[X] My Assistant

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I consider my characters to be part of a professional shadowrunning team.
A min-maxed character is someone who was polishing their gun while the face negotiated for a larger reward, thinking about recoil mechanics while the hacker brought down security, and shooting at the range while everyone else was partying, elated with their success.

A min-maxer doesn't care about those other abilities, and doesn't want to spend time on them. He doesn't need to if the rest of his party is up to date on their roles too.
That's how I see it anyway.

Which is valid, but generally does not care about things such as believability and Verisimilitude. I prefer Believability. You can be Professional and have the appropriate skills, and STILL be part of a team. All I said was that your character better be believable. If it is not, then back to the drawing board you go. There are not a lot of players that need to go back to the drawing board with me. Why? Because I assist in developing the character they have in mind.

[TheOOB]

I am curious, TheOOB. Why is a Mage, with a Magic Attribute of 2, not a character that is intended to be played as a Magician? Mine is quite powerful, even with such a low attribute. And no, he does not have any Bio or Cyberware. HE has ewven managed to survive in a game for almost 200 Karma. And yes, still only a Magic of 2. I will soon be raising it to a 3, mind you, but it is not a priority. Is he incapable fo harming anyonw with a Direct COmbat Spell. Most Likely. That would be why he does not have any. Of teh 31 Spells he currenlty has access to, he has NO Combat SPells and NO Illusion Spells. And yet, somehow he manages to provide immeasurable help to his team. He is a Support Mage to be sure. And has a lot of secondary skills to make himself useful when his magic is compromised. But he is a useful addition the team nonetheless.

So, please enlighten me as to why I am abusing the system with this character, as you indicated above. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

As for the comparison th Firearms. The standard rebuttal is that the damage from Guns can be mitigated after Defense, while Direct Damage Spells only get a paltry, Single Attribute (+ Possible Skill) for Defense, and there is no Damage Mitigation. Now, for the recoed, I agree with what you said, and do not agree that Direct Damage Spells are broken. But that is the argument.

If a character has a magic attribute of 2, their magical ability is very weak and easily countered, which means they will have to rely heavily on their mundane skills to solve most problems which means that they are not being played as a magician. I'm not saying a GM should not allow a low magic character on occasion(though 1 player role playing a weak character ruins the role play of the other characters who wouldn't be caught dead running with those people), just that those type of characters are kinda irrelevant to any discussion about game rules and power levels.

I understand the debates for why people think direct combat spells are overpowered, I used to try to nerf them too, but significant play time and testing have proven that unless you're facing mecha troll in milspec armor, guns will be more effective.

[Falconer]

I can see giving an extra body or willpower test to reduce damage on a direct spell.

But I severely disagree w/ using any attribute except willpower to resist spells. Intuition already has enough uses, spell resistance shouldn't be one of them.


Another problem I see with this whole mess is everyone forgets about visibility mods and cover (which apply to spellcasting and defense against spellcasting). So 2 attributes against one... which gets defensive bonuses and casting penalties. Also it's a complex action... while only a simple action to fire a gun. So while each gunshot has twice as many tests (and effectively 3 things reducing damage... armor, body, & reaction)... people shoot twice as often.


If direct spells are a problem... I suggest just using the basic optional rule in SR4a. Any net hits used to increase damage increase the drain by +1 each. Someone taking 4 drain off a force 11 stunbolt is going to feel it. 4 drain is enough to not reliably soak it often.

I also strongly agree w/ returning to the original SR4 rule on counterspelling indirect spells. SR4a applying it to the reaction/dodge test is much too effective. It was a lot better when it just gave some extra dice to soak the damage afterwards. Does anyone know why this rule was changed at all?!

[toturi]

Professional means PROFESSIONAL... not Newb... Skills of one indicate someone with so little training that they cannot be called Professional. Stats of one indicate bare functionality for people. Seeing these on characters, who by background have been in the shadows for years, indicates a severe disconnect between the concept and the sheet. If you are okay with that, more power to you. I on the other hand prefer a bit of connection with the concept. More so than just a handwave.

Yes, I know that you cannot always get what you want on the sheet, and I will often make some allowances. But Severe Min-Maxing, as seen often here on Dumpshock, results in a character than has almost no basis in the concept. It is just a pet peeve of mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That is untrue. Skills of 0 indicate someone with so little training that they cannot be called professional at the task. I disagree that to be professional, the skill level has to be Professional. To be a professional the character has to be able to achieve what the professional can do in the course of his work.

Thus a skill of 1 and an Attribute of 5 will match the abilities of an average Professional. Min-maxing (minimising weakness and maximising strengths) should produce characters that fit the fluff because the weaknesses will be minimised.

There are various subsets of shadowrunners, shadowrunners do not do it all. As long as the primary skill/s in which they ply their trade is at a Professional or higher rating, then the fluff would indeed fit the stats.

If you give me a character concept that says you are an elite Ex-Spec Ops Team Member, and then your sheet shows me that you can shoot A Single category of Weapons - say Automatics (4-5), have a decent amount of Stealth (Group Skill so 3-4) and all other skills are at 1-2? I will tell you to go back to the drawing board. That is enforcing Fluff. I expect a certain level of believability in my games. And a character such as that breaks verisimilitude 6 ways from Sunday.

Why is such a character unbelievable? Fluff should be enforced, but it cannot and should not be enforced rigidly if there can be a plausible in-game explanation for it. Must every Spec Ops Team Member have Etiquette/Negotiation/Hacking at 3? If I am told to go back to the drawing board, I will come back with the exact same character because I do not really see anything that breaks verisimilitude, much less 6 ways to Sunday. He is a shooter, he shoots and loots pretty good. He wasn't there to hack the NSA's database, he wasn't there to talk the hostage taker into surrendering. He was there to do the takedown. Would he be unable to do so? I do not think so.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If a character has a magic attribute of 2, their magical ability is very weak and easily countered, which means they will have to rely heavily on their mundane skills to solve most problems which means that they are not being played as a magician. I'm not saying a GM should not allow a low magic character on occasion(though 1 player role playing a weak character ruins the role play of the other characters who wouldn't be caught dead running with those people), just that those type of characters are kinda irrelevant to any discussion about game rules and power levels.

I call BS on your entire line of reasoning here. A Magician is not a Magician because he can be easily countered? Really. What Crap. A Magician with a MAgic Attribute of 2 is just a Low-Average Powered Magician. That is all. Are you going to tell me that if you take the Sam's Guns and other weapons away, he is useless because he is easily countered? That he is weak withiout his weapons?

You really should read what you write. You are basically saying that someone who actually plays to concept is a drain on the team. That would be news to the Team my mage runs with. I mean really, how can they stand the charcter that is the Face, The Discrete Infiltrator, The Tracker/Shadower, and the Backup Gun Bunny. Not to mention the very useful spells he often casts for them. I am not even sure why he is even there. He must really be a waste of my time.

Just WOW...

[Yerameyahu]

Depends on the concept. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As you know, your tables and teams are weird. He only said that a Magic 2 is probably more mundane than mage; this seems like a decent statement. You're the one who said that you'd reject people for daring to specialize (in a perfectly realistic manner).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That is untrue. Skills of 0 indicate someone with so little training that they cannot be called professional at the task. I disagree that to be professional, the skill level has to be Professional. To be a professional the character has to be able to achieve what the professional can do in the course of his work.

Thus a skill of 1 and an Attribute of 5 will match the abilities of an average Professional. Min-maxing (minimising weakness and maximising strengths) should produce characters that fit the fluff because the weaknesses will be minimised.

Someone with a Skill rating of "1" is a "Beginner." Skill rating of "2" is a "Novice." Neither of these terms fits with a Professional. Which is what I mean by Fluff Matters. IF you want to play a Beginner or Novice, have appropriate skills. If you want to play a Professional, have appropriate Skills.

Likewise, There is a difference between matching the number of successes, and having equal skill. Unfortunately, for your argument, the characters do not have the same skill. One has a bit of natural talent, and the other is much more highly trained. The character with the higher Skill, however, has more knowledge of that skill and its applications. Raw Talent will only take you so far, after all. Which is why I argue that Skill Fluff Matters.

There are various subsets of shadowrunners, shadowrunners do not do it all. As long as the primary skill/s in which they ply their trade is at a Professional or higher rating, then the fluff would indeed fit the stats.

Except there are a lot of characters, here on dumpshock, and at tables that I game at, that do not even fit that criteria. Which is what I indicated earlier.

And, How many of those characters have a Skill that is Higher than it should be? How many characters do you see with Skills of 6 or 7? In my opinion, there had better be a hell of a reason to have a 6 or 7 for a Skill (and should be heavily backed up in the character's concept). Even Skills at 5 are often questionable. And yet, GM's just allow it because, well, because the rules say you can do that. My first question for a character like that would be why they are not working with the Corps. Because they sure as hell would have been headhunted with skill ratings in that range.

Why is such a character unbelievable? Fluff should be enforced, but it cannot and should not be enforced rigidly if there can be a plausible in-game explanation for it. Must every Spec Ops Team Member have Etiquette/Negotiation/Hacking at 3? If I am told to go back to the drawing board, I will come back with the exact same character because I do not really see anything that breaks verisimilitude, much less 6 ways to Sunday. He is a shooter, he shoots and loots pretty good. He wasn't there to hack the NSA's database, he wasn't there to talk the hostage taker into surrendering. He was there to do the takedown. Would he be unable to do so? I do not think so.

Having all Etiquette/Negotiation/Hacking Skills at 3? Nope, notice that that was not what I indicated.

As an example. Since you (the prospective Ex-Special Forces Operative, have relevant skills in Automatics and Infiltration, What other skills should you likely have:

Tactics
Leadership
Armorer
Survival
Pistols
Heavy Weapons
Demolitions
Unarmed Combat
Bladed Weapons
Thrown Weapons
Climbing
Swimming
Running
Instruction
Navigation
Tracking
First Aid
Several Knowledge Skills I could likely name off as well, dependant upon Specialty or Interests.

As a Radioman, I also would expect:
Electronic Warfare

Additional Specailty Skills would also Include:
Parachuting
and Diving.

I was in the Marine Corps for 8 Years... Spent Time in the Desert During the Gulf War, and have a fair "level" in all of the above Skills (with the exception of Parachuting and Diving). Many of them would likely fall into the Skill 3 Category, and some of which approach 4's and 5's. And while a Marine Corps Infantryman is better trained than your Average Army Grunt, They are not The SAS, or SEALS. That Spec Ops Character better have most of those skills (Some can slide dependant upon Spec Force), at pretty significant levels if he wants to be a Spec Ops Character. Putting those skills at a 1 JUST WILL NOT CUT IT with me. So, you either alter the character to make it as it should be, or you change your concept. Not that hard of a concept really.

AS for your Inference that a SF guy only needs to Shoot and Loot good, well, you obviously have little expereince with what it takes to be a SF guy. Those kind of people wash out in the first day or two. Which may be where our disconnect is.

These are the criteria that I promote in the games that I run. They are not as onerous as you are making them out to be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Depends on the concept. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As you know, your tables and teams are weird. He only said that a Magic 2 is probably more mundane than mage; this seems like a decent statement. You're the one who said that you'd reject people for daring to specialize (in a perfectly realistic manner).

Yes, My characters tend to be a bit more concept driven than those here on Dumpshock. I can agree with that 100%.

No, he said that it was not utilizing the Mage as he was intended to be used, and should not be allowed, because it was rules gaming. And I say BS.

And that was Not what I said Yerameyahu, and you know that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I said that their character sheets should match their concepts. Completely different thing all together. I have no problem with Specializations. As long as it does not wholly compromise the concept of the character. When it does, well, we start over again.

Ex. Someone who rarely fires a gun, should not have a skill of 4 in Firearms. Someone who is supposed to be a Veteran Console Cowboy should not have a Skill of 1 OR a Logic of 1. I have seen both of these concepts. Not going to happen, at least not in one of my games.

I am sure that I could go on and on... And I am sure that you have seen much the same as I have. Difference is, I tend to not accept a character like that. By the same token, I do not tend to design a character like that either (Which is why you belive that my characters are a bit on the weird side (Heavens, I am not throwing 20+ Dice for anything)). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
But you know something? I/We Must be doing something right, because, as I have said before, we rarely have any issues at our table with the rules. That is not something that many Dumpshockers can say, at least as evidenced by the proliferation of the "How do I fix this" topics found here.

[Yerameyahu]

He didn't say it shouldn't be allowed. He said this: "I'm not saying a GM should not allow a low magic character on occasion".

Let's not open the Logic-hacking thing again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

All I know is that you said your 'normal team' is 3 mages of varying power (including very high) and a Res 8 technomancer… plus an assassin. Glass houses. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There *is* no difference between one DP 6 and another DP 6. That's the whole point. The fluff says one (illogical thing), and the crunch says another.

[toturi]

Someone with a Skill rating of "1" is a "Beginner." Skill rating of "2" is a "Novice." Neither of these terms fits with a Professional. Which is what I mean by Fluff Matters. IF you want to play a Beginner or Novice, have appropriate skills. If you want to play a Professional, have appropriate Skills.

Having all Etiquette/Negotiation/Hacking Skills at 3? Nope, notice that that was not what I indicated.

As an example. Since you (the prospective Ex-Special Forces Operative, have relevant skills in Automatics and Infiltration, What other skills should you likely have:

Tactics
...
Several Knowledge Skills I could likely name off as well, dependant upon Specialty or Interests.

I was in the Marine Corps for 8 Years... Spent Time in the Desert During the Gulf War, and have a fair "level" in all of the above Skills (with the exception of Parachuting and Diving). Many of them would likely fall into the Skill 3 Category, and some of which approach 4's and 5's. And while a Marine Corps Infantryman is better trained than your Average Army Grunt, They are not The SAS, or SEALS. That Spec Ops Character better have most of those skills (Some can slide dependant upon Spec Force), at pretty significant levels if he wants to be a Spec Ops Character. Putting those skills at a 1 JUST WILL NOT CUT IT with me. So, you either alter the character to make it as it should be, or you change your concept. Not that hard of a concept really.

AS for your Inference that a SF guy only needs to Shoot and Loot good, well, you obviously have little expereince with what it takes to be a SF guy. Those kind of people wash out in the first day or two. Which may be where our disconnect is.

These are the criteria that I promote in the games that I run. They are not as onerous as you are making them out to be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

The criteria are as onerous as I am making them out to be. The rest of the non-mission critical skills can be 1 or 2 if the associated attribute is high enough or there were tools that aid in the task. You are a professional shadowrunner, but you do not do it all. You bring to the table a certain skill, therefore you should have professional levels of skill for that skill. Other skills may well be necessary for shadowrunner, but you are not being hired for those skills, so those other skills can be 1 or 2. As to why the character is not being headhunted by the corps? Who is to say that he is not? Does being a shadowrunner preclude working or being headhunted by the corps?

You get dunked into pool with all your gear. You must make it to the other side within a certain time limit (the threshold). You get there in the time limit or you flunk out. It doesn't matter if your technique(skill level) enables you to get there within the test timing or you brute force your way through the water with minimal skill(attribute). Hell, maybe you got lucky. It doesn't matter how if you crossed that line on time, just so you fucking do it. (Does the previous line sound like someone talking? Probably so, because this is exactly how I recall my instructor shouting it to me.)

Although I am ex-military(which I did not bring up until you did), I am not an SF guy and I do not claim to be so. But I do know that at the very heart of it, the soldier's primary mission is to get on the ground and kill the enemy. Anything less is mission failure. I have heard a saying, "Every Marine, a rifleman." They do not say every Marine, a runner or a swimmer or something else or other. Thus at the very base, I expect an ex-Marine to have good Longarms (not Firearms, just Longarms, maybe Automatics if the primary issued weapon is an Assault Rifle). Everything else is secondary. He may be out of training (lower Athletics skill group). He might be able to read a map and use a compass (skill 1), but he forgot the finer points of navigating in triple canopy jungle or survival in the balls-freezing artic (skill 3). The last time he even touched a LAW may be a long time ago, he could probably figure his way around to firing it (skill 1) but he probably won't be able to nail that APC on the move as he would have years ago.

Can you say that as an ex-Marine, your combat skills have not atrophied? I know my skills at arms have. I know ex-commandoes (or ex-PTIs for that matter) that I can outrun. I know ex-ossifers that can't shoot for shit (but their eye-power remain exceptional). Hell, I can honestly tell you I have only a faint idea of how to use that field dressing (which I would say that it is as good as defaulting). The character isn't a Special Ops character. He is an ex-Special Ops character. So I would probably think that at least some skill deterioration is called for unless the backstory can show why those skills have not.

[toturi]

There *is* no difference between one DP 6 and another DP 6. That's the whole point. The fluff says one (illogical thing), and the crunch says another.

There is no difference in what one DP 6 and another DP 6 can accomplish. How that task is accomplished may well be different and that can be reflected in the fluff; one is more skillful than the other but the other simply has more in-born talent.

[TheOOB]

Methinks I hit a nerve.

My intent was to say that when someone mentions a magician in the context of shadowrunners, we make a logical assumption that they are referring to a strong, professional magician with good magic who's major contributing factors to the team are their magical abilities. Further, when talking about game balance issues, we typically assume fairly optimized characters who are specialized in their roles. A magic 2 magician has no place in a thread talking about house rules for combat spells, and honestly has no place in most shadowrunner teams.

When your group creates a team, and everyone decides what role they are going to play, and one player says "magician", the other players(and the GM) are going to make a logical assumption that your character is going to be a strong magician who's major contributing factor to the teams abilities is their magic. When you show up next week with a magic 2 mage, for most teams you are going to be letting them down. A magic 2 magician cannot take a grunt out in a single hit, cannot reliably create an illusion or influence someone, and their spirits are easy to take out using small arms fire(heck they have to over summon to get an optional power). In short, they are not fulfilling the role that a team's magician is supposed to fill, and most teams would be better off leaving the liability on the wayside and recruiting a real magician. In short, your not really playing as a magician as a magician is understood to be, and by the rules the GM can nix your character if they believe it would be disruptive to their campaign.(And to pre-counter my counter arguments, playing an under-powered character is disruptive to most campaigns)

Now on the flip side, you could be playing another, mundane, archtype, who also happens to have the magician quality and have some spells to back them up in their role. That way the team and the GM will not have false expectations of what you can do, and it will be known that your magical ability is an accessory to what you do, and not your primary driving force. However, due to the cheap cost of the magician quality, these builds can get rather abusive, and the GM is within their rights by the rules to not allow such a character.

Now suppose you have a team and players who are fine with you playing a magic 2 magician, for whatever reason, then great, play that character, as long as everyone else is having fun. However, that is a really unusual case, and it mystifies me why it was even brought up.

[longbowrocks]

A magic 2 magician is relying on hits from the dice pool to use binary hit/no hit spells, which typically won't be of the combat variety. This build has a place, but it's not in direct combat spells.

[Mäx]

If direct spells are a problem... I suggest just using the basic optional rule in SR4a. Any net hits used to increase damage increase the drain by +1 each. Someone taking 4 drain off a force 11 stunbolt is going to feel it. 4 drain is enough to not reliably soak it often.

And i suggest you come up with pretty much any other possible house rule or use one of those provided in this topic or the previous ones.
Because that rule is really really bad and doesn't really do anything else then encourage the mage to either overcast or multicast(or both) every direct combat spell she uses.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The criteria are as onerous as I am making them out to be. The rest of the non-mission critical skills can be 1 or 2 if the associated attribute is high enough or there were tools that aid in the task. You are a professional shadowrunner, but you do not do it all. You bring to the table a certain skill, therefore you should have professional levels of skill for that skill. Other skills may well be necessary for shadowrunner, but you are not being hired for those skills, so those other skills can be 1 or 2. As to why the character is not being headhunted by the corps? Who is to say that he is not? Does being a shadowrunner preclude working or being headhunted by the corps?

I disagree... They are not onerous. And I never said that you must do it all. I said that your Sheet should (and in my games, must) match your Background. It is not very common here on Dumpshock. I will give a shoutout to Canray here, becasue out of almost everyone else here, the characters I have seeen him detail are well fleshed to background. Of course, There are a few others as well, but it is a rarity in the land of "How can I get the best Dicepools I can get." I often think that everyone gets so caught up in the Massive handful of dice that they can roll that they forget about what is important about the character.

You get dunked into pool with all your gear. You must make it to the other side within a certain time limit (the threshold). You get there in the time limit or you flunk out. It doesn't matter if your technique(skill level) enables you to get there within the test timing or you brute force your way through the water with minimal skill(attribute). Hell, maybe you got lucky. It doesn't matter how if you crossed that line on time, just so you fucking do it. (Does the previous line sound like someone talking? Probably so, because this is exactly how I recall my instructor shouting it to me.)

Although I am ex-military(which I did not bring up until you did), I am not an SF guy and I do not claim to be so. But I do know that at the very heart of it, the soldier's primary mission is to get on the ground and kill the enemy. Anything less is mission failure. I have heard a saying, "Every Marine, a rifleman." They do not say every Marine, a runner or a swimmer or something else or other. Thus at the very base, I expect an ex-Marine to have good Longarms (not Firearms, just Longarms, maybe Automatics if the primary issued weapon is an Assault Rifle). Everything else is secondary. He may be out of training (lower Athletics skill group). He might be able to read a map and use a compass (skill 1), but he forgot the finer points of navigating in triple canopy jungle or survival in the balls-freezing artic (skill 3). The last time he even touched a LAW may be a long time ago, he could probably figure his way around to firing it (skill 1) but he probably won't be able to nail that APC on the move as he would have years ago.

Every Marine a Rifleman. And yes, Every Marine is a Runner or a Swimmer. Itr is practiced, and you must "qualify" each and every year. I did. Expected to have Longarms and or Automatics at the minimum. The unit I was in, we ALL crosstrained on heavy Weapons and Demolitions. Tjose who specialized in ti were obviously Better. Buit Everyone Knew how to do them,. This does not fit the "Begginner" or "Novi e" level of Skill in the book. Yes, Most of them would not move beyond a skill of 3 in those things, but they were proficient. Hell, even the Admin Guys had that training. Evrything else is NOT secondary. If you cannot be stealthy, you kill your team member. If you cannot patch him up on the Fly, you lose that team member. If you cannot navigate, you never make it to the Rendezvous point.

I will agree that IF you come to me with a concept that indicates your skills have atrophied due to lack of use, I allow it, but ALL of those skills better still be on the sheet. And yuour "Combat Skills" better not be 5+. THAT is my complaint. I often see various versions of "Former Military" and yet the Combat Skills are outrageously High, and the support skills are either at a 1 (rare) or non-existant (most of the time). This does not make sense. And this is what I complain about.

Can you say that as an ex-Marine, your combat skills have not atrophied? I know my skills at arms have. I know ex-commandoes (or ex-PTIs for that matter) that I can outrun. I know ex-ossifers that can't shoot for shit (but their eye-power remain exceptional). Hell, I can honestly tell you I have only a faint idea of how to use that field dressing (which I would say that it is as good as defaulting). The character isn't a Special Ops character. He is an ex-Special Ops character. So I would probably think that at least some skill deterioration is called for unless the backstory can show why those skills have not.

Outrunning a Commando is not the issue. Running for 3 hours is. Can you still do that? Can you do that with a 60+ pound combat Load? I know that I cannot, but then, I never could do that comfortably. Though I can Hump a Combat Load all damn day... STILL. Ironically, the only fireamrms skill that has deteriorated is my Pistol Skill, as I do not have an opportunity to use it much, though my skills with other such weapons are still pretty sharp (hunting and all that). I have often complained that the distinction between the Firearms skills are pretty nebulous. There is a huge amount of overlap between Longarms, Automatics, and even Heavy Weapons (Machine Guns anyways) technique wise. But that is the division they chose to go with. So I won't touch on that much. And yes, my expertise with Rockets and Missiles may also be lacking a tad bit, as it has been awhile. However, because of that intensive training I received (and the sheer number of such weapons that I have fired over the years), it would only take a coupole of rounds of either to regain competance (Just like riding a bike, you know). Same with Pistols. Keeping in mind that I would not have allocated more than 3-4 Skill levels to either to start with (My Firearms Groupd would be split, and all would have specialtied), assuming I was looking at a character sheet of myself. Anything that is mostly knowledge based I tend to not forget all that much. So strictly technical skills (like Armorer, Demolitions or First Aid) I would say that there has been litttle to no degradation of ability, though some of the new technologies in Demolitions may give me a moment of pause. But honestly, the only things that change in that field are generally the materials used (technique rarely changes), and it is still easy to come by the good old standby's (Dynamite, TNT, C4), so I do not see a huge re-learning curve there.

I don't know, maybe I am different. ALL the things I learned in the Corps, I still have a good, working knowledge of. Maybe that has to do with the way I learn things, I do not know. Suffice it to say that, having learned manyof these things to the level that I do not even think actively about most of them, they have become almost innate.

Simple example: I have been often told that I am somewhat creepy in social situations, mostly because of the way I move and interact. Most, if not all, of that is because of my military training. Simple things, like always checking lines of sight, maneuvering to optimal placement within a group, or even a room, keeping an eye on those who are deemed "questionable," eyes constantly on the move, noticinng the little things that most people completely ignore. It creeps people out, and it is something that I do not do consciously. I would give myself the Negative Quality - Nasty Vibe because of this. The ways in which I interact constantly puts people on Edge. I have heard this for many, many years. It is an incredibly difficult thing to suppress, because it has been hammered into me so thoroughly I do not even think about it. The only people who are comfortable aropund me are other Marines, or Military personnel who have been in active combat. Most would call it strange. I would not.

I am still amazed that people are discussing this. What is so criminal (or wrong, for a less volatile term) about making the character adhere to their concept? It is a standard that Most of the GM's I have gamed with follow. It was how I was introduced into the gaming world. It often amazes me that not all of you do this. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There is no difference in what one DP 6 and another DP 6 can accomplish. How that task is accomplished may well be different and that can be reflected in the fluff; one is more skillful than the other but the other simply has more in-born talent.

Indeed... This is exactly it. Accomplshment and Skill are not the same thing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Methinks I hit a nerve.

My intent was to say that when someone mentions a magician in the context of shadowrunners, we make a logical assumption that they are referring to a strong, professional magician with good magic who\'s major contributing factors to the team are their magical abilities. Further, when talking about game balance issues, we typically assume fairly optimized characters who are specialized in their roles. A magic 2 magician has no place in a thread talking about house rules for combat spells, and honestly has no place in most shadowrunner teams.

How arrogant. First, I do not assume that we are immediately talking about an optimized Magician when a Magicial character is mentioned. I assume that we are talking about an individual who has an actual place in the game world. The fact that the AVERAGE magician (across the board) has a Magical Attribute of 3 apparently makes no difference to you.

Secondly, why, exactly, does a Magic 2 character have no place in a thread talking about House Rules for Combat Spells? And Why does he have no place in a Shadowrunning Team? The first is extremely relevant to prove that Direct Damage Spells are NOT overpowered in the least. It is simply a perception that does not bear up. The second is so subjective that I am amazed that you even brought it up. The FACT that is occurs in games I play in refutes completely your assumption. And in fact, the Magic 2 Character is far more valuable of a character due to the sheer versatility that he brings over the Combat Spells that the others bring. If he wants to cause Damage, He is going to use a Weapon, not spells.

When your group creates a team, and everyone decides what role they are going to play, and one player says \"magician\", the other players(and the GM) are going to make a logical assumption that your character is going to be a strong magician who\'s major contributing factor to the teams abilities is their magic. When you show up next week with a magic 2 mage, for most teams you are going to be letting them down. A magic 2 magician cannot take a grunt out in a single hit, cannot reliably create an illusion or influence someone, and their spirits are easy to take out using small arms fire(heck they have to over summon to get an optional power). In short, they are not fulfilling the role that a team\'s magician is supposed to fill, and most teams would be better off leaving the liability on the wayside and recruiting a real magician. In short, your not really playing as a magician as a magician is understood to be, and by the rules the GM can nix your character if they believe it would be disruptive to their campaign.(And to pre-counter my counter arguments, playing an under-powered character is disruptive to most campaigns)

Wrong. No Assumptions are, or should be, made. When we create a team, we talk about what we want to do. then we do it. The team knows exactly what they will be getting. The Magic 2 character IS a strong magician. Just not an overly optimized monstrosity that has no real place in the world. Magic 2 can reliably do everything that you indicated above. It takes some planning and forethought, but it can be done. If you think that it cannot, then you do not put enough thought into your characters. Let me ask you thins. If you were playing a Mage with a Low Magic, whether he started out that way, or ended up on the path to Burnout, what would you do to make yourself useful? That is the connundrum of the Low MAgic MAge. It is not all that hard to solve, actually, but it is something that takes some thought. Subtlety is your friend when you have a Low Magic Rating. You will never pull of the flashy magic that the High magic Combat Mages do, and that is okay. Want a combat mage that will let everyone know where he is, get that Magic 6 Mage. Want a Mage that is forced to be innovative because his Magic Rating is a little lower? Well, there are plenty of them out there. There are FAR more mages with a Magic Attribute of 2-3 than there are with a Magic of 5-6. The Magic 2 character will be force to find alternatives to directly attacking something, and you know what? It works. The Magic 2 character will likely not leave carnage in his wake. And you know what? That is good. A MAgic 2 character is definitely filling the role of a Mage, as it was meant to be filled. Just not at a world shaking power level, as you claim all of your mages are. Not everyone can be a Mage with a 5 or 6 in MAgic Attribute.

Your argument about Spirits is even weaker. You can take out a Force 6 Spirit with Small Arms quite easily, so whjy is a Force 2-3 Spirit a problem?

You really do not get Magic if you believe that anything under Magic attrribute of 5 is useless.
As for Underpowered. The character I play has MORE options than any other character in the game, for solving problems. So, he cannot incinerate a Tank where it stands with a simple wave of his hands. Big deal. Can that Combat mage be Subtle? I have yet to see it. The biggest problem with Magic that I can see is that when you play a High Magic Attribute Mage, you want to use that High Magic Attribute. They choose the big spells, Why? So they can solve everything with Big Explosions, and Big Effects. The argument that any Background Count shuts down a Low Magic MAge is false, it just forces them to compensate in some other way. Can a High Magic Mage do the same? Of course he can, but that is not the point.

Now on the flip side, you could be playing another, mundane, archtype, who also happens to have the magician quality and have some spells to back them up in their role. That way the team and the GM will not have false expectations of what you can do, and it will be known that your magical ability is an accessory to what you do, and not your primary driving force. However, due to the cheap cost of the magician quality, these builds can get rather abusive, and the GM is within their rights by the rules to not allow such a character.

This is the epitome of what you are complaining about. A mage who is not fulfilling the role of the Mage. You cannot have it both ways here. And I can guarantee you this. My GM and My Team have no False Impressions of what My Mage character can do. And the Mage I play is a Mage in all its Glory. He just does not have a High Magic Rating. A high Magic Rating is not a Requirement to play a Mage. Your opinion notwithstanding. It is sheer arrogance to claim otherwise.

Now suppose you have a team and players who are fine with you playing a magic 2 magician, for whatever reason, then great, play that character, as long as everyone else is having fun. However, that is a really unusual case, and it mystifies me why it was even brought up.

It was brought up to counter the arrogant assumptions that you must have a High Magic to Play a Magician Character \"Correctly,\" as was earlier stated (by you, if I remember correctly).

[Yerameyahu]

Except accomplishment and skill *are* the exact same thing in SR4. That was my whole point when I first mentioned this. I said, 'hey, isn't it funny that these are the same thing in SR4, like we've talked about many times?'. Facrissake. All this whining about 'arrogance' this and 'playing wrong' that, and we can't even agree on this obvious and basic point?

[fazzamar]

And i suggest you come up with pretty much any other possible house rule or use one of those provided in this topic or the previous ones.
Because that rule is really really bad and doesn't really do anything else then encourage the mage to either overcast or multicast(or both) every direct combat spell she uses.

This. My group is currently using the house rule that drain = (F/2) + mod + number of hits target gets on resist test
While it doesn't change how powerful direct combat spells are, it does put a bit more risk into casting it. We haven't had a lot of testing with it and I'm worried about the first time the group faces a high willpowered + counterspelled NPC could equal in an unconscious mage real quick like.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Except accomplishment and skill *are* the exact same thing in SR4. That was my whole point when I first mentioned this. I said, 'hey, isn't it funny that these are the same thing in SR4, like we've talked about many times?'. Facrissake. All this whining about 'arrogance' this and 'playing wrong' that, and we can't even agree on this obvious and basic point?

No, they aren't, or they would not have a metric for what each skill level represents. The fact that such a thing exists indicates that they are NOT the same. As Toturi pointed out. There is a vast difference between someone who is an Expert in their field, and someone who just has a lot of natural talent.

I will agree that there is a disconnect between the two, because the vast majority of players are in it for the Honking big Dice pool, and could care less about what everything actually represents. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And it is not whining, is is discussion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[sabs]

I like to do 2 basic rules for fixing magic combat spells.

1) no multi-casting.
2) When over casting, drain goes from F/2 to F

[sabs]

Tymaeus, I have the opposite problem.

I feel that the DicePool system does not represent the skill fluff properly. It's is very irritating to me that the difference between an expert, and the best in the field, is an average of 1 hit. (or 3 dice) Which can easily be overcome with the right use of augments.

[Yerameyahu]

Exactly. The fluff table is wrong, as I said. The dice reflect the actual reality, because they determine who wins and/or what you can do.

sabs, do you find that anyone overcasts then? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[sabs]

Actually yes, people overcast in dire situations, and usually they spend edge on the drain (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mäx]

I disagree... They are not onerous. And I never said that you must do it all. I said that your Sheet should (and in my games, must) match your Background. It is not very common here on Dumpshock. I will give a shoutout to Canray here, becasue out of almost everyone else here, the characters I have seeen him detail are well fleshed to background. Of course, There are a few others as well, but it is a rarity in the land of "How can I get the best Dicepools I can get." I often think that everyone gets so caught up in the Massive handful of dice that they can roll that they forget about what is important about the character.

I don't know, from what i have seen it's pretty common on characters that are actually ment to be played, instead of being a dicepool exercise.