Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: CrystalBlue Aug 17 2011, 04:38 PM

I just need to confirm some rules that I learned about. They have to do with Magic. I'll make a seperate area for my Matrix questions.

1.) When casting a spell, you choose the Force that you'd like to cast it at, limited to your Magic rating for not overcasting. When you do that, what does this ACTUALLY do to the spell. I thought it was the cap for how many net hits you could have on the test, as well as what the damage is that you're doing (for direct damage spells) or healing (the amount you heal). However, I heard that the Heal spell actually just heals you, and the drain is determined by how severe the wound is that you're healing. Could someone clarify?

2.) We were fighting spirits at our last game, and they were Earth spirits. I did not know you had to do double the amount of force in damage to a spirit before you can even harm it. In that vein, do you need ADPS or Anti-Vehicular rounds against a spirit? Was this something that only Earth spirits have? Where in the book does this list this, because I never see anything under a spirit's powers or skills that says their armor is always double their force and is considered hardened armor.

3.) An extended test imposes a -1 penalty on you for each interval you roll? Wha? Where was THIS in the books? I thought you could keep going, so long as you had the time.

I'm not a new player. I've been playing for a long time. But these are not complex rulings. These seem pretty simple and should have been caught a long time ago. So how did I miss these obvious problems?

Posted by: squee_nabob Aug 17 2011, 05:10 PM

1) I’m not a magical expert, but if I understand you correctly, the first way is correct. You pick the force, that caps net hits, determines drain etc. Your GM may have been simplifying the Heal spell for ease of play though.

2) Check the spirits out on SR4A 302-303. They have the Materialization power (SR4A 296), which give syou Immunity to Normal Weapons (SR4A 295). ItNW is in fact armor equal to double the Magic rating which is “hardened”. I suggest SnS rounds against spirits.

3) SR4A Page 64, Extended Tests:

The gamemaster can also limit the number of rolls under the assumption that if the character can’t finish it with a certain amount of effort, she simply doesn’t have the skills to complete it. The suggested way to do this is to apply a cumulative –1 dice modifier to each test after the first (so a character with a Skill 3 + Attribute 3 would roll 6 dice in their first test, 5 in their second, 4 on their third, etc). Note that a character can also fail an Extended Test by glitching (see below).

It is a “suggestion” but a very commonly used one.


4) I have no help on how you missed these.

Posted by: tete Aug 17 2011, 05:10 PM

They are immune to normal weapons but I'm still trying to find a page number for you. Read the immune power in the critters section to learn more.



Thats it, Materialization includes Immunity to Normal Weapons!


Don't feel bad when 3e came out we missed the part about force/2 for drain tests on all spells. We did strait force for drain tests for almost a year.

Posted by: Dahrken Aug 17 2011, 05:22 PM

The Force of a spell does not caps the nets hits but the total hits you can roll. Say you cast a Force 3 spell, if you roll well and pull 5 hits, the two extras hits are completely ignored and your net hits would be 3 minus whatever the eventual opposition roll (counterspelling, Willpower, Object Resistance...) removes.

Heal works somewhat differently. It's Force is the maximum boxes of damage it can Heal, and you only heal (hits) boxes of damage, not (Force + hits).

The Drain of the spell is based on the current wound level of the target. The wording in the rules is a bit unclear, so an alternative reading is that it is based on the number of boxes you heal, but this feel wrong to me, it should be harder to heal someone who is nearly dead.

That's the Immunity to Normal Weapons power all materialized spirits have. (SR4A p. 186)


It is an optionnal rule suggested p. 64 (in SR4A) to prevent charracters to succeed in very difficult extended tests just by throwing time at them.

Posted by: Sephiroth Aug 17 2011, 05:24 PM

IIRC it's the cap for hits, not net hits. RE:healing, these are two different interpretations that are roughly equally valid. I personally think that the latter interpretation is a little too harsh when the game is already one of glass cannons, but different people have different interpretations of how the Heal spell actually works with the drain and whatnot.


It's not limited to Earth spirits, it's all non-possession spirits. Spirits are very powerful because of this, especially in the Force 5+ range, but if you're particularly worried about this you could always go down the cheap route and use Stick and Shock ammo to halve their armor and tase them into "unconsciousness." The ITNW thing is listed in the description for Materialization.


It's an optional rule. Not the explicit "THIS IS AN OPTIONAL RULE" kind of optional rule, before anyone starts arguing with me about that, but the "Here's a suggestion for gamemasters" kind of optional rule. It's in the Game Concepts chapter under the Extended Tests section.


EDIT: mostly but not completely ninja'd by everyone else.

Posted by: CrystalBlue Aug 17 2011, 05:57 PM

So, say I have someone that has 7 boxes of damage on them. The medic comes over and treats them and heals 3 boxes of damage. That makes it down to 4 boxes. Then, the mage comes over and casts Heal. He's then casting at force 4 to heal the last boxes. He only rolls 3 successes. Now, is he then only healing 3 boxes of damage, but draining for 4?

And when we're talking about damage for spells, does the net hits apply to the damage or over the damage. Say I have the same mage cast a force 4 power ball. He rolls and gets 6 hits and the target only got one success on their body + counterspelling test. That would be 5 net hits. What is the damage? Force + Net hits or just net hits?

Sorry to do this, but I've got a mage that's going to be flinging around stun bolt like it's going out of style and she was able to knock-out people in a single hit. Also, doesn't net hits add to the amount of drain as well? So if I've got the powerbolt options above, does that mean that the drain would be (F/2 + 1) + Net hits?

And ONE more question...same mage had Shape Material (Metal) and was getting through all of my doors because I made them...metal. >.< Can someone give me a stupid-person explanation on how that spell should work? Thank you.

Posted by: UmaroVI Aug 17 2011, 06:00 PM

There's a handful of other force-based effects of spells. Increase [Attribute] requires a minimum force of the target's augmented attribute score (before applying the spell, of course). Detection spells factor Force into their range. Levitate factors force into speed. There's a few other spells, I'm sure.

As mentioned, SnS is the best ammo against spirits. If your GM bans it, nerfs it, or prevents it from working on spirits, then your next best bets are any of the unusual weapons that do attacks versus half armor (Lasers, Shock Glove, Stun Baton, Tasers, Molotov cocktails, Ares Thunderstruck Gauss Rifle, flamethrowers, or the armor-bypassing Ares Screech Sonic Rifle), or APDS rounds on a high base damage weapon.

Another useful trick is called shots for extra DV.

Posted by: Bigity Aug 17 2011, 06:06 PM

Yes, every net hit after the target's resistance roll CAN be used to increase the damage, at the cost of increasing drain as well.

See SR4A page 204, under Combat Spells.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 17 2011, 06:10 PM

Yes... Exactly



No... He cast the spell at Force 4, so he only gets 4 Successes. Then he compares agains teh resistance of the Traget (who got 1 according to your example), so he only has 3 Net Successes. His damage is 7.



No, that is an Optional Rule, which allows Net hits to add to Drain. But note, it is an Optional Rule that promotes Overcasting or Multi-Casting. SO it si generally regarded as a bad optional rule.



Ummmmm. Not sure what you are looking for here. If the Metal is Highly Refined, it will have a higher Threshold to affect. Iron Doors are probably fairly easy to manipulate (OR 2). Titanium Doors, or Unobtainium Doors are probably much harder to affect (OR3, maybe 5). They are all made of metal, but the amount of effort/work it took to make (refine the metals into something that will work) that door will determine how many hits are required to affect it. Most Doors will probably fall into the OR 2-3 Range.

Posted by: Tanegar Aug 17 2011, 06:19 PM

Shape [Material] is pretty self-explanatory. It's in Street Magic if you care to take a look for yourself, but basically, an amount of the specified material (metal, in this case) no more than (Force) meters in diameter assumes whatever shape the magician wants. Yes, this means he can shape a hole in a metal door or wall, crumple guns and other weapons into useless metal balls at a distance, etc. Do note, however, that "material that is connected or reinforced (such as walls or other material part of a structure) must be broken apart by reducing its Structure rating by Force points per Combat Turn." The Barrier Rating table on page 166 of SR4A gives armor and structure ratings for many sample materials. A security door, for example, has Armor 8 and Structure 9. So, your magician would need to cast Shape Metal at Force 9 to get through the door in one turn.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 17 2011, 06:32 PM

Besides, your doors probably aren't metal. They're probably plasteel or something funky like that, so screw you mage!

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 17 2011, 06:44 PM

The heal spell is weird in that it uses "damage value" (a term found in the combat chapter to define the number of boxes of damage a weapon do) in its drain value formula. Had it read "boxes healed" or similar, there would be no question what so ever.

Then again, healing damage in SR have always been weird. No edition have had a good description of what defines a set of wounds, iirc.

Posted by: TheOOB Aug 17 2011, 06:52 PM

Thats an optional rule, and a really bad one at that. Why you would punish someone for a good roll is beyond me, especially when you can do more damage with an assault rifle anyways.

Under the normal rules, net hits on combat spells deal extra damage with no penalty to you. The force of the spell determines the base DV, and the number of hits you can get. If I cast stunbolt at force 3, and get 4 hits, and target gets 3 hits on their willpower roll, the spell fails because I'm limited to 3 hits. If I had cast the spell at force 4+, it would hit with 1 net hit.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 17 2011, 06:58 PM

Because they're already ungodly strong. It's also a rule that doesn't matter, because it's very 'sub-optimal'.

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 17 2011, 07:06 PM

Because they basically made indirect combat spells pointless outside of pinging drones and vehicles.

Posted by: Bigity Aug 17 2011, 07:31 PM

It's not listed as an optional rule in the PDF. Is that in some errata or am I just reading something wrong?

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 17 2011, 07:37 PM

No errata (there have not been any since the CGL financial issues, and recent reprints seems to indicate that they may have gone missing altogether), but they did change it to optional before printing. See if the place you got the PDF can supply you with a updated version (they usually do for some time at least).

Posted by: Bigity Aug 17 2011, 07:45 PM

Ah I wasn't aware SR4A had an updated PDF thanks Once I got the hardcopy one later I kind of stopped checking.


So basically, it should be: Net Hits add to damage without increasing Drain? With the optional rule being that adding the net hits to DV also increases drain?

Posted by: Seerow Aug 17 2011, 07:46 PM

A little off topic, but like others said the rule of giving you extra drain for your hits punishes you for doing well, which sucks. What my group does is increase the drain of direct spells by the highest number of hits scored on a spell resistance test instead. So rather than punishing you for doing well, it rewards someone who can resist successfully. (We've had a few mages knock themselves out casting at a high will counterspelled target). It gives indirect spells a nice niche: there are some targets you frankly don't want to risk a direct spell on.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 17 2011, 07:47 PM

If by "commonly used" you mean "almost never used" because limiting #rolls to dice_pool_size is in fact more common.



It's always bugged me that spells designed to intentionally effect a given material (in this case Shape [Metal], although equally valid for Wreck [Helicopters], or Slay [Lofwyr]) are still subject to the same OR limitations (admittedly Lofwyr is not an object, but still) as a more generic spell. The only advantage to having them is the (ever so slightly) lower drain, but seeing as you have to cast the spell at Force [OR threshold] anyway, you're already pumping huge drain for the spell.

Personally I'd lower the OR threshold by 1 for restricted target spells (or in the case of specific target Slay spells and the like, a bonus net hit* if the spell is successful).

*Why ever learn Slay [Lofwyr] instead of Slay [Dragons]?

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 17 2011, 07:48 PM

That is a interesting house rule.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 17 2011, 07:53 PM

I've never put it into practice (not having ever had a mage at the table with one of the spells that would qualify). Just an idea on the drawing board that looks like it'd work quite well.

I mean.

If magic was real and I had a harder time effecting processed goods than natural ones, you can be sure that if I was going to design a spell that would only and specifically effect those processed materials, I'd take that "object resistance" into account when designing the spell, so that instead of throwing more brute force at the problem, the spell instead works around the inherit limitations to do the same job with less power (but it'd never work on another material with different properties! Hence the restricted nature of the spell).

Computer analogy:
Rather than brute forcing my way through nested arrays, use a binary tree. O(n^2) -> O(n)

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 17 2011, 08:03 PM

The lowered Drain already accounts for that. If it does so *badly*, just fix that part. Otherwise, you have an argument that can say anything: 'If I were making a stun spell, I'd totally take Stun resistance into account, instead of throwing more brute force at it.'

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 17 2011, 08:07 PM

MY PDF shows it as optional... You should look into updating your PDF.
EDIT: OOOps, SOmeone Already Posted... Sorry.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 17 2011, 08:16 PM

There really isn't such a thing as "stun resistance" though. Whereas there is a clear "this object, due to having been processed by [humans|machines|bullshit-we-made-it-bigger|bullshit-we-processed-it-more¹] ignores X level of magic" trait. Seriously, an OR5 drone has the equivalent dice of someone with a Willpower of 15.

If I were going to rewrite the rules, I'd make the OR table be the "this is what stuff rolls instead of Willpower" and maybe bump the numbers a little (50%?).



Even if one were to do something like, say, F/2 - 5 drain (instead of a hypothetical F/2) it still doesn't really solve the problem that a Magic 2 character who knows Wreck [Drone] can never effect a drone.
(Crunch aside making us go "well duh, they're magic 2," magic 5+ characters are technically outliers in the larger global population).

¹Table salt qualifies for at least OR4. It's highly pure/refined sodium chloride. Are you letting that fly? Because there are natural occurrences of pure salt, and the human-made process is exactly the same: boil salt water.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 17 2011, 08:44 PM

See, I would classify that as OR 2 (Low Tech), not OR3 (Manufactured) nor OR5 (Highly Processed). Can a primitive do it with no technology? Yes? Then it is low tech.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 17 2011, 09:11 PM

You haven't seen a http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/214710782/LT_MED_seawater_desalination_plant.jpg have you? Just because it can be done with primitive technology (the sun and a bowl) doesn't mean it is. I mean, seriously. Metal is OR3, and http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/77/77,1104767786,8/stock-photo-machinery-industry-chemical-refinery-nuts-bolts-valves-metal-cylinder-pipes-tubes-big-powerful-85261.jpg to refine it.

Not all that much different from the desalination plant, is it?

Try http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/FSA/FSA654/circuit-board-factory_~x17707623.jpg (OR5 products) to a http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/271247437/glass_bottle_filling_machine_for_wine_whiskey.jpg (OR2 product).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 17 2011, 09:47 PM

I have made circuit boards by hand, it does not take high tech equipment to do that. And, I do know what a desalination plant is/does, and I still would not put it above an OR3. I just wouldn't. Sorry. And since Natural Salt has an OR1, I would likely just use OR2, so as not to have an argument with everyonbe who wats to belabour the point. Of course, who has a Spell called Shape Salt in the first place? And what, exactly, are they using it for?

There is a lot of leeway in the chart, but most things will likely fall into the OR 3 range for Building Materials and common items of everyday use. Besides, what differentiates a Simple Plastic (OR2) from an Advanced Plastic (OR3)? To much of a headache to worry about that.

I mean really, what Defines a "Computer" in SR4? A Comlink is a "Computer." A Sensor could be described as having a "Computer" in it. In fact, many of our modern conveniences today have "Computer Chips" in them, but I would define the vast majority of such things as "Electronics" instead of "Computers." In the end, I tend to stick at OR3 unless it is a vehicle or Drone, or it is obviously Natural. After all, you can always claim that the techniques to procduce the things we use now are overcomplicated and high tech.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 17 2011, 11:09 PM

This is true, but my point is, with such weird definitions for what makes one thing OR2 and another OR3 and yet another OR5, it gets murky.

Like, as you said, simple versus complex plastics. Last I checked, plastics were pretty much all the same, but with varying properties, such as flexibility and color.
Similarly what differentiates natural salt from processed salt? (Not that anyone is going to have a Shape [Salt] spell, but it's an easy material to work with, as it is found both naturally and processed).

Posted by: Bodak Aug 18 2011, 01:19 AM

I thought that rule was only ever suggested for Indirect Combat spells (which used to be called Elemental Manipulation spells in SR3) - the ones that actually warp reality to create an elemental effect / stream / matter which actually travels from mage to target as a ranged attack, has secondary effects, splash damage and can affect targets out of the mage's LoS.

You mentioned stunbolt and powerbolt. Both of these are Direct Combat spells (which were just Combat spells in SR3) which do not travel (and so can be aimed using fibre optics) but just take effect at the target point and only affect things the mage has LoS to (so the mage can use AR to protect friends from AoE damage). These don't even have an optional rule to increase drain by net hits. You could make a house rule to that effect though if you wanted.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 01:23 AM

Uh.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 18 2011, 01:24 AM

I think you have that backwards. Indirect Combat spells already have huge drain. The extra drain for direct spells I think was initially supposed to be direct spells' answer to that, but then got taken out and made optional at the last minute when people pointed out that it did not work as intended (previously mentioned inclination towards dual casting, etc)

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 18 2011, 01:39 AM

My point is that the way to fix problems with the OR system (and/or the Drain benefit of specialized spells) is not to just make the spells stronger. It is to fix those problems.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 01:59 AM

Agreed, which is why I tend to default to just OR 3 unless it is otherwise very obvious.

Posted by: Bodak Aug 18 2011, 05:48 AM

Mea culpa. I knew it was for one kind and not the other.

Posted by: Korwin Aug 18 2011, 06:52 AM

Is'nt that beside the point?
Its not important, how easily you can make something, but how you did make it.

For reference see the OR increasing mod in War.

Posted by: CrystalBlue Aug 18 2011, 11:57 AM

Well, seeing as it's an optional rule, we'll most likely make the argument against using it and not add those extra hits to drain. I understand that it's unfair, but when the mage is able to cast a force 4 stunbolt, get 8 hits and knocks a target out, then drain everything away for 0 to herself...that seems a bit OP. Sure, people are going to tell me to just throw things at her that she can't use stunbolt at. And then I'll get chewed out for making her character useless. Not that she doesn't already have the power to perpetually fly, telepathically speak, centering to reduce drain by three points for every spell...

Anyway, I think this answers most of my questions. I'll have to take a look at the OR table and maybe increase the materials that she's finding.

Posted by: Machiavelli Aug 18 2011, 12:57 PM

Just to clear something out: You cannot cast a force 4 stunbolt with 8 hits. You have to overcast it on force 8 and risk physical drain if you want to get 8 hits. I think you meant "cause 8 points of damage".

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 01:15 PM

Actually, it is not beside the point. If you can have 2 objects of the same thing, made by completely different means, one low tech, and the other high tech, then you will have two objects with 2 different OR Thresholds. This creates a disconnect in the table. Salt (As Draco18s pointed out) is the best example of that. One pile of Salt could be OR1, and the other could be as high as OR5. Yet, both are Salt. So, Which is which?

In War, you can add up to +2 OR for OVERPORCESSING the item. Not sure I like that, But it is an option.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 18 2011, 01:17 PM

You could spend Edge on the Spellcasting Test and still get 8 Net Successes on a F4 spell.

That aside, I don't know why this is so bad and a sniper rifle isn't. There's a line from one of the Dresden Files books that a supernatural merc says to the mage protaganist - it's something like "All the power in the world won't protect you from the bullet of a sniper rifle a mile away."

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 01:18 PM

And yet, if you shoot that same target with a Light Pistol (4 DV) and get 8 net hits and kill the target, and the shooter takes no drain (Because there is none), why would that NOT ALSO be overpowered?

EDIT: Neraph beat me to it, though in a different way.

Your mage seems pretty experienced, with 3 Initiations and all. She SHOULD be doing what you claim she is doing. If you are unwilling to take the steps to control magic, as they are described in the books, then I'm not really sure how to help. Mages are powerful, but not all that difficult to control. *shrug*

Posted by: Korwin Aug 18 2011, 01:46 PM

I’m not an native english speaker, but reading your posts again you seem to first argue you should take the lowest possible manufacturing method for determining the OR.

Then after my post, you seem to agree with me.
It’s not the lowest possible manufacturing method, but the actually used manufacturing method.

*confused*

Posted by: Mardrax Aug 18 2011, 01:57 PM

This is why you don't use said methods all the time, but just once every while. So that every character involved gets his or her chance to shine in the spotlight for a bit. If you get chewed out for that, it sounds like someone has a craving for the limelight a bit too much.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 02:07 PM

Not the lowest, no. I tend to just use OR 3, unless it would make sense to use something different. My (and Draco18s) example of the Salt is a interesting one, because as a Caster you do not KNOW what the OR of that Salt is, and it could be OR1 or OR5. There should never be any doubt what the OR of somethjing is, and yet that doubt creeps in all the time. A Katana made by Hand would be OR2, and yet a Katana made by the newest techniques could be as High as OR 7. So, which is it for which one when they are functionally and visualy identical? The Fact that it could be either is disturbing. As a GM, in this instance, It might become a Plot point to pursue, and could be interesting. But I have often seen arguments on this very subject, when people disagree upon where an item should be placed on the table. Simply because they cannot agree upon the manufacturing techniques used to create the item in question. *shrug*

In the case of the Circuit Board example you and I touched upon. Crafting one by hand has a different OR than one made in a High Tech Automated facility. But you cannot really tell which is which (well, that is not exactly true, the hand made one was of higher quality and had better tolerances than the manufactured ones because the workmanship was very meticulous and careful, with very precisde Solder work, where the manufactured one was more shoddy, with solder work that would never have passed a high schoiol quality examination... But that is beside the point). Electronics is Electronics. Does it really matter if one was made by hand and the other was made by industrial manufacturing practices? In Shadowrun it does. And this opens up all kinds of Potential Argument.

No worries though, it is an interesting disucssion...

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 02:16 PM

Precisely. Cognitive dissonance.

(Reiterating house rule)

And if (by RAW, rather than "OR3 unless") all metallic objects are OR3 (or higher) then it would make sense that Shape [Metal] would be designed with those kinds of limitations, and as such be subject to a lower threshold than Shape [Stuff]. Same for spells like Wreck [Drone] over Powerbolt. Both are functionally identical, however they take the same level of force to have a chance to effect the object, the only difference is the 1 DV less drain (which is largely meaningless).

By allowing restricted spells to have a lower threshold, it opens them up as viable options for mages (Wreck [Drones] is great for that Magic 4 mage and worth the 3 karma to learn over Powerbolt, and although Powerbolt has a wider range of applications, the mage would never want to overcast it to take out a drone! Besides, all those other applications he's already covering with Stunbolt)

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 02:21 PM

It is an interesting House Rule. Probably tougfh to remember or keep track of though. Don't know.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 02:24 PM

Not any more than keeping track of which spells you have fetishes for. I added notes to my excel sheet that gave me the bonus dice listing ("+2 spellcasting (mentor), +2 drain (fetish)").

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 02:37 PM

I guess...
I do the note thing too, and I still, on occasion, forget things in the heat of the moment. *shrug*

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 02:40 PM

I have too. I once rolled damage resist (with edge) against a grenade and forgot my armor. Next session I realized it, as I counted how many dice I rolled and went "waitaminute" and rolled the remaining dice (after conferring with the group) and had exploding 6s up the wazzoo. Went from "surviving the grenade" to "taking no damage."

Posted by: CrystalBlue Aug 18 2011, 06:01 PM

My problem isn't her getting a good roll. It's that it's silent, it's not detectable by mundane means, and she can roll away the drain to nothing almost all the time, so she has no draw-backs to it. Sure, if there's a mage around, they'll assens the hell out of her and she can't do anything about that. But I don't throw mages at them all that often, because magic is supposed to still be a rare thing.

And her three initiate grades are all because I allow the Karma build system. I shouldn't, but I do because I like how you cna get a much better spread of skills and abilities in your character then BP. It gives you more options at the cost of being specialized. The player just knew EXACTLY what he wanted when he made the character. He wanted a flying, telepathic mage that had Dragon as his mentor spirit. He has crap for a lot of those skills, I'm sure. But he's initiated three times, with groups and ordeals.

Posted by: Tanegar Aug 18 2011, 06:05 PM

You let him take the initiation discounts in chargen? I ask purely for information.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 06:06 PM

You mean besides the threshold 2 perception test, available to anyone and everyone?

Although admittedly, I was throwing F7 stunbolts around and my GM never rolled to see if people spotted it.

The one time it would have mattered, the only person capable of making the roll was teleconferencing in (ie. video cameras to see us) and I ruled that there's no way he could know what I was doing (I'd been firing stunbolts at a spirit on the astral while getting the crap beaten out of me by a cybertroll*).

*My allies were taking care of him. I made it out a live, but unconscoius (mmm, edge for a dead man's trigger spell on that spirit, as it had resisted just enough of the first one; I love uncommon uses of edge).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 18 2011, 06:15 PM

How very Dresden of you...

Posted by: CrystalBlue Aug 18 2011, 06:42 PM

It was a character he'd already made once before, and I allow full use of the Karma system. Sure, it could bite me in the ass if used incorrectly, but what he's building has nothing to do with my problems. It's more the interpretations of the rules. Again, another rule I didn't know. I thought, from what the book told me, that without a Geas or other stricture, magic just happened and the mundane couldn't detect it.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 07:01 PM

Hm. Physical threat (two physical allies) or magical threat? I'll hit the magical one.

Posted by: Tanegar Aug 18 2011, 07:02 PM

Nope. IMO, the [6 - Force] threshold is ridiculously low, because it basically makes the "sneaky magician" archetype impossible to pull off. As soon as you whip out any kind of mojo with a chance in hell of working, you're floating six feet off the ground on a throne of flaming skulls and blotting out the sun with a cloud of pure hatred. Makes it kind of hard to be subtle.

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 18 2011, 07:09 PM

This is why I like concealment and being completely non-obvious.

"The hell? Is that bird glowing? Wait, no, it's just flying in front of the sun."
*STUNBOLT OF DEATH*

That said, I know it's been discussed having the threshold actually be Magic-Force, such that critters like great dragons (magic 12) can pull off normally huge feats of magic with nothing more than a twiddle of their little claw.

Posted by: DMiller Aug 18 2011, 09:18 PM

At our table we use the Magic - Force. Seems to work quite well and does allow for the sneaky mage (though no one plays that at our table).

-D

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Aug 19 2011, 05:32 AM

Personally i'm fine with the sneaky magician template being impossible to pull off. YOu have reality raping powers, those are not subtle.

Posted by: TheOOB Aug 19 2011, 06:44 AM

I always found the perception rules for magic to work well. A force 1 spell is weak, but nearly impossible to detect. A force 3 spell is decent, and difficult to detect, and a force 6+spell is powerful, but difficult not to notice. If I were to make spells harder to notice, it would be via a metmagic technique that increases the threshold for the perception test by initiate grade.

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

I like that solution, it is very elegant.

Posted by: Irion Aug 19 2011, 01:15 PM

Half initation grade at best. Consider that there is not much use for spell higher than 8, even if you have magic 10.

Posted by: Aaron Aug 19 2011, 01:17 PM

If you're concerned that direct combat spells are too powerful in your game, and you don't like the SR4A solution (with no personal interest in debating the pros and cons of that rule, mind you), might I suggest taking the "Force +" out of the "Force + net hits" equation for damage, and saving it for indirect combat spells?

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 19 2011, 01:27 PM

In a way that could make sense, as with direct spells your basically pumping energy into the target and hoping something goes *pop*. But with a indirect spell you can go for vital parts in a more controlled fashion (i think one could allow for called shots or aims in regards to indirect spells, as they behave pretty much like magical firearms).

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 19 2011, 02:07 PM

Ugh, no thanks. It'd be equivalent to taking the "base DV" out of guns and no one has suggested that and the gunbunny has more dice to shooting than a mage has to spellcasting:

Agility 8 (not even hard)
Skill 4 (room for improvement)
Specialization 2
Smartlink 2
Tacnet 3

19 dice, or 16 without tacnet. And there's likely bonuses I'm missing.

Magic 6 (hard to get higher)
Spellcasting 6 (veritably impossible to get higher)
Specialization 2
Mentor Spirit 2

16 dice, tops. And there's unlikely to be any bonus I'm missing.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 19 2011, 02:08 PM

You forgot the Force 4 Power Focus, or Force 5 Spellcasating Focus (Combat)

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 19 2011, 02:10 PM

Both of which are out of availability at chargen.

You can get a 2 and a 3, for $95,000 nuyen, which the guntotting bunny didn't spend on cybering up yet.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 19 2011, 02:12 PM

All you need is the Restricted Gear Quality, so, not really out of availability in the end.

Posted by: Seerow Aug 19 2011, 02:14 PM

Indeed, and this is one of the rare cases where it's worth it to take that quality rather than wait until the game starts to buy it, because binding a focus with BP is WAY cheaper than binding with karma (which is something that's always bugged me, and I think focus binding could stand to be made way cheaper, but whatever)

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 19 2011, 02:16 PM

So it's ok to take away the base damage from the mage's direct spells because "he does too much damage" for a build point cost FAR higher than the gunbunny's exact same damage?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 19 2011, 02:19 PM

Nope... Never said that. I like the magic system the way it currently is.

Posted by: CrystalBlue Aug 19 2011, 02:34 PM

I hope I didn't just create an argument by my questions. >.>;; I'm simply looking for the best way to understand the rules.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 19 2011, 02:35 PM

The mage has plenty of other powers directly related to those high BP costs, including spirits and a million other spells.

Posted by: UmaroVI Aug 19 2011, 02:38 PM

There seems to be some... confusion about how the balance between mages of the "cast spells to zap people" sort and people who shoot with guns for combat works*.

Mages can very reliably one-round anyone.
Gun users can very reliably one-round anyone.

Mages have very good, highly effective AoE attacks.
Gun users do not have very good AoE attacks.

Mages cannot be as tough as gun users without sacrificing severely for it.

Mages cannot have as high an Initiative score as gun users without sacrificing severely for it.

Mages get a lot of useful non-zapping-people abilities more or less for free as a byproduct of zapping people. Alternatively, mages who are in it for non-zapping-people reasons can easily enough be alright at zapping people for very little investment.

*you can, of course, make a mage who IS a gun user; I'm comparing zappy mages to augmented shooters.

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 19 2011, 02:49 PM

There is also the issue that guns are detectable by technology and people, while magic is basically invisible to technology.

A mage or adept could be dropped somewhere naked and have a better chance of survival then the same mundane. You can strip a samurai of his gear, you can not strip a mage of his powers.

Posted by: UmaroVI Aug 19 2011, 02:51 PM

Background count.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 19 2011, 03:03 PM

Exactly...
Or forcible implantation of 2nd Hand Ware...

Posted by: DamienKnight Aug 19 2011, 03:39 PM

The section about materialized spirits is not the same section as where Immunity to Normal Weapons is mentioned. The book says:

"Physical spirits have the power
of Immunity to Normal Weapons" SR4a p. 186

Street Magic:

"Certain spirits temporarily project into the physical
world through the power of Possession"

The book does not define a limitation to Materialization for Immunity to Normal Weapons. This leads me to belive that any spirit that is present on the physical has immunity to normal weapons. Can anyone provide a book reference that suggests otherwise?

Posted by: Dahrken Aug 19 2011, 04:26 PM

I did not say that other spiriits did not have it, just that spirits from a Materialization tradition are sure to have it. Now the way it is worded, yes, it would also apply to spirits who can exist on the physical plane by another mean (Possesion or Inhabitation) when they do so.

Posted by: Tanegar Aug 19 2011, 04:48 PM

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=35308

Posted by: Aaron Aug 22 2011, 08:22 PM

Are you equating direct damage spells to guns, or did you think I was suggesting one include indirect damage spells (the ones that actually do work like guns)?

Posted by: Draco18s Aug 22 2011, 08:26 PM

The former.