Whats the problem with Shadowrun 3E ? Options

[nezumi]

I'm pretty sure in 3rd edition that anyone with an active sustaining focus was dual-natured, which meant they were attackable in the Astral (ditto for anyone Astrally Perceiving). It's not the same as grounding (your teammates were safe), but it was definitely a disadvantage to using sustaining foci to keep Mage Armor/Enhanced Reflexes on yourself.

In 3rd edition an active focus was dual-natured, and could be attacked by astral critters, or an astrally-perceiving mage was dual-natured and could be attacked. A beaten focus broke, a beaten mage went unconscious. Both could be averted by going physical-only, and neither were a direct threat to everyone around them.

2nd edition an active focus or perceiving mage were dual natured, and your astral-only mage could cast fireball at him -- which would then explode and cook everyone else in the room. This meant if you're a street sammie, you were suddenly very nervous about standing next to the mage, and a sustaining focus was a tool which threatened to kill EVERYONE, not just sink you $200k.

[Bigity]

I am pretty sure only active foci could be used that way, not a perceiving magician.


EDIT: Nope, nez is correct (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

On another note, I can't find references to grounding in SR1 rulebook. Did it get added in the Grimoire?

[Platinum]

I am pretty sure only active foci could be used that way, not a perceiving magician.


EDIT: Nope, nez is correct (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

On another note, I can't find references to grounding in SR1 rulebook. Did it get added in the Grimoire?

No ... Grounding is in the second edition main rules only.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No ... Grounding is in the second edition main rules only.

And Good Riddance... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[cleggster]

A quick house rule for grounding I did was that you can't cast a spell though a focus with a force higher then the rating of the focus. So casting fireball though a spell lock was kind of pointless. Through a rating 6 weapon focus, go nuts. Astral magicians (perceiving or traveling), were limited to there magic rating. Or was that as written? I can't remember.

Watch out for exploding mages!

[Bigity]

And Good Riddance... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Heck no, grounding is/was an awesome rule.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Heck no, grounding is/was an awesome rule.

Not Really... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Snow_Fox]

Jim Butcher writing a Shadowrun novel. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Excuse me while I squee at the mere thought...

HELLO NURSE!!!!!

[Blaze]

Nice to see some faces I recognise on here from the 3E days...

Personally I've not left them, in spirit at least. I can't really say I do much different under the SR4 engine than I did in SR3. I suppose it helps that my more experienced players also cut their teeth under the old system and come into the new with the same mindset.

SR4's given me a lot of advantages as a player and a GM. If anything it's lowered the power level, made things more gritty- the characters my players throw at me are, by and large, less heavily tooled and more in tune with the streets they work. And as a GM I can throw together games in half the time, and cover more ground- no more banning deckers as player-characters because I didn't want the rest of the group heading off on a beer run halfway through the session because they were bored.

Having said that, I do feel like I could tell a better yarn in SR3. I don't know if it was the state of the world in '60-'64, or the state of my mind when I was coming up with ideas, but I could keep a plot rolling a lot longer and come out of it feeling more fulfilled. I think the background of SR3 agreed more with me than the present. But then again, it depends on what backgrounds I'm handed as to where I think of going- if the characters are lower-level, so's the game. I could play at a higher power level- but then I may as well just dust off the SR3 books and practice my best maniacal laugh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[darthmord]

Heck no, grounding is/was an awesome rule.

I disagree. It was a horrible rule.

Such that even the anti-magic types in my gaming group at the time didn't like it. That said something since they were all for punishing magic users.

We didn't use Grounding or Spell Locks. Those things had other drawbacks beyond Grounding (rating 1 doesn't protect against much attacking the spell it is holding).

Then again, we all had played SR1 as well. SR2 for us was simply SR1 but a whole lot easier and faster to play.

[CanRay]

Bastards, the lot of you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I wanted to play 1st edition...

[JonathanC]

I think what feels most different about SR4 is that it feels like the setting has mellowed. I'm not sure why, but I can picture proper suburbs now, and people living in them. Before it felt like you wither lived in a burned-out apocalyptic nightmare like Redmond, or in some 1984-esque Arcology where the corp controlled everything. I can't put my finger on what changed my perception of the sixth world in SR4, but something did.


Also, thanks to Nezumi for clearing up the SR2/SR3 difference.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Heck no, grounding is/was an awesome rule.

While I think grounding was cool, I do think it could have been implemented better. I would have removed the whole area of effect part of it and just left it at it hurts the focus and the person linked to the focus. You want that reflex boost spell in a spell lock fine, just don't be surprised when you eat a powerbolt. Combined with the 2e initiative system and mages end up being fairly balanced, especially if you don't create a bunch of dodges around the grounding things 2 supplements in. Which reminds me in general if you create a limit in the core rules don;t make a dodge around it in a later supplement. If the limit was wrong patch it out, don't backdoor a fix.

Not that 2e was perfect, but it was my favorite edition.

3e screwed up 3 big things IMO.
Split the combat skill. More general skills work better IMO, 4e improved it a bit with the skill groups, but honestly 2e and 1e just did the skill lists better. I might split some of the skills but I am talking like 5 or 6 in total, and none of them would be weapon skills.

Changed the initiative system. Yeah I get it slow people arr bored and might get shot to hell, Well the fast people frequently have point sin the game where they are bored as well, let them shine where they invested their points combat.

Grounding being fully removed instead of tweaked.

Mid to late 3e it started to go wrong with fluff and power boosts but that was not core to the 3e system.

[CanRay]

Before it felt like you wither lived in a burned-out apocalyptic nightmare...

Thanks, now I'm feeling homesick.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I think what feels most different about SR4 is that it feels like the setting has mellowed. I'm not sure why, but I can picture proper suburbs now, and people living in them. Before it felt like you wither lived in a burned-out apocalyptic nightmare like Redmond, or in some 1984-esque Arcology where the corp controlled everything. I can't put my finger on what changed my perception of the sixth world in SR4, but something did.

Simple.... You got older and your perspective changed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Pendaric]

I'll borrow a saying of one of my dear aquaintance Mr Croup. "SR3 is four rules systems connected by a common game world."
With rules/fluff spread over to many rule books and power creep a revision was needed. Like a LAW rocket being more expensive than a ATGM for Frag sake!?

The actual ideas being introduced were not really flying but plodding and the fluff got too my special forces runner turned demi god and less my street punk surviving, (though they did telegraph the Crash 2.0 and wireless in Magic in the Shadows in mini plot FYI, the rest was save the world type affairs not what you can live with to see to tomorrow vs sticking it to the Man.."

Still run SR3 and love wringing SR4 for developments and things to surprise.

Each system has its flaws ~I just know them all in SR3, like vehicle combat rules should be avoided for a intense chase scene and dont let the deckers player think they can deck every system they can think of for hours of real world game play on pain of PAIN. And so you could cast magic when you were an embryo? magic user Nomad albino focused concentration... etc

"ah you have guessed my answer correctly player 1, please revisit your charater creation place or you may join the decker after his (last avoiding the game were here to roleplay) paydata month long crime spree penance."

It not that SR4 can not give great stories, its just that we have had lots of great stories with SR3 and dont really need to relearn a new set of tools to keep going.

CLG though needs to make money to pay for all that cool new stuff they are introducing to us so they can be creative and well eat.

[Snow_Fox]

Groundout spells through focus/fetish/locks/fancy undies whatever was that great tool the first time you let fly with it on the other guy, but the momment you realized it went both ways-it meant people were terrified of spending karma on their own stuff for fear the GM would burn it out 2 sessions later. It killed off the entire line of magic tools

[Bigity]

Not really. It kept them from being so commonplace you don't leave chargen anymore without 3 or 4, and made them powerful tools you used when you had to, not because 'why not?'.

[Blaze]

Still run SR3 and love wringing SR4 for developments and things to surprise.

I was going to say I knew a GM doing that to good effect, then I realised it was you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Zaranthan]

Not really. It kept them from being so commonplace you don't leave chargen anymore without 3 or 4, and made them powerful tools you used when you had to, not because 'why not?'.

You consider essence loss and penalties to drain tests "why not" material?

[Pendaric]

I was going to say I knew a GM doing that to good effect, then I realised it was you. wink.gif

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

[Pendaric]

Not really. It kept them from being so commonplace you don't leave chargen anymore without 3 or 4, and made them powerful tools you used when you had to, not because 'why not?'.

I dislike grounding both mechanically and for explaination to a new player.

The ease of saying nothing passes between the astral/ meat unless on dual natured target, SO ONLY MANA SPELLS from astral is a lot easier.

Mechanically, in SR3 the foci costs in nuyen and karma made them serious equipment with a serious investment. You may have a few sustaning/ expendable foci at char gen but not much else. And if your less than mini maxed or split skill, you need them badly.
Ever tried to magicaly heal a street sam with effective negative essence on the TN, for example?

[Platinum]

I dislike grounding both mechanically and for explanation to a new player.

The ease of saying nothing passes between the astral/meat unless on dual natured target, SO ONLY MANA SPELLS from astral is a lot easier.

Mechanically, in SR3 the foci costs in nuyen and karma made them serious equipment with a serious investment. You may have a few sustaning/ expendable foci at char gen but not much else. And if your less than mini maxed or split skill, you need them badly.
Ever tried to magicaly heal a street sam with effective negative essence on the TN, for example?

The bonding costs were the same in 3E as 2E. Instead of spell locks there were sustaining foci.

What grounding did was get rid of the guy running around with 20 active spell locks with spells of different ratings. It was difficult to ground through a focus of 4 or more. Quickening made things even more difficult if you doubled the karma input.

If a mage initiated, then he/she just masked them in his/her aura. Plenty of our mages carried foci. I don't remember anyone having been grounded through. We were selective on when we activated them, and generally kept them at high levels. 1 karma wasn't a lot to lose, and if something was grounded, there was always shielding.

[nezumi]

I'll borrow a saying of one of my dear aquaintance Mr Croup. "SR3 is four rules systems connected by a common game world."

Some people liked that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Although to be fair, some of those rules systems really didn't work (like vehicle combat, which you mentioned).

As for the rules ... SR3 didn't suffer from power creep as much as rules creep. A street sam with all the books would have only a slight advantage of a street sam with only the core book, if they went toe-to-toe. However, the former would be able to do a lot more, and have a lot more special rules and exceptions which apply. (But there were bugs, again, Rigger 3 holding a huge share.)

[Bigity]

You consider essence loss and penalties to drain tests "why not" material?

Focus addiction existed before SR4, so it's not like they added that in to replace grounding.

And grounding got less important after spell locks became sustaining foci, but it was still a counter for low level foci.