Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Faelan Apr 17 2011, 07:37 PM

I have been considering running a SR4A game for a while now, but I have concerns over the Magic system as the game progresses. The reason this is the case is because while Magic can increase without limit, every other attribute is restricted. Since you resist spells with a fixed attribute it strikes me that no matter what happens eventually the Magic characters are going to have a completely different level of ability when compared with unawakened characters. In some respects I don't have a huge problem with this since they do appear to be karma sinks, but at the same time I think it could get out of hand to the point where running the game would be a pain since some of the players could essentially become henchman due to completely differing levels of power. So I was wondering if anyone had tweaked the magic system to avoid this. I have been considering linking casting to one of the mental attributes based on the tradition of the caster, and using centering as a casting pool (sort of) allowing it to enhance the spell or resist drain, so while some powerful effects would be possible you would be paying with pain. Also Magic as an attribute would still be necessary since force would still be governed by it. Anyway I am looking for ideas, I want something that works, because as it stands I don't see how a long running game can survive, and since most of my games last a while, I don't want to get into something that will give me headaches down the road.

Posted by: Bigity Apr 17 2011, 07:48 PM

You mean without a hard limit imposed by the rules? The natural limit is 6, and you as the GM control initiation, and can modify that as you see it's necessary.

I've had some issues with climbing Magic ratings in previous editions though, and there doesn't seem to be much you could do about it. You could hurt the mage, but then they'd just take a Geas, and if they didn't, they'd no longer be able to raise Magic again, ever. Since I'm just getting back into 4th edition and the last time I looked at Street Magic was when it first came out, I'm not current on ways to handle it now. Maybe just as the player to go easy on the cheese?

Posted by: Critias Apr 17 2011, 07:50 PM

Remember that in order to improve the Magic attribute, Awakened characters have to Initiate to improve their maximum (which costs karma), then pay to actually increase their Magic (which costs karma). Also remember that improving their spellcasting, increasing their pertinent attributes, bonding with foci, and learning new spells -- to say nothing of improving at anything else at all, ever, this is only mentioning their directly "magical" stuff -- also all costs karma. While a mage is earning all that karma, teammates are also earning karma, and everyone involved is likely rolling in nuyen, to boot, so everyone else is getting better, also. I think you are worrying over something that's not terribly worth worrying over.

It takes a very long-running, karma heavy, campaign before this issue should genuinely matter. I think your best bet is to run a game and see if it becomes an issue, and if so look into tweaking/changing/otherwise controlling the magical players' ability to initiate (which is something a GM should do, anyways) if things get out of hand.

I'm personally of the opinion that a power differential between mages and everyone else does exist to some extent, and I'm not a fan of the skill/attribute cap in general...but this, the "hypothetical unlimited power" issue, is not why I have those opinions.

Posted by: fazzamar Apr 17 2011, 08:25 PM

To take his statement a step further, lets say you have a character with 6 magic at chargen. How many karma will he have to burn each magic increase? Lets see... (these all assume initiation w/ group AND ordeal every time)
6->7: 43 (Initiation: 8, Stat Increase:35)
7->8: 50 (Init: 10, Stat: 40)
8->9: 57 (Init: 12, Stat: 45)

So to get to Magic 9 that takes 150 karma, and if we set the, what I consider to be, average amount of karma earned per session to 4 and playing once a week we're talking 38 weeks to get to that IF the mage put every single point into getting their magic up, which would be surprising.

Posted by: Glyph Apr 17 2011, 08:42 PM

The potentially unlimited potential of Magic is generally not going to affect the average game - it will only come up in high-powered games (where characters start out with more points), extremely long-running games, or for NPCs.

That said, I really dislike Magic being uncapped when everything else has caps. It breaks the overall feel and underlying mechanics of the game world for me. But it's easy enough to fix - give Magic a cap. Not necessarily a low one, but if a master marksman can only get so good after a lifetime of practice, why should a mage be any different?

I would suggest capping Magic at 9, with a similar cap to initiation, with Essence loss lowering both caps (so that getting a point of 'ware means you can get Magic of 8 and initiate grade of 8 ). To counterbalance this, use the optional rule that adepts can get power points in lieu of a metamagic with initiation, and allow awakened characters to ignore one point of background count per two levels of initiation, rounded up (so a 9th level initiate could ignore 5 points of background count). This should keep awakened characters from being game-breaking at the upper end, while still leaving them plenty of room to grow.

IEs and dragons would cap out higher, at 12, with great dragons able to reach 15, but even they should have some limits. They should be more powerful than a PC could ever hope to reach, but they should be survivors because they are cunning, work from behind the scenes, take precautions, and have a lot of resources to draw upon. NOT because they are ludicrous DBZ-level monstrosities that no-sell Thor shots. *Ahem* Just my humble opinion...

Posted by: Fringe Apr 17 2011, 09:25 PM

This might make sense. If you consider initiation to be a sort of magical "augmentation", then the augmented maximum would be 1.5 x the natural maximum.

I also like the idea of ignoring background count with enough initiation (as you say, 1 point per 2 grades seems okay, maybe even 1 for 1; adjust for taste).

Posted by: Tanegar Apr 17 2011, 10:04 PM

What will you do about metamagics that interact with background count (Cleansing, Filtering, and Geomancy are the ones I can think of)? Why take Cleansing or Filtering (which let you ignore background count) if you can ignore background count by default? I think Critias has it: it's just not a problem unless you start with high-powered characters and/or your campaign runs into the multiple hundreds of karma. It ain't broke, so quit trying to fix it.

Posted by: Glyph Apr 17 2011, 10:22 PM

If I adopted those house rules, I would get rid of the Filtering metamagic (the other two - cleaning up a background count, or aspecting it towards yourself - are still useful). As I said, for most games, it doesn't matter, but some people do run high-powered games, one-shots or otherwise. Plus, a reasonable cap on it gets rid of the overpowered Canon Sue crap with immortal elves and great dragons.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 01:57 AM

You forgot the 5 karma you have to spend to join a group. There's also a Logic + Arcana check you'll need to make to join, which isn't necessarily a karma cost but is at least an opportunity cost unless you've got a lot of uses for the skill and stat.

However, with the new SR4A karma awards you should be getting more than 4 per week. 4 is closer to the minimum unless every run is low danger and has a single objective. But yeah, even if you're getting 10 a week that's still a of of play time before there's anything to worry about. And in the meantime the street samurai has been tossing 18+ dice to hit for 9P/-2 twice per pass.

Magic is powerful, but it's not like prior editions. It's beefy, but not overly so.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 02:18 AM

Except that the Natural Maximum will increase with Initiation Grades. Starts at 6, Each Initiation raises that Maximum by a Point. And nothing raises Magic through augmentation (Like Power Foci used to do in previous editions). Honestly, I have never seen Magic get so high it becomes an issue. I have seen a Grade 8 Initiate Adept with a Magic Rating of 11 once. He was not really over the top in any regard. Dice Pools in SR4A for that character were still below 20 for all of his actions.

Ignoring Background count with Initiation is counter to everything Shadowrun. That is why there are Metamagics to help compensate for it, but not just ignore it.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 18 2011, 02:31 AM

I really do not see a problem with magic as written in S4. Sure, there's no theoretical upper limit, but as the DM, you control not just Initiation but also the rate of karma gain, period. A mage will advance exactly as quickly as you allow - no more, no less. It's Summoning that's the busted mechanic.

Related: don't allow a player to create a vampiric summoner of any kind. The ability to dump stolen Essence into Magic is stupidly broken. Much moreso if the PC in question is a summoner. A situation that gets even worse when they take Invoking as their first Metamagic and then pile on, say, two more initiation grades, taking Centering as one of the two others. "So I spend 6 stolen Essence to give myself +3 Magic for the next 12 hours... Then I summon a Force 16 Great Form Air Spirit. kthnx. Yay for Hurricane plus an effective Hardened Armor of 32." Even more lulzworthy when they heavily min/max their drain attributes. If they survive the casting, basically, they win, and will continue to win till they run out of services.

Posted by: kzt Apr 18 2011, 02:41 AM

Overcasting is a much bigger problem. I don't see many magic 9 PCs, but I see a lot of PCs firing off F9 stunballs.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 18 2011, 02:45 AM

I've been seriously considering the following house rule: if you overcast, you take drain BEFORE you roll the spellcasting test.

Posted by: Faelan Apr 18 2011, 03:11 AM

Thanks for all the replies, they are proving helpful. The thing is I really do run long games, and well the examples of "that will never happen" always seems to happen in every game system I have run. Some are better designed and better able to handle the high end of the power scale. I have serious reservations about SR4A because a lot of the controls built into previous editions of SR have been removed by going to a static target number. A system with a static target number generally requires a higher degree of consistency to remain at least vaguely balanced. I worry because spells offer very powerful stackable defensive options which cyberware and bioware do not. Likewise all three lack in the offensive options. In previous editions this was ameliorated by the fact that any target number over 6 reduced the number of successes and well when you got to 12 it kept things in check, and well it did not matter how many dice you were going to be rolling. SR4A is definitely set up for a more dice = more successes, and when one characteristic in the game which can influence things as much as magic is given a completely free reign (yes I know GM control, well if it requires it, it is just not designed that well) it is a recipe for issues. I am just looking for options within the framework of the mechanics which would provide the kind of play I want to see supported at my table from the beginning to the very highest strata of the game.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 18 2011, 03:38 AM

Every one of those stackable defensive options requires one of two things: that the mage take a cumulatuve -2 penalty to life per spell sustained, or that the mage spend karma - either quickening a spell, or bonding a focus (you can bond foci with BP as well, but eh). Note that quickened spells may be dispelled (the invested karma is outright LOST) and foci deactivated.

As far as things that require GM control - do you suppose that your cybernetic characters won't go nuts with more and more and better ware if you give them too much nuyen too quickly? Yes, there's still a hard cap on it even with optimal ware, but even so, things can get pretty silly if characters get too rich. Effectively, karma is to awakened characters as nuyen is to everyone else. ... And then, to add to all that, Mundane characters get karma, too.

Not to mention, awakened characters aren't the only ones with no upper limit on a relevant attribute: technomancers do the same thing with Resonance. And you can do stupid things with submersion grades. My personal favorite: skin link + living trodes plus extra init pass hand to hand expert with an essence point or two of cyber/bioware to enhance hand to hand combat. If he successfully touches his opponent, said opponent is in VR and hot-simming, where the technomancer's sprites are waiting. Even if the sprites (and possibly Black IC programs) don't kill said enemy, the moment the technomancer lets go, his enemy suffers dump shock.

Naturally, this guy knows krav maga.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 03:41 AM

Don't forget that the crazy magic character can get augmentations, too. Probably more, because he has extra nuyen (if it's not all spent on foci).

I dunno if 'Technomancers are nearly as bad!' is a good argument that neither is imbalanced. I dunno how he got within melee range, though.

Posted by: Critias Apr 18 2011, 03:46 AM

I have to disagree with this sentiment. For edition after edition now, Shadowrun has been clearly stating that Initiation isn't supposed to just be a way to casually spend karma like someone else spends nuyen, and nonchalantly pick up overwhelming magical power. It's always supposed-to-have-been a GM approval thing, a major step in a character's advancement, and a big ol' hurdle to leap. It's not supposed to be something that's neatly all done between adventures and behind the scenes, as the player character swings by a McMage's and picks up an Initiate Grade Value Meal. They suggest whole adventures based around a mage trying to get himself up the next rung on the ladder, with major RP going on with magical groups, physical or astral ordeals and quests, and all sorts of stuff that the GM absolutely has control over.

That's all the "GM control" clause that you seem so disdainful of, and it's always been there.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 18 2011, 03:57 AM

I agree 100%.



True. This particular aspect annoys me a bit, actually. More for mages than for adepts or technomancers. I tend to want ware to negatively impact casting more than just the Essence loss, which is admittedly harsh in and of itself.



In this guy's case? He prefers to do it with a handshake, actually. "Pleased to meet you, sir, my name is... Sir? Are you all right? Sir?"

Posted by: Faelan Apr 18 2011, 04:01 AM

Look, I am not a newb so please save the patronizing tone when it comes to GMing, I've been doing it for thirty years now, I asked for system advice, not how I should look at it, or how I should count entirely on my GMing ability to keep things going. I am fully aware of the limitations of magic, and the use of cyber and bioware, and yes I know Resonance could have the same issue, and I know that the game is perfectly playable as is. Yes I understand Initiation is a RP based control, but after the player jumps through the hoops you as the GM set up for him what then. Sorry no disdain here, but seriously when the GM is the only thing keeping a rule from breaking a game it deserves to be looked at. In previous editions controlling initiations was no where near as important due to the way the target numbers were set up. You hit a point of seriously diminishing returns, in SR4 that point never really occurs.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 04:06 AM

Psh, don't drag me into this. I was talking to Scyldemort.

Posted by: Critias Apr 18 2011, 04:11 AM

Not for nothing, but does it feel silly to in one breath insist you've been GMing for so long you know all about how to do it, and in the next breath to remind people you're asking for system help? Honestly, it's a little grating for someone to have a thread with a question, and then snap at people when they try to help out. I genuinely wasn't out to be patronizing before, but the chip on my shoulder kind of comes back into play when someone starts a post to me with "look" like that.

As far as system help goes, what exactly are you worried is the problem? That Magic has no cap? That other attributes and skills do have caps? That the karma cost of raising attributes is too low? That the cost of initiating is too low? That karma rewards are too high? That spellcasting is innately more powerful/efficient than mundane activities? That the lack of a variable target number changes how power/efficiency can be measured?

These are all different issues, and each of them would require a different house rule suggestion. Take your pick, really, because in different ways each of them are valid complaints, issues, or concerns that I can totally understand a GM having. There are probably a dozen house rules for each one that have been suggested at various times, so in an effort to keep you from having to wade through all of those, I thought I'd remind you that the problem could potentially be nipped in the bud by (a) not worrying about it until/unless it becomes an issue, a couple hundred karma down the line, and (b) delaying the point at which it might become an issue even further, through further controlling the rate at which Initiation occurs.

Sorry if those suggestions were taken as snubs or slights, it wasn't my intent. It's just that, of the problems I'll readily admit that I feel SR4 has, this isn't one of them, because there are ways for a GM to mitigate and control it. I try to, personally, save my house rules for times I feel the house rule is absolutely necessary, and I also try not to suggest house rules to other people until I feel the same way.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 04:20 AM

Why have stick n' shock bullets when mages can do the same for free?
Why have skimmers when you can be a centaur?
Why have the spell "stoneskin" when a monk or fighter or dwarven defender or barbarian can get DR by default? (DnD, for anyone who hasn't done that one)

The answer is the same for all these questions: simpler and more accessible. initiating at all takes a while. Initiating to the degree these guys are talking about takes forever and then some.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 04:28 AM

I keep telling myself I need to make a mage character in order to force myself to read the magic rules in depth, but I feel I've read enough to question this.
Wouldn't an initiation grade of 8 allow you to raise your magic up to 9 again? Then again, capping magic would necessitate some re-wording of the rules. Maybe this is one of those things.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 04:36 AM

You get diminishing returns on Magic pretty quickly, since it's very difficult to make a guy more dead. Once you get to the point where you can regularly manabolt someone for over 10P after resistance and can regularly get 6+ hits on every non-combat spell, what exactly are you spending karma on magic for?

Posted by: kzt Apr 18 2011, 04:40 AM

Being able to do it in orbit? That's what the Ares bughunters do.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 18 2011, 04:41 AM

I realize this might be a touchy subject, but it is my belief that lack of a cap on the magic attribute is irrelevant in 90+% of shadowrun games.

Your average starting magician has 5 in their magic. Assuming 7 average karma a run(taking the average of the 6-8 accepted), it takes approximatly 5 runs to get 6 in your magic, another 2 to initiate, and another 5 to 6 runs to get a 7 in magic. Your looking at a dozen or more runs just before the magician gets a 7, which mind you, isn't incredibly powerful(trolls starting with a body in the double digits is common, and most characters with 'ware I've seen start with 5(7) agility). After that you are looking 8+ runs for each additional point of magic, which takes quite some time. A what does each point of magic get you? +1 to sorcerery and conjuration rolls(not a huge bonus, will take a very high bonus before becoming irrelevant), and the ability to use spells/spirits 1 force higher without taking physical drain(which notable magic gives you no increased ability to absorb drain).

It takes a hugely long time to improve your magic attribute, longer and longer with each point above 6, and you pay for it, you really do, and remember the example above, those times are short. Thats a magician who a)isn't increasing any skills, b)isn't increasing any non magic attributes(including their drain attribute), and c)isn't binding any foci. While is is true magicians have no ceiling, it would take an absurdly long time for their magical abilities to get so powerful that it becomes unmanageable.

And remember, while the magician is doing that, the other characters aren't just twildling their thumbs, their increasing their skills and attributes, buying positive qualities, and installing increasingly better 'ware. 'ware(which magicians can't benefit strongly from without sacrificing their magical ability) while having a ceiling has a very very high ceiling with deltaware, to the point I've never seen a character that didn't feel like they couldn't advance anymore.

In fact, the only times I've every seen magicians being "overpowered" have always occured for 1 of 2 reasons, a)the GM never uses magical and astral defenses(they'll use guards and cameras for physical, ice and hackers for matrix, and maybe just a ward for astral), and b)The GM gives out way little money(While it is true karma gives magicians more power than any other archtype, without using 'ware nuyen is considerably less useful for them, meaning that if a GM gives less that 5k every run, of course the person who needs karma and not nuyen will prosper.

If the lack of a glass ceiling for magic is becoming a problem, either a)The GM needs to rethink how they balance the game, or b)the campaign has run on way too long and you might want to start a new one with fresh characters.

And to put another point, it IS the GM's job to make sure the game is balanced. The whole entire point of PnP games is that they are infinitely more flexible than electronic games, but the disadvantage is that the only thing that truly keeps the game running is the GM. Just as the book doesn't prevent you from having to roll dice for yourself, the book also doesn't prevent you from having to keep out of hand. The rewards for a run, the gear and equipment available, the challenges the party must over come are all 100% under the GM's control.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 18 2011, 04:44 AM

Diminishing returns technically does occur once you max out your drain attributes, it just takes a while - sure, you can always get another die to resist drain with by increasing your initiation grade (if you have the centering attribute), but every point of magic is going to increase the potential drain you can take by +1P. Given that you're only likely to get 1 hit per three dice you roll, mages get to the point where they can no longer cast full powered spells.

Assume we have a mage with a willpower of 9 and a logic of 9. Let's give him magic six and six initiation grades. 24 dice for drain tests, and his drain from a maxed out spell is going to be 6 plus or minus spell modifiers. Normally, he should be fine (unless the spell has a DV of +3). He ups his magic and init grade both by 1 (7, 7). His drain from a maxed out spell is now 7 plus or minus spell modifiers.

8, 8: 8P+/-, 26 dice, no damage on average unless spell is at least DV +1
9, 9: 9P+/-, 27 dice, no damage on average unless spell is at least DV +1
10, 10: 10P+/-, 28 dice, takes 2P on average, +/- DV modifiers
11, 11: 11P+/-, 29 dice, takes 4P on average, +/- DV modifiers
12, 12: 12P+/-, 30 dice, takes 6P on average, +/- DV modifiers
13, 13: 13P+/-, 31 dice, takes 8P on average, +/- DV modifiers
And so on.

He could make a Drain Pact to help him, but Drain Pacts are addictive, and the spirit can cut off the service at any time (and they often demand karma as payment to keep that increasingly addictive sweetness flowing), and now we are traipsing down the path of burnout through addiction. Foci present the same problems with addiction, of course, which is a great way to lose points of Essence.

Not to mention, an opposing magician can always just dispel the quickened spells that are increasing our hypothetical magician's drain attributes. Or we could have geomancy that is aspected against the magician (which he can negate temporarily with appropriate metamagic), or any number of other things.

Posted by: darthmord Apr 18 2011, 05:58 AM

Well, you cannot have more Grades than Magic rating. So if you had Initiation of 8, you had 8 Magic already. So you could be anywhere from Magic 8 to Magic 15 at the time you reached Initiation Rank 8.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 06:01 AM

Will more magic increase your range? I thought you would want the hawkeye quality, or lots of myometric rope for that.

Posted by: Thanee Apr 18 2011, 07:09 AM

Just put a maximum on Initiate Grade equal to 6 (or Essence (rounded down), whatever is lower).

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: bluedao Apr 18 2011, 09:52 AM

The oppositions counterspelling scales at the same rate.
A bullet to the mages brain scales at almost the same rate.
Ambushes don't have to scale.

Their are many ways to deal with a omg i have magic 9000 mage. Their not what you have to watch for, frankly their easy to deal with cause their dumb. You have to watch for the clever mages. Their power lies in their flexibility and ability to adapt in ways no other kind of character can. Their the ones that will use a force 1 fire spirit to set off the fire alarm causing the entire building to lock down. Their the ones that will use magic fingers to pinch the waitresses causing a bar room fight to break out. Or who use their down time to teach their bound spirits muay thai. Fear the mage who realizes he isn't playing DnD, not the one who can kill you deader then you've ever been dead before.

Mages are scary from magic 1 on.

Posted by: Fortinbras Apr 18 2011, 10:02 AM

I have difficulty believing someone who uses the word "newb" has been doing anything for thirty years.
Unlimited Magic will not be a problem for your group. By the time it's an issue for your mage, everyone else will have a body full of deltaware and an army of drones to do their bidding.
If it's that big a deal, then: Magic maximum = 9. Done and done. I'll print it out in a pdf and call it a supplement if you want to make it official.
I also find it difficult to reconcile your distaste for static numbers and your feeling that GM fiat equates to a "broken" system.
If you really have been GMing for as long as you say, I'll presume your familiar with the OSR v. 4E argument of Rules v. Rulings(If not, it's well summed up http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3159558) I also feel safe in the idea that someone gaming since John Lennon was still alive is more likely going to fall into the OSR camp, so your need for "system advice" seems a little left of center.

What I feel you are trying to do is make us sell you Shadowrun 4. Talk up it's positives, play down it's negatives and dissuade your fears and doubts in the hopes that you might be so kind as to grace our meager system with your trepidations consent. I'm not going to do that. You know your group and what they like better than I do. You know what they like, what they hate and what they'll exploit. You've also taken a good look at the SR4 book, so you've got a idea of the system. You have the information you seek, so an attempt to goad folks into an argument over hypothetical system mechanics accomplishes nothing.
If you like it, play it. If it's not for you, don't.
Just don't jump on board, claim our system is broken and then demand we fix it. That dog won't hunt.

Posted by: Faelan Apr 18 2011, 10:31 AM

Sorry I stirred up a hornets nest, it was not my intent. I have examined the game in detail, own all the books, even ran a couple short mini-campaigns, but I don't like the way the magic is uncapped it creates a bias I am not entirely comfortable with. I guess I will just have to run with it and use initiation as its singular control valve.

"I have difficulty believing someone who uses the word "newb" has been doing anything for thirty years." -Fortinbras-

Once again if you took offense, felt I was trolling, or trying to whiz on your game, I apologize. I have owned every edition of the game, and while I was much more active with it during mostly the early 3rd edition years, I have always had a soft spot for the setting, and have considered seriously exploring it again since 4th came out. While I feel 4th has cleaned up, and fixed many of the problems or rather clutter of older editions, the Magic System is the one place where I feel that they took a step back, and it might not even entirely be the mechanics, but the individual spell descriptions. As to my use of an idiom which has nothing to do with my actual age, or duration of involvement, though if I were to use a similar word frozen in the chrysalis of the 70's I might more appropriately say noog or newg indicating the new guy, so once again sorry for offending you.

Posted by: Irion Apr 18 2011, 10:40 AM

High magic had been a problem, when the attributes for so damn cheap.
(Because the attack pool went through the celling, but the defance pool stayed the same)
(It is still a problem, if you allow the "I take ware, I buy magic up from one to two" kind of stuff)
But without it, it aint.
If you have to pay 50 Karma for this one point of magic ( nine to ten), you wonder how this could be worth it in any way.
Only with background count. But having a backgroundcount of 6 would give you 6 dices less for your drain pool.
So in any way you would be better of getting automatics 0 to 5 and agility 2 to 3. And you can still got some Karma left.

(I still dislike how BC is managed, but thats an other slice of cake)

Posted by: Fortinbras Apr 18 2011, 11:11 AM

No offense taken. You felt disrespected and unheard, so there was a bit of a lash involved, and thusly I felt the same way. No harm done. I'm also going to be in Critias' game a Texicon, and feel we Texans have to stick together.

As I said, by the time the mage's Magic gets out of hand everyone will have a Thor missiles from space anyway. I've yet to hear from anyone about a mage surpassing the abilities of the rest of the team because he had too high a Magic attribute. But if you feel it's an issue, cap Magic at 9. It's not a book rule because you want to leave such things open to dragons and Immortal Elves and what-not.
If the mage get's to 9 and you feel it's not enough, the ambient mana level of the Sixth World just increased to to whatever.
As for why most mages don't just let their magic go up and up and up, it's because 150+ Karma folks are extremely rare. Most Shadowrunners don't last that long and most normal people don't accumulate Karma that quickly. If you find someone with enough kaboom in their rear view to accumulate that much Magic, they pretty much should have that much Magic and be major player in the Sixth World. The type of mundane with enough Karma to push a mage past a usable limit is Damien Knight.

But do take it easy on the internet slang. At best it makes us sound like a kid counting his 100 pokemon. At worst it makes us sound like the old guy at the club. Now I'm not old, but I'm too old for the club.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 11:14 AM

This is a point i have never understood, getting a super high (10+) magic doesn't really give you much of anything in a way of power boost over having a magic of 8-9, except maybe that you can go up into orbit and still use magic, which isn't much of an use on a shadowrun campaign.

And ofcource if you give the mage an even closely equal in power opposition, there isn't much he can do thanks to counterspelling.

Posted by: Thanee Apr 18 2011, 11:20 AM

I don't think there is a whole lot, that can effectively deal with a Magic 9000 Mage. Maybe a Magic 10000 Mage. Or the Drain.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 01:03 PM

And that would change anything how? You take the drain regardless of whether the spell is effective. In actuality, you take it as you cast, so it really changes nothing. And really, A F9 Stunball has almost no drain to it whatsoever.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 01:08 PM

Actually, that point arrives at about magic 9 in SR4. Assuming, of course, that you allow that advancement, which seems obvious from your posts.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 01:29 PM

I have to agree with Fortinbras, and It cannot be said enough. High Magic characters are rare. And in fact, are more common in 3rd Edition than in 4th Edition. At least from my experience. Since every character stareted out with a 6 Magic, by default, in earlier editions, it was easier to gain that high magic rating. Especially since it was granted automatically each and every time that you Initiated. 3 Initiations and you were at a 9.

4th Edition, that is no longer the case. I woulds argue that Most Mages DO NOT start at the 5-6 Range as was stated earlier. Most mages I have seen in 4th start at Magic 3-4, with the odd one at Magic 5-6 (Yes, Yerameyahu, I know). At that point, Initiations cost points, and yet you do not increase in Magic along with the initiation, you have to raise the Magic attribute seperate. We have a fairly long running game, with characters in the 300-350 Karma range. Our Magician has a magic of 7, and 5 Initiate Grades. He really has no need to have a higher magic than 7, as the things he wants dead usually die with a single spell. Why put the points into something that gives out such little return on investment (you can only be so dead, after all)? Especially when the mage is in need of additional Spells, additional Skill increases, additional Foci (he only has 2 currently), Need for increased Attributes, and even the need for new skills.

Put a mage in a white room, and you will quickly come to the conclusion that he is so overpowered that he should never be allowed into play. His magic can go through the roof, and no one can compete with him on any level. Put that mage into the World he lives in, and it comes out completely different. Life happens, and the points that he wanted to spend on that new Ally Spirit he has been saving up for go into the trash as he uses those points to cover a hole he has discovered because of lack of Skill, or lack of Spell. I see it happen all the time.

Posted by: Fringe Apr 18 2011, 03:21 PM

What I'm trying to suggest is to consider initiation to be the augmentation. ("If you consider initiation to be a sort of magical "augmentation", then the augmented maximum would be 1.5 x the natural maximum.") Under such a system, initiation would do nothing to the natural maximum. (Of course, then there's additional tracking of being able to have a certain "augmented" Magic vs. actually having a different Magic score if you haven't paid to raise the Magic score.)

"Counter to everything Shadowrun"? I disagree, since you point out that metamagics are available to compensate, and especially since the Cleansing power allows the complete (albeit temporary) removal of an existing BC (assuming the initiate rolls well enough). Clearly, it's not RAW, but such a house rule wouldn't necessarily destroy the "Shadowrun-ness" of the setting or game. If it does, then you're overusing BCs.

I'll agree with you on one point: I also have never seen a Magic rating get high enough to become a problem, at least not in 4th ed. Quite the contrary, I've seen more than one mage initiate multiple times while never increasing Magic. (My Missions character, for example, is an uncybered grade-2 initiate with Magic 5. There just isn't enough Karma...)

Posted by: Fringe Apr 18 2011, 03:34 PM

But the suggestion to take the drain before the spellcasting test does one thing: If you fail to soak all of the drain, what's left would give you the appropriate wound modifier to the spellcasting test. True, a F9 stunball/bolt/whatever spell has almost no drain, but occasionally a point or so will get through.

I disagree with this house rule, though. I think there's enough of a cost to cast spells in the drain as written to inspire caution. Where I suspect a lot of people have a problem is where the stun spells have lower drain than other combat spells. I'm not sure where that line lies, though, since you have to balance the usefulness of the spell (doing only stun damage, unless you overflow the target's stun monitor) against its limits (having no effect if the target lacks a stun monitor, like a drone or vehicle). I suspect the usefulness outweighs the limitations in most cases, so if I had been writing the spell list stunbolt/ball would be at least even with manabolt/ball as far as drain. On one hand, a mage can learn multiple spells and choose which one to cast based on situation. On the other hand, you have characters like my Missions character whose only combat spells are stuns (for roleplaying reasons), but are in trouble against drones.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 03:37 PM

4 karma a session? You clearly play with increased karma costs (5x New Attribute) but at the old Karma rewards level (max 7 per session) and not the new (average 7 per session).

Posted by: Cheops Apr 18 2011, 03:52 PM

The problem you are going to run into in a long campaign, if you have a clever player, is a mage who plows most of their points into increasing their grimoire. The single biggest break point of magic is the sheer versatility of spells and the number of unique tricks they have. You should be happy if your player spends all his karma on Magic attribute instead of more spells -- he is severely crippling his ability. 5-6 Initiations is usually all you'll ever need to get the Metamagics you are looking for. If you want to allow a player to have more metamagics than his Magic attribute allows just use the optional rules in Street Magic. That may alleviate the need to keep raising Magic.

I should be so lucky to have players that get off on casting their force 10 powerbolts (well, I have 1 player like that) -- most of them prefer finding clevers ways to wreck my carefully planned runs with one spell I didn't consider. Levitate and Clairvoyance tend to be big culprits. Honorable mention goes to Shapechange and Mind Probe.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 03:54 PM

Understandable...

Yes, I see much more in the way of Initiation than I do in the Increase of Magic Rating. And you hit it right on the head. There JUST ISN'T enough Karma , which is why I think you are worrying about it for no reason.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 03:58 PM

You cannot have drain without the Spellcasting, though, as it has not happened yet. Drain is a result of the spellcasting, not the other way around, which is why it does not work as intended.



Spell selection is Key. It is why my current Magical Character (Mystic Adept with 2 Spellcasting, 3 Adept Split) has 31 spells or so(with a list of another 30 or so to learn) . And honestly, that is what makes a versatile mage. Spell Selection is King, not how powerful a spell that they can cast.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 04:09 PM

Trying to pull this back on topic and identify/rectify Faelen's specific concerns:

The attributes that you resist with are usually easier to boost than magic (except Willpower for soem reason), and counter spelling is there to augment them as well. While it is true that a mage at 150 karma has a 8 or 9 magic, he's still only tossing 15-ish dice and the other characters have had 18+ dice in their specialties since character creation.



I think this is a large part of the disconnect people are feeling here. you don't see how it can possibly work, when many of the posters have sat at the table and watched it work.



Have you seen the kinds of things someone can cram into their body? Wired reflexes, bone lacing, pain editors, and all the rest don't require any karma at all and they don't come attached to a -2 dice penalty for sustaining spells. I guess I'm just not seeing the lack of options taht'ware is supposed to have. What sorts of high-powered combos worry you?



All three what? If you mean magic, cyber, and bioware then I'm just confused, since it sounds like you're saying they're balanced offensively. If you're saying 'ware and something else, then in general those things don't need a lot of offensive options because a bullet to the face stops just about anyone in their tracks.



A recipe for what issues. Perhaps if you had specific concerns we could help more? In general counter spelling + base resistance rolls means the attacking mage is at a disadvantage. On defense the mage might have the edge, but only if he's willing to negate his dice pools or drop a lot of karma. In social situations the face is much better than the mage since even Control Thoughts is only a die pool modifier.



The GM is not the only think holding the rule in chekc. The rule itself is. What are the other players doing with the 150 karma the mage spent to get 3 extra dice?




Can you explain the bias you're seeing? Is it a gut feeling of "that ain't right," a technical flaw you can lay out in detail, or something you've seen in actual play?

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 04:24 PM

Mage with 9 magic should have much more then 12 dice, hell all of my starting mage builds have more then that for their speciality.
Both of the following are combat spell dice pools of mystic adept characters:
Magic 2 + spellcasting 4 + specialization 2 + mentor 2 + spellcasting focus 5 = 15 dice
Magic 4 + spellcasting 4 + specialization 2 + mentor 2 + power focus 4 = 16 dice

So if a pure mage character with magic 9 only ha 12-ish dice, somethink is seriously wrong.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 04:29 PM

Admittedly, that's the 'obscene munchkinism' school of thought. You absolutely can make it much higher, but some people have asked 'why bother'?

For me, the real 'danger' of a (unrealistically-) high karma Awakened is the Mysad with augmentations. More Magic doesn't make a spellcaster vastly stronger than Mäx's 'starting' examples, but more PP (and of course metamagic) sure does.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 04:37 PM

Sorry, had a brain fart. It should have been 15-ish dice. I was ignoring specialization and mentors because they don't apply every time you use the ability, though you're right that they're worth another 4 dice. I'm also ignoring power foci because we're talking about 150 karma spent towards initiating and raising magic. Your numbers are adding another 32 karma on top of that.

Then again, let's go ahead and include all of that. The basic magician's starting pool is 5 Magic + 5 Sorcery + 2 Mentor + 2 Specialization = 14. After 32 karma it jumps to 18 from a power focus. Why on earth is he spending 150 karma for another 3 dice? And did he never get any other foci, quicken/anchor any spells, or realize there was a skill he wanted that he hadn't started with?

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 04:42 PM

Looking through this, it looks like a few people have been claiming that unawakened characters lose to mages in the long run.
Can someone please counter these points?

• Pain editor to make stun pretty much useless for the first attack.
• Weapons have base DV, allowing them to be heavy hitters even before rolling, and you can get enough attack dice that rolling reaction, or even reaction + dodge isn't ever going to make you miss.
• Sammies will dump into reaction, and sometimes intuition, thus pretty much ensuring they go first in combat. At the game stage you guys are talking about, the first person to act decides who lives and who dies.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 04:51 PM

Don't be silly, longbowrocks. For one thing, anything X can do, mysad can do better. Sustained/anchored/quickened/adept power buffs for the Initiative, infinite LOS spells for the shooting (which don't have to be stunbolt), etc. Not to mention anything about spirits, utility spells…

This is specifically in the crazy-long run, of course. In the short run, things are a little better, which is good; that's when most games happen.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 04:55 PM

Ok, that make much more sense, i was mostly thinking "12 dice, wait a second if you have a magic 9 then spellcasting skill at rating 3 already gets us that"

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 04:57 PM

Most characters should have at least a 4, if not a 5 (the skill group not being worth the BP--Banishing = Useless).

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 05:04 PM

I read that as:
Cumulative -2 penalty/how? you're already dumping all your karma into magic and initiation/(don't have the book with me I'll get to this later)/hella expensive and can never compete with bioware unless you have dozens of power points (even then you can't simulate pain editor)


Infinite LOS is nice, in the rare situations where your LOS is unobstructed by buildings for more than the minimum range increment of a holdout pistol. Even then, there's camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree.


Lets talk crazy long run. We all know sammies will wallop a mysad's patooty in the short run.

Your move.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 05:08 PM

No, it's not a choice *between* those. It's having the option to do any/all of those.

Are you artificially limiting the discussion to melee range? That's ridiculous. And the Awakened character is better at "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree"—tons better. And astral sight defeats most of that.

Again, *anything* the sam can do, the mysad can do. Plus spells, astral sight, PP, spirits, metamagics…

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 05:08 PM

Not all Spellcasters are Veteran or Elite Casters though... In fact, not many are. A Skill of 3 is a Professional Rating after all. Just because you CAN do a thing (Get a Skill above 3) does not mean that you SHOULD. The skill should reflect the Character, and I am sorry, if you were so skilled at Magic (Skills 5+), The corps would likely never let you go, or you would be working for them shortly after they discovered your potential, for those who started outside the Corporate Environment. Magically Aware people are a Rarity, after all, and ones so skilled (or so powerful for those with a Magic Rating above 3) are even rarer.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 05:20 PM

Banishing isn't useless unless your GM is a jerk and makes every spirit bound with 30 services.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 05:26 PM

I dunno. The threads demonstrating that Banishing is useless seemed pretty convincing. *shrug* IIRC, it's always worse than just Stunbolting (less effective and/or more dangerous).

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 05:26 PM

Actually, the number of services and the effectiveness of Banishing is related to the number of services that a player character could reasonably get (without edge) on any given force of spirit.

The Banisher rolls Banishing + Magic, which is resisted by the Spirit's Force + Summoner's Magic (if bound). Net hits are subtracted from the spirits services.

If it's a low-force spirit, the spirit's owed services are going to be high (Magic + Binding - Force*2). If it's a high force spirit, it's going to have a lot of dice to resist banishing.

And it takes a complex action. Versus just stunbolting it to death.

Posted by: kzt Apr 18 2011, 05:39 PM

No, it allows you to still cast spells in -12 background count.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 05:43 PM

Don't you mean (Magic + Binding - Force * 2) / 3? Unless we're assuming that every die for the binding is a success.

But I agree that you typically don't want to banish a bound spirit. A summoned one though, is usually easier to banish than he is to stun bolt to death, especially if he's of a type that gets counter spelling and has enough force that your sammies can't just kill him with a gun faster than you can say "heeby jeeby mumbo jumbo."

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 05:46 PM

Each one has its downsides. All those downsides stack in the end when you're trying to cast spells.
the -2 penalty from sustaining one spell, in addition to having 1 less magic than you could because you invested in anchored spells, totals to 3 fewer dice than you would have rolled otherwise.
Sammies can have a similar issue, but in their case they just add recoil compensation.


No, don't worry about that. I don't even like melee. I was just pointing out that infinite LOS seldom comes in use (at least in our games) I told our mage in our last session that he had infinite range when provided with non technical LOS. He was pleasantly surprised, but we still didn't get a chance to use it. I was even ready to use MRSI with my bow from 720 m away to get multiple simulatenous impacts on all the building's supports.


Great. Now nobody can see anybody. We all win. Except the sammie can use thermographic, ultrasound, and technical instruments for sight, many of which will not be fooled by magic.


What is this I don't even. Aren't there like five ways to defeat astral sight in the core book alone? Again, I'm not a huge magic buff, but there are a few plants with astral projections in gear (runner's companion?), one of which you could feasibly make a gillie net out of, and a few qualities to disguise or remove your astral presence spread throughout the books.


I still don't see anything on par with the pain editor.
Or platelet factories.
Or ridiculous internal armor from cyberware, which is a strategy restricted to unawakened characters (unless you have a strong desire to be the formerly awakened mage).

MyaAd can take the top two, but that reduces his max potential in other areas permanently.

vestri permoveo

PS, lemme know if I got anything mind-blowingly wrong. I'm working off memory here.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 05:49 PM

Isn't spellcasting a complex action anyway?

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 05:50 PM

Dice pools. Magic + Binding vs. Force * 2. Hits on the latter subtract from hits on the former.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 05:51 PM

Don't worry. It's an internet forum debate. Someone will let you know if you got something even slightly wrong (like spelling), and won't let you live it down either.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 05:53 PM

3 dice (from Magic) isn't important. Ask Mäx about his combat mage munchkins. And are you intentionally ignoring sustaining foci (or Spirits of Man), or what?

In fact, all of those can be fooled by magic, whether it's a perfectly legal (and game-breaking) custom spell, or a spirit with Concealment.

I can count on one finger the number of FAB ghillie suits I've ever seen. And I said 'most of that', meaning your explicitly listed "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree". I don't see where you mentioned rare, expensive, and fragile manatech there, Mr. 'What is this I don't even'. Nevermind that the mysad, as I said, can get all those visions. Say it with me: 'anything X can do, mysad can do better'.

The mysad can *have* a pain editor. And Platelet Factories. And spells ignore armor. Come on, man! This Dumpshock; when it comes to Magicrun, ain't our first rodeo.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 06:09 PM

I guess if your GM's a jerk and corpsec wagemages have Magic 6 and Summoning 7, that could be a problem, too. But even then, I wouldn't expect an unbound spirit (even a very low-Force one) to have more than 2 or 3 services on it -- especially since the summoner has to expend at least one service to get the spirit to do anything other than sit there staring at him.

Beyond that, if the spirit has a high Force, odds are a stunbolt isn't going to cut it, unless you over/multicast it so much that the drain starts to become a serious problem.

Imagine even that the summoner summons a Force 10 spirit, with 2 net hits on it -- this isn't far outside the realm of possibility, even, since you can easily have more dice on a summoning test than a very high-Force spirit gets to roll to resist. The summoner spends one service to get it to guard something. This spirit is going to have 10 resistance dice and 12 stun boxes. You can't plan on taking this out in one shot. When you overcast that Force 10 stunbolt with Edge, and there's still a sizable chance of the spirit completely resisting the spell, or at least still being alive after it takes the damage, you're in trouble. Because on top of the 4P drain from that stunbolt, the spirit is going to roll 20+ dice on its attack, even after wound penalties, and your mage is going to be a puddle of magically delicious red goo.

Or you could take your chances rolling Banishing with Edge (with more dice than the spirit gets) and trying to get just 1 or 2 net hits to save the day - because your buddies probably aren't getting through that 20 hardened armor. And every IP that spirit gets to act, someone is probably going to die.

Not that you get to go first, anyway, since it probably has 20+ initiative dice.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 06:21 PM

You can multi-cast two F7 stunbolts for about 1 drain.

Stunbolt: (F/2)-2
Multi-cast: +1 drain DV

F7 -> (7/2) -> 3. 3-1 -> 1. 1+1 = 2 DV.

Drain resist (non-twink): Willpower 5, [Drain Stat] 4.
9 dice to resist 2 DV twice.

Those sound like good odds to me.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 06:24 PM

Split your dice pool versus something with 6+ resistance dice?

Also 3 - 1 = 2, so that's 3 DV apiece. Good odds, but you'll probably pick up 1 or 2 physical.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 18 2011, 06:24 PM

Lol. You've got us pegged.


Aren't the foci just for bonuses? Maybe I'm a bit out of my depth, then again, 3 dice will only get you that one anchored and one sustained spell. Are you going to give up more for an astral barrier? how about invisibility?


Custom spell:
Did you know the game doesn't say how movement bonuses stack, or mention which ones don't stack? 5 hits to sprint and my centaur named Guile breaks the sound barrier, rending all nearby into red mist.


Wouldn't ultrasound vision be technological and therefore useless for any spellcasting?
As for the addition to the list, there are so many possibilities in this game that I can't think of everything on the first post.


Nevar!
Even if you can knit that sweater, I can fill it better.
And any song you can sing I can sing louder, I can sing any song louder than you.


I pointed out that you're giving up magic for the bioware, and karma for the wasted magic.


Oh, so now it's out in the open. We aren't just talking relative bonuses, but how the sammie will kill the mage and vice-versa.
Please don't die on me now thread. The battle will continue later today after my CS 352 exam.

Posted by: Irion Apr 18 2011, 06:30 PM

Banishing is good against high force unbound spirits with counterspelling.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 06:34 PM

A sustaining focus sustains a spell; that's the job. So, for example, you sustain Wires 3. Or invisibility, sure. You can have several, and they're honestly not that expensive (cash/karma). Not in the 'crazy long run' context we're using.

If there were rules for ramming with nonvehicles, your centaur would kill himself anyway. And there aren't.

I didn't say ultrasound worked for spellcasting. That's all you can respond to 'the mage can get all the visions, even though he barely needs them' with? Come at me, bro!

The loss to magic versus the bonuses of getting a little cyber/bio is minor, and that's specifically what 'crazy long run' Initiation/Magic raising fixes. It's even worse if you cyber up while your Magic is lower, a truly ridiculous munchkin tactic. (See also: any number of threads specifically about this.)

You're the one who mentioned armor as if it were relevant. I only pointed out that it's not. And non-cyber armor is more than sufficient, except for numerical exercises. That's the thing: these Awakened are fully playable, not a Binky or a pornomancer. There's *one* thing that can sorta help counteract the Magicrun dominance in the (once again, totally ridiculous) 'crazy long run': Astral Hazing. And that's an extreme SURGE-only power.

I don't even care about this, I literally never play Awakened characters. But since you're new and curious about powergaming, I'm mentioning what I've seen. Hehe.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 06:42 PM

So what, the caster is getting no net successes on his Stunbolt?



Even with just the 1 net hit you need to be successful on your cast, you've increased your drain by 50%.


Also, Stunbolt is -1 (you switch between -1 and -2 in your post), which makes the force 7 stunbolt 2 base +1 for multicasting = 3 + 1 for a net success = 4. If you get more than one net success that goes higher. So you're resisting 4 DV twice with 5 will and 4 drain stat, which is an average of 3 successes. Meaning you take on average one drain for each cast. More drain if you roll better.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 06:46 PM

"used to increase the damage value". Don't pay for what you don't use.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 06:48 PM

Also optional rule. Also dumb. Also doesn't matter.

As for "splitting dice pool." Let's see:

6 magic (we'll overcast, because we want that thing dead).
4 Spellcasting
2 Specialization ("combat" is always useful)
3 Focus (spellcasting)

6+4 = 10
Split is 5/5
+modifiers of 5

10/10 dice vs. a spirit with 6 willpower. Reasonable odds for 1 net hit per spell. If it has counterspelling, use Edge. No one will blame you.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 06:49 PM

I get the impression that people who crow about the awesome power of Stunbolt typically don't use that optional rule.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 06:49 PM

I don't see anything that says you can choose to not use it to increase your damage value. The only reference I see is:





If you could choose to not increase it to reduce your drain it would say "Any net hits on the spellcasting test may be used to increase the DV by 1", the way it is worded says that it always increases, and thus always increases your drain.




It's not an optional rule, it's in the core rulebook listed under the properties of combat spells. Nowhere is it stated or implied that it is optional. But yes, I'm sure a lot of stuff is broken when you ignore the rules on them completely.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 06:54 PM

I have gotten the impression that most people in general don't use that optional rule, mostly because it's probably the stupidest optional rule ever written for SR4(actually us saying pretty much exactly that is what got it turned in to an optional rule )

Please get an updated version of your PDF, it's been an optional rule for a long time(much, much longer then it was a non-optional)

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 06:56 PM

Mainly because it's a rule that encourages overcasting (and multi-casting). It doesn't actually solve the problem it tried to fix (which was to curb overcasting).

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 07:00 PM

So they took away the one balancing factor of indirect spells while not simultaneously raising the drain to match elemental manipulations? The lower drain values of mana spells make sense when you figure it's expecting a few extra hits to raise the drain. The drain values with that being taken away make no sense. I'm going to repeat, of COURSE when you take away the balancing factor of a spell, it's going to be broken.



How does a rule that increases your drain encourage over casting? I can see the reasoning for it encouraging multicasting, but I can't see someone wanting to overcast when there's a chance they'll get a really good roll and kill themselves.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 07:03 PM

The rule that you quoted above is an Optional Rule, and does not apply by default.

Posted by: Irion Apr 18 2011, 07:05 PM

@Yerameyahu
What is "the long run"?
500 Karma? 700 Karma? 1000 Karma? 1500 Karma?

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 07:05 PM

"Hmm, if I raise my force by 2 and spend no hits on extra damage, I get 2 damage for 1 drain."

vs.

"Hmm, or I can spend 2 net hits for damage, and I'll get the same 2 damage for 2 drain."

Which would you do? And once you're overcasting, you can eek out even more damage for only half the drain of using net hits.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 07:07 PM

All of our discussions have to be at least based in RAW. RAW, that optional rule is not used, so don't get mad about it.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 07:07 PM

Let me clarify, that rule was only ever non-optional in the first pdf version of the anniversary edition corebook(it didn't exist before that) and when we pointed out that it's stupid and doesn't really do what it's supposed to do at all it was turned in to an optional rule in the updated pdf and the hard copies.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 07:08 PM

Why do people on this forum always insist on pointing something out that's already been pointed out by 2-3 other people? Is the redundancy somehow worthwhile?

Anyway, it was initially a mandatory rule, apparently somewhere along the line it got erratad to an optional rule. This is really stupid given they didn't errata drain of other spells to compensate for losing that, so now all direct spells are much lower in drain than their indirect equivalents. For the elemental effects, I could see +1 dv for the secondary bonuses (catching things on fire for extra damage for example is worth a little something extra), but compare Stunbolt to Clout. They do the exact same thing, except Clout gets to be resisted by armor, and has a +1 higher drain.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 07:11 PM

First, I think there's a typo there.
Second, it's not true.

How is it not true? Spell drain codes did not change. They are exactly what they were in SR4 as they are now in SR4A.

Also: compared to elemental effects, even with the optional rule, the direct spell is better.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 07:11 PM

Except there is no rule for omitting net hits to deal less damage, as was already pointed out. So you overcast, you get the 1 higher drain, and drain converted to physical, AND the same number of net hits, so your damage is now 2 higher, but you're facing the same drain as before, plus 1, and it's all physical. Yes, that is enough to divert most people from wanting to overcast.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 07:12 PM

That's still not how dice pool splitting is supposed to work. Specializations and Foci are intended to be applied before the split. In your example, the split should be 7/7.



Has there been some official or semi-official release changing this from what's in SR4A? It's not listed as optional in my book.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 07:14 PM

Fixed.



You realize you're basically confirming my point? They changed the rule that was intended to balance direct vs indirect, then reverted it after some forum whining. So Direct remains blatantly better. The answer should have been to increase the DV of direct spells by +1-2 across the board, if they were going to get rid of the rule to increase the DV based on the casting.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 07:14 PM

It might make more sense for splitting to work that way, Epicedion, but it's not how it actually works. As with the optional rule, we use the RAW for discussing, no matter how reasonable a house rule seems. Seerow, again, we're talking about the RAW, not what you think would be a better rule.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 07:14 PM

Lets see then...

Force 5 Mana Bolt Spell. 5 Net Hits: 10dv, with a Drain of 7 (Stun). You are Not always likely to get those 5 Hits either.
2x Force 5 Multicast Mana Bolt Spells. No applied Net Hits, with a combined Drain of 3 Each. Damage of 10dv. Drain of 6 (Stun)
Force 10 Man Bolt Spell. I will use NO net hits to increase Damage. Damage 0f 10DV with drain of... Wait for it... 5 (physical)

Yes, The overcast Spell's drain will be physical, but so what. Any competant mage will likely be able to reduce this to insignificant Drain damage, While 7 is generally GOING to give you some damage, stun or not.

So, you see, The Rule enforces Multicastiong and Overcasting to get the effects wanted, with minimal drain to boot.

Epic fail for a rule to curb Overcasting.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 07:15 PM

There is no reason what so ever to say "every net hit used to increase the damage" unless you allowed to select whether or not you use those net hits to increase damage.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 07:17 PM

Tada!
There's even a section in the spellcasting general rules that a magician can chose not to apply net hits if they so choose.



(I do not have the SR4A book here at work)

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 07:20 PM

Here is the full quote from the most recent books.



Please see the Highlighted text... It is both Optional to apply as many hits as you would like (you do not have to apply them all by default), and it is also an Optional Rule for Applied hits to increase Drain...

Hopefully this will solve the Yes it is, not it isn't line of thought.

EDIT: Damn. Ninja'd by Draco18s. Though he used a different page source for his; so, TWO sources that confirm the same thing. Can't argue that...

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 07:20 PM

Given the discussion started by this optional rule starting as a RAW rule that got changed, the discussion is relevant. I've already said that yes, with that change stunbolt is blatantly overpowered. The drain is still higher than what the original poster I quoted said (3 as opposed to 2 per casting), but that is more manageable.

My point is the creators appear to have made a change at the last minute based on whining, and balance was hurt because of it.




You're still trying to say you can choose not to use net hits to increase damage. Since we're discussing RAW that can't actually be done. So your force 10 mana bolt spell will have the same 5 net hits as the force 5 mana bolt, giving you a 15 DV with a drain of 10(physical).

I'd say that's a huge deterrent to overcasting. I already said yes, it does encourage multicasting.



Show me where it actually says you can make the choice to not increase the damage. I already quoted the relevant part from the book where it says every net hit increases damage, as opposed to can be used to increase damage.


edit: And ninjad with a quote from the newest version of the book.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 07:26 PM

Yup. So, choosing is RAW, and not increasing DV is RAW. *shrug*. You act like people are lying to you, instead of assuming they know the correct rules. No one (well, some crazy people) disputes that magic and direct mana spells can be imbalanced… that's the point of the thread. You're just re-proving it.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 07:26 PM

It's not a house rule. There's a very reasonable explanation of it in the FAQ that doesn't require you to add or remove any text or sidebars to the rulebook.

Before anyone goes all up in arms about FAQ ISN'T ERRATA ARAAGAHGALBRBL as has happened in the past, what this means is that the developers view their FAQ explanation as RAW. They aren't treating it as a rules change, just as a clarification for what's obviously become a confusing mechanic. Otherwise they would say "this is a better way of doing it" or "this is a rules change." No, they said "this is what the rule means. This is how dice pool splitting is done." Specializations and Foci aren't Dice Pool Modifiers. They "add to tests." They "add to dice pools." But they are not "Dice Pool Modifiers."

It then follows that anyone who prefers to stand by their prior interpretation of the rules has essentially house-ruled in a flawed understanding (assisted heavily by some pretty flawed writing), and that house rule shouldn't be discussed in a conversation about RAW.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 07:31 PM

If that were the case then, those bonuses would not be called out as a "modifier" to the dice roll... The FAQ is trying to do an endrun around the non-existant Eratta. Everyone knows that. Yes, it is a terminology thing. But there you go. Specializations and Foci bonus dice are MODIFIERS to the skill roll. And Modifiers are added AFTER the split.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 07:33 PM

Then could you maybe tell us what kind of modifiers they are, because their not stat modifiers, nor are they skill modifiers.
There really aren't that many different kind of modifiers in this game and as neither Specializations nor Foci fit in to any of the smaller categories, they are part of the big group of dice pool modifiers.

And of cource we have this nice quote from page 61 of SR4A "Unless otherwise stated, any modifier mentioned is considered to be a dice pool modifier".

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 07:34 PM

Well in both cases it's things that were added into the book as errata after I got my copy, with no way of knowing it had been made outdated. And this wouldn't be the first time I'd seen people complaining about something being OP while blatantly ignoring major balancing factors. In this case though I have to hand it to the developers, they find new and interesting ways to break their system every time I turn around..

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 07:38 PM

Check your book again, it was only ever a non-optional rule in the before-it-went-to-the-printer PDF.

As in, it was changed, due to discussions on this very forum, before it was official.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 07:45 PM

Even if that's the case, why is it such a huge sticking point? There are plenty of badly written rules out there, but this is the only one I see where one side is being heavily defended, and it just so happens that their version lets you double, triple, or quadruple up on bonuses.

There's an easy out that doesn't require violating some nonexistent professional code of tabletop RPG errata ethics.

As someone said previously, we can't talk about this stuff reasonably without some reasonable agreement on what we're talking about -- no house rules. Why are we forced to include a version of a mechanic that the game developers don't support as RAW, when that mechanic obviously breaks any semblance of balance in all the other mechanics we're discussing?

Sure, multicasting stunbolts can totally destroy high-Force spirits, if you use a version of multicasting that the developers don't support as RAW and lets you keep a third of your normal dice pool as a bonus to every roll no matter how many ways you split it. I'll grant you that. The fact that it has any bearing on anyone's game is kind of sad, though.

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 07:49 PM

Yawn! Any chance of taking the off topic debate to another topic?

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 07:51 PM

Because this is dumpshock. The cool thing about it that we don't have to accept anything. Just ignore the people who disagree with you (and by extension the developers) and move on. Then perhaps the OP can get the help he's looking for instead of a rehash of an ancient argument that isn't going to change anybody's mind about anything.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 07:53 PM

One of these things is not like the other.

Compare to:



And so on in that fashion.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 07:54 PM

It's easy to look at it the other way: 'of *course* things are balanced if you blatantly interpret everything in a way that makes them weaker!'. I give Tymeaus a hard time (in a friendly way ) about the way that his tables invariably have no problem with abuse of any rule, no matter how bad. The very fact that there's controversy over what the book even says, is itself imbalance, in that the rules fail to stop abuse. Right? So yes, we probably *play* with many house rules fixing everything, but you can't assume any of that when we discuss things together.

Good, Epicedion, but not good enough to get the writers off the hook. "Any attempt"? Is multicasting one attempt, or multi?

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 07:57 PM

Eh, it matters for Magic. If "hey lookit what you can do with high Magic if you can multicast with a few billion positive modifiers on every piece of the split pool," then that's going to influence the overall power of the Magic attribute (the use of post-split modifiers actually serves to make the Magic attribute less important, since that Spellcasting Focus 3 is actually contributing 9 dice to your three-way stunbolt, making it the equivalent of Magic 9 for that purpose).

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 08:01 PM

I have literally no idea what so ever what you trying to say.

But thank for posting the rule quotes, as you can see both the foci and specialization don't mention what kind of modifiers they are, so as the book tells us to do in situation like this, we consider them to be dicepool modifiers.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 08:03 PM

And, because I have no idea, how does this play out in Missions games?

Posted by: James McMurray Apr 18 2011, 08:04 PM

High Magic is not a modifier, therefore High Magic is not the problem in a "lookit how I can manipulate the multicast rules" scenario. Sorry, but the argument is not pertinent to worries about high magic, as there is very little difference between someone with magic 5 and someone with magic 9 multicasting, regardless of which side of the argument the OP's group falls on.

Now sure, if the OP comes back and clarifies his concerns such that multicasting becomes a part of them, then it's relevant.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 08:11 PM

I'm not really letting the writers off the hook -- especially not since they essentially cut-and-paste those parts for 4A out of 4. I'll frown at them, but I'm not going to break the game just to prove a point.

Otherwise, the "any attempt" question is a good one. I'd side with one attempt, obviously, but I like to think I have a good reason: since multicasting is one complex action, it's one very complicated attempt to cast a number of spells. Even though you go down the list and roll for each spell test, technically they all happen at the same time. Otherwise you'd test for one, then Drain, then carry modifiers to the next spell. Since they don't happen sequentially (multiple attempts), they're all one attempt.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 08:13 PM

You tried looking into the "shoot two guns at once" split pool? It's almost possible to have more dice to each of two attempts than it is to put all your dice in one shot.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 08:17 PM

This I've got to see.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 18 2011, 08:23 PM

Or 2 simultaneous attempts. I'm just playing devil's advocate, but that's the point: you *can* interpret things the 'good way' or the 'bad way', but the fact that there's a choice is the problem.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 18 2011, 08:28 PM

Foci and specializations aren't listed as modifiers at all, in the way that every dice pool modifier in the game is. The book is full of "provides a modifier" and "gives a dice pool modifier equal to" and so on. Foci and specializations are, as far as I've been able to determine, the only places in the book where they do not use the word "modifier" or the phrase "dice pool modifier" to describe the process of adding dice to a pool.

The argument is (and this is supported by the FAQ), that this is an intentional terminology change to keep foci and specialization dice different from things like range, cover, and visibility modifiers.

The line on p61 stating that otherwise unidentified modifiers are dice pool modifiers is there specifically to distinguish them from threshold modifiers, so that people wouldn't see "-2 modifier" and not know whether to make that a dice pool or threshold modifier.

Mechanically, foci and specialization are not modifiers in the same sense, since the designers did not call them modifiers. They treated them differently.

EDIT: The phrase "dice pool modifier" appears in the book 214 times, and the word "modifier" appears 620 times.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 08:34 PM

It's not actually "more than" because the base skill+attribute is halved, but you can get really, really close.

(Stat+Skill)/2 + Specialization + Smart Link + Reflex Recorder + TacNet + ProbablySomethingI'mForgetting.

Posted by: Seerow Apr 18 2011, 08:45 PM

Oh okay, here I was expecting something like a bonus that only applies while firing multiple weapons that compensates for the splitting and gets you more dice on each shot.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 08:51 PM

Technically speaking, one could have a specialization in their gun skill of "multi-shot" (or whatever you want to call firing two or more guns in the same complex action). You'd get the +2 dice to each pool that you wouldn't get if you took only 1 shot (although in order to surpass your single shot DP you'd need to have a Skill + Stat of 3 or less).

Posted by: Mäx Apr 18 2011, 08:58 PM

*doesn't work, you specifically lose all bonuses from smartlik and laser pointer when shooting akimbo.
** is an actual skill increase, so is added before the split.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2011, 09:01 PM

Touche. I never built a guns-akimbo sammie.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 09:23 PM

Because, as Yerameyahu states (and many others for that matter), the only things that matter in a Discussiuon about RAW, is the RAW itself. Nothing else matters, not even a developers OPINION on the matter. Want to change the RAW, submit an Eratta. FAQ's just do not cut it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2011, 09:26 PM

You could also say that about any rule that allows you to split the pools. Also, if you are not using the Nergative modifiers as applicable to each and every split, then you are doing it wrong as well. And since spellcasting uses Visibility modifiers (as well as several otherts), any not included are hampering your ability to control your table.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 18 2011, 10:22 PM

I don't get the argument people are making about multiple spellcasting, no where does it say you get to double dip with specilizations. SR4A pg.183 "Multiple spells may be cast with the same Complex Action, but to do so the magician must split her Spellcasting + Magic dice pool between each target." So, you split your dice pool, end of story. It doesn't say anywhere that anything applies to both rolls, simply that the pool is split.

Some supporting evidence: SR4A pg.60 "When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool. The dice pool is the sum of the relevant skill plus its linked attribute, plus or minus any modifiers that may apply". Modifiers are considered to be part of the total dice pool, which is, in fact, split as mentioned above.

So in short, someone having 6 magic, 4 spellcasting, 2 specialization, and 3 foci dice would be able to pull off an 8/7 split, not a 10/10.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 19 2011, 12:28 AM

I wasn't able to find the page earlier, but here's what I was looking for:



The section is about firing two weapons at the same time, however, this general rule would also apply to multi-casting spells.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 19 2011, 01:02 AM

The section on the book about firing two weapons is completely and totally irrelevant. Multiple spellcasting does not reference it, and visa-versa. Multiple spellcasting simple says you split the dice pool, and by definition a dice pool is all the dice you roll on a given test, including dice pool modifiers.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 19 2011, 02:11 AM

Hahahaha
Player: "ok, I cast fireball at Force 9000. My drain is 4500. Let's see, my drain resistance pool is 18 plus my 9000 initiation grades... you guys want me to roll this, or do I just take the average result?"

DM: "Dude, you realize that average results makes you explode into little giblets, right?"

Player: "Irrelevant! I simply MUST destroy this go-ganger! He opposed my will!"

DM: *glares at Player* "He wouldn't give you his bike for free, but he offered to sell it at cost! You've got trillions of nuyen!"

Player: "You have to take a hard line with these people."

DM: "Frag it. Your fireball ignites the atmosphere. An expanding wave of firey death swiftly spreads to encompass the entire planet, and the globe is scoured clean of all life. You die. The party dies. Everyone dies. Roll up new characters at 0 karma."

Player2: "I don't die."

Player3: "Me neither. Our characters are on Zurich Orbital ruling the corporate court, remember?"

DM: >_< "New characters! Now! 0 karma!"

Players: "Aww..."

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2011, 02:21 AM

See the Steps of Spellcasting.

Relevant part of STEP 3.
Multiple spells may be cast with the same Complex Action, but to do so the magician must split her
Spellcasting + Magic dice pool between each target.

Note: Notice that the Pool referenced above ONLY includes Stat + Skill. This is important.

STEP 4: MAKE SPELLCASTING TEST
Casting a spell requires a Complex Action. The Spellcaster rolls Spellcasting + Magic, modifed by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifers.

Note: Notice NOW, how other modifiers are now added. This is important. If they were included in Step 3 (as you declare they should be), then you would have already split these dice (as they would have been included already), which you did not do. See? Simple. Never forget, Modifiers are always seperate from your pool, as they may not always apply. That is why they are called Modifiers.

So, you construct your Split Dice Pool (your Magic + Spellcasting), in your example: 10 Dice (Magic 6, Spellcasting 4). For your Maximum of 4 Spells (As many splits as you have Skill), you could split 3,3,2,2.

Then add all relevant modifiers to aactually make the test. So any Specailty, foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifers are then added/subtracted to the newly constructed base pool. So, assuming Specialty (+2), Foci (+2) and Mentor Spirit (+2), and No visibility Modifiers because you are targeting through Astral Perception, you now have Dice pools of 9,9,8,8. with +3 Drain to all relevant castings.

Works same for Gun Bunnies. Why would there be completely different rules for the exact same actions? Simple. There would not be. I know that previous editions frowned on that design principle, as they routinely had 87 different subsystems, dependant upon what you were doing. SR4A does not take that route. It is simpler and more elegant, at least in my opinion.

Anyways...

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 19 2011, 02:30 AM

Tada!

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 19 2011, 02:34 AM

It can easily be either way; that's the problem. It's also just as stupid for guns. A great *house rule* would be to smash both of these abuse cases.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 19 2011, 02:41 AM

Try anything that can deal with a magic 20 mage.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 19 2011, 03:36 AM

Congratulations for not reading it? You are making assumptions that have no basis in what is written down. Once again, you are mentioning the gun rules in the spellcasting rules, which have no bearing what so ever. I understand that you may think it's silly that the rules are different(IMO the rules need to be different to prevent abuse of the magic system), but the fact is they ARE different. You're weakening your argument by even bringing them up, so just stop.

Every dice pool in the game is listed by the attribute and skill (or sometimes attribute and attribute) that form the core of the dice pool. Dice pool modifiers exist that can modify the dice pool, up or down, beyond this number, but those are usually listed in an aside. In the end though, by definition, a dice pool is all the dice you are rolling for a test, modifiers and all. If you have 5 agility, 5 pistols, 2 from a specialization, and -2 from low visibility, your pistols + agility dice pool for that test is 10. If you have 5 magic, 4 spellcasting, 2 specilization, and 3 from a foci, your dice pool for a spellcasting + magic test is 14.

Since multi-casting just says it splits your dice pool, and your dice pool is created by a skill, attribute, and modifiers, the modifiers are likewise split as part of the pool.

Simple logic.

Posted by: pbangarth Apr 19 2011, 04:01 AM

I dived into this thread late, and really don't want to read six pages of an argument I suspect has at least two entrenched sides. I will comment on how this post is structured, though.

In the above paragraph you chastise TJ for using the gun rules to support his position on magic pools, and then in the next ...

... you do the same thing yourself to show that the same structure applies to both mechanics, even though for the question of multiple shots/spells RAW explicitly says it doesn't. Which way is it? Is there a unified format across dice pool types or isn't there? If there is, TJ is right. If there isn't, the example in your second paragraph has no validity.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 19 2011, 04:05 AM

The system fails to identify the extra dice provided from foci and specialization as modifiers. You and others have decided they are, and that they're to be lumped in with dice pool modifiers, even though they don't use the word modifier to describe them. Even though in the same section where they don't identify six foci as providing modifiers they call a specific foci bonus a modifier. Even though there are 620 instances of the word modifier in the text. If they're not modifiers, then they can't be dice pool modifiers and therefore aren't to be applied after the split.

According to the rules, foci and specialization are just extra dice.

Compare this to Edge:



Is Edge a dice pool modifier? Is it included in the Magic + Spellcasting pool construction? No, it's extra dice.

Since Edge is an otherwise unaccounted for bonus (since it's not added directly to an Attribute or Skill), by your logic it should be a dice pool modifier and therefore be applied after the split, right?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 19 2011, 04:07 AM

Only if you consider two rolls to be "any one test". Instead of two tests.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 19 2011, 04:15 AM

Congratulations for not reading it? You are making an assumption that has no basis in what is written down.

http://i56.tinypic.com/v30tw0.png.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 19 2011, 04:35 AM

Your picture doesn't help, since that section in no way describes how to split the dice pool. Since Shadowrun doesn't have a general rule for splitting dice pools, that means you've simply decided to use another dice-splitting rule from a different part of the system.

EDIT: Specifically, the two-firearms rule explains when to split the pool and how to apply dice pool modifiers to the test. Spellcasting simply states that you "split the pool." You can try to go RAI with this, but RAW doesn't weigh in.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 19 2011, 04:44 AM

Look, it's like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You can't spread the PB on the bread, if the bread is still in the bag.

Well you can. But it makes a mess.

Step 3: split your [Spellcasting + Magic] dice
Step 4: add modifiers

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 19 2011, 04:59 AM

Step 4 says explicitly to roll Spellcasting + Magic + modifiers, which, by omission, doesn't allow for a dice pool split. Your Legos don't fit together perfectly, and you're making tacit assumptions to get them to fit. You could just as easily state that the lack of information about modifiers in Casting Multiple Spells, by omission, does not allow for modifiers on split Spellcasting + Magic tests. Casting Multiple Spells directs you to make the split Spellcasting + Magic test, tells you how to resolve the tests (Step 5), and provides information for Drain (Step 6), but says nothing of modifiers or Step 4.

Posted by: Achsin Apr 19 2011, 05:11 AM

Sweet. If you're ever firing a lightning bolt blind, just shoot 2, gets rid of those pesky visibility modifiers.

Posted by: Glyph Apr 19 2011, 05:44 AM

Yeah, that's what I would do. The RAW is too ambiguous, so just call it a house rule. Foci may be magical, but I still don't think they should magically become twice (or more) as powerful, simply because you are splitting your dice.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 19 2011, 07:21 AM

Yes edge is added after the split, but only in to the pools you decide to use edge for, if your casting 4 spells and decide to use edge for all 4 rolls, then it's added to all for pools.
Only modifers applicable to any given pool is added to that pool.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 19 2011, 07:57 AM

From The American Heritage Dictionary
"
split
verb, split, split·ting, noun, adjective

to divide into distinct parts or portions (often followed by up ): We split up our rations.
"

The word split has an accepted word in the English language, and the book doesn't need to define every word in it. Either you don't understand English, or you just made a really bad argument for the sake of making an argument.



Step 4 never says anything about adding modifiers, it simple is there to instruct you on how to assemble your magic+spellcasting dice pool, and it happens to mention some of the more common modifiers. A dice pool, is, by definition, ALL dice you roll on a given test, specifically including dice pool modifiers.

So, if a dice pool = all the dice you roll on a test, and multi-casting requires you to split your dice pool, but logical extension multi-casting requires you to split all the dice you roll on a test. If it had specific language that said you included dice pool modifiers AFTER the split things would be different, but it doesn't, so the modifiers are split along with everything else(in fact it is a little telling that two gun combat specifically mentions to split before you add modifiers, and spellcasting doesn't, if they worked the same one would think they would be worded the same, but in any case is doesn't matter).

People are spending too much time trying to weasel false meanings out of the words of the book when the book states exact ally what it means.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Apr 19 2011, 09:34 AM

Are we down to quoting the dictionary at each other now? That's never good.

There's something to be said for applying modifiers after splitting. For example, I'm throwing Stunbolts at dudes A and B. Dude B is standing in a dark place, with visibility modifiers; dude A isn't. In this case, it makes far more sense to apply the visibility modifier on my dice pool to 'bolt B after splitting that dicepool.

Double-dipping specialties and mentors seems a bit cheesy, but remember that you don't have to multicast the same spell; you can also throw both a Stunbolt and a Levitate spell. Your "Combat Spells" specialty and mentor would only apply to the Stunbolt, not to the Levitate.

---

Anyway, regarding the OT; I think it's imagining the wrong kind of problem. By the time a mage can buy Magic 9, other characters will also be ludicrously powerful. There won't be much reasonable opposition that stands a chance. SR simply wasn't designed for epic-level characters.

A mage who initiates that much might have acquired Cosmic Wisdom™, and decide that his talents are far, far to precious to risk on something as lousy and stupid as shadowrunning; you know the Inner Secrets of the Universe™, don't you have more important things to do? Like running a cabal of mages to impose your mysterious designs on the world. Epic wizards rarely use their talents in the field, they manipulate minions and long-term schemes instead.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 19 2011, 10:26 AM

Also you can get all kind of interesting cheese out of multicasting if you apply all the modifiers before splitting:
For example with Wise warrior mentor spirit i can get 1 extra dice for casting my stunbolt if i also cast a force 1 detection spell at the same time.
Actually, considering that indirect combat spells are affected by ranged combat modifiers, i can get 3 more extra dice for that stunbolt if i also cast a force 1 lightning bolt to the wall next to me.
So now multicasting gives me 4 more dice to cast my stunbolt then i would have if i only casted the stunbolt alone.
Actually i think i can also have a spirit use aid sorcery for detection to quite easily give an other 6 extra dices, taking me up to 10 extra dice from multicasting 3 spells.

Posted by: Caadium Apr 19 2011, 10:32 AM

The houserule that works with my group, that others here have disagreed with in the past is this:

When overcasting, Force of the spell is no longer divided by 2 before modifiers.

With that rule I still have overcasting come into play, but it is more of a true 'oh shit' technique than the common MO.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2011, 12:50 PM

Again... If a Dice Pool add is not specified (as Specialization and Foci are not), then they are considered MODIFIERS... Right there in the book.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2011, 12:53 PM

The MECHANICAL rule for splitting Dice Pools is in the Combat section. The Idea for Multiple Spellcasting is in the Next Chapter. What? You want them to keep reiterating a rule in every section that could apply? Not enough Word Count available for that.

The spellcasting steps I included above should cover the rest of the argument nicely.

- Split your Attribute + Skill Pool...
- Add Modifers to each of the split pools. (As has been noted, you can even cast spells from seperate categories in the same action. thus modifiers for each spell will be different.)
- Done

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 19 2011, 01:24 PM

That's because splitting your pool is in step three.



If modifiers are before the split, yes! You'd just assign only 1 die to one of those spells, and the other one gets near full dice!



You shouldn't need to be instructed how to get your spellcasting pool. It's attribute + skill +/– modifiers, just like every other pool.

Also, it does talk about modifiers:
http://i53.tinypic.com/2ih2d90.png



Which is why dice pool modifiers (like specialization) come after the split, not before. Because your two different actions may have different modifiers!

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 19 2011, 01:51 PM

No, that's not what it says. It says that if a modifier is unidentified then it is a dice pool modifier instead of a threshold modifier. It says nothing about extra dice, as from Edge, Foci, and Specialization, which are not identified as modifiers in their relevant entries, even though every other instance of +/- dice in the book is identified as a modifier or dice pool modifier. They opted not to use that language to describe six foci, specialization, and Edge.



That's not how rules work. If they want the two-firearm rule for dice pool splitting to be generic, then it should be in the Game Concepts section and not specifically tied to two firearms.

I'm going to reiterate here that you're the folks that are trying to say this stuff is RAW so you can keep it in the discussion about Magic. The fact that it isn't in the book should probably deter you slightly.

Posted by: Cheops Apr 19 2011, 04:08 PM

At Magic 6 it costs 35 karma to get to Magic 7. Instead I could spend 32 karma for an ally spirit which has force 4 and thus adds +4 dice to all my spellcasting and counterspelling pools (plus other nifty abilities). Alternatively I could get a Force 8 spellcasting or summoning foci and really rock out on one category (or Force 4 Power if I didn't already cheese out on that). Upping Magic Attribute is one of the least interesting ways to gain more power as a mage. Yay! I can now 1 shot anyone who is 2-shotted by a gun anyway! Woopie...

And never forget that it only takes 1 initiation to start the quest for immortality.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2011, 04:21 PM

And yet, I still disagree with you, and have posted relevant sections of the rules that back me up... Apparently, though, that is not enough for you. So.....
Have a great evening...

Posted by: KarmaInferno Apr 19 2011, 08:44 PM

That's really seriously nitpick rules-lawyering there.

And this is coming from an obsessively min-max hyperoptimizing power-gamer.

If it's not a direct attribute or skill rating boost, it's a Dice Pool Modifier. Period.

To use any other interpretation creates a massive amount of headache as you have to examine the minute wording of every possible item and ability description to see if it's a "Dice Pool Modifier" or not. That's just silly. From a design point of view, that's a horrid idea.

Rules As Intended is kinda important too, especially since we KNOW the Rules As Written in Shadowrun sometimes are really poorly written.



-k

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 19 2011, 10:29 PM

Actually the rules are very consistent in listing things as modifiers and dice pool modifiers. Since people are going out of their way to ignore RAI and rules-lawyer in their pet extra bonuses (even when RAW doesn't support them in the absolute strictest sense), especially in a discussion about Magic being super-powerful already, I think it's relevant to point out the holes in their reading of the far-and-away most abused poor wording in the book.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 19 2011, 10:32 PM

Psh. The "far-and-away most abused poor wording in the book"? There's tough competition for *that*.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 04:39 AM

You know what? Fine, all the dice go in, then you split.

So I'm going to multicast a Stunbolt and....A Heal spell.

6 Magic
4 Spellcasting (+2 for Health spells)
3 Spellcasting focus (Health)
2 Spellcasting focus (Combat)
1 Power focus
2 Mentor spirit (Bear)

6 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 20 dice.

So I got 20 dice, I split:

19 dice (Stunbolt)
1 die (Heal)

Compared to the 13 dice I'd have if I just cast the Stunbolt by itself.

Posted by: Scyldemort Apr 20 2011, 09:44 AM

Well played, sir. Well played.

Posted by: Machiavelli Apr 20 2011, 10:12 AM

I am curious if this would work with our GM. ^^ I didn´t read the whole topic but can you really choose how much dice you use for every action? I always thought you can only split equally (e.g. in half, quarter, etc.)

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 10:32 AM

Your using too many focis there, so thats not a rules legal move, but the following is.
My Norse tradition combat mage with:
Magic 6
Spellcasting(combat) 5(+2)
Spellcasting(combat) focus force 5
Mentor spirit Dark Goddess
Has a bound force 6 Guardian spirit to help in combat

Now she wants to cast Increase Charisma spell she learned to help the teams face. dicepool for this is:
Normally:
Magic 6 + Spellcasting 5 + mentor spirit 2 = 13 dice

With all modifiers added before split when she also casts a force 1 lightning bolt at the wall next to her:
Magic 6 + Spellcasting 5 + mentor spirit 2 + spec 2 + focus 5 + mentor spirit 2 + spirit using aid sorcery 6 + point blank 2 + massive target 2 - the dice used for the ligthning bolt 1
= 6+5+2+2+5+2+6+2+2-1 = 31, holy shit for 1 more drain we way more then doubled the casting pool for the spell.


From page 183 of SR4A the important part bolded by me
"Casting Multiple Spells: In some circumstances, a magician
may seek to cast multiple spells simultaneously (including multiples
of the same spell—for example, targeting two different opponents
with a mana bolt in the same action). Multiple spells may be cast with
the same Complex Action, but to do so the magician must split her
Spellcasting + Magic dice pool between each target. Additionally, the
Drain Value for each of the spells is increased by +1 per additional
spell (Drain Resistance Tests are also handled separately). Multiple
spells are resolved in whatever order the caster desires. The maximum
number of spells a character can cast in a single Complex Action is
equal to her Spellcasting skill, and each spell must be allocated at least
one die."

Posted by: Fringe Apr 20 2011, 10:44 AM

If I were GMing that table, I'd rule that each spell could only be modified by compatible bonus dice; in the latest examples, I would allow the combat focus dice to affect only the combat spell (and the health focus only on the health spell), and the mentor would only affect spells it would normally modify.

Posted by: Irion Apr 20 2011, 11:56 AM

Why should the foci/Specs etc be applied if one spell is the needed category?
(Max is even applying both!)

This I see often in rule discussions people aim only for the most benefitial option possible.

The other possibility would be:

You get a pool of 6+5=11 and are allowed to use it as you please!
And wow, all the problems go away. Strange.


Does not mean I do not see the reasons why to apply afterwards. (But this would then also be true for wounds, vision etc.)

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 20 2011, 01:11 PM

You choose how many Dice to apply to each test.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 20 2011, 01:14 PM

It is an extreme example to show (prove?) that you split the Dice pool PRIOR to applying modifiers to the spells being cast. Any other method is just flat out ignorant, as the example shows.

Posted by: Irion Apr 20 2011, 01:25 PM

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Not quite.
It is one possible interpretation how applying modifiers to the dicepool before splitting could look like.

Technically speaking it is an straw man fallacy.

I just find it funny, that most people always go for the most benefitial interpretation. Which in this case is also the one making an argument for your (?) side.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 02:14 PM

Of course I use the RAI method and only allow the smallest pool to be split (so you can't use a specialization, combat spellcasting focus, mentor spirits, etc, if you're mixing spell types).

But we are of course talking about RAW. Strictly speaking, the system doesn't explicitly tell you how to apply modifiers to Magic dice pool splitting, as it tells you in the combat section for attacking with two weapons. While I can't say that your method is a good one, it does require about the same amount of making stuff up as any other method.

I'm curious about applying multiple foci to one pool, though. I skimmed through the rules and couldn't find any mention of it, for or against. Is there something that disallows this, or is it kosher?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 20 2011, 02:16 PM

Perhaps, but I would say that there are more people "on my side" of the argument, as you so eloquently put it, than on yours.
And it is not a Straw man Fallacy.

Splitting is detailed in multiple places. For spells, you MUST go through the steps.
Step 3 tells you to splity the pool (Skill + Attribute)
Step 4 indicates that Modifiers now apply.

I don't know. Doing it that way is the same as the Combat method detailed in the Combat section. Why would you argue for different mechanics for the same basic principle? The example that was provided shows the absurdity of doing it the other way.

Anyways...

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 02:24 PM

From the SR4A page 199:
"Regardless of the number of foci a magician may possess, only one focus may add its Force to any single dice pool."

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 02:27 PM

I actually do not see why.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 02:28 PM

That's a fallacy itself. That it has more supporters doesn't make it necessarily correct.

My entire point, which got left behind about six days ago, is that the rules for these things are ambiguous. In that ambiguity, people have settled on the method that gives them the most extra dice without being completely egregious, as Draco's method went -- rather, they attempted to follow earlier precedent. But earlier precedent doesn't make RAW, and the popular choice here inflates low-drain mana spell multicasts to the point that it partially breaks the usefulness of other systems, including overcasting and banishing.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 02:31 PM

See my post right above yours.

Actually as my example showed, the "apply modifiers before split" method can give much more extra dice and from sources that make no sense.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 02:33 PM

Ah, of course. Duh.

Posted by: Irion Apr 20 2011, 02:37 PM

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Thats what I said.


Oh yes it is exactly the definition. It is an example trying to show how ridiculous the idea of Epicedion is. This is achieved by using assumptions he never made.
This is the definition of a Straw man Fallacy.

The kind of argument in the quote above I do not recall how it is called but there is a nice saying about it:
Shit has to taste good, millions of flys can't be misstaken.

Numbers do not count if it comes to right or wrong. As a matter of fact I mostly am under the imperession that the side with the "numbers" tends to be wrong.
(Looked at it from both sides. And I am not even saying we have a disagreement here at this topic)

This happens often, because the bigger side tends often to just reuse argument used by another "follower" of their position. So a mistake made by one is soon adopted by everyone. If you are the minority you have (in the case of for example a Shadowrun debate) check your rulebook for arguments.
Very funny if both sides are wrong in the beginning. Even if the majority was closer to the truth in the beginning, chances are good that this will switch.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 02:42 PM

There are zero assumptions made in that example, it purely follows RAW except that it applies all the modifiers for spell casting in to the pool before splitting it.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 02:44 PM

Alright fine then, show us an example that follows the rules as YOU see them.

Because modifiers before the split get you dice to a spell that you would not normally get (by casting two DIFFERENT spells, which is VALID, the rules only say "casting multiple spells, such as a lightning bolt at two targets").

Posted by: Ascalaphus Apr 20 2011, 02:51 PM

I used to think that applying Mentor and Specialization bonuses after splitting dice was cheesy and wrong, but I had to change my mind about it. The bonuses might apply to only one spell, so it makes much more sense to apply them after the split.

Likewise, penalties for situation (darkness) might apply to only some targets, so it makes more sense to only apply them to the dice pool for affecting those specific targets.

Honestly, the text in the book is really rather vague. A few chance remarks and the order in which they're made on the same page is very tenuous to build a case from either way. But when I think about it, only applying the modifiers after the split makes good sense to me.

I still think getting the bonuses twice for casting the same spell twice is cheesy and a bit OP, but it makes sense. That's mostly because the bonuses are rather big in comparison to the actual Magic+Spellcasting pool.

Posted by: Irion Apr 20 2011, 02:58 PM

@Mäx
1. Assumption: I am allowed to apply the boni of a combat foci for a heal/combat spell. Combat foci apply for combat only spells.
2. Assumption: Same as the first with mentor spirits.


@Draco18s

Foci and Mentor boni do not apply to mixed spell pools is a equally valid interpretation.
They only apply half is a possible interpretation too.
And of course: Foki can not be used at all when multicasting. (The most RAW since modifications are not mentioned)
They are all assumptions.


Only if you go with the assumption to apply both modifiers.
But: If I would apply two different modifiers when casting two different spells I would also have to apply the double modifier when casting a single spell twice.

Example:
Magic 5, Spellcasting 5, Mentor:Dark Goddess.
Your way:
Casting Heal and Stunbolt: 5+5+2+2=14
Casting 2 Stunbolts:5+5+2*2=14.

No modifiers for different spells:
Heal and Stunbolt: 5+5=10
2 Stunbolts: 5+5=12

Modifiers only count half
Heal and Stunbolt= 5+5 +1 +1=12
2 Stunbolts = 5+5+2 =12

No modifiers if multicasting
Heal and Stunbolt:5+5=10
2 Stunbolts: 5+5=10

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 03:03 PM

Those aren't assumptions, thats how the rules work.

Combat spellcasting focus adds dice to the pool when casting a combat spell and i'm casting a combat spell, ergo i add the focis force as a modifier to my ppol.
Same goes for mentor spirit and specializations.

Posted by: Cheops Apr 20 2011, 03:13 PM

Is it just me or does the idea of letting off a lightning bolt while becoming more Charismatic seem insanely fucking awesome? I think I've finally found a purpose for indirect combat spells -- randomly firing off special effects while doing something totally not related. It'd be like Obi-wan letting off some force lightning while saying "These are not the droids you are looking for." Sweet.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 03:14 PM

There is no such thing as a "combat/heal" spell. You have a combat spell (foci/mentor spirit applies) and a heal spell (foci/mentor does not). The two are simply being cast at the same time.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Apr 20 2011, 03:18 PM

I used to think that it was cheesy and wrong to apply modifiers after splitting, because then you could get a bonus twice.

But the alternative makes far, far less sense; that modifiers end up modifying the wrong things.

So I believe that applying modifiers after splitting is correct RAW&RAI, even if it's somewhat unbalanced. That's mainly because the modifiers are so big compared to Magic+Spellcasting.

---

You could impose house rules to handle that. For example, you could rule that the final dice pool for any spell can't be more than twice it's base Magic+Spellcasting dice pool (after splitting). This discourages overspecialization on one particular spell type.

Or, you could lump all the Drain for all the spells together, resisted with only one Drain Resistance test - making it more difficult to swallow.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 03:19 PM

Most definitely not just you

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 03:26 PM

I would disagree, because some spells can get very high in their drain very quickly (stunbolt is just a good spell to multicast, because you can multicast it about 4 times before the drain actually becomes meaningful: 4S for F5 or less) and summing them together would mean no one would EVER multicast them (say, fireball).

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 03:34 PM

The way I actually play this is:

Magic M
Spellcasting S
Focus F
Specialization P
Mentor Spirit T

A normal dice pool would be generated by M+S+F+P+T, and then altered by situational modifiers -- cover, visibility, etc.

A split dice pool would be done the following way:

Assume the Focus (F) and Specialization (P) and Mentor Spirit (T) are all for combat spells.

For two combat spells:
M+S+F+P+T

For two noncombat spells:
M+S

For a combat spell and a noncombat spell:
M+S


Now things can get tricky: assume the Specialization is for Combat spells, the Focus is for Health spells and the Mentor Spirit is for Illusion.

Here we pick the smallest pool.

For a multicast Combat and Health spell:
The smaller of M+S+P and M+S+F

For Combat, Health, and Illusion:
The smallest of M+S+P, M+S+F, and M+S+T

So if you have Magic 6, Spellcasting 6, Health Spellcasting Focus 3, Mentor Spirit (+2 Illusion), and Specialization (Combat +2), you could...

Cast Fireball and Heal:
M+S+P = 6+6+2 = 14
M+S+F = 6+6+3 = 15
Split 14 dice, then apply modifiers.

Cast Fireball, Heal, and Invisibility:
M+S+P = 6+6+2 = 14
M+S+F = 6+6+3 = 15
M+S+T = 6+6+2 = 14
Split 14 dice, then apply modifiers.

Now let's go a little crazy, and say Magic 6, Spellcasting 6, Combat Focus 4, Health Focus 2, Illusion Focus 3, Mentor Spirit (+2 Illusion), Specialization (Combat +2)

Fireball and Heal:
M+S+P+F = 6+6+2+4 = 18
M+S+F = 6+6+2 = 14
Split 14 dice.

Heal and Invis:
M+S+F = 6+6+2 = 14
M+S+F+T = 6+6+3+2 = 17
Split 14 dice.

All three:
M+S+P+F = 18
M+S+F = 14
M+S+F+T = 17
Split 14 dice.

(on this last one, your method would be to split 12 dice, let's say 4, 4, 4, then add +6 to the first, +2 to the second, and +5 to the third, for 10/6/9, or 25 dice)

Posted by: DireRadiant Apr 20 2011, 04:02 PM

You can use all the mechanical dice pool rules in any way you want, but the most useful way to deal with Uncapped Magic attributes in any games is very simple.

Geek the Mage.

It's what the entire world knows to do about any mage.

Go ahead, get your Magic attribute as high as you want. Shadowrun universe always has more dice.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 20 2011, 04:22 PM

Quoted for Truth. What more need be said?

Posted by: Irion Apr 20 2011, 04:23 PM

And how do you recognize the mage?

Posted by: fazzamar Apr 20 2011, 04:29 PM

It's the one casting spells!

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 05:13 PM

Or we could just go "split the Attribute + Skill, add modifiers to appropriate pools." Because that's simpler (oh Occam's Razor) and it works for doing any two skills at the same time. Casting Stunbolt and firing a gun?

Smaller of Agility + Guns and Magic + Spellcasting, split, then add modifiers.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 05:28 PM

First, my logic is not complicated unless you failed third grade arithmetic.

Second, the simplest solution is not always the best. Occam's razor is for help in determining the correct path to get to equivalent endpoints, not for selecting the better endpoint.

Third, you can't cast a spell and fire a gun on one action. The only two mechanics that are even remotely supported for splitting dice pools are multiple firearms, or multiple spells. There's likewise no "drive a car and shoot a gun" dice pool split. Everything else (other than these two specific split actions) requires individual actions. You're thinking of White Wolf.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 05:37 PM

Having never played a White Wolf game, no I'm not.
Second, what I just did was find a solution that works for all cases. I don't see why I couldn't drive a car and shoot a gun at the same time.

Side note:



And? That's how it works for shooting different guns.

6 Agl, 4 skill, spec, tacnet 4:

6+4 = 10, split 5/5

5/5 + spec = 7/5

7/5 + tacnet 4 = 11/9 or 18 total dice. Compared to 16 for shooting the one (spec) gun.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 05:59 PM

Because by the rules of the game you have to spend an action to drive the car and a different action to shoot the gun.

There are no other cases. The only dice pool splitting in the main rules are for firing two firearms, and casting multiple spells. Actually there's room for splitting melee attacks, but it simply says: "The attacker’s dice pool is split between each attack, and each attack is handled separately." This is not very helpful.

As I said earlier, there are no generic mechanics for splitting dice pools. There are certainly no generic rules for combining multiple actions.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 06:04 PM

Minus the block of text on firing multiple guns, it takes an action to shoot a gun and a different action to shoot another gun, no?

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 06:11 PM

Correct. However, shooting two firearms at once is allowed as a single action by that specific block of text you're talking about.

Where are you going with this? You essentially just said that if were written differently it would say something different.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 20 2011, 06:30 PM

Actually there is mention of using multiple skills together in the books (Other than shooting or Spellcasting). It references using the smaller of the pools, split, and then adding appropriate modifiers to each split. Not sure exactly where it is currently, as I am not with my Resources.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 06:43 PM

Oh, oh, oh, by the way.

How do you know that?

No where in the spellcasting section does it mention taking the smallest pool.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 06:43 PM

Double double post post.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 06:44 PM

I've run a search on the word "split" (includes "splitting") through the main PDFs. The only game mechanic references for splitting dice pools are the multiple firearm, multiple melee, and multiple spell sections.

There is also an odd Sprite power (Assault) with its own weird half-Pilot-rating + full Complex Form mechanic.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 06:45 PM

He's making up rules as he goes along.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 07:02 PM

If your master plan here is to point out that I don't play using bad interpretations of ambiguous rules, you're late to that party.

The first line of the post you quoted:



In the face of ambiguity, I side with my RPG experience and the very helpful document released by the game developers, where they explained the rule as it's intended. You know, for actual games.

Where I have a problem is, in the middle of a discussion about the power level of Magic, we have to drag out the old hat: "something something something why don't you just throw 4 stunbolts at it because it's so easy et cetera and so forth." And then the presumption is that the character is going to be designed to blatantly take advantage of a poorly worded rule whose literal meaning is ambiguous (and incomplete), by squeezing 8 dice out of a 2 point specialization and 16 dice out of a rating 4 spellcasting focus, all on the same action.

Well yes, now magic seems overpowered, if you're going to stipulate that all of your assumptions are true. But they're not RAW.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 07:09 PM

You mean the one that in some cases blatantly contradicts the rules up to and including an example that runs counter to an example in the book?

Posted by: Cheops Apr 20 2011, 07:11 PM

The rule is in no way poorly worded or ambiguous. Unless you aren't a native english speaker. Split pool, add modifiers.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 07:23 PM

Maybe the FAQ needs errata.

By that logic, since there are uncorrected errors in the main rulebook, the whole book should be tossed out.

You'd need to point out some of those specific errors, though, since I'm not an expert on FAQ inconsistencies.



The multiple spellcasting section doesn't bother to say how or when you should include modifiers, and the spellcasting modifiers section doesn't mention multiple spellcasting at all. Some people backfit those rules with the same rules as for multiple firearms, but it's not really RAW.

Also, based on the wording for foci and specializations, it's entirely plausible that they're not supposed to be modifiers, but rather extra pool dice.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 07:37 PM

Look, I'm not talking about you like you're an idiot, so I'd appreciate similar courtesy. You followed from Draco's mistake of confusing talking about how I actually play with how I think the rules are written. Two different things.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 20 2011, 07:38 PM

Because your "I'm not allowing the player to use most of the relevent modifiers when multicasting" is so RAW.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 07:42 PM

That's because, in general, when on a forum for a game, it is customary to speak about RAW, not local house rules, as everyone here plays by a different set of house rules and it is impossible to discuss the merits of those houserules (except when noted).

Therefore, this discussion must then be about how RAW works.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 20 2011, 07:51 PM

When you went off on your tangent interpretation about getting 30+ dice however, I offered up what I actually play with (RAI) as a counter-point.

Multicasting in RAW requires a lot of assumptions to get it to work. Even in the one example of multicasting they wrote, the don't include any foci, specialization, or anything else. Apparently their example writers came from the school of thought that you should always give the easiest example you can, and leave the rest for the reader.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 20 2011, 07:59 PM

You mean the one that I used as an example of what could happen if you split after modifiers? I never said that was RAW. I never even said it was RAI. I said that as an example of an interpretation to use as a point of why that interpretation is false (because the modifiers end up effecting the wrong thing).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 20 2011, 07:59 PM

But it does... Steps 3 and 4 of the Spellcasting Guidelines... How many times does it need to be said?



However, since it is not Stated as such, and since any modifiers not delineated as direct Skill or Attribute modifiers are to be considered Dice Pool Modifiers, well, you know...

Changes to fix these inconsistencies belong in an Eratta. A FAQ just will not cut it.

Posted by: Fringe Apr 20 2011, 09:19 PM

I have to agree with you on this.

Neglecting threshold modifiers (which are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand), we have only three types of modifiers left:
1. Attribute modifiers, which augment the Attribute directly.
2. Skill modifiers, which augment the Skill directly. (Specializations are not of this type; see SR4A, p. 68.)
3. Dice pool modifiers, which are everything else, both positive and negative, unless it specifically says it's not a dice pool modifier. See below.

SR4A, p. 61, callout box (A Note on Modifiers):
"Shadowrun, Fourth Edition, uses four distinct types of modifiers: Attribute modifiers, Skill modifiers, threshold modifiers, and dice pool modifiers. Attribute and Skill modifiers affect the character’s relevant stats directly, resulting in augmented Attribute Ratings and modified Skill Ratings respectively (see Attribute Ratings, p. 68, and Skill Ratings, p. 68). Threshold modifiers are situational modifiers that increase or decrease the thresholds of unopposed Success Tests and Extended Tests (see Thresholds, p. 63). Finally, dice pool modifiers are the most common type of modifiers; they represent dice pool increases and reductions from situational modifiers, the effects of augmentations, powers, spells, and from injuries, qualities, and various other sources (see Dice Pool Modifiers). These add and subtract from the dice pools but do not modify the basic Skills and Attributes in use."

SR4A, p. 61, Dice Pool Modifiers:
"The Shadowrun rules often call for a plus or minus dice modifier to a test. These modifiers can result from injuries and situational factors that affect what the character is trying to do. The modifier affects the number of dice used in the dice pool. If more than one dice modifier applies, they are added together and applied to the dice pool. Note that threshold modifiers (p. 63) do not affect the dice pool. Unless otherwise stated, any modifier mentioned is considered to be a dice pool modifier as noted above."

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 21 2011, 04:47 AM

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, and didn't see anything promising in the search, so here I go.

How precisely does the "arcane arrester" quality work? To me, it looks like it's saying "combat spells can only do half their normal damage to you, unless the caster scores enough hits to do more than half his normal damage." So in other words no change? Gee, thanks, I'll put that down next to the raptor beak quality to gather a healthy coating of dust.

BTW, I don't actually believe that's what the book is trying to say, but that's the only way I can read it.

Posted by: Mäx Apr 21 2011, 07:32 AM

You treat all force based effect of spells hitting you as if the spells force was half(round down), yes the mage get to add net hits, but theres still a mountain of difference between taking 4+nethits damage and taking 9+nethits damage when your hit by a force 9 stunbolt.

Posted by: Medicineman Apr 21 2011, 07:49 AM

if the Spell hits the AA for 1/2 Strength then also with only 1/2 of the Netto Hits
Caster Casts Spell at Force 6 with 4 Netto Hits (Drain will be rolled accordingly)
AA is hit by Force 3 with only 3 Hits (because Force limits the Hits)
and needs only 3 Hits to...Nullify (right word ?) the Spell

This is how I interpret the Quality
( it makes no Sense any other way ImO)

with 1/2 a Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Irion Apr 21 2011, 08:38 AM

A force stunbolt with Force 7 with 6 hits would need 6 hits to be resisted but only do 3+6-(hits on resistance test) Points of damage.

Posted by: Medicineman Apr 21 2011, 08:44 AM

Yes ,I know ( I have 2 Fomori and a Gnome Char)

A Force 2 Spell can have only 2 Netto Hits
and Your Force 3 Stunbolt can have only 3 Net Hits
thats what I was Posting

HokaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: Irion Apr 21 2011, 09:26 AM

Yes to resist the spell you would only need 3 hits.
But if you do not get those hits, all the other hits are added to the damage.

So Force 7(6hits) spell 2 hits to resist you suffer 7/2+6-2=7 boxes of damage.
If you had 3 hits you would have resisted the spell.

Posted by: Medicineman Apr 21 2011, 09:53 AM

OK : A force stunbolt with Force 7 with 6 hits

The Actual Force cast by the Mage is not changed ,right, thats why He has to resist the Drain of the Force 7 Spell
But the AA is affected by a Force 3 Spell and the Force of the Spell limits the Hits
so its a Force 3 Spell with 3 Hits for 6 Points of Damage only (instead of 13 Points originally casted by the Mage))
If the AA succeeds with WIL (3) he successfully negated the Spell (instead of WIL (6) Roll )

I hope thats better understandable ?

HokaHey
Medicineman

Posted by: Irion Apr 21 2011, 10:08 AM

@Medicineman

Why should it. To limit the hits it would have to change the actual force.

It is only arguable, that you are able to resist the spell with 3 hits. It could be argued, that you still need 6, because the Force of the spell is not changed.

You are still affected by a 7 Force spell, all Force based effects are only halved. In the case of direct damage spells the damage is halved.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 21 2011, 01:15 PM

Correct. A Force 7 spell with 6 hits is resisted by the AA as if it was a Force 3 spell with 6 hits.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 21 2011, 02:23 PM

However to half the damage (as you indicate), you still need to cap those hits to the Force resisted by the Target. That is what Half Means...

Example:
Force 7 Spell with 6 Net Hits = 13 Damage
Force 3 Effective Spell with 3 Effective Net Hits = 6 Damage... that is half...
Force 3 Effective with 6 Net hits is 9 Damage... NOT HALF of 13...

Do See where Medicine Man is coming fromn yet?

Posted by: Fringe Apr 21 2011, 02:31 PM

RC, p. 111:
"Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced. For instance, a character with Arcane Arrester targeted by a Force 5 spell would resist it as if it were a Force 2 spell, though the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect."

So the AA is attacked with a F7 stunbolt and the caster scores 6 hits. The Force isn't actually changed, but from the "for instance" the AA resists as if it were F3. Does the AA only need 3 hits to completely resist, since he'd resist as if it were F3 (thus capped at 3 hits), and if he fails to completely resist then takes F3 and all the remaining unresisted hits?

I guess what I'm asking is whether the following outcomes are correct for F7 stunbolt with 6 hits on the Spellcasting test:
1. AA scores 0-2 hits. Part of the spell gets through, causing 3 (base damage from the spell for the AA) + 6 (hits) - (0-2, however many hits the AA got) damage.
2a. AA scores 3-5 hits. Spell resisted completely, since he resists as if the Force were halved (3). If it were a F3 spell, Spellcasting hits would be capped at 3.
or 2b. AA scores 3-5 hits. Since the Force itself is unchanged, the caster still had 6 hits, so the damage is 3 (base) + 6 (hits) - (3-5, resistance roll).
3. AA scores 6 hits. This scenario is pretty clear...the target resists the spell, since the caster must have at least one net hit to have any effect.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 21 2011, 02:37 PM

We have always interpreted it that the Force of the Spell applied to the Character with Arcane Arrester was Cut in Half. Hits were then capped by the Applied Force to the Target. So, for that Force 7 Spell, it becomes Force 3 and caps at 3 hits. That is the only interpretation that makes sense to the cost of the Quality. Why? Because you would need to resist a Maximum of 3 Hits to resist the spell, not the 6 that are possibly being applied. If you go the other way, he would need to resist all 6 net hits to resist the spell, which makes absolutely no sense.

Note that Arcane Arrester also works against spells other than combat spells. Wanted to point that out, as it always devolves into how much Damage it will negaste.

Anyways.

Posted by: Irion Apr 21 2011, 02:42 PM

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Yeah, I meant base damage. Not the hits of course.

@Fringe
Draco18s made a valid point, so I guess it is 2b.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 21 2011, 02:52 PM

Mhm.
As far as the mage is concerned, it's a F7 spell, allowing up to 7 hits (of which he has 6). As far as the AA is concerned, it's a Force 3 spell. Except that it still has 6 hits behind it.
(Only force based effects are modified!)

Edit:
Remember also that force of the spell limits net hits not total hits.

Posted by: Epicedion Apr 21 2011, 02:58 PM

This is a good point, and I can't believe no one's brought this sidebar up before. I'm still not really convinced that certain oddities in the system aren't intended to be bonus dice without being a modifier, though. Edge is sort of described in the same way as foci and specializations.

Posted by: Irion Apr 21 2011, 03:00 PM

@Draco18s

Ok, thats news to me.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 21 2011, 03:08 PM

Nope... Force of the Spell limits HITS, not NET HITS...

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 21 2011, 03:19 PM

Alright. looks like I was just misinterpreting a basic element of spellcasting.
This would have made much more sense if I had realized from the start that force was added to the effective power of a spell. I thought force was simply a limit on the power of a spell, and the power itself was dependent purely on hits.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 21 2011, 03:30 PM

There are only 4 kinds of modifiers, there's no way to get bonus dice that are not in some way a dice pool modifier due to their nature of modifying the dice pool. Yes, even Edge.



Some spells don't need more than 1 hit to get full benefit. Some spells don't need to be more than Force 1 (as their effect is neither force nor hit dependent). Some spells don't do anything based on force, but do on hits (but Force caps hits). Some get benefit from both Force and hits (mostly combat spells).

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 22 2011, 08:03 AM

I must ask how you come to that conclusion. A dice pool is, by definition, the dice you roll for a test. Multi-casting splits the dice pool. The info in step 4 doesn't add dice to your dice pool, it explains how to assemble your dice pool, and even if it did add dice, the fact remains is that a dice pool is the dice you roll on a test, regardless of how those dice got there. If you are rolling dice on the test, those dice are part of your dice pool, which is, in this case, split.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Apr 22 2011, 11:25 AM

Arcane Arrester reduces the effective Force of the spell in regards to that character - including anything derived from Force. It is largely arbitrary on if this limits spellcasting Hits applied to the arrested character.

Despite essentially being "GM's Discretion", the stance that the reduced Force is used for limiting spellcasting hits has somewhat stronger rules support. In addition, that seems to be the intended function.

Edit: Keep in mind the ruling that the full Hits apply (instead of reduced maximum from reduced Force) essentially eliminates the qualities effect on the vast majority of spells (some beneficial, most harmful). The cost of the quality is also far to high for the received benefit under that ruling.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 22 2011, 01:04 PM

Step 3 tells you to split your Starting Pool (Attribute + Skill, note that it does not yet discuss Modifiers).
Step 4 then Adds in Modifiers.

Easy Peasy...
Since there is precedence for Splitting Dice Pools using this method (See the Previous Chapter of the Book), and since doing it the other way creates insane situations, it is the most logical option. However, I know that not everyone agrees on this, so Your Mileage May Vary.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 22 2011, 01:13 PM

See prior examples.



Compare it to the Magic Resistance quality then. Equivalent BP should be +4 dice to resist spells.
Which would you rather have?

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Apr 22 2011, 07:01 PM

+4 to resist spells over that interpretation of Arrester. Easily.

I also consider Magic Resistance to be a subpar quality.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 22 2011, 07:06 PM

If only it weren't written so unclearly. As is, you have to simply house-interpret it for your table (preferable before chargen, heh). Still, I always rule to the detriment of the players, so I'm partial to the argument 'if they meant 1/2 everything, they would have just said that'.

Posted by: longbowrocks Apr 22 2011, 07:40 PM

I like big numbers and I cannot lie, but having the GM play against you rather than as your guardian angel can be a lot of fun.
Can I play?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Apr 22 2011, 07:48 PM

Heh. I mean, I'd use the same ruling for NPCs. As a general rule, I pick the weaker of two interpretations.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 23 2011, 01:29 AM

If multi-casting worked the same as multi-shooting, why would they be worded differently? Also, step 4 says nothing about adding anything. "The Spellcaster rolls
Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers.", it mentions what modifiers exist on a Spellcasting + Magic roll, but it does not use the word add, or in addition to, or anything like that. Those modifiers always existed, even in step 3, they just were not explicitly mentioned. As mentioned before, if you are rolling a die, it is part of your dice pool. The book does not explicitly list every modifier that exists for every dice pool, it simply, in this instance, listed some of the more common modifiers to a Spellcasting + Magic dice pool. If step 4 is really adding to a dice pool, and step 3 has no modifiers, then I guess you don't get wound penalties when casting spells.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 23 2011, 01:33 AM

Wound modifiers are unmentioned in the "how to shoot a gun" section as well, so I guess they don't apply to that either!

Except:

There we have a general rule that is not co-opted by any specific rule in regards to this discussion.