Problem with the Magic Attribute Options

[Mäx]

Before anyone goes all up in arms about FAQ ISN'T ERRATA ARAAGAHGALBRBL as has happened in the past, what this means is that the developers view their FAQ explanation as RAW. They aren't treating it as a rules change, just as a clarification for what's obviously become a confusing mechanic. Otherwise they would say "this is a better way of doing it" or "this is a rules change." No, they said "this is what the rule means. This is how dice pool splitting is done." Specializations and Foci aren't Dice Pool Modifiers. They "add to tests." They "add to dice pools." But they are not "Dice Pool Modifiers."

Then could you maybe tell us what kind of modifiers they are, because their not stat modifiers, nor are they skill modifiers.
There really aren't that many different kind of modifiers in this game and as neither Specializations nor Foci fit in to any of the smaller categories, they are part of the big group of dice pool modifiers.

And of cource we have this nice quote from page 61 of SR4A "Unless otherwise stated, any modifier mentioned is considered to be a dice pool modifier".

[Seerow]

Yup. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) So, choosing is RAW, and not increasing DV is RAW. *shrug*. You act like people are lying to you, instead of assuming they know the correct rules. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) No one (well, some crazy people) disputes that magic and direct mana spells can be imbalanced… that's the point of the thread. You're just re-proving it.

Well in both cases it's things that were added into the book as errata after I got my copy, with no way of knowing it had been made outdated. And this wouldn't be the first time I'd seen people complaining about something being OP while blatantly ignoring major balancing factors. In this case though I have to hand it to the developers, they find new and interesting ways to break their system every time I turn around..

[Draco18s]

Well in both cases it's things that were added into the book as errata after I got my copy, with no way of knowing it had been made outdated. And this wouldn't be the first time I'd seen people complaining about something being OP while blatantly ignoring major balancing factors. In this case though I have to hand it to the developers, they find new and interesting ways to break their system every time I turn around..

Check your book again, it was only ever a non-optional rule in the before-it-went-to-the-printer PDF.

As in, it was changed, due to discussions on this very forum, before it was official.

[Epicedion]

If that were the case then, those bonuses would not be called out as a "modifier" to the dice roll... The FAQ is trying to do an endrun around the non-existant Eratta. Everyone knows that. Yes, it is a terminology thing. But there you go. Specializations and Foci bonus dice are MODIFIERS to the skill roll. And Modifiers are added AFTER the split. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Even if that's the case, why is it such a huge sticking point? There are plenty of badly written rules out there, but this is the only one I see where one side is being heavily defended, and it just so happens that their version lets you double, triple, or quadruple up on bonuses.

There's an easy out that doesn't require violating some nonexistent professional code of tabletop RPG errata ethics.

As someone said previously, we can't talk about this stuff reasonably without some reasonable agreement on what we're talking about -- no house rules. Why are we forced to include a version of a mechanic that the game developers don't support as RAW, when that mechanic obviously breaks any semblance of balance in all the other mechanics we're discussing?

Sure, multicasting stunbolts can totally destroy high-Force spirits, if you use a version of multicasting that the developers don't support as RAW and lets you keep a third of your normal dice pool as a bonus to every roll no matter how many ways you split it. I'll grant you that. The fact that it has any bearing on anyone's game is kind of sad, though.

[James McMurray]

Yawn! Any chance of taking the off topic debate to another topic?

[James McMurray]

As someone said previously, we can't talk about this stuff reasonably without some reasonable agreement on what we're talking about -- no house rules. Why are we forced to include a version of a mechanic that the game developers don't support as RAW, when that mechanic obviously breaks any semblance of balance in all the other mechanics we're discussing?

Because this is dumpshock. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) The cool thing about it that we don't have to accept anything. Just ignore the people who disagree with you (and by extension the developers) and move on. Then perhaps the OP can get the help he's looking for instead of a rehash of an ancient argument that isn't going to change anybody's mind about anything.

[Epicedion]

Then could you maybe tell us what kind of modifiers they are, because their not stat modifiers, nor are they skill modifiers.
There really aren't that many different kind of modifiers in this game and as neither Specializations nor Foci fit in to any of the smaller categories, they are part of the big group of dice pool modifiers.

And of cource we have this nice quote from page 61 of SR4A "Unless otherwise stated, any modifier mentioned is considered to be a dice pool modifier".

Specializations add 2 dice to any tests made for that skill when the specialization is applicable to the test.

Spellcasting foci add their Force to a magician’s Spellcasting and Ritual Spellcasting dice pools.

Counterspelling foci add their Force in dice to any Counterspelling attempt...

Summoning foci add their Force in dice to any attempt...

Banishing foci add dice to any attempt...

Binding foci add their Force to the magician’s Binding + Magic dice pool...

When used in physical combat, weapon foci grant the character a dice pool modifier to melee attacks equal to their Force.

A power focus adds its Force to all tests in which the magician’s Magic is included.

One of these things is not like the other.

Compare to:

If the attacker is running at the time of the attack or during his previous action, the attack suffers a –2 modifier.

Shooting an unmounted weapon from a moving vehicle incurs a –3 modifier.

If the Attacker benefits from Good Cover, or his cover obscures his view, apply a –2 dice pool modifier to any attacks.

Attacks using weapons equipped with a laser sight receive a +1 dice pool modifier.

Characters utilizing a smartlink system and using a properly equipped smartweapon (see p. 322) receive a +2 dice pool modifier.

And so on in that fashion.

[Yerameyahu]

It's easy to look at it the other way: 'of *course* things are balanced if you blatantly interpret everything in a way that makes them weaker!'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I give Tymeaus a hard time (in a friendly way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ) about the way that his tables invariably have no problem with abuse of any rule, no matter how bad. The very fact that there's controversy over what the book even says, is itself imbalance, in that the rules fail to stop abuse. Right? So yes, we probably *play* with many house rules fixing everything, but you can't assume any of that when we discuss things together.

Good, Epicedion, but not good enough to get the writers off the hook. "Any attempt"? Is multicasting one attempt, or multi?

[Epicedion]

Because this is dumpshock. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) The cool thing about it that we don't have to accept anything. Just ignore the people who disagree with you (and by extension the developers) and move on. Then perhaps the OP can get the help he's looking for instead of a rehash of an ancient argument that isn't going to change anybody's mind about anything.

Eh, it matters for Magic. If "hey lookit what you can do with high Magic if you can multicast with a few billion positive modifiers on every piece of the split pool," then that's going to influence the overall power of the Magic attribute (the use of post-split modifiers actually serves to make the Magic attribute less important, since that Spellcasting Focus 3 is actually contributing 9 dice to your three-way stunbolt, making it the equivalent of Magic 9 for that purpose).

[Mäx]

One of these things is not like the other.

Compare to:



And so on in that fashion.

I have literally no idea what so ever what you trying to say.

But thank for posting the rule quotes, as you can see both the foci and specialization don't mention what kind of modifiers they are, so as the book tells us to do in situation like this, we consider them to be dicepool modifiers.

[Yerameyahu]

And, because I have no idea, how does this play out in Missions games?

[James McMurray]

Eh, it matters for Magic. If "hey lookit what you can do with high Magic if you can multicast with a few billion positive modifiers on every piece of the split pool," then that's going to influence the overall power of the Magic attribute (the use of post-split modifiers actually serves to make the Magic attribute less important, since that Spellcasting Focus 3 is actually contributing 9 dice to your three-way stunbolt, making it the equivalent of Magic 9 for that purpose).

High Magic is not a modifier, therefore High Magic is not the problem in a "lookit how I can manipulate the multicast rules" scenario. Sorry, but the argument is not pertinent to worries about high magic, as there is very little difference between someone with magic 5 and someone with magic 9 multicasting, regardless of which side of the argument the OP's group falls on.

Now sure, if the OP comes back and clarifies his concerns such that multicasting becomes a part of them, then it's relevant.

[Epicedion]

Good, Epicedion, but not good enough to get the writers off the hook. "Any attempt"? Is multicasting one attempt, or multi?

I'm not really letting the writers off the hook -- especially not since they essentially cut-and-paste those parts for 4A out of 4. I'll frown at them, but I'm not going to break the game just to prove a point.

Otherwise, the "any attempt" question is a good one. I'd side with one attempt, obviously, but I like to think I have a good reason: since multicasting is one complex action, it's one very complicated attempt to cast a number of spells. Even though you go down the list and roll for each spell test, technically they all happen at the same time. Otherwise you'd test for one, then Drain, then carry modifiers to the next spell. Since they don't happen sequentially (multiple attempts), they're all one attempt.

[Draco18s]

Eh, it matters for Magic. If "hey lookit what you can do with high Magic if you can multicast with a few billion positive modifiers on every piece of the split pool," then that's going to influence the overall power of the Magic attribute (the use of post-split modifiers actually serves to make the Magic attribute less important, since that Spellcasting Focus 3 is actually contributing 9 dice to your three-way stunbolt, making it the equivalent of Magic 9 for that purpose).

You tried looking into the "shoot two guns at once" split pool? It's almost possible to have more dice to each of two attempts than it is to put all your dice in one shot.

[Seerow]

You tried looking into the "shoot two guns at once" split pool? It's almost possible to have more dice to each of two attempts than it is to put all your dice in one shot.

This I've got to see.

[Yerameyahu]

Or 2 simultaneous attempts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm just playing devil's advocate, but that's the point: you *can* interpret things the 'good way' or the 'bad way', but the fact that there's a choice is the problem.

[Epicedion]

I have literally no idea what so ever what you trying to say.

But thank for posting the rule quotes, as you can see both the foci and specialization don't mention what kind of modifiers they are, so as the book tells us to do in situation like this, we consider them to be dicepool modifiers.

Foci and specializations aren't listed as modifiers at all, in the way that every dice pool modifier in the game is. The book is full of "provides a modifier" and "gives a dice pool modifier equal to" and so on. Foci and specializations are, as far as I've been able to determine, the only places in the book where they do not use the word "modifier" or the phrase "dice pool modifier" to describe the process of adding dice to a pool.

The argument is (and this is supported by the FAQ), that this is an intentional terminology change to keep foci and specialization dice different from things like range, cover, and visibility modifiers.

The line on p61 stating that otherwise unidentified modifiers are dice pool modifiers is there specifically to distinguish them from threshold modifiers, so that people wouldn't see "-2 modifier" and not know whether to make that a dice pool or threshold modifier.

Mechanically, foci and specialization are not modifiers in the same sense, since the designers did not call them modifiers. They treated them differently.

EDIT: The phrase "dice pool modifier" appears in the book 214 times, and the word "modifier" appears 620 times.

[Draco18s]

This I've got to see.

It's not actually "more than" because the base skill+attribute is halved, but you can get really, really close.

(Stat+Skill)/2 + Specialization + Smart Link + Reflex Recorder + TacNet + ProbablySomethingI'mForgetting.

[Seerow]

It's not actually "more than" because the base skill+attribute is halved, but you can get really, really close.

(Stat+Skill)/2 + Specialization + Smart Link + Reflex Recorder + TacNet + ProbablySomethingI'mForgetting.

Oh okay, here I was expecting something like a bonus that only applies while firing multiple weapons that compensates for the splitting and gets you more dice on each shot.

[Draco18s]

Technically speaking, one could have a specialization in their gun skill of "multi-shot" (or whatever you want to call firing two or more guns in the same complex action). You'd get the +2 dice to each pool that you wouldn't get if you took only 1 shot (although in order to surpass your single shot DP you'd need to have a Skill + Stat of 3 or less).

[Mäx]

(Stat+Skill)/2 + Specialization + Smart Link* + Reflex Recorder** + TacNet + ProbablySomethingI'mForgetting.

*doesn't work, you specifically lose all bonuses from smartlik and laser pointer when shooting akimbo.
** is an actual skill increase, so is added before the split.

[Draco18s]

Touche. I never built a guns-akimbo sammie.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Even if that's the case, why is it such a huge sticking point? There are plenty of badly written rules out there, but this is the only one I see where one side is being heavily defended, and it just so happens that their version lets you double, triple, or quadruple up on bonuses.

There's an easy out that doesn't require violating some nonexistent professional code of tabletop RPG errata ethics.

As someone said previously, we can't talk about this stuff reasonably without some reasonable agreement on what we're talking about -- no house rules. Why are we forced to include a version of a mechanic that the game developers don't support as RAW, when that mechanic obviously breaks any semblance of balance in all the other mechanics we're discussing?

Sure, multicasting stunbolts can totally destroy high-Force spirits, if you use a version of multicasting that the developers don't support as RAW and lets you keep a third of your normal dice pool as a bonus to every roll no matter how many ways you split it. I'll grant you that. The fact that it has any bearing on anyone's game is kind of sad, though.

Because, as Yerameyahu states (and many others for that matter), the only things that matter in a Discussiuon about RAW, is the RAW itself. Nothing else matters, not even a developers OPINION on the matter. Want to change the RAW, submit an Eratta. FAQ's just do not cut it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Eh, it matters for Magic. If "hey lookit what you can do with high Magic if you can multicast with a few billion positive modifiers on every piece of the split pool," then that's going to influence the overall power of the Magic attribute (the use of post-split modifiers actually serves to make the Magic attribute less important, since that Spellcasting Focus 3 is actually contributing 9 dice to your three-way stunbolt, making it the equivalent of Magic 9 for that purpose).

You could also say that about any rule that allows you to split the pools. Also, if you are not using the Nergative modifiers as applicable to each and every split, then you are doing it wrong as well. And since spellcasting uses Visibility modifiers (as well as several otherts), any not included are hampering your ability to control your table. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[TheOOB]

I don't get the argument people are making about multiple spellcasting, no where does it say you get to double dip with specilizations. SR4A pg.183 "Multiple spells may be cast with the same Complex Action, but to do so the magician must split her Spellcasting + Magic dice pool between each target." So, you split your dice pool, end of story. It doesn't say anywhere that anything applies to both rolls, simply that the pool is split.

Some supporting evidence: SR4A pg.60 "When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool. The dice pool is the sum of the relevant skill plus its linked attribute, plus or minus any modifiers that may apply". Modifiers are considered to be part of the total dice pool, which is, in fact, split as mentioned above.

So in short, someone having 6 magic, 4 spellcasting, 2 specialization, and 3 foci dice would be able to pull off an 8/7 split, not a 10/10.