SR5 Preview #5: Magic Options

[Bull]

Yes, this applies to overcasting. If you want to channel that much magic, be prepared to deal with the cost.

[tjn]

Every point of Karma is a point not spent on foci, spells, qualities, skills, attributes... If that cost is high enough, for example, that for standard chargen you have to dip well into your Negative Quality allocation to get all 6 points, that's more balanced than you think. A martial artist combat mystad cannot then be a full martial arts adept and a full combat mage, because either of those other two will have qualities, skills, attributes, and more giving them help in their area that the mystad does not have. It might have been better to give them fewer starting spells than full mages, as well, but that cannot be known without testing and I suspect that they tested that (it seems a little obvious to me, after all).

I fully agree. Sometimes I think the chicken littles declaring things as broken must play in a game with infinite karma and it mirrors a lot of the griping about magical characters overall in 4th. Given infinite resources, yes, the character with the most options to spend those resources will end up broken. However, in all those times between chargen and infinite karma, I've found those with the most options, and who don't hyper-specialize similar to Bull's Mystic Shaman Face, tend to be under powered compared to focused archetypes. Yeah they can theoretically do it all, but the focused archetype will always do their job better. For me, Mystic Adepts always fell into the Bard trap, but maybe with the new changes, I might actually see one played.

And not having any astral projection recon during any legwork has always seemed a bigger deal to me than most seem to take it for. -shrug-

[Shinobi Killfist]

From the preview:

You must declare the Force at which to cast the spell.
The Force acts as a limit on the spell. Higher Force
spells are more powerful, but cause more Drain. You
can cast a spell at a Force up to twice your Magic rating.
If the number of hits (not net hits) you get after applying
the limit exceeds your Magic rating, the spell’s Drain is
Physical instead of Stun damage.

Now, does this only apply to overcasting? I'm asking because if uncapping your hits will turn the Drain to physical damage (keeping in mind that Drain is higher is SR5 and can't be healed with first aid or magic), then using Edge suddenly becomes a lot riskier for mages.

From that, my reading is that yes, if you use edge to break the limit and the hits exceed your magic rating it is phsical drain.

[Bull]

I fully agree. Sometimes I think the chicken littles declaring things as broken must play in a game with infinite karma and it mirrors a lot of the griping about magical characters overall in 4th. Given infinite resources, yes, the character with the most options to spend those resources will end up broken. However, in all those times between chargen and infinite karma, I've found those with the most options, and who don't hyper-specialize similar to Bull's Mystic Shaman Face, tend to be under powered compared to focused archetypes. Yeah they can theoretically do it all, but the focused archetype will always do their job better. For me, Mystic Adepts always fell into the Bard trap, but maybe with the new changes, I might actually see one played.

And not having any astral projection recon during any legwork has always seemed a bigger deal to me than most seem to take it for. -shrug-

It's not as broken as some folks make it out to be, but it is still broken, from a general cost/benefit ratio. Because on the whole those 2 Karma will buy you a LOT more in Adept Points than they will using them for anything else.

[Shinobi Killfist]

It's not as broken as some folks make it out to be, but it is still broken, from a general cost/benefit ratio. Because on the whole those 2 Karma will buy you a LOT more in Adept Points than they will using them for anything else.

For me its not just the cost return. Having too many options to spend things on isn't a real limitation. This could be a limit if the things were actually seperate resources, but they all come from the same magic stat. And even if they were seperate resources if given the option every archetype would like unlimited options. The mystic adept can pretty much do everything, sure a specialist might out specialize him. But the mystic adept could specialize to pretty much the same extent in being a spellcaster and as he grew he would have an ever expaning pool over Power Points to rely on. And what does he lose out on, a few starting character karma choices and astral projection.

[tjn]

It's not as broken as some folks make it out to be, but it is still broken, from a general cost/benefit ratio. Because on the whole those 2 Karma will buy you a LOT more in Adept Points than they will using them for anything else.

Sure, objectively when viewed in isolation, it is broken in a strict cost/benefit analysis. But does that general cost/benefit ratio allow a Mystic Adept to perform the roles of a mage or adept better than the pure archetype? Or does the mystic adept turn into a someone that could passably pass in both roles, but not exceed either? That's the balance issue I'm more interested in.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Sure, objectively when viewed in isolation, it is broken in a strict cost/benefit analysis. But does that general cost/benefit ratio allow a Mystic Adept to perform the roles of a mage or adept better than the pure archetype? Or does the mystic adept turn into a someone that could passably pass in both roles, but not exceed either? That's the balance issue I'm more interested in.

So overall better isn't better its only better if he is better in both fields than the specialists? Yes it is clear on the pure mage side he will be marginally weaker, basically he lost astral projection and some starting karma which can be used on cool things like focused concentration.. Is astral projection an dX karma better than 6+ power points in phys add abilities? Sure a pure adept might be better in that it will probably use the PP for metamagic exchange more often, but it that optional loss worth spell casting, enchanting and conjuration? He is gaining much more than he is giving up and the mage is a fairly powerful archetype to begin with, it was called magic run for a reason. And as he becomes a better mage at the same rate that a mage increases in power, he continues to gain more PP while the mages benefit of X karma and astral projection is a stagnant pool which started out outpaced and just falls further and further behind.

[tjn]

For me its not just the cost return. Having too many options to spend things on isn't a real limitation. This could be a limit if the things were actually seperate resources, but they all come from the same magic stat. And even if they were seperate resources if given the option every archetype would like unlimited options. The mystic adept can pretty much do everything, sure a specialist might out specialize him. But the mystic adept could specialize to pretty much the same extent in being a spellcaster and as he grew he would have an ever expaning pool over Power Points to rely on. And what does he lose out on, a few starting character karma choices and astral projection.

Karma cannot be spent more than once. It's the same fallacy that those that argued mundane characters are somehow lesser than magical characters. Every time a generalist is spending resources (karma, chargen options, nuyen, whatever) on branching out, it's resources that the specialist is spending to extend the gap in capability between the two of them. If the team has both a pure mage, and a pure adept, the mystic adept should be overshadowed in either role.

The question is, does the cost/benefit break of a mystic adept allow the mystic adept to be better at either role than a pure mage or adept? and until SR5 hits the shelves, I'm not sure we can fully evaluate that question, and more importantly, declaring an entire archetype so broken as to always be barred from the gaming table is more than a little knee jerk reaction.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Karma cannot be spent more than once. It's the same fallacy that those that argued mundane characters are somehow lesser than magical characters. Every time a generalist is spending resources (karma, chargen options, nuyen, whatever) on branching out, it's resources that the specialist is spending to extend the gap in capability between the two of them. If the team has both a pure mage, and a pure adept, the mystic adept should be overshadowed in either role.

No one ever suggested Karma could be spent more than once. Both the mystic adept and the mage are spending karma, the mystic adept is just getting a better bang for his buck on that karma. And A mage wont overshadow a mystic adept at magic, a mage will be marginally better at magic
.

The question is, does the cost/benefit break of a mystic adept allow the mystic adept to be better at either role than a pure mage or adept? and until SR5 hits the shelves, I'm not sure we can fully evaluate that question, and more importantly, declaring an entire archetype so broken as to always be barred from the gaming table is more than a little knee jerk reaction.

Um, no that isn't the question. The question is, does the mystic adepts abilities make him overall better and a a larger contributor to the success of a shadowrun than a pure mage or adept. The answer looks to me to be yes. And no its not a knee jerk reaction. It is a reasoned decision based on the given evidence. I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will hurt, my experiences have allowed me to make decisions without actually having to test it out.

[Irion]

I have to agree with Shinobi Killfist. The mystic adept seems to walk in the direction no balanced rules system should walk into.
But it is hard to tell, since there could be limits in place, which could limit him in several ways.
As for now: The mystic adept 5.0 would be overpowered using the rule of SR4.01. If this stays true in SR5, we will see.

So overall better isn't better its only better if he is better in both fields than the specialists? Yes it is clear on the pure mage side he will be marginally weaker, basically he lost astral projection and some starting karma which can be used on cool things like focused concentration

Well, I would not even say that an mystic adept could not be the better mage, depending on synergies. If the really kept the can of worms allowing mystic adepts to sustain one spell or even several spells without modifiers, he would be the better mage.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Um, no that isn't the question. The question is, does the mystic adepts abilities make him overall better and a a larger contributor to the success of a shadowrun than a pure mage or adept. The answer looks to me to be yes. And no its not a knee jerk reaction. It is a reasoned decision based on the given evidence. I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will hurt, my experiences have allowed me to make decisions without actually having to test it out.

I had forgot about that. The mystic adept I play in 4e is a rocker so things like that are not really important to him.

[Glyph]

Yes, this applies to overcasting. If you want to channel that much magic, be prepared to deal with the cost.

My question was, does it only apply to overcasting, or does it do that when you get more successes than your Magic rating because you are spending Edge?

[Epicedion]

My question was, does it only apply to overcasting, or does it do that when you get more successes than your Magic rating because you are spending Edge?

It appears to be "whenever you get more successes than your Magic" at all, ever.

It also appears that Edge doesn't lift the hit cap on magic like it does on accuracy and inherent limits, which means that the only possible way to get more hits than Magic is to overcast so Force > Magic.

[Aaron]

It also appears that Edge doesn't lift the hit cap on magic like it does on accuracy and inherent limits, which means that the only possible way to get more hits than Magic is to overcast so Force > Magic.

Er ... I don't see that anywhere. It looks to me like Edge affects Magic limits the same way it affects any limit. What am I missing?

[Irion]

The mystic adept still bugs me.
If it is really a falt 2 Karma for a powerpoint, I can't see how an adept may compete with that.
Two for the first, four for the second and six for the thired maybe...

The investment in his magic attribute is worth so much more to the mystical adept and I guess they both pay the same for it...

[Critias]

As has been (repeatedly) said: it's being looked into.

[Falconer]

Oddball question as regards chargen and magic.... mixing the two previews....

I make a character... I put priority A magic... Priority B human lets say for lots of special attribute points... can I now spend my karma to initiate say twice... then raise magic to 8 in chargen using the special points?

Mentioning it as a potential abuse.... one very wierd oddity in the chargen section I noticed was using exceptional attribute to get magic 7... (which would fly directly in the face of magic can't be higher than essence + initiations if that's still in the system).

[Sendaz]

I thought someone had mentioned Exceptional Attribute can not be applied to specials like Magic, Resonance, Initiative, that it was for the 'base' stats.

[RHat]

I thought someone had mentioned Exceptional Attribute can not be applied to specials like Magic, Resonance, Initiative, that it was for the 'base' stats.

Exceptional Attribute in SR5 can, explicitly, be used for Magic and Resonoance, but not other Special Attributes.

[Grinder]

Maybe. But as I said, there are a million exceptions.

Does casting an Illusion Spell count? What if it's purely defensive (Covering a hole in a wall that you're hiding behind?) WHat if it's offensive (Making the target thing he's about to be attacked by a troll with an axe, or covering a hole in the floor he's about to step in?)

HE grenades are offensive, but smoke grenades are defensive. And what if the enemy just happens to be allergic to that particular chemical your smoke uses, and it could kill him?

Using ice sheet to knock down my enemies vs using Ice Sheet to provide a slick surface for me to easily slide down to escape combat.

We wanted there to be versatility. one of the points of removing the "double tap" for guns was to loosen up combat a little and make it less about "i fire, now you fire, now I fire" and make it more strategic. Because now you can fire, but you can also do something ELSE. Being creative, maneuvering, taking defensive actions. We want players to be able to do that. And a blanket "Only one spell" or classifying all grenades as "Offensive" stifles that ability greatly.

Say what you want, but for every thing I can think of as "purely defensive" I'm sure someone could find an offensive action to use it with. And vice-versa for everything offensive, there are only a couple actions I can think of that I can't imagine some kind of rare, one in a million defensive opportunity to use it for.

Sometimes, you have to rely on players good sense and the GMs ability to make rulings. That's just the way it goes.

I'm even less convinced now.

SR5 forces discussion about the wording of a rule that covers a key aspect of the game onto players and GMs. That's not Player Empowerment, that's not relying on the judgement call by the GM, it's just poor (if any) game design. One step further waits "do as you want be the Golden Rule of combat". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[Glyph]

I guess I'm the exception since I don't see the ambiguity with that rule. I just question why it needs to be in there in the first place. I see that you wanted to simplify combat to one attack, per person, per action to speed up gameplay - but I think it would be been done better by simplifying the free/simple/complex action categories, rather than tacking a limitation that doesn't really make sense onto simple actions. I'll wait until I have a better idea of how they handle semi-automatic and burst fire, but my first impression is that it gives a comparative boost to melee and magic attacks, by making firearm attacks weaker.

[Sendaz]

I thought of the gun actions made sense, you can either use your full out firing option as a complex or a shorter burst of fire as a simple and still taking a movement or other simple action.

Thus you do not need two simple actions shooting as if your using both you may as well use the complex action version.

But that is just from looking at the previews. How well this applies in the field will have to wait until we can get some gameplay in once the final book is out.

[Irion]

In general the idea is not that bad.

But you need a strickt interpretation on "non-attack" action.

If you only allow "passiv" actions like defending against attacks or walking, then it makes sense.

If you allow throwing one granade followed by a smoke granade but not by an other explosive one, it does not make sense.

Unless you do so, you end up with the problem Grinder is pointing out. If I need to discuss if action X is possible in combat or not, then it tends to kill the fun.
(And most GMs do not know every rule by heart and most can't anticipate every outcome there ruling might have in a matter of a few seconds.

@Glyph
I would be very carefull with draggin magic inside this discussion, since I do not know what was changed there. Drain is evidently now based on Force but Force does now only seems to limit the hits of a spells and has no effect on its own.

[Moirdryd]

I dare say they'll hold up fine as they are functionally similar to the systems used in two other game systems (that i know of) that have already been around for a goodly long while. I have seen the same arguments about "ambiguity" on many differant forums time and time again and the only place I haven't seen it is on the D&D4th Forums where instead people argue about moral compass responsibilities and what you can or cannot do with noncombat skills.

It's not sloppy game design, it's trying to provide an open option for the style of game you want to play. That's actually really HARD to do without confining certain aspects of the game some very strict limits (that often then get ignored by people to make the game work). RoleMaster had rolls for EVERYTHING, all clearly defined and the rule book (plus at least one companion) was essentially a list if skill checks and charts (that included a ladder) and you only took one action a round. Ever. I'm surely Catalyst could publish a charts and tables expansion covering every definition of an action under all circumstances (after all Battletech has 2-3 core books with all the possible rules for Mech stuff and the RPG for that universe is a Bigger book again that plugs into those rules and they have released Chart Packs for the game. Most folks don't need all that, so only use the bits they like,want or need) but I seriously doubt it would sell.

Now returning to topic.... Any more differences between Mages and Shaman? Other than what's in the preview? I hated the singular magic that was introduced into SR4 and there are still whispers out there that SR5 is different? (although I'm perfectly capable of coming up with a Totem Ruleset for my table as well as Hermatic adjustments).

[Critias]

Now returning to topic.... Any more differences between Mages and Shaman? Other than what's in the preview? I hated the singular magic that was introduced into SR4 and there are still whispers out there that SR5 is different? (although I'm perfectly capable of coming up with a Totem Ruleset for my table as well as Hermatic adjustments).

Much of our Hermetic/Shamanic brainstorming got shuffled off to the Untitled That I Know Of But Certainly Upcoming Magic Splat Book ™. SR5 is a monster-ass book at ~480 pages already, and a bunch of cool shit many of us would've loved to see there (these differences are certainly one example, along with Adept Ways, for instance) had to get tabled for later discussion.