 Can these spells really be That bad? |
  |
 Nov 15 2003, 07:03 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 30-April 03 Member No.: 4,529  |
Am I missing something, or are harmful health spells really unbalanced?
Take for example, a mage with Quickness and Intelligence 6 vs. a goon with normal Wired Reflexes Level 3 cyberware. With a force 1 increased reflexes 3 spell, all it takes is a single, unresisted success against a target number of 6 to even out the initative dice. To get the same results with a decreased reflexes 3 spell, the caster would need to touch the samurai and roll six net successes against a target number of 9. When it comes to drain, however, a force 1 decreased reflexes 3 spell causes the same drain as a force 6 increased reflexes 3 spell. That's probalby the most extreme case, but by far not the only one. I stumbled across this issue while examining the intoxication spell, when I realized I would have to touch a target to make them drunk through magic but I could kill them from across the room with a powerbolt at the same drain code. So did I misinterpret the rules somewhere? If not, does anyone use a house rule to address this issue? |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 15 2003, 08:06 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
That is correct, and it's perfectly balanced. In one case the spell is unresisted making it infinitely easier to cast, in the other case it is resisted making it a significant effort to achieve a sucessful casting. The two cannot in any way be compared.
That's like saying "I am a skilled martial artist and I can punch myself in the head every time, yet when I try to punch my skilled martial artist friend in the head, I can rarely do it on the first time because he is defending himeself by blocking. This is unbalanced. I need a house rule." No. You do not need a house rule, as that outcome is completely reasonable. That's the way it is supposed to work and it makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2003, 08:51 PM
Post
#3
|
|||||||||||||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,317 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
I guess that depends on what you see as being "balanced" ...
But still lacking the +6 on reaction that Wired Reflexes 3 will give you. You'll need a second spell
And still wouldn't even out that +6 on reaction ...
That's the difference between Health and Combat spells I guess ;) Different spell categories for different purposes ... Health spells do give more options on fine control, but they're pain when being used in a harmful way ... Potentially because they're going against their own virtue, because somehow I do associate good things with the word "health" ...
Not really ...
I have no need for that ... |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Nov 15 2003, 09:14 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I agree that having a higher target number and more required successes does balance the spell out, but the Drain Code doesn't make much sense. At best Increase Reflexes has only the Voluntary Subject modifier over Decrease Reflexes, yet Decrease Reflexes is two full Drain Levels higher than the former. I also don't understand why the target number is completely different; one focuses on Reaction (which is generally going to be a high number unless you have a poor to average Reaction) while the other focuses on 10-Essence (which is generally going to be a low number if you're casting it on most targets worth casting it on).
But at least it is 10-Essence for Decrease Reflexes, giving a magician a decent to good chance of succeeding with it against sammies in a battle. If it were Reaction, Wired Reflexes 3 would be nearly unstoppable. I just think it's odd that they use two different TNs for what is effectively just a polar opposite of the same exact spell. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2003, 09:28 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,222 Joined: 11-October 02 From: Netherlands and Belgium Member No.: 3,437 |
I think if you want a Combat spell, look in the Combat section. If any other spell were as easy to cast with as nice of drain as a Combat Spell, then -that- would be unbalancing.
I agree with the others, it shouldn't be House Ruled. Sphynx |
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2003, 12:52 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
They use the different TNs because that is how Health spells work - Health spells that have a beneficial affect on a target's Attribute use the Attribute as a Target Number, while for spells that affect an Attribute adversely, the Target Number is 10 minus the target's Essense. Decrease Reflexes is, in my opinion, the absolute worst spell that you could cast at someone with Wired Reflexes: 3. The Target Number is 10 minus Essense, so you are looking at a Target Number of 9. The target resists with Reaction - which is raised by +6 from the Wired Reflexes: 3, meaning someone with Quickness and Intelligence of 1 would still roll 7 dice to resist the spell - more likely they will be rolling 11 or 12 dice. And you would need 6 net successes to decrease the target's initiative by all three dice (but it doesn't affect Reaction, so the target will still have an 11 or 12 initiative). And you then take 6D Drain - if you cast it at Force: 1. But since it is a resisted spell, where your Target Number is very high and the target has a lot of dice to resist it with, you would have to cast it at Force: 6 to have even a remote chance of partial success - and Force: 6 raises the Drain to 9D. I agree with Sphynx that adverse Health spells should be tougher to successfully cast and have a higher Drain. Combat spells are simply pumping destructive energy into a target, while Health spells are attempting to alter metabolic processes in complex ways. The reason that the Drain Code is higher than its beneficial counterpart, is that it gets +1 Power for the Physical Spell modifier, and +1 Drain Level for the Harmful modifier. It's still not "balanced" in the sense of being a plausible spell to cast, but I actually don't have a problem with having a few less-than-effective spells out there - some spells should be less effective than others; it allows more leeway in having some mages showing better tactical sense than others. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 16 2003, 09:06 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 614 Joined: 17-June 03 From: A safehouse about to be compromised by ninjas Member No.: 4,754 |
Agree with the others but wanted to point out one thing. Health spells interact with the body, obviously, and the example you use specifically focuses on essence. A magician with 6 essence is a lot easier to affect than a Sam with 1 essence. Its like having a huge resistor on your current to make that Sam slow down. Comparing spells on similar targets (such as trying to cast descrease reflexes on an adept) will yield a better comparison for your purposes. However in total the other posters are correct, just wanted to mention that angle.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2003, 08:34 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,632 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Portland Oregon, USA Member No.: 1,304 |
While I mostly agree with Bitbasher, this is still an excellent topic, and I shall immediately get to work on a ranged Intoxication and Mass Intoxication spell.
Although I think it would fall better under the control manipulation category than health. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2003, 08:50 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Ack! I was calculating 10-Essence all wrong (I had confused it with 10-Essence Loss for some bizarre reason). <smacks forehead> I knew I never should have fallen asleep so often in math class. That does make it a pretty useless spell all around since it's so easily thwarted by anyone worth casting it on. I can't think of any really useful opportunities for where it would come in handy except against a fellow magician using Increased Reflexes. And even then, why bother wasting Karma learning this spell instead of just trying to dispel the effect? Also, why is it using the same Target as a Heal or Treat spell? The logic stated here by a few people is that 10-Essence was selected because Decrease Reflexes is a harmful and resisted spell -- yet Heal and Treat certainly aren't. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 16 2003, 08:59 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,359 Joined: 25-June 02 From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada (go Canucks!) Member No.: 2,904 |
Don't forget, unless you shelled out cash and karma for a sustaining focus, you're gonna have target a -2 number penalty on all your actions while ya hold that increased reflexes 3. While you try and nail nim with that stunbolt, your target number just jumped.
Let's say Sammie Dave has a willpower of 4. Pretty average for a runner.He's got some cover, good for a +2 to the target number to nail him, making it a 6. You're sustaining a spell, adding another +2 to make it 8. He drops prone on the ground and fires from that position: bam! Target number 10. Meanwhile, Sammie dave has his trusty ares predator 2 out and smartlink running. Let's say you're at medium range for his gun. You have the same cover and prone modefiers he has. Base target number 5, +2 for cover, +2 for being prone, then the smartlink drops it to 7. Now, in my game, we invoke the rule of one on "additional dice" so the target number would effectively be an 8. In some games they just call it a 6. Even in the tougher scenario, he's got 2 shots to nail ya and doesn't have to worry about drain. With his +6 reaction, odds are he's going first. Likely he'll hit ya for a light or moderate wound or so. Diminishing returns, my friend. If you invest in a sustaining spell focus and have time to prepare, then Increased reflexes is well worth it. Or if you have the Quickening metamagic technique. Then you'll kick much ass and you can just cast it until it works anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 17 2003, 09:00 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 675 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 2,034 |
Anything that can possibly not go into manipulation should go into whatever other category it can go into. Any spell can be argued to be some type of manipulation spell, so the bias must go the other way. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 18 2003, 10:56 AM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
Woah, I just tried this out (except my girlfriend was sleeping) - you're totally wrong. You were right about hitting myself - I didn't realise it would be that easy! But, I smacked my girlfriend about 4-6 times before she even got her arms up to block. And she's a really good martial artist! I suddenly don't think melee attacks should be resisted in combat ... :dead: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 18 2003, 05:24 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
seek therapy :D
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 18 2003, 06:08 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 611 Joined: 21-October 03 From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone Member No.: 5,752 |
On this line - is there any reason you couldn't design an increase reflexes health spell which did increase Reaction as well? The drain would be sick and twisted, (from recollection of designing it to see what happened I think it was about +5D) but I can't find anywhere it says a spell can't do this.
Anyone? Opinions or quotes, I don't mind! |
|
|
|
|
Nov 19 2003, 05:34 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
The trouble is, that would also break the mechanic that they seem to use for all spells which raise an Attribute - namely, that you raise it by one point per two successes, up to a maximum equal to the Force of the spell. Currently, to get the functional equivalent of Wired Reflexes: 3, a mage must successfully cast Increase Reflexes +3 dice, then cast Increase Reaction, at Force: 6, and get 12 successes. If a spell combined those two effects, I would keep it Force-and-successes-dependent, and even a Drain of 5D might be a bit on the generous side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th January 2026 - 10:59 PM |
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.