IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Optional rules for enchanting.
emo samurai
post Nov 13 2006, 08:14 PM
Post #1


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



For each exotic reagent used in the creation of a focus, you reduce the Karma multiplier of the focus by 1. This change has to be decided on at the focus design stage and the reagent can not be used to work off a critical glitch. The finding of every reagent should be an adventure in itself and must be gathered by the magician.

You can not use more than one reagent of each type in the creation of a focus.

This option will probably only be used by people who design their own foci and are building really bigass stacked ones, which is the intent. Nobody will buy a focus formula that forces them to slay a unicorn and pull the 50 pound pearl out of a 15 foot wide oyster.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cold-Dragon
post Nov 13 2006, 09:18 PM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: 31-October 03
Member No.: 5,780



Mmm, I'd say it's a decent concept. It gives more reason to risking your butt for that dragon tooth, for example (I never did like that when I read it, and foci are expensive enough as it is).

Of course part of the magical balance is being expensive too. It's not that hard to use mind control to start a rave on the streets or other choice publicity stunts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post Nov 13 2006, 09:57 PM
Post #3


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



Mind control has a time limit now, a really short one. And I like the idea of a year spent collecting dragon's urine and sand from the banks of the River Ganges culminating in a stacked force 10 power/centering/shielding focus that you don't have to spend karma to bond.

Is it too powerful? Cause I can see somebody finding a branch from an awakened redwood, blood from an alpha male hellhound, an awakened pearl, a mathematical formula written in blood by the man who invented it, fossil coral, the tooth of a Ghost Dolphin, a 1 lb. sample of frozen arctic ice, and the heart of a dryad, and then bonding a force 10 power focus with no problem.

Then again, I think it's awesome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ancient History
post Nov 13 2006, 10:01 PM
Post #4


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,748
Joined: 5-July 02
Member No.: 2,935



QUOTE (emo samurai)
Mind control has a time limit now, a really short one. And I like the idea of a year spent collecting dragon's urine and sand from the banks of the River Ganges culminating in a stacked force 10 power/centering/shielding focus that you don't have to spend karma to bond.

I'm just going to laugh and y'all are gonna have to trust that I deserve it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post Nov 13 2006, 10:03 PM
Post #5


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



I can see a problem with this: There is no longer any reason to avoid high-powered foci. Once you get 8 radicals, you can bond a bajillion-force focus for no karma.

Hmmm... how to balance this...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smed
post Nov 13 2006, 10:19 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Note Calonna
Member No.: 241



Just make it reduce the absolute karma to bond by one, not the karma multiplier.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post Nov 13 2006, 10:21 PM
Post #7


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



Then they'd just make orichalcum. Maybe I'll limit the amount the'll be able to reduce the karma multiplier to 1/2 the normal karma multiplier, round down. So if it's normal X3, then they can reduce it by 1. This will make stacked foci reasonable.

That is, of course, assuming you allow people to use orichalcum to reduce bonding costs, which I do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Welt
post Nov 13 2006, 11:08 PM
Post #8


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-November 06
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 9,838



Hi all. Long time runner, recent lurker, first-time poster. :)

Actually, I'd be tempted to have used units of Orichalcum reduce Karma similarly. Back to the roots, or something.
Orichalcum may be "easier" to aquire (for an Enchanter) than an Exotic Ingredient, but still carries the opportunity cost of not selling it, which also equals or exceeds a solid run or 2's income.


Some other ideas (Mainly Earthdawn-inspired, and intended to make magical gear more "upgradeable" instead of having to replace) about Enchanting and Foci i've been thinking about lately, seems on-topic here given the general tone of the title:

- Foci can be bonded partially, in increments of full force points. In this case only the bonded portion of its Force can be used, until more Karma is spent to bond more.
This is based on Earthdawn's Thread Weaving concept where items only unfolded their full power over time and incremental investment of power too. Since Bonding is linear, x Karma per force, this should be no problem mechanically.

- Foci can be "reenchanted" to a higher force. Haven't precisely hammered out the rules in detail yet, thinking along these lines:

>Rewriting the formula should probably be easier than designing a new one from scratch (ie, incorporate the work that went into the old one), thus maybe based on a threshold of (Force difference)^2 instead of newForce^2.
>I *think* normal Focus formulae are reusable to make multiple identical Foci, this should not be the case here as the upgraded formula specifies that specific focus as "Telesma", which is unique. Well, if one comes up with another identical base focus, the same formula could be used to upgrade that one too, I guess.

>The new enchantment process should probably get the full new Force as negative modifier instead of just the difference.
>Probably introduce a new "Magical Telesma" bonus of some magnitude (half old Force?) to make it a bit easier.
>Unsure how to handle Radicals and Orichalcum and such.
I'd probably have the material modifiers that applied in the original enchantment apply again, provided that the difference in force is added for each radical type that applies. This'll be a bit of bookkeeping hassle to remember details of old enchantments though (or GM call what was used, incase on non-player-made Foci)
>Not quite sure about the test, considering to reduce the base threshold of 16 to 8 or so. Also, since the base item is magical, maybe reduce/ignore the object resistance.
> Finalizing the enchantment costs the usual 1 Karma, after that the "new" Force points of the focus are unbound and can be bound as normal (above houserule for partial Focus binding obviously applies)

> Since enchanting stacked foci works based on plain addition of their Force, it should probably be possible to convert a single focus into a stacked focus using this system. Maybe make the formula design harder in some way (full design process, specifying the old focus as Telesma?) to represent the more drastic nature of the alteration.
>Haven't fully compared upgrading to designing from scratch yet, if it comes out as overall easier, that'd be a feature, not a bug. I'd imagine working to keep one's gear in shape as one grows in power a core part of a magician's activities if this rule is in effect. It should be the norm, so no reason to penalize it over creating new Foci.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

(Edit for linebreaks/readability)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ancient History
post Nov 14 2006, 12:51 AM
Post #9


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,748
Joined: 5-July 02
Member No.: 2,935



See, this is why I didn't write rules for upgrading foci in Street Magic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Synner
post Nov 14 2006, 01:19 AM
Post #10


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185



Told ya it was for the best...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Welt
post Nov 14 2006, 02:56 AM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-November 06
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 9,838



QUOTE (Ancient History)
See, this is why I didn't write rules for upgrading foci in Street Magic.

Sorry, the reason you cite isnt self-evident to me.
Care to elaborate?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ancient History
post Nov 14 2006, 03:01 AM
Post #12


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,748
Joined: 5-July 02
Member No.: 2,935



1) The rules involved tend to get a bit complex. Far too complex and wordy for something with limited appeal.

2) It encourages munchkinism.

3) More bookkeeping than is simple or necessary.

4) My version was less friendly. :grinbig:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post Nov 14 2006, 03:11 AM
Post #13


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



But the thing is, that limited audience will DIG complicated rules. If they're tweaky and rules-oriented enough to want to upgrade, they'll slog through Virtual Realities 2.0 level complexity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Welt
post Nov 14 2006, 03:16 AM
Post #14


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-November 06
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 9,838



QUOTE (Ancient History)
1) The rules involved tend to get a bit complex. Far too complex and wordy for something with limited appeal.

2) It encourages munchkinism.

3) More bookkeeping than is simple or necessary.

4) My version was less friendly.  :grinbig:

Thanks.

1) Not very imo, just minor mods to the basic rules. Once you gut all the "probably" and commentary and multiple suggstions out, it wouldn't boil down to more than a sidebar or so, I think.

2) It is debatable and playstyle dependent if that is actually a problem. :D
Also, I'd not exactly call a viable advancement mechanic munchkiny by default (But I'll conceed that the lack of viability of the exising karmasinkiness of mages is debatable too. In my opinion it is.)
As a related aside, what's your opinion on the notion of upgrading cyberware ratings that I often see mentioned?

3) Yes. But it's nothing that frequently changes or is frequently regerred to though, a single short bracketed half-line added to where one keeps the physical description of the focus or something (assuming one does so, naturally). Not exactly crippling in my book.

4) Post the version? Or its key points, or differences to mine? :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cold-Dragon
post Nov 14 2006, 04:23 AM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: 31-October 03
Member No.: 5,780



Foci costs become less problematic if you extend the cash for karma rule as consideration: A large potion of magical soda water (I'm being creative here, meh) worth 10k could certainly be worth a few karma if you use it for making a foci.

There's more than one way to 'help' without completely bending the rules over backwards.

I also considered a twisted path style of foci making - stealing other foci and using them instead, lol. You can contribute half the force (or just the force rating, if you want to make it harder) of a sacrificed foci into the twisted model to pay for it instead of using your karma (though you can both use your karma and foci). The catch would be that the twisted foci now has a link to every mage that owned a foci sacrificed, and they can follow it back to the foci itself.

*puts a 2 nuyen credstick down*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post Nov 14 2006, 04:49 AM
Post #16


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,082
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



just curious, what's so 'twisted' about sacrificing foci? they're inanimate objects. it's no more twisted than causing an ally to inhabit a drone or something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fistandantilus4....
post Nov 14 2006, 04:56 AM
Post #17


Uncle Fisty
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,853
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Next To Her
Member No.: 6,928



Blood from a stone?

I think he's thinking along the lines of cannibalizing power more or less.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cold-Dragon
post Nov 14 2006, 06:49 AM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 753
Joined: 31-October 03
Member No.: 5,780



Yep. A foci that isn't yours is linked to someone else through blood, sweat, tears, etc (figuratively speaking). You are literally consuming a part of another person if you were to use it as part of creating your own foci. Under normal conditions, that isn't possible.

But you have blood magic and cannibalize, why not one that lets you use foci to fuel your own instead of wasting your precious karma?

Another possible risk could be insanity or some sort of curse from all that bad mojo getting concentrated. Tendency for dark spirits or blood spirits to sniff you out, etc, etc.

If you take it personally that someone stabs you to fuel their spells, wouldn't you take it personally if they took your foci to make theirs too?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
krayola red
post Nov 14 2006, 08:04 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 745
Joined: 12-August 06
Member No.: 9,097



QUOTE (emo samurai)
I can see a problem with this: There is no longer any reason to avoid high-powered foci. Once you get 8 radicals, you can bond a bajillion-force focus for no karma.

Hmmm... how to balance this...

Option #1: Reintroduce the force-based focus addiction rules from SR3. IIRC, you could bond up to Magic x2 in foci before you start suffering from the drawbacks, but since it's so much harder to increase Magic in the new edition, you might want to make it Magic x4 or something, especially if you want high-powered games.

Option #2: Cap the total possible karma reduction from both exotic reagents and orichalcum to (some #) x base karma (ie 1/2 x base karma). That'll give people incentive to find means to reduce the karma price for high cost foci, but would also put a limit on supermages running around with Force 15 power foci.

Option #3: Both the above.

...wait, why am I offering suggestions to limiting mage power again? :dead:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ancient History
post Nov 14 2006, 01:48 PM
Post #20


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,748
Joined: 5-July 02
Member No.: 2,935



QUOTE
1) Not very imo, just minor mods to the basic rules. Once you gut all the "probably" and commentary and multiple suggstions out, it wouldn't boil down to more than a sidebar or so, I think.

Heh. You'd think so, but to do a proper job of it (even without an example) requires a few more words.

QUOTE
2) It is debatable and playstyle dependent if that is actually a problem.  :D
Also, I'd not exactly call a viable advancement mechanic munchkiny by default (But I'll conceed that the lack of viability of the exising karmasinkiness of mages is debatable too. In my opinion it is.)

While the concept in and of itself is not always munchkinny, the process - especially home brews - tend to be extremely exploitable to the power gamer. Likewise, it allows a greater number of high-level foci into the game.

QUOTE
As a related aside, what's your opinion on the notion of upgrading cyberware ratings that I often see mentioned?

Must have missed that one.

QUOTE
3) Yes. But it's nothing that frequently changes or is frequently regerred to though, a single short bracketed half-line added to where one keeps the physical description of the focus or something (assuming one does so, naturally). Not exactly crippling in my book.

<shakes_head> Highly dependent on the rules. Not simply the karma already invested into the focus and the "latent" or unbonded aspects of the focus, but in certain cases the number of radical reagents and units of orichalcum used in the creation of the focus. Some people might go so far as to write out a level-by-level progression for the focus in the same manner as Earthdawn thread items.

QUOTE
4) Post the version? Or its key points, or differences to mine?  :)

Maybe later. I'd have to dig it out of my "Enchanting Dross" file with the other ideas that I had to cut.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RunnerPaul
post Nov 15 2006, 02:12 AM
Post #21


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,086
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 364



QUOTE (emo samurai)
Hmmm... how to balance this...

When emo samurai, who's games run at two speeds -- awesome and MORE AWESOME, has to ask how to keep your house rule balanced, that's not a good sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post Nov 15 2006, 03:15 AM
Post #22


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,082
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



QUOTE (RunnerPaul)
QUOTE (emo samurai @ Nov 13 2006, 05:03 PM)
Hmmm... how to balance this...

When emo samurai, who's games run at two speeds -- awesome and MORE AWESOME, has to ask how to keep your house rule balanced, that's not a good sign.

uhhh... it's Emo's house rule. it's not a sign about anyone else's games, it's just a sign that there actually is a limit to what even he will include.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th October 2020 - 01:13 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.