Problem with the Magic Attribute Options

[Faelan]

I have been considering running a SR4A game for a while now, but I have concerns over the Magic system as the game progresses. The reason this is the case is because while Magic can increase without limit, every other attribute is restricted. Since you resist spells with a fixed attribute it strikes me that no matter what happens eventually the Magic characters are going to have a completely different level of ability when compared with unawakened characters. In some respects I don't have a huge problem with this since they do appear to be karma sinks, but at the same time I think it could get out of hand to the point where running the game would be a pain since some of the players could essentially become henchman due to completely differing levels of power. So I was wondering if anyone had tweaked the magic system to avoid this. I have been considering linking casting to one of the mental attributes based on the tradition of the caster, and using centering as a casting pool (sort of) allowing it to enhance the spell or resist drain, so while some powerful effects would be possible you would be paying with pain. Also Magic as an attribute would still be necessary since force would still be governed by it. Anyway I am looking for ideas, I want something that works, because as it stands I don't see how a long running game can survive, and since most of my games last a while, I don't want to get into something that will give me headaches down the road.

[Bigity]

You mean without a hard limit imposed by the rules? The natural limit is 6, and you as the GM control initiation, and can modify that as you see it's necessary.

I've had some issues with climbing Magic ratings in previous editions though, and there doesn't seem to be much you could do about it. You could hurt the mage, but then they'd just take a Geas, and if they didn't, they'd no longer be able to raise Magic again, ever. Since I'm just getting back into 4th edition and the last time I looked at Street Magic was when it first came out, I'm not current on ways to handle it now. Maybe just as the player to go easy on the cheese?

[Critias]

Remember that in order to improve the Magic attribute, Awakened characters have to Initiate to improve their maximum (which costs karma), then pay to actually increase their Magic (which costs karma). Also remember that improving their spellcasting, increasing their pertinent attributes, bonding with foci, and learning new spells -- to say nothing of improving at anything else at all, ever, this is only mentioning their directly "magical" stuff -- also all costs karma. While a mage is earning all that karma, teammates are also earning karma, and everyone involved is likely rolling in nuyen, to boot, so everyone else is getting better, also. I think you are worrying over something that's not terribly worth worrying over.

It takes a very long-running, karma heavy, campaign before this issue should genuinely matter. I think your best bet is to run a game and see if it becomes an issue, and if so look into tweaking/changing/otherwise controlling the magical players' ability to initiate (which is something a GM should do, anyways) if things get out of hand.

I'm personally of the opinion that a power differential between mages and everyone else does exist to some extent, and I'm not a fan of the skill/attribute cap in general...but this, the "hypothetical unlimited power" issue, is not why I have those opinions.

[fazzamar]

Remember that in order to improve the Magic attribute, Awakened characters have to Initiate to improve their maximum (which costs karma), then pay to actually increase their Magic (which costs karma).

To take his statement a step further, lets say you have a character with 6 magic at chargen. How many karma will he have to burn each magic increase? Lets see... (these all assume initiation w/ group AND ordeal every time)
6->7: 43 (Initiation: 8, Stat Increase:35)
7->8: 50 (Init: 10, Stat: 40)
8->9: 57 (Init: 12, Stat: 45)

So to get to Magic 9 that takes 150 karma, and if we set the, what I consider to be, average amount of karma earned per session to 4 and playing once a week we're talking 38 weeks to get to that IF the mage put every single point into getting their magic up, which would be surprising.

[Glyph]

The potentially unlimited potential of Magic is generally not going to affect the average game - it will only come up in high-powered games (where characters start out with more points), extremely long-running games, or for NPCs.

That said, I really dislike Magic being uncapped when everything else has caps. It breaks the overall feel and underlying mechanics of the game world for me. But it's easy enough to fix - give Magic a cap. Not necessarily a low one, but if a master marksman can only get so good after a lifetime of practice, why should a mage be any different?

I would suggest capping Magic at 9, with a similar cap to initiation, with Essence loss lowering both caps (so that getting a point of 'ware means you can get Magic of 8 and initiate grade of 8 ). To counterbalance this, use the optional rule that adepts can get power points in lieu of a metamagic with initiation, and allow awakened characters to ignore one point of background count per two levels of initiation, rounded up (so a 9th level initiate could ignore 5 points of background count). This should keep awakened characters from being game-breaking at the upper end, while still leaving them plenty of room to grow.

IEs and dragons would cap out higher, at 12, with great dragons able to reach 15, but even they should have some limits. They should be more powerful than a PC could ever hope to reach, but they should be survivors because they are cunning, work from behind the scenes, take precautions, and have a lot of resources to draw upon. NOT because they are ludicrous DBZ-level monstrosities that no-sell Thor shots. *Ahem* Just my humble opinion...

[Fringe]

I would suggest capping Magic at 9, with a similar cap to initiation, with Essence loss lowering both caps (so that getting a point of 'ware means you can get Magic of 8 and initiate grade of 8 ). To counterbalance this, use the optional rule that adepts can get power points in lieu of a metamagic with initiation, and allow awakened characters to ignore one point of background count per two levels of initiation, rounded up (so a 9th level initiate could ignore 5 points of background count). This should keep awakened characters from being game-breaking at the upper end, while still leaving them plenty of room to grow.

This might make sense. If you consider initiation to be a sort of magical "augmentation", then the augmented maximum would be 1.5 x the natural maximum.

I also like the idea of ignoring background count with enough initiation (as you say, 1 point per 2 grades seems okay, maybe even 1 for 1; adjust for taste).

[Tanegar]

What will you do about metamagics that interact with background count (Cleansing, Filtering, and Geomancy are the ones I can think of)? Why take Cleansing or Filtering (which let you ignore background count) if you can ignore background count by default? I think Critias has it: it's just not a problem unless you start with high-powered characters and/or your campaign runs into the multiple hundreds of karma. It ain't broke, so quit trying to fix it.

[Glyph]

If I adopted those house rules, I would get rid of the Filtering metamagic (the other two - cleaning up a background count, or aspecting it towards yourself - are still useful). As I said, for most games, it doesn't matter, but some people do run high-powered games, one-shots or otherwise. Plus, a reasonable cap on it gets rid of the overpowered Canon Sue crap with immortal elves and great dragons.

[James McMurray]

To take his statement a step further, lets say you have a character with 6 magic at chargen. How many karma will he have to burn each magic increase? Lets see... (these all assume initiation w/ group AND ordeal every time)
6->7: 43 (Initiation: 8, Stat Increase:35)
7->8: 50 (Init: 10, Stat: 40)
8->9: 57 (Init: 12, Stat: 45)

So to get to Magic 9 that takes 150 karma, and if we set the, what I consider to be, average amount of karma earned per session to 4 and playing once a week we're talking 38 weeks to get to that IF the mage put every single point into getting their magic up, which would be surprising.

You forgot the 5 karma you have to spend to join a group. There's also a Logic + Arcana check you'll need to make to join, which isn't necessarily a karma cost but is at least an opportunity cost unless you've got a lot of uses for the skill and stat.

However, with the new SR4A karma awards you should be getting more than 4 per week. 4 is closer to the minimum unless every run is low danger and has a single objective. But yeah, even if you're getting 10 a week that's still a of of play time before there's anything to worry about. And in the meantime the street samurai has been tossing 18+ dice to hit for 9P/-2 twice per pass.

Magic is powerful, but it's not like prior editions. It's beefy, but not overly so.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This might make sense. If you consider initiation to be a sort of magical "augmentation", then the augmented maximum would be 1.5 x the natural maximum.

I also like the idea of ignoring background count with enough initiation (as you say, 1 point per 2 grades seems okay, maybe even 1 for 1; adjust for taste).

Except that the Natural Maximum will increase with Initiation Grades. Starts at 6, Each Initiation raises that Maximum by a Point. And nothing raises Magic through augmentation (Like Power Foci used to do in previous editions). Honestly, I have never seen Magic get so high it becomes an issue. I have seen a Grade 8 Initiate Adept with a Magic Rating of 11 once. He was not really over the top in any regard. Dice Pools in SR4A for that character were still below 20 for all of his actions.

Ignoring Background count with Initiation is counter to everything Shadowrun. That is why there are Metamagics to help compensate for it, but not just ignore it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Scyldemort]

I really do not see a problem with magic as written in S4. Sure, there's no theoretical upper limit, but as the DM, you control not just Initiation but also the rate of karma gain, period. A mage will advance exactly as quickly as you allow - no more, no less. It's Summoning that's the busted mechanic.

Related: don't allow a player to create a vampiric summoner of any kind. The ability to dump stolen Essence into Magic is stupidly broken. Much moreso if the PC in question is a summoner. A situation that gets even worse when they take Invoking as their first Metamagic and then pile on, say, two more initiation grades, taking Centering as one of the two others. "So I spend 6 stolen Essence to give myself +3 Magic for the next 12 hours... Then I summon a Force 16 Great Form Air Spirit. kthnx. Yay for Hurricane plus an effective Hardened Armor of 32." Even more lulzworthy when they heavily min/max their drain attributes. If they survive the casting, basically, they win, and will continue to win till they run out of services.

[kzt]

Overcasting is a much bigger problem. I don't see many magic 9 PCs, but I see a lot of PCs firing off F9 stunballs.

[Scyldemort]

Overcasting is a much bigger problem. I don't see many magic 9 PCs, but I see a lot of PCs firing off F9 stunballs.

I've been seriously considering the following house rule: if you overcast, you take drain BEFORE you roll the spellcasting test.

[Faelan]

Thanks for all the replies, they are proving helpful. The thing is I really do run long games, and well the examples of "that will never happen" always seems to happen in every game system I have run. Some are better designed and better able to handle the high end of the power scale. I have serious reservations about SR4A because a lot of the controls built into previous editions of SR have been removed by going to a static target number. A system with a static target number generally requires a higher degree of consistency to remain at least vaguely balanced. I worry because spells offer very powerful stackable defensive options which cyberware and bioware do not. Likewise all three lack in the offensive options. In previous editions this was ameliorated by the fact that any target number over 6 reduced the number of successes and well when you got to 12 it kept things in check, and well it did not matter how many dice you were going to be rolling. SR4A is definitely set up for a more dice = more successes, and when one characteristic in the game which can influence things as much as magic is given a completely free reign (yes I know GM control, well if it requires it, it is just not designed that well) it is a recipe for issues. I am just looking for options within the framework of the mechanics which would provide the kind of play I want to see supported at my table from the beginning to the very highest strata of the game.

[Scyldemort]

Every one of those stackable defensive options requires one of two things: that the mage take a cumulatuve -2 penalty to life per spell sustained, or that the mage spend karma - either quickening a spell, or bonding a focus (you can bond foci with BP as well, but eh). Note that quickened spells may be dispelled (the invested karma is outright LOST) and foci deactivated.

As far as things that require GM control - do you suppose that your cybernetic characters won't go nuts with more and more and better ware if you give them too much nuyen too quickly? Yes, there's still a hard cap on it even with optimal ware, but even so, things can get pretty silly if characters get too rich. Effectively, karma is to awakened characters as nuyen is to everyone else. ... And then, to add to all that, Mundane characters get karma, too.

Not to mention, awakened characters aren't the only ones with no upper limit on a relevant attribute: technomancers do the same thing with Resonance. And you can do stupid things with submersion grades. My personal favorite: skin link + living trodes plus extra init pass hand to hand expert with an essence point or two of cyber/bioware to enhance hand to hand combat. If he successfully touches his opponent, said opponent is in VR and hot-simming, where the technomancer's sprites are waiting. Even if the sprites (and possibly Black IC programs) don't kill said enemy, the moment the technomancer lets go, his enemy suffers dump shock.

Naturally, this guy knows krav maga. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Don't forget that the crazy magic character can get augmentations, too. Probably more, because he has extra nuyen (if it's not all spent on foci).

I dunno if 'Technomancers are nearly as bad!' is a good argument that neither is imbalanced. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I dunno how he got within melee range, though.

[Critias]

SR4A is definitely set up for a more dice = more successes, and when one characteristic in the game which can influence things as much as magic is given a completely free reign (yes I know GM control, well if it requires it, it is just not designed that well) it is a recipe for issues.

I have to disagree with this sentiment. For edition after edition now, Shadowrun has been clearly stating that Initiation isn't supposed to just be a way to casually spend karma like someone else spends nuyen, and nonchalantly pick up overwhelming magical power. It's always supposed-to-have-been a GM approval thing, a major step in a character's advancement, and a big ol' hurdle to leap. It's not supposed to be something that's neatly all done between adventures and behind the scenes, as the player character swings by a McMage's and picks up an Initiate Grade Value Meal. They suggest whole adventures based around a mage trying to get himself up the next rung on the ladder, with major RP going on with magical groups, physical or astral ordeals and quests, and all sorts of stuff that the GM absolutely has control over.

That's all the "GM control" clause that you seem so disdainful of, and it's always been there.

[Scyldemort]

I have to disagree with this sentiment. For edition after edition now, Shadowrun has been clearly stating that Initiation isn't supposed to just be a way to casually spend karma like someone else spends nuyen, and nonchalantly pick up overwhelming magical power. It's always supposed-to-have-been a GM approval thing, a major step in a character's advancement, and a big ol' hurdle to leap. It's not supposed to be something that's neatly all done between adventures and behind the scenes, as the player character swings by a McMage's and picks up an Initiate Grade Value Meal. They suggest whole adventures based around a mage trying to get himself up the next rung on the ladder, with major RP going on with magical groups, physical or astral ordeals and quests, and all sorts of stuff that the GM absolutely has control over.

That's all the "GM control" clause that you seem so disdainful of, and it's always been there.

I agree 100%.

Don't forget that the crazy magic character can get augmentations, too. Probably more, because he has extra nuyen (if it's not all spent on foci).

True. This particular aspect annoys me a bit, actually. More for mages than for adepts or technomancers. I tend to want ware to negatively impact casting more than just the Essence loss, which is admittedly harsh in and of itself.

I dunno if 'Technomancers are nearly as bad!' is a good argument that neither is imbalanced. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I dunno how he got within melee range, though.

In this guy's case? He prefers to do it with a handshake, actually. "Pleased to meet you, sir, my name is... Sir? Are you all right? Sir?"

[Faelan]

Look, I am not a newb so please save the patronizing tone when it comes to GMing, I've been doing it for thirty years now, I asked for system advice, not how I should look at it, or how I should count entirely on my GMing ability to keep things going. I am fully aware of the limitations of magic, and the use of cyber and bioware, and yes I know Resonance could have the same issue, and I know that the game is perfectly playable as is. Yes I understand Initiation is a RP based control, but after the player jumps through the hoops you as the GM set up for him what then. Sorry no disdain here, but seriously when the GM is the only thing keeping a rule from breaking a game it deserves to be looked at. In previous editions controlling initiations was no where near as important due to the way the target numbers were set up. You hit a point of seriously diminishing returns, in SR4 that point never really occurs.

[Yerameyahu]

Psh, don't drag me into this. I was talking to Scyldemort. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Critias]

Look, I am not a newb so please save the patronizing tone when it comes to GMing, I've been doing it for thirty years now, I asked for system advice, not how I should look at it, or how I should count entirely on my GMing ability to keep things going.

Not for nothing, but does it feel silly to in one breath insist you've been GMing for so long you know all about how to do it, and in the next breath to remind people you're asking for system help? Honestly, it's a little grating for someone to have a thread with a question, and then snap at people when they try to help out. I genuinely wasn't out to be patronizing before, but the chip on my shoulder kind of comes back into play when someone starts a post to me with "look" like that.

As far as system help goes, what exactly are you worried is the problem? That Magic has no cap? That other attributes and skills do have caps? That the karma cost of raising attributes is too low? That the cost of initiating is too low? That karma rewards are too high? That spellcasting is innately more powerful/efficient than mundane activities? That the lack of a variable target number changes how power/efficiency can be measured?

These are all different issues, and each of them would require a different house rule suggestion. Take your pick, really, because in different ways each of them are valid complaints, issues, or concerns that I can totally understand a GM having. There are probably a dozen house rules for each one that have been suggested at various times, so in an effort to keep you from having to wade through all of those, I thought I'd remind you that the problem could potentially be nipped in the bud by (a) not worrying about it until/unless it becomes an issue, a couple hundred karma down the line, and (b) delaying the point at which it might become an issue even further, through further controlling the rate at which Initiation occurs.

Sorry if those suggestions were taken as snubs or slights, it wasn't my intent. It's just that, of the problems I'll readily admit that I feel SR4 has, this isn't one of them, because there are ways for a GM to mitigate and control it. I try to, personally, save my house rules for times I feel the house rule is absolutely necessary, and I also try not to suggest house rules to other people until I feel the same way.

[longbowrocks]

Why take Cleansing or Filtering (which let you ignore background count) if you can ignore background count by default?

Why have stick n' shock bullets when mages can do the same for free?
Why have skimmers when you can be a centaur?
Why have the spell "stoneskin" when a monk or fighter or dwarven defender or barbarian can get DR by default? (DnD, for anyone who hasn't done that one)

The answer is the same for all these questions: simpler and more accessible. initiating at all takes a while. Initiating to the degree these guys are talking about takes forever and then some.

[longbowrocks]

so that getting a point of 'ware means you can get Magic of 8 and initiate grade of 8

I keep telling myself I need to make a mage character in order to force myself to read the magic rules in depth, but I feel I've read enough to question this.
Wouldn't an initiation grade of 8 allow you to raise your magic up to 9 again? Then again, capping magic would necessitate some re-wording of the rules. Maybe this is one of those things.

[Epicedion]

You get diminishing returns on Magic pretty quickly, since it's very difficult to make a guy more dead. Once you get to the point where you can regularly manabolt someone for over 10P after resistance and can regularly get 6+ hits on every non-combat spell, what exactly are you spending karma on magic for?

[kzt]

Being able to do it in orbit? That's what the Ares bughunters do.

[TheOOB]

I realize this might be a touchy subject, but it is my belief that lack of a cap on the magic attribute is irrelevant in 90+% of shadowrun games.

Your average starting magician has 5 in their magic. Assuming 7 average karma a run(taking the average of the 6-8 accepted), it takes approximatly 5 runs to get 6 in your magic, another 2 to initiate, and another 5 to 6 runs to get a 7 in magic. Your looking at a dozen or more runs just before the magician gets a 7, which mind you, isn't incredibly powerful(trolls starting with a body in the double digits is common, and most characters with 'ware I've seen start with 5(7) agility). After that you are looking 8+ runs for each additional point of magic, which takes quite some time. A what does each point of magic get you? +1 to sorcerery and conjuration rolls(not a huge bonus, will take a very high bonus before becoming irrelevant), and the ability to use spells/spirits 1 force higher without taking physical drain(which notable magic gives you no increased ability to absorb drain).

It takes a hugely long time to improve your magic attribute, longer and longer with each point above 6, and you pay for it, you really do, and remember the example above, those times are short. Thats a magician who a)isn't increasing any skills, b)isn't increasing any non magic attributes(including their drain attribute), and c)isn't binding any foci. While is is true magicians have no ceiling, it would take an absurdly long time for their magical abilities to get so powerful that it becomes unmanageable.

And remember, while the magician is doing that, the other characters aren't just twildling their thumbs, their increasing their skills and attributes, buying positive qualities, and installing increasingly better 'ware. 'ware(which magicians can't benefit strongly from without sacrificing their magical ability) while having a ceiling has a very very high ceiling with deltaware, to the point I've never seen a character that didn't feel like they couldn't advance anymore.

In fact, the only times I've every seen magicians being "overpowered" have always occured for 1 of 2 reasons, a)the GM never uses magical and astral defenses(they'll use guards and cameras for physical, ice and hackers for matrix, and maybe just a ward for astral), and b)The GM gives out way little money(While it is true karma gives magicians more power than any other archtype, without using 'ware nuyen is considerably less useful for them, meaning that if a GM gives less that 5k every run, of course the person who needs karma and not nuyen will prosper.

If the lack of a glass ceiling for magic is becoming a problem, either a)The GM needs to rethink how they balance the game, or b)the campaign has run on way too long and you might want to start a new one with fresh characters.

And to put another point, it IS the GM's job to make sure the game is balanced. The whole entire point of PnP games is that they are infinitely more flexible than electronic games, but the disadvantage is that the only thing that truly keeps the game running is the GM. Just as the book doesn't prevent you from having to roll dice for yourself, the book also doesn't prevent you from having to keep out of hand. The rewards for a run, the gear and equipment available, the challenges the party must over come are all 100% under the GM's control.

[Scyldemort]

Diminishing returns technically does occur once you max out your drain attributes, it just takes a while - sure, you can always get another die to resist drain with by increasing your initiation grade (if you have the centering attribute), but every point of magic is going to increase the potential drain you can take by +1P. Given that you're only likely to get 1 hit per three dice you roll, mages get to the point where they can no longer cast full powered spells.

Assume we have a mage with a willpower of 9 and a logic of 9. Let's give him magic six and six initiation grades. 24 dice for drain tests, and his drain from a maxed out spell is going to be 6 plus or minus spell modifiers. Normally, he should be fine (unless the spell has a DV of +3). He ups his magic and init grade both by 1 (7, 7). His drain from a maxed out spell is now 7 plus or minus spell modifiers.

8, 8: 8P+/-, 26 dice, no damage on average unless spell is at least DV +1
9, 9: 9P+/-, 27 dice, no damage on average unless spell is at least DV +1
10, 10: 10P+/-, 28 dice, takes 2P on average, +/- DV modifiers
11, 11: 11P+/-, 29 dice, takes 4P on average, +/- DV modifiers
12, 12: 12P+/-, 30 dice, takes 6P on average, +/- DV modifiers
13, 13: 13P+/-, 31 dice, takes 8P on average, +/- DV modifiers
And so on.

He could make a Drain Pact to help him, but Drain Pacts are addictive, and the spirit can cut off the service at any time (and they often demand karma as payment to keep that increasingly addictive sweetness flowing), and now we are traipsing down the path of burnout through addiction. Foci present the same problems with addiction, of course, which is a great way to lose points of Essence.

Not to mention, an opposing magician can always just dispel the quickened spells that are increasing our hypothetical magician's drain attributes. Or we could have geomancy that is aspected against the magician (which he can negate temporarily with appropriate metamagic), or any number of other things.

[darthmord]

I keep telling myself I need to make a mage character in order to force myself to read the magic rules in depth, but I feel I've read enough to question this.
Wouldn't an initiation grade of 8 allow you to raise your magic up to 9 again? Then again, capping magic would necessitate some re-wording of the rules. Maybe this is one of those things.

Well, you cannot have more Grades than Magic rating. So if you had Initiation of 8, you had 8 Magic already. So you could be anywhere from Magic 8 to Magic 15 at the time you reached Initiation Rank 8.

[longbowrocks]

Being able to do it in orbit? That's what the Ares bughunters do.

Will more magic increase your range? I thought you would want the hawkeye quality, or lots of myometric rope for that.

[Thanee]

Just put a maximum on Initiate Grade equal to 6 (or Essence (rounded down), whatever is lower). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[bluedao]

The oppositions counterspelling scales at the same rate.
A bullet to the mages brain scales at almost the same rate.
Ambushes don't have to scale.

Their are many ways to deal with a omg i have magic 9000 mage. Their not what you have to watch for, frankly their easy to deal with cause their dumb. You have to watch for the clever mages. Their power lies in their flexibility and ability to adapt in ways no other kind of character can. Their the ones that will use a force 1 fire spirit to set off the fire alarm causing the entire building to lock down. Their the ones that will use magic fingers to pinch the waitresses causing a bar room fight to break out. Or who use their down time to teach their bound spirits muay thai. Fear the mage who realizes he isn't playing DnD, not the one who can kill you deader then you've ever been dead before.

Mages are scary from magic 1 on.

[Fortinbras]

Look, I am not a newb so please save the patronizing tone when it comes to GMing, I've been doing it for thirty years now

I have difficulty believing someone who uses the word "newb" has been doing anything for thirty years.
Unlimited Magic will not be a problem for your group. By the time it's an issue for your mage, everyone else will have a body full of deltaware and an army of drones to do their bidding.
If it's that big a deal, then: Magic maximum = 9. Done and done. I'll print it out in a pdf and call it a supplement if you want to make it official.
I also find it difficult to reconcile your distaste for static numbers and your feeling that GM fiat equates to a "broken" system.
If you really have been GMing for as long as you say, I'll presume your familiar with the OSR v. 4E argument of Rules v. Rulings(If not, it's well summed up here.) I also feel safe in the idea that someone gaming since John Lennon was still alive is more likely going to fall into the OSR camp, so your need for "system advice" seems a little left of center.

What I feel you are trying to do is make us sell you Shadowrun 4. Talk up it's positives, play down it's negatives and dissuade your fears and doubts in the hopes that you might be so kind as to grace our meager system with your trepidations consent. I'm not going to do that. You know your group and what they like better than I do. You know what they like, what they hate and what they'll exploit. You've also taken a good look at the SR4 book, so you've got a idea of the system. You have the information you seek, so an attempt to goad folks into an argument over hypothetical system mechanics accomplishes nothing.
If you like it, play it. If it's not for you, don't.
Just don't jump on board, claim our system is broken and then demand we fix it. That dog won't hunt.

[Faelan]

Sorry I stirred up a hornets nest, it was not my intent. I have examined the game in detail, own all the books, even ran a couple short mini-campaigns, but I don't like the way the magic is uncapped it creates a bias I am not entirely comfortable with. I guess I will just have to run with it and use initiation as its singular control valve.

"I have difficulty believing someone who uses the word "newb" has been doing anything for thirty years." -Fortinbras-

Once again if you took offense, felt I was trolling, or trying to whiz on your game, I apologize. I have owned every edition of the game, and while I was much more active with it during mostly the early 3rd edition years, I have always had a soft spot for the setting, and have considered seriously exploring it again since 4th came out. While I feel 4th has cleaned up, and fixed many of the problems or rather clutter of older editions, the Magic System is the one place where I feel that they took a step back, and it might not even entirely be the mechanics, but the individual spell descriptions. As to my use of an idiom which has nothing to do with my actual age, or duration of involvement, though if I were to use a similar word frozen in the chrysalis of the 70's I might more appropriately say noog or newg indicating the new guy, so once again sorry for offending you.

[Irion]

High magic had been a problem, when the attributes for so damn cheap.
(Because the attack pool went through the celling, but the defance pool stayed the same)
(It is still a problem, if you allow the "I take ware, I buy magic up from one to two" kind of stuff)
But without it, it aint.
If you have to pay 50 Karma for this one point of magic ( nine to ten), you wonder how this could be worth it in any way.
Only with background count. But having a backgroundcount of 6 would give you 6 dices less for your drain pool.
So in any way you would be better of getting automatics 0 to 5 and agility 2 to 3. And you can still got some Karma left.

(I still dislike how BC is managed, but thats an other slice of cake)

[Fortinbras]

Sorry I stirred up a hornets nest, it was not my intent. I have examined the game in detail, own all the books, even ran a couple short mini-campaigns, but I don't like the way the magic is uncapped it creates a bias I am not entirely comfortable with. I guess I will just have to run with it and use initiation as its singular control valve.

"I have difficulty believing someone who uses the word "newb" has been doing anything for thirty years." -Fortinbras-

Once again if you took offense, felt I was trolling, or trying to whiz on your game, I apologize. I have owned every edition of the game, and while I was much more active with it during mostly the early 3rd edition years, I have always had a soft spot for the setting, and have considered seriously exploring it again since 4th came out. While I feel 4th has cleaned up, and fixed many of the problems or rather clutter of older editions, the Magic System is the one place where I feel that they took a step back, and it might not even entirely be the mechanics, but the individual spell descriptions. As to my use of an idiom which has nothing to do with my actual age, or duration of involvement, though if I were to use a similar word frozen in the chrysalis of the 70's I might more appropriately say noog or newg indicating the new guy, so once again sorry for offending you.

No offense taken. You felt disrespected and unheard, so there was a bit of a lash involved, and thusly I felt the same way. No harm done. I'm also going to be in Critias' game a Texicon, and feel we Texans have to stick together.

As I said, by the time the mage's Magic gets out of hand everyone will have a Thor missiles from space anyway. I've yet to hear from anyone about a mage surpassing the abilities of the rest of the team because he had too high a Magic attribute. But if you feel it's an issue, cap Magic at 9. It's not a book rule because you want to leave such things open to dragons and Immortal Elves and what-not.
If the mage get's to 9 and you feel it's not enough, the ambient mana level of the Sixth World just increased to to whatever.
As for why most mages don't just let their magic go up and up and up, it's because 150+ Karma folks are extremely rare. Most Shadowrunners don't last that long and most normal people don't accumulate Karma that quickly. If you find someone with enough kaboom in their rear view to accumulate that much Magic, they pretty much should have that much Magic and be major player in the Sixth World. The type of mundane with enough Karma to push a mage past a usable limit is Damien Knight.

But do take it easy on the internet slang. At best it makes us sound like a kid counting his 100 pokemon. At worst it makes us sound like the old guy at the club. Now I'm not old, but I'm too old for the club.

[Mäx]

I have examined the game in detail, own all the books, even ran a couple short mini-campaigns, but I don't like the way the magic is uncapped it creates a bias I am not entirely comfortable with.

This is a point i have never understood, getting a super high (10+) magic doesn't really give you much of anything in a way of power boost over having a magic of 8-9, except maybe that you can go up into orbit and still use magic, which isn't much of an use on a shadowrun campaign.

And ofcource if you give the mage an even closely equal in power opposition, there isn't much he can do thanks to counterspelling.

[Thanee]

Their are many ways to deal with a omg i have magic 9000 mage.

I don't think there is a whole lot, that can effectively deal with a Magic 9000 Mage. Maybe a Magic 10000 Mage. Or the Drain. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I've been seriously considering the following house rule: if you overcast, you take drain BEFORE you roll the spellcasting test.

And that would change anything how? You take the drain regardless of whether the spell is effective. In actuality, you take it as you cast, so it really changes nothing. And really, A F9 Stunball has almost no drain to it whatsoever.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sorry no disdain here, but seriously when the GM is the only thing keeping a rule from breaking a game it deserves to be looked at. In previous editions controlling initiations was no where near as important due to the way the target numbers were set up. You hit a point of seriously diminishing returns, in SR4 that point never really occurs.

Actually, that point arrives at about magic 9 in SR4. Assuming, of course, that you allow that advancement, which seems obvious from your posts.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If the mage get's to 9 and you feel it's not enough, the ambient mana level of the Sixth World just increased to to whatever.
As for why most mages don't just let their magic go up and up and up, it's because 150+ Karma folks are extremely rare. Most Shadowrunners don't last that long and most normal people don't accumulate Karma that quickly. If you find someone with enough kaboom in their rear view to accumulate that much Magic, they pretty much should have that much Magic and be major player in the Sixth World. The type of mundane with enough Karma to push a mage past a usable limit is Damien Knight.

I have to agree with Fortinbras, and It cannot be said enough. High Magic characters are rare. And in fact, are more common in 3rd Edition than in 4th Edition. At least from my experience. Since every character stareted out with a 6 Magic, by default, in earlier editions, it was easier to gain that high magic rating. Especially since it was granted automatically each and every time that you Initiated. 3 Initiations and you were at a 9.

4th Edition, that is no longer the case. I woulds argue that Most Mages DO NOT start at the 5-6 Range as was stated earlier. Most mages I have seen in 4th start at Magic 3-4, with the odd one at Magic 5-6 (Yes, Yerameyahu, I know). At that point, Initiations cost points, and yet you do not increase in Magic along with the initiation, you have to raise the Magic attribute seperate. We have a fairly long running game, with characters in the 300-350 Karma range. Our Magician has a magic of 7, and 5 Initiate Grades. He really has no need to have a higher magic than 7, as the things he wants dead usually die with a single spell. Why put the points into something that gives out such little return on investment (you can only be so dead, after all)? Especially when the mage is in need of additional Spells, additional Skill increases, additional Foci (he only has 2 currently), Need for increased Attributes, and even the need for new skills.

Put a mage in a white room, and you will quickly come to the conclusion that he is so overpowered that he should never be allowed into play. His magic can go through the roof, and no one can compete with him on any level. Put that mage into the World he lives in, and it comes out completely different. Life happens, and the points that he wanted to spend on that new Ally Spirit he has been saving up for go into the trash as he uses those points to cover a hole he has discovered because of lack of Skill, or lack of Spell. I see it happen all the time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

[Fringe]

Except that the Natural Maximum will increase with Initiation Grades. Starts at 6, Each Initiation raises that Maximum by a Point. And nothing raises Magic through augmentation (Like Power Foci used to do in previous editions). Honestly, I have never seen Magic get so high it becomes an issue. I have seen a Grade 8 Initiate Adept with a Magic Rating of 11 once. He was not really over the top in any regard. Dice Pools in SR4A for that character were still below 20 for all of his actions.

Ignoring Background count with Initiation is counter to everything Shadowrun. That is why there are Metamagics to help compensate for it, but not just ignore it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

What I'm trying to suggest is to consider initiation to be the augmentation. ("If you consider initiation to be a sort of magical "augmentation", then the augmented maximum would be 1.5 x the natural maximum.") Under such a system, initiation would do nothing to the natural maximum. (Of course, then there's additional tracking of being able to have a certain "augmented" Magic vs. actually having a different Magic score if you haven't paid to raise the Magic score.)

"Counter to everything Shadowrun"? I disagree, since you point out that metamagics are available to compensate, and especially since the Cleansing power allows the complete (albeit temporary) removal of an existing BC (assuming the initiate rolls well enough). Clearly, it's not RAW, but such a house rule wouldn't necessarily destroy the "Shadowrun-ness" of the setting or game. If it does, then you're overusing BCs.

I'll agree with you on one point: I also have never seen a Magic rating get high enough to become a problem, at least not in 4th ed. Quite the contrary, I've seen more than one mage initiate multiple times while never increasing Magic. (My Missions character, for example, is an uncybered grade-2 initiate with Magic 5. There just isn't enough Karma...)

[Fringe]

And that would change anything how? You take the drain regardless of whether the spell is effective. In actuality, you take it as you cast, so it really changes nothing. And really, A F9 Stunball has almost no drain to it whatsoever.

But the suggestion to take the drain before the spellcasting test does one thing: If you fail to soak all of the drain, what's left would give you the appropriate wound modifier to the spellcasting test. True, a F9 stunball/bolt/whatever spell has almost no drain, but occasionally a point or so will get through.

I disagree with this house rule, though. I think there's enough of a cost to cast spells in the drain as written to inspire caution. Where I suspect a lot of people have a problem is where the stun spells have lower drain than other combat spells. I'm not sure where that line lies, though, since you have to balance the usefulness of the spell (doing only stun damage, unless you overflow the target's stun monitor) against its limits (having no effect if the target lacks a stun monitor, like a drone or vehicle). I suspect the usefulness outweighs the limitations in most cases, so if I had been writing the spell list stunbolt/ball would be at least even with manabolt/ball as far as drain. On one hand, a mage can learn multiple spells and choose which one to cast based on situation. On the other hand, you have characters like my Missions character whose only combat spells are stuns (for roleplaying reasons), but are in trouble against drones.

[Draco18s]

So to get to Magic 9 that takes 150 karma, and if we set the, what I consider to be, average amount of karma earned per session to 4 and playing once a week we're talking 38 weeks to get to that IF the mage put every single point into getting their magic up, which would be surprising.

4 karma a session? You clearly play with increased karma costs (5x New Attribute) but at the old Karma rewards level (max 7 per session) and not the new (average 7 per session).

[Cheops]

The problem you are going to run into in a long campaign, if you have a clever player, is a mage who plows most of their points into increasing their grimoire. The single biggest break point of magic is the sheer versatility of spells and the number of unique tricks they have. You should be happy if your player spends all his karma on Magic attribute instead of more spells -- he is severely crippling his ability. 5-6 Initiations is usually all you'll ever need to get the Metamagics you are looking for. If you want to allow a player to have more metamagics than his Magic attribute allows just use the optional rules in Street Magic. That may alleviate the need to keep raising Magic.

I should be so lucky to have players that get off on casting their force 10 powerbolts (well, I have 1 player like that) -- most of them prefer finding clevers ways to wreck my carefully planned runs with one spell I didn't consider. Levitate and Clairvoyance tend to be big culprits. Honorable mention goes to Shapechange and Mind Probe.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

What I'm trying to suggest is to consider initiation to be the augmentation. ("If you consider initiation to be a sort of magical "augmentation", then the augmented maximum would be 1.5 x the natural maximum.") Under such a system, initiation would do nothing to the natural maximum. (Of course, then there's additional tracking of being able to have a certain "augmented" Magic vs. actually having a different Magic score if you haven't paid to raise the Magic score.)

I'll agree with you on one point: I also have never seen a Magic rating get high enough to become a problem, at least not in 4th ed. Quite the contrary, I've seen more than one mage initiate multiple times while never increasing Magic. (My Missions character, for example, is an uncybered grade-2 initiate with Magic 5. There just isn't enough Karma...)

Understandable...

Yes, I see much more in the way of Initiation than I do in the Increase of Magic Rating. And you hit it right on the head. There JUST ISN'T enough Karma , which is why I think you are worrying about it for no reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But the suggestion to take the drain before the spellcasting test does one thing: If you fail to soak all of the drain, what's left would give you the appropriate wound modifier to the spellcasting test. True, a F9 stunball/bolt/whatever spell has almost no drain, but occasionally a point or so will get through.

You cannot have drain without the Spellcasting, though, as it has not happened yet. Drain is a result of the spellcasting, not the other way around, which is why it does not work as intended.

I disagree with this house rule, though. I think there's enough of a cost to cast spells in the drain as written to inspire caution. Where I suspect a lot of people have a problem is where the stun spells have lower drain than other combat spells. I'm not sure where that line lies, though, since you have to balance the usefulness of the spell (doing only stun damage, unless you overflow the target's stun monitor) against its limits (having no effect if the target lacks a stun monitor, like a drone or vehicle). I suspect the usefulness outweighs the limitations in most cases, so if I had been writing the spell list stunbolt/ball would be at least even with manabolt/ball as far as drain. On one hand, a mage can learn multiple spells and choose which one to cast based on situation. On the other hand, you have characters like my Missions character whose only combat spells are stuns (for roleplaying reasons), but are in trouble against drones.

Spell selection is Key. It is why my current Magical Character (Mystic Adept with 2 Spellcasting, 3 Adept Split) has 31 spells or so(with a list of another 30 or so to learn) . And honestly, that is what makes a versatile mage. Spell Selection is King, not how powerful a spell that they can cast.

[James McMurray]

Trying to pull this back on topic and identify/rectify Faelen's specific concerns:

Since you resist spells with a fixed attribute it strikes me that no matter what happens eventually the Magic characters are going to have a completely different level of ability when compared with unawakened characters.

The attributes that you resist with are usually easier to boost than magic (except Willpower for soem reason), and counter spelling is there to augment them as well. While it is true that a mage at 150 karma has a 8 or 9 magic, he's still only tossing 15-ish dice and the other characters have had 18+ dice in their specialties since character creation.

Anyway I am looking for ideas, I want something that works, because as it stands I don't see how a long running game can survive, and since most of my games last a while, I don't want to get into something that will give me headaches down the road.

I think this is a large part of the disconnect people are feeling here. you don't see how it can possibly work, when many of the posters have sat at the table and watched it work.

I worry because spells offer very powerful stackable defensive options which cyberware and bioware do not.

Have you seen the kinds of things someone can cram into their body? Wired reflexes, bone lacing, pain editors, and all the rest don't require any karma at all and they don't come attached to a -2 dice penalty for sustaining spells. I guess I'm just not seeing the lack of options taht'ware is supposed to have. What sorts of high-powered combos worry you?

Likewise all three lack in the offensive options.

All three what? If you mean magic, cyber, and bioware then I'm just confused, since it sounds like you're saying they're balanced offensively. If you're saying 'ware and something else, then in general those things don't need a lot of offensive options because a bullet to the face stops just about anyone in their tracks.

SR4A is definitely set up for a more dice = more successes, and when one characteristic in the game which can influence things as much as magic is given a completely free reign (yes I know GM control, well if it requires it, it is just not designed that well) it is a recipe for issues. I am just looking for options within the framework of the mechanics which would provide the kind of play I want to see supported at my table from the beginning to the very highest strata of the game.

A recipe for what issues. Perhaps if you had specific concerns we could help more? In general counter spelling + base resistance rolls means the attacking mage is at a disadvantage. On defense the mage might have the edge, but only if he's willing to negate his dice pools or drop a lot of karma. In social situations the face is much better than the mage since even Control Thoughts is only a die pool modifier.

Sorry no disdain here, but seriously when the GM is the only thing keeping a rule from breaking a game it deserves to be looked at.

The GM is not the only think holding the rule in chekc. The rule itself is. What are the other players doing with the 150 karma the mage spent to get 3 extra dice?

Sorry I stirred up a hornets nest, it was not my intent. I have examined the game in detail, own all the books, even ran a couple short mini-campaigns, but I don't like the way the magic is uncapped it creates a bias I am not entirely comfortable with.

Can you explain the bias you're seeing? Is it a gut feeling of "that ain't right," a technical flaw you can lay out in detail, or something you've seen in actual play?

[Mäx]

While it is true that a mage at 150 karma has a 8 or 9 magic, he's still only tossing 12-ish dice and the other characters have had 18+ dice in their specialties since character creation.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
Mage with 9 magic should have much more then 12 dice, hell all of my starting mage builds have more then that for their speciality.
Both of the following are combat spell dice pools of mystic adept characters:
Magic 2 + spellcasting 4 + specialization 2 + mentor 2 + spellcasting focus 5 = 15 dice
Magic 4 + spellcasting 4 + specialization 2 + mentor 2 + power focus 4 = 16 dice

So if a pure mage character with magic 9 only ha 12-ish dice, somethink is seriously wrong.

[Yerameyahu]

Admittedly, that's the 'obscene munchkinism' school of thought. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) You absolutely can make it much higher, but some people have asked 'why bother'?

For me, the real 'danger' of a (unrealistically-) high karma Awakened is the Mysad with augmentations. More Magic doesn't make a spellcaster vastly stronger than Mäx's 'starting' examples, but more PP (and of course metamagic) sure does.

[James McMurray]

Sorry, had a brain fart. It should have been 15-ish dice. I was ignoring specialization and mentors because they don't apply every time you use the ability, though you're right that they're worth another 4 dice. I'm also ignoring power foci because we're talking about 150 karma spent towards initiating and raising magic. Your numbers are adding another 32 karma on top of that.

Then again, let's go ahead and include all of that. The basic magician's starting pool is 5 Magic + 5 Sorcery + 2 Mentor + 2 Specialization = 14. After 32 karma it jumps to 18 from a power focus. Why on earth is he spending 150 karma for another 3 dice? And did he never get any other foci, quicken/anchor any spells, or realize there was a skill he wanted that he hadn't started with?

[longbowrocks]

Looking through this, it looks like a few people have been claiming that unawakened characters lose to mages in the long run.
Can someone please counter these points?

• Pain editor to make stun pretty much useless for the first attack.
• Weapons have base DV, allowing them to be heavy hitters even before rolling, and you can get enough attack dice that rolling reaction, or even reaction + dodge isn't ever going to make you miss.
• Sammies will dump into reaction, and sometimes intuition, thus pretty much ensuring they go first in combat. At the game stage you guys are talking about, the first person to act decides who lives and who dies.

[Yerameyahu]

Don't be silly, longbowrocks. For one thing, anything X can do, mysad can do better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Sustained/anchored/quickened/adept power buffs for the Initiative, infinite LOS spells for the shooting (which don't have to be stunbolt), etc. Not to mention anything about spirits, utility spells…

This is specifically in the crazy-long run, of course. In the short run, things are a little better, which is good; that's when most games happen.

[Mäx]

Sorry, had a brain fart. It should have been 15-ish dice.

Ok, that make much more sense, i was mostly thinking "12 dice, wait a second if you have a magic 9 then spellcasting skill at rating 3 already gets us that"

[Draco18s]

Ok, that make much more sense, i was mostly thinking "12 dice, wait a second if you have a magic 9 then spellcasting skill at rating 3 already gets us that"

Most characters should have at least a 4, if not a 5 (the skill group not being worth the BP--Banishing = Useless).

[longbowrocks]

Sustained/anchored/quickened/adept power buffs for the Initiative

I read that as:
Cumulative -2 penalty/how? you're already dumping all your karma into magic and initiation/(don't have the book with me I'll get to this later)/hella expensive and can never compete with bioware unless you have dozens of power points (even then you can't simulate pain editor)

infinite LOS spells for the shooting (which don't have to be stunbolt), etc. Not to mention anything about spirits, utility spells…

Infinite LOS is nice, in the rare situations where your LOS is unobstructed by buildings for more than the minimum range increment of a holdout pistol. Even then, there's camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree.

This is specifically in the crazy-long run, of course. In the short run, things are a little better, which is good; that's when most games happen.

Lets talk crazy long run. We all know sammies will wallop a mysad's patooty in the short run. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Your move. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

No, it's not a choice *between* those. It's having the option to do any/all of those. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Are you artificially limiting the discussion to melee range? That's ridiculous. And the Awakened character is better at "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree"—tons better. And astral sight defeats most of that.

Again, *anything* the sam can do, the mysad can do. Plus spells, astral sight, PP, spirits, metamagics…

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Most characters should have at least a 4, if not a 5 (the skill group not being worth the BP--Banishing = Useless).

Not all Spellcasters are Veteran or Elite Casters though... In fact, not many are. A Skill of 3 is a Professional Rating after all. Just because you CAN do a thing (Get a Skill above 3) does not mean that you SHOULD. The skill should reflect the Character, and I am sorry, if you were so skilled at Magic (Skills 5+), The corps would likely never let you go, or you would be working for them shortly after they discovered your potential, for those who started outside the Corporate Environment. Magically Aware people are a Rarity, after all, and ones so skilled (or so powerful for those with a Magic Rating above 3) are even rarer.

[Epicedion]

Most characters should have at least a 4, if not a 5 (the skill group not being worth the BP--Banishing = Useless).

Banishing isn't useless unless your GM is a jerk and makes every spirit bound with 30 services.

[Yerameyahu]

I dunno. The threads demonstrating that Banishing is useless seemed pretty convincing. *shrug* IIRC, it's always worse than just Stunbolting (less effective and/or more dangerous).

[Draco18s]

Banishing isn't useless unless your GM is a jerk and makes every spirit bound with 30 services.

Actually, the number of services and the effectiveness of Banishing is related to the number of services that a player character could reasonably get (without edge) on any given force of spirit.

The Banisher rolls Banishing + Magic, which is resisted by the Spirit's Force + Summoner's Magic (if bound). Net hits are subtracted from the spirits services.

If it's a low-force spirit, the spirit's owed services are going to be high (Magic + Binding - Force*2). If it's a high force spirit, it's going to have a lot of dice to resist banishing.

And it takes a complex action. Versus just stunbolting it to death.

[kzt]

Will more magic increase your range? I thought you would want the hawkeye quality, or lots of myometric rope for that.

No, it allows you to still cast spells in -12 background count.

[James McMurray]

If it's a low-force spirit, the spirit's owed services are going to be high (Magic + Binding - Force*2). If it's a high force spirit, it's going to have a lot of dice to resist banishing.

Don't you mean (Magic + Binding - Force * 2) / 3? Unless we're assuming that every die for the binding is a success.

But I agree that you typically don't want to banish a bound spirit. A summoned one though, is usually easier to banish than he is to stun bolt to death, especially if he's of a type that gets counter spelling and has enough force that your sammies can't just kill him with a gun faster than you can say "heeby jeeby mumbo jumbo."

[longbowrocks]

No, it's not a choice *between* those. It's having the option to do any/all of those. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Each one has its downsides. All those downsides stack in the end when you're trying to cast spells.
the -2 penalty from sustaining one spell, in addition to having 1 less magic than you could because you invested in anchored spells, totals to 3 fewer dice than you would have rolled otherwise.
Sammies can have a similar issue, but in their case they just add recoil compensation.

Are you artificially limiting the discussion to melee range?

No, don't worry about that. I don't even like melee. I was just pointing out that infinite LOS seldom comes in use (at least in our games) I told our mage in our last session that he had infinite range when provided with non technical LOS. He was pleasantly surprised, but we still didn't get a chance to use it. I was even ready to use MRSI with my bow from 720 m away to get multiple simulatenous impacts on all the building's supports.

And the Awakened character is better at "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree"—tons better.

Great. Now nobody can see anybody. We all win. Except the sammie can use thermographic, ultrasound, and technical instruments for sight, many of which will not be fooled by magic.

And astral sight defeats most of that.

What is this I don't even. Aren't there like five ways to defeat astral sight in the core book alone? Again, I'm not a huge magic buff, but there are a few plants with astral projections in gear (runner's companion?), one of which you could feasibly make a gillie net out of, and a few qualities to disguise or remove your astral presence spread throughout the books.

Again, *anything* the sam can do, the mysad can do. Plus spells, astral sight, PP, spirits, metamagics…

I still don't see anything on par with the pain editor.
Or platelet factories.
Or ridiculous internal armor from cyberware, which is a strategy restricted to unawakened characters (unless you have a strong desire to be the formerly awakened mage).

MyaAd can take the top two, but that reduces his max potential in other areas permanently.

vestri permoveo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

PS, lemme know if I got anything mind-blowingly wrong. I'm working off memory here.

[longbowrocks]

And it takes a complex action. Versus just stunbolting it to death.

Isn't spellcasting a complex action anyway?

[Draco18s]

Don't you mean (Magic + Binding - Force * 2) / 3? Unless we're assuming that every die for the binding is a success.

Dice pools. Magic + Binding vs. Force * 2. Hits on the latter subtract from hits on the former.

[James McMurray]

PS, lemme know if I got anything mind-blowingly wrong. I'm working off memory here.

Don't worry. It's an internet forum debate. Someone will let you know if you got something even slightly wrong (like spelling), and won't let you live it down either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

3 dice (from Magic) isn't important. Ask Mäx about his combat mage munchkins. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And are you intentionally ignoring sustaining foci (or Spirits of Man), or what?

In fact, all of those can be fooled by magic, whether it's a perfectly legal (and game-breaking) custom spell, or a spirit with Concealment.

I can count on one finger the number of FAB ghillie suits I've ever seen. And I said 'most of that', meaning your explicitly listed "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree". I don't see where you mentioned rare, expensive, and fragile manatech there, Mr. 'What is this I don't even'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Nevermind that the mysad, as I said, can get all those visions. Say it with me: 'anything X can do, mysad can do better'.

The mysad can *have* a pain editor. And Platelet Factories. And spells ignore armor. Come on, man! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This Dumpshock; when it comes to Magicrun, ain't our first rodeo.

[Epicedion]

Actually, the number of services and the effectiveness of Banishing is related to the number of services that a player character could reasonably get (without edge) on any given force of spirit.

The Banisher rolls Banishing + Magic, which is resisted by the Spirit's Force + Summoner's Magic (if bound). Net hits are subtracted from the spirits services.

If it's a low-force spirit, the spirit's owed services are going to be high (Magic + Binding - Force*2). If it's a high force spirit, it's going to have a lot of dice to resist banishing.

And it takes a complex action. Versus just stunbolting it to death.

I guess if your GM's a jerk and corpsec wagemages have Magic 6 and Summoning 7, that could be a problem, too. But even then, I wouldn't expect an unbound spirit (even a very low-Force one) to have more than 2 or 3 services on it -- especially since the summoner has to expend at least one service to get the spirit to do anything other than sit there staring at him.

Beyond that, if the spirit has a high Force, odds are a stunbolt isn't going to cut it, unless you over/multicast it so much that the drain starts to become a serious problem.

Imagine even that the summoner summons a Force 10 spirit, with 2 net hits on it -- this isn't far outside the realm of possibility, even, since you can easily have more dice on a summoning test than a very high-Force spirit gets to roll to resist. The summoner spends one service to get it to guard something. This spirit is going to have 10 resistance dice and 12 stun boxes. You can't plan on taking this out in one shot. When you overcast that Force 10 stunbolt with Edge, and there's still a sizable chance of the spirit completely resisting the spell, or at least still being alive after it takes the damage, you're in trouble. Because on top of the 4P drain from that stunbolt, the spirit is going to roll 20+ dice on its attack, even after wound penalties, and your mage is going to be a puddle of magically delicious red goo.

Or you could take your chances rolling Banishing with Edge (with more dice than the spirit gets) and trying to get just 1 or 2 net hits to save the day - because your buddies probably aren't getting through that 20 hardened armor. And every IP that spirit gets to act, someone is probably going to die.

Not that you get to go first, anyway, since it probably has 20+ initiative dice.

[Draco18s]

Beyond that, if the spirit has a high Force, odds are a stunbolt isn't going to cut it, unless you over/multicast it so much that the drain starts to become a serious problem.

You can multi-cast two F7 stunbolts for about 1 drain.

Stunbolt: (F/2)-2
Multi-cast: +1 drain DV

F7 -> (7/2) -> 3. 3-1 -> 1. 1+1 = 2 DV.

Drain resist (non-twink): Willpower 5, [Drain Stat] 4.
9 dice to resist 2 DV twice.

Those sound like good odds to me.

[Epicedion]

You can multi-cast two F7 stunbolts for about 1 drain.

Stunbolt: (F/2)-2
Multi-cast: +1 drain DV

F7 -> (7/2) -> 3. 3-1 -> 1. 1+1 = 2 DV.

Drain resist (non-twink): Willpower 5, [Drain Stat] 4.
9 dice to resist 2 DV twice.

Those sound like good odds to me.

Split your dice pool versus something with 6+ resistance dice?

Also 3 - 1 = 2, so that's 3 DV apiece. Good odds, but you'll probably pick up 1 or 2 physical.

[longbowrocks]

Don't worry. It's an internet forum debate. Someone will let you know if you got something even slightly wrong (like spelling), and won't let you live it down either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Lol. You've got us pegged.

3 dice (from Magic) isn't important. Ask Mäx about his combat mage munchkins. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And are you intentionally ignoring sustaining foci (or Spirits of Man), or what?

Aren't the foci just for bonuses? Maybe I'm a bit out of my depth, then again, 3 dice will only get you that one anchored and one sustained spell. Are you going to give up more for an astral barrier? how about invisibility?

In fact, all of those can be fooled by magic, whether it's a perfectly legal (and game-breaking) custom spell, or a spirit with Concealment.

Custom spell:
Did you know the game doesn't say how movement bonuses stack, or mention which ones don't stack? 5 hits to sprint and my centaur named Guile breaks the sound barrier, rending all nearby into red mist.

I can count on one finger the number of FAB ghillie suits I've ever seen. And I said 'most of that', meaning your explicitly listed "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree". I don't see where you mentioned rare, expensive, and fragile manatech there, Mr. 'What is this I don't even'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Nevermind that the mysad, as I said, can get all those visions.

Wouldn't ultrasound vision be technological and therefore useless for any spellcasting?
As for the addition to the list, there are so many possibilities in this game that I can't think of everything on the first post.

Say it with me: 'anything X can do, mysad can do better'.

Nevar!
Even if you can knit that sweater, I can fill it better.
And any song you can sing I can sing louder, I can sing any song louder than you.

The mysad can *have* a pain editor. And Platelet Factories.

I pointed out that you're giving up magic for the bioware, and karma for the wasted magic.

And spells ignore armor. Come on, man! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) This Dumpshock; when it comes to Magicrun, ain't our first rodeo.

Oh, so now it's out in the open. We aren't just talking relative bonuses, but how the sammie will kill the mage and vice-versa. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)
Please don't die on me now thread. The battle will continue later today after my CS 352 exam. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

[Irion]

Banishing is good against high force unbound spirits with counterspelling.

[Yerameyahu]

A sustaining focus sustains a spell; that's the job. So, for example, you sustain Wires 3. Or invisibility, sure. You can have several, and they're honestly not that expensive (cash/karma). Not in the 'crazy long run' context we're using.

If there were rules for ramming with nonvehicles, your centaur would kill himself anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And there aren't.

I didn't say ultrasound worked for spellcasting. That's all you can respond to 'the mage can get all the visions, even though he barely needs them' with? Come at me, bro! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The loss to magic versus the bonuses of getting a little cyber/bio is minor, and that's specifically what 'crazy long run' Initiation/Magic raising fixes. It's even worse if you cyber up while your Magic is lower, a truly ridiculous munchkin tactic. (See also: any number of threads specifically about this.)

You're the one who mentioned armor as if it were relevant. I only pointed out that it's not. And non-cyber armor is more than sufficient, except for numerical exercises. That's the thing: these Awakened are fully playable, not a Binky or a pornomancer. There's *one* thing that can sorta help counteract the Magicrun dominance in the (once again, totally ridiculous) 'crazy long run': Astral Hazing. And that's an extreme SURGE-only power.

I don't even care about this, I literally never play Awakened characters. But since you're new and curious about powergaming, I'm mentioning what I've seen. Hehe.

[Seerow]

You can multi-cast two F7 stunbolts for about 1 drain.

Stunbolt: (F/2)-2
Multi-cast: +1 drain DV

F7 -> (7/2) -> 3. 3-1 -> 1. 1+1 = 2 DV.

Drain resist (non-twink): Willpower 5, [Drain Stat] 4.
9 dice to resist 2 DV twice.

Those sound like good odds to me.

So what, the caster is getting no net successes on his Stunbolt?

Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a damaging effect. Affecting the target’s being on this fundamental level with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.

Even with just the 1 net hit you need to be successful on your cast, you've increased your drain by 50%.


Also, Stunbolt is -1 (you switch between -1 and -2 in your post), which makes the force 7 stunbolt 2 base +1 for multicasting = 3 + 1 for a net success = 4. If you get more than one net success that goes higher. So you're resisting 4 DV twice with 5 will and 4 drain stat, which is an average of 3 successes. Meaning you take on average one drain for each cast. More drain if you roll better.

[Yerameyahu]

"used to increase the damage value". Don't pay for what you don't use.

[Draco18s]

"used to increase the damage value". Don't pay for what you don't use.

Also optional rule. Also dumb. Also doesn't matter.

As for "splitting dice pool." Let's see:

6 magic (we'll overcast, because we want that thing dead).
4 Spellcasting
2 Specialization ("combat" is always useful)
3 Focus (spellcasting)

6+4 = 10
Split is 5/5
+modifiers of 5

10/10 dice vs. a spirit with 6 willpower. Reasonable odds for 1 net hit per spell. If it has counterspelling, use Edge. No one will blame you.

[James McMurray]

So what, the caster is getting no net successes on his Stunbolt?

Even with just the 1 net hit you need to be successful on your cast, you've increased your drain by 50%.

I get the impression that people who crow about the awesome power of Stunbolt typically don't use that optional rule.

[Seerow]

"used to increase the damage value". Don't pay for what you don't use.

I don't see anything that says you can choose to not use it to increase your damage value. The only reference I see is:

Damage Value: The base Damage Value for Combat spells is based on Force, which is chosen by the magician at the time of casting. Any net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increase the DV by 1 per net hit. Each spell description notes whether damage is Stun (S) or Physical (P).

If you could choose to not increase it to reduce your drain it would say "Any net hits on the spellcasting test may be used to increase the DV by 1", the way it is worded says that it always increases, and thus always increases your drain.

Also optional rule. Also dumb. Also doesn't matter.

I get the impression that people who crow about the awesome power of Stunbolt typically don't use that optional rule.

It's not an optional rule, it's in the core rulebook listed under the properties of combat spells. Nowhere is it stated or implied that it is optional. But yes, I'm sure a lot of stuff is broken when you ignore the rules on them completely.

[Mäx]

I get the impression that people who crow about the awesome power of Stunbolt typically don't use that optional rule.

I have gotten the impression that most people in general don't use that optional rule, mostly because it's probably the stupidest optional rule ever written for SR4(actually us saying pretty much exactly that is what got it turned in to an optional rule (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

It's not an optional rule, it's in the core rulebook listed under the properties of combat spells. Nowhere is it stated or implied that it is optional. But yes, I'm sure a lot of stuff is broken when you ignore the rules on them completely.

Please get an updated version of your PDF, it's been an optional rule for a long time(much, much longer then it was a non-optional)

[Draco18s]

Mainly because it's a rule that encourages overcasting (and multi-casting). It doesn't actually solve the problem it tried to fix (which was to curb overcasting).

[Seerow]

I have gotten the impression that most people in general don't use that optional rule, mostly because it's probably the stupidest optional rule ever written for SR4(actually us saying pretty much exactly that is what got it turned in to an optional rule (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Please get an updated version of your PDF, it's been an optional rule for a long time(much, much longer then it was a non-optional)

So they took away the one balancing factor of indirect spells while not simultaneously raising the drain to match elemental manipulations? The lower drain values of mana spells make sense when you figure it's expecting a few extra hits to raise the drain. The drain values with that being taken away make no sense. I'm going to repeat, of COURSE when you take away the balancing factor of a spell, it's going to be broken.

Mainly because it's a rule that encourages overcasting (and multi-casting). It doesn't actually solve the problem it tried to fix (which was to curb overcasting).

How does a rule that increases your drain encourage over casting? I can see the reasoning for it encouraging multicasting, but I can't see someone wanting to overcast when there's a chance they'll get a really good roll and kill themselves.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Damage Value: The base Damage Value for Combat spells is based on Force, which is chosen by the magician at the time of casting. Any net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increase the DV by 1 per net hit. Each spell description notes whether damage is Stun (S) or Physical (P).

The rule that you quoted above is an Optional Rule, and does not apply by default. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Irion]

@Yerameyahu
What is "the long run"?
500 Karma? 700 Karma? 1000 Karma? 1500 Karma?

[Draco18s]

How does a rule that increases your drain encourage over casting? I can see the reasoning for it encouraging multicasting, but I can't see someone wanting to overcast when there's a chance they'll get a really good roll and kill themselves.

"Hmm, if I raise my force by 2 and spend no hits on extra damage, I get 2 damage for 1 drain."

vs.

"Hmm, or I can spend 2 net hits for damage, and I'll get the same 2 damage for 2 drain."

Which would you do? And once you're overcasting, you can eek out even more damage for only half the drain of using net hits.

[Yerameyahu]

All of our discussions have to be at least based in RAW. RAW, that optional rule is not used, so don't get mad about it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mäx]

So they took away the one balancing factor of indirect spells while not simultaneously raising the drain to match elemental manipulations? The lower drain values of mana spells make sense when you figure it's expecting a few extra hits to raise the drain. The drain values with that being taken away make no sense. I'm going to repeat, of COURSE when you take away the balancing factor of a spell, it's going to be broken.

Let me clarify, that rule was only ever non-optional in the first pdf version of the anniversary edition corebook(it didn't exist before that) and when we pointed out that it's stupid and doesn't really do what it's supposed to do at all it was turned in to an optional rule in the updated pdf and the hard copies.

[Seerow]

The rule that you quoted above is an Optional Rule, and does not apply by default. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Why do people on this forum always insist on pointing something out that's already been pointed out by 2-3 other people? Is the redundancy somehow worthwhile?

Anyway, it was initially a mandatory rule, apparently somewhere along the line it got erratad to an optional rule. This is really stupid given they didn't errata drain of other spells to compensate for losing that, so now all direct spells are much lower in drain than their indirect equivalents. For the elemental effects, I could see +1 dv for the secondary bonuses (catching things on fire for extra damage for example is worth a little something extra), but compare Stunbolt to Clout. They do the exact same thing, except Clout gets to be resisted by armor, and has a +1 higher drain.

[Draco18s]

so now all direct spells are much lower in drain than their direct equivalents.

First, I think there's a typo there.
Second, it's not true.

How is it not true? Spell drain codes did not change. They are exactly what they were in SR4 as they are now in SR4A.

Also: compared to elemental effects, even with the optional rule, the direct spell is better.

[Seerow]

"Hmm, if I raise my force by 2 and spend no hits on extra damage, I get 2 damage for 1 drain."

vs.

"Hmm, or I can spend 2 net hits for damage, and I'll get the same 2 damage for 2 drain."

Which would you do? And once you're overcasting, you can eek out even more damage for only half the drain of using net hits.

Except there is no rule for omitting net hits to deal less damage, as was already pointed out. So you overcast, you get the 1 higher drain, and drain converted to physical, AND the same number of net hits, so your damage is now 2 higher, but you're facing the same drain as before, plus 1, and it's all physical. Yes, that is enough to divert most people from wanting to overcast.

[Epicedion]

Also optional rule. Also dumb. Also doesn't matter.

As for "splitting dice pool." Let's see:

6 magic (we'll overcast, because we want that thing dead).
4 Spellcasting
2 Specialization ("combat" is always useful)
3 Focus (spellcasting)

6+4 = 10
Split is 5/5
+modifiers of 5

10/10 dice vs. a spirit with 6 willpower. Reasonable odds for 1 net hit per spell. If it has counterspelling, use Edge. No one will blame you.

That's still not how dice pool splitting is supposed to work. Specializations and Foci are intended to be applied before the split. In your example, the split should be 7/7.

I have gotten the impression that most people in general don't use that optional rule, mostly because it's probably the stupidest optional rule ever written for SR4(actually us saying pretty much exactly that is what got it turned in to an optional rule (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Please get an updated version of your PDF, it's been an optional rule for a long time(much, much longer then it was a non-optional)

Has there been some official or semi-official release changing this from what's in SR4A? It's not listed as optional in my book.

[Seerow]

First, I think there's a typo there.

Fixed.

Second, it's not true.

How is it not true? Spell drain codes did not change. They are exactly what they were in SR4 as they are now in SR4A.

Also: compared to elemental effects, even with the optional rule, the direct spell is better.

You realize you're basically confirming my point? They changed the rule that was intended to balance direct vs indirect, then reverted it after some forum whining. So Direct remains blatantly better. The answer should have been to increase the DV of direct spells by +1-2 across the board, if they were going to get rid of the rule to increase the DV based on the casting.

[Yerameyahu]

It might make more sense for splitting to work that way, Epicedion, but it's not how it actually works. As with the optional rule, we use the RAW for discussing, no matter how reasonable a house rule seems. Seerow, again, we're talking about the RAW, not what you think would be a better rule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

How does a rule that increases your drain encourage over casting? I can see the reasoning for it encouraging multicasting, but I can't see someone wanting to overcast when there's a chance they'll get a really good roll and kill themselves.

Lets see then...

Force 5 Mana Bolt Spell. 5 Net Hits: 10dv, with a Drain of 7 (Stun). You are Not always likely to get those 5 Hits either.
2x Force 5 Multicast Mana Bolt Spells. No applied Net Hits, with a combined Drain of 3 Each. Damage of 10dv. Drain of 6 (Stun)
Force 10 Man Bolt Spell. I will use NO net hits to increase Damage. Damage 0f 10DV with drain of... Wait for it... 5 (physical)

Yes, The overcast Spell's drain will be physical, but so what. Any competant mage will likely be able to reduce this to insignificant Drain damage, While 7 is generally GOING to give you some damage, stun or not.

So, you see, The Rule enforces Multicastiong and Overcasting to get the effects wanted, with minimal drain to boot.

Epic fail for a rule to curb Overcasting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mäx]

Except there is no rule for omitting net hits to deal less damage, as was already pointed out. So you overcast, you get the 1 higher drain, and drain converted to physical, AND the same number of net hits, so your damage is now 2 higher, but you're facing the same drain as before, plus 1, and it's all physical. Yes, that is enough to divert most people from wanting to overcast.

There is no reason what so ever to say "every net hit used to increase the damage" unless you allowed to select whether or not you use those net hits to increase damage.

[Draco18s]

There is no reason what so ever to say "every net hit used to increase the damage" unless you allowed to select whether or not you use those net hits to increase damage.

Tada!
There's even a section in the spellcasting general rules that a magician can chose not to apply net hits if they so choose.

Step 5: Determine Effect
Some spells simply require a Success Test, with hits determining
the level of success (as noted in the spell description).
The Magic + Spellcasting test must generate at least one net hit
to succeed and may need more if the effect has a threshold for
success. The spellcaster can always choose to use less than the
total number of hits rolled in a Spellcasting Test.

(I do not have the SR4A book here at work)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Has there been some official or semi-official release changing this from what's in SR4A? It's not listed as optional in my book.

Here is the full quote from the most recent books.

Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a damaging effect. Affecting the target on this fundamental level with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing other spell effects. After the Spellcasting is resisted the caster choses whether or not to apply any net hits to increase the damage value of the spell as normal (the net hits used to increase the damage value may be declared after the target’s resistance test). As an optional rule, every net hit applied also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1. For area effect spells, the highest net hits used applies to the Drain DV.

Please see the Highlighted text... It is both Optional to apply as many hits as you would like (you do not have to apply them all by default), and it is also an Optional Rule for Applied hits to increase Drain...

Hopefully this will solve the Yes it is, not it isn't line of thought.

EDIT: Damn. Ninja'd by Draco18s. Though he used a different page source for his; so, TWO sources that confirm the same thing. Can't argue that... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Seerow]

Seerow, again, we're talking about the RAW, not what you think would be a better rule.

Given the discussion started by this optional rule starting as a RAW rule that got changed, the discussion is relevant. I've already said that yes, with that change stunbolt is blatantly overpowered. The drain is still higher than what the original poster I quoted said (3 as opposed to 2 per casting), but that is more manageable.

My point is the creators appear to have made a change at the last minute based on whining, and balance was hurt because of it.

Lets see then...

Force 5 Mana Bolt Spell. 5 Net Hits: 10dv, with a Drain of 7 (Stun). You are Not always likely to get those 5 Hits either.
2x Force 5 Multicast Mana Bolt Spells. No applied Net Hits, with a combined Drain of 3 Each. Damage of 10dv. Drain of 6 (Stun)
Force 10 Man Bolt Spell. I will use NO net hits to increase Damage. Damage 0f 10DV with drain of... Wait for it... 5 (physical)

You're still trying to say you can choose not to use net hits to increase damage. Since we're discussing RAW that can't actually be done. So your force 10 mana bolt spell will have the same 5 net hits as the force 5 mana bolt, giving you a 15 DV with a drain of 10(physical).

I'd say that's a huge deterrent to overcasting. I already said yes, it does encourage multicasting.

There is no reason what so ever to say "every net hit used to increase the damage" unless you allowed to select whether or not you use those net hits to increase damage.

Show me where it actually says you can make the choice to not increase the damage. I already quoted the relevant part from the book where it says every net hit increases damage, as opposed to can be used to increase damage.


edit: And ninjad with a quote from the newest version of the book.

[Yerameyahu]

Yup. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) So, choosing is RAW, and not increasing DV is RAW. *shrug*. You act like people are lying to you, instead of assuming they know the correct rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) No one (well, some crazy people) disputes that magic and direct mana spells can be imbalanced… that's the point of the thread. You're just re-proving it.

[Epicedion]

It might make more sense for splitting to work that way, Epicedion, but it's not how it actually works. As with the optional rule, we use the RAW for discussing, no matter how reasonable a house rule seems.

It's not a house rule. There's a very reasonable explanation of it in the FAQ that doesn't require you to add or remove any text or sidebars to the rulebook.

Before anyone goes all up in arms about FAQ ISN'T ERRATA ARAAGAHGALBRBL as has happened in the past, what this means is that the developers view their FAQ explanation as RAW. They aren't treating it as a rules change, just as a clarification for what's obviously become a confusing mechanic. Otherwise they would say "this is a better way of doing it" or "this is a rules change." No, they said "this is what the rule means. This is how dice pool splitting is done." Specializations and Foci aren't Dice Pool Modifiers. They "add to tests." They "add to dice pools." But they are not "Dice Pool Modifiers."

It then follows that anyone who prefers to stand by their prior interpretation of the rules has essentially house-ruled in a flawed understanding (assisted heavily by some pretty flawed writing), and that house rule shouldn't be discussed in a conversation about RAW.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It's not a house rule. There's a very reasonable explanation of it in the FAQ that doesn't require you to add or remove any text or sidebars to the rulebook.

Before anyone goes all up in arms about FAQ ISN'T ERRATA ARAAGAHGALBRBL as has happened in the past, what this means is that the developers view their FAQ explanation as RAW. They aren't treating it as a rules change, just as a clarification for what's obviously become a confusing mechanic. Otherwise they would say "this is a better way of doing it" or "this is a rules change." No, they said "this is what the rule means. This is how dice pool splitting is done." Specializations and Foci aren't Dice Pool Modifiers. They "add to tests." They "add to dice pools." But they are not "Dice Pool Modifiers."

It then follows that anyone who prefers to stand by their prior interpretation of the rules has essentially house-ruled in a flawed understanding (assisted heavily by some pretty flawed writing), and that house rule shouldn't be discussed in a conversation about RAW.

If that were the case then, those bonuses would not be called out as a "modifier" to the dice roll... The FAQ is trying to do an endrun around the non-existant Eratta. Everyone knows that. Yes, it is a terminology thing. But there you go. Specializations and Foci bonus dice are MODIFIERS to the skill roll. And Modifiers are added AFTER the split. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)