Shadowrun 5 & a lot more in 2013! Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Can you make a starting character that hits Augmented Maximum on all of their physical attributes, regardless of metatype, without a Possession spirit being involved? While simultaneously changing all their Mental attributes to 6, 9, even 12?

I know I don't think I could.

But a Troll, Egyptian tradition, with a F6 Possession ... can hit Body 15, Agility 7, Reaction 9, Strength 15, Charisma 6, Intuition 6, Logic 6, Will 6, Edge 6. Which only requires a Magic of 3 to pull off (and putting the physical attributes 6 points shy of augmented maximum, each).


Total side note: I'd prefer if Possession boosted only ONE attribute at once, even for a willing possession. It would seem a lot less "broken" / overpowered, if that were the case.

I know what you are saying _Pax. I just do not have those experiences at our table. Yes, it could be an issue.

Side Note: I agree that boosting of Stats could be minimized to bring the power down, and I would even go so far as to NOT include the Cognitive (mental) abilities in that Boost. Instead, I would replace attributes (mentally) with the Spirit's Attributes, unless the Summoner had the Channeling Metamagic, which would keep his own attributes instead (which may be exactly how it works anyways, I don't remember of the top of my head). Of course, this may make no difference if you are summoning Force 6+ Spirits. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Or even just take the best and use those. An amalgamation of the Stats, which ever is best at the time. *shrug*
Which, now that I think about it, I actually like. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Though not really a big deal to me, as we do not have broken possession mages currently. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Lionhearted]

You wouldn't be able to cast spells unless you had channeling metamagic TJ, it's required to get access to your own skills.
Exception being a spirit of man.
and you don't add mental attributes you use the spirits, but you resist spells with the lower of the two if you have channeling.

[Stormdrake]

What about how Shadowrun Returns is doing Shamans and Mages? They decided to seperate the two by having Shamans be summoners and mages spellcasters? As the dev for Shadowrun Returns explained this was done to make the two distinct because of developments in 4th edition. Thats not word for word but gets the idea across. This seperation seems rather logical, gives players two distinct magic using types (not counting adepts) with very diffirent ways of affecting the sixth world.

I don't think they would ever do this as 4th edition went out of its way to erase the seperation of shamans and mages in the rules.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You wouldn't be able to cast spells unless you had channeling metamagic TJ, it's required to get access to your own skills.
Exception being a spirit of man.
and you don't add mental attributes you use the spirits, but you resist spells with the lower of the two if you have channeling.

And the downside is?
Yeah, okay, that's right. Mentals use the Spirit's and resist with the lowest with Channelling.

Been a while since I actually played a possession mage that actually was possessed but his own spirits.

[Lionhearted]

Not much of downsides, same as normal spirits... Don't like background count, can be banished, don't like wards, and they must roll a check to possess.

@Stormdrake Wouldn't work without reworking spirits. ♪ Everything you do I can do better ♪

[_Pax._]

Probably a good idea to have both ways done, and have one (probably the simplest) be the base, and have the other be an optional rule.

No. Best to have it one way only - and have the Official Traditions published in the books be made with the point-build system, and very carefully balanced against one another.

Then, a GM can say "no custom traditions."

That gives the benefit of your suggestion, but retains the integrity of the point-build system. Just like how Advanced Lifestyles work: any of the Basic versions, are exactly and perfectly modelled by the Custom Build system. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Falconer]

TJ:
Yes that's one of the 'tricks' of possession mages... you bind yourself something big but 'safe' you can probably survive like a force 9. Then you make use of channeling to order it to possess you for an extended period... And before you argue that... it's easy... you bind a lower force one to start like say a force 6 spirit of man... with increase attribute spells innate... use it to augment your own drain attributes to the max. Then proceed with the summoning with 18+ dice and edge at your back for the drain check... you only need to have at least 1 physical left on the track for it to work...

During this time while you have this big boy possess you... all your mentals are 9. All your specials are 9 (magic and edge). And the only time you use the lower (yours) is when you're actually resisting a spell cast at you.

All that for the low low cost of only 10-11 karma after play starts for your first initiation with ordeal... 5 karma more to join a magical group which will pay for itself in two initiations. (probably centering next to help with summoning drain)


Also by strict RAW. The channeler has full access to both the SPIRITS and his own skills... so if that's a spirit of man... congrats you have spellcasting 9 (as well as a whole load of other skills like assensing and perception)... which a normal mage has no way whatsoever to boost. I do not believe this is the RAI... but even I have to admit that the RAW gives the channeler full access to both his and the spirits skills... (which aren't subject to the 6 rank limitation yet another boondoggle which comes up with spirits and another reason I argue skills should be returned back to the old days of going 1-12 and not capped at 6). So that above of using your lower attribute to resist spells is even got around if the spirit has magical guard and counterspelling above 6.


This is why task spirits on the fly are such a problem with possession... instant skillwires training in any technical skill.. if they're only force 3-5 rarely a drain threat too.


Your continual thing about needing a vessel has never been a problem. I've seen a lot of possession types carry prepared vessels with them... even if they aren't fully articulate... something as simple as a ring works. Also the check to possess an unwilling is generally 2 higher attributes vs one... making it the exception to the rule for it not to work.

Even moreso as I've often watched possession types... astrally project and leave their fully armored and equipped body as a vessel for their spirit who is far scarier than they are. In doing this they do not lose their actions... and can even act astrally to heal themselves! (I heal my astral form... healing my possessed body in the process). That's a whole 'nother boondoggle as that's one of the 'risks' of projecting... coming back to find your body gone to a snatcher like shedim which is obviated with possession. (and my GM wonders why I wanted my ally spirit to be possession... in a campaign dominated by bug spirits and shedim... despite being a materialization tradition).

[Cain]

Actually, my argument is why should the tradition carry all the mechanical differences, when there's already a system in place to model that?

The only reason to do so is "we want it", which is counteracted by "It's potentially more broken".

I'm still waiting for a tangible benefit to offset the tangible risk.

[Cain]

And the inability to read a reply to a reply* is reason number 2.

*Protip: a quote, which is a reply to Cain, can be something I agree with as a reason to block Cain.

I did read the reply. I'm not quoted in it.

You can block me for any reason, but at least use my own words as a reason.

[All4BigGuns]

I did read the reply. I'm not quoted in it.

You can block me for any reason, but at least use my own words as a reason.

You were quoted, but for some reason the forums here won't do 'nested quotes', which means that the quote that spawned a remark disappears when the remark is quoted.

[Draco18s]

I did read the reply. I'm not quoted in it.

You can block me for any reason, but at least use my own words as a reason.

Go back to the post I quoted. You're quoted in that post. Hence "a reply to a reply."

Hence your inability to read.

This shall be my last reply to Cain:

Actually, my argument is why should the tradition carry all the mechanical differences, when there's already a system in place to model that?

1) Because the system that already exists is not sufficient enough to cover all of the possible variations (there are possible modifiers that could exist that do no).
2) Because the system that already exists is limited in quantity (max 35 BP) and your Tradition is already covered by 5-15 of that.
3) Because the system that already exists does not enforce the variations (a Buddhist is not required to be a pacifist*).

*Obviously some people think that some Buddhists wouldn't be, but that's why there are the advanced rules: replacing that tenet with something else.

[Cain]

You were quoted, but for some reason the forums here won't do 'nested quotes', which means that the quote that spawned a remark disappears when the remark is quoted.

You have to do that manually.

[Lionhearted]

It used to be integrated (nested quotes) I guess it was disabled because of wall of quote (as DS didn't put them in tabs)

and guys... Please, attack the ideas not the person, calling names never got anyone anywhere.

[Draco18s]

My just-prior post has been edited. I was pulled away from the edit just before I'd finished, and there have been a few replies.

[_Pax._]

Actually, my argument is why should the tradition carry all the mechanical differences, when there's already a system in place to model that?

This is the last thing I am going to say to you for a very, very long time:

In SR1, the way Hermetics and Shamans summoned spirits was [b]markedly different[/i]; each had their upsides and downsides. With time and money, a Hermetic could have a dozen Elementals on tap - which could go anywhere. But without the time and money, they had nothing. Flipside, Shamans needed no preparatory time or money, but could have only one spirit at a time, and were limited by the Domain they summoned it in.

That is not something that any number or combination of PQs or NQs can result in.

[DireRadiant]

This thread is on the path to being locked.

[DireRadiant]

It can be argued that the historical reason for a SR3 and earlier Hermetic and Shaman Tradition divide is that SR3 Hermetics never knew they could "Summon" on the fly, and SR3 Shamans never realized they could Bind. That's the fluff interpretation.

I personally don't like sub class variants and prefer open design systems, but I know that's my personal choice. It's quite simple in SR4 for me to make a character that is distinctively SR3 Shamanic or Hermetic as I like. Whereas, in SR3 I had no choice than to pick one or the other. There's nothing wrong in either systems, it's simply a design decision. I've seen SR3 games with Shamanic Binding, and Hermetic Summoning on the fly, as well as SR4 "old school" Hermetics and Shamans, and it all works fine. Of course, they all require the Gm and Player to work together, but without that you don't have a game.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It can be argued that the historical reason for a SR3 and earlier Hermetic and Shaman Tradition divide is that SR3 Hermetics never knew they could "Summon" on the fly, and SR3 Shamans never realized they could Bind. That's the fluff interpretation.

I personally don't like sub class variants and prefer open design systems, but I know that's my personal choice. It's quite simple in SR4 for me to make a character that is distinctively SR3 Shamanic or Hermetic as I like. Whereas, in SR3 I had no choice than to pick one or the other. There's nothing wrong in either systems, it's simply a design decision. I've seen SR3 games with Shamanic Binding, and Hermetic Summoning on the fly, as well as SR4 "old school" Hermetics and Shamans, and it all works fine. Of course, they all require the Gm and Player to work together, but without that you don't have a game.

Indeed... It should always come back to the GM and Player working together. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

Indeed... It should always come back to the GM and Player working together. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Absolutely, yes.

I just think the process is assisted by having an appropriate toolkit to work with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[nezumi]

Actually, my argument is why should the tradition carry all the mechanical differences, when there's already a system in place to model that?

No one has asked the mechanics to carry ALL the mechanical differences.

Just ... some of them. Just something, so when I say "I'm a chaos mage", that's not the same as saying "I am a vanilla hermetic". Something to give those words some actual meaning.

And what risk? This is how the game was for two decades. It worked. Sure, people said that shamans or hermetics were more powerful (although we never got a real answer on which). But as you pointed out, that will ALWAYS be the case for any game with mechanical complexity.

Right now SR5 is getting built. It won't be SR4. By virtue of this, there already is 'risk'. They (and I suppose, by extension, we) have already accepted that risk by starting a new edition. If SR5 comes out and is different (which it will be) and you don't like it, the risk is ... you continue playing SR4. Just like the 'risk' of SR4 coming out resulted in me still playing SR3. Yeah, I personally am upset by that risk, but for the most part, I have to agree it was the right choice for the company. And at the end of the day, *I am still having a lot of fun playing Shadowrun!* So for me, just like for you, there is no 'risk'.

Of course, they all require the Gm and Player to work together, but without that you don't have a game.

This is a strong point, and one I get a little confused by.

No matter what, not everyone will be happy with SR5. So SOMEONE will be making GM calls regardless.

So here's the game designer's choice. EITHER;
1) I write complete rules for differentiated magic users. Players who don't like them just ignore those rules and use undifferentiated characters.
OR
2) I write generic rules for undifferentiated magic users. Players who don't like that have to INVENT AN ENTIRE RULESET COMPLETE WITH TRADITIONS AND HOURS OF RESEARCH AND CREATE THEIR OWN.

Out of those two, which seems like the best deal for players?

(I guess that should really go under the 'what do we have to lose?' question of Cain's.)

[Larsine]

Sure, people said that shamans or hermetics were more powerful (although we never got a real answer on which).

Sure we did: http://www.intercom.net/user/logan1/debate03.htm
Just like the Physical Adept vs. Samurai debate: http://www.intercom.net/user/logan1/debate02.htm

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Option 2...

That is the System we currently have, and I find it the most palatable and enjoyable. I enjoy performing the research to craft the Tradition's "Strictures." *shrug*

Some Traditions could indeed spawn 100's of offshoots, and I find that compelling. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Cain]

1) Because the system that already exists is not sufficient enough to cover all of the possible variations (there are possible modifiers that could exist that do no).
2) Because the system that already exists is limited in quantity (max 35 BP) and your Tradition is already covered by 5-15 of that.
3) Because the system that already exists does not enforce the variations (a Buddhist is not required to be a pacifist*).

1. Of course not. That's what individual variances in character is for.
2. Why should traditions be unlimited in scope? If you don't limit the quantity somehow, there will be a lot of min/maxing.
3. That's up the the individual character, not the tradition.

In SR1, the way Hermetics and Shamans summoned spirits was [b]markedly different[/i]; each had their upsides and downsides. With time and money, a Hermetic could have a dozen Elementals on tap - which could go anywhere. But without the time and money, they had nothing. Flipside, Shamans needed no preparatory time or money, but could have only one spirit at a time, and were limited by the Domain they summoned it in.

That is not something that any number or combination of PQs or NQs can result in.

There were also multiple ways shamans could get around the domain restriction. And you can simulate what you describe in SR4.5 via roleplay and rules, as well as character building. I've seen shamans with Incompetence: Binding, for example.

[_Pax._]

Option 2...

That is the System we currently have, and I find it the most palatable and enjoyable. I enjoy performing the research to craft the Tradition's "Strictures." *shrug*

Some Traditions could indeed spawn 100's of offshoots, and I find that compelling. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, Tymaeus ... my original suggestion would not preclude you doing that. At the same time, it would mpowere me to play the way I like ... wihtout hindering your ability to play the way you like in the slightest.

Isn't that really the superior situation?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But, Tymaeus ... my original suggestion would not preclude you doing that. At the same time, it would mpowere me to play the way I like ... wihtout hindering your ability to play the way you like in the slightest.

Isn't that really the superior situation?

Nezumi asked for my Opinion. I gave it. That is all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Problem is that adding complexity I see as a Bad Thing, BECUASE it will cause more consternation, ala Advanced Lifestyles (Many people do not like the fiddlyness; but yes, I know, not a reason to not add them). I am just here providing Opinions, Aand arguing for my Point of View; hopefully not offensively, at least. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I am all for you getting what you want in the new Edition becasue I will likely not be purchasing it (finances being what they are).