Still have not changed have you... You make incredibly inane comments and then complain when people point them out to you... Well, I guess that you have to keep that image going don't you? Otherwise you would not be you...

You will never change, and I think that that is very sad...

Keep the Faith

So.. Back to talking about how spells are strong?

Body 1 minidrone all flying around on 6 inch wings, carrying a Vindicator LMG with 500 rounds of ammo...

RAW is hilarious.

I agree...
Does anyone have an opinion on Custom Designed spells for players? Do you allow it or not?
Does Anyone have any good examples of such spells available to share?

Keep the Faith

I am pretty sure that it was fixed in the errata to one mount per 3 body, Rounded Down.
My Copy of the 2nd Printing of Arsenal Confirms this...

Keep the Faith

Certainly allow them, on the template of existing spells. Wholly new stuff is 'maybe, probably no'.

Indeed, Saint and Tymeaus. Clearly it must be 'round down'.

I'm all in favor of more suffering for Mages, but the truth is I always liked the idea that there was actually some benefit to internal vs. external smartlinks considering one costs essence and the other does not. Its the kind of thing that separates the men from the boys.

I generally allow custom spells in my game, but the first thing I always consider when reviewing any spell that a player wants for their character is how is this going to be abused because honestly thats probably what the player was thinking when they designed it, I'm sure.

It gets even weirder.



An HMG requires a reinforced mount...

That's incredibly cynical of you.

Right, but there's really no distinction between trodes and datajack in SR4, so they'd just get trodes instead. Who even wears goggles for the Image Link? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Not cynical, just experienced. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) *Anything* custom-designed in any RPG should be scrutinized that way.

I agree that anything custom designed is inevitably stronger than stock elements, simply because of the metagaming aspects, it will be everything you need and nothing you don't.

That said, these things are usually made because players think they will be cool as hell, and they're overpowered only as a side effect. Few people set out with the intent "Man I'm going to make something ridiculously cheesy".

I tend to agree, while it may be innocent at first, it may not be later on and become a serious issue.

Just wait 'til I get going. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

You obviously have more luck in the pool of players that you have than I. Sometimes I swear my players make things extra cheesy with the hopes I will simply nerf it down to where they wanted it anyway.

Well you get to pick the people you play with heh (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) While the folks I tend to hang out with are notorious min/maxers (we're all engineering grad students or in entry level engineering jobs so I suppose optimizing is in our blood lol), it's always within the letter of the rules otherwise, what's the point? Stops being a game when you make something stupid and it just becomes "telling stories of how awesome my character is".

Meh, it all depends. Sometimes players can be a net benefit even if they do have a cheeseball streak. Some players (hell, some groups) just kinda find pulling one over on the GM sorta funny from time to time. And let's face it, for some of us the sessions aren't really about the game, per se. I've got some friends from high school who game with me and my brother every once in a blue moon and really whatever system we end up "playing" isn't really the centerpiece any more. It's mostly an exercise in seeing who can get me to facepalm the hardest as they pitch character sheet ideas, and then we drink too much, order pizza and catch up with each other. Good times and LOTS of munchkin sheets.

I don't mind players min/maxing their characters at all. Those that do are usually quickly disappointed with their characters in my game because they focused so strongly in one or two areas and neglected others that their character isn't very good at all in 4 out of 5 situations. Any player in my game that focuses solely on combat (just for example) and doesn't take any sort of Infiltration or Social Skills is going to be quite bored for the majority of each session. With skills like Infiltration a team that needs to move together as a unit is really only as good as its weakest link.

What I do find a bit annoying however is that most of the pre-built NPCs I find are the opposite of min/maxed. Many seem barely competent for their role. I usually have to rebuild the NPCs I find just to make them a challenge for the PCs.

The VCR has been massively dumbed down and the experience of it has completely changed. It used to be that you had to wire your brain specifically to "become" the vehicle and this was exclusive from other simulated realities. For instance, anyone could buy and use an RC deck but only in the captain's chair. To actually jump into the drones you had to have a VCR. Anyone could be a great driver, and usually the street sams WERE better drivers than the Rigger. But the Rigger was a better combat driver than the street sam because of the VCR.

In SR4 the VCR has been reduced to a +2 dice bonus. It offers zero additional benefit. You actually get more benefit from driving the vehicle in VR (1 hit) than using a VCR (2/3 hits). Also, VR now actually gives you the same simulated reality as the VCR used to do. Anyone with a commlink (ie. everyone) can now captain's chair drones. There's also a lot of overlap in the traditional rigger area. Riggers were your sigint and network security guys. The drone rigger in particular was heavy into the electronic warfare in a way that NO ONE else was. Now hackers live in a wireless world too and that overshadows another area of the rigger's specialty.

It isn't that a hacker = rigger. It is that the simulated reality of the two are now equal. VR = VCR. Anyone who can access VR can now be a rigger. Will they be as good as the "rigger" who focuses on being a "rigger." Fuck no. But at high Karma a hacker ~ rigger.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. The riggers usually didn't bother with the EW because it was long and tedious. Now you can actually play with it (although it is still tedious and long). Lots of people hated Manuever Score so now we have our current pile of steaming shit.

************

Smartlinks and Datajacks: this is what Frank was getting at with the Ends of the Matrix that he did. I don't have a problem with that issue because it is easy to take away non-cyber stuff (hence why mages scare the crap out of the PTB). After my group got hit by tear gas the first time they learned that contact lenses = the suck. Goggles are good but can't be concealed.

************

Custom Spells: never really seen a point. There are so many good spells in the core books that mages don't usually ever earn enough karma to get everything they want. I suppose if you don't initiate or at the 200 karma mark your players will need this. No problem just template it.

...

Nevermind. Not worth it.

Book definition of a Rigger.

"Riggers are a subset of hackers who focus on using and manipulating modern vehicles and drones."

SR4A p. 17. Your definition is your own, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

Yes, the rewritten history of SR4.
I do not recall said definition in my Big Blue Book and I sadly do not have it with me here at work.

But anyway, this thread is about human briefcase bombs known as Spellcasters who can take out tanks with their minds.

BlueMax

Actually they merged naturally over time. IIRC, in SR3 weren't there rules for Riggers taking over the security spiders system in a semi version of cybercombat?


Possible roles for mages based on spell selection, skills and conjuring:

Artillery
Sniper
Scout/infiltration
Face
Interrogator
Psycological warfare expert (illusions and mental manipulations)
Counter Magic
Force multiplication (via spirits)
Medic
Demolitions

But alot of these can be covered by others in the party too.

Hah, I remember the actual Doc Chase, the character. He was a medic mage. I don't think I ever actually had to use the spell - his biotech group was so good that his medkit took care of everything before magic even had to come into play.

On the subject of custom spells, I've allowed them.

Typically they don't work out so well. Mostly because my players miss a detail or two about how magic works and they make a spell that turns out functionally worse then an existing spell.

For instance, a player made a spell called Void Object. This is what he came up with:

Void Object (Manipulation)
DV: (F/2)+4, Targeting: LOS, Type: Physical, Duration: Permanent
This spell removes a single object from existence. Objects may be no larger then Forcex2 in meters in diameter.

At first glance it seems really broken, but when you factor in Object Resistance and how permanent spells work... it becomes a non-elemental Ignite spell. Has the benefit of destroying it immediately rather then letting it burn to destruction, but the drain is higher and subsequently the number of turns it must be sustained longer. So basically, if the mage winked something gone, all it would take is breaking the mage's concentration (or geeking) before 24 seconds (minimum, not adding in force to beat OR yet) to make it wink back. Given the high drain code and speed of combat it couldn't be used too well for his intended purposes of making guns and armor disappear. He went a different way with the character. Has out of combat potential, but that wasn't what he was going for.

Really, most custom spells in my game have ended up like that. About the only ones that have worked well were the spells one character made that coated bullets in an elemental effect.