IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why remove the Karma/Build cost for Physads?, Just wondering...
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 05:48 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



One of the things that I liked about the old SR3 'build system' was the idea (IIRC, so don't shoot me if I'm not!) that you could build extra power points for Physads. Now, I'm aware of the balance issues between physads and samurai, i.e. physads can continue to gain 'power' while a samurai has a limited amount of Essence (more so now they've got rid of Body Index, if that's not just an SR2 thing), but I'm not overtly fond of the idea that Physads must specialise. After all, there is a fine line between 'specialise' and 'munkinise', i.e. loading up as much as possible on single abilities.

This has, of course, been an issue for some time exception the SR3 build system. Perhaps appropriately so, but my knee-jerk reaction is to allow for non-specialised physads that don't have to be necessarily tooled up through the use of Initiation.

Okay, perhaps just another 'newbie/noob' comment, but just thought whether I'm inherently being a munchkin/power player without necessarily realising it.

Thank you for your time.

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 24 2006, 05:51 PM
Post #2


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



The 20 karma per PP rule was a patchwork abomination that FASA/Fanpro explicitly said you shouldn't be using as soon as your game started using Initiation in MitS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Feb 24 2006, 05:54 PM
Post #3


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



Seconded. 20 karma/PP was just to "get you by" until you could get the proper initiation rules.
Life would be better for all if they'd just not mentioned it.
I used to use both together. That was wrong of me. :-(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevebugge
post Feb 24 2006, 05:57 PM
Post #4


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,026
Joined: 23-November 05
From: Seattle (Really!)
Member No.: 7,996



It appears that the rule was included as a stopgap measure while the advanced magic rules were in development. Judging by the responses in the FAQ's I rather suspect that they greatly regretted ever including it. I had a huge problem with one of my players trying to start using this rule after initiating a few times (once the next grade of intiation cost more than 20 Karma) in SR3.

Chances are there are going to be a few of these rules missteps in SR4 too, anyone got some candidates?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 24 2006, 06:02 PM
Post #5


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (stevebugge @ Feb 24 2006, 12:57 PM)
Chances are there are going to be a few of these rules missteps in SR4 too, anyone got some candidates?

Poisons are now so very, very nasty. I think they really missed this one. Only way I see to fix this besides rewriting core rules is to include new have-to-have equipment, implants, or Qualities in future books. I guess maybe you could add the rule that to weaponize a poison into a projectile or squirt gun you effectively halve the DV? Afterall they give the DV without giving the dose, which just isn't how toxins work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 06:11 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



Fair enough. It is obvious that it can be susceptible to 'munchkins', yet it seems to be the traditional D&D balance between wizards and warriors, just slightly repackaged. You can be a powerful samurai/warrior (depending on the nature of the campaign) or you can be this middling physad who has the potential to become something more... at a price. Yet the balance of the cost of physad powers, despite the lack (?) of capping on some of them, seems overtly expensive...

I honestly can see the narrative advantages of initiation, even if I'm confused as to the comment about a stop-gap measure, though that's probably because I can only remember the karma-power point rule from SR3, while the developed initiation rules can be seen in SR2 and beyond. Anyway, that's probably just me so apologies.

Despite all that, the 'weakness' of physads relative to other types of adepts seems... I don't know, a bit obvious?

Regards and thank you for your patience. It seems that I need convincing more than anything else. Not over the relative merits of one edition of the SR mechanics over another, but the initial low power of physads, despite the fact of upward mobility in terms of initiation.

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Feb 24 2006, 06:17 PM
Post #7


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



As for the stop-gap thing, when SR3 came out there were no initiation rules. Magicians could still get "better" by learning new spells, but Adepts had no way of improving their powers out of chargen. So they introduced the 20kp/PP rule to allow them to advance.
When MitS came out, the Initiation rules replaced the 20kp/PP rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Azralon
post Feb 24 2006, 06:24 PM
Post #8


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,651
Joined: 23-September 05
From: Marietta, GA
Member No.: 7,773



QUOTE (Ka_ge2020 @ Feb 24 2006, 02:11 PM)
Despite all that, the 'weakness' of physads relative to other types of adepts seems... I don't know, a bit obvious?

FWIW, there are only two types of adepts in SR4: "normal" adepts (previously known as "physical adepts") and mystic adepts.

Arguably, mystic adepts are the weakest out of the two as they have the old multiclassing woes that most D&D players can sympathize with. However, a carefully constructed mystic adept can still be very effective as long as they massively specialize their magical talents.

Examples that I can think of offhand: Cast Combat Sense to stack it with the adept power of the same name. Cast Increase Reflexes into a focus rather than allocating adept points to it. Use the adept Magic Resistence power in conjunction with the Counterspelling skill. Use spell-based armor to overlap the Mystic Armor power. Cast Invisibility while under a spirit's Concealment and using Improved Ability: Infiltration.

Anyway, mystic adepts who think they can do well by being a "generalist" will typically find themselves just sucking at multiple things simultaneously. That's completely fine if your campaign is going to be extremely low-powered.

However, if you're a part of a cohesive team your teammates are probably looking for something of a specialist to turn to when your field of expertise comes up. That's your D&D "class system" mechanic all over again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 06:26 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



Ah, that explains things. Thank you. I have a tendency of just carrying over older rules set into new editions rather than waiting for a given company to provide 'all the answers'.

Azralon... Indeed, Magical Adepts (cross-over spellcasters and physads, so apologies for any ancient terminology) do shade over into the generalisation more so than Physads. My main concern is the requirement for specialisation seen in Physads. Ack, I don't know. Your reference to the 'power' of the campaign is a part of it, I think. My initial impression is that Physads require initiation to even up the 'power' differentiation, i.e. similar to requiring extra build points to start off with and allowing, for them, initiation with disadvantages. That, though, is a significant advantage in and of itself so... Again, ack!

Once again, thanks for all your input.

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TinkerGnome
post Feb 24 2006, 06:30 PM
Post #10


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 10-June 03
From: Tennessee
Member No.: 4,706



QUOTE (Brahm @ Feb 24 2006, 01:02 PM)
Poisons are now so very, very nasty.

Poisons are nasty, but they were always nasty. The core book version of toxins in SR3 was far deadlier than the version you find in SR4, what with "immediate" actually meaning "right then" instead of "at the end of the combat turn" like it does in M&M and SR4. M&M did give you half impact armor on drugs, further weakening them. EDIT: The half impact armor in M&M was probably only for poisons applied via melee weapon. In SR4, you get your full impact armor against those.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 06:34 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



Yeesh... That reminds me of how much I have to re-learn about the SR4 system and its comparison to the SR3 one and, even worse, SR2... ;)

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 24 2006, 06:34 PM
Post #12


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (TinkerGnome @ Feb 24 2006, 01:30 PM)
QUOTE (Brahm @ Feb 24 2006, 01:02 PM)
Poisons are now so very, very nasty.

Poisons are nasty, but they were always nasty. The core book version of toxins in SR3 was far deadlier than the version you find in SR4, what with "immediate" actually meaning "right then" instead of "at the end of the combat turn" like it does in M&M and SR4. M&M did give you half impact armor on drugs, further weakening them.

I think that is the part of it, that Impact armor doesn't help with SR4. But the other part is that with SR4 it is typically a lot tougher to stage down to nothing. In SR3 you either were able to stage down and did so fairly effectively, or you weren't. There wasn't as much middle ground.

The poisons do really well in the middle ground though, and the counters to them aren't sized big enough to provide a effective countermeasure under SR4 mechanics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 06:37 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



Which is a good thing, in my mind. Again, regardless of editions one of the things that I disliked about SR in general was the fact that combat while it could be horrendous at times, the idea that you could 'power down' the effects of guns, etc., was not something that sat well with me. I like viciousness.

So I presume other than GM dictation there are no solutions to my 'little problem'?

Regards...

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lagomorph
post Feb 24 2006, 06:51 PM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 834
Joined: 30-June 03
Member No.: 4,832



Ka_ge, You could remove soak rolls from the game, if you don't dodge the bullet you eat lead at full power. I think that would increase the viciousness quite a bit :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 07:18 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



A reasonable point. Although to be fair, I'm overtly enamoured with perhaps the romantic image of the "Physad" at the moment. I like the idea of samurai-analog adepts rather than someone that must inherently focus on a given concept unless they wish to continue through 9th level Initiates...

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Feb 24 2006, 07:43 PM
Post #16


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



QUOTE (Brahm)
Poisons are now so very, very nasty.

They were more evil in SR3 - you took damage until you got an antidote or got base damage +1 ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TinkerGnome
post Feb 24 2006, 07:50 PM
Post #17


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 10-June 03
From: Tennessee
Member No.: 4,706



QUOTE (Ka_ge2020)
I like the idea of samurai-analog adepts rather than someone that must inherently focus on a given concept unless they wish to continue through 9th level Initiates...

Adepts have always been the "one aspect" character. You can build a pretty well rounded combat physad, however, by utilizing boost attribute and other general purpose powers or you can focus in on and nail one aspect of combat, etc. Pretty much the way it's always been.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ka_ge2020
post Feb 24 2006, 11:33 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 13-February 06
From: Teesprawl (originally); CAS (now)
Member No.: 8,264



Indeed. Perhaps it is the fact that they were never analagous to Samurai. The fact that I can accept the upward-mobility of Physads due to Initiation just makes me feel more like the munchkin! ;)

Ka_ge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Feb 25 2006, 12:34 AM
Post #19


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



i never found the 20-karma power point thing to be all that unbalanced. 20 karma is more than you'd pay for initiation up to about grade 6 or 8, unless you're not grouped and aren't taking any ordeals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 25 2006, 03:07 AM
Post #20


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (mfb @ Feb 24 2006, 07:34 PM)
i never found the 20-karma power point thing to be all that unbalanced. 20 karma is more than you'd pay for initiation up to about grade 6 or 8, unless you're not grouped and aren't taking any ordeals.

The big thing was groups and ordeals, which tended to vary from GM to GM how strict they were.

With SR4 the cost of gaining PP has gone up quite a bit. You pay 18 karma for just the 6th one, and that is before you have to start Initiating. So 20 karma just wouldn't make sense. Also every PP past the 6th one costs 6 more karma than the last, so picking an amount of karma for a flat cost is a little tougher.

Hopefully Street Magic will include some Metamagic that Adepts can use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Feb 25 2006, 03:29 AM
Post #21


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



I don't feel that even starting adepts are that underpowered. Keep in mind that the limit to starting resources requires sammies to make a lot of hard choices, too.

Actually, adepts have it pretty good. Combat sense and mystic armor are beefed up, they can start with 4 initiative passes (sammies being limited to 3 unless they use combat drugs), and they have killing hands or weapon foci to make them far more effective against spirits than sammies. Smartlinks, the former big sammie advantage, are now available in equally effective non-cyber versions. And with improved ability limited, and initiative passes more important in melee, adepts are also much more of a generalist class than they were before.

I don't mind initiation being the means for adepts to improve (after all, sammies have to deal with surgery and the accompanying exorbitant costs to "upgrade"). I wish they had more metamagics that were geared towards adepts, though. They didn't have many useful choices in SR3, and they have even less in SR4.


As far as the 20-Karma rule, it would be more expensive until Grade: 3 in SR4 (which doesn't have discounts for groups or ordeals... at least not yet). After that, it would be increasingly cheaper compared to initiation. My biggest problem with it was that it was a flat cost, unlike nearly any other Karma improvement costs, which go up as the ability to increase goes up. The 20-Karma rule is like improving pistols: 5 to pistols: 6 costing the same as improving pistols: 1 to pistols: 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Feb 25 2006, 05:28 AM
Post #22


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



it's worth pointing out that in SR4, the smartlink is no longer the must-have cyber it once was, at least not for adepts. the ability to drop a clip and change fire mode as a free action is the biggest advantage a smartlink offers--the measly +2 dice is just a bonus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 25 2006, 05:49 AM
Post #23


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (mfb @ Feb 25 2006, 12:28 AM)
it's worth pointing out that in SR4, the smartlink is no longer the must-have cyber it once was, at least not for adepts. the ability to drop a clip and change fire mode as a free action is the biggest advantage a smartlink offers--the measly +2 dice is just a bonus.

That +2 dice isn't so measly when you are fighting in crappy conditions, attempting a difficult shot, are having a hard time hitting a tweaked out turtler that is using Full Defense, or you are trying to get that last +1 DV to penetrate hardened armor.

But yup for the elite shooter that is likely to hit their target and kill it anyway, that extra +2 dice doesn't amount to much at all. Similar in some ways but not the exact same situations as in SR3 when you already had the TN down to 2 before the Smartlink, only there it really was entirely limited to dropping a clip or fire mode changes.

Or you are using an Airburst capable weapon, or using the poking your hand around the corner technique.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Feb 25 2006, 05:52 AM
Post #24


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



the bonus isn't nearly as large. +2 dice is almost never better than -2 TN. yes, +2 dice is a bonus, and it's not something you'd want to turn down, but statistically speaking, lowering the TN is better than any reasonable number of bonus dice just about every time. believe me, i spent about two weeks going over a very similar problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brahm
post Feb 25 2006, 05:54 AM
Post #25


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,635
Joined: 27-November 05
Member No.: 8,006



QUOTE (mfb)
the bonus isn't nearly as large. +2 dice is almost never better than -2 TN. yes, +2 dice is a bonus, and it's not something you'd want to turn down, but statistically speaking, lowering the TN is better than any reasonable number of bonus dice just about every time. believe me, i spent about two weeks going over a very similar problem.

Usually less, but calling it measly is a very poor characterization.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 08:12 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.