IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Help with magic foci
Muspellsheimr
post May 26 2008, 07:24 AM
Post #26


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 24-February 08
From: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Member No.: 15,706



QUOTE (Cain @ May 26 2008, 12:13 AM) *
First of all, no other focus limits the number of successes you can get. If I spend Edge with a spellcasting focus, even though it's handling a finite amount of power, it doesn't alter the success cap. I can cast a force 5 or force 10 spell with the same focus, and the focus has zero effect on the result.

This is because no other focus has limitations based on the Force of a spell. The Sustaining Foci, however, explicity states in it's text that it's Force limits the Force of spells cast through it, and as such, the hits those spells can attain.

As for RAW, yes, you could get an obscenely powered spell sustained in a Force 1 Foci through Edge. As for a good house rule, no, you cannot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post May 26 2008, 07:41 AM
Post #27


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,341
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Fortune @ May 26 2008, 12:23 AM) *
I fail to see the game-breaking effect. I am also of the opinion that Glyph's (and of course my own) view on this matter is in fact canon. If it turns out that it isn't canon, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to make a house rule (using whatever rationale I choose) to remedy any perceived problem.

I'd love to see a single quote that says a focus limits total successes. If you want to apply a house rule, because you perceive it to be game-breaking-- I suggest that you warn your players beforehand, so it doesn't become a problem. You can use in-game technobabble if you wish, but I personally think that honest and open communication with my players is better for everyone. I hate domineering GM's, don't you?

QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ May 26 2008, 12:24 AM) *
This is because no other focus has limitations based on the Force of a spell. The Sustaining Foci, however, explicity states in it's text that it's Force limits the Force of spells cast through it, and as such, the hits those spells can attain.

Again, show me where it says the force cap is also a success cap.
QUOTE
As for RAW, yes, you could get an obscenely powered spell sustained in a Force 1 Foci through Edge. As for a good house rule, no, you cannot.

Honest question. Do you think a sustained 10-success armor spell is more broken than a similar Stunball spell?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Muspellsheimr
post May 26 2008, 07:51 AM
Post #28


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 24-February 08
From: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Member No.: 15,706



A Force 1, 10 success Armor spell is certainly more powerful than a Force 1, 10 success Stunball. The Stunball's base power is limited by Force. The Armor spell has no base power to be limited by Force. The Stunball can only be used against a single group of enemies per casting - the Armor spell can be used against many.

And once you take into account that you can keep up the Armor with no penalty through a Force 1 Foci, without a doubt potentially game-breaking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post May 26 2008, 08:10 AM
Post #29


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (Cain @ May 26 2008, 05:41 PM) *
If you want to apply a house rule, because you perceive it to be game-breaking-- I suggest that you warn your players beforehand, so it doesn't become a problem. You can use in-game technobabble if you wish, but I personally think that honest and open communication with my players is better for everyone.


This isn't the first time you have made this kind of negative inference about my GMing style ... a subject you know nothing about. Why do you feel the need to attribute this kind of behavior to me? I never once claimed, or to my knowledge even implied that I would act in such a manner. If you have a personal problem with me, then I suggest you either take it up with a Moderator or use a more appropriate and private medium such as the PM system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post May 26 2008, 09:28 AM
Post #30


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,341
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Fortune @ May 26 2008, 01:10 AM) *
This isn't the first time you have made this kind of negative inference about my GMing style ... a subject you know nothing about. Why do you feel the need to attribute this kind of behavior to me? I never once claimed, or to my knowledge even implied that I would act in such a manner.

Ahem:
QUOTE
If it turns out that it isn't canon, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to make a house rule (using whatever rationale I choose) to remedy any perceived problem.


I prefer to use a rationale that my player will accept, instead of one I arbitrarily choose.

All I know about your GMing style is what you post here. All I know is that whenever I make a post based around fairness and open communication with players, someone like you is certain to object. I honestly do not understand why. Based on the statements and implications you make, I'm more than happy to share what few GMing pointers I have. I'm far from the best GM in the world-- I started off bad, and I have a long way to go-- but I thought the whole point of a place like this is to share what we know, so we can all become better GMs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post May 26 2008, 10:39 AM
Post #31


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



'Someone like me'?

Nice try, but not once have I objected to open communication between players and GMs. I have made numerous posts throughout Dumpshock's history (and even before) promoting intense, one-on-one chargen sessions, communication outside of the game when dealing with problem players, and a host of other communication-related topics. Please provide a quote (and link to the thread) where I have done anything like what you are accusing me of doing, because I am quite insulted. As I said earlier, this is not for the first time you have done this type of thing.

As for the quote you posted, I didn't feel any pressing need to write a dissertation detailing the entire decision-making process in my games. I merely mentioned that house ruling (something you advocate whenever it suits your purpose) would not bother me, and as a GM it is ultimately up to me to make that final decision. You added the part about non-communication, assuming that my decisions would be made in a vacuum and then proclaimed from on high.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryu
post May 26 2008, 12:18 PM
Post #32


Awakened Asset
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,390
Joined: 9-April 05
From: AGS, North German League
Member No.: 7,309



A literal reading of the book seems to imply that your normal spellcasting dice are limited to force, while the successes added by rolling the edge dice count on top of that. The number of exploding dice would such be very limited (8 at most). While not an efficient use of edge for force 1 foci, this could be done for spells cast at max. "safe" drain. Seven hits instead of five for a point of edge? Be my guest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post May 26 2008, 03:35 PM
Post #33


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,341
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



But how do you tell which dice exploded and which didn't? Do you use different colored dice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post May 26 2008, 03:47 PM
Post #34


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,341
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Fortune @ May 26 2008, 03:39 AM) *
'Someone like me'?

Nice try, but not once have I objected to open communication between players and GMs. I have made numerous posts throughout Dumpshock's history (and even before) promoting intense, one-on-one chargen sessions, communication outside of the game when dealing with problem players, and a host of other communication-related topics. Please provide a quote (and link to the thread) where I have done anything like what you are accusing me of doing, because I am quite insulted. As I said earlier, this is not for the first time you have done this type of thing.


I also don't derail threads because I'm paranoid. Please take it to PMs.

QUOTE
As for the quote you posted, I didn't feel any pressing need to write a dissertation detailing the entire decision-making process in my games. I merely mentioned that house ruling (something you advocate whenever it suits your purpose) would not bother me, and as a GM it is ultimately up to me to make that final decision. You added the part about non-communication, assuming that my decisions would be made in a vacuum and then proclaimed from on high.

Actually, I seldom advocate for house rules. As far as final decisions go, I personally go out of my way to make sure that my rationales are ones that everyone can accept and hopefully enjoy, as opposed to ones I arbitrarily choose. Arbitrary GM decisions are usually the result of a (voluntary?) lack of communication.

To bring it back on topic, I don't see much difference between sustaining the Armor spell and using a focus, regardless of the number of successes it has. If it's game breaking to use a focus-- which apparently, you perceive it to be, because you're masking a house rule as canon to cover it-- then why isn't it equally game breaking to merely sustain the same spell, or get a bound spirit to do it for you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jackstand
post May 26 2008, 03:47 PM
Post #35


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 305
Joined: 15-January 08
From: Milwaukee, WI
Member No.: 15,298



You certainly could use different colored dice, or roll them on the side, or something.

QUOTE (Fortune @ May 26 2008, 01:47 AM) *
Yes, according to the latest from Synner, Adepts can indeed bond Power Foci. They are only useful in tests that actually include the Magic Attribute though, so are of somewhat limited use to most Adepts.


I stand corrected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryu
post May 26 2008, 08:25 PM
Post #36


Awakened Asset
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,390
Joined: 9-April 05
From: AGS, North German League
Member No.: 7,309



QUOTE (Cain @ May 26 2008, 05:35 PM) *
But how do you tell which dice exploded and which didn't? Do you use different colored dice?


While some of us do indeed have different dice for edge (a justification to have more cool kinds of dice on the table), you can always roll the edge dice separately. This is -to my knowledge- the only rule where it matters anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post May 26 2008, 08:41 PM
Post #37


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,341
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Ryu @ May 26 2008, 12:25 PM) *
While some of us do indeed have different dice for edge (a justification to have more cool kinds of dice on the table), you can always roll the edge dice separately. This is -to my knowledge- the only rule where it matters anyway.

Okay, if that's what you do, then that's cool.

But I still think it's confusing and difficult. If you spend Edge, all your dice explode. So, if I read you correctly, you'd first roll the regular dice and let them explode, but then cap that total number of successes based on force. Then you roll the Edge dice, which also explode, but now ignore the cap. So, let's say that I'm casting a force 5 spell with Edge. I roll my normal dice pool, which explodes, and I score 6 successes. I then roll 8 exploding dice, and score 4 successes. You'd say that I have an effective total of nine?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post May 26 2008, 09:32 PM
Post #38


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (Cain)
I also don't derail threads because I'm paranoid.


Just as I thought. When called on it, you can provide no quote or link to back up your publicly-made false accusations, so you revert once again to insults. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post May 26 2008, 09:46 PM
Post #39


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,341
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Fortune @ May 26 2008, 02:32 PM) *
Just as I thought. When called on it, you can provide no quote or link to back up your publically-made false accusations, so you revert once again to insults. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

Excuse me, but did I actually refer to you? All I said was that I, personally, am not paranoid; and I asked you to take this to PM. I don't think the mods here would appreciate us derailing this thread with pages and pages of citations attacking my character. All I'll point out now is that in just about every thread I've made for the last week, you've been right there with ready insults about me, but very little about my arguments. Anyone who wants to look up our posting history can see it for myself.

I asked you for a truce, in PM. So, anything public will go to the mods. Shall we drop this and get back on topic?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post May 26 2008, 10:24 PM
Post #40


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



Just a note: The accusation I am to which I was specifically referring was the one where you accuse me (or someone like me) of objecting to open communication. I stand by my public posts (feel free to report any of them to the Moderators if you feel the need), and do not appreciate the false inferences you have been making about me. I don't think it is that hard to back up any accusations made with actual evidence when requested.

As for a truce, I didn't even read your PM till well after my last response in this thread (and sent a reply as soon as I did read it). As such, I am perfectly willing to abide by any truce discussed there.
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: 18th September 2014 - 11:45 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.