[X] My Assistant

[Epicedion]

Again... If a Dice Pool add is not specified (as Specialization and Foci are not), then they are considered MODIFIERS... Right there in the book. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

No, that's not what it says. It says that if a modifier is unidentified then it is a dice pool modifier instead of a threshold modifier. It says nothing about extra dice, as from Edge, Foci, and Specialization, which are not identified as modifiers in their relevant entries, even though every other instance of +/- dice in the book is identified as a modifier or dice pool modifier. They opted not to use that language to describe six foci, specialization, and Edge.

The MECHANICAL rule for splitting Dice Pools is in the Combat section. The Idea for Multiple Spellcasting is in the Next Chapter. What? You want them to keep reiterating a rule in every section that could apply? Not enough Word Count available for that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That's not how rules work. If they want the two-firearm rule for dice pool splitting to be generic, then it should be in the Game Concepts section and not specifically tied to two firearms.

I'm going to reiterate here that you're the folks that are trying to say this stuff is RAW so you can keep it in the discussion about Magic. The fact that it isn't in the book should probably deter you slightly.

[Cheops]

At Magic 6 it costs 35 karma to get to Magic 7. Instead I could spend 32 karma for an ally spirit which has force 4 and thus adds +4 dice to all my spellcasting and counterspelling pools (plus other nifty abilities). Alternatively I could get a Force 8 spellcasting or summoning foci and really rock out on one category (or Force 4 Power if I didn't already cheese out on that). Upping Magic Attribute is one of the least interesting ways to gain more power as a mage. Yay! I can now 1 shot anyone who is 2-shotted by a gun anyway! Woopie... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif)

And never forget that it only takes 1 initiation to start the quest for immortality.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No, that's not what it says. It says that if a modifier is unidentified then it is a dice pool modifier instead of a threshold modifier. It says nothing about extra dice, as from Edge, Foci, and Specialization, which are not identified as modifiers in their relevant entries, even though every other instance of +/- dice in the book is identified as a modifier or dice pool modifier. They opted not to use that language to describe six foci, specialization, and Edge.

That's not how rules work. If they want the two-firearm rule for dice pool splitting to be generic, then it should be in the Game Concepts section and not specifically tied to two firearms.

I'm going to reiterate here that you're the folks that are trying to say this stuff is RAW so you can keep it in the discussion about Magic. The fact that it isn't in the book should probably deter you slightly.

And yet, I still disagree with you, and have posted relevant sections of the rules that back me up... Apparently, though, that is not enough for you. So.....
Have a great evening... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

No, that's not what it says. It says that if a modifier is unidentified then it is a dice pool modifier instead of a threshold modifier. It says nothing about extra dice, as from Edge, Foci, and Specialization, which are not identified as modifiers in their relevant entries, even though every other instance of +/- dice in the book is identified as a modifier or dice pool modifier. They opted not to use that language to describe six foci, specialization, and Edge.

That's really seriously nitpick rules-lawyering there.

And this is coming from an obsessively min-max hyperoptimizing power-gamer.

If it's not a direct attribute or skill rating boost, it's a Dice Pool Modifier. Period.

To use any other interpretation creates a massive amount of headache as you have to examine the minute wording of every possible item and ability description to see if it's a "Dice Pool Modifier" or not. That's just silly. From a design point of view, that's a horrid idea.

Rules As Intended is kinda important too, especially since we KNOW the Rules As Written in Shadowrun sometimes are really poorly written.



-k

[Epicedion]

That's really seriously nitpick rules-lawyering there.

And this is coming from an obsessively min-max hyperoptimizing power-gamer.

If it's not a direct attribute or skill rating boost, it's a Dice Pool Modifier. Period.

To use any other interpretation creates a massive amount of headache as you have to examine the minute wording of every possible item and ability description to see if it's a "Dice Pool Modifier" or not. That's just silly. From a design point of view, that's a horrid idea.

Rules As Intended is kinda important too, especially since we KNOW the Rules As Written in Shadowrun sometimes are really poorly written.



-k

Actually the rules are very consistent in listing things as modifiers and dice pool modifiers. Since people are going out of their way to ignore RAI and rules-lawyer in their pet extra bonuses (even when RAW doesn't support them in the absolute strictest sense), especially in a discussion about Magic being super-powerful already, I think it's relevant to point out the holes in their reading of the far-and-away most abused poor wording in the book.

[Yerameyahu]

Psh. The "far-and-away most abused poor wording in the book"? There's tough competition for *that*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Draco18s]

You know what? Fine, all the dice go in, then you split.

So I'm going to multicast a Stunbolt and....A Heal spell.

6 Magic
4 Spellcasting (+2 for Health spells)
3 Spellcasting focus (Health)
2 Spellcasting focus (Combat)
1 Power focus
2 Mentor spirit (Bear)

6 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 20 dice.

So I got 20 dice, I split:

19 dice (Stunbolt)
1 die (Heal)

Compared to the 13 dice I'd have if I just cast the Stunbolt by itself.

[Scyldemort]

You know what? Fine, all the dice go in, then you split.

So I'm going to multicast a Stunbolt and....A Heal spell.

6 Magic
4 Spellcasting (+2 for Health spells)
3 Spellcasting focus (Health)
2 Spellcasting focus (Combat)
1 Power focus
2 Mentor spirit (Bear)

6 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 20 dice.

So I got 20 dice, I split:

19 dice (Stunbolt)
1 die (Heal)

Compared to the 13 dice I'd have if I just cast the Stunbolt by itself.

Well played, sir. Well played.

[Machiavelli]

I am curious if this would work with our GM. ^^ I didn´t read the whole topic but can you really choose how much dice you use for every action? I always thought you can only split equally (e.g. in half, quarter, etc.)

[Mäx]

So I'm going to multicast a Stunbolt and....A Heal spell.

Your using too many focis there, so thats not a rules legal move, but the following is.
My Norse tradition combat mage with:
Magic 6
Spellcasting(combat) 5(+2)
Spellcasting(combat) focus force 5
Mentor spirit Dark Goddess
Has a bound force 6 Guardian spirit to help in combat

Now she wants to cast Increase Charisma spell she learned to help the teams face. dicepool for this is:
Normally:
Magic 6 + Spellcasting 5 + mentor spirit 2 = 13 dice

With all modifiers added before split when she also casts a force 1 lightning bolt at the wall next to her:
Magic 6 + Spellcasting 5 + mentor spirit 2 + spec 2 + focus 5 + mentor spirit 2 + spirit using aid sorcery 6 + point blank 2 + massive target 2 - the dice used for the ligthning bolt 1
= 6+5+2+2+5+2+6+2+2-1 = 31, holy shit for 1 more drain we way more then doubled the casting pool for the spell.

I am curious if this would work with our GM. ^^ I didn´t read the whole topic but can you really choose how much dice you use for every action? I always thought you can only split equally (e.g. in half, quarter, etc.)

From page 183 of SR4A the important part bolded by me
"Casting Multiple Spells: In some circumstances, a magician
may seek to cast multiple spells simultaneously (including multiples
of the same spell—for example, targeting two different opponents
with a mana bolt in the same action). 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. Additionally, the
Drain Value for each of the spells is increased by +1 per additional
spell (Drain Resistance Tests are also handled separately). Multiple
spells are resolved in whatever order the caster desires. The maximum
number of spells a character can cast in a single Complex Action is
equal to her Spellcasting skill, and each spell must be allocated at least
one die."

[Fringe]

I am curious if this would work with our GM. ^^ I didn´t read the whole topic but can you really choose how much dice you use for every action? I always thought you can only split equally (e.g. in half, quarter, etc.)

If I were GMing that table, I'd rule that each spell could only be modified by compatible bonus dice; in the latest examples, I would allow the combat focus dice to affect only the combat spell (and the health focus only on the health spell), and the mentor would only affect spells it would normally modify.

[Irion]

Why should the foci/Specs etc be applied if one spell is the needed category?
(Max is even applying both!)

This I see often in rule discussions people aim only for the most benefitial option possible.

The other possibility would be:

Magic 6
Spellcasting(combat) 5(+2)
Spellcasting(combat) focus force 5
Mentor spirit Dark Goddess
Has a bound force 6 Guardian spirit to help in combat

You get a pool of 6+5=11 and are allowed to use it as you please!
And wow, all the problems go away. Strange.


Does not mean I do not see the reasons why to apply afterwards. (But this would then also be true for wounds, vision etc.)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I am curious if this would work with our GM. ^^ I didn´t read the whole topic but can you really choose how much dice you use for every action? I always thought you can only split equally (e.g. in half, quarter, etc.)

You choose how many Dice to apply to each test. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Why should the foci/Specs etc be applied if one spell is the needed category?
(Max is even applying both!)

It is an extreme example to show (prove?) that you split the Dice pool PRIOR to applying modifiers to the spells being cast. Any other method is just flat out ignorant, as the example shows.

[Irion]

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Not quite.
It is one possible interpretation how applying modifiers to the dicepool before splitting could look like.

Technically speaking it is an straw man fallacy.

I just find it funny, that most people always go for the most benefitial interpretation. Which in this case is also the one making an argument for your (?) side.

[Epicedion]

Of course I use the RAI method and only allow the smallest pool to be split (so you can't use a specialization, combat spellcasting focus, mentor spirits, etc, if you're mixing spell types).

But we are of course talking about RAW. Strictly speaking, the system doesn't explicitly tell you how to apply modifiers to Magic dice pool splitting, as it tells you in the combat section for attacking with two weapons. While I can't say that your method is a good one, it does require about the same amount of making stuff up as any other method.

I'm curious about applying multiple foci to one pool, though. I skimmed through the rules and couldn't find any mention of it, for or against. Is there something that disallows this, or is it kosher?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Not quite.
It is one possible interpretation how applying modifiers to the dicepool before splitting could look like.

Technically speaking it is an straw man fallacy.

I just find it funny, that most people always go for the most benefitial interpretation. Which in this case is also the one making an argument for your (?) side.

Perhaps, but I would say that there are more people "on my side" of the argument, as you so eloquently put it, than on yours.
And it is not a Straw man Fallacy.

Splitting is detailed in multiple places. For spells, you MUST go through the steps.
Step 3 tells you to splity the pool (Skill + Attribute)
Step 4 indicates that Modifiers now apply.

I don't know. Doing it that way is the same as the Combat method detailed in the Combat section. Why would you argue for different mechanics for the same basic principle? The example that was provided shows the absurdity of doing it the other way.

Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mäx]

I'm curious about applying multiple foci to one pool, though. I skimmed through the rules and couldn't find any mention of it, for or against. Is there something that disallows this, or is it kosher?

From the SR4A page 199:
"Regardless of the number of foci a magician may possess, only one focus may add its Force to any single dice pool."

[Draco18s]

Your using too many focis there, so thats not a rules legal move, but the following is.

I actually do not see why.

[Epicedion]

Perhaps, but I would say that there are more people "on my side" of the argument, as you so eloquently put it, than on yours.

That's a fallacy itself. That it has more supporters doesn't make it necessarily correct.

My entire point, which got left behind about six days ago, is that the rules for these things are ambiguous. In that ambiguity, people have settled on the method that gives them the most extra dice without being completely egregious, as Draco's method went -- rather, they attempted to follow earlier precedent. But earlier precedent doesn't make RAW, and the popular choice here inflates low-drain mana spell multicasts to the point that it partially breaks the usefulness of other systems, including overcasting and banishing.

[Mäx]

I actually do not see why.

See my post right above yours.

In that ambiguity, people have settled on the method that gives them the most extra dice

Actually as my example showed, the "apply modifiers before split" method can give much more extra dice and from sources that make no sense.

[Draco18s]

See my post right above yours.

Ah, of course. Duh.

[Irion]

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Perhaps, but I would say that there are more people "on my side" of the argument, as you so eloquently put it, than on yours.

Thats what I said.

And it is not a Straw man Fallacy.

Oh yes it is exactly the definition. It is an example trying to show how ridiculous the idea of Epicedion is. This is achieved by using assumptions he never made.
This is the definition of a Straw man Fallacy.

The kind of argument in the quote above I do not recall how it is called but there is a nice saying about it:
Shit has to taste good, millions of flys can't be misstaken.

Numbers do not count if it comes to right or wrong. As a matter of fact I mostly am under the imperession that the side with the "numbers" tends to be wrong.
(Looked at it from both sides. And I am not even saying we have a disagreement here at this topic)

This happens often, because the bigger side tends often to just reuse argument used by another "follower" of their position. So a mistake made by one is soon adopted by everyone. If you are the minority you have (in the case of for example a Shadowrun debate) check your rulebook for arguments.
Very funny if both sides are wrong in the beginning. Even if the majority was closer to the truth in the beginning, chances are good that this will switch.

[Mäx]

Oh yes it is exactly the definition. It is an example trying to show how ridiculous the idea of Epicedion is. This is achieved by using assumptions he never made.
This is the definition of a Straw man Fallacy.

There are zero assumptions made in that example, it purely follows RAW except that it applies all the modifiers for spell casting in to the pool before splitting it.

[Draco18s]

Oh yes it is exactly the definition. It is an example trying to show how ridiculous the idea of Epicedion is. This is achieved by using assumptions he never made.
This is the definition of a Straw man Fallacy.

Alright fine then, show us an example that follows the rules as YOU see them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

Because modifiers before the split get you dice to a spell that you would not normally get (by casting two DIFFERENT spells, which is VALID, the rules only say "casting multiple spells, such as a lightning bolt at two targets").