Bad statistics make a weak argument, the Illusion issue in SR4A Options

[Ryu]

One interesting fact for the discussion at hand is how the probabilities for having at least (a number of hits close to your mode result) hits look like. Figures that your mode is always around 60%, one less is 75-85%, one more is 35-40%.

Now we need the dicepool ranges that are to be expected from chargen:

Ideal Generalist

• Magic 6
• Spellcasting 6
• Power focus 2 (restricted gear 4)

Specialist add-ons

• mentor boni
• spellcasting specialisation
• spell category foci 3 (restricted gear 5)

DP Boosters

• Aid spell services 3-5
• Edge 2-7

Conclusion: The maximum chargen generalist spellcasting pool is 16. Category boni go up to 9, boosters up to 13 dice. Unless I´m missing something.
Derivative: If you look how samurai are usually build, a mage will have at least magic 5, spellcasting 5, a mentor spirit, and a power focus.
Hypothesis:
Mages were previously simply able to do anything without trying very hard. (Annectotal evidence: My own mage has magic 4 and spellcasting 4, and I´m certainly not playing gimped chars.) It was suggested that low magic, low skill mages that don´t have any foci are now out of luck on the hardest targets for their spells. I would assume that a change that makes foci way cheaper, and gives mages something to spend their money on, will improve the mundane/awakened balance. Each part of the ruleset has a "working range" of dicepools and thresholds, and the changes have made the system able to deal with dp´s of 15-20. (Some loss on the lower end is unavoidable, but spirits and many spells on many targets continue to work as before.)

Any statistical judgement on the new balance has to include that mages receive an effective 33% rebate on everything they ever used to buy before, excepting even more magic.

"Should characters right out of chargen be the benchmark for measuring whether the toughest OR objects in existence are defeatable?"

Honest answer? Yes, they should be able to be used as that. This would follow from the balance of the other parts of the ruleset. As per the analysis above, they can be, too.

[Zormal]

I think the simplest thing you could do (whether or not it meets your needs or not is something else), is to separate out sensors from whatever they're mounted on. I.e. if you use Improved Invisibility to get past a drone, then your threshold is that of the cameras mounted on the drone (i.e. OR 4 in the errata), rather than that of the drone itself (OR 6+).

Simple, elegant and functional.

Thank you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Malicant]

magic 5 spellcasting 5 mentor spirit 2 specialisation 2. if we wanted, we could also throw in a power focus (or spellcasting focus, if the mage is *really* tight on resources) 2, a spirit using aid sorcery, a ritual team casting the spell, and so forth.

Did you just try to invalidate my point by showing me a softmaxed specialist who will fail quite a lot at his speciality? Great job. I stand corrected. Not.

[The Mack]

I think the simplest thing you could do (whether or not it meets your needs or not is something else), is to separate out sensors from whatever they're mounted on. I.e. if you use Improved Invisibility to get past a drone, then your threshold is that of the cameras mounted on the drone (i.e. OR 4 in the errata), rather than that of the drone itself (OR 6+). This makes a good difference to the needed pool, maybe enough to be tolerable to those who don't want mages to have to be heavily min-maxed to pull this off, but it doesn't affect all the non-Illusion spells which necessarily target the whole device.

Bam! You have your bonus to Illusion spells, you keep your motivation to use Indirect Combat spells and the general hindering of magicians against technology.

Unless anyone can see any reasons why this wouldn't work, then I shall be doing this in my game, I think.

The only thing I see wrong with it is that it leaves physical manipulations still pretty nerfed.

I also think indirect combat spells needed a boost, as opposed to being made to look useful by nerfing a different option.


Maybe a thread dedicated to ideas and solutions on this problem would be more productive than the griping (which I'm most certainly guilty of).

Would you be interested in organizing such a thread?

Basically a thread that takes different suggestions and tries to come up with the best all around option. Maybe, just maybe, if it's really good it might even see the light in some errata.

Well, I can dream can't I? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[knasser]

The only thing I see wrong with it is that it leaves physical manipulations still pretty nerfed.

I also think indirect combat spells needed a boost, as opposed to being made to look useful by nerfing a different option.

Well the Physical Manipulation spells that are subject to OR are just Pulse, Ignite and Fix, I think. I can live with those. Remember that I actually am in favour of some tightening of the magician's remit. Boosting Indirects... some of the elemental effects are pretty nice and the magician can always pull out her assault rifle. If you want to boost them, I'd go with the simplest possible approach and just lower the drain by 1 or 2 according to preference (1 I'd recommend).

Maybe a thread dedicated to ideas and solutions on this problem would be more productive than the griping (which I'm most certainly guilty of).

Would you be interested in organizing such a thread?

Basically a thread that takes different suggestions and tries to come up with the best all around option. Maybe, just maybe, if it's really good it might even see the light in some errata.

Well, I can dream can't I? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

Start one yourself - you'd do a better job of it than me. I'm too swamped at the moment (it's why I've been posting so much - I'm working online this weekend). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Thanks for nice words earlier, btw. I try to be reasonable in all cases.

[suppenhuhn]

Ignite really isn't nerfed that much by the new OR. You can almost always simply ignite the low OR stuff close to the hightech things you want to see burning after all.

[knasser]

Ignite really isn't nerfed that much by the new OR. You can almost always simply ignite the low OR stuff close to the hightech things you want to see burning after all.

Agreed.

Enemy security guards still count as "low-tech" don't they? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[The Mack]

Agreed.

Enemy security guards still count as "low-tech" don't they? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Pretty sure pubic hair has an OR of 0.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[knasser]

Pretty sure pubic hair has an OR of 0.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Hmmmm. Better hope the run's not against Tir Taingire, then.

[AllTheNothing]

Hmmmm. Better hope the run's not against Tir Taingire, then.

Elves are described as having few body hairs, does this include pubic hairs? (Do they even have pubic hairs to burn?)
Anyway guards doing their job naked would be ....... not in the best working condition.

[Malicant]

Female guards using this... technique could be very devastating.

[pbangarth]

I think the simplest thing you could do (whether or not it meets your needs or not is something else), is to separate out sensors from whatever they're mounted on. I.e. if you use Improved Invisibility to get past a drone, then your threshold is that of the cameras mounted on the drone (i.e. OR 4 in the errata), rather than that of the drone itself (OR 6+). This makes a good difference to the needed pool, maybe enough to be tolerable to those who don't want mages to have to be heavily min-maxed to pull this off, but it doesn't affect all the non-Illusion spells which necessarily target the whole device.

Bam! You have your bonus to Illusion spells, you keep your motivation to use Indirect Combat spells and the general hindering of magicians against technology.

Unless anyone can see any reasons why this wouldn't work, then I shall be doing this in my game, I think.

This makes perfect sense to me, too. If you want to blow the machine away, use its OR 6. If you want to fool its 'sight', use the OR 4 of its 'eyes'. This corresponds directly to effects on living organisms: trying to kill it, use its BOD to resist. Trying to fool its perception, combat that capacity.

[knasser]

This makes perfect sense to me, too. If you want to blow the machine away, use its OR 6. If you want to fool its 'sight', use the OR 4 of its 'eyes'. This corresponds directly to effects on living organisms: trying to kill it, use its BOD to resist. Trying to fool its perception, combat that capacity.

I'm glad people like this. Simple quick fix!

[pbangarth]

I don't even know if this is a 'fix' at all. Maybe you just noticed the obvious, and like Columbus with the egg trick, showed it to us. Now we think it's obvious, too.

[knasser]

I don't even know if this is a 'fix' at all. Maybe you just noticed the obvious, and like Columbus with the egg trick, showed it to us. Now we think it's obvious, too.

Ah, if only. I think there was a post from Synner a couple of days ago that specified that the OR changed when the camera was on a drone, commlink, etc.

I had to use a search engine to learn about Columbus' egg, btw. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

K.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood you when you said it wasn't a "fix." I took that to mean that it wasn't at odds with the RAW. In fact it isn't though, just a comment by a dev in a forum. So maybe it is indeed like Columbus' Egg. So you're basically saying that I'm especially gifted at stating the obvious. Heh! There are those that would agree! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)