trigger, for 178,000 ), particularly considering the cyber equivalent represents fully 1/2 of a sammie's available essence whereas this represents approximately 1/4 of a mage's starting spell points (of which more can be purchased cheaply, unlike a samie's essence).

Posted by: Fortune Oct 5 2003, 03:10 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 5 2003, 03:13 AM

Guys,

First of all I am going to do my utmost to discuss the issue without any emotional context and I am asking everyone else here to do likewise.

That said, I rather like Phesma's house rule and I add that our table uses a rule very much like it (except you get +3d6 at force 5 rather than six but that is the only real difference).

Let's compare Increased Reflexes +3 to Wired Reflexes 2 (the closest cyberware counterpart), and I think you will quickly see why a fix is in order.

Increase Reflexes +3:

Benefit: +3d6 initiative anywhere (even astral) [average of +10.5 init]

Cost: 15,000 nuyen and two spell points.

Legality: Legal


Wired Reflexes 2:

Benefit: +4 reaction, +2d6 initiative [average +11 init]

Cost: 165,000 nuyen and three essense

Legality: 4P-Q

Please note that I broke apart the opportunity cost (spell points and essense) and the actual cost you pay in nuyen. I do so because not all mages in fact pay 50,000 nuyen for the spell and focus.

For example, if a mage simply allocated the two spell points without replaceing them, then the actual cost is merely 15,000 nuyen. There is an opportunity cost of 2 spell points but that doesn't have an exact nuyen value.

In another example, it is quite possible with Pointbuy (a canonical char-gen system) to have both 1 million starting nuyen and be a fully awakened mage. In such a case you will probably buy the maximum (50) spell points anyway and so again you don't have any extra nuyen cost for this combination (other than the focus), just the opportunity cost.

Likewise the street-sam doesn't just pay nuyen for wired reflexes. He also pays three essense and while there isn't a canonical way of buying essense with nuyen (which is a good thing btw), it does reflect a severe opportunity cost since the street sam only gets six essense to start with. Indeed the opportunity cost is actually steeper for the street-sam (50%) than the mage (4-8%)

So let's look at it:

Gross Benefit: This is nearly a tie with the edge going to wired reflexes two because the +4 reaction is generally better than the extra die of initiative.

Nuyen Cost: The magical way wins by a mile here by 150,000 nuyen which is no joke.

Opportunity Cost: Again the magical way comes out way ahead. The mage has to dedicate 4-8% of his starting spell points while the street-sam has to dedicate 50% of his essense.

Net Benefit: The magical way is clearly and overwhelmingly better. The reason mundanes don't use it is because no mage (with any sense and most have it) will cast the spell/focus on them because the focus represents a material link.


Now let's repeat the analysis if you need a force 6 spell to get the same effect:

New Improved Init Force 6:

Benefit: +3d6 Init [+10.5 init average]

Cost: 180,000 nuyen

Opportunity Cost: 12 spell points

Wired Reflexes 2:

Benefit: +4 reaction, +2d6 Init [+11 init average]

Cost: 165,000 nuyen

Opportunity Cost: 3 essense

Now the analysis shows that the two are nearly balanced with the street-sam having a slight edge (which is good because speed is a street-sam speciality)

Gross Benefit: Again almost a tie with the wired reflexes coming out slightly ahead.

Cost: Now the wired reflexes has a slight (15,000 nuyen) edge but the two are nearly the same.

Opportunity Cost: The mage still has the edge in this category since this combo only takes 24-48% of the starting spell points while the wired reflexes will still take 50% of the street-sam's starting essence. The gap is much closer but the mage still has the edge.

Net Benefit: The street sam has the edge in two categories (slighly) while the mage has the edge in one (slightly). Thus I would say that this is nearly balanced with the nod going to the street sam.

Conclusion: This is a good houserule at least on first analysis and seems to be balanced.

-Polaris

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 5 2003, 03:49 AM

Tinker: That's better, but still problematic.The two successes for one Initiative die thing is painful (this actually applies to the previous variants as well, but I forgot to mention it earlier).

Consider if you've got what I'd say is a fairly standard starting combat mage, reasonably min-maxed without being ludicrously excessive: 6 Int, 6 Will, 4 Quickness, 6 Magic, 6 Sorcery. This gives 5 Reaction and 6 Spell Pool.

With 12 dice to throw at your Increase Reflexes spell and a TN of 5, you can expect 2-3 successes, which'll give you +1Initiative, maybe +2 if you're lucky. And that's if you dedicate the entire Spell Pool to the casting, which leaves you with no margin of error for soaking S Drain. Even with a drain resistance TN at the minimum 2, you'll be taking L Drain more often than not. If you've got only a 4 Reaction, you can probably make the +3 the majority of the time, if you use your entire Spell Pool, but that still leaves no margin of error on the Drain. If you play it safe on the Drain, you're back down to the +2.

If you really think the spell needs fixing (I don't think it's broken, personally... as it stands, it's not pretty, but it works), I'd suggest bonus Initiative dice equal to Force (max 3... and capping the useful Force that way is also not pretty, but is necessary to avoid munchkinism), but either only one success necessary for full effect, or one success per bonus die. Requiring two successes per bonus die makes it too ineffective.

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 5 2003, 04:44 AM

I don't have any issue with the way the spell is in the book now, and I don't mind the suggestions listed above.

I simply like the unified single spell instead of the three separate spells becuase that's consistent with the way spells were changed in SR. Almost all other spells were unified... treat and heal, all combat and damaging manipulations spells. I just want to see this one make sense incontext by seeing it as one spell.

Since noone in my game has yet taken this spell I haven't had it come up, but some of the suggestions I have seen are good.

The fact or the matter is that virtually all the opponents a SR team will face will have no reflex enhancements. Due to the permanence of cyberware and the costs of anchoring magic on mndanes 99.9% of all corp security and police just dont use it. The people that do use it, if you're competent and stealthy you can nearly always avoid them. But hey, everyone's game is different.

Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Oct 5 2003, 05:19 AM

I've never had a big problem with the spell in general, the only thing we changed is that a force 2 spell cannot give you +3 anything, ever.

But you do compare it to wired reflexes which is not terribly fair. For starters, your force 2 spell is a joke for any mage to take down and I do mean, a joke.
Also, you forget that mages don't do anywhere near as much with their actions as samurai for one simple reason: sorcery dice get used up, firearms dice don't.

Other than that, I don't have a big problem with reflex spells, it depends on the GM, like most other things. My current shaman for instance, is waiting to get rank 3 before getting a force 3 reflex booster tattooed, spending 6 karma will give me force 12 for purposes of resisting people messing with it and my masking and rank 3 will enable me to conceal the spell.

I'd say that whole show is gonna run me a little more than 15k and 2 spell points.

Sunday.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 5 2003, 06:04 AM

Sunday Gamer,

How is the comparison unfair. I already discussed (and pretty convincingly showed) in the prior thread that you can pretty much insure that the focus is down until you need it (such as passing through wards) and up when you do.

Even Cain admitted that dispelling is not an issue in this case.

Because of that, you are looking are a 2 spell point investment (one for the spell and one for the foci) and 15000 nuyen.

Also, sorcerery dice do not get used up. Spell Pool dice do, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that you have to use sorcerery dice for spell defense. You get to use sorcerer dice and/or spell pool dice. That means you can cast with your full sorcerery skill at every pass....and even use it to fight elementals (if astral).

As for your plan, have at it, I suppose. Personally, I would have that pretty far down on my list of priorites especially if I had the masking metamagic technique (which I almost always take early).

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 5 2003, 12:39 PM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 6 2003, 04:22 AM

Posted by: Curugul Oct 6 2003, 05:03 AM

Posted by: Zazen Oct 6 2003, 05:45 AM

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 6 2003, 11:34 AM

Back to the original topic, what you should do is use the MitS to 'create' the spell. If you do, you end up with a spell that has the same drain as the +1D6 spell (+1S), that works exactly like the attribute spells in regards to every 2 successes grants a +1 dice. Exception being that now a Force 6 spell could get to +6Dice for +1S drain.

That's the one and ONLY reason I agree that the exception to an increased Reflex spell should be limited ot Force/2, and why I'd allow a Force 8 spell to have +4D6 and a Force 10 to have a +5D6, etc, etc.

PS, there was a Poll started on this topic, by me, some time back, might wanna go read the comments in there.

Sphynx

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 6 2003, 12:36 PM

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 6 2003, 01:36 PM

The ideas here are along the lines that most people think of when trying to make this spell fit the context of the others. I personally dont use any house rule on it, because the way our games pan out its not considered a "must have" and even when taken is hardly broken. But thats us.

If youre going to make the (inevitable) comparison to cyber enchancements, one must also consider the "non-stat" aspects. Basically that the spell version does NOT add to reaction, CAN be negated by the enemy, and DOES have issues with wards. The cyber version DOES boost reaction, and while it gets through wards okay I suppose a cyberscanner could be problematic (although I see that as very rare compared to wards, at least for consideration on a run).

Those instances alone, coupled with the average total initiative curve of both (I posted a comparision in the other thread but it was overlooked) make the spell version weaker IMO, relative to the cyber.

Another thing to consider is that in order to make the most use of the force 1 sustaining focus, masking can come into play. When this is added to the cost it balances out well as is. This is of course, very style dependant (not everyone will "need" masking for this) but Im just pointing out that if you extrapolate the cost/use out some it can balance whereas before maybe it didnt. The comparison is very situationally dependant for cost to benefit.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 6 2003, 02:51 PM

I dont think anyone (other than Polaris) ever worries about the 'balance' issue between spell and cyber. The purpose of all these threads (up until someone de-rails it by trying to prove balance issues) is to ask a simple question of 'how to standardize the obviously non-standard way of the reflex spell". Cyber having nothing to do with it at all.

Making it like all the other attribute spells is a VERY common idea that people pick up on, though apparently don't always stick too according to the Poll earlier. It makes ALOT more sense to convert it to a single spell with Force and Successes being the factor on how many dice you get. The need for Force and Success aren't because it's unbalanced otherwise, but rather to 'clean up' the last of the spells.

There was a time when ALL attribute spells were learned in the same manner, I recall my first +4 Body spell. The cap of 4 was removed and the Force/Success was added in its stead. Why not the Reflex Spell? And although I imagine in a 4th Edition it will be done the same as the attribute spells, for now everyone who goes through it eventually asks the 'why' and a few of us who have create our House Rule to make more sense and 'clean up' the last of the Attribute spells in the process.

Sphynx

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 6 2003, 02:57 PM

Rofl, true enough. I think if it was changed to a sliding scale (not that it needs to be imo, but it would make sense to fit it in with the others), something such as "2 successes = +1 die, up to a bonus = to spell force" would work well enough. Its similar to a lot of spells but doesnt ream you into needing double the force of the bonus, and I cant think of any spells off the top of my head that limit the bonus to half the force. That would up it to a force 3 minimum for the full bonus, and be difficult enough to cast that, while doable, its hard enough you couldnt just recast all the time. However, it would also make the spell far less useful; I mean we almost never take any "buff" spells as is, and this one only rarely. Changing it would probably cross it off the lists in our game for good.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 6 2003, 03:56 PM

While this method makes it harder to cast, it also makes it significantly easier to resist the drain for. A force 3 version of the spell would have a drain of 2S. Compared to the 3D you currently face when trying to get +3, it's a far sight easier to resist, which means you can throw more dice to successes and probably come up with +2d6 reliably

Posted by: Polaris Oct 6 2003, 06:46 PM

Guys,

Even if you include the reaction bonuses, Magic still comes way out ahead with the rules as written. I can show this by comparing these two combinations:

Magic:

Increased Reaction Force 6 w/Force 6 Sustaining Foci
Increased Reflexes +3 Force 1 w/Force 1 Sustaining Foci

Cyber:

Wired Reflexes +3


Magic:

Gain: +3d6 Initiative, +6 Reaction

Cost: 195,000 nuyen

Opportunity Cost: 14 spell points


Cyberware:

Gain: +3d6 initiative, +6 Reaction

Cost: 500,000 nuyen

Opportunity Cost: 5 essence


Gross Gains: These are identical in both cases.

Gross Cost: Magic is miles ahead here with a 305,000 nuyen advantage

Gross Opportunity Cost: Magic is again miles ahead since the opportunity cost for a mage is 28-56% of your starting spell points while the opportunity cost for the street-sam is 78%(!!) of his starting essence.

Again, magic is overwhelmingly superior which means some sort of house rule is badly needed.

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 6 2003, 07:02 PM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 6 2003, 07:09 PM

Zazen,

I make a cogent, topical, and perfectly fair comparison and you just roll your eyes. 'nuff said.

-Polaris

Posted by: Zazen Oct 6 2003, 07:35 PM

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 6 2003, 07:36 PM

I think he rolled his eyes because you broke it down only to numbers while it is more complex than that. There are advantages/disadvantages to both the magic and the ware that cannot be quantified down into a cash value.

THat post is entirely correct if cash is all you consider, but the vast majority of the time that is only a fraction of what "balance" is in SR.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 6 2003, 07:45 PM

Not to mention that you also state the need for the +6 WP, using 13 of your 12 Force before Foci Addiction. Not to mention that since the Reflex Spell is the one you're always 'recasting' to walk through wards and such the +6 TN for that Improved Reaction makes the spell a near impossibility to recast.

Regardless, start a thread on the wonderful imbalances of Reflexes so we can, for once, stay on-track with the thread about how best to House Rule the 3 spells into a single spell.

White Dwarf,

Yeah, I personally agree with Force 3 for +3 cap, but you have to be careful then about people exceeding 3 dice. If you cap it at 3 dice (sensible) then have a good explanation as to why Reflexes work that way and not attributes (the arguement that I believe caused this to be the last, if ever, spell converted to a single spell), and realize this spell will suddenly always be learned at Force 3. At least with a Force/2 cap people will still learn the spell at Force 4, if for no reason other than 3S drain and never expecting more than 4 successes.

Sphynx

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 6 2003, 08:58 PM

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 6 2003, 09:08 PM

My PC has a Reaction of 5 and 16 successes on his Increased Reflexes. So, having a cap (equal to half the Force of the Spell) is a VERY good idea as it's quite easy to get the number of successes needed to outdo a Sammie otherwise. With it being equal to the Force, I'd be a +6D6 right now. (Hell, with a Reaction of 2 I'd have 24 successes).

Sphynx

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 6 2003, 09:32 PM

How in gods name are you throwing that many dice? To get 16 sucesses at TN5 you need on average to toss 48 dice!

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 6 2003, 10:37 PM

Joe average combat mage has 7 sorcery dice for spellcasting, a spellpool of 6, a reaction of 4, and a willpower of 6 (aka, the troll combate mage archtype). Statistically, he could have 6 successes on his casting (5 spell pool) and take no drain (1 spell pool) with the modified spell (drain +1S).

Bob the Destroyer has 7 sorcery dice for spellcasting, a spellpool of 7, a reaction of 4, and a willpower of 10 (aka, albino gnome shaman). Since he's also following the Bear totem (or pick any other with the bonus), he has +2 dice for health spells. So the best he could do (statisticly) would be eight successes (7 spell pool), and no drain.

Actually, that comparison isn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be At reaction 5, these numbers get a little smoother.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 7 2003, 06:38 AM

2, Force 6 Expendable Spell Foci and 3 Karma Pool for re-rolls. I always throw at least 24 dice for any spell I intend to have with me for a long-ass time.

Sphynx

Posted by: The White Dwarf Oct 7 2003, 08:26 AM

Sphynx good call with the hardcoded limit. It might cause the spell to be learned at a "static" force level, but if swapped to a scaling, no cap version a la the attribute spells you obviously will get imbalance. The more its examined the more this is just an anomoly you cant really get around in a way that solves all the issues, but the current version works fine anyhow, so nbd.

Polaris you cannot make the comparison from cyber to magic without comparing the other factors like cyber cannot be dispelled or lost to an astral attack or the fact that magic costs 30 bp extra which inflates the magic cost. The game does not boil down to some "effect for nuyen" bottom line which you keep trying to get to; there are other considerations. Im tired if repeating the instances where the stat for nuyen comparison breaks down, so Im no longer going to respond to anything posted on the subject. One can ignore these factors should you choose to come up with some "pure, valid" example, but much like a guy in an R&D lab the theoretical comparison wont hold up in play without due attention to gameplay variables.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 7 2003, 08:42 AM

The White Dwarf,

I am sorry to hear that because I noticed the imbalance in actual play and then I crunched the numbers to figure out why. In short the imbalance is quite real and badly needs a houserule....both the experimental (play testing) and numeric analysis show this. BTW, 'research scientists' care very much about experimental data in IRL so the comparison is unfair.

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 7 2003, 12:32 PM

Sphynx, you can't always count on being able to have the spell on you for a long time. I'd wager to say that in most games, mages have to recast their increased reflexes spell after every other run or so, if not more often than that.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 7 2003, 12:43 PM

Agreed TG, but you have to be prepared for it as a GM. Look at my PC with his 12 Karma Quickened spell and 16 successes. I prove right there that a 'permanent' spell is possible with up to +6 (since it's a Force 6 spell) dice for initiative if you don't cap it at Force/2. Or, you could just hard-cap it at 3 dice, ever, but that's also non-standardized and defeats the purpose of trying to standardize it.

Sphynx

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 7 2003, 12:49 PM

How do you handle runs where there is a lot of astral security? If you're not at least grade 3 with masking, (the level at which you can start holding your own against standard astral barriers when synchronizing... you'll probably never get past a force 5 ward at grade 2) I'd be interested in knowing your methods.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 7 2003, 12:56 PM

Well, as I've stated before, I either keep it legal, or take care of the Astral Security long before we arrive at the site. You can click on the background of my character (in my signature) for how our games go. We don't "shadowrun" perse, or when we do actually hit a place, we remove all threats long before we enter the grounds.

Also, check out our Astral Guardian by looking on my page for the character called 'Spirit'. He insures that anyone who shows up to investigate in the Astral doesn't get far. Then you have the whole 'planning' stage where you make sure that the patrols are busy somewhere else, that the response time is timed, and that all your fields are covered. I don't need to stealth if there's nobody to notice I broke through the barrier, or if there's no response (or a greatly delayed response) to my intrusion. It's how you play/plan that makes stealth, not just being stealthy.

Sphynx

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 7 2003, 01:43 PM

Hmm... I don't know if that strategy would work very often in one of my games... Security mages tend to show up with elementals and a "if something happens to me" watcher close behind. If someone's breaking the wards on a building, it also tends to put everyone on alert, and elemental and watcher patrols get tighter. As a carefully timed and orchestrated plan, though, I could see it being very effective (you'd have to do the astral assault within minutes of the physical assault).

Though I can see horror stories floating around about mages who are breaking wards and laying in wait for the astral response to waylay them. It'd make any mage think about a career change.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 7 2003, 01:54 PM

Yeah, it's not something you do every game, but I got bored of planning building hits some 10 years ago in this game. I like the non-shadowrun, shadowrun games. Police/LoneStar jobs, Merc work, post-apocalyptic (bug city), etc are more our style. You can only 'shadowrun' so many times before it gets a bit.... boring.

The few times we hit a building, we have plenty of time to do the Italian Job on it. Anything less is just flavorless. I find it difficult to believe that people who understand the min-max potential of the metatechniques are still hitting buildings game in and game out.

Sphynx

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 7 2003, 02:23 PM

Well, I've never been much for traditional shadowruns, either (our team once got hired to take a Johnson big game hunting... awakened big game). However, I'd still (as a GM) throw in situations where it gets difficult to walk around shattering astral barriers and the like. At the very least, the spell had better be properly licensed on a real SIN. Eventually fake SINs get caught.

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 7 2003, 06:18 PM

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 7 2003, 06:54 PM

Not true. First off, to make the spell castable at Force 1, you'd obviously round-down meaning a Force 5 could get +3D6. Secondly, you have to ignore the 'cumulative increase' of the MitS and give it a 1 time drain increase meaning you end up with a +1S spell. At +1S, you can afford alot more dice to casting instead of drain. Average spell caster rolls 6+dice to cast and 6+ dice to drain with a Spell Pool of 5+. If you take this at Force 3 (which I imagine will be the most common) you end up with a 2S drain which is easily taken cared of with 8 dice (or 6 with a trauma dampener) and allows you to roll at least 8 dice, TN Reaction(most commonly not higher than 5). With a Reaction of 4, you can pretty much guarantee that your 8 dice can get you your 4 successes needed for a +2D6. If you a bit better min-maxxer, you're guaranteed to not take drain nor ever get +1D6.

That doesn't make the spell useless, it only makes the spell not auto-default to +3D6 with +2D6 being an almost guarantee.

Now to compare it to Cyberware is the mistake I think. That's like complaining that Enhance Aim isn't as effective as a Smartlink. Good. A mage character has so many more options than a Sammie will ever have that it's ok if you're a bit slower. If you want the Geasa and Cyber, get that.

There's no way to convince me a +2D6 at +1S is 'useless' to take as a Mage. Hell, learn it at Force 6, cast it at Force 3 until you Quicken it and you have a pretty nice setup.

Sphynx

Posted by: Adarael Oct 8 2003, 03:55 AM

Sphynx sez:

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 8 2003, 06:22 AM

Errr.... John Campbell sez that, not me.

Sphynx

Posted by: Adarael Oct 8 2003, 10:19 PM

Oops. Quite right.

Sorry, I have a 'default' setting for posters that my mind goes back to when it gets confused. In gun discussions, it's Raygun, in magic, it's you. <G>

Posted by: Lilt Oct 9 2003, 11:08 AM

Well Polaris: You should probably include all of the factors in your equation:
People with spells sustained on them are about as astrally stealthy as a one-man trollish thrash metal band. In many buildings that have any form of security the building will have at least a few wards around the most valuable (read shadowrun-critical) areas. Also: Isn't it impossible to attack a ward without the owner knowing? Against any form of roving paranormal security (watchers, elementals, paranimals, ETC) you'd have to mask the foci near-constantly meaning that you either need to be an uber grade (>6th) or so initiate or you have just set-off an alarm and have an anti-mage strike team on its way to meet you.

Also: it is hard to cast the spell on anyone who already has a good reaction, and mages will probably have a poorer quickness than your average sammie type (fewer attribute points to spend). Isn't that a bit of a balancing factor? remember: he who moves first tends to win.

Lastly: The designers of shadowrun obviously followed a different technique making the increase reflexes spell than with any other spell. The current sustem may well have been put there on purpose. You'd be as well arguing that wired reflexes should be cheaper.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 9 2003, 11:24 AM

Posted by: Polaris Oct 9 2003, 11:31 AM

Lilt,

Several things:

1. In of itself, the force 1 focus with Increased Reflexes +3 can be very stealthy. It can also be turned off when you encounter wards and turned on again with very little difficulty.

2. While it is true that you can not breach a ward without the owner knowing, that owner may not be (and if you did your legwork will not be) the mage on duty. That means that the owner-mage has to react and notify security that there is a problem.....or go there himself.

The problem with that of course is that the only way to notify security in *time* is to go astral yourself.....and when I run a team, there is a mage with about 2-4 force 8 elementals sitting on his ass waiting for him to do just that.

3. As for paranormal animals, they are a joke. Anything that is dual natured is helpless against an astral mage or shaman. Anyone that puts out paranormal animals as security may as well just shoot the dumb beasts themselves. The same applies to elementals without immediate magical support.

4. To mask the focus in question, you only have to be a grade one initiate. That's not hard.

5. Any focus that is force 6 or more will blow through almost any ward with impunity. Double-Strength quickened spells virtually ignore wards.

In short, I have covered all these points and many others at great length elsewhere. The designers have simply underestimated the power of foci-sustained spells and overestimated the drawbacks....as do many dumpshockers. I guess that is because too many people still believe in the back of their minds that spells can still be grounded through spell-anchors. That is no longer true, but a lot of posters here (and SR players in general) still *act* as though it were still true.

-Polaris

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 9 2003, 11:45 AM

4. To mask the focus in question, you only have to be a grade one initiate. That's not hard.


Actually.... that's not quite true. To Mask a foci in a manner that synchronizes it with the ward, you get to roll your Gradex2 against a TN of the Barrier, and that's opposed by the barrier using it's Force against the Grade. So, a Grade 1 is going to roll 2 dice, tn 5 and the barrier gets 5 dice, TN 2 (assuming we have a common Force 5 Ward here, and minimum TN is 2).

Your chances if the 5 dice coming up all 1's is pretty damn slim.

Sphynx

Posted by: Polaris Oct 9 2003, 11:50 AM

Sphynx,

That is true, but you simply turn the focus off when going through a ward if it is force one. It is dead easy to recast it and you probably will not take drain doing it.

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 9 2003, 12:26 PM

A reasonable solutionion to the "mage on duty" question is to simply use several mages to create each ward. That way you have four or five guys who create a long lasting ward (particularly handy with alarm wards which you often don't see) and can each get alerted when it's breeched.

I'd say alarm wards are your biggest threat, anyway, since you're simply more likely to walk across them without ever knowing it, and it doesn't go down when you've passed it. Generally, you have to be grade 3 before synchronizing past astral barriers/wards works for anything force 4 or better.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 9 2003, 12:35 PM

TinkerGnome,

Point taken, but with those sorts of resources (we are starting to get into Megacorp territory), your mage may well have those three or four grades of initiation.

However, you are right....for every offensive tactic there is a defensive counter and vice versa.

That said, I have found that in most cases, you will set of the alarm *anyway* so the alarm ward really doesn't matter. For that matter you can have watchers go hither and yon setting off alarm wards as well.

My point is this: If you expect to be detected, and plan on a smash and grab, then wards are really a non-issue....and if you have done your legwork properly, smash and grab works extremely well. After all it takes *time* for even on-site security to respond....and by then it is generally too late.

-Polaris

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 9 2003, 12:57 PM

Well any company which can provide an astral response you would even care about should be able to get three mages to make a ward. Each mage you add, after all, is effectively doubling the time between having to replace it, if it remains unbreeched.

As far as alarms go, I'd actually be more worried about triggering the astral than the physical. The physical response takes significant time to rally and respond, but a couple of mages with half a dozen elementals each can be on you in seconds. (elementals are cheap, after all, if your company bothers hire a mage with some skill in enchantment, something within the scope of a AA or AAA corp, at least, if not most A's)

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 9 2003, 01:24 PM

What does all this have to do with House Ruling an Increased Reflex spell?

Seriously, as has already been stated, for every yin there's a yang.

Bring your Elementals/Mage, I'll Spirit Blast behind my Astral Armour while my Elementals keep the mage busy. This can go on and on what you'd and he'd do... Why do all the spell threads devolve into the 'proper way do runs'?

The House Rule for the Reflex spell is a good one, it should be merged into a single, +1S spell where [ Force(/2 round down) or hard-capped at 3 ] and/or Successes dictate the number of additional dice IMHO. People who have Force 1, +3 spells will obviously disagree, those of us who always learn the +3 at Force 6 will always agree (+1S vs +1D or +3D). People who learn it at Force 3 (to withstand wards without having to re-cast) will lose a dice and go 50/50 on like/dislike.

The important thing is, again IMHO, that it makes sense due to standardization as it's the last of the Health spells to not be merged like this. And if that standardization/fix makes the game world more believable, then it's a good thing. I believe that in future editions they'll either do the merge on an official level, or undo the merge to the other attributes (since +6's are becoming common amongst those of us who min/max).

Sphynx

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 9 2003, 06:57 PM

[Majority of Post Deleted Upon Reconsideration]


I disagree that with Polaris. I further strongly disagree that dispelling isn't an option for taking care of any Sustaining Foci/Quickened Spell. However as evidenced by the person claiming they're not an option there seems to be rather limited imagination at work.


Enjoy you game.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 9 2003, 07:23 PM

Neophyte,

Actually I would say that I have more imagination and a more open mind than most Dumpshockers. I am willing to examine the evidence carefully rather than protect sacred cows....and I am willing to accept what my game experience is telling me.

1. Dispelling really is not a realistic option. Even Cain admitted that. Why? Opportunity cost. Instead of dispelling, you could have attempted to kill the mage and/or destroy the focus instead. Either is much superior to dispelling.

2. You have to see the focus to dispell it. That is not always a given with masking....and it takes another simple action to assense to pierce it while the cloaking effect for the defender is free.

3. For high force foci and quickened spells, dispelling is almost always a wasted action. The target numbers are just too high, and the dice you toss (your magic w/o pool) is just too low.

4. Finally, for the force 1 Increased Reflexes Foci (the topic of this discussion), it won't even be active most of the time. The only time it will be active is in combat, and then dispelling is a very poor choice for all the reasons above.

So before you claim I "lack imagination", try looking and playing the game with a critical eye and ask yourself if I might not be right. I am not asking for agreement on all points, just an open mind.

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 9 2003, 07:32 PM

One thing about dispelling that bears mention, It can be done entirely from the astral IIRC. The person walking around is not going to be percieving most of the time, so an astral entity has lots of undetected time to percieve and pierce masking. He can then initiate combat how he sees fit, and the easiest way to do that is by smacking something with an astral presence. That's how it happens most of the times I see it happen. For that matter yes, I agree Attacking the focus is more effective than dispelling, but for things like tattoo magic and such, or enemies with longer term goals, permanently weakening spells does server long term benefits. Even if the spell is not destroyed, the user still lost some, or many sucesses off of it making it less useful, and there is no way IIRC to get those sucesses added back without spending more karma.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 9 2003, 07:42 PM

Bitbasher,

Actually Dispelling can not always be done from astral. You have to be on the same plane as the target of the spell. Admittedly you could dispell the spell on a focus while astral because a focus is dual natured, but you could not in general dispell a quickened spell that way.

In addition to that, if the spell force is greater than your magic rating, you take physical drain regardless.....and in my experience most quickened spells are at least force 12 and often force 14 or even more.

Finally, you are neglecting two common facts (at least in my gaming experience):

1. The mage in question is most often astral himself. We have found that this actaully gives the mage the greatest amount of flexibility....especially if you can have one mage astral while the other (and again in my experienes most teams have two mages) is on the physical plane.

2. The mage will almost certainly have an elemental bodyguard. While it is true you can blow that bodyguard away, I doubt you can do it before the enemy mage perceives and/or projects to fight you directly.

Finally, in the case of increased reflexes +3 at force one, dispelling is really pointless since it is dead easy even in combat for the mage to bring it back up if he really wants to. If you attacked from astral, chances are he won't bother (since mages are faster than God in astral anyway). If you did it physically, he trades his increased reflexes spell for your life. That is not a hard trade.

In short, I find that while dispelling *can* be used by a clever mage, it is generally a non-issue.....certainly it is rare enough not to be a balanced consideration.

-Polaris

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 9 2003, 09:17 PM

(((( Edit: Fixing Spelling, Missing words to complete phrases (had to throw in a shown to make a phrase read properly), and clarifying some points. ))))

(((( Edit 2: The post and the person it was directed at weren't worth the warning I knew I would recieve. ))))

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 9 2003, 09:18 PM

heh, as we have displayed earlier our experiences are bipolar opposites.

I have never had a quickened spell in my game higher than force 6, and only 2 quickened spells ever.

The mage is never, ever astral except on recon, as that means he cant do jack to help his mundane pals.

I think twice in 9 or 10 years have I ever had more than 2 casters in a party.

95% of my spellcasters are shamen, where they cannot use a bodyguard like that without constant resummoning because of domain changes... and Noone in my game uses elementals for bodyguarding because they cannot easliy get though wards and barriers, same reason PC's are never dual natured or keep quickened spells.

I won't argue that dispelling is rare.. I have had it happen enough times to count on one hand during the last many years. Destroying a foci is far more common, but still pretty damn rare... in fact using any foci other than power or weapon foci is damn rare.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 9 2003, 09:58 PM

Bitbasher,

Experiences do differ, however I think we agree that dispelling is rare (are you listening Nephyte?) and that is enough for me.

Edit: When you have more than one mage on the team, the situation changes. An astral mage can occupy elementals keeping them on the astral plane (and you don't want elementals materializing since they are almost invunerable to mundane attacks). This also means that if the enemy caster has foci, the astral mage can target those with impunity forcing the enemy mage to defend astrally.

Thus the combination of one spellcaster astral and one physical is IMX pretty damned near unbeatable.

Nephyte,

Actually, I have shown quite a bit of tolerance for opinions that differ from my own. I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I do not, however, suffer fools. If you disagree with me w/r/t the rules or the balance implications therein, you have to convince me.

As for dispelling, reread the dispelling rules. You target the subject of the spell rather than the spell itself. In the case of a foci, then yes, you can do it astrally. In the case of a quickened spell, you can not. The rules are quite clear on that.

As for recasting, that depends. You blow your pass dispelling my foci (assuming you can even see it), and I simply kill you. In fact given your antipathy to sustained buffs, I will likely go first. Lose of my Increased Relfexes spell (temporily) vs killing you. I will take that trade any day.

As for being astral, then you are missing a trick. In the first place, I have found that two mages are exceedingly common in groups for many reasons (most of which are not really topical). The projecting mage can be in a completely secure and warded bank vault in near complete safety while his partner can be physical. This is nearly an unbeatable combo.

As for the target numbers to dispell, that is a complete joke. Other than the increased reflexes, you will be looking at target numbers of six which means you will get perhaps a success, maybe two. OK, you weaken me, perhaps reducing my spell pool by one and my willpower by one. Then I turn around and blast you to kingdom come. You would have been much better off targeting the focus instead....of course that means less loot.

Bad, bad, bad. Dispelling in combat is rare and it is rare for good reason. That is one point (I think) that Bitbasher and I agree on. If you really want to be "anti-mage", then use spells like decrease will or decrease charisma.

Finally, your last point, low target number? I don't consider 6 or 12 to be low. And you probably won't get to see my force one Increased Reflexes spell.

As for my being a guiding star, that is exactly how I view myself. There is a lot of groupthink on this board, and I am trying to shake some of it loose. That, naturally, makes me unpopular.

-Polaris

Posted by: Lilt Oct 10 2003, 03:05 PM

I was away for a bit, sorry it took so long to reply.

I believe that my astral one-man thrash metal band argument stands. It's not always easy to both cast a 3D drain spell, hit your reaction with the remaining dice, and maintain a safety margin in the case of a bad day. Also corporate environments are supposedly unnatural enough to have force 1 background counts, I've only ever seen this once but the GM could still add background counts if he feels the need to balance the game.

Then you have the problem that casting the spell again will probably be noticeable by watcher spirits ETC. Spirit goes to tell master, your team geeks spirit, master knows, master sounds alarm.

Unless you're 100% stealthy then on your way out you're going to be moving past wards and probably fighting too (whilst moving at a good speed). Having to re-cast after each ward (or enter into astral combat with the ward, or drop the spell completely) is gonna slow you down a bit compared to the sammie with wired 2.

I agree that the mage would have to go astral, after-all, how else would they communicate? If only they invented small, possibly portable, devices that could be used to communicate vocally with someone when it's inconvenient to astrally project... I dunno. I doubt they will have invented something like that by 1960.


2-4 force 8 Elemental bodyguards are nice. Why don't you factor the cost of one or two of them per run into your equations?

More than one mage can set-up a barrier together, allowing barriers to be created more easily/faster. Theoretically this means there is more than one owner so no-matter-what mage is on duty they will probably be one of the owners of the ward..

Paranimals can theoretically be trained to act differently in the presence of unfamiliar spirits and spell auras in such a way that a handler could identify the threat and radio/subvocalise back to the security base. Biomonitor collars that sound an alarm when the animal dies/falls unconscious may also be effective against your group.

Masking is good for concealing the focus, but if what people here are suggesting is implemented (force/2 bonus from a +1S drain spell) Then masking a force 6 increase reflexes spell (and whatever else you have on you) becomes nigh impossible except for the most drek-hot initiates.

I am, of-course, assuming that if the alarm is sounded then enough security personnel turn-up to threaten your team.

As a final point to end my ramblings on; awakened characters have already spent a lot during character creation on magical power, part of which could be considered to be the ability to cast the force 1 Increase Reflexes +3 spell.

Posted by: Polaris Oct 10 2003, 03:25 PM

Lilt,

Actually, if you have done your legwork, then you can be fairly sure that astral projection is the only way that mage can notify security in time.

In the first place, a good Decker can track and block LTG access from his number....and you will know where he lives because his signature will be all over the wards he put up (the achilles heel of wards btw). Thus, you can be fairly sure that astral projection is the only way he can respond in time.

In the second place, you can indeed have the entire team make the ward. Of course even then, only astral creatures can respond in time and an astrally projecting mage will wipe the floor with any astral response team including dual natured creatures.

As for being 100% stealthy, if you are not, then you don't bother taking down the focus. You simply blast the wards. It is called *smash* and grab for a reason.

I admit that smash and grab is not pretty, and it does not make for a good movie, but it *does* work (and IRL this is the technique sucessful bankrobbers and jewel thieves use....movies notwithstanding).

-Polaris

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 10 2003, 04:15 PM

I agree polaris that dispelling is very rare, largely because of the draconian drain that can be associated with it and the fact that it rarely is completely sucessful on the first shot. If you are actually in combat not not using it as a surprise first shot then I can't really see anyone ever using it unless theres a very specific cirumstance involved...

Posted by: Polaris Oct 10 2003, 06:01 PM

Bitbasher,

The point is that if you have done your legwork, you will know how long you have before security arrives in force. If security holds off an arriving ASAP to enage in force, then most likely they will respond too late.

Alarm Ward are tricky but they can be spotted. If an installation relys on them too much, a single watcher can cause all kinds of chaos.

The original point was the necessity of houseruling Inproved Reflexes to be more in line with other health spells and nerfing them....and I admit I got pulled off topic.

I find from my own analysis that the houserule is a good one. Mages are powerful enough without handing them +10 initiative for nearly nothing....and the disadvantages of the force 1 focus are not nearly great enough to make up for the cost difference (especially when you consider you can buy it off the corner street since it is legal w/o permit).

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 10 2003, 06:07 PM

You can predict _average_ response time for units.

You can narrow that down by knowing the policy/procedure of the security department and the mindset of the person making the call.

That being said, it's never a sure thing.

If you want to cover your bases, drop motion-activated thermal sensors or better yet, take a second and spike on into the ceiling tile. (Think the motion-sensor doo-hicky from "The Rock"). Once activated, it broadcasts a warning signal -- if a team has an orientation device, it might flash the location of the tripped alarm.

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 10 2003, 06:23 PM

Siege,

You might be suprised but that (an average plus an error band) is more than good enough to plan a run around. As I said before RL Jewel Hiests and Bank Robberies (the successful ones) are built on exactly the same priniciple. For that matter many special ops missions are also built on this principle.

-Polaris

Posted by: Siege Oct 10 2003, 06:34 PM

I should have been more specific in my post -- average response time for grunt level assets is easier to predict than say, FRT or SWAT and similar units.

Why? FRT or SWAT doesn't roll out nearly as often, making first-hand calculations difficult. Evaluating based on timed exercises is fine, if you can acquire that kind of background information.

Additionally, you have to take into account the nature of the alarm and the CO making the call. A gung-ho CO might jump the gun and order forces in without thought, especially if it's a hot site that might him look bad. A more calculating CO might hold his units in reserve, blocking off exits and waiting for backup or for the runners to break cover and get trapped in a killing field.

Does security procedure dictate calling all available elements to the site of the alarm (something campus security is famous for) or general lock-down?

Assuming the team knows they've tripped an alarm and know to start the clock on expected response.

(On a complete aside, I want to try using a rigger to put a drone aloft with real time surveillance piped to the insertion team.)

-Siege

Posted by: BitBasher Oct 10 2003, 07:54 PM

And remember, knowing what you think their response time is is all well and good, nut a plan is just a list of things that go wrong. If everyting always works like you planned it, then you really are playing a fantasy game

Posted by: Siege Oct 10 2003, 07:55 PM

That sounds like another line of Murphy:

"A plan is just a list of things to go wrong."

-Siege

Posted by: Polaris Oct 10 2003, 11:50 PM

Guys,

Actually it's a paraphrase from Maj. Gen. Clauswitz in "On War" where he says that "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

That said, it is almost certain that the first units to respond will NOT be SWAT or FRT, thus if you know the response time for the goons, you have a pretty good guestimate for the response time of the elite units as well.

I also remind you all of something else Clauswitz said. He also said that "Without a plan you do not survive contact with the enemy." Smash and grab is a plan, but you have to be flexible enough to improvise too which was the general's entire point.

-Polaris

Posted by: Lilt Oct 13 2003, 01:57 PM

Polaris:
Your state that the astrally projecting mage will wipe the floor with any astral response team? How? There could be 4 or more mages involved in creating each ward, and at-least one of them will be on site to notify the security forces verbally and others could be working in other corp facilities, able to notify other security forces from there.

If the corporation truly can't send enough forces at you to take your team down then there is presumably something wrong.

"Smash and grab" is not always an option. This rules-out un-masked foci from such operations, placing tighter restrictions on using the Increace Reflexes +3 spell compared to wired 2. Even if you take-out the mage, cut-off all communication, and acrry-out the run without a problem, you have still gone to a lot of troubble.

Posted by: Siege Oct 13 2003, 02:04 PM

Too much improvisation means you are no longer operating with a plan. And the more complex the plan, the less deviation you can allow before it ceases to function.

And I think a research center that has an alarm go off in a primary lab will result in SWAT units being deployed. Assuming that the CO does the math and realizes it's not a couple of gang-bangers who managed to slip through his facility's security and into a highly restricted lab.

To send in grunt-level rent-a-cops is a tactical blunder on the order of "no man-sized air ducts" (cheerfully lifted from: "When I become an Evil Overlord) in the scenario above.

It, of course, depends entirely on what kind of structure your're penetrating as to what kind of security responds initially.

-Siege