[X] My Assistant

[Fortinbras]

Indeed it does, see previous topics on said theory.

I get that thems the rules, but that still makes no sense.

Well, I have it in my Street Magic Book. It really is not as powerful as most people make it out to be. All it does is Add Dice to the Benefactor, and is treated as a normal BGC for non-Aspectred Personnel. In an area equal to Caster's Magic Rating Radius. It is laughably Easy to avoid.

I have it listed in the appendix of my Street Magic book, but without a description of the actual spell. I think you underestimate the possibilities of the spell.
In any event the thing was erased from Shadowrun so it's lack of existence is as solid in foundation as Magic in space.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I get that thems the rules, but that still makes no sense.

I have it listed in the appendix of my Street Magic book, but without a description of the actual spell. I think you underestimate the possibilities of the spell.
In any event the thing was erased from Shadowrun so it's lack of existence is as solid in foundation as Magic in space.

If it is in the Book, it has not been erased. The spell creates an ASPECTED versaion of hte normal Mana Static Spell. So, as long as you know what taht means, you do not need any further exposition. I do understand its uses, but it is also very easy to avoid as well. Because of that, it is not as useful as other spells. In fact, it is generally a lot more useful in a static location than in a mobile location where the situation changes moment to moment.

Both Mana Static Spells are great for getting rid of opposition Spirits though. Probably better than Stun Bolt, dependant upon where you place it, though the Drain is a little more hefty.

[Fortinbras]

Sorry, but no spell description means no spell. Otherwise it's just your assumption.

If we have to accept that spells work in space via telescopes, we have to accept it all.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sorry, but no spell description means no spell. Otherwise it's just your assumption.

If we have to accept that spells work in space via telescopes, we have to accept it all.

So... You do not allow custom Spells in your game? Ever? Hmmmmm..... There is just as much description of the spell in there as there is for Swarm, or Physical Double Image, or Mass Agony. We all know what an Aspected Mana Field is (and how it acts, no assumptions involved at all). Do you really need to eat up additional Word count restating it? I don't. There is an entry in the Tables with the relevant information, that is enough for me.

[Fortinbras]

So... You do not allow custom Spells in your game? Ever? Hmmmmm..... There is just as much description of the spell in there as there is for Swarm, or Physical Double Image, or Mass Agony. We all know what an Aspected Mana Field is (and how it acts, no assumptions involved at all). Do you really need to eat up additional Word count restating it? I don't. There is an entry in the Tables with the relevant information, that is enough for me.

I do, but we're not talking about my game.

Feel free to make up and ignore any rules you see fit. As long as there is an "Explosions in Space" understanding between party members it's five by five.
But if I am to accept that mages can cast fireballs on the moon, because thems the rules, then you must accept that Aspected Mana Static is not a spell in Shadowrun.
It's just a spell it your Shadowrun.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I do, but we're not talking about my game.

Feel free to make up and ignore any rules you see fit. As long as there is an "Explosions in Space" understanding between party members it's five by five.
But if I am to accept that mages can cast fireballs on the moon, because thems the rules, then you must accept that Aspected Mana Static is not a spell in Shadowrun.
It's just a spell it your Shadowrun.

Hmmmmmmm, that's funny, since it is in my copy of the official Book... Seems like an official spell to me. And I treat it as such.

[Fortinbras]

Hmmmmmmm, that's funny, since it is in my copy of the official Book... Seems like an official spell to me. And I treat it as such.

An appendix entry does not a spell make. Without a spell description it's just you assuming what the spell does.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

An appendix entry does not a spell make. Without a spell description it's just you assuming what the spell does.

There is a Spell Description. Look at Mana Static. All Aspected Mana Static does is add an Aspect to the base Spell's Mana Static. No assumptions are necessary at all. Apsected Mana Zones are described in great detail in the book.

Not sure why that is so difficult, but No Worries. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Aku]

Who installed pong over my DS forums?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Who installed pong over my DS forums?

Heh... Sorry, had to laugh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Irion]

There is a spell description in the german book. *now running*

The spell is overpowered, but hey at least it is a permanent one. So no "I carry my own aspect mana static around with me so I never suffer from BC".
(But I am not sure of that,actually...)

[KarmaInferno]

Personally, I think that Background Count should be adding either a dice pool modifier or an increased threshold, not reducing ratings directly.

As it is it's a little TOO harsh to be imposing with regularity.

And a pool or threshold modifier scales better, you can use a low count in a lot of places and really ramp it up for particularly bad spots.




-k

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Personally, I think that Background Count should be adding either a dice pool modifier or an increased threshold, not reducing ratings directly.

As it is it's a little TOO harsh to be imposing with regularity.

And a pool or threshold modifier scales better, you can use a low count in a lot of places and really ramp it up for particularly bad spots.

-k

Interesting Solution... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Irion]

If it would be a dice pool modifier only, foci would not deactivate. But I have to say, it would cause less problems...

[HunterHerne]

If it would be a dice pool modifier only, foci would not deactivate. But I have to say, it would cause less problems...

Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"

For the record: I like Background Count as it is currently. But, it is an interesting idea being discussed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[HunterHerne]

For the record: I like Background Count as it is currently. But, it is an interesting idea being discussed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I agree. I use it regularily. It might be interesting, but not as interesting as BC as is, which is not just a modifier, but something that has a kind of sense of life, to me. YMMV

[Ascalaphus]

Background Count as-is seems to me to be a fairly straightforward system. Sure, it has a few problems, but on the whole it's easy to understand what it does.

You also don't really need a whole lot of it; 1-2 points make a location pretty edgy.

With more than that it becomes a plot device - that place where you'll have to make do without magic. Which can be interesting now and then.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Background Count as-is seems to me to be a fairly straightforward system. Sure, it has a few problems, but on the whole it's easy to understand what it does.

You also don't really need a whole lot of it; 1-2 points make a location pretty edgy.

With more than that it becomes a plot device - that place where you'll have to make do without magic. Which can be interesting now and then.

Indeed...

[Shinobi Killfist]

Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"

I'm not generally concerned with the harshness except for adepts who already are vastly over costed for their powers. But, I do think it is a bit of a pain in the ass to deal with and also makes very little world sense. BC 1 is really effing common, watchers don't exist in way too many areas, how do kids train/learn they have magic when they can't start off at 1 magic in most places people live, spirits aren't just having a harder time they actually become dumber etc.

[Nath]

BC 1 is really effing common [...] how do kids train/learn they have magic when they can't start off at 1 magic in most places people live

Unless the type of magic Awakened character come to practice always is the one their local Background Count is aspected toward. Afterall, there are few Heka magician born in Redmond Barrens, just like there are few Amerindian shamans in Cairo. Just an idea though (which works better with Domain created by religion, rather than violent murders).

[Shinobi Killfist]

Unless the type of magic Awakened character come to practice always is the one their local Background Count is aspected toward. Afterall, there are few Heka magician born in Redmond Barrens, just like there are few Amerindian shamans in Cairo. Just an idea though (which works better with Domain created by religion, rather than violent murders).

I'll give you that some traditions might work in BC areas, but whether it is the barrens or a corp enclave a BC of 1-2 is kind of common. Which in most cases would kick your budding magic down to 0 so you'd end up with no mages in most cases. The +X to the TN from previous editions made it harder so mages could kind of train up under harsh conditions. If it was -dice or +threshold budding mages could at least astrally perceive as a way for their magic to come out. And again it doesn't make much sense for spirit X to all of a sudden become dumber, have less will power, less charsima, less intuition, lost skills etc. Now the same spirit losing dice from his powers and actions, taking damage from being in a BC seems more fitting to me. Given how TNs scaled in previous editions I think BC was harder on mages before and I had no problem with that I just think the new BC hurts types who don't need to get hurt and makes less world sense.

[KarmaInferno]

Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"

Background Count as written works if you want to scare your players, take em down a few notches.

But they don't have much granularity of application. It goes from "okay, that's not too bad" to "OMG we're screwed" extremely fast.

So, if you want to be at all fair, you can't really throw more than 1s or occasionally 2s with regularity. If nothing else, it starts to seem punitive to the magic-based players.

Making it a test penalty gives a lot more gradual slope of difficulty, allowing you to apply the penalties with greater regularity without making it seem like you're out to get the players. You can still ramp the harshness up to extreme levels if you need to, but you now have a lot more steps between "okay, that's not too bad" and "OMG we're screwed".




-k

[Neraph]

Personally, I think that Background Count should be adding either a dice pool modifier or an increased threshold, not reducing ratings directly.

As it is it's a little TOO harsh to be imposing with regularity.

And a pool or threshold modifier scales better, you can use a low count in a lot of places and really ramp it up for particularly bad spots.

I actually like BC just as it is. I guess it may be because I know how to utilize it though - I've Judo'd the mechanics.

EDIT:

But they don't have much granularity of application. It goes from "okay, that's not too bad" to "OMG we're screwed" extremely fast.

Absolutely.

[longbowrocks]

If it is in the Book, it has not been erased. The spell creates an ASPECTED versaion of hte normal Mana Static Spell. So, as long as you know what taht means, you do not need any further exposition. I do understand its uses, but it is also very easy to avoid as well. Because of that, it is not as useful as other spells. In fact, it is generally a lot more useful in a static location than in a mobile location where the situation changes moment to moment.

Both Mana Static Spells are great for getting rid of opposition Spirits though. Probably better than Stun Bolt, dependant upon where you place it, though the Drain is a little more hefty.

Don't you remember? Aspected mana static got errata'd out. It's not in the latest copies of street magic. Possibly because the very idea of being able to cast a spell like that is so OP that it would drive everyone and their mother to play riggers with R2 redundant manufacturing on milspec drones.