Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: AndrosDeragon Feb 8 2013, 11:49 AM

Hey all I want to ask and discuss on magic here, persifically on making your own spells at the beginning of character creation and In game spell creation. Mostly because I'm confused on the subject.

Posted by: Smirnov Feb 8 2013, 11:55 AM

The guide in Street Magic is rather extensive, what confuses you?

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 8 2013, 12:14 PM

In-Game, street magic is fairly clear and helpful (if game time prohibitive).

What do you want to know about during character creation period and such? Can you have one or two (custom spells) at the time of character creation .... Sure, if the GM says its okay and the formulations are worked out and determined to be within the scope of game balance. Might even work as good backstory creation (a former corp wagemage who left, or a street Mage who found a wagemages portfolio by chance).

Posted by: Falconer Feb 8 2013, 06:52 PM

All I know is I have yet to convince a GM to let me play a demolitions mage with a 'turn to c4' spell... as I see if if i can turn them into a limestone statue of Ca(CO3)... why not some explosive nitrate instead! Instead of turn to goo... turn to nitroglycerine!

That one always seems to get the veto... oh well.


Anyhow... OP you're going to have to be a lot more specific with your question. The whole section in street magic is very clear for most things. Of course you're going to have veto problems if your spells are too disruptive.. like above.


But for game time... I actually came up with a way to handle this in one long running power game... I made a second weaker ally spirit... force 7... with arcana and enchanting skills... The GM started to give me supply difficulties in reagants after it pumped out my second batch of orichalchum. Then I used it as an independent researcher when I needed custom spell formula. As well as started a sideline business talismongering custom foci.

Posted by: Halinn Feb 8 2013, 11:29 PM

Turn to http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php would be more fun.

Posted by: Tanegar Feb 8 2013, 11:52 PM

Let's see... Bad Rep, Distinctive Style, Wanted (every law enforcement agency in the known universe)... yes, I can think of a few appropriate things to do to a character who uses is batshit crazy enough to cast Turn to Chlorine Trifluoride.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 12:42 AM

There's a difference between turning them into limestone, a naturally occuring substance, and turning them into a highly processed synthetic explosive. Remember, magic cannot create complex things.

Petrify and Turn To Goo are already ridiculously broken. You can't dodge it, and you roll Body + Counterspelling to resist being completely neutralized for as long as the spell is sustained. As far as a single-target small-target crowd control goes, these are insanely useful spells. Making it so that you also could turn the a target's body into dozens or hundreds of kilograms of C4 is like letting a sniper rifle shoot nukes.

~Umi

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 12:52 AM

GIMMEE!!!

Turn to goo... you have a new variant to abhor and terrify GMs with!


Seriously though... I've worked firsthand with hydroflouric acid in clean rooms (used to clean oxides and glass of semiconductor surfaces)... anything which produces clouds of it as a primary product... is some seriously scary stuff.


Umi... actually a lot of explosives and even high explosives have some very simple chemical makeups. Nitrocellulose comes to mind. Many nitrates are used in quite a few because the NO3 product produces two things... oxygen in vast quantities as self-oxidizer... and a triple nitrogen bond for N2 molecules which result causing a huge exothermic reaction making all the resulting gas very hot and energetic for a nice pressure wave.


Yes but think of the possibilities as the 300kg body 15 troll... who resists your spells so effectively suddenly gets converted into a MOAB (mother of all bombs)...

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 9 2013, 12:59 AM

They don't even have to be single target! With the aforementioned make your own spell rules, you can easily modify "turn to goo" to be an AOE spell.
Though I wonder why nobody does "turn to gold" ...

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 01:02 AM

OH MY GLOB.

Now I want to build a leprechaun. Except instead of my Leprechaun Gold disappearing after a short while, it turns into chunks of meat.

~Umi

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 9 2013, 01:04 AM

That is one of the greatest things I have ever heard in my life.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 01:15 AM

Even better... alter it from LoS....

We'll name it "Midas Touch"

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 01:16 AM

You misspelled "grossest".

~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 01:28 AM

Always wondered... What happens if you jar someone turned to goo... or splash around in them, or make soylent green shakes?

Posted by: Stahlseele Feb 9 2013, 01:34 AM

Given that they gain a barrier rating equal to their body, it's a pretty strong goo . .

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 02:09 AM

Yeah, with the barrier rating it's more like a structural or industrial gel, oddly.

That said, if you remove a goo-person's goo-head, and then un-goo them, they be dead.

~Umi

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 9 2013, 02:27 AM

"Turn to Sodium", followed with "Hose".

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 02:35 AM

That's a very good way to light yourself on fire, Pax.

~Umi

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 9 2013, 03:43 AM

No, it's not. HOWEVER, using a temporary spell for such transformations does miscounted. Additionally, complex items are not complex compound. Fix the first problem with a permanent spell version. Fixing the second problem is unnecessary.

Posted by: Tanegar Feb 9 2013, 04:07 AM

Um... making Petrify and Turn to Goo permanent would make them more broken, not less. Now the magician can permanently remove a threat from the fight, with no dodge and a trivial resistance roll, and doesn't even have to suffer a sustaining penalty afterward. Yeah, no. How about the effect lasts for a number of combat turns equal to the number of net hits on the spellcasting roll? Maybe also make the resistance roll Body + Willpower + Counterspelling.

Posted by: SpellBinder Feb 9 2013, 04:14 AM

And break the economy if it's still based on precious metals like gold. Turn your enemies to gold or platinum, hold till it's permanent, then melt them down into neat ingots and sell as needed. Better yet, turn them into diamond (pure carbon that's in a neat order) and chip off bits to sell as jewelry.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 04:28 AM

Why stop there? Since we're already being absurd, let's just create a Turn To Orichalcum spell!

What's that? You need Alchemy to make orichalcum? Funny, didn't they say the same thing about gold?

~Umi

Posted by: SpellBinder Feb 9 2013, 04:35 AM

Absurdity? How about psilosen, at four million nuyen a unit (however much a unit is).

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 9 2013, 05:03 AM

See, this is the part where I laugh at the counters. If you turn a spell into something permanent compared to temporary, then the duration needed to make something permanent is involved. Oh, and btw, it is resisted. The spell design also has given targets and end-effects.

And for you other half-thoughts of Oricalcum and such .... Magic spells cannot create magical materials ... Which requires Alchemy and or Enchanting in Shadowrun. Dweomercrafting, the art of investing and or empowering auras, is not a spell-based classification in Shadowrun. Metamagic s (quickening, anchoring) hold auras and energies, and in 4thEd, one also requires enchanted things. The new(er) stuff like Psilosen, etc... Require enchanting work to produce.

That being said, transforming something such as one metal to another (lead or iron to gold), might actually be doable. But that being said, such metal will always have the aura of not being "real". I somehow feel that with everything else in security during a Shadowrun era, "False Gold" or anything else for that matter, will likely piss off governments, megas, dragons, the UTA, etc.. Ad nauseum.

Remember that whole "Bad Rep" stuff??? Yeah.... Nice try. My group did this a long time ago however.

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 9 2013, 05:07 AM

Getting back on topic, I had my character design a personal flight spell.

Personal Flight Spell Drain: (F/2)-3
Type: Physical
Range: Limited Target (Caster only)
Duration: Sustained
Minor Physical changes

Effects: Allows caster to fly at 10 times faster than a levitate spell. Is it overpowered... maybe.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 05:19 AM

What's this Psilosen? Source?

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 05:28 AM

Levitate is already a pretty reasonable speed to travel at if you cast well at a decent force.

~Umi

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 9 2013, 05:29 AM

page 25 of Parageology

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 9 2013, 05:38 AM

Not really. If you cast at force 8 and get 4 hits you move at 32. My character can run at 37 (Human SURGEling with Celerity). Normal casting (Force 6 and 3 hits) gives you a flight speed of 18. I wanted something that allows me to go and go fast.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 9 2013, 05:41 AM

RE: Sodium and Water: spells are LOS. Use a pair of binoculars.

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 9 2013, 05:46 AM

Get cybereyes with vision mag... same effect, but less obvious

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 9 2013, 06:58 AM

Or contact lenses. Remember, we're talking about a spell-chucker here. While even a mage sometimes finds cybereyes useful, if there are workable alternatives ... *shrug*

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 9 2013, 10:10 AM

As long as they're optical...

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 9 2013, 03:53 PM

Not overpowered to me. Not yet. What is maximum safe speed for a PC? What is Handling/Flying test pool for this? This one to me is fairly straight forward, and not too powerful. Curious on your drain math however.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 03:58 PM

Been considering turning movement to a spell...
Using hits instead of magic value as the modifier

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 04:23 PM

It's overpowered... 10x hits is very overpowered especially with the rediculously large amount of drain reduction you stuffed on top of it.

You're a magician you have access to spirits... my mage could literally hit Mach 1 using a high force levitate paired with a movement power boost from a high power spirit.


If you need to move that fast... the answer is simple... cast normally... you should be able to get up to 25'ish without too much hassle for most mages. Then use a force movement power on you to get that up to 150. Now you're zipping along at ground vehicle speeds without even pushing yourself.

If overcasting at say force 10 is involved, and summoning a force 10 spirit (if it's that important...)... that could potentially move the mage at 1000.... that's faster than many of the planes in the game.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 9 2013, 04:30 PM

Alright I got this. Introducing way number seven of breaking a mage during chargen.

Requires high magic, four ranks in spellcasting, six ranks in alchemy (Both specialized, of course). Also a hacksaw. Day Job: Homeless Shelter is also helpful, but not required.

Turn to Copper / Gold / Mercury / Silver
Physical
LOS
Permanent
Multiple Effects

DV (f/2)+11

In two easy steps you turn a random hobo into a neopolitan of orichalcum materials just waiting to happen. Add some aqua regia, swirl around in a bathtub for a month with a few minor adjustments... you just turned a 160 pound bum into 80 pounds of orichalcum.*


*You may have to cast from inside a Valkyrie module.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 05:25 PM

Never mind I can't read apparently

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 05:40 PM

O'Ryan:
You need to read the rules... you cannot create magical materials such as alchemical gold. That isn't just gold it's 'magical gold'. So while non-magical gold is pushing the envelope of game breaking mechanics... magical reagants you've gone run off the cliff.

Similarly you can't just take those ingredients and transform them into the orichalchum with a spell... that requires alchemy... and one full month of no life whatsoever to control the process.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 9 2013, 05:56 PM

And you need to both read my post and take it in the tone it was presented rather than being snippy.... and apparently read the rules yourself, citation to follow.

Step 1: Turn hobo into non-magical, non-refined gold, copper, silver, and mercury. This is the only spell, be it from one multi-effect spell (not technically legal) or multi-casting other spells at much lower drain.
Step 2: Recover from drain.
Step 3: Hacksaw the elements apart, polish and refine to turn it into a "radical" version of the same reagent. (Page 82 street magic - "Radical Gold" is a magical good, but is nonmagical in and of itself.)
Step 4: Use that thar alchemy skill I mentioned having 8 ranks in to turn it into orichalcum. This requires minute adjustments every 8 hours for 28 days. AKA swishing it around in a bathtub of aqua regia.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: End up with 6.4 million nuyen worth of orichalcum. Retire.


So you are correct - I said two easy steps, it's actually six. I will endeavor not to let you down so much next time.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 06:30 PM

I know it was tongue in cheek... just was bringing up that just because it's gold doesn't mean it's a raw reagent for alchemy. If you look on the chart in the back (p185)... you'll notice raw reagent gold... has a price listed which would seem to be to be higher than that of normal gold.

Enchanting 101... p79
Raw reagents:... a player can either collect the raw regents herself... see getting p79... or buy them from a talismonger.

p79:
"Magical goods re mde from naturally occuring materials known as regents. Reagents have a higher inherent concentration of mana than normal substances, but are otherwise identical to their mundane counterparts."

Clear evidence that 'mundane gold' and alchemical gold in it's raw/refined/radical state are not the same.

Page 80... raw reagants... "Most reagents gathered from the wild are raw reagents. By themselves, raw reagents have magical potential, but cannot be used to create magical goods. Magicians use alchemy to concentrate the mana within the reagant, creating a refined reagents... further enchanted into refined reagants..."


I'm extremely familiar with the rules for talismongering. I've done it a lot in play... from the gathering of reagents to the design and construction of assorted goods. To simply making rent during down time by harvesting raw reagents and refining them to make a fast buck or make my own ritual materials on the cheap.

Since I assume you're new... this is a great trick for a starting mage... start with an assaying kit.. so you can gather your own or craft your own fetishes, talismans, or ritual materials. Then you can start with a mother lode of raw reagents as well to use to craft your own materials and save a bundle if you're cash strapped and have time to do so at the start of the game.

I'm not out to insult you, i just figure a new posting account with a low post count is new to the game and isn't as familiar with the setting or the problems his spell suggestion has with it's base assumptions. That's why the rest of us were limiting ourselves to purely non-magical chemicals with nasty side effects just for the sake of being silly.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 9 2013, 06:51 PM

"Mundane" gold appears to differ from "alchemical gold" in the refining process.

"Because modern refining processes would ruin the reagent for magical operations, metal reagents are worked by hand or smelted and worked in old-style blast furnaces."

By turning the hobo into the raw ore - a naturally occuring non magical substance - and then refining his valuable valuable metal flesh with hand tools and the enchanting skill, you turn it from the raw ore into a refined and then radical reagent. This seems to fit with "The Limits of Sorcery" (Street Magic 160) which states:

"Sorcery Cannot Create Magical Items.
Foci, vessels, and other items imbued with magic may not be crafted with spells; such handiwork requires the hands-on efforts of an enchanter."

With that in mind it seems perfectly plausible to create raw ore and then use your own enchanting skill to refine that into a reagent. If not, the very same wording suggests that "hands-on efforts of an enchanter" could turn it into what you want.



I am new to the forums, not to the game.


Edit: The current cost of gold, according to the google, is ~ $1600 USD per ounce. In 2006, when the book was published, gold was ~$650 an ounce. In SM pg180, gold is 1000 nuyen an ounce. I'm unaware of anywhere that gives the cost of gold in shadowrun outside of the "magical goods table."

Edit x2: Even if I am 100% correct and it's entirely possible to do this in the game, I'm still not endorsing this suggestion! I just want that to be clear - I wouldn't allow it at my table, and I would expect another DM to slap me if I tried it at their table. RAW aside, it's clearly violating the spirit of the game.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 07:04 PM

I take the bit on page 79 to mean exactly what it says...

That 'reagants' are different than 'mundane' of the same for all grades. It has nothing whatsoever to do whatsoever with the refining process... though you could 'ruin' reagants and turn them into 'dross' losing their magical properties. I take that to mean most ores are unsuitable for talismongering and those that are somehow specially magical are always the result of some alchemical process. (be it natural or in the alchemy lab).

A better example... I've always taken it to mean... gold panned from one stream which has a ley line or domain (positive BGC) subjecting it to a natural alchemical process has rendered it into a raw reagant. While gold panned form the next stream over in the negative BGC is purely mundane, not subject to natural alchemical processes.

This view is backed up by numerous references in the fluff to certain locations being particularly good for collecting reagants even going back to first. Queen Euphoria comes to mind with it's introductory story of the coyote shaman heading to south america to 'poach' raw reagents from some corps turf.


The best you'd get is mundane gold ore by the reading of that text about raw materials and the ban on creating alchemical or magical items except via alchemy/natural collection. Transmuting someone into raw gold is about as far from naturally collected ore as you can get.


I'll note you're the only one making the claim they can get raw reagants out of a spell forbidden to make magical goods. You're also the only one making the claim any good can be turned into a raw reagant.

I do believe that if somehow nature can turn some ores magical and others aren't the process can be repeated... but it's not part of any known stretch of the rules published to date in any edition I'm aware of. That also doesn't mean the process is economical as it could require a process taking 10's or 100's of years... so it's simply a lot cheaper to mine and exploit natural sources.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 9 2013, 07:39 PM

So simple solution...

Take the Nonmagical unrefined hobo metals
Refine them alchemically to make a reagent
Then refine them again to make the Orichalcum...
Multiple refining required, so more than 28 days, obviously.

*shrug*

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 07:42 PM

You can't just refine any raw gold. It has to be gold taken from unspoiled nature, and naturally infused with mana. That's why there are tests for finding and harvesting reagents. Your golden hobo doesn't qualify in the least.

~Umi

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 9 2013, 07:45 PM

Well, yeah, I guess there is that.
Of course, it is trivially easy to "Find that gold in the raw that is quality enough to make a reagent." Easier than actually finding real gold in the raw, in fact. *shrug*

But if you actually look at the descriptions of the actiual materials. They are bog-standard metals, just hand harvested. So, in fact, they ARE just normal gold. *shrug*



What makes them inappropriate for magical practices is modern refining techniques... Not the actual material they are when harvested.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 08:00 PM

Not true.


* This is a Survival + Intuition (8, 1 hour) Extended Test, per reagent. Not a lot of characters have great Survival OR Intuition. And remember, this is only possible once you've actually found and gained access to an area of unspoiled wilderness. Such areas are often controlled by corporate interests for their value, or protected by local shamans seeking to preserve nature.

~Umi

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 9 2013, 09:07 PM

So yuy bring the hobo out to the deep wilderness, THEN slap him with that spell. ;D

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 10:13 PM

Should I be more worried about you chopping up hobos or the fact that you're arguing how make him worth more when he's already like 170lbs. of pure gold?

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 9 2013, 10:20 PM

The drain is calculated as such:

Physical: +1
Touch range: -2
Very Restricted Target: -2
Physical Manipulation: +0
Minor Change: +0 (It's not changing the caster at all... just making it so he can fly)



1: Why is it over powered? It only affects the caster, can't be used as a weapon, and is much slower than your Mach 1 mage.
2: The Drain calculation is legit I believe.
3: I don't want to have to convince a spirit to use Movement like that.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 9 2013, 11:21 PM

Chopping up hobos is small potatos in Shadowrun. There's a reason, after all, that signs pop up in your eyes when you kill a street sam and he's close enough to drag to your truck...


For the record, ladies and gentlemen, we WILL find a solution to the hobo to orichalcum problem, it just may end up being a dozen or so steps.


Falconer - now that more than just us have chimed in, I will concede that your interpretation is probably the correct one. I still say the wording of "The Limits of Magic" as saying it can make anything that doesn't require an enchanting test, but the game isn't O'RyanRun (yet).

Umi, Pax... I think you might have the solution.

So!
We take a druid. Let's make him English or Tir na nOgian for ease of access to unspoiled nature. Same skill sets as before. This time, you lure your unsuspecting hobo into the woods, fight off the wildlife, and zap him with the spell I will henceforth refer to as "Orichalcum Starter Set." A couple days later the spell is permanent, the hobo is raw (but not yet reagent) material, and you've regained consciousness. Now, Ritual Sorcery occurs. Tapping into the mana lines beneath the UK / Tir na nOg (your preference!), you sing and dance and prance about infusing your hobo-statue with the natural mana of the world. Volia - it is natural* gold/silver/mercury/copper with higher than normal mana content, all perfectly nature aspected due to your druidic tradition. You cart the hobo back to your appartment, hacksaw, tub, 3-4 months later 6.4 million .

Volia?

Edit: That 170 pounds of raw, unmagical, unreagent hobo is still worth 2,720,000 nuyen, double that if you spend a month refining it. So, not a bad fall back plan.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 9 2013, 11:36 PM

Worst case? Geomancy / Geomasonry; split off a trickle from a Ley line and direct it into a constructed Place of Power. Bring the hobo there, turn him into whatever, and ... leave him, for the proverbial "year and a day" ... with a Spirit bound to long-term service as "gardener". Let the ex-hobo drink in nice, aspected mana for a good long time. Then haul his shiny metallic butt off to the alchemy laboratory.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 9 2013, 11:58 PM

1. No the spell is not calculated as such. You use the existing spell as a template.
The existing spell is levitate at +1 drain. It needs a threshold of 1 per 200kg that needs lifting (it's left grey whether that is round up, round down... or just a flat out 1 per 200kg or fraction thereof to be moved).

So at this point net successes times force is the speed... (not raw successes time speed... there is a threshold involved... technically 2 thresholds together if you're lifting something non-living like a steel i-beam... OR2 + threshold(weight)==threshold... If you reach the threshold and no more you can hold the object up by not move it... you need at least net 1 to actually be able to hold and move it with any speed.

But in any case... the speed of the spell is *ONLY* 1m per (net success * force).

Your example unreasonably increases this by a factor of 10. And you call this a minor change.
Also you removed the weight threshold part of the spell on top of this.

2. The drain calculation is only legit if the only thing you changed about the spell is it's range... LOS -> personal only fully accounts for the +1 -> -3 drain code. The ludicrously added effect. This is no longer a minor effect... if you had increased the drain by +2 to major effect... you might have an argument. But you can provide no case for why you have utterly ignored the limitations of the levitate spell in doing this.

3. it doesn't matter if *YOU* don't want to use a movement power service. (it's not haggling with the spirit... it's compelling a service). If *YOU* can learn the spell. ANYONE else can learn the spell (turnabout is fair play)... and they very well may use the movement power.

I can tell you from personal experience that the actual levitate spell + movement has had my mage literally go supersonic... and he can easily reach high mach let alone half the speed of sound. So something which goes 10x as fast... is starting to really push the envelope of a 'minor' magical effect.

Your gripes are only that at low force and successes the mage moves slower... and in this case for a mage who has 'unnaturally' high base mundane movement already.


O'Ryan:
Once again the problem is you don't do a spell ritual to convert mundane materials into magical reagants. That's the problem. You only get *1* unit of raw gold reagent for a very difficult extended test to first find, and then another one to actually harvest a single unit. Doubly difficult because most of the raw natural sources are probably prime protected turf since this is alchemical gold... which can be quickly converted to 20k per unit raw materials for sale, let alone 40k per unit if they have someone who can radicalize them with an extra month processing time. Stop and think how much more valuable that is if some of that gold is now recognized as an even rarer form of alchemical gold...

Somehow this is done by nature and the manasphere over very long periods of time. My opinion is the best way to describe this is 'natural alchemical process'. Since spells can't produce magical goods this requires alchemy/talismongering processes... I completely reject any sense of a spell or ritual magic.

Similarly... if you can do this... why aren't major corps with bigtime resources already doing this already. And not even using hobo's... say they're using rats instead... The major leyline stuff is already controlled by major interests. So this isn't merely a matter of some simple geomancy.


Just to put a tl/dr recap... the problem is there are no rules whatsoever for converting raw materials into reagants of any kind. Only very difficult ones to find and mine natural sources. So even allowing this step has HUGE consequences on the rest of the setting far beyond merely magical hobo gold.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 10 2013, 12:12 AM

Assuming you are correct - magic can't produce something magical (not really what you're saying but it made me smile so that's how I'm quoting you.) - the solution turns to thinking outside the box. The reason the corps aren't doing it is because (handwave) they are doing it the writers of the book just didn't think about it so it wasn't mentioned.

How come a ritual, that you design yourself, can't redirect existing ley lines so that they, gaia, NOT YOU, infuse our Orichalcum Stater Kit with higher than normal concentrations of magic?
How come Pax's solution of having a spirit gardener channeling natural occurring magic through the Starter Kit for "a year and a day" (long term binding!) won't work?
Again, assuming your interpretation is correct, you're still not making magic with magic (heehee again), you're manipulating nature into doing it in a controlled environment. SCIENCE.



In case anyone is wondering why I'm so curious about the hobo-reagent issue is because while this is obviously a ludicrous example, there are less game breaking applications. One of the reagent examples is a sawn off foot - do you have to go Texas Chainsaw some mages, or can you take a foot and Magic at it until it works? Or say you're enchanting a focii and the recipe calls for "blah blah telesma infused with radical koala fur." Do you have to fly to Australia and face certain death, or can you break into the zoo and refine some?

Posted by: Umidori Feb 10 2013, 12:33 AM

It's kind of like Shapeshifters.

A shapeshifter IS the animal in question. It has the same DNA. It looks, sounds, behaves, and thinks like the animal in question. For all normal intents and purposes, a shapeshifter is no different than the mundane equivalent. Except that ~Magic!~ somehow lets them turn into the shape of a person, and gives them intellect to match.

Can you create a Shapeshifter by taking a dog and artificially infusing it with mana? No. Can you create a mage or an adept by taking a mundane metahuman and artificially infusing it with mana? No. Can you create a natural magical reagent by take a mundane equivalent and artificially infusing it with mana? No.

Why? Because ~Magic!~ doesn't work like that. If something has to be natural, it has to be natural. If you try to use synthetic diamond as a reagent for enchantment, the alchemy fails. Why? It just does. Alchemy is weird. Magical theory can't quite explain it yet.

~Umi

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 10 2013, 12:37 AM

Yes I called it minor because the spell can NOT be used on anything other than the mage who is casting the spell. It can't be used on your friends and can't be used on inanimate objects (other than what the mage is carrying or wearing). You want to levitate objects at the speed I'm talking about, then by all means do it. Also, unless you're a troll then you're a LOT less than 200 kg. That extra weight saving can go straight into speed.

I'll concede that times 10 may be too much, but times 5 should be more fair.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 10 2013, 12:41 AM

Maybe. Care to funnel a few trillion nuyen into a research program to try and find out?


Maybe. Exactly what does or does not make someone capable of Awakening is as of yet unknown. Various corporations and other organisations have already funnelled hundreds of trillions of nuyen into figuring that out. (And similar programs re: Technomancers exist as well.)


Once again, maybe. Care to funnel a few trillion nuyen into a research program to try and find out?

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 10 2013, 12:56 AM

A lot of this theoretical discussion is centered in snippets of fluff, so I'd like to take a second and go over, in crunch, what magic can or cannot do.

1 - You have to have a link, be it visual or sympathetic.
2 - You can't control time or teleport. You can make yourself invisible, pass through all resistance, and travel at mach 37 to simulate teleportation however.
3 - You can't tell the future.
4 - You can't summon / banish spirits unless you use conjuring
5 - You can't raise the dead. Except for the exceptions.
6 - You can't create magical items (specifically mentioned: Foci, vessels) unless you use enchanting
7 - You can't bridge planes.
8 - You can only make simple things. A hammer is complex.
9 - Magic is dumb.

To my knowledge that list (160, Street Magic) is the only crunch explanation of what you CANNOT do with sorcery. Just because it hasn't been discovered yet (IE, the pseudo-teleportation only came about recently, in Spy Games), doesn't mean it's impossible unless it's on that list.

Creating higher concentrations of magic somewhere is something magically specifically CAN do (ala background counts). So just because there isn't a precedent, I ask again - why can a brand new ritual designed specifically for this new task, not create ore with higher concentrations of mana, which is the only difference between a reagent rock and a mundane rock.

Furthermore:
"Enchanters specializing in alchemy concern themselves with the transmutation of base materials to those of magical potency. The bulk of magical goods are products of alchemy" - SM 81

Posted by: Falconer Feb 10 2013, 01:25 AM

Except a -4 change in drain code is ENTIRELY subsumed by the change to severely restricted target.
-2 for LOS(0) -> touch(-2)... -2 more for self only (-2 severely restricted target)... look at the chart. (yes it is possible to make a LOS self only spell.. but rather pointless... you might as well toss on touch as well for total -4. You can also make a los- less restricted to say orcs only... as another example of a los restricted target spell.)

There is no room for improving the base template spell on top of that... the net swing in drain is already for and only for the change to self-only. That is why you're not constructing the spell properly.

A full order of magnitude increase in effectiveness is not a minor change... that puts it squarely in the majors. Even a 5x increase is not a small change. And as I pointed out above it is in no way covered by the change to self-only. if you had increased the drain by +2 for changing the effect from minor -> major.

As for the reason it's questionable to me is because the basic levitate can already do this. It's simply your refusal to acknowledge a tool already at your disposal (movement power) to further enhance the speed that stops you from reaching your goal. If someone else uses your newly made tool... and does combine it... (anyone who sees you use your spell gets bonuses to make their own copy)... will produce some questionable results.


Aside:
My point on the threshold was that it's grey... if you're under 100KG... you could make the argument you round down to threshold 0. Or you could just go with it's a flat 200kg or fraction thereof for always a min threshold of 1. The rules simply don't define this by RAW. (I personally think rounding makes sense... if someone wants to levitate a feather it doesn't make sense to me that it's threshold 2... OR1 + weight threshold 2).

Posted by: Umidori Feb 10 2013, 01:31 AM

@O'Ryan

You're being willfully pedantic. Until it is DISCOVERED it is for all intents and purposes IMPOSSIBLE.

Remember that recent Petition to the White House for the construction of a Death Star? Yeah, see, that's impossible. Why? Because physics wouldn't allow it? Because it cannot ever be done, with any form of technology? No, of course not. Rather, it's impossible because we lack the capacity to make it happen - because it is so very far beyond our powers as to be absurd and laughable.

You're basically saying, "Well who cares if the most powerful corporations in existence haven't managed to get magic to act this way before, that doesn't mean that Awakened Joe Schmoe can't just build a custom spell to do it anyway!" That's like saying your mechanic character can design and build his own Death Star. It's stupid, it disregards all the setting and history of the world in which you're ostensibly playing, and you know better.

But you're right, maybe it just hasn't been discovered yet! And to reflect that possibility, if 5th Edition rolls around and suddenly you can hook a person up to a mana-battery and artifically Awaken them? Then you can do it! But for now, you follow the existing rules, or make up your own houserules. And the existing rules say that you need NATURAL materials for reagents.

~Umi

Posted by: Falconer Feb 10 2013, 01:42 AM

Exactly... the book defines base materials as raw reagents though.

The book similarly provides no mechanic whatsoever for getting raw reagants except to mine natural sources.

I *DO* believe there is an alchemical process for converting baser materials into raw reagents. I also think it is a holy grail of corp research... so very unlikely that anyone can actually do it. Or that any means of doing so artificially are unecomonical at best...

The reason for this opinion... Is if it were that easy to convert normal materials into magical... the corps would already be doing it large scale. Similarly things like orichalcum would flood the market depressing costs. Corps would be flooding the market with cheep gold from 'petrifying-gold' rats...

The other basis for this opinion is orichalcum forms naturally... the lab process for making it is a refinement of the natural process (literally... naturally occuring is something like half the price of artificially made and not as effective).

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 10 2013, 01:46 AM

Umi, that is not my intention. If that is how you perceive my statements then I apologize - I am not trying to be pedantic, I am trying to have a lively discussion about, officially, the limits of creating your own spells. I am not trying to be hostile, flame, or troll. I genuinely believe that as it stands my ridiculous idea about turning a homeless person into (eventually) orichalcum is possible in the rules of shadowrun.

By what I understand you are saying, creating your own spell is limited directly to variations of existing published spells... except what's in WAR!, IIRC previously stated opinions. The table of what ~Magic~ CANNOT do can be largely ignored, as it will never come up. It is not the "to do list" of mage research everywhere. Is this correct? I am getting the impression you believe PCs/players do not have the influence to come up with an original idea, which is entirely contrary to the impression I formed of you based on previous topics. Please elaborate for me.

I am not saying the corps aren't doing it - if it is indeed possible to do this, as nothing even approaching this has been mentioned in published book, I see that entirely due to writers not thinking like me and, therefore, the corps are almost certainly all doing it in secret trying to keep the other corps from finding out. I am willing to bet on the possibility that the writers of a tabletop RPG did not have the capacity to predict every use of their words from hundreds (or tens, whatever) of thousands of different minds.

Falconer -
You bring up a good point about the base materials definition.
I still reject the "if it were possible corps would be doing it" argument based on both in setting secrecy and writer oversight. It is plausible in my mind that corps have a control on the market of orichalcum, artificially inflate or decrease the price, and meanwhile mass produce the *^@!@) out of it for research purposes.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 10 2013, 01:58 AM

I'm not saying that players and GMs should not create their own spells, or work their own custom magic.

What I am saying is that it needs to be kept reasonable, and not go against existing rules, or if it must, to have a strong reason for doing so. Perhaps I got too hung up on how absurd and stupid changing homeless people into gold, and then "manatizing" them into reagents is, because that was the primary focus of my indignation.

~Umi

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 10 2013, 01:59 AM

... and who's to say, the PC isn't the bloke who first discovers whatever-it-is ...?

Posted by: Umidori Feb 10 2013, 02:29 AM

Catalyst Games, that's who.

You wanna play your own homebrew system, fine. You wanna play Shadowrun, you stay reasonably within the bounds of Shadowrun lore. You don't introduce secret Moon Nazi Space Elves just because, and you don't create absurd game-breaking magical spells that contradict extant magical theory and lore.

Honestly. Some random PC discovering hitherto unknown absurd magical theory on their own between bouts of getting shot at? And people somehow thought I was invoking Mary Sue in the other thread...

~Umi

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 10 2013, 02:54 AM

Cite me a book and page number.

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 10 2013, 05:44 AM

Actually... No. In theory you could take the "magical hobo of gold" and attempt to refine, then radicalize it. Granted, I also think there is a unitary limit involved here as well. Only so many units can be worked with at a time. The Hobo, regardless of how bad his "health" probably exceeds the body-weight conversion for this limitation. And the number of units of,Orichalcum is also limited afterwards. Many, many processes involved.... Even with the ally and any spirit help on an aspected Ley Line, this becomes incredibly time consuming.

The raw reagent determination is not quite "Undisturbed in nature" as a lot of you are grabbing for. Tech and other resistance related thresholds however will come into play for each step in the process where applicable.

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 10 2013, 05:44 AM

I,want a fresh tackle at Flight

Flight (Caster)
Type : Manipulation (Telekinetic) (physical, +1 drain)
Duration : Sustained (+1 drain)
Range : Touch/Self Only (Very Restricted Target, -2 drain)
Additional Mods : x10 Movement (major physical change +2)

You do not get to stack Touch and Self Only mods. Voluntary with self only either. Magician casting remains the person in charge of the direction of the flight. Drain is only marginally higher than Levitate due to the spell will only work on the caster. Gear s/he has on him/herself might, at the GMs insistence alter the threshold similar to weight and Levitate or should the magician hope to carry someone else with him/her. Alternatively, the caster attempts to carry anything beyond the basic threshold of say 200 kilograms and the spell might outright fail. Same might be true if the caster attempts to catch/carry someone with them (conflicting auras in extreme proximity).

My opinion, go for a better spell design than above or even the version being suggested already.

Flight (Ver 2.0)
Category : Manipulation (Telekinetic)
Type : Physical (+1 drain)
Duration : Sustained (+1 drain)
Range : LOS (Touch)
Additional Mods : x10 Movement (Major Physical Change, +2 drain), Voluntary (-1 drain), Recipient Control (+1 drain)

Speed : Spell Force x 10/Spell Force x Magic x 10 M/turn.
Control/Piloting : Hits + Reaction (hits not to exceed spell force)
Handling : +1 per 100 kilograms of weight (or part thereof)

Limitations : spirit movement is not compatible with this spell design due to the movement modifier built in. Spirit Guard may be necessary at higher elevations or greater speeds at GMs discretion. Weight (loose translation of mass in motion here) can effect the control. And what's nicer, the recipient gets to determine their own direction of flight. Drain is more complex than Levitate because Levitate is literally the fundamental basics to this "family" of spells.

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 10 2013, 06:23 AM

Wow... Talk about inflexibility. "Lore" or "Game"? If you want to stay in the Shadowrun Cannon/Official rules, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. Be happy. Play, create, destroy, imagine. But that above statement is puritanian beyond a scope even I was never called back on the RN list days. I personally would love to know the "meta story" that the editors are up to... I miss the days back when I had some of that. But I don't have it anymore and you know what ... I'll live. So will my players. And the world will go on and the editors circle will continue to drink its kook-aid and be merry. The rest of us will choose to use/follow what works, because quite frankly ... the editors are the end-all masters of the Picard "Make It So" for the Shadowrun universe.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 10 2013, 07:20 AM

NeoJudas:
As far as combining drain effects... Very restricted target cannot be combined with Restricted target. It *CAN* be combined with Range LOS or Touch. Your spell range is not LoS(Touch).. it is range LOS or touch... pick one and then add the appropriate drain modifier.

But if I'm looking at your numbers right... you've produced a new effect with a +4 drain code which seems to be fairly well done... don't know how well I like 'can't be combined' as that's something new and unique though it does address the combination problem.

The other problem is handling is not a people stat... it's a stat unique to drones... drone rules and people rules do not merge well because they have entirely different sets of stats on two different scales... The weight limittion comes for two reasons... the person... plus stuff carried with the person... so I think you would still need to keep the 200kg per point threshold limit. With even a 5x speed mod... this should provide no problem to this spell... (think normal caster force 5... with say 4 successes... 1 threshold... 3 net hits * force 5 * 5m== 75m combat turn... and that's without using extremely high force! As soon as you turn up the force and the number of hits... hitting 200 or 300 even at x5 isn't an issue. (at force 10... you're looking at 50m/turn * however many net hits you get for demonstrations sake).





As far as the reagant bit goes... the problem is the raw amount of non-reagant gold alone is a problem in purely economical terms.

And the rules for alchemical gold in any form (raw in this case). Only allow for extremely small amounts to be collected at a time and also make it clear that this what i'm going to call 'alchemical gold' is different from mundane gold. Since spells can't create magical materials... this is a problem which requires them to step completely outside the bounds of the rules to make stuff up.

Given the limitations on spells not creating magical goods... while it's fun to conjecture about a 'turn to gold' permanent version of Turn to Goo... that at least fits within the spell construction rules with no controversy whatsoever.


The rest basically amounts to the classic munchkin trick of... 'the rules don't say I can't'. The rules are silent on the matter but they *DO* give only one way to get reagants which this method would render completely null and void. So it's a pretty safe bet this is completely against the spirit/intent of the rules/setting that this is a non-starter at any level.

As for the rest... I basically chalk this up to the proclivity among certain players to cheat. Yes cheat... they have to have some ability which is absolutely game breaking and outside the scope of the rules to feel special. I don't understand this myself... as operating within the confines of the rules provides a challenge I enjoy. But I see it regularly.. they get a 'cool' idea in their heads and it simply doesn't matter to them that it doesn't fit the setting of the game.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 10 2013, 09:03 AM

I absolutely agree that this specific example is Munchkining. The technically legal "turn to gold" spell is also crap - I think I've been fairly clear that I would never allow this at my table, but am using this as the extreme version to see if a precedent can be set for less munchkin purposes.
The rules give A way of getting reagents. Admittedly it doesn't even hint at the possibility of another way, but let's pretend I'm creative. It says the requirements for a reagent is a higher than normal mana concentration in the material - can that effect somehow be done? I am 100% going off of "it doesn't say I can't" because it gives an ALL INCLUSIVE list of what CANNOT be done and this isn't on there. It seems to me the whole point of the make your own spells chapter is being incredibly creative, not just doing minor tweaks to existing stuff. ("Alright, it's going to be a standard fireball type spell, except it'll also have physical illusions to make the explosion look like confetti and the Nintendog bursting from their chest...") versus ("My fireball also does shocking damage!")

Falconer, I'm getting a little offended. The summation of your post kinda sounds like you think the only reason I'm continuing this debate is because I want to cheat, I'm a munchkin, and I don't care about the rules. If that is the case than I ask that you go back like three pages where I say that this is hypothetical and in no way a plan and, infact, blatantly cheese... and then consider that if I didn't care about the setting of the game I wouldn't be having this discussion, I'd just go "Yep nothing says I can't, doing it!" ...and do it. I understand we seem to disagree on a couple fundamental issues of wording but I'm fairly certain that doesn't make me a munchkin out to cheat and pillage. I am taking the possibility to an extreme because what might have passed when it was been done to a single bone shaving will come into question when you're using it to make 6.4 million every month. By the inverse, if this holds up to any scrutiny beyond knee jerk reactions of "the writers didn't think of it so no" than it does work for the smaller, more plausible scenarios. (This magic sword formula calls for the fresh heart of a virgin. ...do I have to keep cutting people open until I find a heart with more than average mana, or can I take one person and make it work?)


NeoJudas, the GoldHobo is about 256 units of "stuff" which equals 64 attempts to make orichalcum. That's almost certainly beyond the scope of a single person to do in a single refinement / alchemy set, even if you're only doing minute adjustments every 8 hours. Getting 64 tubs alone would be a hassle! That comes out to 8 adjustments an hour if you stagger it, or an adjustment every ~7.5 minutes. Forever.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 10 2013, 10:53 AM

Just sell a couple gold hobos and buy the reagents?
Sheesh, way to overcomplicate things

Posted by: Falconer Feb 10 2013, 08:33 PM

You're right... I'm projecting some frustration with another person IRL. Some of that frustration is uncalled for in this case. You have an apology for it.

He's pulling the same, the rules don't say otherwise argument. Even though the rules provide a method to do so... and he doesn't like the only method provided within the rules. He ignores the other constraint that a spirit must earn karma from other sentient beings and can't just get it for himself.


In that case... he got what he wanted a formula pact... intentionally found spirit which only could do this kind of pact. Now he completely rejects p107... free spirits and karma, and feeding the free spirit. The spirit doesn't offer any of the other pacts with which it can drain karma per use... and the spirit can't advance itself without karma. So the spirit as a NPC has to perform free spirit services by the normal bargaining for karma route with other sentients... BUT... He's the only functional copy of the spirits formula (the side effect of formula pact and it' immunity to age)... he must be present for the ritual in which the spirit gets karma (which takes 1 hour per point of karma).

So now, anyone paying the spirit also has to have him present... and some of the less savory ones might not be amiss to kidnapping him to compel services out of the free spirit either (the ones who were using the spirit's formula to compel the spirit before). But in any case... you can see this requires significant time and travel budget in some cases to work with the spirit.

In Eve online... the philosophy is that... players are free to do what they want... they'll just suffer consequences for it. Now that the consequences of his decisions are hitting him... he's busy with the spirit doesn't need him to get karma on it's own. (the spirit got out of problems with some others using it's formula to compel it to do things... he got his immortality... now the spirits view is he has nothing but time and should be happy to give it a few days time now and then for it's business... what's a few days/weeks/years out of forever; but the situation isn't so insufferable that if the spirit can't advance it wouldn't have qualms about seeing the character dead and dealing with the loose copies problem again on it's own... it's used it's 'immunity' to the other copies already to eliminate a few of the extra copies... (it always knows where all copies of it's formula are)).


So as you can see the specifics are radically different... just a similarity in the formulation of the position. One section of the rules provides a constraint... X cannot/needs Y. Another section of the rules provides one and only one way to produce Y. So we see an insistence on there must be a way Z which isn't covered anywhere in the rules.


But one of the reasons I mention this is there is another source of alchemical reagants and it is not a spell or ritual.

It's the greater power free spirit's... 'Wealth' power.
That one is intentionally vague about where this stuff comes from.... though again there is a severe cost to the spirit itself in that it carries the spirits astral signature indefinitely.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 10 2013, 09:10 PM

Well, someone with Cleansing could probably erase that signature. So having that metamagic would probably make the spirit more willing to use that power, for a comparatively-lower price, on behalf of a bargainer who had it.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 10 2013, 09:31 PM

I strongly disagree... you have an immovable rock vs irresistible force problem here. 'indefinitely' is the problem...

Cleansing isn't a requirement... anyone can scrub astral signatures with time and astral presence.

And SR4a...
"Foci and other magical items (like magical lodges) *ALWAYS* contain the astral signature of their owner or owners)."
Street magic is published later... but permanent magical reagents with an indefinite length signature would most likely fall into that category as well. Just as you can't remove your signature from a bound foci, or from a ward you've constructed... A good argument can be made, you can't remove the spirit's signature from an alchemical reagant it's created through its power.



By the same, the rules don't say so... I can come back with... great you cleansed the reagants and instead of 1 unit of raw alchemical gold (10,000) it's now mundane gold as you've cleansed the signature which made it an alchemical reagant... it's now worth a fraction of what it was as a reagant.

Similarly the spirit's edge is it's initiate grade... nothing stopping it from cleansing itself if this were the case. Which would remove any block on using this power whatsoever.


To me this represents nothing less than an attempt to undermine the word 'indefinitely'... which I take to mean that it's present as part of the reagant... until the reagant is used up as ritual materials... or bound as a foci.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 10 2013, 09:47 PM

"Indefinite" only means "without duration" - remember that otherwise, unspecified, an astral signature lingers for a set period of time, depending on the Force / Magic Rating behind it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 11 2013, 03:20 PM

And how is this different from some Randon Unnamed Unknown NPC discovering the secret on their own, exactly?

Posted by: Shaidar Feb 11 2013, 03:37 PM

Because that Unnamed Wage Slave Mage has got a Multi-Trillion nuyen a year research budget and a fully staffed research team behind him.

Joe runner PC doesn't. Pure and simple.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 11 2013, 03:42 PM

I still submit that just because you, the reader, don't know about it doesn't mean the corps aren't doing it in secret...

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 11 2013, 03:59 PM

Well... Im sure that the dragons knows a lot of things they won't tell us...

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 11 2013, 04:55 PM

Kevlar.

Seriously. Sure, sure, it was discovered in a major corporation's chemistry research lab. But the discovery was an accident, not the product of multi-million nuyen research projects. An accident.

Or, the Pacemaker. Wilson Greatbach was trying to build a circuit that would help to record fast heartbeats. But when he went to install a 10,000-Ohm resistor, he accidentally grabbed (and installed) a 1,000,000-Ohm resistor. As a result, the circuit pulsed for 1.8 seconds, then stopped for 1 second - lather, rinse, repeat. Poof, artificial heartbeat.

Then there's plastic ... yes, all of it. The first true plastic, Bakelight, was invented by Leo Hendrik Baekeland ... in his privately-owned, personally-funded laboratory, in 1907. He was trying to find an artificial substitute for shellac - used for electrical component insulation at the time - and instead, pretty much revolutionised every single industry on earth.

...

See, I think you forget that before the Age of Corporations, a lot of research, including very high level stuff (for the day) was conducted privately, not in giant-corporate-funded laboratories staffed with dozens or hundreds of technicians. So, sure, most new discoveries are going to come out of corporate and/or university labs.

But "most" != "all".

Consider, too: the very earliest discoveries relating to Magic, would not have been made in any corporate lab, or any lab at all. Because they would have been made during a time when many, perhaps most, people still refused to believe in any such "hocus-pocus nonsense".

So while it is unlikely that an unsupported PC would make a breakthrough in X or Y kind of research, rather than a corporate/university lab team ... it is still not impossible for it to happen that way.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 11 2013, 05:47 PM

Yes, and they didn't operate in the shadowrun universe.... Even moreso had some big legal protections which actually allowed them to utilize and monetize their inventions.

Where any such moves would very quickly get them put very high on someones 'technical recruitment' roster.

Similarly, where you have a lot of very powerful people still around from the last age, who know enchanting better than you do... with so much of the old age built on magic instead of tech. Old dragons, let alone great dragons, and immortal elves are all probably aware of alchemical stuff like this if it even exists.

Also notice how these player/forum solutions are always handwavium... yeah I get some shaman to stuff it somewhere where it changes into this or that... then go harvest it... Most have no significant costs or problems.

If you notice my own posts... I've often said I think nature forms some natural alchemical processes which very slowly transform mundane into mana-infused/infusable reagants. The explanation for why there isn't an artificial copy of this is simple... because the natural one is so time intensive it's easier to just harvest what's already there or simply buy it rather than try and make it yourself. You're better off selling mundane stuff... and simply buying reagants off your local talismonger for a profit.


Just like you ignore the intent of the wealth power to make it very hard for a spirit to just create wealth for itself or others without leaving it's fingerprints all over it, making it easier for authorities to trace. No, any old person with astral perception (even the spirit itself)... can scrub off the 'indefinite' signatures. Making that bar so low that they might as well not even published it.


That's the problem with half this stuff.. the whole the rules don't say you can't mentality. Anything is possible... even ignoring the limits of the system. Provided the players stick within the limits of the system, no one will probably notice or have any reason to notice. But as soon as you step outside the bounds of the system.... then the spotlights turn on. Now suddenly, instead of being a runner and player... you're the target of the runs, non-stop. You're the one who'll be lucky to not turn up dead with his stuff stolen... or locked up in some gilded cage as some corps prize new acquisition, if you're lucky.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 11 2013, 06:11 PM

.... and attitudes like the one you've just displayed, Falconer, are why I always prepare for the most hyper-literalist GM possible. I don't make up my own gear when building a character - if it's not in a book, I assume it doesn't exist ... no matter how logical it is, no matter how real-world. Because I've played in games run by total dicks like that.

I choose not to run games like that; I choose to say YES whenever possible. If it makes the game more fun for everyone (myself included), than I don't give half a flying fuck if it's "within the limits of the system". I do it, and never look back.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 11 2013, 06:24 PM

For the purposes of discussing on a forum you kind of must give recognition to the RAW, otherwise we have no ground to stand on.
It's perfectly fine to come up with ideas all signed PEACH* and discuss them.
But if you're trying argue a point and hope to achieve any kind of consensus you need to use RAW, the real hot potatoes is in the RAI however...

* PEACH: Please Evaluate And Critic Honestly

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 11 2013, 06:32 PM

Recognition, yes. Slavish devotion, not so much.

Simply recognise and clearly label when you're moving into Houserule Country, and IMO you're fine.

Fanatically ranting against anything that isn't Strictly By The Book, however, is not only a waste of everyone's time ... IMO it's actively counter-productive.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 11 2013, 09:19 PM

The problem with going beyond what the rules lay out as possible within the established setting is that you're quite simply going beyond the established setting.

You want to play something your own way, at your own table, with your own custom rules? Go right ahead. But if you're discussing on Dumpshock about what is and is not possible within the magical system of Shadowrun, you have to work with the official material, not with custom stuff. Why? Because custom stuff has no basis for consensus. Everyone can have their own different set of custom spells and magical effects. It makes meaningful discourse difficult or impossible.

Heck, why even discuss your desire for custom spells on Dumpshock if you're not going to keep them within the framework of established rules? At that point, all that matters is whether or not your table is okay with the custom additions. If so, go right ahead and use them! If neither your GM nor your players find an addition to be broken or overpowered, go nuts! Don't even take it to Dumpshock! Because if you're not going to have a discussion based on mutual common ground - id est, the extant official rules and framework of the game system - then there's not much productive you can really get from others who aren't using your custom material.

There's middle ground, of course. If you're trying to figure out how to interpret something that has no clear official ruling, that's fine. People will disagree, and multiple possible interpretations will come up, and you just pick the one you like most and use it, even though none of them can really be called "official". Or maybe you're putting forth new custom PC archetypes you'd like to share with others, as I've seen people do, or new custom weapon and item listings, or even new missions and campaigns. All of those are reasonable things to discuss on the forums, with one caveat - they have to abide by extant rules and structures to have any sort of general acceptance. If you start straying into territory where you're directly contradicting the rules, you lose the ability to reach consensus.

~Umi

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 11 2013, 11:19 PM

I don't think any further benefit will be had from the Gold Hobo discussion. There are clearly two camps that don't agree with each other, and it seems increasingly likely that all this is gaining is decreased respect and open hostility.

Posted by: Darksong Feb 11 2013, 11:29 PM

on the plus side, I was having a hard time deciding what my custom art assets should be in SRR and now I know one should be a golden hobo.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 11 2013, 11:39 PM

LOL @ Darksong

Posted by: Shaidar Feb 12 2013, 08:37 AM

I believe the initial poster was expressing confusion on how to build custom spells within the rules. And additionally if custom designed spells could be taken at character generation.

Posted by: Mäx Feb 12 2013, 06:01 PM

Contact lenses dont really work for magic, as you cant you computer generated magnification.
Thats why cyber eyes are so common on mages.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 12 2013, 06:10 PM

Mhm, it's covered in the errata FAQ... If you paid essence for it you can use it for visual links

Posted by: Draco18s Feb 12 2013, 06:14 PM

"For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”



It is in fact as strong as stone.
*Points to the wording of Turn to Stone*

Posted by: Mäx Feb 12 2013, 06:42 PM

Since when does contact lenses cost essence?

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 12 2013, 07:07 PM

I don't recall anything precluding optical magnification being installed in a contact lense. Nor glasses, goggles, and so forth.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 12 2013, 07:10 PM

Talk about tunnel vision (in contacts anyways), since optically it would always be on (like reading glasses or a Rifle-Scope)...

Posted by: NiL_FisK_Urd Feb 12 2013, 07:11 PM

Except common sense - at least for contact lenses.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 12 2013, 07:12 PM

That too...

Posted by: Falconer Feb 12 2013, 07:22 PM

Optical image mag makes no sense for contacts... vision enhancement sure... (even go down and have some fluff about the contact is a single lens which can change it's shape eletricially and all that to provide dynamic vision correction; or AR cuing... things which provide an AR highlight to draw your mental attention to them resulting in the enhanced perception).

Problem is you need two lens and space between them for long range vision mag. A single magnifying lens just doesn't work past a very short distance. You'd effectively have a monocle stuffed in each eye to get optical vision mag in a small package.

Glasses and up sure... though that would be some pretty thick lens (actually multiple lens) in the frames... which would probably give them away.


I always thought a great idea for bioware retinal adjustment would be something like say 'eagle eye'... guess you could argue it as one of the transhuminist type genetic mods. The retina is packed with a much higher density of receptors... allowing it a biological equivalent of 'digital zoom'. (digitial zoom isn't about the lens at all... just about using pixels in a different way at the camera's 'retina').

Posted by: Draco18s Feb 12 2013, 07:30 PM

*Cough*

Something like this, perhaps?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/13/tiny-telescope-implant-restores-vision-in-aging-eyes/

Posted by: Falconer Feb 12 2013, 07:46 PM

Nice find on the vision mag lens system implant. Or the raw 'image magnification' eye implant sans cybereye... people forget you can get them without getting a cybereye. (it either costs 0.1 essence on it's own... OR 2 capacity out of a cybereyes system).


But even there, it's the size of a pea and extends back into the eye cavity... try to think about blinking with something the size of a pea between your eye and your eyelid for a contact lens.... a little too big.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 12 2013, 08:06 PM

Not necessarily. A shape-morphing lens could produce differing levels of magnification, possibly all the way down to 0x.

Posted by: Modular Man Feb 12 2013, 11:37 PM

So, rather than the usual "It's Magic!", for once "It's Future-tech!"? I like it.
Ever since I saw that being mentioned on another forum, I've gotten a quite liberal view about which technical gadgets in SR are really feasible and why things that are nowadays impossible can still be implemented in the game world, even though canon doesn't mention every common household item in detail... Sorry, just needed to get that off my chest, had some conflict over that IRL sometime back
Whenever I cook up something that is not strictly RAW, I simply try to rather tweak existing stuff, use as many existing rules and as few rulings in general as possible, and every benefit has to have a drawback.
I call that creativity, and I think that it can, at least partially, be discussed on this forum.
Of course, this accounts only for items of the mentioned "middle ground", as custom spells or the "Special Machinery" vehicle modification.

Back on topic: There have been other attempts to custom spells. I, for one, especially like the http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33478&st=0&p=1009882&#entry1009882.

Posted by: Mäx Feb 13 2013, 01:46 PM

That is a non cyber eye eye mod not a contact lense.

Posted by: Draco18s Feb 13 2013, 02:40 PM

In other words:



?

Why does no one bother reading the posts I quote in my posts and ASSume I'm talking about one thing when I'm not?

Posted by: Mäx Feb 13 2013, 06:13 PM

Didn't think you would post something totally irrelevant, after all the post you quoted was about why contacts don't work for magic.

Posted by: Draco18s Feb 13 2013, 06:31 PM

Wow. I was agreeing with that post.

That's why context is important.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 13 2013, 06:33 PM

No my point was that to get an optical zoom suitable for magic... you'd need something bigger than contacts. The optical structures are just too big to fit into something as thin as contacts.

Digital zoom... as an AR overlay just won't do for that purpose.


What he posted is practically the image mag eyeware (remember it can be installed without a cybereye).

Posted by: Draco18s Feb 13 2013, 06:38 PM

Such as: real life tech, as seen in this picture.

I find it absurd that "I am disproving your point by proving your point" to be the more accepted interpretation of my post than "I am backing up your point with this example."

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 13 2013, 08:49 PM

What he posted, is the Image Magnification eyeware, probably at R0 ... in 2013.

How much smaller might it be, in 2073?

Posted by: AndrosDeragon Feb 17 2013, 04:07 AM

Wow That's a spell I want now XD



Truly Terrifying my friend.






And there goes the "insert" market.



Huh nice to see there is some sort of limitation for magic I guess. Will keep those rules in mind when I start crafting magic.



True so very true.

Anyway, I think some context is needed here.
I've only ever played two games of Shadowrun, the first was in 3rd ed and the second (currently) is 4th ed. In both games however magic was implied and only physical adepts were allowed. However since the first time I played I wanted to play a magic user (as a full mage)but I found the magic formulae rather disappointing (in the terms of wow there are very few spells I want). So I tried to make a few which despite how extensive Street Magic is, I'm still lost.

So ok I now know how does one start with custom spells, I still need to know now to make custom spells while the character is now in the game (and I don't mean buying custom spelss I really do mean making them).

This also raises a few new questions, how do you calculate magic needed for the spell, and then how do you calculate the drain the spell might give you.

Please if possible in the simplest form because I'm also using this to try to convince my current GM that magic isn't that hard to include in the game XP

Thanks again guys.

Posted by: tisoz Feb 17 2013, 06:34 AM

I would suggest relating the spell you want as closely to an existing spell as possible. Then modify the formula to account for the changes you want.

In one example in this thread a poster created a Flight spell that is a variation of the Levitate spell. However, it seems that the Flight spell is way better in several ways, but those benefits are not balanced with drawbacks (like Drain) as well as some would like.

But, decide what you want the spell to do, try to find a spell doing something similar, then discuss how to modify and balance it with your GM.

Of course, post what you are trying to accomplish and get input from the forum and perhaps spark a few more lively discussions.

Posted by: Shaidar Feb 17 2013, 08:27 AM

OK, Andros. Quick & Dirty Spell Design

Arcana (Logic) is the Active Skill governing designing Formula for Magic of all sorts.

Spell Design Step-By-Step (Street Magic, p. 158)
1. Choose the spell category

Spell Category Threshold Interval
Combat-12-3 months
Detection-8-1 month
Health-8-1 month
Illusion-12-3 months
Manipulation-16-3 months

2. Choose the type

Mana or Physical

3. Choose the range

Touch, LOS, Area, Restricted Target, or Very Restricted Target

4. Choose the duration

Instant, Sustained, or Permanent

5. Determine effects

How the spell is Resisted, and how to determine magnitude of effect

6. Calculate the Drain Value

All Spells start with Force/2 as the Drain Value
Then you begin adding and subtracting additional Drain Modifiers Table (Street Magic, p. 163).

7. Final Touches

Once you and your GM agree on these qualities, the character can begin making rolls in an Arcana + Logic (Threshold and Interval form Step 1) Extended Test
Character pays the Kharma to learn the newly designed spell and begins casting custom Mojo.

Casting maid simple.
(SR4a, p. 177)
Spellcasting + Magic = Max gross Hits = Force


Spellcasting By the Numbers (SR4a, p. 182)
Step 1: Choose a Spell.
Step 2: Choose the Force up to the caster’s Magic attribute (unless overcasting—at left).
Step 3: Choose a Target within the caster’s line of sight.
Step 4: Roll Spellcasting + Magic.

All Visibility Modifiers apply.

Step 5: Determine Effect (see spell description).

Count hits up to the Force chosen in Step 2

Step 6: Resist Drain by rolling Willpower + tradition’s Drain attribute.

Mechanic functions like Damage Soak, only against yourself.

Step 7: Determine Ongoing Effects (–2 sustaining modifier).

Example Spell 1
Detect Life (Active, Area)
Type: M • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2)

Cast @ Force 4
DV = Drain Value = F/2 = 4/2 = 2 for this casting

Detection Range = Force x Magic in meters.

Example Spell 2
Stunbolt (Direct) a.k.a. the Mage's Predator Heavy Pistol
Type: M • Range: LOS • Damage: S • Duration: I • DV: (F ÷ 2) – 1

Cast @ Force 4
DV = Drain Value = (F/2)-1 = (4/2)-1 = 2-1 = 1 for this casting

Mage rolls Spellcasting + Magic vs Targets Willpower
Mage total hits can't be greater than selected Force 4 for this example.
If Targets Willpower generates more than 4 hits, nothing happens.
If less than 4 hits for the target, every net hit greater than 1 for the mage applied to increase the damage against the target also increases the drain by 1.
As a Direct Combat Spell the target gets NO Armor to Soak the damage.

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 17 2013, 02:09 PM

That was my Flight spell. The draw back is that it only affects the mage. You can't cast that spell on anyone or anything else.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 17 2013, 06:06 PM

And you didn't follow the spell construction rules at all to do it... KCKitsune

Starting with levitate as the base... at +1 drain code...

In step 3.. Shaidar's post should read more like Area/LoS/Touch <- mandatory pick one. Restricted/very restricted <- optional pick 1 if used.

You change the range to touch (-2), and also add very restricted target (-2). The resulting spell is drain code -3. Just like yours... only at this point IT IS IDENTICAL TO LEVITATE.

You completely ignored that anyone else could copy the spell after seeing you use it. And that your wish to not use a spirit power to enhance the effect did not mean others wouldn't. The spell cannot be evaluated in a vacuum of your personal use only. So you raised the speed up to ludicrous levels of effect on the base spell. You also completely ignored that your spell being self only changed the drain code from +1 to -3 all on it's own... and proceeded to still modify the effect to ludicrous levels.

If you had engaged the extra mod of +2 drain for major effect in step 5 (a full order of magnitude better than levitate) still resulting in a paltry -1 final drain code. I wouldn't have given you grief. Just stated it breaks when combined with the movement power and cautioned against it or lowering the movement enhancement.

Put bluntly... self only doesn't change the order of the effect... self only gives you a large starting drain reduction which you were happy to take... then greedily go for more. By your logic... I could make a +1 drain levitate spell equal to levitate in all aspects except it moved them 10x faster! (LOS, no restriction, physical manipulation, 10x the effect for no increase in drain!). That's why your example, was an extremely poorly crafted example of spell design.

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 18 2013, 04:58 AM

OK I can see that, but I did say and I quote:

I'll even change out the Minor effect to major effect. That should change the drain code to (F/2)-1. This way it's more in line with a limited use* spell.


* == you can't use it on objects or other people.

Posted by: tisoz Feb 20 2013, 12:53 AM

Ok, so start with a Levitate spell modified to Caster only. Figure the Drain code. Then modify from there to include the other variations. Imo this is going to be harsher than what you created.

Posted by: Halinn Feb 20 2013, 01:17 AM

As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, KCKitsune, double dipping the Very Restricted target and Touch for a self-only spell seems to be gaming the system a lot, since you're essentially getting paid twice for the same thing.

Posted by: Falconer Feb 20 2013, 01:57 AM

No Halinn... that's not what people were criticizing at all. If you're going to make a self-only spell you pretty much always default to touch/very restricted for -2 (touch) -2(self only... very restricted) == -4 drain offsetting other drain modifiers.

The spell rules are very explicit in this point and you are dead wrong... restricted and very restricted target are mutually exclusive as per their text, they are not listed as incompatible with anything else. They are always added in addition to targetting range. *EVERY* spell must have a range of Touch/LoS/Area. I can make an area spell with a restricted target list (metahumans) or a very restricted target list (trolls). In which case it's +2 drain for area... and -1 or -2 more for the target restrictions. This is how you construct spells like wreck/demolish guns.


The reason others called KC was because he created a 'major' effect and didn't include the +2 extra drain as the spell construction rules state and maybe increased it too much for it to be considered a mere 'major effect' on the table. Had he just said here's levitate... at +1 drain... now I'm increasing the effect for +2 drain to +3... but then restricting the range for -2, and target for -2 more... for a final spell of -1 drain code. It would have been a good example. Instead he insisted on arguing that because the spell was 'self only' he was fully justified in increasing it's effectiveness without modifying the drain any more. The spell rules don't work like that... effectiveness is a seperate drain modifier and has nothing to do with how restricted the spells target is.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 20 2013, 02:53 AM

Except, "very restricted target" could simply be a spell that only works on "red-headed elf women", or a specific True Spirit .... but does so at LOS.

As a GM, I might compromise a bit, and give a slightly better modifier for whichever is the "better" one, and call it "self only".

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 20 2013, 02:39 PM

Except I did cave in... THREE POSTS before this post.

I still think that the original spell was OK, but I can see your point and I changed the drain code. Honestly compared to changing hobos into gold my spell was more than fair.

Posted by: tisoz Feb 20 2013, 08:17 PM

Not to pick on anyone in particular, but I started seeing some weights and subsequent values for the gold/refined gold/radical gold/orichalcum.

I do not know what a given volume of gold weighs, but if a hobo were turned to gold, I am thinking a hobo sized mass of gold is going to weigh much more than the regular meat body hobo, so a lot more than 170 lbs. (Sorry, but this has been nagging at me for the last couple of days.)

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 20 2013, 08:31 PM

Well, 1cc of Water weighs 1g - and that's a fair approximation for our putative hobo, since the metahuman body is mostly water.

1cc of Gold weighs 19.3g

...

Assuming the spell maintained volume, tt would not be unreasonable to just multiply the hobo's weight by 20. So that 170LBs hobo just became 3,400Lbs of .999 pure gold.

Posted by: NiL_FisK_Urd Feb 20 2013, 09:37 PM

The density of a normal (not obese) human is ~ 1055kg/m³.

Posted by: Halinn Feb 20 2013, 10:23 PM

Don't forget that the Golden Hobo could end up with a lot of airpockets to reduce the density, though a factor 20 is probably a bit on the large side for that.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 20 2013, 10:25 PM

Or, 1.055g/cm³ ... close enough, like I figured.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 21 2013, 01:53 PM

Are you telling me we got close to two tons of golden hobo?
Well that makes my point even the more poignant, just sell the hobo and buy a castle, complete with gargoyles that you airlift to the top of an skyscraper in NYC.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 21 2013, 04:54 PM

Two tons Avoirdopois. Not Try weight. And gold is priced on Troy weight. I think we've got 1.5 tons, Troy weight.

For that reason alone, I would not ever allow a permanent spell of that nature. The result would turn out to be fools' gold or some such, instead. I'd be honest with the player about it, too - including the reason I was saying no: "technically legal, but game-setting-destroying". The result would convincingly LOOK and FEEL like a golden statue, so the "style" of it would be preserved. But not the value. NOSIR.

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 21 2013, 07:03 PM

That's the problem with turn-to-anything spells, if the result is more valuable than human flesh.. and why, as a blanket, I don't allow them at my table without very strict limitations. Turning a hobo to marble, aluminium, diamond, or even glass (or pyrite!) would result in something worth far more than selling a dirty diseased hobo into slavery would get you, and is probably less risky... especially if you take day job: Homeless Shelter Worker.

The easy solution, and the first thing I tell all my players, is: "Shadowrun is the easiest game I have ever seen to break, often unintentionally. If you're going to play, you have to promise to make a good-faith effort not to break the game, to keep your character reasonable, and to revise your character if needed."

Mages that turn people into something, clever hackers*, and the pornomancer are examples of this. At some point you have to just look at your players and go: "...C'mon."




*I couldn't find the thread to link to, but the idea of using a high grade agent and com to hack people out of a single nuyen a day... left at a mall or other busy place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 21 2013, 07:30 PM

Slavery? Pfaugh. Tamanus, my friend, for ALL your hobo-selling needs!


I remember that. I'm the one that suggested "gecko tape and count the commlink as disposable" as part of the scheme.

It's fun to posit as "a doable thing", but I wouldn't let it slide in an actual game, unless it was just a fluff explanation for an alternate version of "Trust Fund", or maybe "day job" ("I run scams like that for the Yaks; my salary is my cut of the take."), and so on.

Posted by: tisoz Feb 24 2013, 12:56 PM

Sorry again to beat a dead spell, but the Flight spell had me thinking. What is "wrong" with the spell is that it intends to multiply successes. Either by a factor of 10 in the original or a factor of 5 in the revised. Then limiting in some way that just happens to reduce Drain and is the most heavily used instance. I was thinking of other spells you could create in the same vein of "wrong".

Sharpshooter: Enhance Aim spell, but only for personal use and only when used to target Pistols. Each success on casting test worth 5 (or 10) hits. (Sorry, I am used to playing SR3 so not even sure what the mechanic is.)

Bulletproof: Increase Body spell, but every success counts as 5 (or 10) but only when resisting gunshot damage and only good for single target.

Regeneration: Heal Spell, but with self restriction, but every success heals 5 (or 10) boxes of damage.

I'd say about any spell is going to break when it is made 5 times as effective even if restricted to it's most heavily used scenarios. At first I was thinking about the tenfold increase for Detection Spells using the Extended modifier and thinking there is an instance of multiplying an effect by 10. But really it doesn't make it 10 times as effective, it just covers more area, it doesn't multiply the successes by 5 or 10 and give the resulting information based on those successes. It just gives the capability to add more targets.

Which leads to the next multiplier for effectiveness, changing a single target spell into an area effect spell. But again, it just increases the number of targets. It does not make them deader by having every success against them count as 5 or 10 hits when calculating damage.

So I guess the conclusion is - the player and the GM need to get together and decide how game breaking the spell could be and balance it against the FUN of playing the game. Which comes down to just because the player thinks it would be fun, will the GM find it fun as well as will the other players find it fun, especially if the same spell gets turned around on them.

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 24 2013, 01:38 PM

First off, I did change the drain code on the spell to (F/2)-1

Second, I did reduce the speed to times 5.

Third, compared to turning hobos into gold my spell is NOT game breaking. Heck, Falconer, even had a way to fly a hell of a lot faster than what my spell would allow (Mach speed anyone?) and that is using the rules as written. Why keep beating up on a spell that while nice is not game breaking?

Now your proof that times five speed is a straw man argument. Levitate allows you to move 200 kg of material PER SUCCESS at a speed of magic times NET NUMBER successes! So a mage with Magic 5 & Spellcasting 5 has ten dice. The average number of hits for this test is 3. That means the mage can levitate 400 kg of material at 5 meters a round. Or he can levitate 200 kg of material at 10 meters a round.

My spell doesn't allow ANYTHING other flight for the caster. He can't give it to anyone else and he can't move anything else with it. Your "Super Duper Enhance Pistol Aim" spell only reduces the range category one level per hit. The same mage that I described above would be able to make any shot as if he was at short range (using the same number of hits as above). If you want a limited spell than only the mage can use (an has to take a dice pool penalty because he's sustaining a spell) and only works on pistols and doesn't do anything better than a normal enhance aim spell, but has less drain then go ahead.

Your "Bullet Proof" spell would only work on the first mook shooting at you. Sure, go ahead, the second, third, fourth, etc etc ad nauseam would blow though because you didn't have your "Bullet Proof" spell up.

Stop beating up on my spell.

Posted by: Halinn Feb 24 2013, 02:51 PM

Not that I have anything against the flight spell proposed (movement is not as superawesome as some of the other hit-dependent spells), tisoz's post got me thinking about some spells that would be really broken with the touch/self-only/5x effect at -2 drain relative to the regular one.

How about (Astral) Armor. Your 12 spellcasting dice now suddenly adds 20 armor on average
Then there's of course Combat Sense and Deflection. Now you're pretty much immune to gunshots, with your total of 40 extra dice on reaction tests against ranged attacks, and 20 against melee ones
Of course, there's also a whole lot of combat/combat-ish spells that would enjoy just x5 at +2, for example Stunball and Orgy

Posted by: Irion Feb 24 2013, 03:04 PM

Well, thats not that surprising... Gold is very heavy. If you see how gold is stored it will occure to you. You have to keep in mind, that those shelfs are mostly at maximum capacity to save storing space... And that means a few Gold bars on them, you can mostly count with one look...

@Halinn
It is a different thing, if you just multiplay any numerical number with X or if you multiply dicepool modifiers with X. A die is a die after all... But in general, there might be quite a differance...

Posted by: KCKitsune Feb 24 2013, 03:15 PM

The big difference between my Personal Flight Spell and Levitate is that Levitate allows movement of a LOT more weight than what a normal spell caster weighs. Also Levitate allows you to move ANYTHING that you can affect with the spell. If you get six hits on your spell casting roll you can move 1000 kg at 5 meters per round. That's a whole lot of weight.

Posted by: tisoz Feb 24 2013, 09:09 PM

Crap! I had a post all written out and my internet connection bounced me. Insult to injury, I was thinking it might occur and had almost copied the old post to save it, but barely failed, but that was a full failure even if it was just by a little. ;)
I'm almost in a hurry now, but will try to remember what I wanted to post.

Please do not ignore my comment that if you guys think it is fine and are having fun to go with it.

It most definitely is. But the point is to show the "brokenness" of introducing a mechanic that achieves 5 or 10 times rolled success. If you want 5 or 10 times successes, there is already a mechanic to achieve that - roll enough dice to get the expected outcome, or have a big enough dice pool to use auto successes. Both of these are achieved by casting at a higher Force. The downside is the Drain will make it untenable. You could achieve the effect you were going for using the Levitate spell, restrict it as you did, but then do not try to estimate a Drain modifier to "balance" successes when it can be accomplished with an existing mechanic.


Sorry, either you misunderstand what I meant or I just said it poorly, but I meant the subject of the spell was restricted to a single target, like self only. But your interpretation could be useful if needed to survive an end boss battle with a known entity that might otherwise not be survived, OR if the same person shot a lot at the beneficiary of the spell - think Hunted.


Sorry again, but it is not personal. It is that it was a poor example for a person seeking advice on spell design. My intent is to try to show ways I think spells should be designed in relating them as much as possible to existing spells and mechanics.

I have a lot of time to think and I couldn't get my mind of why I thought Flight was 'wrong' (as well as the weight of a golden hobo.) I knew there was the Extended Range mechanic and tried fitting this into it. But it came down to Really just multiplying successes and trying to omit the existing mechanic for getting those successes.