Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Shouldn't Sorcery Default to Intelligence?

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 01:19 AM

I got to thinking the other day about the Sorcery skill. Yes it finally has more purpose in 3rd Edition, but shouldn't it be like ALL the other skills? It is one of the few skills next to Conjuring that you CAN NOT default to the attribute to use. I could have a full mage that say has other interests like maybe decking. Since he wouldn't spend the majority of his time on magic, most people would say lower the sorcery skill to reflect this. Then comes the question, what if he never gets training? Shouldn't he still be able to cast the magic only having the +4 to the target numbers? I would consider the Sorcery skill to be more of a fine tuning and understanding, not just you can't cast without it. The books even talk about people accidently summoning spirits or children playing with imaginary friends that end up being conjured spirits. Why can't the game mechanics represent this by giving you the option of defaulting?

P.S. If the book does allow this, please tell me where.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 27 2004, 01:24 AM

Unconciously controlled magic is a case of a person's will creating an effect just because it is what the person desires at the time. Still not intelligence, and much more extremely reduced in general usefulness than defaulting from clubs to strength in most cases. Actually knowing what you are doing, and being able to get a repeatable result requires investing enough time to count as a skill, even if just a 1 in the skill.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 01:29 AM

The problem is you have to create a whole list of new rules dealing with casting spells you haven't learned with a skill you don't have.

One could do this, but it would alter the nature of magicians because they would no longer have to learn spells to cast them. They would simply raise whatever stats that mechanically drive the new sorcery system and thus not be the karma vacuums and thus become more powerful than now.

Accidental magic is more of a story device to me than some cheap dice mechanic.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 01:32 AM

Ok, then consider this. I have a skill of one allowing me to cast any spells. Can I default to Willpower instead for more dice. I have a 6 Willpower. That would be a more significant amount of dice depending on the spell when looking for number of successes.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 27 2004, 01:35 AM

No, but you can use spell pool which is partly based on intelligence.

Remember, sorcery is willpower linked, not intelligence linked. Spell pool uses that too.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 01:38 AM

QUOTE

I have a skill of one allowing me to cast any spells. Can I default to Willpower instead for more dice.

Isn't the maximum force of a spell limited to the caster's Sorcery rating anyway? And I might allow you to default to Willpower to cast if you had Sorcery and learned a spell, but expect a +4 drain target number. That seems like a reasonable trade off to not worry about botching.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 01:38 AM

Hmmm.... Still of 1 + spell pool 1 (maximum dice from pools = skill) = 2 dice or Willpower 6 = 6 dice w/ +4 target numbers. When casting a spell that is more effective by the number of successes, Could I default to the attribute or is it prohibited?

Posted by: Fygg Nuuton Oct 27 2004, 01:58 AM

if you have the skill you cannot default

all magic skills cannot be defaulted to the attribute

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 02:04 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

QUOTE]
Isn't the maximum force of a spell limited to the caster's Sorcery rating anyway? And I might allow you to default to Willpower to cast if you had Sorcery and learned a spell, but expect a +4 drain target number. That seems like a reasonable trade off to not worry about botching.

No. You can learn any number force spell you think you can roll the target number for. It just makes it easier having more dice to gain successes and reduce the time it takes to learn by having a higher skill and foci dice. (Yes foci can be used to learn spells per a recent e-mail received from the Shadowrun website.)

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 27 2004, 02:19 AM

Kanada Ten:
You are perhaps confusing learning a spell with designing a spell formula.

QUOTE (MITS p. 48)

A designer cannot create a spell formula with a Force higher than his Spell Design Knowlege Skill (or the default skill) or the rating of his Sorcery library or shamanic lodge, whichever is lower.

[EDIT]But this does introduce the same problem of an untrained magic user casting a spell when he or she was taught nothing of magic as is mentioned in the flavor text.[/EDIT]

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 02:29 AM

QUOTE

But this does introduce the same problem of an untrained magic user casting a spell when he or she was taught nothing of magic as is mentioned in the flavor text.

Not really, since we don't know that they actually cast a spell per se. Rather they caused a phenomenon that looked like a spell. It is likely they built up some kind of charge (physical and emotional - which is why expression usually happens at puberty) that was released without any control. I wouldn't call that defaulting to an attribute personally.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 02:33 AM

QUOTE (Fygg Nuuton)

if you have the skill you cannot default

Yes, you can. You always have the option of choosing whatever method you think will be most beneficial to you.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 02:35 AM

But everything is based off the Attribute itself. Just because I can shoot a gun doesn't mean I know how it physically operates inside. That is the idea of the Sorcery skill which is to have a deeper understanding and therefore making it "more" effective. Kinda like learning a gun skill, yet I don't need a gun skill to know how to point and shoot and I don't need a gun skill to understand how a gun works (a.k.a. pull the trigger). I agree this concept arrises the problem with how spells are learned, but the idea is that if I have learned the spell, I already have what it takes to know how to cast it. Couldn't I elect to take a higher target number in order to have more possible successes by defaulting just like EVERY other skill? (This question really is for Conjuring as well)

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 02:39 AM

Personally, I have no problem with allowing Sorcery to be defaulted to. You still have to have learned the spell just like anyone else, the only change is that you have no formal training in using all the secret tricks and tips to help you focus your will as effectively as a more formal magician would to help you cast your spell -- you're basically relying on raw, untamed emotion to make the formula work.

Considering all the penalties for defaulting to an Attribute (+4 to target numbers, maximum TN of 8, no Spell Pool, etc.) it's hardly game-breaking or even remotely game-bending. Same goes for Conjuring.

However, I wouldn't link either to Intelligence. As mentioned, that's used to learn the spell in the first place. If anything, I would switch Conjuring to Charisma since most of it has to deal with bargaining and cajoling the spirit into following your will. I'd then change the Drain Resistance for Conjuring back to Willpower due to the exhaustiveness of the action. Having the Drain Resistance being Charisma linked is the weird part of the whole thing...

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 02:50 AM

QUOTE

Couldn't I elect to take a higher target number in order to have more possible successes by defaulting just like EVERY other skill?

Not in my opinion because neither works like any other skill. No other skill causes drain (other abilities perhaps, but not skills). Neither should be useable without knowing secrets, rituals, rights, formulas, and etcetera that took hundreds and thousands of years to refine and just discover. The whole concept cheapens magic and magical flavor.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 03:02 AM

You can't cast any spell without knowing the spell formula regardless of whether you're trained in Sorcery or not. *That's* where the real knowledge of spellcasting is found, not the tricks in honing their casting which is what Sorcery represents.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 03:08 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

I really just don't agree with that. But then I think the game should require everything be learned in the manner of skill + specific use (Car + Ford Americar, Sorcery + Manabolt, Conjuring + City Spirit) or eliminate the secondary for only Sorcery. In fact, I'd be more willing to allow one to cast spells they don't know in a manner similar to defaulting than allowing one to default without having Sorcery at all.

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 03:11 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

yet I don't need a gun skill to know how to point and shoot and I don't need a gun skill to understand how a gun works

I don't know about shamanic magic, but for hermeticism, it just wouldn't work since Knowledge is one of the major principals of Hermeticism (the others being Ability, Will, and Identity).

Consider hermetic theory like that of a road trip. The individual needs to have a car (the ability), the desire to get to where he's going (the Will), understanding where he's going (Identity), and a road map to get him from where he is to where he wants to be (Knowledge).

A Hermetic Mage can have all the desire to do what he wants, but without the road map of knowledge to get him from desire to action, there is no telling to where the Mage may end up, or what effects his attempt at magery might cause.

But as far as game balance, allowing it isn't going to cause some flood of munchkins.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 03:11 AM

That's fair. But canonical material already suggests that you can conjure spirits and cast spells without having Conjuring or Sorcery -- read the fluff for discovering that you're a magician sometime. Children, upon reaching puberty, often materalize invisible friends or cast some kind of spell out of pure instinct. That's pretty much defaulting (but also lends credence to casting spells without the formula to boot which would actually be the overpowered part in my opinion).

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 03:19 AM

QUOTE

Children, upon reaching puberty, often materalize invisible friends or cast some kind of spell out of pure instinct.

I would say they do not do it from pure instinct. Rather it happens outside of their conscious control all together. It is a biological channeling of mana not a defaulting to their attribute. It's something more akin to Goblinization only the result of biological and chemical stresses on the body and soul of the person, not something of their mind or intent, which I feel is key to defaulting (or the use of a skill).

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 03:23 AM

Oh, I disagree. It's definitely about intent, especially the description of defensive spellcasting. A little girl being tormented suddenly screaming "GO AWAY!" followed by a wave of telekinetic force knocking her tormentors back ten feet is not just your body going "yanno what, I think I'll wake up today."

Defaulting with Sorcery or Conjuring would be much the same thing, albeit following a formula. You're essentially relying on your raw emotion to get the job done rather than ritual and meditation, but you're still following all the steps in the process. You're also still going to completely SUCK --and suck hard -- compared to a more formally trained magician, but you can do it in a pinch.

And that's the entire point of defaulting.

EDIT: Here's an example. Compare two magicians, both are identical in all ways (Willpower 6, Spell Pool 6, Magic 6, Powerbolt 6) but one, named Formal Magician, has Sorcery 6 while the other doesn't. They're both targeting two different people who are also identical and have, say, Body 3. Formal Magician will be rolling up to 12 dice with a target number of 3 and will likely get six or more successes on his test. Untrained Newbie is rolling a whopping 6 dice against a TN of 7 and might get a single success and thus just barely hurt the guy.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 03:33 AM

Here is another good point I made to Brazila by Instant Messenger. After discussion of it's possibilities, a full mage could dump all their sorcery dice and spell pool dice into spell defense. Suddenly, combat breaks out not giving the Mage time to reallocate. By taking a +4 target number, the mage could still cast spells without reallocating and using spell defense dice. Thus doubling your effectiveness as a spell defense/conjurer mage, because not only do you have all of your dice for defending, but you could still cast with virtual free dice.

Edit] Unless of course the GM gives the reallocation of dice as a freebie to prevent cheese.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 27 2004, 03:36 AM

We're going to have to agree to disagree then simply because I can't agree. One can default whenever they desire. One cannot accidently channel mana on command.

QUOTE

A little girl being tormented suddenly screaming "GO AWAY!" followed by a wave of telekinetic force knocking her tormentors back ten feet is not just your body going "yanno what, I think I'll wake up today."

See, I would say that's exactly what the body is saying. Every ounce of stress in the body resonates with the pressure in the soul and releases something. If the body releases the mana you become a magician, if the body absorbs it you become an adept.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 03:41 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Oct 26 2004, 10:36 PM)

We're going to have to agree to disagree then simply because I can't agree. One can default whenever they desire. One cannot accidently channel mana on command.

QUOTE

So after Dragons of the 6th World implying that dragons don't learn formulas and possibly just tap straight into mana and cast what they want to couldn't EVER possibly happen to anyone else even if unintentionally for a brief moment. Considering that the act itself makes the person aware of the magic and kinda surges in a since opening the channels of magic towards the type of mage/adept the person can be with "todays" magical knowledge/training techniques.

Edit] I would have to say that the initial emotional expression in the example is more along the lines implied by the magic dragons use to awaken the character in concept.

Posted by: toturi Oct 27 2004, 03:46 AM

If I was to allow Defaulting, I'll allow defaulting only to Magic Attribute. It doesn't matter how Intelligent or how strong Willed you are, if you simply aint got the mojo.

On the other hand if you are simply bursting at the seams with Magic, it will leak out unconsciously, even if you don't know about it.

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 04:27 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

MitS also suggests that a child doing that is a rare event, and that it usually happens during a time of stress.

My best guess as to what's happening is that the desire or Will reaches a point in which Knowledge isn't needed to direct the Will to accomplish what it wants since anything will satisfy that desire. The mage will have no control over the effects, but something will happen.

To continue the car metaphor, it's akin to just getting into the car and driving, and there is no way to know where the mage will end up.

This can lead to a host of very many interesting stories, but it is not a way in which to default to an Attribute in order to cast a specific spell.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 05:26 AM

[edit]

QUOTE

WARNING::Massive Arguing Continues For Next Page And A Half.
For finality on the house rule, look to PAGE 4.
Click http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=6008&st=75#entry171093 to go to the post now.

[/edit]

I've always had a little bit of a stiff with SR over it's direct seperation between hermetic and shamanic. That's all I'll say on that issue since it doesn't directly relate....

On topic:

It seems justifiable to pose that eventual mages have a tendency to be able to feel, show, or in some form or another suggest the inate ability to use magic.
Thus being the proposed case, could explain teachers and pupils, prodigies, and similar relations.

Anyone can be a musician, but there are some who simply have a lean towards it more than others. However, both the common and the prodigy musician can both become better at music with formal learning.

The natural ability in Magic:
A more direct comparison is to say that anybody can pick up a guitar and make noise on it. It most likely will not be anything resembling music, but rather notatable sound in a rather crude and un-nerving fashion.

The Prodigy:
Some of these people who will pick up this guitar (not many and would be more like a heavy costing Edge to be a prodigy in magic) can pick up a guitar and start off making pure horrid noise but shortly thereafter begin to play formatable patterns of notes and continue on within the week to making whole parts of simple songs.

The self learned mage:
The great multitude of people out there tend to self teach guitar rather than attend a class right off the bat to learn. Their musicianship may turn out to be rather crude for a year or a number of years depending on their ability (defaulting), but eventually simply from practice (though not academically) they become a "lamen-master" like many rock guitar "heros" (Kurt Cobain is a prime example of such a self taught musician who became a "lamen-master"). These style of musicians will usually never be as capable or formatable as their scholastic counter-parts, but it should never be mistaken that their music is not good. (much to say that a "lamen-master" of magic would be dangerous to assume as not-dangerous.)

The scholastic musician:
The most powerful musician is the scholastic musician as they have the knowledge behind the simple desire and "tinkering" to learn every angle of their art that they can so that they can be more versatile in their ability. Having a teacher forces them to practice aspects of guitar that they would otherwise shy away from because perhaps they are a lazy student (scales are a good example). At the end of the training a normal musician will be a formatable guitarist and a prodigy will be a near legend amongst many.

Conclusion
So using this comparison, a mage could be seen to be able to cast spells without studying them, but I would propose that, much like guitar where most self-taught musicians will either only be able to play their own music or only be able to play their version of a song, the self-taught mage or non-educated mage would be casting spells that are player/GM created spells and if they are trying to cast a spell that they might have heard about or seen somewhere then they would be casting a variation of that spell at (at least) 2 levels below the original version of the spell.

That's my study of the idea of this.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 11:25 AM

The idea of this isn't to just miraculously pull spells the mage doesn't know yet out their butt. It is more of a game mechanic fix that gives another option that EVERY other non-magical skill has in the game. Granted this isn't something that would come up all too often. I like the analogy you made. The skill difference in scholastic and self taught works for me which is why defaulting gives a +4 anyways.

So, the majority say that defaulting isn't a big deal because of the heavy +4 penalties. The requirement to have a skill at all is still up to debate since you could still default to willpower to learn the spell even though the +4 penalty makes it extremely tough to learn any decent level spell.

Any more ideas. This is good feedback.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 11:39 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

The requirement to have a skill at all is still up to debate since you could still default to willpower to learn the spell even though the +4 penalty makes it extremely tough to learn any decent level spell.

I actually was hitting on two aspects in the same analogy.

As Doc was saying earlier, which you are questioning now about needing skills,

QUOTE (Doc.)

Personally, I have no problem with allowing Sorcery to be defaulted to. You still have to have learned the spell just like anyone else, the only change is that you have no formal training in using all the secret tricks and tips to help you focus your will as effectively as a more formal magician would to help you cast your spell -- you're basically relying on raw, untamed emotion to make the formula work.

I agree with Doc completely, but I'm seeing this ability to cast the spell in three levels.

1) No Skill.
2) Self-taught
3) Scholastic

*While 1 is a completely defaulted version of 3 and has a pretty severe penalty (possibly even a little more than +4?) to casting and/or has missing elements to what the spell normally does and/or has a higher rate of doing something you may not have intended (perhaps you only need to return half of your dice rolls back as ones to make a critical failure instead of all of them?)

*2 is where I reffer to the idea of a player/GM made spell because a self-taught spell is always going to be different than that of the Scholastic version. It is possible to make these spells less efficient in drain cost (because of the lack of "tips and tricks") as well so that no other balance system needs to be implaced to keep players from "ubermunching" Scholastic spells in a Self-taught version just so they can tweek an aspect.

*3 is finally where we see the standard issue of a Skill in Sorcery and learned spells with a formatable education in magic that is what we are used to as the SR norm for magic.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

It is more of a game mechanic fix that gives another option that EVERY other non-magical skill has in the game.

Psst. If you want to give a better example, point to the Aura Reading skill. Anyone capable of astral perception has the uncanny ability to read anyone's aura just by looking at them -- no formal training required whatsoever. And in fact, even if you have formal training, it still doesn't compare to your gut instinct since they only provide one additional success per two successes rolled while your natural ability (Intelligence) grants you succcesses on a 1:1 ratio.

Apparently, it's significantly easier to just sorta assume that a hazy blue pattern with sharp green spikes means so-and-so, but knowing that it means so-and-so is only half as effective. It's also easier to assume that than it is to follow the instructions listed for a spell formula and rely on your same natural instincts and ability to conjure it into existance. Go figure.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Oct 27 2004, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

I agree with Doc completely, but I'm seeing this ability to cast the spell in three levels.

1) No Skill.
2) Self-taught
3) Scholastic

So Scholastic mages never learn a thing on their own? I've always just assumed type 3) mages, as you've described them, just have a higher Skill rating. It's not like you can't earn ranks in a skill through self-study; it's just not as easy as having a teacher.

The little girl casting Powerbolt I'd say was defaulting to Willpower for casting--which I agree with the others that say you can do that--and is casting a spell that she, somewhere down the line, learned without ever knowing she learned it. How did she learn it? Who knows; maybe she defaulted with Spell Design and came up with it on her own; maybe a free spirit taught her in her dreams, who cares? The point is, by the RAW you can't cast a spell you don't know, and unless you allow one of these http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=5144& mages as a house-rule there really is no basis for a mage casting a spell without knowing the spell. So she must have somehow known how to cast the spell, without ever actually learning it. This is why cases like that are so rare.

As for the thought that spells can have different Drain codes and the like depending on the skill of the spell-crafter, I'm not sure I like that idea. Regardless of how skillful a mage is at crafting a spell, there is already an established minimum Drain for a spell; you certainly can't make a good roll on Spell Design and reduce, say, Improved Invisability's Drain Code to Light instead of Medium. I conjecture that spells, no matter how well or poorly worded, will always end up having the same--or at least, not noticably different--effects for the same amount of Drain. The backlash seems to be, in the RAW, a direct consequence of the spell itself, a law of magical physics that you cn't get around through art.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 03:32 PM

QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)

As for the thought that spells can have different Drain codes and the like depending on the skill of the spell-crafter, I'm not sure I like that idea. Regardless of how skillful a mage is at crafting a spell, there is already an established minimum Drain for a spell; you certainly can't make a good roll on Spell Design and reduce, say, Improved Invisability's Drain Code to Light instead of Medium. I conjecture that spells, no matter how well or poorly worded, will always end up having the same--or at least, not noticably different--effects for the same amount of Drain. The backlash seems to be, in the RAW, a direct consequence of the spell itself, a law of magical physics that you cn't get around through art.

I answer with my proposed concept...

QUOTE (Stumps)

It is possible to make these spells less efficient in drain cost (because of the lack of "tips and tricks") as well so that no other balance system needs to be implaced to keep players from "ubermunching" Scholastic spells in a Self-taught version just so they can tweek an aspect.

QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)

No. You are looking at 1, 2, and 3 as if they were a red brick, white brick, and black brick.
I am looking at them as if they are child, teenager, and adult.

The idea was based off of the analogy that I gave of the guitar learning.
Comming from no skill at something but relying on raw natural ability and moving on up to self-teaching, and furthering that off with scholastic teaching.
Could this be represented in the already present 1-6 skill ratings?
Yes, of course it can. That was somewhat the aim I think.

Can it be flurished better to what Gilthanis is looking for?
Yes, it can. Quite easily if you change your perspective a little bit on what 1-6 skill level means. You just make it mean 1-6 Scholastic points (or rather years in formal learning type of concept.)

Remember, no one is saying that SR is absolutely broken.
A player is saying that they don't like the present way it exists in a given aspect and that they would like something else for it.
We, as a helping community, simply have the ability and (personally I like to think "obligation") to help them figure out a positive, and functional alternative to the standard they don't like.

My final point is this, "No" is not a valid reply to Gilthanis' threaded question simply because he wants a different system. You can't very well tell him "No, you can't have one.", but you can help him find the best one that makes credible sense in a comprimised manner between cannon and what he wants.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 03:45 PM

Actually...you know what?

I challenge everyone who has said "No" to this thread to beat my proposal.
Make a better alternative.
If you think Gilthanis' idea is not possible...what is?

Are you able to make such an alternative?

Posted by: toturi Oct 27 2004, 04:05 PM

No, such a proposal is not Canon.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 27 2004, 04:13 PM

I don't think anyone is stating that he can't have a system that reflects what he wants as a house rule. I do think it's somewhat important to know what the canon ruling is first so that any house-rule has some basis of consistancy.

Personally, I don't like the idea of defaulting to Willpower to cast a spell that is not already known, but if it is already known, knock yourself out (literally ). I think if it happened in my game, I might chuck a modifier to Drain on top to reflect the extra concentration/work required.

One thing I definitely would not allow was the idea that was listed whereby the Mage assigns his Sorcery and Spell Pool to Spell Defence and then defaults to Willpower for spellcasting basically for free. That's just pure cheese!

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (toturi)

No, such a proposal is not Canon.

Usually book-burning represents a confinement of thought or oppression.
But in this case... ...burn it.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 04:22 PM

QUOTE (Fortune)

). I think if it happened in my game, I might chuck a modifier to Drain on top to reflect the extra concentration/work required.

You're right...No one has said he can't have it. I went a little far there.

But pretty consistant are the posts that simply restate the canon ruling on it basically implying that it can't be done because it's not canon.
I agree with you on needing it stated...but over and over?

Also, I'm keeping my personal choices on this rule out of it, as I usually like to do, so I won't say what I think of the idea itself.

QUOTE (Fortune)

One thing I definitely would not allow was the idea that was listed whereby the Mage assigns his Sorcery and Spell Pool to Spell Defence and then defaults to Willpower for spellcasting basically for free. That's just pure cheese!

Now we're getting somewhere. Discussion.

Is there anyway that this concept could be made possible? (whether you like it or not personally...just look for balance

)

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Oct 27 2004, 04:24 PM

QUOTE (Stumps @ Oct 27 2004, 10:32 AM)

My final point is this, "No" is not a valid reply to Gilthanis' threaded question simply because he wants a different system. You can't very well tell him "No, you can't have one.", but you can help him find the best one that makes credible sense in a comprimised manner between cannon and what he wants.

On the contrary, it doesn't seem that he particularly wants to make a bunch of house-rules so much as he wants to make the rules themselves consistent with his perception of the SR game world. What I'm trying to show is that the rules themselves *are* already internally consistent, and that it's much easier to simply alter his own interpretation of the flavor text than it is to perform a rewrite of the rules.

QUOTE

I challenge everyone who has said "No" to this thread to beat my proposal.
Make a better alternative.

As for considering your "proposal", well, what proposal? All you've offered up so far are a series of half-formed assertions which you're trying to pass off as flavor text for an alternate ruleset. You advocate no actual concrete alternate ruleset, and you provide no arguments as to why your absent ruleset is better than the canon one, or if it is at all. What is it you want us to consider?

(Edit): Perhaps I should be more specific. You mention *maybe* changing the drain code one or two levels (Drain levels? Drain Power?) if a "self-taught" mage casts a spell he has received no formal trainning in. Does this mean your proposed self-taught mages can learn these inefficient spells for free? less/more Karma than "scholastic" mages? or do they not need to learn them at all in order to cast them?

You also mention changing skill levels in Sorcery to "Scholastic points". What does this mean? What effect does it have? How/why is Sorcery or magic skills in general so special that self-teaching these are different than self-teaching other skills?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 04:29 PM

I profess that my proposal is nothing better than canon, nor do I profess to have a completed set of rule for an alternative past anything on a conceptual level.

So...it should be a pretty easy task to beat

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

So, the majority say that defaulting isn't a big deal because of the heavy +4 penalties. The requirement to have a skill at all is still up to debate since you could still default to willpower to learn the spell even though the +4 penalty makes it extremely tough to learn any decent level spell.

Any more ideas. This is good feedback.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 04:39 PM

QUOTE

(Edit): Perhaps I should be more specific. You mention *maybe* changing the drain code one or two levels (Drain levels? Drain Power?) if a "self-taught" mage casts a spell he has received no formal trainning in. Does this mean your proposed self-taught mages can learn these inefficient spells for free? less/more Karma than "scholastic" mages? or do they not need to learn them at all in order to cast them?

You also mention changing skill levels in Sorcery to "Scholastic points". What does this mean? What effect does it have? How/why is Sorcery or magic skills in general so special that self-teaching these are different than self-teaching other skills?

Ah...great stuff, now discussion.

The idea is not to let the "self-taught" mages learn the spells for "free", but to instead be ...alotted?...only a certain amount of them (maybe like adpets and powers????) ...(perhaps to complex on that...) anyways, the idea is for the spell to have a higher drain on the caster than it would normally have since the caster has no skill at controlling the spell.

"Scholastic" was a term I was using to make a seperation between having a skill and not having a skill, where having a Skill 1 would be to have learned some taught form of magic.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 27 2004, 08:42 PM

I personally don't like the idea of seperating self-taught and scholastic. There are some things that a teacher just can't give you or an establishment. Look back at the example of the guitar. If we all just learned from an institution to create music, we would only have a select few forms such as classical because anything else would be seen as uneducated and dumb. I personally have self-taught myself a great deal about computers (I have worked on them for years) and went to college and realized they were teaching me nothing and in fact many students teach the professors at times. So basing effectiveness of spells on scholastics is absurd.

Second, region can also severely impact how you are taught. Look at Voodoo. I don't know of many institutions that "blood magic" but some groups may.

People have the potential to teach themselves to a higher degree. Where did lightbulbs come from again. I'm sure that the institution didn't teach that first. It was pioneered.

The concept of a higher skill in sorcery is to be more effective at casting the spells you know. As my point earlier stated. I can shoot a gun the first time I try. It just becomes more accurate with practice (which is where skill and skill level comes in). So by having a skill it isn't specific to a spell but more how spells are controlled and manipulated for efficiency purposes. By defaulting to Willpower, that significantly reduces the chances of successes based off target number but possibly could (depending on your skill) be increased by the total possible dice.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 10:45 PM

Alright, so scratch the self-taught idea and mix it in with the pretitled "scholastic".

So effectively so far...
No Skill = Defaulting with a penatly (+4 or more??)
With Skill = as per norm

The only question left is simply...besides the "+4", what happens to the spell?
It's been discussed a bit in here, but is the spell the same spell, or a malformed version of that spell?

Is there a "quick" way to 'malform' a spell from the books into what a no-skill magic caster would cast if we take that angle?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 10:48 PM

It's the same spell. Your skill (educated or self-learned) at casting it decides how effective and well its cast... and that doesn't change with defaulting.

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 10:56 PM

Once again, casting spells is not analogous to shooting a gun. The assumption is wrong. A mage with no skill, a mage without the knowledge of how to direct the mana or how to beseech their totem properly, can not cast spells.

To address the tangent of self taught vs instruction: there is only one difference between a self taught skill and one learned "scholastically." One PC simply spends his Karma on his own while the other PC learns with the help of someone with the Instruction skill.

That's it.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 11:04 PM

Doc: ok, makes sense.

tjn: read my sig. (and read abve)

I was wondering though...should it be more possible for a no skill mage to critically fail considering that they are casting wildly powers without trained control?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 11:08 PM

That should be true with anyone defaulting. If you want to include it as a universal house rule, just change it so that if all the dice are five! (when defaulting to an Attribute) or less, you critically fumbled... but only if you failed to achieve the goal. Or modify it to some other number. Honestly, I'd go with 3's or less across the board, but that's just me.

Posted by: Brazila Oct 27 2004, 11:13 PM

By Cannon you can't but, I don't see a balance issue so I would allow it. But I would not allow the caster to apply any MM techs. to it.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Brazila)

By Cannon you can't

QUOTE (Brazila)

but,...

ok...I can breathe...

Anyways.
Doc. I'm thinking that 3 might be a bit steep because it limits the TN possibles.
Rolling for 3's becomes dangerous and that's a simple TN to aim for.

Perhaps 2's?
Or perhaps say you only need to have half of your dice return as 1's?

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 11:18 PM

Stumps, how do you make it possible to ride a bicycle without any wheels?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 27 2004, 11:20 PM

I make my own wheels rather than bowing to Huffy everytime.
The question is, did you even need the bike in the first place? Or can we just walk there?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 11:25 PM

Uhm, Stumps, you're not quite getting what I was saying. Say you're defaulting to an Attribute. All your TNs are +4. So to hit a TN of 3 you actually have to roll a 7. In essence, an actual roll of a 4, 3, 2, and 1 is identical to a roll of a 5 for you. That's why I put it at 5 originally but then dropped it to 3 to be kind.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (tjn @ Oct 27 2004, 05:18 PM)

Stumps, how do you make it possible to ride a bicycle without any wheels?

Your analogy is flawed as for spellcasting, the spell is your "bike" and the formula for casting it are the "wheels." The rider would be the spellcaster and the act of peddling would be the spellcasting.

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 11:31 PM

And by that metaphor, the mage would take the time to learn the skill.

It is not "MAGIC!" and the notion of defaulting while casting a spell is not consistant with the very foundation of the tradition itself.

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 11:33 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Oct 27 2004, 06:27 PM)

QUOTE (tjn @ Oct 27 2004, 05:18 PM)

Stumps, how do you make it possible to ride a bicycle without any wheels?

Without the rider the bike goes nowhere.
Without the pedals the bike goes nowhere.
Without the wheels the bike goes nowhere.

EDIT: However, you are right, the analogy is flawed in that it doesn't accurately depict spellcasting, but the intent was to illustrate that without the integral elements the whole doesn't work (wheels and bikes, knowledge and magic, a keyboard and us "debating" over the internet

)

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 27 2004, 11:33 PM

And by that theory, no one can use any skill without learning the skill. So you should either use defaulting or you shouldn't. There's no reason despite your poor-attempts to "prove" otherwise that Sorcery and Conjuring are exceptions to the rules (other than that they are, illogically as they, exceptions to the rules). If you don't like the house rule, feel free not to use it.

Posted by: tjn Oct 27 2004, 11:45 PM

No Doc. That's not what I said. And my "poor attempts to 'prove' otherwise" is rather a poor attempt to describe the basics of magical theory.

Knowledge is integral to the act of working magic, in some form. However knowledge is not universally required of all skills.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 12:01 AM

If Knowledge was required, it would be Intelligence-linked. Sorcery is about willing an effect into being. Practically every description of it revolves around honing your will and focusing your emotion into the act. The only thing remotely intellectual about Sorcery comes from designing and, to a lesser extent, learning a spell... and that's still preserved.

I could then point to, oh, Computers, Electronics, and even Biotech as actual Intelligence-linked Knowledge-based skills that you can default with, too.

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 28 2004, 12:06 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Actually, our group has a house rule that all penalties apply for the rule of one. We do tone down the consequences of the botch in most cases. Doesn't it make sense that trying to do something you don't have a skill for in the dark while seriously wounded and beaten almost senseless should usually fail spectacularly no matter how high the defaulting attribute?

edit: I forgot on difficult ground while running!

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 28 2004, 12:08 AM

I guess that ties in with the too much karma pool thread.

Posted by: tjn Oct 28 2004, 12:21 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

It's Knowledge, with a captial K, and it has nothing to do with how intelligent a person is. If a person was dumb as a stump, but still had the Knowledge to guide their Will to create their desire, that person would still be capable of utilizing magic (or so the theory goes).

And yes it is primarily the Will (with a capital W) that powers the act but without Knowledge there to channel the Will, the Will does nothing.

QUOTE

I could then point to, oh, Computers, Electronics, and even Biotech as actual Intelligence-linked Knowledge-based skills that you can default with, too.

Think of Knowledge as to the working of Magic as tools are to the utilization of B/R skills. One (EDIT)usually(/EDIT) can't fix a computer without having a screwdriver handy.

Happy Da9iel?

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 28 2004, 12:25 AM

That's not true! I personally defaulted to my key chain (at a +4 of course) once to fix my truck.

Posted by: tjn Oct 28 2004, 12:34 AM

You got jipped, yer only 'sposed to have a +2 for inadequate tools.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 28 2004, 12:53 AM

QUOTE

There's no reason ... that Sorcery and Conjuring are exceptions to the rules ...

There are several ways in which Sorcery differers from every other skill. You allot dice from the skill to a function while still maintaining some dice for another. It is the only skill that has secondary karmatic expenditures (called spells) for full use. It can serve as a melee skill but only in certain situations. It is one of only two skills that cause Drain, and it requires a Magic Attribute above zero but does not use that as the linked Attribute.

And there is the other issue. Are you born with a Magic Attribute? I think not since it is easy to spot such with Aura Reading while finding capable youths is described as difficult.

QUOTE

I derived the exact opposite opinion from reading Dragons of the Sixth World. Only the Earthdawn PDF implied dragons did not learn a Sorcery skill and spells, while Dot6W stated that dragons know all the spells listed in the books and more (paraphrased). In fact, only Flamethrower is innate to them.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 12:55 AM

Well tjn your argument seems lacking because you keep bouncing between basing ALL Magic as knowledge first Active second. Since the PC would be a mage, they have some knowledge of Magic as they dabble and get instruction. The spellcasting skill implies that they have had some guidence or practice in the art. But that doesn't mean they can't feel the magic running through their veigns. It does not mean that they can't see the Astral (yes still magic here) with their astral perception without someone first teach Aura Reading. It does not REQUIRE an astral projection skill to actually project. So requiring the skill to actually cast spells (and let us not forget Conjuring is included here guys) would be pretty ballsy considering your whole description of how magic and magic theory works is completely opinion only with a few generic descriptions from the book to support the thesis.

I on the other hand still see no reason why EVERY other skill in the game defaults back to an attribute if you don't have the appropriate skill accept Magic which IS linked to the Willpower attribute.

Now, to clear up everyone staging up botching for making it more difficult. The most important reason to default is if per se you had a skill of one. So botching should not change. The +4 is a pretty nasty bonus to the target number considering that most spells on average would be an 8 or higher (after +4 penalty) and you normally wouldn't have more than 6 dice (6 Willpower) to cast. That is pretty tough even for a lame and weak spell. Odds are you will just fizzle the spell and no harm done. Don't forget background count and other hindrances here. And don't forget that if you only get one success the oppossition will probably get more. So, defaulting wouldn't be over cheese.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 12:58 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

QUOTE

There's no reason ... that Sorcery and Conjuring are exceptions to the rules ...

QUOTE

When I said implied it is because the side readings from Captain Chaos is usually thrown in for clues or role playing ideas. I figured everyone would take that as a given. Maybe I will be more clear next time. Otherwise NOTHING is truly known about how dragons deal magic and the book is VERY clear on that.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 01:16 AM

No, that would be Magic Background which is a Knowledge (with a capital K) Skill, as opposed to Sorcery or Conjuring which are Active Willpower-based Skills. They have very little to do with knowledge; they deal with your training in using those abilities.

Casting a spell is very similar to using a utility in the Matrix on the surface. You can default to Computers (Sorcery) if you like, though you're going to suck when doing so, but no matter how trained or untrained you are you're not going to be able to use a Black Hammer utility (cast a Powerbolt spell) unless you have the utility (know the spell).

QUOTE (tjn)

And yes it is primarily the Will (with a capital W) that powers the act but without Knowledge there to channel the Will, the Will does nothing.

And I agree. However, Sorcery is used to perform the act of casting a spell. The spell formula is what grants the knowledge of how to cast the spell. Without learning the spell's formula, you don't have the knowledge to cast the spell. Your ability to default to Willpower to cast the spell you have to learn either way has no bearing on that.

And yes, I believe Magic Background (or some other related skill) is what should be used to learn a spell's formula.

QUOTE

Think of Knowledge as to the working of Magic as tools are to the utilization of B/R skills. One (EDIT)usually(/EDIT) can't fix a computer without having a screwdriver handy.

Another flawed analogy. The spell formula represents your tools. Casting the spell is the same as figuring out what you need to do to fix the the device; if you are trained in repairing it, you can do it with minimal fuss if you have the right tools (formula) but if you're not, you have to muddle your way through it but you still need the right tools (formula) to get the job done. Your B/R (Sorcery) Skill is your ability to use those tools, not the tools themselves.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 02:21 AM

QUOTE (tjn)

It is not "MAGIC!"

I thought it was?

Ok, looks like a simple Default to Will should solve things quite nicely without any risk of counter-balancing anything.

*l* I'd like to see some Default-casting of spells going wrong though...I'm sure it could be pretty humerous.

I get the nagging feeling that somethings being overlooked though...I hate that.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 28 2004, 02:46 AM

Centering against penalties to offset the defaulting penalty, a mage can focus on increasing willpower and centering instead of sorcery, conjuring, centering, and maybe willpower. The willpower increase also makes drain easier to handle. If you don't allow spell pool on these tests, that just means they will have spell pool on defense at all times.

I haven't checked to see if it is a net karma savings.

Posted by: tjn Oct 28 2004, 03:01 AM

/em takes a really big breath.

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

Well tjn your argument seems lacking because you keep bouncing between basing ALL Magic as knowledge first Active second.

The hell are you saying here? I have never said ALL magic is knowledge. Knowledge is a part of the foundation and without it magic will not work. However it is but one aspect of that foundation.

QUOTE

Since the PC would be a mage, they have some knowledge of Magic as they dabble and get instruction. The spellcasting skill implies that they have had some guidence or practice in the art. But that doesn't mean they can't feel the magic running through their veigns.

That assumption is flat out wrong. See page 8 of MitS.

Without instruction, without learning the skill, the potential Awakened do not have any instinctual knowledge they have the ability and in addition to that, there are some that coast through their lives without ever realizing that potential.

QUOTE

It does not mean that they can't see the Astral (yes still magic here) with their astral perception without someone first teach Aura Reading. It does not REQUIRE an astral projection skill to actually project.

Astral Perception, and Astral Projection do not manipulate mana, therefore neither are truely acts of magic. Rather both of them are magical perceptions and are not directly involved in the working of magic (however they both will satisfy the Idenity requirement in order to manipulate mana).

QUOTE

So requiring the skill to actually cast spells (and let us not forget Conjuring is included here guys) would be pretty ballsy considering your whole description of how magic and magic theory works is completely opinion only with a few generic descriptions from the book to support the thesis.

If you want to get detailed, I could offer you Trismegistus or Bonisagus, The Kybalion or Corpus Hermeticum, or hell, you could even start with The Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley. These people are the forefathers of the Hermetic Tradition in SR, they (along with the Native American Shamans) are the inspiration of both IC and OOC development of magic in SR.

I understand these resources aren't usually in their original language, and are often a touch hard to read, so I've tried to distill it to a more palitable morsel. Obviously I've failed, but I ask you to at least look into them before you declare yourself knower of all things magical.

QUOTE

I on the other hand still see no reason why EVERY other skill in the game defaults back to an attribute if you don't have the appropriate skill accept Magic which IS linked to the Willpower attribute.

Because magic doesn't work like EVERY other skill.

To address Stumps: the its "MAGIC!" line is an excuse that many uneducated use to explain anything relating to magic. Magic, in SR and according to some rather... unique fellows in the real world, functions by it's own set of metaphysical laws. Hermetic Theory is based on causal relationships and nothing happens "just because it's magic."

Just happens that what they identify as causal relationships aren't exactly what we identify as causal relationships. Least until the Sixth World.

To the lovable Doc:

QUOTE (Doc Funkenstein)

And I agree. However, Sorcery is used to perform the act of casting a spell. The spell formula is what grants the knowledge of how to cast the spell. Without learning the spell's formula, you don't have the knowledge to cast the spell. Your ability to default to Willpower to cast the spell you have to learn either way has no bearing on that.

I see what you're saying, truely I do. However my problem comes from Sorcery's mirror, Conjuring. If learning the spell were enough to satisfy the condition of casting a spell, why then aren't there Rituals (note the capital R) Rituals that acted like spells in which they took Karma to learn and different variations for different spirits?

To conjure a Forest Spirit would require a different set of pledges, bargins or cajolling then that of a Hearth Spirit. But that Knowledge (with a capital K) is locked within the Conjuring skill itself, and not within any ritual.

Flip it back to Sorcery and the Conjuring skill leads me to believe the Sorcery skill acts in the same way to maniplate the mana.

QUOTE

If the Sorcery skill is the Ability (and I'm not sold on that idea just yet) then it would still be required to manipulate mana to achieve what the mage wishes to perform.

Again, my problem is if the spell formula represents the Knowledge required to work mana, what works as the Knowledge on the conjuring side of the coin?

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 28 2004, 03:10 AM

Ok, my simple example of my recent point. Much is in the list at the end, because I wanted to focus on easily quantified differences that are consistant regardless of character generation method.

base mage:
human (RM = 9, RML = 6)

start:
6 willpower
6 intelligence
(6 sorcery)
(6 conjuring)
6 artistic (knowledge)
6 centering

A: raise all skills by 2
30 for sorcery, 30 for conjuring, 30 for centering, 22 for artistic

B: raise willpower and centering skills by 2
45 for willpower, 22 artistic, 22 centering

things not quantified: savings from not using BP in conjuring/sorcery, consequences of always using up centering on reducing the defaulting penalty, bonus to sorcery drain resistance for higher willpower, loss of potential drain resistance due to lack of sorcery dice

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:15 AM

QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm @ Oct 27 2004, 08:46 PM)

Every die spent on using Centering to offset the penalty they're voluntarily taking for not learning the spell is a penalty they're not offsetting without it (or using to help resist Drain, or gain extra dice, or any of the other uses of Centering). In effect you're exchanging the requirement for two seperate Skills (Centering and the secondary Skill) for the use of a single Skill (Sorcery) that's not even going to have a chance totally off-setting the difference unless you score 8 successes (thus needing a minimum Centering of 8). Not to mention wasting one initiation and the Karma spent there-on for the "priviledge."

Against a TN of 4 (ha!), you need Centering 16 to come close to guaranteeing a total nullification of the defaulting penalty.

QUOTE

If you don't allow spell pool on these tests, that just means they will have spell pool on defense at all times.

Then remove the current exception to the rules that allows magicians to assign Pool dice greater than the Skill dice they assign if you consider it a major problem. Since they have no Skill, they can't assign any Pool.

Notice that defaulting also restricts the amount of Spell Pool that can be used with normal spellcasting. So even if you have Willpower 6 and Centering 16 (or Centering 6 and you get phenomenally lucky), a skilled Sorcerer will still outperform you with Sorcery 6.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:07 AM

tjn...I was joking. Take another breath. I'm not out to get you or pick arguments.

I'll stick to what I always say. I don't really care what the books say about this and that when it comes to house rules. Mainly this is because SR openly tells the reader, at the beginning of the book, to change things you don't like or think could work better.
That means the entire book, not a part, is open for game. Including flavor, history, and the mechanics.

In this case, a player doesn't think that something adds up, so they want to change it. What they appear to want is a check on the balance of adjusting it.
Not really a "rationality check"

Posted by: tjn Oct 28 2004, 04:55 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

tjn...I was joking. Take another breath. I'm not out to get you or pick arguments.

I apologize if I somehow gave the impression that I thought you were. I do not shy away from conflict in a debate, but I do try and hold my feelings for an individual person and my feelings for a spirited discussion seperate.

QUOTE

I'll stick to what I always say. I don't really care what the books say about this and that when it comes to house rules. Mainly this is because SR openly tells the reader, at the beginning of the book, to change things you don't like or think could work better.

While that is a nice sentiment, I feel the need for all players to know what to expect when they come to the table, trumps that concern. If house rules are presented and agreed on before hand, it partially mitigates this factor, but does not absolve it completely as no set of house rules will cover every eventuallity.

Therefore in my judgement, there needs to be a overwhelmingly compelling reason in order to deviate from canon. Such as the cyberlimb rules or vehicles being taken down by simple handguns.

QUOTE

That means the entire book, not a part, is open for game. Including flavor, history, and the mechanics.

I agree in definition, but in my opinion, the fact that it can be changed doesn't mean it should be changed.

QUOTE

In this case, a player doesn't think that something adds up, so they want to change it. What they appear to want is a check on the balance of adjusting it.
Not really a "rationality check"

And in this case, the player's assertion that magical skills should act like every other skill is inconsistant with the established reality. If the proposed change were to go through, it would effectively eliminate Hermetics as a valid tradition and require a rewrite of the magic section in order to make it consistant with the fact that magical skills are now just like any other skill.

Now personally, that's a lot of work for a very small ruling. And on top of that, it would drastically violate the assumptions of any new player to the group, forcing them, in effect, to relearn everything they thought they knew about how magic in SR works.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 05:24 AM

QUOTE (tjn)

And in this case, the player's assertion that magical skills should act like every other skill is inconsistant with the established reality.

No it's not. Feel free to cite examples that state as much. Here's a few of my own.

SR3 p. 84, Defaulting: "Sometimes a character wants to attempt an action but doesn't have the necessary skill. [...] Improvising when your character doesn't have the necessary skill is called defaulting."

SR3 p. 177, Sorcery: "Mages control mana through a specific, practiced formula and effort of will. Shamans rarely cast spells the same way twice. Their magic comes from the intuitition, improvisation, and an understanding of the moment."

SR3 p. 161, On the Manipulation of Mana: "Sorcery involves the intuitive manipulation of the mana field by the magician who shapes it in certain ways for certain effects."

MitS p. 8, The Magical Child: "Some gifted children first display their powers spontaneously under stress."

Note the added emphasis in the quotes.

I think what you meant to say is that the rules are inconsistant with the established reality of the game. As far as game balance goes, there's nothing wrong with it. As far as in-game logic goes, there's nothing wrong with it. As far as the rules go... that's where the problem is.

QUOTE

If the proposed change were to go through, it would effectively eliminate Hermetics as a valid tradition

To be crude, how the fuck so? You're desperately grasping at straws here.

QUOTE

...and require a rewrite of the magic section in order to make it consistant with the fact that magical skills are now just like any other skill.

Just the opposite. It requires only a few minor changes, mostly changing "Default: None" to "Default: Attribute" to the tiny little skill description and then removing the exception to the rules that states that magicians can apply Spell Pool to spell defense without applying any Sorcery dice. That's about it.

Feel free to prove how it's unbalancing or requires an extensive rewrite of the system.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 05:54 AM

As an additional comment, I get the feeling that those of you opposed to the idea (mechanically) don't use the defaulting rules that often. Defaulting to an attribute is vicious and definitely something that's a last-ditch effort.

To prove the point, compare two magicians. They are identical in all ways except one has Sorcery 6 and the other does not. They both have Willpower 6, Magic 6, and Spell Pool 6 and neither have any foci or other related abilities or tricks. Now let's say they're casting a Powerbolt on a dwarf with Body 4. They're both casting a Force 4 spell and doing so with a base of Moderate damage.

Skilled Magician has a TN of 4 and can roll up to 12 dice for the test, granting him about 6 successes on average. Unskilled Slacker has a TN of 8 and can only roll 6 dice since his Spell Pool is useless to him, and thus is lucky if he gets even one success but we'll assume he managed one.

The dwarf resists (TN 4 with Body 4) and gets two successes. Against the Skilled Magician, he just took a Deadly wound and goes down for the count. Against the Unskilled Slacker, he brushed it off without so uch as a scratch and returns fire on the jackass who just tried to fry him because he was a cheapstake who didn't want to pay someone to teach him how to cast spells effeciently..

Oh, how tragically broken. <rolls his eyes>

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 12:02 PM

Doc really summed it up perfectly well on the mechanical end of things there.

But I have a few comments regarding game "ethics" as it seems it's producing itself into.

QUOTE

I agree in definition, but in my opinion, the fact that it can be changed doesn't mean it should be changed.

um...so don't change it in YOUR game.

I could conversly say the following:
The fact that it is in the book doesn't mean it should be in the book.

Kinda why they bothered to tell us they think it's cool if we change their rules.

QUOTE

This, I'm afraid, has nothing to do with the topic at all. You have begun to argue whether HOUSE RULES should be used at all and on what ground they should be used.
We aren't talking about that here. I think it's pretty obvious that Gilthanis is pro-house rules.

QUOTE

Therefore in my judgement, there needs to be a overwhelmingly compelling reason in order to deviate from canon. Such as the cyberlimb rules or vehicles being taken down by simple handguns.

I think you said it best. "Therefore in my judgement".
That means when it's your game it's your decision.
When it's not your game, it's not your decision.
All you can do is help make it balance out.

QUOTE

And in this case, the player's assertion that magical skills should act like every other skill is inconsistant with the established reality.

SR3, p38: The Abstract Nature Of The Rules: "These rules are not meant to be a direct copy of how things really work. They can't be. We try to approximate conditions and situations in reality as much as possible, but that can only go so far..."

tjn: That quote is what you are saying

SR3, p38: The Abstract Nature Of The Rules: "(BUT)...If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better--go for it!"

tjn: that's what I'm saying...and so did they.

QUOTE

...it would drastically violate the assumptions of any new player to the group, forcing them, in effect, to relearn everything they thought they knew about how magic in SR works.

*shakes head* look. Don't try to be the daddy for Gilthanis' GMing. I'm sure he can make those decisions about newbies quite capably without your concern.
If you personally are worried about it...like I said.
Don't use the rule.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 12:51 PM

Thanks everyone for bringing us back to the real topic. Magic and how it really works (I snicker every time someone says that) will always be a debate because of the wide variety of magics in the game. Look at the Psionics for crying out loud. Like it was mentioned before. I am looking for reasons that this could be unbalancing. The +4 target number is pretty nasty as it stands. Centering is the one thing that could possibly reduce this, but since a situation that this could be beneficial would be so rare that it wouldn't be offsetting. (please refer to previous Karma expenditures example)

Now on the THEORETICAL idea of the magic. IMOO I would have to say that all Magi at the beginning have to start pure willpower. You don't understand sorcery your first time dabbling and therefore are "freeballing" it to acquire the knowledge needed for a skill of one. After that it would make since to stand on the foundation you've built. But, most people would agree that if you have a low skill that trading off a higher target number (an easy chance at failing the spell which is the true goal) to avoid a total and utter botch (always a secondary or thirdary... effect of failing) is a valid choice.

So lets come up with some ways this could POSSIBLY be offsetting. Shall we?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 01:00 PM

Actually...*snicker*...I was thinking...this is potentially evil really.
If a character with Phsyonics mentally sent an image to a mage, who doesn't have the Formula fresh/or at all in their mind, of a spell Formula they "happened" (for some odd ass reason) to know the image of...hehe....

Just a random screwball that could be fun to pluck at with the defaulting mage concepts...but would be more like a temporary skill rating = to some value of relation to the Physonics ability to send and the Mages ability to cast mixed together. Some high tax to the Phsyonic character would be the result I think.

(opens can-o-worms and runs)

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 02:58 PM

To sum up the results of what we debated a result of...

QUOTE (FINAL RULE?)

1) Sorcery now has a Default to Willpower with a penalty of +4

2) Change "Magicians can apply Spell Pool to spell defense without applying any Sorcery dice"
to
"Magicians cannot apply Spell Pool to spell defense without applying any Sorcery dice"

QUOTE (NOTICE!!)

This house rule was made by fellow DSFers FOR Gilthanis exclusively.
All others interested in it's use are completely more than welcome to do so obviously.
The debate on it's ethical rule use is back on page 3 (have fun)

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 03:13 PM

Maybe in your game, but not in mine. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that spellcasters (and conjurers) have to actually know how to manipulate mana, which is well-represented by the appropriate skills and the requirement of foreknowledge of the specific spell required. I don't see the need to change this, but YMMV.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:21 PM

Oh yeah...thanks for reminding me Fortune..

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 03:25 PM

I'm not saying knowledge of the spell is absent. The formula should be known. Just having a skill in it should be treated like EVERY other skill in the game. Defaulting to the Attribute for whatever reason should be allowed. You could totally learn the spell using the attribute but only with a +4 target number which is tremendous when trying to learn spells. Learning a force 6 would be target number 16. The debate is whether the skill MUST be present to even be capable of casting or conjuring and the idea that you can do anything without skills by defaulting to an attribute except for sorcery and conjuring is kind of funky. Everyone implying the idea of casting a specific spell (let's say manabolt) without learning the formula is absurd. But, that doesn't mean you don't have the ability to manipulate the energies without using a different approach. This is how we get different traditions, formulas, and techniques.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 03:27 PM

I wasn't trying to be a dick. I was merely expressing my opinion on the matter.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:30 PM

well...then how can we resolve this?

1) You want a default.
2) A (census??) answer on whether you can cast a spell without the skill (to which I will always say, "no, the book says you can't"...but should you be able to...sure, with the right rules)
3) You want a "randomizer(??)" to make it so you can't choose the spell you will cast un-skilled?
4) And doc suggested the Pool change for balance.

[edit]Don't worry Fortune, I knew you weren't being a dick...you're Fortune!! I was actually being serious when I said thanks, cause if you read back...there's ALOT of opinion on whether this rule concept needs to exit, but really VERY little on the rule itself...and I didn't want to really spark that opinion "should it, shouldn't it be used" conversation all over again. I can understand how you would voice your opinion because I had nothing stating the debate on it prior to your post, hence the "thank you"[/edit]

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:32 PM

What's there to resolve? Those against it are against it on general principal, misguided as that principal is.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:33 PM

point number 2 and 3

Gilthanis added to the overall request's clearity of desire in his post above...2 and 3 are really almost a question of double checking to him from me on that.

Posted by: toturi Oct 28 2004, 03:35 PM

Which, of course, opens up the can of worms:

Can mundanes cast spells?

Since defaulting to Willpower is allowable and knowledge of spell design is not limited to Awakened only (this is Canon), mundanes can now cast spells using the above House Rule. Their Magic is 0, so they will always suffer physical drain but they can cast spells.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:36 PM

no. We are talking about Skill. Not Magic rating.
Just because you Default to Will doesn't mean that you bypass the pre-requisit of needing at least 1 Magic point.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 03:36 PM

I feel the skill should be there for any professional magi with spellcasting or conjuring (whichever you want to default). But, the character could just slap a skill of 1 on there and start defaulting away to their hearts desire. I am looking more towards if there would be any pimpage issues with it in some way. Kinda like what I brought up earlier with the spell defense scenario. I agree spell defense should be affected by the defaulting and vice versa, but not eliminated altogether. Now with that mentioned... is there any other concerns? I have heard people mention not allowing Centering to eliminate penalties. I could go either way on that. What else could be effected or used to utilize the defaulting?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:41 PM

ok...

Default to Will (CHECK)
Cannot apply Spell Pool to spell defense without applying any Sorcery dice (CHECK)

Inability to choose exact spell but does cast something (big void there)

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:43 PM

I would say something like this for the caster not being able to claim "I'm defaulting mana bolt!"

The Defaulting Caster may claim the "style" or "class" of the spell they are trying to cast, but the specific spell is determined by the GM.

Does that work?? yes? no? (totally out of my ass on that one)

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:43 PM

QUOTE (toturi)

Which, of course, opens up the can of worms:

Can mundanes cast spells?

No. That's not a can of worms, that's just being stupid. Sorcery still requires a Magic of 1 (whether you're defaulting or not), a tradition, and all the other things it's always required. You might as well say that all mundanes can use astral perception since it uses Intelligence.

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

I have heard people mention not allowing Centering to eliminate penalties.

Considering that you'd need Centering 16 (and thus Artistic Skill 16, too), as mentioned way up above to reliably have any chance of doing (and assuming your TN was always a simple one at 4), that's a non-issue.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:46 PM

Now, now Doc. Take it easy. I know it's been a rough thread.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:49 PM

Bah.

Tell you what, those opposed to the ideas of defaulting to Willpower because it represents a lack of "knowledge" for how to cast a spell (despite the spell formula giving you all the instructions you need -- we'll continue to ignore that since it's a blatant bit of a proof contrary to your point of view), how about defaulting to Magic Background?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:50 PM

*lol*

so does this work?

The Defaulting Caster may claim the "style" or "class" of the spell they are trying to cast, but the specific spell is determined by the GM.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:52 PM

QUOTE

how about defaulting to Magic Background

???????

Did you mean Defaulting to "Magic" or Magic Background the Knowledge Skill?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:53 PM

Nah, I don't care for that at all. Knowing the spell's formula is a *must* for voluntary spellcasting.

If you want to work on including a whole new mechanic for spontaneous magic... that's something I'd rather not help with. Way too big and a massive change to the entire system (both mechanically and balance-wise).

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 03:54 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Did you mean Defaulting to "Magic" or Magic Background the Knowledge Skill?

Knowledge "with a capital K." They claim that you have to "know" how to work magic. Magic Background includes that knowledge. And it's actual knowledge to boot.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Inability to choose exact spell but does cast something (big void there)

Stumps... I'm not saying random spells or random effects. I'm saying learn the formula (not random), if someone wants to be anal and require a sorcery skill (learn at least skill 1 and then default as you wish but I don't think it would be necessary). The whole random stuff came up while everyone else was discussing HOW people first spike/realise they have magic.

Toturi... you are taking the concept way too far on the idea to just let everyone have the ability. It is restricted to those who have a Magic Attribute as well. But, keep in mind the whole Earthdawn game too. IF you use it as part of the SR universe, then eventually EVERYONE will have access to it. The mana levels are just too low right now for some. Call it genetic supremecy or whatever floats your boat.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:56 PM

Ok, I only threw that out there cause Gilthanis asked for it...but I really wasn't looking for that to make alot of sense cause I look at Physical Adpets as being magicians who haven't quite got their spell casting finited.
A good amount of their powers are rather "scattery" and not direct.
"Magical" punches, etc...

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Knowledge "with a capital K." They claim that you have to "know" how to work magic. Magic Background includes that knowledge. And it's actual knowledge to boot.

And it is already used as complimentary dice.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 03:58 PM

Stick with the Willpower.
If people don't want to use it, that's fine.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Notice that defaulting also restricts the amount of Spell Pool that can be used with normal spellcasting. So even if you have Willpower 6 and Centering 16 (or Centering 6 and you get phenomenally lucky), a skilled Sorcerer will still outperform you with Sorcery 6.

By the way....in game terms and the absurdity of having a skill of 16 in any skill let alone 2... Don't forget the Centering focus. This would only require a skill of 8 and a focus of 8.

This is kinda what I'm looking for in ways of possible pimpage... We're not quite there yet which is good...but keep coming up with ideas. Thanks guys.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 04:05 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Tell you what, those opposed to the ideas of defaulting to Willpower because it represents a lack of "knowledge" for how to cast a spell (despite the spell formula giving you all the instructions you need -- we'll continue to ignore that since it's a blatant bit of a proof contrary to your point of view), how about defaulting to Magic Background?

If Willpower and Magic attributes give you the ability to use Magic, and Spell Design lets you learn spells, what, in your opinion does the actual Sorcery skill do (besides eliminate the defaulting penalty) in the act of spellcasting?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:06 PM

imo, exactly that.
Before, Sorcery was what made you able to cast.
Now, it makes you cast MUCH better than without it.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:07 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Stick with the Willpower.
If people don't want to use it, that's fine.

It was a rhetorical and sarcastic question to begin with.

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

By the way....in game terms and the absurdity of having a skill of 16 in any skill let alone 2... Don't forget the Centering focus. This would only require a skill of 8 and a focus of 8.

...a huge investment just to get around a +4 target modifier. Whereas if you had taken Sorcery to begin with, you'd have all that cash, Karma, and metamagic to use more effeciently.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 04:07 PM

You would only need Centering that high to totally eliminate the defaulting penalty. It could still be useful at a lower level to eliminate some of that penalty.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:09 PM

I think the point is that you really can't pull off being a low level centering character because of the cost of expenditures it takes to do it.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 04:10 PM

Not a waste because you can use it for so much more. Kind of like the usefulness of a power focus. Many people overlook how many different uses there are for a focus. But I was just pointing it out to show how to do it without a GM saying "noboddy has a skill of 16".

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Fortune)

Missed the majority of the thread, eh?

You might as well ask: If a cyberdeck and a power source gives you the ability to access the Matrix, and you can buy utilities to use with your deck, what does the actual Computers skill do?

It represents your skill and training in Sorcery. You've learned all the tricks of the trade for how to more effectively manipulate mana. Practice, training, and experience all wrapped in one. You learn all sorts of techniques about how to hone your will and your emotion as efficiently as possible. You develop these techniques until they become instinctual, just like any other practiced skill.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:13 PM

QUOTE

I got the impression that Doc was saying that by the time they get to that level it's an attitude of "who cares"

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (Gilthanis @ Oct 28 2004, 10:10 AM)

Uhm, except that the entire point of the "cheat" around not taking Sorcery is that it eliminates the fact that you don't have Sorcery. Even a +1 TN modifier is a huge disadvantage, and if you're trying to use Centering in most situations (where your TNs are closer to 6 -- and remember, the TN for Centering is the same as the test you're making in the first place), you'll be lucky to get one success let alone the two you need to have any appreciable effect.

On top of that, that HUGE investment you make in all that crap is the same HUGE investment the more traditionally trained Sorcerer gets to make to improving his abilities. Should he take Centering to the same level, he can actually use it as a powerful advantage, not a means of eliminating a disadvantage.

Not to mention that no matter how well you lower the TN, you still have 0 Spell Pool to use.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:17 PM

hmm...so we end up with another form of a mage...interesting

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 04:18 PM

But I'm pointing out the fact that we are also behind describing the exact way magic works and moving on to how this "possibly" could be pimped or if there is an offset out there. I agree a character with Centering that high really just needs to pick up the skill. But sometimes an old character decides to change his focus due to an invisible ceiling, boredom, or shits and giggles and needs to compensate for bit while building new skill.

Any other ideas?

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:19 PM

I see it as solid as it's written.
Simple.

Default to Will
No Spell Pool.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 04:19 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Missed the majority of the thread, eh?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:20 PM

Don't roll your eyes at me. The topic had been brought up multiple times.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:21 PM

I don't blame you...that's why I put in a "jump to page 4 for the results of this arguing" edit back on page 2.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 28 2004, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Don't roll your eyes at me. The topic had been brought up multiple times.

I read the thread, as you well know since you have also. I was merely asking your opinion on something ... an opinion that is normally well-formulated. There is no need for your snide comments.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 28 2004, 04:25 PM

Is it just me or did this thread become one of the longest in a while excluding an obvious hitter like the SOTA64 thread?

Anyways, if it is allowed, I agree no spell pool or dice from foci. That requires use of the actual skill. I agree +4 target numbers per defaulting. So, is there any other skills YOU would or would not allow to be used in conjunction? Centering has been mentioned. My GM already said no but I think it was before any thought on it was really made on how good Centering would have to be. Say...can spirits aid? Would this have any effect on Ritual sorcery? Any effect on Dispelling, redirection, absorption.... anything?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 28 2004, 04:27 PM

Sorcery and Conjuring are about the only ones I'd allow. Centering is definitely a no-no since it is a learned technique rather than an instinctual ability, but I would consider it for Divination and Aura Reading (for those abilities that directly use the skill, like Psychometry). But I doubt it.

Spirits could assist, sure, and they would be a very valuable asset. The TN would still be there, however. Ritual Sorcery might work, but no group would want them to join in since his modifier would (or should) be applied to all of their tests seeing as how he's the weak link in the chain.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 28 2004, 04:35 PM

Yeah, I noticed that this thread is quite beefy myself.
But then again...that just means something good is in here.

I could go start a pocket secretary thread...

Posted by: Critias Oct 28 2004, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Yeah, I noticed that this thread is quite beefy myself.
But then again...that just means something good is in here.

Nah. Just something people are willing to disagree over, and say so (often). That's not quite the same as "good."

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 12:23 AM

Default to Will, check.

Magic Background Knowledge Skill, check.

Magic Attribute more than 1, check.

Adepts can cast spells... Yes?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 01:11 AM

<just rolls his eyes>

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 01:12 AM

QUOTE

Magic Background Knowledge Skill, check.

no. That was Doc being a smart-a$$

QUOTE

Adepts can cast spells... Yes?

hmm...gonna have to see what everyone else thinks on that...and I'd have to look into it further to check, but by what we've said so far...yes, but coomon sense says no.

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 01:23 AM

Cool, then what is the big deal on those pesky adept mages?

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 01:41 AM

Well since toturi is trying to make the blatant point of unless ANYONE with a willpower can cast spells, lets focus on why toturi keeps spitting it out.

First, everyone else seems to agree that the Magic attribute must be available to even do the slightest magical task. toturi is the only one excluding that point.

Second, by ignoring this point toturi continues by trying to devalue the argument by saying if a full mage can do it than the fact that they are willing it has nothing to do with what they ARE CAPABLE of doing it magically but are just relying on Willpower to control all magic.

Third, going further toturi then says since it is only Willpower then everyone who has been restricted in the past should have no problems accessing the magic.

My response to you is this.
1. Most of us agree the Magic attribute is what lets you tap into the magic.
2. You can only manipulate with your willpower what you normally have access to doing with a skill your Magic class allows. (Can't really rig without a VCR yet you can still drive. Your class would not be a rigger but a driver. This has a big difference in advantages and capabilities.)
3. The magical background is the knowledge of how magic works so implying that the knowledge has to be there (implying a sorcery skill) is partially true. That is why magical background (more appropriate for understanding the working of magic per everyones description on knowledge requirement) is a complimentary skill re-enforcing the rest of the capabilities of Sorcery. Sorcery itself should IMOO not be used for knowledge roles unless the knowledge skill is absent. Then per rules you can use half the active skill.

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 01:49 AM

1) I agree with Magic Attribute being essential to spellcasting. That is why I withdraw my previous statement about mundanes.

2) I have no concept of "classes" in Shadowrun. Pray tell, where is this mysterious Magic class you mentioned, Gilthanis?

3) Since mundanes too can have the Magic Background, I do not really quite get your point.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 01:57 AM

My points are based off your previouse arguments you've thrown in like allowing mundanes to manipulate magic with willpower. Now that you've aknowledged the need for Magic atrribute above 0, then the problem solved there.

Then you mentioned adepts casting magic which to me was implying a problem with "class". (for lack of better short description depicting differences) Again, there is no real problem there because a physical mage can still do the same as a sorcerer, conjuerer, or full mage when it comes to defaulting. The physical adepts are already in a way willing the magic and don't rely much on "Spellcasting/Sorcery/Conjuring". I don't have SOTA64 so can't vouch for it, but most physad abilities don't require such a skill. Again implying a willful control.

As far as mundanes using magical knowledge, they are still limited to just textbook style knowledge and not necessarilly having field knowledge. Big difference but are categorized under one skill. A good GM would seperate these.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:11 AM

QUOTE

Adepts can cast spells... Yes?

I went to the books cause I really didn't know what we made would have an effect on them...I'll admit, I forgot about them really.

SR3, Adepts p. 168: "Followers of the somatic way, adepts do not use magical skills to perform magic in the same way as magicians (though they can use Sorcery in astral combat: see p. 174)"

SR3, Astral Combat p. 174: "An astral form can engage in astral combat. Physical characters--even Awakened characters not using astral perception or projection--are immune to direct attacks from astral space."

So...yes, they can cast spells using a Default of Willpower from Sorcery....but only in Astral Combat.

Posted by: mfb Oct 29 2004, 02:21 AM

how in the world did you come to that conclusion? the Sorcery skill can't default, even for use in astral combat.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 02:25 AM

QUOTE (Stumps @ Oct 28 2004, 09:11 PM)

QUOTE

Adepts can cast spells... Yes?

Stumps, let's make sure to clerify that in saying Adepts, they mean Sorcerers, physical mages, etc... not the stereotype Physical Adept.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:25 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

how in the world did you come to that conclusion? the Sorcery skill can't default, even for use in astral combat.

Please for the love of god...READ THE DAMN THREAD BEFORE YOU MAKE REAL REAL DUMB POSTS LIKE THAT!!!!!!

(I'm sorry to be crude, but this thread has been rough...real rough.)

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 02:28 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

Stumps, let's make sure to clerify that in saying Adepts, they mean Sorcerers, physical mages, etc... not the stereotype Physical Adept.

Why not? They've a Magic Attribute, don't they?

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 02:30 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

My response to you is this.
1. Most of us agree the Magic attribute is what lets you tap into the magic.
2. You can only manipulate with your willpower what you normally have access to doing with a skill your Magic class allows. (Can't really rig without a VCR yet you can still drive. Your class would not be a rigger but a driver. This has a big difference in advantages and capabilities.)
3. The magical background is the knowledge of how magic works so implying that the knowledge has to be there (implying a sorcery skill) is partially true. That is why magical background (more appropriate for understanding the working of magic per everyones description on knowledge requirement) is a complimentary skill re-enforcing the rest of the capabilities of Sorcery. Sorcery itself should IMOO not be used for knowledge roles unless the knowledge skill is absent. Then per rules you can use half the active skill.

I will reply by quoting myself. Pay attention to point number 2.

Posted by: mfb Oct 29 2004, 02:31 AM

i've read the thread, and i meant what i said. this whole argument is just trying way to hard.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 02:32 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

Stumps, let's make sure to clerify that in saying Adepts, they mean Sorcerers, physical mages, etc... not the stereotype Physical Adept.

No they don't. Physical Adpets do not exist anymore as a relic of 2nd edition. Aspected Magicians now cover Sorcerors, Conjurors, and the Shamanic limited, ect. The term Adpet is solely used to describe those that can purchase adpet powers. Adepts can purchase Sorcery for the use in Astral Combat (which is the melee portion of that skill).

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:32 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

Stumps, let's make sure to clerify that in saying Adepts, they mean Sorcerers, physical mages, etc... not the stereotype Physical Adept.

actually...look on p168 of SR3.
"Followers of the somatic way, adepts do not use magical skills to perform magic in the same way as magicians (though they can use Sorcery in astral combat: see p. 174). The cannot astrally project, and cannot use astral perception unless it is purchased as a power. Instead, adepts focus their magic on the improvement of body and mind. The adept's way is one of intense training and self-discipline."

That not only sounds like a phys-ad and preceed the phys-ad powers section (which is right below it) but it also says that they can use Sorcery in Astral Combat.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:34 AM

mfb, I have no intention, and I'm sure no one else does, of repeating an argument. If you've read the whole thread then you know our reasons for the rule and our stance on it.
If you don't like it and you've read the whole thread, you also know that you can simply not post here if it offends you to see such a rule.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 29 2004, 02:35 AM

No third edition book uses "adept" to refer to an aspected mage. "Adept" has come to mean only physical adepts.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 02:36 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

i've read the thread, and i meant what i said. this whole argument is just trying way to hard.

Then that means by your response...your obvious conclusion (though going the round about way) is to stay 100% Canon and no deferring. Ok, we understand and were already aware of that per rulebooks. You can move on. This thread is for those who use house rules to adjust for "better game play in there own eyes". We are really looking for ways defaulting would be over cheese or too useful. So far, none have been found.

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 29 2004, 02:36 AM

Toturi:
Please don't confuse spending build points/priority to be able to use certain magics with gaining the sorcery skill. Yes, under these house rules, adepts can default to Will in astral combat just like Stumps said. No they cannot cast spells even when they have and use the full sorcery skill. You aren't arguing well. I know you have a fixed idea about the workings of magic, and that is fine, but you're not representing your points clearly.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 02:38 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Oct 28 2004, 09:32 PM)

QUOTE (Gilthanis @ Oct 28 2004, 09:25 PM)

Stumps, let's make sure to clerify that in saying Adepts, they mean Sorcerers, physical mages, etc... not the stereotype Physical Adept.

Ahh...you are right there...I was wrong and I admit that. This would be a good debate on another thread.

Edit] Looks like I will be sending another e-mail to Fanpro for clerification. By the way, the new guy who replies to e-mails is exceptionally fast and gives good answers.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 02:41 AM

QUOTE

If you don't like it and you've read the whole thread, you also know that you can simply not post here if it offends you to see such a rule.

He is also free to say he thinks the idea is bunk, which he did.

QUOTE

This thread is for those who use house rules to adjust for "better game play in there own eyes".

You do not have any control over what, when, or who expresses their opinions on this board. Every attempt to force your will on others results in more posts without content.

QUOTE

By the way, the new guy who replies to e-mails is exceptionally fast and gives good answers.

Yeah, I agree.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:41 AM

Actually....my present question that I never had arise before (because I hadn't made an adept in 3rd yet) is this...

SR3, Adpets, p. 168.
"Followers of the somatic way, adepts do not use magical skills to perform magic in the same way as magicians (though they can use Sorcery in astral combat: see p. 174). The cannot astrally project, and cannot use astral perception unless it is purchased as a power. Instead, adepts focus their magic on the improvement of body and mind. The adept's way is one of intense training and self-discipline."

I could be wrong on this...but....don't you need to be astrally projected to cast astral spells in astral combat???

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 02:43 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Are you implying that a Sorcerer can't manibolt a spirit on the astral plane?

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 02:44 AM

QUOTE

I could be wrong on this...but....don't you need to be astrally projected to cast astral spells in astral combat???

Astral Combat does not mean casting spells. It is a melee attack. One normally needs Astral Perception to engage in it (which adepts can purchase as a power at 2PP).

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:45 AM

Kanada Ten...

It's just been a very long long thread where there are a small group of us who would like to persue this rule but continually have to swat away all these posts arguing against the concept of the house rule being used because it's not canon and we don't really care if it's canon but no one seems to care that we don't care that it's not canon....so excuse me if I get a little annoyed...I really try not to.

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 29 2004, 02:50 AM

And yet mfb completely ignored the well acknowledged admission that this is a house rule. Of course you can't default sorcery in canon. That is not being argued. The question is whether or not it would unbalance a game or even be plausible. mfb's first statement was a complete non-sequitur. mfb's second statement gave no real insight into why he doesn't like this house rule or why he thinks it would cause problems. I personally don't see it as trying too hard by removing an exception to the general rules about defaulting and pools.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:51 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Oct 29 2004, 02:44 AM)

QUOTE

I could be wrong on this...but....don't you need to be astrally projected to cast astral spells in astral combat???

Astral Combat does not mean casting spells. It is a melee attack. One normally needs Astral Perception to engage in it (which adepts can purchase as a power at 2PP).

Right.

Ok, check. I'm with you. I'm reading that now.

...how is sorcery not a spell casting?

and further...

SR3 p174: "Astral Combat uses the same rules as Melee Combat (p. 120). The nature of astral space precludes ranged weapons, except for spells."

Preclude:
"To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent"

The astral space makes ranged weapons impossible, but not spells, but we're not casting Sorcery spells in Astral Combat when we use Sorcery in Astral Combat...err?...??

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 02:52 AM

QUOTE (Da9iel)

I personally don't see it as trying too hard by removing an exception to the general rules about defaulting and pools.

So do you see any areas where it could be cheesed? That is the real question right now.

Again, many thanks to everyone for contributing. Opinions, facts, and all.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 02:57 AM

Wait...does using Sorcery in Astral Combat reffer to using the Dice from a Sorcery Skill as melee combat dice astraly??

Really, this does tie back in with the thread.

Posted by: Da9iel Oct 29 2004, 02:58 AM

I am not the most creative munchkin, so I can't see and cheeseablity (sp? word?). I think the big +'s for defaulting make it fairly solid. It seems it would be most useful for playing the I-didn't-know-I-was-a-mage character.

[edit]There is one big problem, though, with this concept. Where did this character learn the spell? It would have to be taught or learned from a formula. He or she couldn't write his or her own formula because that is capped at the spell design or defaulting skill's level.[/edit]

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 02:58 AM

QUOTE

The astral space makes ranged weapons impossible, but not spells, but we're not casting Sorcery spells in Astral Combat when we use Sorcery in Astral Combat...err?...??

Astral Combat is a use of Sorcery, like Spell Defense, that is not used for casting spells but rather to damage astrally present targets using a normal melee attack with Sorcery as the combat skill. The primary use is for engaging spirits that attack you in astral space or for destroying astral barriers like wards. Would you like an example?

[edit]

QUOTE

Wait...does using Sorcery in Astral Combat reffer to using the Dice from a Sorcery Skill as melee combat dice??

Almost. It's not dice from Sorcery; it is the Sorcery skill (used just like Unarmed, Edged Weapons, ect) but it only works while astrally present via Perception - or in the case of projected magicians or free spirits.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:02 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

Wait...does using Sorcery in Astral Combat reffer to using the Dice from a Sorcery Skill as melee combat dice astraly??

Really, this does tie back in with the thread.

Stumps...read down to the second sentence of the last paragraph under Astral Combat tests on page 174. It answers your question. You use either Unarmed combat (unless using a weapon focus) or Sorcery in place of either skill.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 29 2004, 03:03 AM

You are seeking what is mostly a subjective answer. A few points were made as to flaws with the process, but you have dismissed them as negligable. Without comparing the full potential proglession of two otherwise equal mages, you probably won't find any more glaring holes in the idea, and you may not even then. I'd suggest a forced sell-back on some spell points for anyone who follows that path (I don't remember if anyone suggested that yet), but I think it will be less imbalanced than some of the currently acceptable options people complain about.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 03:05 AM

No I've got it...they weren't exact enough in the book. If you aren't thinking what they're thinking at the moment you read that it comes out like it's saying you can and cannot cast spells in Astral....

But anyways...
So we've got a new can here...

Adept with no Sorcery goes astral and Defaults to Willpower of 6 for a TN of X+4.

Two things...
1) could this be munchie? (I'm not seeing it as such with the +4 there it really keeps it in check)

2) The bigger mess...
Adept is astral Defaults Sorcery to Willpower of 6 for a TN of X +4 and uses Combat Pool (because he's an adept not a mage) to tackle that +4.

Is this possible??

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:06 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

It would have to be astral combat pool.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:08 AM

QUOTE (Gilthanis)

[QUOTE=Stumps,Oct 28 2004, 10:05 PM] No I've got it...they weren't exact enough in the book. If you aren't thinking what they're thinking at the moment you read that it comes out like it's saying you can and cannot cast spells in Astral....

I'm not following you here... what part of the book? We've jumped arround on the whole Astral/Sorcery thing.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:08 AM

Look, the point of the house rule (look the term up sometime people) is that some people feel that it's both not unbalancing and consistant with in-game logic for magicians to default to a raw attribute rather than rely on a skill should the need be there.

In no way whatsoever is anything else changed. Standard adepts cannot cast spells whether they're using the Sorcery skill or defaulting to Willpower. They just don't have the knack for doing so, just like sorcerers can't conjure spirits and conjurers can't cast spells. That's just the nature of the magical beast.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Jesus frelling Christ.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 03:09 AM

QUOTE

It would have to be astral combat pool.

Astrally percieving characters use standard combat pool plus any astral pool. It's only projecting character's that have altered combat pool (becasue their physical attributes are different).

I think Stumps is talking about the Combat Sense granting some Combat Pool when defaulting.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:11 AM

Doc, I don't think stumps implied the physical adept to cast a spell. Per the Sorcery description, Astral combat is a specialization (which includes astral melee). I think the Physad scenario he brings up is valid to the thread and possible cheese.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 03:11 AM

No offense, but...can you point that out to me? I'm really needing to see that cause I'm seeing nothing like that in here.

I did see this:
SR3, Astral Combat Tests, p. 174: "Astrally perceiving characters and other dual beings use their Pysical Attributes, skills and Combat Pool in astral combat."

That tells me that the Adept uses Combat Senses bonus to the Combat Pool and uses that Combat Pool in the astral combat.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:13 AM

Astral Combat Pool is only used by astral entities (which include projecting magicians). Dual-natured beings (including perceiving magicians) use Combat Pool even when battling astral entities.

Gilthanis: I was mostly responding to toturi's lame attempt to prove why it's a bad idea.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:15 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

QUOTE

It would have to be astral combat pool.

Kanada Ten is right about the Combat Pool. First sentence under Astral Combat Tests.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 03:15 AM

QUOTE

Dual-natured beings (including perceiving magicians) use Combat Pool.

right....that's what concerns me...the adept can use a combat pool and hop (metaphorically) over the +4 with extra dice.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 03:15 AM

QUOTE

Just to clarify, Astral Combat is a term used only for melee combat engaged while viewing astral space. Astral Combat does not ever refer to casting spells on the astral plane.

Astral Combat Pool is also different from Astral Pool, which is a pool granted to Initiates at a rating equal to their Grade.

QUOTE

...the adept can use a combat pool and hop (metaphorically) over the +4 with extra dice.

Only if they have the power Combat Sense which grants few dice for the power's cost, though combined with Centering could be interesting.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:16 AM

QUOTE (Stumps @ Oct 28 2004, 09:15 PM)

right....that's what concerns me...the adept can use a combat pool and hop (metaphorically) over the +4 with extra dice.

What are you talking about? Use of Combat Pool only adds extra dice; it never changes your target numbers. Furthermore, if you're defaulting to an Attribute you don't get to use ANY pools (save Karma Pool).

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 03:18 AM

I know that...

But look...
Adept who's Astral uses Willpower Defaulted from Sorcery because his Will is higher than anything else going for him and he uses his Combat Pool dice to add extra dice to get over the +4 TN penalty for Defaulting and now has a 6D6 power attack!

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 03:20 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Oct 29 2004, 03:16 AM)

QUOTE (Stumps @ Oct 28 2004, 09:15 PM)

right....that's what concerns me...the adept can use a combat pool and hop (metaphorically) over the +4 with extra dice.

Wait...why did we...oh yeah...they made the exception of saying that Spell Pools could be used...right.

Damn...got myself all turned around on that.

Thanks Doc!

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 03:22 AM

I don't think there is a mechanical error that really is going to arise out of this rule...at least not unless the rule gets playtested

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:23 AM

But on the other hand an increased attribute would be beneficial.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:25 AM

Whoptido. Give yourself Willpower 12 (base TN 4 = TN 8 = 1, maybe 2 successes if you're lucky) and compare what you can do with someone with Willpower 6, Sorcery 6, and Spell Pool 6 (TN 4 = 6 successes on average). Defaulting boy still sucks ass. At best, he has an advantage with Drain. So yay, he can cast tougher spells that are still not going to do very much. Good for him.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 03:27 AM

I think the allotting of Sorcery dice for Spell Defense presents a huge mechanical challenge to the entire concept, but hey.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 03:28 AM

But still has the option. I agree it isn't powerful. But, we are here to see if it can cheese enough to offset some how.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:29 AM

Not particularly. If a magician never bothered to develop their natural ability and can just barely get a spell off (by learning a specific formula that shows him how), he's not going to stand a chance at defending himself from hostile magicians. That's just another advantage that goes to the traditionally trained sorcerer.

On top of that, removing the exception to the standard dice pool rules for Spell Defense actually makes Sorcery a lot more balanced even if you don't want to use the defaulting house rule. Now if a magician wants to maintain Spell Defense he has to make a conscious effort to assign some of his Sorcery dice to it for the entirity of the Combat Turn. That means fewer dice for other endeavors.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 03:34 AM

QUOTE

If a magician never bothered to develop their natural ability and can just barely get a spell off (by learning a specific formula that shows him how), he's not going to stand a chance at defending himself from hostile magicians. That's just another advantage that goes to the traditionally trained sorcerer.

But ah, what if I have a Sorcery 6 and use Increased Willpower to 12 and thus allot all 6 Socery dice to Spell Defense along with my pool and now have 6 dice to still use with support spells plus any foci I have. Manaball with 12 dice against a target number of 7 isn't that bad, really, cast at force 5 with a DL of Deadly... And then we have totem modifiers...

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 03:37 AM

QUOTE (Da9iel)

No, they are changing the way Sorcery as a game mechanic works in the game. They are saying without learning Sorcery and a spell, a sorceror/full mage can cast a spell, althout it is one that the mage has no control over. I am playing devil's advocate by pointing out the big mess their house rule brings about.

If anyone with no Sorcery or knowledge of a spell (ie he never bothered to learn a spell) can cast, then what is the parameters that are imposed?

From my reading, they are:

1) Magic Attribute > 1
2) Default to Willpower from Sorcery/Conjuring

Therefore I have submitted that by going by their house rule a normal adept can cast a spell.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:39 AM

First of all, good luck with that Increased Willpower 6 spell with a base Willpower of 6.

Second, that's definitely a choice you have. Hopefully you'll only ever run into average people with no defenses whatsoever when using your magic. And you better hope they don't get two successes on their resistance test, because that's all it takes to completely resist your spell on average (Willpower 12, TN 7, 1 success, 2 on a good day) with their 6 (Attribute 3 + Pool 3) dice.

And that's against a regular Joe Schmoe.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:41 AM

QUOTE (toturi)

No, it doesn't bring about any mess except in your little head.

ANYONE with Magic 1 can ALREADY learn Sorcery by CANON. Even Conjurers. However, only full magicians and sorcerers can USE sorcery -- the act of casting spells, defending against spells, and all that other mojo. It doesn't matter if they have the skill or not, that's a fundamental ability of their particular brand of magic.

You're the only delusional one who seems to think otherwise.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 29 2004, 03:41 AM

What pool does a mundane opponent get to resist manaball?

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 03:43 AM

QUOTE

And you better hope they don't get two successes on their resistance test, because that's all it takes to completely resist your spell on average (Willpower 12, TN 7, 1 success, 2 on a good day) with their 6 (Attribute 3 + Pool 3) dice.

What pool can one use in defense of Manaball? Other than Spell Defense (or Sheilding, Absorbing, or Magic Resistance) I can think of nothing that aids in resisting combat spells.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:46 AM

I was speaking in general terms, sorry. Combat Spells don't allow for standard dice pools. Your chances for taking out an average Joe Schmoe are still only marginal even after all that investment you made. You're only going to score a single success on average, and he's got a good chance of getting a single success on his Resistance Test, too, using your scenario.

Feel free to compare your scenario against someone worth attacking now. Let's say a Security Mage with Attributes of 5 across the board and 3 dice assigned to Shielding. Note that since you've already assigned all your Sorcery and Spell Pool dice to spell defense, you only have your Willpower 12 to rely on for the entire Combat Turn. Oh, and be sure to apply a few situational modifiers while you're at it; let's just go with +2.

Posted by: Tal Oct 29 2004, 03:49 AM

... I thought manaball only affected mages and other astrally active entities?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:53 AM

Nope. It only affects living entities, however.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 03:54 AM

QUOTE

I thought manaball only affected mages and other astrally active entities?

Manaball effects any living target within the caster's line of sight. If he or she is astrally present that includes astral beings. They need only be physically present (astrally perceiving or normal sight) to effect everything else.

QUOTE

Feel free to compare your scenario against someone worth attacking now. Let's say a Security Mage with Attributes of 5 across the board and 3 dice assigned to Shielding. Note that since you've already assigned all your Sorcery and Spell Pool dice to spell defense, you only have your Willpower 12 to rely on for the entire Combat Turn.

So reverse the scenario and allot 6 Willpower dice to spell defense. Either way I see it as a mechanical error: extra dice beyond what all other skills are able to grant using defaulting.

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 03:54 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Oct 29 2004, 11:41 AM)

QUOTE (toturi @ Oct 28 2004, 09:37 PM)

The limitations to the use of Sorcery was exactly as you have stated, Funk. BUT previously the Canon rules also stated no defaulting on Sorcery.

So far by my reading, the limitations imposed on "who can use Sorcery" has only been:

1) Magic Attribute

If it had been "any character who has the ability to cast spells, but has no Sorcery and did not learn any spell, can default to the Willpower Attribute in place of the Sorcery skill", I would not have any problems with that.

Correction: Am I correct in saying thus:

Any character who can use Sorcery or Conjuring may default to their Willpower when using these skills.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 29 2004, 03:54 AM

Ok, 12 dice vs 7: 12 *1/6 = 2
3 dice vs. 5: 3 * 2/6 = 1

More often:
6 dice vs. 3: 6 * 4/6 = 4

That +4 statistically halves your successes in such a case.
Karma pool usage is benefitted by the lower number as well.
There is one case where the 12 dice may help:
When you can center vs. the Tn penalty instead of using centering for extra successes. This only becomes relevant when you have no other TN mods.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 03:58 AM

Centering won't help much at all. You have the exact same target number and need two successes to negate a single +1 modifier. Even if your base TN was 0 (which it can't be, but I'm being really nice here), you'd need Centering 16 (and Artistic Skill 16) to reliably ignore your defaulting penalty.

As was mentioned earlier.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 29 2004, 04:10 AM

6 vs. 7: about 1 success.
ok, that won't help much.
In the specific example, 4 centering successes would be needed for any change in the results.
12 vs. 5: 12 * 2/6 = 4
And even then, no better than a real skill with 6 dice.

I don't use centering myself, and didn't remember if it provided some benefit based on initiatory grade on those tests. As I just reread, it doesn't.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 04:39 AM

Another mechanical oddity occurs because Sorcery is the only skill that had multiple target numbers in the same test. By the letter of the rules you can't default cast Powerball when Highly Processed Materials are in the Spell's Area of Effect because one cannot default when the TN is eight or above.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 04:56 AM

Or to explain that phenomenon, you say that you didn't have the training or the juice to affect such a highly processed object due to your lack of training. Just another reason why you should seek out professional-level training if you want to excel at your craft.

Just like any other skill.

Though I understand what you mean about the area of effect. All it really means is that you can't affect those objects because your spell isn't strong enough even if you roll a whole slew of 20's. Everything else is still a valid target in the area, however.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 04:59 AM

Except you can't default with the spell at all even to effect every other less than TN8 target if one such target is present. It's an oddity totally different from all other skills.

Posted by: toturi Oct 29 2004, 05:01 AM

So K10, you are saying that as long as there is a target with TN > 8, the character cannot default?

But he still can default for a singular target spell such as powerbolt right?

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 05:11 AM

QUOTE

So K10, you are saying that as long as there is a target with TN > 8, the character cannot default?

That is the canon rule, right (one cannot default if the TN reaches 8 or above)?

QUOTE

But he still can default for a singular target spell such as powerbolt right?

I'm actually saying that Sorcery has an inherent number of mechanical oddities that it should be excluded from defaulting on that basis alone (regardless that neither Conjuring or Sorcery will ever be defaulted to in my games). But by the rule they want, as long as the TN is below 8 then they can default.

Also, Spell Defense TN is variable but the dice are used before the TN is known. I think that means default dice may not be allotted for Spell Defense (if we agree that allotting is a use of the skill) because the TN isn't known at the time of allotting.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 05:26 AM

The only thing you have to do is aim the area effect at something with a base TN of 8. Everything else in the area of effect just gets caught in the after effect; it's not your actual TN, but the TN to determine the effect it has on them (a subtle difference).

If you don't like that, change the wording just a touch. "A magician capable of using Sorcery can default to Willpower to cast their spells. Any target that would have a target number of 8 before the defaulting penalty is immune to the spell."

Assuming you simply have to have everything spelled out to you by the letter when scribing your own house rules rather than rely on good judgement and personal understanding.

EDIT: Note that it's no more odd than the rules for grenades or explosives.

QUOTE

Also, Spell Defense TN is variable but the dice are used before the TN is known. I think that means default dice may not be allotted for Spell Defense (if we agree that allotting is a use of the skill) because the TN isn't known at the time of allotting.

With the house rule presented here, you can only assign Spell Defense if your have Sorcery. Defaulting isn't allowed at all, and the logic for that was detailed several posts up.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 05:30 AM

Then I rest my case: Sorcery doesn't default like everyother skill and thus shouldn't have to default at all.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 05:34 AM

So you feel the same way for Thrown Weapons and Demolitions, eh? I imagine Shotguns are covered in there too, particularly those weilding shot.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 05:39 AM

To be honest I don't know about Thrown Weapons or Demolitions. I don't use canon shotguns so that's irrelevant. You've failed to sway me so you've resorted to being obtuse?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 05:43 AM

Grenades and explosives have variable target numbers in their area of effect, too. So do shotguns using shot and choke settings. So by your complete dismissal of allowing defaulting to Sorcery on the grounds of variable TNs, you have to use that same logic for every other skill in the game.

That means no one can default with Thrown Weapons since Thrown Weapons is used to throw a grenade. Demolitions can't be defaulted from for the same reason. Shotguns, too. Same goes for Gunnery, Launch Weapons, and any other skill that has even a remote use that might possibly include variable TNs. (Sure seems to cover a lot of skills in the game, huh?)

Is that spelled out enough for you? Or do you need page references?

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 05:47 AM

QUOTE

Is that spelled out enough for you? Or do you need page references?

It's spelled out that you don't understand what I've been saying. Grenades do not have variable TNs within the use of Thrown Weapons when you go to use the skill. The target number doesn't change per target only per use, same with all other skills. All skills other than Socery have only one target number per use.

And that's not the only oddity of Sorcery as I've spelled out in multiple posts.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 06:04 AM

SR3 p. 117, Shotguns: "Every time a shot round increases its spread, it loses 1 point of power. Every time the shot spreads, subtract -1 fromt he attacker's target number. That means a shot on a choke setting of 2 would be -2 target number at the six meter point, while a choke setting of 5 shot would be -2/-2 at fifteen meters, and then -3/-3 at twenty meters."

Sure looks like there's at least one other skill out there that has a variable TN to me. Against someone at point-blank range, the TN might be 8 (invalid for defaulting) whereas at 15 meters away it might be 5 (valid for defaulting). So by your logic (and your personal preference not to use the canon rules for shotguns not-withstanding), the Shotguns skill can never be defaulted to because of that one particular phenomenon... just like Sorcery and area effect spells. Thus if there's even a remote possibility that any other skill might possibly have a variable TN, it can't be defaulted to. At least according to what I'm getting from what you've been trying to say the last few posts.

Look, the house rule is there for one major reason: To toss a bone to players who either 1) totally forgot to add Sorcery to their character sheet but don't want to be rendered useless as they start earning Karma to get one and 2) create characters that revolve around that entire concept to begin with. It fits the theme of magic in the game and even with some of the weird examples you and a few others have tried to throw out it's not even remotely game-breaking mechanically.

You don't like it and have no intention of using it whatsoever. We get that.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 06:11 AM

QUOTE

Sure looks like there's at least one other skill out there that has a variable TN to me. Against someone at point-blank range, the TN might be 8 (invalid for defaulting) whereas at 15 meters away it might be 5 (valid for defaulting). So by your logic (and your personal preference not to use the canon rules for shotguns not-withstanding), the Shotguns skill can never be defaulted to because of that one particular phenomenon...

The target number at the time of use is not variable. Only Sorcery has variable TNs at the time of use. And that's only one of its oddities. The fact you have disallowed Spell Defense with defaulting only furthers my point.

QUOTE

You don't like it and have no intention of using it whatsoever. We get that.

You're dead set on using it. I could care less. I enjoy arguing for the sake of it; you should be used to it, I'd think.

The reason I won't use it I've stopped arguing (Bah, the girl who manifests her abilities suddenly likely picked up the Sorcery skill from the myths and rituals of her culture and isn't defaulting) and stuck with figuring why they didn't allow it to begin with.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 06:18 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Oct 29 2004, 12:11 AM)

The target number at the time of use is not variable. Only Sorcery has variable TNs at the time of use. And that's only one of its oddities.

Sorry charlie, but it is. See the quote above. Those are how you determine the variable TNs for determining the effect of the shot for anyone who would be caught anywhere in the area of efffect of the blast. It's no different than the variable TNs found when using Sorcery to cast an area effect; the only difference is the source of the variation (one's due to range, the other's due to OR and the like).

QUOTE

The fact you have disallowed Spell Defense with defaulting only furthers my point.

In a word: Whatever. Do you honestly prefer people who only go half-way when cooking up a house rule and leave as many stupid holes as humanly possible just to satisify some anonymous guy on the Internet who doesn't like the basic idea of the house rule, has no intention of ever using the house rule, and will doubtfully ever play in a game with the other guy coming up with the house rule?

QUOTE

You're dead set on using it. I could care less. I enjoy arguing for the sake of it; you should be used to it, I'd think.

I tend to argue for points that matter to me and would have some impact on the game that I play. I rarely, if ever, go into a thread to argue a point that has zero relevance to anything I will be involved with whatsoever.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 06:26 AM

QUOTE

The fact you have disallowed Spell Defense with defaulting only furthers my point.

I like house rules that are consitant with canon or at least with canon thought. If you've gone this far it makes more sense (and it really does) to make Spell Defense a seperate skill.

QUOTE

In a word: Whatever.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 06:31 AM

QUOTE

I like house rules that are consitant with canon or at least with canon thought. If you've gone this far it makes more sense (and it really does) to make Spell Defense a seperate skill.

I have no problem with that, either, if executed properly. Unfortunately, the result would have a huge impact on game balance since you would always be able to have 100% Spell Defense going without reprecussion.

Maybe if you guys could come up with some solid reasons for why it's not balanced, I wouldn't be aggitated by the pretty sad ones you've been using. We have one guy spewing out nonsense that because it's not expressely stated that adepts can't use Sorcery to cast spells, they can with this house rule. We have another guy declaring Sorcery should be banned from defaulting on the grounds that one particular effect that Sorcery can create has variable TNs that have the potential to take the TN beyond 8 (and to this point still hasn't conceeded that he's wrong about it being the only skill that has that effect). We have a few people spouting out how Centering can completely remove the defaulting penalty despite it being shown multiple time that it's patently untrue without obscene and unrealistic scores. And we have some other people trying to prove how defaulting with a munchkin-level amount of Willlpower also breaks the game even though it's been shown multiple time that that, too, is untrue.

So to quote both of us again after engaging full Valley Girl mode: Whatever.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 29 2004, 06:46 AM

I'll get to more later...but first real quick

QUOTE

Therefore I have submitted that by going by their house rule a normal adept can cast a spell.

No. As said earlier. The SR3 plainly states that an Adept cannot use Sorcery unless in Astral Combat.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 06:50 AM

QUOTE

Treat it as complemetary to the resistance test perhaps (and allow Spell Pool to be allotted as well)?

I never implied it wasn't balanced; in fact, I even once stated it was fine to default provided you had the Sorcery skill. But on reflection, I just think it doesn't make sense bacause Sorcery is so bizzare.

There are several ways in which Sorcery differers from every other skill:

1) You allot dice from the skill to a function while still maintaining some dice for another.

2) It is the only skill that has secondary karmatic expenditures (called spells) for full use.

3) It can serve as a melee skill but only in certain situations.

4) It is one of only two skills that cause Drain (the other being Conjuring).

5) It requires a unique attribute above zero but does not use that as the linked Attribute.

6) It is the skill which effects mulitple targets using variable TNs at the time of use (I just can't say it right I guess).

7) It is one of only two skills that can go from active to knowledge (switching its defaulting attribute even!).

While perhaps 'weak' reasons to treat Sorcery as undefaultable, they are true reasons.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 07:17 AM

The fact that uses of Sorcery differ from users of other skills isn't a very good reason for denying it the ability to default. You might as well claim it's not a skill at all and remove it from the skill system entirely. But if you do that, you'll have to do the same for all Combat Skills since they function differently from other skills in the game... followed by removing Vehicular Skills for the same reason. etc.

But to touch upon your points...

1) That would be one of the unique restrictions while defaulting. You're either all or nothing. Hell, I'd even allow you to use Spell Defense while defaulting in this fashion... either you're putting all your muster into defending yourself and your friends (albeit poorly with the +4 target number modifier for these extra dice on your Spell Resistance Tests), you're putting everyhing into fighting spirits on the astral, or you're putting everything you have into casting a spell you just barely were able to learn in the first place. You don't have the training in the fine control required to focus your attention on multiple tasks.

2) You should check out Otaku sometime.

3) So can melee skills. I don't see the point here. Especially since anyone with Magic 1 can use the skill while fighting on the astral anyway. If anything, that should be split into a new skill and to this day I honestly don't know why it's covered by Sorcery.

4) That's not a good reason at all. That's a secondary effect of the skill. You might as well be saying the same thing about Physical Skills because you can become fatigued while using them (complete with Athletics being used to stage it down).

5) I point again to Otaku.

6) I point again to Shotguns which can also affect multiple targets with a single shot complete with variable TNs at the time of use.

7) This point is just screwed up and I've argued it multiple times.

And yes, they are weak. But true or not, none of them are strong enough to demonstrate why it's broken, unbalanced, or breaks the flavor of the gameworld to allow defaulting.

Posted by: Brazila Oct 29 2004, 02:36 PM

Wow people are really fired up on this one. Well here is my 14 cents. Even if you jack your willpower up in the double digits, your still WAY better off having a Sorc. of 6 + spell pool (not to mention how phat your spell pool will be with that will). So everyone agrees BY CANNON THIS CAN'T BE DONE. We know that, but I have been GMing for years and it will be a cold day in Hades before I stop a player from defaulting for that reason alone. If I have a PC willing to go out on a limb and make a spell caster, starting with no Sorc skill for RPing purposes, I am not going to stop them. Like I said above, even if you cheese the willpower to the point of swiss, it still is inferior to the skill. You can't apply centering since that only works for the skill roll, not for attribute rolls (which you would be making). There just isn't a balance issue here. I am so suprised people keep saying it is munchkin just because the book says you can't do it. I would be way more scared of a PC with SL-2 running around doing called head shots with glazer rounds then I ever would of a mage with no sorcery skill.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2004, 08:38 PM

Are Otaku allowed to default? I don't have VR2 anymore, and never had Matrix so I really don't know, but it seems they won't be allowed to default like normal characters either.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 29 2004, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (toturi)

[/QUOTE]
No, they are changing the way Sorcery as a game mechanic works in the game. They are saying without learning Sorcery and a spell, a sorceror/full mage can cast a spell, althout it is one that the mage has no control over. I am playing devil's advocate by pointing out the big mess their house rule brings about.

If anyone with no Sorcery or knowledge of a spell (ie he never bothered to learn a spell) can cast, then what is the parameters that are imposed?

From my reading, they are:

1) Magic Attribute > 1
2) Default to Willpower from Sorcery/Conjuring

Therefore I have submitted that by going by their house rule a normal adept can cast a spell.

toturi, this is what I mean by you coming up out of no where saying people were implying that you didn't have to learn the spell to cast it. We have all said that you would need the spell to be known which by the way you could learn by defaulting to Willpower. So, to clear this up AGAIN, you would be defaulting to willpower to cast the spell that you already learned by possibly defaulting.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Oct 29 2004, 11:45 PM

One additional point I wanted to mention about defaulting is that it's not intended to stop you from performing an action when the TN is 8+, it only means you're going to fail against that target number no matter what you roll so it's a moot point.

Well, unless you want to suggest that the metagaming gods swoop out of the sky and stop your character from pulling the trigger when you're aiming at something with a cumulative TN of 11 when defaulting to Quickness from Pistols.

Posted by: Stumps Oct 30 2004, 10:07 AM

QUOTE (Stumps)

I'll get to more later...but first real quick

QUOTE

Therefore I have submitted that by going by their house rule a normal adept can cast a spell.

No. As said earlier. The SR3 plainly states that an Adept cannot use Sorcery unless in Astral Combat.

oh...and to clear this up...

"No. As said earlier. The SR3 plainly states that an Adept cannot use Sorcery unless in Astral Combat."
Errata: Add "and that Sorcery Skill may only be used by the Adept as dice for a Melee Combat roll in the Astral Plane as per the normal SR3 rules." to the end of the sentence.