IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Alternatives to the 4A OR table, Putting our collective melons together to find a solution.
The Mack
post Mar 22 2009, 02:56 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 15-March 09
Member No.: 16,972



Ok, this quote by Dunsany pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

QUOTE (Dunsany)
My conclusion is that the "nerf" was not necessary. The threshold was not "trivial" before, so changing it does not actually solve the proposed problem. Furthermore, I believe that little thought was put into the "nerf." The previous threshold was not "trivial" and the new threshold can only reasonably be reached with Edge (you require 20+ dice to reliably cast the simplest of spells that require OR thresholds). With regard to illusion spells specifically they already have a lot of limitations built in to each spell, never mind the limitations on magic in general. So, making a limited use spell less reliable makes it effectively useless. Claiming that the threshold has not changed for "security cameras" and so illusions remain effective ignores the fact that drones are prevalent (or perhaps just "common") in the setting. I have no real issue with direct combat spells (or combat spells in general) being less effective against technology. There are other uses for those spells beside destroying technology (though Ram/Wreck/Demolish seem...less than useless now). Illusion spells, on the other hand, have the purpose of fooling the observers. It only takes one person, or object, not being fooled to render the spell useless. With drones being "common" the spell will "commonly" be useless. That doesn't seem like a well thought out change to me. And given the responses from Synner so far, I've been given absolutely nothing to change my opinion on the matter.




With that in mind, my hope is that this thread will be one for constructive solutions to solve, what I see as, the problem with the new OR table.

I also hope this thread will not contain the arguments and griping, as there are already several threads dedicated to endless internet-style monkey sh*t fights over this (which I'm quite guilty of taking part in (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) .



The basics.

  • The new OR table makes many spells, beyond direct combat spells, all but useless against drones and anything else in the upper end of the OR table.
  • OR 6 is simply too high to be reasonable, and the basic example shadowrunners presented in the core book do not stand a chance of ever pulling off any of their physical illusions or physical manipulations.
  • Solutions will hopefully be clear, somewhat succinct should not mess with too many other, already established systems.
  • The goal is to reduce the effectiveness of direct combat spells against tech targets, while leaving illusions and manipulations their functionality. I'd personally like for the Ram/Wreck/Demolish line to actually be effective against the targets the spell was actually designed for, but I guess we can't have everything.



Others have posted some pretty interesting ideas already, and I just thought it would be good to have a thread where they can all be posted together. A thread where we can discuss the solutions in a coherent fashion.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gtjormungand
post Mar 22 2009, 03:11 PM
Post #2


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 31-July 08
Member No.: 16,182



What about leaving some abilities, like things that would cause the world to start falling apart, to much more advanced characters? The example shadowrunners are all STARTING characters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neraph
post Mar 22 2009, 03:29 PM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,542
Joined: 30-September 08
From: D/FW Megaplex
Member No.: 16,387



Leave the OR table as it was, but emphasize the 4+ part of it, especially for drones and vehicles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Mack
post Mar 22 2009, 03:29 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 15-March 09
Member No.: 16,972



Ignoring the troll...


Here's one idea, posted by Zormal.

QUOTE (Zormal)
I've been thinking about this, and the suggested houserule for making objects resist illusions seems to fit my style of play. An opposed test against Sensors/Rating + Clearsight makes more sense than having to overcome the OR, as you're not directly targeting the object with physical illusions anyway.


It's a step in the right direction. It doesn't help physical manipulations, nor does it help ram/wreck/demolish, but still it has merit.


QUOTE (Neraph)
Leave the OR table as it was, but emphasize the 4+ part of it, especially for drones and vehicles.


Probably my favorite idea. I like it because it leaves control in the GMs hands, allows room to challenge experienced characters, and doesn't require changing any of the spells/spell category descriptions.

A nice table of accompanying modifiers would work wonders.

-1 for small drones/cameras
-1 if previously damaged
+1 for direct combat spells (excluding ram/wreck/demolish), or spells attempting to destroy/alter the make up of the target
+1 or 2 for advanced prototypes
+4 for large vehicles
+6 for massive or heavily armored vehicles

etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shinobi Killfist
post Mar 22 2009, 03:38 PM
Post #5


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,431
Joined: 3-December 03
Member No.: 5,872



QUOTE (The Mack @ Mar 22 2009, 11:29 AM) *
Ignoring the troll...


Here's one idea, posted by Zormal.



It's a step in the right direction. It doesn't help physical manipulations, nor does it help ram/wreck/demolish, but still it has merit.




Probably my favorite idea.

This would allow for a table of OR modifiers,

-1 for small drones/cameras
-1 if previously damaged
+1 for direct combat spells (excluding ram/wreck/demolish)
+2 for advanced prototypes or machines hardened against damage
+4 for large vehicles
+6 for massive or heavily armored vehicles

etc.


Back in the old days of SR2 and SR 1 things like ram and wreck worked differently than a powerbolt with a limitation. While streamlined rules are cool and all, way too many things get hit and killed by the Everything must be the Same Train. Spells that are designed specifically for affecting objects should have a bonus to affecting objects. Though I personally like the sensor+clearsight rules for cameras and drones it just makes more sense.(I also think perception shoulod be added to the test for people) Anyways maybe for certain spells that are designated as designed vs objects spells the object resistance threshold can be lowered by something like 1/2 there spell casting skill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Mack
post Mar 22 2009, 03:43 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 15-March 09
Member No.: 16,972



QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Mar 23 2009, 12:38 AM) *
Anyways maybe for certain spells that are designated as designed vs objects spells the object resistance threshold can be lowered by something like 1/2 there spell casting skill.


I personally agree with you, but I've come to accept that the most likely reason for this nerfing was due to the unpopularity of indirect combat spells. Now I think they should have just improved indirect combat spells a touch and called it a day.

But that would require messing with Street Magic's Spell design rules (which I think was pointed out by knasser), which was most likely something that was to be avoided.

Even then, something like the following could work.

-1 to OR for spells that inflict direct damage on to specific targets.

But honestly, I think having ram/wreck/demolish at +0 is sufficient.



And another idea by knasser.

QUOTE (knasser)
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+).


Another interesting idea. It works for illusions, but not for physical manipulations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dunsany
post Mar 22 2009, 03:52 PM
Post #7


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 7-January 09
Member No.: 16,745



QUOTE (gtjormungand @ Mar 22 2009, 10:11 AM) *
What about leaving some abilities, like things that would cause the world to start falling apart, to much more advanced characters? The example shadowrunners are all STARTING characters.


I am absolutely all for this.

And to add something substantive to the thread:
If our goal is to make Direct Combat Spells less desirable against drones and higher end technology but leaving Physical Illusion and Physical Manipulation spells as effective as they are I have two separate suggestions.

The first would be to use the new threshold table only for Direct Combat spells and the old threshold table for everything else. You *could* further distinguish these spells as any Direct Combat spell designed to affect a specific technology reduces the OR threshold required. Perhaps by a straight modifier such as -1 or -2, to a minimum of 0 (or 1)? Or perhaps by referring them to the standard OR table. This method discourages Direct Combat spells on high end technology, but leaves other spells as effective as they are now. Further, it encourages specialized Direct Combat spells to destroy technology over the general spell whereas currently that encouragement comes through slightly less drain. It also encourages Indirect Combat spells against technology as they neither require extreme specialization (such as Ram/Wreck/Demolish) nor are they less useful against higher end technology. So for all around utility IC spells would be the most efficient spell to purchase.

The second would be to have Direct Combat spells add +1 or +2 to the OR threshold. If you would still like Ram/Wreck/Demolish you could easily exempt Direct Combat spells with their specific limitations. This method has the added benefit of making Direct Combat spells even less effective against lower end technology and further distinguishes it from Indirect Combat spells.

Both of these methods are slightly more complicated than a simple OR threshold change across the board. However, the extra complexity is a function of the goal, and, I believe, not all that difficult to follow. They're also less invasive. They involve a specific set of spells and have no effect beyond those spells (other than making some other spells more desirable, which is also intended.)

---
To be clear, I feel that the ineffectiveness of Physical Illusions and Physical Manipulations under the change comes from computers and drones being ubiquitous. Since they are so common, the spells do not serve any of their stated purposes. Keep in mind that the OR threshold tables are to 4+ (or 6+ under the change) and so less common technology would still hinder magic even more significantly, which I feel is appropriate.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Mack
post Mar 22 2009, 03:56 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 15-March 09
Member No.: 16,972



QUOTE (Dunsany @ Mar 23 2009, 12:52 AM) *
The first would be to use the new threshold table only for Direct Combat spells and the old threshold table for everything else. You *could* further distinguish these spells as any Direct Combat spell designed to affect a specific technology reduces the OR threshold required. Perhaps by a straight modifier such as -1 or -2, to a minimum of 0 (or 1)? Or perhaps by referring them to the standard OR table. This method discourages Direct Combat spells on high end technology, but leaves other spells as effective as they are now. Further, it encourages specialized Direct Combat spells to destroy technology over the general spell whereas currently that encouragement comes through slightly less drain. It also encourages Indirect Combat spells against technology as they neither require extreme specialization (such as Ram/Wreck/Demolish) nor are they less useful against higher end technology. So for all around utility IC spells would be the most efficient spell to purchase.

The second would be to have Direct Combat spells add +1 or +2 to the OR threshold. If you would still like Ram/Wreck/Demolish you could easily exempt Direct Combat spells with their specific limitations. This method has the added benefit of making Direct Combat spells even less effective against lower end technology and further distinguishes it from Indirect Combat spells.


I like the second better than the first, simply because 1 table with modifiers seems cleaner to me than 2 different tables.



QUOTE (Dunsany)
To be clear, I feel that the ineffectiveness of Physical Illusions and Physical Manipulations under the change comes from computers and drones being ubiquitous. Since they are so common, the spells do not serve any of their stated purposes. Keep in mind that the OR threshold tables are to 4+ (or 6+ under the change) and so less common technology would still hinder magic even more significantly, which I feel is appropriate.


I agree completely.



Another idea, by draco18


QUOTE (Draco18s @ Mar 22 2009, 03:08 PM) *
Started here.

I want to revisit this (original post's table below) such that an "average" and a "specialist" mage under starting points have a 55-60% chance of achieving OR4 (generalist) or OR5 (specialist) and that the objects in that category are logically proper targets for starting characters.

Physical OR
(That is, when targeted by a spell that alters its form: Shape [Material], Ram/Wreck/Demolish, etc)

OR0: small rocks, sticks
OR1: a living plant
OR2: a tree, simple electronic device (wrist watch), boulders (full cubic meters of natural material, including refined ores*)
OR3: small simple objects (security camera, micro-drone), processed materials (full cubic meters of plastic and other man-made materials of low structure)
OR4: larger machines (washing machines, small drones), advanced materials (full cubic meters of reinforced armored plastisteel)
OR5: simple vehicles (your average sedan, motercycles, large drones, etc)
OR6: complex vehicles (helicopters, small aircraft, semi-trucks)
OR7: large complex vehicles (747s, rockets, etc)
OR8: small buildings.
...

Mental OR
(That is, when subject to Illusions and Manipulations that are targeted on something else
OR0: any non-living small object of less than 0.25 cubic meters.
OR1: any plant, any technological device that can not perceive the magical effect. Microdrones (same as cameras, below)
OR2: Security Camera (also rolls any ClearSight autosoft for additional hits, if none then the camera's Rating, if none, then assume R1)
OR3: small Drones (also rolls ClearSight or Rating)
OR4: medium and large drones (+ClearSight or Rating)
OR5: any of the above with multi-band sensors (infared + visual specturms, etc).
OR6: ?

Any technological device that perceives with a sense that is not covered by the illusion/manipulation is theoretically immune. Treat its optical sense as the above for purposes of "success," however the sensor suite in question will still pick up the caster/target as normal per the uneffected sense.

For example, if a mage casts Improved Invisibility on himself in order to sneak past a camera with an ultrasound visual enhancement and gets 4 hits then the camera will not observe him on the visual spectrum, but will still "see" him with ultrasound. A turret is using this camera for targeting data; because the camera can't see the mage the turret treats its target as if it were concealed in full darkness using ultrasound, -3.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Mar 22 2009, 07:01 PM
Post #9


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

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



Oh nifty, I didn't even have to pull up my own thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Mack
post Mar 23 2009, 02:52 AM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 15-March 09
Member No.: 16,972



QUOTE (Draco18s @ Mar 23 2009, 04:01 AM) *
Oh nifty, I didn't even have to pull up my own thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


Nope. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think we have quite a few nice ideas here, although I'm still curious if people have ideas to add to them, or even completely different ideas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 09:38 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.