Are Mages Broken? Options

[DrJest]

I'm curious. The divide between "mages are overpowered" and "mages aren't overpowered" seems to be fairly even. In the interests of gathering data, therefore, I'm posting this poll.

[Slash_Thompson]

seems like this should be in the sr3 forum? meh.

voted anyway.

[NightHaunter]

Assault cannon vs fireball you decide. :cyber: :proof:

[Fortune]

What's the difference between #3 and #6?

[DrJest]

[Critias]

I'd just like to go on record as stating my confident belief that this thread will, like any other "omg lol mundanes vs. mages!!!11" thread, will accomplish nothing.

[DrJest]

Not intended to be one, Critias. I'm simply interested in gathering information, in the hopes that we can profile a demographic and determine whether - using DS as a representative sample - there is sufficient concern to address changes in the relative power of mages in the new edition. It may be of use to the devs, it may be of no use to them at all - who knows? And hey, while it won't change anyone's minds, if there's a clear majority in any of the categories it might at least make opponents (even myself) think about their positions.

Jesus, I sound like a party political broadcast...

[Patrick Goodman]

It assumes, however, that DS is in fact a representative sample of the fan base. I'm not terribly certain that this is the case.

[Critias]

I'm fairly certain it's not, but it's becoming increasingly clear it likes to think it is.

[mmu1]

I don't think there's a big problem with mages as such, but some of the mechanics dealing with resisting spells could sure use improvement.

For example, the fact that a couple of lousy ability points at character creation - representing, say, the difference between Willpower 4 and 6 - make a character 3 times harder to affect with certain spells is just &#$@ing dumb.

[mmu1]

[DrJest]

[Dawnshadow]

Actually... the Dumpshock polls are mostly for entertainment value.. they violate so many of the requirements for 'random sampling' that it's funny.

And mmu1, you're absolutely right, but it's still fun, and even if everyone disagrees with the vocal minority, listening to them gives you whole new reasons as to why your game shouldn't use that rule or that interpretation ;) Agreement just isn't as enlightening as disagreement.

[Shockwave_IIc]

Well i voted for.
Mages are fine. Leave them be.

As far as i'm concerned there's enough things i can do to stop them running riot on a game.

[Patrick Goodman]

[Kagetenshi]

I'm going to say that Mages are mildly overpowered under Priority, but just dandy under the Point-Build system.

~J

[apple]

I chose #2. A little bit overpowered and some magical powers could be tuned down.

SYL

[Ol' Scratch]

Magicians are pretty much fine as they are, though I'd make a few minor changes in the way things were handled if I had the chance. The problem tends to be more on the lack of creativity on GM and non-magician players' hands for dealing with Awakened threats... the game supplies tons and tons of them for anyone who bothers to pay attention. :)

[Rolemodel]

You know. Before I really had given it thought, I clicked on 'View Poll Results!'.

Which effectively turned my vote into a non-vote.

But, for the record, gutting mages like fish does make me happy.

-RM

[Vuron]

If you view mages from the standpoint of balance they clearly allow mages to be not only some of the most powerful characters but the most flexible.

Currently it's just too easy for a mage to be not only a better all around threat in most situations but superior to specialists in a wide variety of areas.

They have the ability to replicate stealth specialists, scouting specialists, ranged combat specialists and a variety of other tasks without being inherently limited by specialization. Further they retain abilities that non awakened just can't touch.

Sure they are karma sinks and there are a variety of metagame ways of limiting thier power but if balance between the archetypes is the goal they are inherently more potent and flexible than most of the other archetypes.

Personally I tend to view each of the archetypes towards being the best in thier given task set than any other character. Mages should be either changed to be jacks of all trades but not particularly lethal in any capacity of more specialized heavy artillery.

[Mugzy]

Well, I think mages are, for the most part, alright in terms of beginning balance. With the advent of sustaining foci as opposed to spell locks, things got better.

I do miss grounding incredibly so, though. It was a great way to control a mage from being the Spell Locked Juggernaut.

The problem I have with awakened characters isnt one that manifests early on, but its one of potential.

Theoretically speaking, any mundane character will hit a ceiling in what they can do. Cyber / Bioware only does so much. As a Mage, though, or even worse, a Physical Adept, the possibilites become endless with initiation, metamagic and power point gain.

A chromed out cyber-dude has no way of increasing his essence with which he can buy cyberware, but an adept can essentially go on forever in 20 karma point chunks.

Is there any way to fix an upper end disparity such as this? Or am I just not looking at it the right way?

[Dizzo Dizzman]

IMHO there is an easy way to limit the top end of the mage power curb. Make the multiplier for initiation higher. A simple way to do that would be to eliminate the lower initiation modifier for magical groups.

[Eyeless Blond]

I kinda like that idea, but instead of changing the multiplier how about changing the "base cost" from 5+ desired grade to 4+ 2*desired grade? That'll keep the lowest levels of initiation just as available for mages, but jack anything above level 3-5 into astronomically high territory. At the same time mundanes will be throwing their Karma into skills, which are equally as gigantically expensive at those levels.

As for people complainning about mages being too powerful early on... your GMs are just not putting much thought into the Awakened side of things. Saying that the GM shouldn't have to design an encounter based on the magical presence is like saying a GM shouldn't have to design an encounter based on the fact a highly-cybered street sam is going to be there, or a rigger with half a dozen combat drones. Each of these is potentially more deadly in combat than a mage, and the GM should be planning accordingly for such encounters. There are many fairly common things that affect Awakened much more readily than mundanes: wards and background count, just as the quickest examples, should be in most of the places a runner team would want/need to go.

[slainethehornedg...]

I voted for the second option but not so much because I think mages are too powerful as I'd like to see some minor changes. Specifically, I would like to see spells resisted by willpower have their drain increased and I'd like to have the drain decreased by spells resisted by body. Or maybe make drain standardized and have all modifiers affect TN?

Oh, and I miss grounding too. I miss mages in astral combat blowing up their buddies when they lost a fight. Ah the good ol days. >sigh<

[Grinder]

I think it should be somehow harder for spellslingers to reduce the drain. Most of the times they throw out lots of spells without suffering the backlash. Sure, one can increase the TN for drain, but then the players start comlaining. But if it's in the official ruleset that drain TN is increased, that would suit me fine.