IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Enhance Aim, Or does it?
DrJest
post Nov 18 2004, 12:17 AM
Post #1


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722



I'm currently thrashing out the details of a character for Quartos's game on RPGi. During the discussions - which involved a Personal Enhance Aim (Extended) spell - he commented that as a Detection spell Enhance Aim would run the risk of being resisted.

I'm intrigued. It's something I'd never even considered. For some reason, I think I'd got the idea that the spell affected me, not my targets, although I see what he's getting at.

What do the rest of you think?

NOTE: I'm not looking to circumvent the GM here, I just thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 18 2004, 12:18 AM
Post #2


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



By canon, it is resisted by anyone and everyone it would be used against. In practice, I've never seen a GM do it. Myself included.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stumps
post Nov 18 2004, 12:38 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 902
Joined: 11-December 02
From: The other end of your computer screen
Member No.: 3,724



huh...well...that sounds silly. I've never used that spell (haven't been a mage often, though they are often in the party).

Imagine if I said, Enhanced Vision: can be countered by those you see.

Um...huh? So I can see better unless they roll a counter to it that suddenly puts a pocket void in my vision?

Strange concept to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Nov 18 2004, 12:40 AM
Post #4


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



QUOTE (Stumps)
Imagine if I said, Enhanced Vision: can be countered by those you see.

Those should be Health Spells anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 18 2004, 12:44 AM
Post #5


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Actually, there should be at least two categories of Detection Spells. Those that alter your ability to perceive, and those that reveal information to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tisoz
post Nov 18 2004, 12:51 AM
Post #6


Free Spirit
*******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Bloomington, IN UCAS
Member No.: 1,920



I kind of hate that TN 6 (combat sense is TN 4), that it needs 2 successes per point of reduction, that it is maximum reduction of half of Force. And you need some way of sustaining it to be of real use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 18 2004, 12:53 AM
Post #7


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Getting a -2 bonus at Force 4 is pretty easy, but anything beyond that requires tons of mojo and Karma Rerolls. But that's as it should be.. gives magicians with a combat focus a chance of duplicating a Smartlink's bonus without the cyber.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tisoz
post Nov 18 2004, 01:12 AM
Post #8


Free Spirit
*******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Bloomington, IN UCAS
Member No.: 1,920



With 12 dice aren't you looking at a reroll or 2 to get four successes? So anytime you need to drop and recast it, you are running through your karma pool.

I think 4 successes on 12 dice would take a lot.

12 dice, expect 2 successes. Reroll 10 dice, expect 1 2/3 successes. 2/3 success doesn't cut it 1/3 of the time, so another reroll. 3 karma pool to get 4 successes.

Usually I have other things I want to save my karma pool for, especially mid-run if I need to drop and re-cast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Nov 18 2004, 01:58 AM
Post #9


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
By canon, it is resisted by anyone and everyone it would be used against.

So instead of aiming at the target, aim at his clothes. Inanimate nonmagical objects don't get a resistance test; and I've yet to see anyone with magical focus underoos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Nov 18 2004, 02:06 AM
Post #10


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



QUOTE
So instead of aiming at the target, aim at his clothes. Inanimate nonmagical objects don't get a resistance test; and I've yet to see anyone with magical focus underoos.

I've yet to see a GM let that slide. Same with levitate. Trying to overcome limitations of spells with mind games doesn't work in my game. The rule of thumb for me is if invisibility would cover it, the person can resist for it (in the cases of magicians skirting the rules).

This post has been edited by Kanada Ten: Nov 18 2004, 02:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Nov 18 2004, 02:09 AM
Post #11


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



well, that's why you cast it in the comfort of your home, and toss it into a sustaining focus. hell, if you're not doing that, your -2 TN is going to be cancelled out by the +2 TN for sustaining.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Da9iel
post Nov 18 2004, 02:13 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 28-May 04
From: Moorhead, MN, USA
Member No.: 6,367



But new targets still get to resist, don't they? Don't you need to write down the roll for all sustained/quickened spells like that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Nov 18 2004, 02:44 AM
Post #13


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



Since the TN for the spell doesn't change, you only need the success count when someone tries to resist. A sustained spell targeted like stunball would need each and every number of the test recorded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 18 2004, 02:47 AM
Post #14


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



QUOTE (tisoz)
With 12 dice aren't you looking at a reroll or 2 to get four successes? So anytime you need to drop and recast it, you are running through your karma pool.

I think 4 successes on 12 dice would take a lot.

12 dice, expect 2 successes. Reroll 10 dice, expect 1 2/3 successes. 2/3 success doesn't cut it 1/3 of the time, so another reroll. 3 karma pool to get 4 successes.

Usually I have other things I want to save my karma pool for, especially mid-run if I need to drop and re-cast.

First, you shouldn't confuse the law of averages with what's accomplishable. Second, it's not that hard to recast the spell. It has an easy Drain Code and if you're noticing you're not getting the type of a response that you're used to from it, break the spell and recast it into your focus until you do. Two or three shots with max dice should get it done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tisoz
post Nov 18 2004, 03:26 AM
Post #15


Free Spirit
*******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Bloomington, IN UCAS
Member No.: 1,920



I wish I remembered how to do probabilities. Here's a shot at it though.

Assuming Sorcery 6, Spell Pool 6, Willpower 6.

Probability of rolling 4 6s with 12 dice. Need to roll a 6 with 3 dice, four times in a row. Rolling 3 dice, should get a 6 every other roll. (1/2) * (1/2) * (1/2) * (1/2) = 1/16. 16 complex actions is less than a minute, maybe less than 30 seconds.

To resist drain, need not roll 1s on 3 of 6 dice. Would be unfortunate enough to roll a 1 on 2 dice 3 times in a row. (1/3) * (1/3) * (1/3) = 1/27. So expect to take drain more than every other time you succeed in rolling 4 6s.

I have no idea if these calculations are correct. They make sense to me. If someone who knows how to figure probabilities wants to note the formula, I would be quite pleased.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Nov 18 2004, 03:30 AM
Post #16


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Here's an example of what I mean. I'm using Irony's Web Dice 'cause I'm too lazy to roll a ton right now.

Roll 1: 4, 2, 6, 4, 4, 1, 6, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2 = 37.
Roll 2: 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 5, 3, 6, 2, 4, 6 = 43.
Roll 3: 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 1, 3, 1, 6, 4, 6, 6 = 55.
Roll 4: 6, 6, 3, 1, 3, 4, 2, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1 = 34.
Roll 5: 6, 6, 5, 6, 2, 4, 6, 4, 1, 5, 6, 6 = 57.

Rolls 3 and 5 both gave four or more successes. That's nearly half of the 12d6 rolls. It's not hard. Averages and probabilities are nice for some things, but as any gambler (as opposed to casino) knows, you shouldn't rely on them to be accurate. They're only useful when you're rolling millions of times over and over and over again, not for a handful of rolls. Every time you roll that die, there's a one in six chance you're going to get any number; it doesn't matter if you just rolled a 6 20 times in a row, that next roll still has a 1-in-6 chance of hitting 6.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tisoz
post Nov 18 2004, 04:06 AM
Post #17


Free Spirit
*******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,918
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Bloomington, IN UCAS
Member No.: 1,920



I understand what you mean. I can flip a coin 5 times and get 5 tails. It doesn't mean it will ever happen again.

That's why I was hoping someone could post the probability and expected outcomes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedmondLarry
post Nov 18 2004, 05:33 AM
Post #18


Senior GM
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,406
Joined: 12-April 03
From: Redmond, WA
Member No.: 4,442



(FYI, tisoz, it will happen again. Trust me on this.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Nov 18 2004, 06:26 AM
Post #19


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
QUOTE
So instead of aiming at the target, aim at his clothes. Inanimate nonmagical objects don't get a resistance test; and I've yet to see anyone with magical focus underoos.

I've yet to see a GM let that slide. Same with levitate. Trying to overcome limitations of spells with mind games doesn't work in my game. The rule of thumb for me is if invisibility would cover it, the person can resist for it (in the cases of magicians skirting the rules).

Oh, I grant that there'd be a question as to rather or not a called-shot penalty would be needed at this point; but the general idea is pretty safe. Essentially, Doc and others are "letting it slide" by skipping the target's resistance test, which amounts to the same thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ES_Riddle
post Nov 18 2004, 11:18 AM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 8-October 04
Member No.: 6,736



QUOTE (tisoz)
To resist drain, need not roll 1s on 3 of 6 dice. Would be unfortunate enough to roll a 1 on 2 dice 3 times in a row. (1/3) * (1/3) * (1/3) = 1/27. So expect to take drain more than every other time you succeed in rolling 4 6s.

I don't know a shorthand way of doing it, but here goes.

Chances of rolling 2 or fewer ones is

(1 way to roll 0 ones+6*(5)^5 ways to roll 1 one+15*(5)^4 ways to roll 2 ones)/(6^6 total rolls possible)

Comes out to about a 60% chance of not taking drain. If you put a spell pool die or two into resisting drain instead of casting, you will dramatically increase your chances of shrugging it off.

With 8 dice resisting, you need to roll 4 or fewer ones.

(1+8*5^7+28*5^6+56*5^5+70*5^4)/(6^8)=.763

I don't know if changing your chances from 3 in 5 to 3 in 4 is worth it, though, since you'll be drawing spell pool dice off of your casting. There must be some optimal number of dice to put in each, but I don't know what it is. Your best bet is to just get a trauma damper so you only have to stage it down once or have an improve willpower sustaining focus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post Nov 18 2004, 12:57 PM
Post #21


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



Of cause with the spell you can combine it with ether smart goggles (including version 2) to get an additional -1 TN (and +2TN for called shots) or a optical scope and laser sight for long range work (as my current PC uses it)

If your pre casting the spell at home into a sustaining focus use max spell pool for the casting. You will recover from the light stun quickly enough. If you have more than 6 spell pool (albino gnomes or initiates) put the rest in drain resistance.

We have not been rolling resistance tests for the targets. I donít know if that is a house rule or a mistake on the part of my GM (KremlinKOA on these boards) but I didnít think it was necessary. It doesnít make much since for a spell that is supposed to augment your skill to be dependant on the stubbornness of your targets.

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thistledown
post Nov 18 2004, 04:57 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 14-March 04
From: Cal Poly: SLO
Member No.: 6,155



QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 17 2004, 05:18 PM)
By canon, it is resisted by anyone and everyone it would be used against.

So instead of aiming at the target, aim at his clothes. Inanimate nonmagical objects don't get a resistance test; and I've yet to see anyone with magical focus underoos.

Doesn't work. Targeting what somebody has with them is the same as targeting them. If you get them as soon as they put it on, maybe, but once they've been wearing it for a while, it gets the same magic stuff as their own aura.

Assensing, Pg 171BBB
QUOTE
Non-magical objects have no auras, but pick up impressions from being in contact with living auras.


I remember seing more on that somewhere, but can't find it right now.

Also, most detection spells, including inhanced aim, are mana based, which wouldn't work on clothing anyways.

Spells, Type, Pg 178BBB
QUOTE
Physical spells affect the physical properties of a target.  Only physical spells affect non-living objects.

Mana spells affect mental, spiritual or magical things, such as spirits, emotions, thoughts, life force and so forth.  Only mana spells affect astral forms (see The Astral Plane, p 171).


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Demosthenes
post Nov 18 2004, 05:14 PM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 7-June 02
From: Living with the straw sheep.
Member No.: 2,850



I've never played Enhance Aim as requiring a resistance test...

I interpret Enhance Aim as giving you a better sense of where you're pointing your weapon relative to what you're looking at - hence, it doesn't need to overcome any kind of resistance from whatever you are aiming at.

If Enhance Aim requires a resistance test, does a spell that grants you lowlight vision require a resistance test? And if not, what is the difference between the two?

Is there a canon interpretation of this that isn't hideously ambiguous?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Nov 18 2004, 05:29 PM
Post #24


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



Canon states that Detection Spells are resisted unless otherwise specified in the individual spell's description (like in Combat Senses). No such exception is made in the description for Enhanced Aim.


... but there should be. :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaronK
post Nov 19 2004, 01:33 AM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 942
Joined: 13-May 04
Member No.: 6,323



Well, if Clairvoyance allows a resistance test, why not Enhanced Aim?

JaronK
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th October 2020 - 05:56 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.