How do you read the rules in the new Street Grimoire:

It says, all "tests linked in any way to magic" receive a negative dice pool according to the background count. Does this include drain? It seems to me, the drain test is linked to magic in a very obvious way. However, the examples given (spellcasting, summoning) seem to suggest only magic manipulating actions.

As background count also affected drain in previous editions, how you read this rule is obviously important for balance. So how do you guys handle this?

Going by what you quoted, no. I assume by "tests linked in any way to magic", they mean any test that uses the Magic Attribute. Drain uses two mental Attributes, not the Magic Attribute. I don't have the full context here, though (don't have the book), so I might be wrong.

To make the context clear:



That's sort of a tough call. All of the examples are active use. The passive stuff like foci are instead reduced by Force or Potency. Drain resistance is a passive roll. On the other hand, "such as..." means the list isn't inclusive.

I'd go with "no", for the same reason that damage resistance tests don't take wound penalties. The penalties are already bad enough.

-Temperance

They should have gone the SR3 route and had adept powers not affected. Seriously, nearly any adept will have at least one always-on power such as improved reflexes or combat sense. Adepts will pretty much suffer a dice penalty to everything in background count, and it will lead to stupid things such as an adept with improved ability: 1 in a skill in a rating: 4 background count suffering a -3 penalty, compared to what he would suffer if it were an unimproved skill.

Even with this rampant penalty bitch-slapping, though, I am unsure whether it would apply to Drain. I would think if it affected
Drain, that would be important enough to be spelled out specifically. But with how slapdash SR5 rules overall seem to be, I couldn't say for sure.

I just want to comment that I really like how you phrased it.

Well, at least it was clearly spelled out in SR4. Can't say about previous editions since I don't know those rules.

In a pinch I'd probably use the SR4 BGC Drain modifier (add absolute BGC value to the spell's Force, then calculate) until the next magic book is released.

Added: Forgot to mention that since your Magic attribute is also reduced by the absolute BGC value you're also overcasting your spells sooner. And, of course, this is assuming that you're not in a Domain that's aspected towards your magic in some way.

In SR3 BGC affected drain in only one way.
It directly lowered your magic attribute, so you were into overcasting sooner.
Which you needed to do, because it also lowered the spells force by it's level.
Because in SR3, Drain was only Willpower to Roll.

It doesn't apply to drain, since technically drain isn't a magic test, it's a damage resistance test.

on the other hoof:

what is associated with magic more than anythhing else? correct, drain.

You are right... It is very associated with magic. However, magic and Magic Attribute are not the same thing.

*Edit* Not that it says magic attribute in the book...

I realize no matter what I say, you're going to take it out of context and/or draw it in the most negative light possible. So I'll just say thanks for that now, because anything else would be rude.

As for more specifics, I'm the one who sketched out the basics for what would be the Background Count rules, since I needed them for Missions that we were running at Origins and Gen Con last year, well before the Grimoire was even being worked on. So I'm telling you how they are supposed to work. Period. Don't like my help? I'll be happy to fuck off and not reply anymore, because that's time out of my day I could go be doing other things besides coming here for my daily helping of abuse.

Do the rules need clarification? IMO, yes. But that's not my fault, I didn't write them. I'm trying to be helpful here.

I appreciate any and all clarifications. Thank you. Although in this case, I was already sure, it does not affect drain. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Indeed, we do appreciate the clarifications as we will be running into the same questions at the table.

Yeah, I though it was pretty fraggin obvious that it didn't affect drain. Thanks for the clarifications, Bull!

no i'm not, and i'll thank you to not spew such bullshit about me.
i appreciate you trying to help but that will not stop me from pointing out such things.
and if i get such a reaction for that, then yes i will actually thank you for fucking off and not replying anymore too . .
or put me on an ignore list, i don't really care either way.

I'd suggest using the missions rules as the street grimoire ones are a fist full of stupid, as is the bast majority of this book. Or at least the second paragraph is. They changed the rating from 1-24 with 1-3 taking the place of what 1 was in earlier editions so the penalties are already massive. With the 2nd paragraph pretty much all but the most powerful focuses, and especially alchemical preparations(potency reduced by rating) are pretty much shut down even in what is now a mild background count. Even totally ass kicking end of your career focuses get shut down in something as minor as a sold out rock concert. I'm for ignoring background counts for adepts as well, as they will basically be mundanes in even fairly weak sauce background counts. Its almost like 2 people wrote it, one was using mission rules so they bumped the already large penalties up to compensate for it no longer borking focuses, and then another person wrote the focuses paragraph assuming the range from previous editions.

For reference the 2nd paragraph. Side note they don;t say what happens if it is reduced to to a point greater than 0. We can figure it out, but it should be detailed instead of a generic they are reduced by the rating of the background count.

Pre-existing active foci, sustained spells, quickened/anchored
spells and rituals are reduced by the background count. If they are
reduced to 0 or less, spells fizzle, wards and rituals collapse, foci
deactivate. A foci cannot activate while under the influence of the
background count. Anchored rituals and quickened spells if they
have not expired revive themselves at 1 point of Force per hour,
up to their preexisting Force. Preparations triggered while within
a background count have their potency immediately reduced by
the background count. Adepts may use a Simple Action to turn on
or off a passive power in cases where penalties from background
counts might exceed bonuses from their powers.

We might need to try and overlook "RAW" since the W part of SR5 and even moreso the supplements more like Rules as incoherently mumbled.

If the attribute named Magic is involved, -DP, nothing else.

If adept power is _activated_ (it actually says active adepts powers such as killing hands) it gets the penalty. Increase reflexes or improved ability are "always on" and therefore not active powers.

The scale also need to take a chill pill and be more like the older scale of -12 to +12.

The SR4 way of doing it (or grimoire) means that anything above 1-2 BGC makes a magic character a complete dud. To have a binary blanket nuke on magic users does NOT solve the problem of mages being perceived as being too powerful. To go from too powerful to useless only creates a situation where someone is unhappy no matter what.

A lighting bolt is basically a Ruger super warhawk with APDS ammo.

A spirit is basically a very capable large drone that is ultraportable but can (normally) only have one where a rigger will bring 3-5 drones that together are just as effective.

A good decker and a sam that didn't go full retard on his mental stats can be creative and do amazing things outside combat just as the mage can. I'd say you get far better mileage from a good decker in the hands of a creative player that knows how to find interesting things about the plot and use them to give the group some fun to do than you do from a mind control/mind probe spamming munchkin mage abusing boring tactics to avoid the story or fun of playing.

Besides, I am extreeeeemly liberal to dish out notoriety to any mage using any form of mind control. It is frown upon and draws tons of aggro once anyone finds out. If Mr. Johnsson even gets a hint that you have mind control in the group and he won't offer the job, or do it via matrix proxy and offer little to no rewards. And you kill the mage first. I've found out that a big dose of APDS longbursts tend to rip right through most defences a mage can put up.

So, in summary. A scale from 1 to 32 where 30 out of 32 means the magic user shouldn't even bother to take any actions is a super boring and useless way to "control the magicrun problem".

I agree completely with Shinobi Killfist. Fist full of stupid. And it is very likely that two people who never met wrote half the rules each without even trying the numbers.

Considering the quality and behavior of the SR5 crew, you (the crew) make that very easy. Usually it´s enough to simply search for the next cyber air tank wifi bonus.

SYL

I disagree... Having played Magical Characters in BGC in excess of 3 (as high as 4 in some of the areas we ran in), I can say that a Magical Character is not a Complete Dud in such a situation. Yes, it is harder to do things, but they are definitely viable. Just finished a Long campaign where a good part of the last year's Runs were in places with BGC 2+.

That being said... SR5 has a different scale of BGC than previous? What is this table of which you speak? Must be in Street Grimoire, yes?

Street Grimoire, goes von 1-24, where 1-6 can easily be encountered by everyday actions or runs.

SYL

WOW... what were they thinking?
The 1-12 Range of previous editions worked just fine... Why go all the way to 24?
Oh wait... that's right, to hamstring all those hyper optimizers. Got it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

So . . do you think it will actually be used by GMs in game?
Or do you think it will be used "for cinematic effect because it'd be unfair against magic users otherwise"?

I'll take the example from my last character that went to chicago and met BGC3.

My sustaining focus F4, meant to give me the initative passes to act on similar effectiveness as my sam and adept friends is now a F1 foci, not capable of sustaining even the base threshold for granting a single IP. Even if BGC was 2 I was far better off taking a cheap pill of Jazz and enjoy having 2 IP when the rest of the group had 3 or 4. That alone is some -50% usefulness for the character. It made things harder for sure but that is expected in chicago but not around every single corner as Street Grumble suggests.

With magic reduced to 3, I was already looking at 8-9 dice spellcasting, sustaining that F2 detect life spell meant I'd be down to 6-7 dice on further casts. Note that an F2-3 detection spell is trivial to resist and will only give very limited information. The limit of 3 hits on the test, minus the hits on all resist tests and the range reduced from 240 meters in BGC 0 to mere 60 meters in BGC 3 means I'll be able to fire my Slivergun at them before I even spotted them with detection.

My stunbolt used to be 6 damage for 3 drain with a good chance to hit (10-12 dice versus will of 3-ish + counterspelling) to F3 dealing maybe 3 damage if any at all at the same cost. doing 2-3 boxes is very irellevant when enemies shoot long bursts that deal 12+ net hits on a regular basis. It meant I could maybe take down an enemy in just 4 hits if all connect, but with only 1 IP per turn it means my Sam friend acts no less than 16 times, shooting 32 attacks in the time it takes me to try and wear down one target.

My "Oh shit" alternative, F11 stunbolt for 4 (physical) drain due to overcast was rendered harmless by being just F6 as maximum and only gave me physical drain for an attack dealing damage like my old BGC 0 attack.

My invisibility can't even beat the basic Object resistance required to be invisibility. And I can't summon spirits since a F3 spirit would instantly disrupt and I'd have to oversummon an F6 with risk of massive physical (unhealable) drain to grant -3 concealment where we previously had good mileage from the concealment power to help make sneaking easier etc. Levitate at low force can't beat OR either.

Why even bother nuking myself for stun(or physical) damage that can't be healed by any means to do unreliable damage and unusable support ?

The moment we hit BGC 2 I tossed everything magic out the window, took a jazz and draw my gun. I was reduced to a 300-karma mundane with some points in pistols. BGC 1 was doable, 2+ meant I stopped caring.


I'm perfectly fine with being reduced to useless for shorter periods of time, to give GM access to some "try solve this without using your normal tactic and gear" just like the group's sam might be without his gun during one run or we might have to hide our cyber or gear to even get on an airplane to do some job. It is great fun to challenge the player's to do things in new ways but if BGC is common it just makes a mage boring to play because it is not a smooth scale. It is waaaaaay to steep and way to evil.

Did I have fun in Chicago? Yes, lots It was a fun challenge to feel weak! But it got reaaaally old when we visited Lagos. Combat isn't very interesting when you only get to do something every 4 initiative passes for 6 weeks in a row. I'm glad I at least had the sanity to spend some points in Pistols. I never thought I'd have so little use for "stunbolt" in a campain with so much combat considering how ridiculously overpowered Stunbolt is as a combat spell.

Signed, Surukai the tiger shaman with a trusty old Slivergun.

should have invested in some cyber or bio then (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

now compare this with sin/weapon/cyber-ware-scanners being built into basically any doorway or drone that flies overhead.

Or compare it to everybody you shoot at wearing armor and the guns do less damage than they should.
And they get resisted not with only 1 attribute but 2 to boot.
Yes, chicago is for magic active characters what everywhere in the world is for mundanes.

In other words:
You are the 1%!
Welcome to how 99% of the world have to live.


A BALANCE would mean that either
a) EVERYBODY SUFFERS THE SAME
b) NOBODY HAS ANY PROBLEMS

Not anything else.
what the magic players forget is that them not wanting background count anywhere but in scenes they deem cinematically appropriate would be the same as the samurai demanding nobody but him wear armor.

not really. the rules for armour and dealing damage with weapons were written together, at the same time, and designed to be balanced on that assumption.

background count wasn't even in the same book, and was merely an idea of something that would eventually happen when they wrote the initial magic rules. now, magic was too strong in 4th and i'm not particularly sold on it being weak in 5th (though definitely a bit weaker in some ways), but it really isn't the same. when they were balancing magic, there was no background count to balance it against. now, they did a bad job of balancing magic, but that doesn't mean they didn't also do a bad job of balancing background count.