 The awakened, and the broke, Currently the rules nerf mundanes |
  |
 Dec 3 2004, 10:07 AM
Post
#126
|
|
|
Canon Companion  Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187  |
Because of the way SR uses the word Wounds, I am merely pointing out that you may end up rolling for Magic loss or Permanent Damage for that matter.
|
 |
 
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 10:36 AM
Post
#127
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
So... what? This was a test to see how long it took for someone to call you a moron? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 3 2004, 10:41 AM
Post
#128
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Thanks. :) I have read your other posts where you have on numerous occasions boasted of your play-testing prowess. All I can say is that neither brains nor cohesive thought are prerequisites for a play-tester. It merely takes a willingness to volunteer, and the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time. Many of us here have played the game since it's inception in 1989. Many of us have been active in the Shadowrun community in various capacities for a good deal of that time. Most of us have GMed and played extensively at conventions. Some of us (myself not included) are even current or past freelance authors for the Shadowrun line (among others). You are not special! :please: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 11:48 AM
Post
#129
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
At least the one from the original works. This "communicate with animals" stuff alone is enough for that distinction. Birdy (Currently re-reading the Dschungle Books) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 01:42 PM
Post
#130
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 210 Joined: 8-October 04 Member No.: 6,736 |
You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You are made of the same decaying organic matter as everything else. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 02:08 PM
Post
#131
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Fortune might've been incorrect about the source of your information, but your statements in this thread about the power of mages vs mundanes show oversights for both mages and mundanes. Just having a lot of playing experience does not make you correct when your conclusions jar with canon, stats, and the rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 02:08 PM
Post
#132
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 301 Joined: 25-August 04 From: Tampa, FL Member No.: 6,602 |
Ah Mr. Smith, the art of sarcasm is missed on you. Luckily, not on Fortune who responded in kind. BTW, I never said I was special, or that playtesting or GM'ing at Cons required a special skill. What it does grant, is seeing a large variety of characters played by different players. It also creates a rather convenient test environment, as I get to see the same mission ran by each of these characters. I think debates on the 'net are rather unproductive. At least until someone moderates a debate. That way we can weed out stupid off topic comments from the lost, such as "so was this just a test", or derailing insults to GM's that have misread the rules for magic loss, ad nauseam. I've played these characters; I have no more brain power than the rest of you; I've seen a wide variety in a decent, nay, better than average test environment. You can thwart a magic user, but that doesn't mean he's balanced. You can spend 2 spell points, 30k nuyen, and 2 karma to bond w/ the 2x force 1 sustaining foci, and have +3d6 init, and invisibility that whips stealths ass by your second mission. And, someone posted the odds of casting a perfect invisibility was 1 in 100+, but he forgot to include the average 5 spell pool dice which changes the odds to aprox 1:3... and that's so that an Int 6! mundane has NO chance to see you. Not really a requirement. And these are just a few things. Concealment, no ammo cost, versatility, range, bonding to weapon foci, spell defense dice, and the band plays on. I've seen nothing solid against any of these claims. You tried w/ the many magic skills that you thought were needed, I said they aren't, and you just come back calling my character "half-gimped"; which would imply that he's a cripple, and I've never had anyone sit down at the table and find my character want. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 3 2004, 03:09 PM
Post
#133
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
thank god, when i look down, it's still there!! ;) So, what exactly is the point of this thread?? From what I can see, SaintHax is trying to say that making a specialized troll sorcerer one-trick-poney is unbalancing to the game?? So what - not everyone makes one. People play what they want to play. I tend to prefer riggers because i think they're cool - especially a rigger with a head deck...sure, playing this character is a nuyen hog, and he may not be as powerful as the troll sorcerer...what do i care?? i still have a lot i can contribute to a TEAM EFFORT... also, you're just asking for trouble. the unwritten rules of the game are "Geek the mage"...oh, and you're a troll, which fits rule #2: "Geek the troll"... as for other magical characters, i just don't see your point. Is all you're trying to do is get people to agree with you that mages are more powerful than other characters in the game?? why do we need a thread for this?? i'll agree with you. the magic system has been broken ever since Kenson got his hands on it (IMNSHO). we just need to swing it back the other way and give mundanes more means to fight magic. If you think that magic is too powerful, just don't raise the flag - do something about it...make some suggestions on how to fix it, without totally rewriting the rules, because I don't think that's gonna fly. Assuming that an SR4 never sees the light of day, what would you do to fix this "gap" in the game??? If you want to debate, then bring something to the table, provide some solutions...just don't throw something out there because you like to provoke an argument and listen to yourself talk...this is one of the biggest reasons i left the ShadowRN list and Dumpshock many years ago is because of stupid threads like this one.... So, in summation - if you've got a problem with the game, go ahead and post what you don't like, and then post some ideas on how to fix it that can either be adopted by people in their home games if they like it, or better, can dovetail through some rational explanation to published material (ie have another comet come by that dampens the magic field for a year or two...). Stop whining!! 8) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 03:14 PM
Post
#134
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
As has been shown, having active spells can sometimes be a drawback. Whether it be from drawing attention in the Astral, to passing Wards (which are growing more and more common in the Sixth World).
Magic Loss and special types of healing are also a concern to the Awakened. Drugs and Chemicals and btls are more dangerous (IIRC). Predjudice plays a part in people's response. Once a mage is spotted, he becomes an instant target above all others for the very reasons you list ... which all amount to fear. Improved Invisibility 1 will not fool any sensors, as the Force must be 1/2 the OR of the device. It is just your stubbornness that keeps you from seeing how wide-spread basic countermeasures to magic would be. Jerry Springer-style and Current Affair/60 Minutes-like trid-casts would be filled with fear-mongering and handy hints on how to thwart the sneaky mage. Some would be ineffective, but some would prove quite adequate and the knowledge would spread further. This is especially true in even the lowest-rated security company, and their employees would be made to study up on these tried-and-true-for-the-past-50-years countermeasures. And on and on ... As for making things tougher on those pesky troublesome spellcasters, just use the optional rules and don't divide the Force of the Spell in half when calculating Drain. This more than dampens the spirits of any spellslinger. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 03:22 PM
Post
#135
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
where, exactly, is this??? i must admit that i've never heard of this rule before - it would make things a lot harder - i assume this goes for ANY indirect illusion spell and sensors?? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 03:32 PM
Post
#136
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
I'm fairly certain its only computer controlled sensors. example of a rigger in a drone looking out the sensors would make a sensor perception test... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 3 2004, 03:40 PM
Post
#137
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
This is in the main section describing Sorcery, and therefore applies to all spells (unless otherwise excepted in the spell's description ... if any exist?). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 03:43 PM
Post
#138
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
It's in the online Errata for SR3.
EDIT: Crap, Fortune beat me to it. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:08 PM
Post
#139
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
ah, but i don't think that applies here...
you use ORTs when dealing with spells that have variable target numbers. Imp Inv. has a set target number... note that the Sorcery test says (pg 182) "Other spells have specific target numbers..." so, for a spell like Power Bolt, you would use the OR, for Analyze Device you would also use the OR, but for Imp. Inv, it has a set target number of 4, and nowhere in the description nor in the background for Illusion spells does it mention using OR... however, the errata also states that "If the observer generates equal or more successes in a Resistance Test, then the observer determines that the illusion is not real." so, since the mage can only add spell pool dice up to the force of the spell, casting it at Force 1 would be risky, as that is only 2 dice and a Sensors 2 or above system would have a better shot at seeing the illusion for what it is... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:16 PM
Post
#140
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
It states nothing about a Target Number, It is a specific statement on the necessary Force of any given spell to affect any given object, if applicable. Of course this doesn't apply to spells like Entertanment or Heal, but it does apply to spells like Analyze Object, Powerbolt, Levitate, and Improved Invisibility. The Target Number in this instance is incidental if the device is immune to the magic due to its Object Resistance.
I normally play Shamanic characters. I'd love to have that ruling limited. :) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:20 PM
Post
#141
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Where do you get this? Spell Pool is limited by the amount of Sorcery dice used in the spellcasting test. Force has nothing to do with it. Joe-Bob Gaterhead could cast a Force 1 Improved Invisibility spell using 7 spellcasting dice and 7 Spell Pool dice (if available), plus,for example +2 from a Totem, +6 from a Power Focus, +6 from a Illusion Focus, +6 From an Invisibility Spell Focus (assuming for a moment no focus addiction because of Initiation), +6 from a Water (?) Elemental (some would argue he could use more than one to augment this test), +6 from n Ally Spirit, for a total of 46 dice (and there's probably even more sources). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:23 PM
Post
#142
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
The ways a mundane can spot a "perfectly" invisible person were listed earlier in the thread.
That's not much of a refutation of the claims in the thread showing how mages are not 'all that.' It's an unfounded dismissal. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:35 PM
Post
#143
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Yeah, and so what? It means you rolled well and no one can see you. The spell was sucessful. However, if you're trying to sneak past guards, they can still hear you, and all it takes is one bad stealth test and you're going to have to start dodging surpressionary fire. That force one spell is not going to help you against anyone watching the action over a security camera. Basically, you keep saying that you have problems with the power of magic, but you never provide anything that can really back it up. You stiil haven't told us what these great mysterious 'mundanes' that you keep comparing the mages too are. Do you specifially mean sammies, riggers, and the rest, or are you comparing them to Joe Sarariman? You keep giving us examples in a vacuum, and while I'm sure your grade four troll mage is powerful, so would any other character that has amassed that much karma and nuyen, and in the hands of a halfway decent player, they'd be about as powerful as the mage. At that point, you could have a sammie in a ruthenium sneak suit, and all he has to do is walk slowly, and then he is even more invisible than the mage. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:39 PM
Post
#144
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the rules - the way i read it, you have to take the whole paragraph into account.
"The base target number varies with the type and category of spell being cast. If the target is a living being...The target number for spells cast against inanimate objects is based on the material form from which the object is made...The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object. Vehicles add Body and half armor to object resistance before dividing in half." The next paragraph reads: "Other spells have specific target numbers, see the individual spell descriptions..." The way I interpret this is that if the spell description lists a specific target number, then it falls under the latter paragraph - no need to worry about Object Resistance. From a common sense standpoint, if you used Object Resistance, then all sensors are "Electronic Equipment" and would have a Target Number to cast the spell of 8, regardless of how powerful the sensors are - Rating 1 Sensors would be just as difficult as Rating 10 sensors. And if you consider that last sentence from the paragraph above, then you would ALWAYS need a Force 4 spell or higher to affect Sensors, once again, regardless of the Rating of the Sensors... the problem here is that Invisibility, an Illusion spell, is not directly affecting the physical components of the sensor. In no way are the circuits, casing, or other components being manipulated or changed in any way. What the illusion is doing is changing the input, or target of the sensors - what they are seeing. If i show a camera a picture of a car, the person on the other end is going to still see a car. i'm not "reaching into" the camera and manipulating the circuitboard such that the camera "sees something else." If you cast Power Bolt, then you are attempting to directly change or manipulate (ie damage) the components of the sensors. In this case, it DOESN'T matter if you have Sensors 1 or Sensors 10, because it is still a combination of plastic, silicon, etc that make up the device. In this case, you would need at least a Force 4 Power Bolt spell to affect the target, because lower Force spells cannot damage the device, much like firing a hold out pistol at an armored car just bounces off - the Force of the spell is similar to the Power rating of the attack. That is how I have interpreted the rules - and I have outlined them here to explain my viewpoint. If you disagree, that's fine, I just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from... 8) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:51 PM
Post
#145
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
As I've no doubt mentioned before, keep in mind that the absolute most Invisibility would do against Sensors would be to cancel out the -3 for having direct LOS, and even that makes negligible sense.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 05:56 PM
Post
#146
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I don't really see the section you quoted as being an either/or situation, although I can understand your reading it as such.
Either way, a case can be made either way for this spell then. When you cast Improved Invisibility, the subject is defined as the person upon whom the mage casts the spell. The target is defined as any applicable person or device within range normally capable of viewing the subject. Even though the spell does not change the circuits of the camera, it still targets said camera. You didn't comment on my other post. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 06:10 PM
Post
#147
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915 |
oh that...my bad...thinking about combat skills/pool...don't know why i was thinking that off the top of my head...
my biggest problem, as probably with many of you, is that after playing this game for so many years, since almost day 1 of 1st edition, that stuff becomes hazy - i mix/match 2nd and 3rd edition rules a lot, and even worse, for stuff that i've playtested/written in the past, i'll sometimes remember some rule that never made the final cut into printing...and swear up and down that this is how the rule is, only to discover later that i was remembering it wrong... i don't mind people telling me i'm wrong, as long as a) they can back it up, and b) don't argue about it during a gaming session... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 06:21 PM
Post
#148
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
It's cool. I was just hoping you weren't using that rule interpretation for SRM. :)
My favorite rule was from the very first printing of SR(1), wherein the Target Number for resisting any Magic was the Mage's Sorcery (or Spellcasting), regardless of Force. Learn all spells at Force 1 and pump the hell out of the one skill and you are unstoppable. :eek: :D |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 07:08 PM
Post
#149
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 29-October 04 Member No.: 6,793 |
(steps up to soapbox)
F**k mundanes. The rules aren't broken, magic is set up to beat normalicy; that's why it's magic. Invisibility rocks, most people know about it, and the hanging beads that were mentioned earlier are the smartest low-tec realistic solution I've ever heard. (steps down from soapbox) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 3 2004, 09:32 PM
Post
#150
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 675 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 2,034 |
The thing that really makes me feel naked playing a mundane isn't spells or spirits, it is astral projection and perception.
The way most people play it a mundane pretty much has no defense at all against a magican flying by, spotting them from a large distance, and following them around for hours with no possibility of detection. There are many possibilities to make this a more interesting situation: Allow stealth to affect astral perception and searches, give a -2 on the open test to non-perceivers, and a -1 for people who can astrally perceive, but haven't done so in the past few seconds. Make low essence reduce "astral signature". I think this was in sr2, but not in sr3. Basically the regular target number to see a person on astral was 10 - essence. Thus those souless cyborgs are actually harder to see. It was the only advantage of low essence, and it made a lot of sense. Use this also for a target number modifier for stealth tests. So a guy with near zero essence and lots of stealth is very hard to see from astral. Create an adept power for astral stealth that basically works like camo. Give mundanes some capability to detect an astral presence. Some low level psycic sense that can sort of generaly detect astral thingies sometimes without perceiving. Maybe an essence test vs 12 - the force, essence, or (masked)magic of the astral thing, and +4t# for mundanes +2 for magical people that can't perceive. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th September 2025 - 04:54 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.