Astral Space, Essence, and the Awakened, the SR3R way Options

[Kyoto Kid]

...Seems the consensus is in favour of dropping the MA loss rule for deadly wounds.

Another area I have difficulty with is astral tracking. In a scenario I ran a while back, it seemed like the watcher summoned to do the search was almost infallible. I basically had to set up wards (suggested by the SR FAQ moderator) to attempt to confound the spirit which by the rules seemed like a sure bet to succeed. Not very logical considering the cost of setting wards up.

I also feel that some mental manipulation spells, particularly Mindprobe, need to be toned down a bit as well. Magic should be useful, but not so overpowering that it upsets game balance and renders aspects such as roleplaying legwork and interrogation almost useless.

[Sphynx]

[Garrowolf]

I guess I will try and confuse the issue.

If you want to seperate astral projection but change the way the damage is treated how about having an astral damage track that aplies to magic and any mental activity until it is healed.

I like the idea of astral projection as a metamagic technique.

Make the Astral more dangerous by adding Astral Flora and Fauna. Add little strange spirits that might sting a character. Have a tree that is in the Astral but not in the physical and is solid there.

I am personally mean when it comes to crossing magic and tech. Tech anchors a person to their body with 1 pt of essence. At 3 pts you loose magic altogether. Geasa will stop this only to the 3 pt mark and then you loose it all anyway. Each pt hinders the flow of magic so it also causes the loss to be added to TN for magic use.

You are not your astral body. You create an astral body to tune in and to explore the astral. It s however your connection with the magical flows of the astral. I think that destroying your astral form should cause you to temporarily loose your magic and a point of a mental attribute. Once you buy this back then you get your mind focuses again or regain your confidence. Maybe your essence heals back weaker by a point or something. I don't like the killed in the astral you are dead here thing myself.

Personally I think that some of the spells should be moved over to Psionics and not allowed for magic users. Make the psionists destinct and useful but different from magic.

There I hope I confused you as much as I confuse myself.

[Herald of Verjig...]

[nezumi]

[Kagetenshi]

[Herald of Verjig...]

[Sphynx]

[Sphynx]

[Kagetenshi]

I really don't see geasa as being core—can I hear some other opinions on that? I personally see removing them as "fixing things", as well.

Though, as mentioned, I wouldn't be getting rid of them entirely—just shifting them from essence-loss-counters to things more like Exclusive limitations on spells (and maintaining the Adept's ability to put Voluntary Geasa on powers to reduce their cost).

~J

[nezumi]

Sphynx, just to be clear, you'd be fine with splitting Detection into the two categories as long as, instead of being Direct and Indirect, they're called Sensory and Insight? Given the tone of the suggestion, I can't imagine that being a problem.

In regards to geasa, I certainly don't think they're a core part of the rules, at least not unless you're a hard-core powergamer (not to say that everyone who uses a geas is a powergamer, but that most powergamers with magical characters use geasa). Speaking for myself, I don't mind having geasa in the game, HOWEVER, it must be a limitation! I've seen too many people who take a geas that they must have a penny in their pocket or whatever other stupid thing they took, then end up with 6 points of magic and 5 points of cyberware. If a geas has an above average chance of leading to permanent magic loss over the course of a campaign, I think its doing its job. Otherwise it's just taking advantage of the rules.

So rather than eliminate them, make them more taxing. Make them so the mage really feels like one day he's going to have to choose between his life and his magic.

[Herald of Verjig...]

Ok, talismans must be prominent and uncommon. Any other difficulties with the current geasa rules?

I do like the idea of applying them directly to spells to reduce effective force for learning and/or casting. It also works for the mentally unstable hermetic who thinks he is a D&D Sorcerer (and brags about how much XP that last thug was worth) who needs to have some spells require chanting and hand waving while others can be cast with just thinking.

[Sphynx]

YesNezumi, I'm ok with it being Sensory and Insight instead of Direct/Indirect.

As I stated before, 5 points of Cyberware with Geasa shouldn't be possible. Maximum of 1 point Magic Loss counterable with a Geasa should be the max. The 'carry a penny' is GM discretion. No GM I've ever played with (and I do realize you're exaggerating boss) would have allowed that. Like Herald said, a 'Talisman' being required should be sizeable and difficult to come by.

As for applying Geasa to spells, I'm ok with that as well.

[Sphynx]

Side Note, we should come up with what is 'Sensory', since I believe spells like 'Aim' should fall under that Category, along with the more obviously Sensory spells like Night Vision, Pack Eyes, UltraSound Vision (should someons make such a spell), etc.

[nezumi]

The problems with geas, going sample geas at a time...

Condition geas: "you must specify a personal condition to do magic..."

How hard is it to have a character who is drunk more than half the time? Or high? Or married? Or wearing a red shirt? The wording is so open-ended that it puts the onus on the GM to be the hard ass. If you had a smart player and a novice GM (and how many times have you seen that?), this can be abused to no end. The only reason this one isn't abused more is it really isn't necessary when you have the talisman geas below.

Domain geas: "You must specify a domain in which your magic works... Most urban types choose the city." Again, your mage just never goes on a job which isn't in the city. If you're a GM, you already know, if your Johnson doesn't guarantee none of the job will take the mage out of Seattle, the job is rejected. This one isn't so bad, but it isn't all that tough for a smart mage to avoid or argue his way out of.

Gesture geas: "This geas requires the character to gesture visibly and freely to make magic." How often have any of your characters been unable to give the magical bird? Giving up the ability to use magic while actively restrained only puts you on par with the rest of the team, who can't use most of their cybered abilities while restrained. The only serious disadvantage of this on a run is that it marks you as the mage.

Talisman geas: hah. While I agree with Herald's modifications, I'm still hesitant though, although I suppose if you have to have something such that it can be easily broken or stolen, it would make sense. A talisman needs to be a point of vulnerability, no if's and's or but's. If you're in combat, there needs to be a reasonable chance of the talisman getting hit and destroyed. The rules do not even come close to making this a legitimate limit on power.

Time geas: "The time can be day or night, or a single season of the year..." This one isn't so bad, but again, you can have a player who says his character is only working during the summer, then moving to Australia or something. This is a restriction, but one that I feel would impact out of character play more than in-character play.


Keep in mind the trade-off we're talking about with a geas.

In exchange for geasing one magic point, you can get 1 essence point of cyberware. We're all aware of how much stuff you can stick in with one point of essence.

And what are you paying for your reaction enhancers, cyber eyes and smartlink? If you break the geas (which comes up what, 10% of the time or less?) your magic rating goes down by 1 (oh no, force 5 instead of force 6 spells!) and +1 to magical skills. If you have something like a smartlink, which is a -2 to all firearm tests, plus whatever other cyber you've stuffed in for that one point, I'd argue that that is already a good trade-off even if the geas were broken all the time. As a mage, I'd happily trade 1 magic point and +1 to magical tests in exchange for -2 to firearms tests and reduced karma costs on learning all skills (or whatever other ware you stuff in there). Where's the bite?

I seemed to recall geas being the first step to burning out, but the rules don't seem to support that. A geas needs to be dangerous. A broken geas shouldn't be repairable just by doing the geas again, otherwise when you lose a magic point the question is, do you lose the magic point permanently, or just half the time? I'd say, make geas so dangerous that, if you screw up, they run the risk of costing twice as much as you gambled. If the geas is broken to a certain degree, you lose the magic point and the ability to initiate, or you lose two magic points.

[Sphynx]

Hmmm, I see where you're coming from. My own character keeps a 'Condition: Astral Perception' to cast spells. I just like that restriction and go out of my way to lose a level of magic via cyber just to have that Geasa.

I think the solution is to, as you say, give a more stringent definition of what a Geasa is for and does. Make the Geasa magical/mystical. Penny doesn't work, Fetish might for talisman. Especially a fetish that 'you must hold in your hand' while using the magic.

Also, I definitely agree with a permanent non-geasa-able magic loss if you ever even once break the geasa, or better, a non-option. If you take the condition of Talisman, requiring you to 'hold' the item, then gloves, hands tied behind your back, etc, totally prevent you from using magic whatsoever.

[Darkest Angel]

[Kagetenshi]

[Gerzel]

The thing I got with Astral scouting is that A. You can't make out details. You might be able to follow a person to a location but only an initiate would be able to really get a good look to see what it looks like in the non astral world. Try giving car directions to a place you've only been while in the back seat of a car with windows covered in something to smear the image.

Ok not something you get everyday, but I think it is worth it to remember that the "real" world from the astral looks indistinct, no details. So if you were tailing a car you could count the number or roads or turn offs they pass, if you know the area you might be able to recognize larger features, or know the terrain. No roadsigns, and I wouldn't even allow no "Turn left at the red farmhouse and go half a mile." A mage busy tailing someone on the astral wouldn't have time to examine the house to tell if it was a farm house (if passing it at speed on a road) or really if it was red (might be an aura of someone in the house or a background count), and how exactly are you going to measure "half a mile?" How many people can really tell how far that is w/o cues like number of steps taken, pacing etc. The longer the distance the harder it gets.

The second thing is to remember that there are things living on the Astral. Esp in a big ugly distopian city a mage running a ways out of their body into unknown areas of town might just come across a fight they were not expecting. I know the wandering monster is put down, but there are times when a chance random encounter is called for.

[Darkest Angel]

[Herald of Verjig...]

[nezumi]

I believe the canon explanation is basically a mix between the two. When your astral form goes for a jaunt, it's running off a 'battery', if you will. You wander around until your essence runs out. If your body dies, you can still wander around until your essence runs out, like a 'ghost'. Finding your body takes some skill, but isn't impossible (if you want to make that process more complex, go for it). However, it is never 'immediate retreat' except if you go unconscious. If you change that single rule, I think astral travel makes much more sense. Make it so, if you go unconscious, you're now just an astral form floating around unconscious, hoping he wakes up before his body dies or he runs out of essence. No reason to make it so safe; it's not like getting knocked unconscious in physical combat is especially safe.

In the case of ghouls and vampires, the physical body fails to completely charge the battery, so they need to borrow other peoples' rechargers to finish the job.

Cyberware is somehow either feeding off this charging action (which would possibly help explain how cyberware is powered) or acting as a resistor, it makes it so the astral form can't completely connect and recharge (explaining why bone lacing is problematic). If the character his 0 essence, he doesn't die immediately, but only once his astral form runs out of essence because it can no longer recharge (so lets say we can install 6 points of cyberware 'instantaneously'. The fellow would survive for 6 hours, using the essence charge saved up pre-surgery. If the fellow got 5.9 essence loss, he would survive for an hour at 6 essence, an hour at 5, so on and so forth, until he hit .1 and was constantly 'recharged'. Keep in mind, all living things have an astral form, even if they are incapable of astral projection or perception. I would assume, in all living things this form must be kept alive.)

The interesting note is, hypothetically, this would indicate it is possible to 'supercharge' a metahuman (although how to do that is the toughie). The maximum capacity of an astral form seems to be 12 essence, not 6.

[Sphynx]

Well, my personal belief is that your Astral is connected entirely to your meat-body (Essence). The fact that you're connected doesn't mean you see that connection. Just because I'm always attached to my body when projecting doesn't mean I see that attachment, and thus, doesn't mean I see how to immediately return to it. Maybe that connector, isn't in the astral plane itself but some sort of pocket dimension outside of my astral perception.

[nezumi]

It did occur to me that that option is possible. For instance, my heart is directly connected and part of me, but I can't make it speed up or slow down at will, I need to do so indirectly through some other action. I can't make my fingernails grow faster or my hair grow blond, but if I die, they will all stop doing what they do soon afterwards.

A direct relation does not mean it is a conscious or controllable relation.

[Random Voices]

It seems that this is the only magic thread covering rules revisions, so I'll post this here. The biggest problem I see with 3rd ed is the phrase "..number of successes up to the force of the spell..." If the pages weren't double sided I'd take a razor blade and remove that from every spell description. I understand what problem they were trying to correct with that phrase, but there are MUCH better ways to go about it than limiting the maximum number of successes a mage can get casting a spell. The whole philosophy behind the game system is that the more successes you get, the better you do. When a mage casts a spell, the effects of that spell should depend upon the skill of the mage casting the spell, and the amount of mana the mage is using to cast the spell. A mage with a skill of 12 should be able to accomplish as much or more with a lower force spell than a mage with a skill of 4. Currently that statement is only true for combat spells, a mage with a skill of 12 can cast a force 2 combat spell and theoretically get more successes than the target gets resisting the spell, but that same mage cannot get more effect from casting Levitate than a mage with a skill of 4 casting a force 6 spell. Also, spells cast at a force higher than 2 are illegal, but realistically are there any spells that give reasonable spell effects if limited to only 2 successes? Low force spells should be useful, and not automatically limited.

There are three changes I would make to fix the issue of players taking certain spells at a force of 1 or 2 and never taking them at a higher force.
1. Change spell effects to be dependant upon the force of the spell being cast: i.e., the area of effect is equal to the spell's force, not the caster's magic attribute. In fact anywhere in a spell discription where it says "caster's magic attribute" replace with "spell's force."

2. When casting a spell a mage rolls his sorcery skill and can add a number of spell pool dice up to the force of the spell. Any dice gained from a magical source (totem dice, elemental dice, foci, etc) are considered spell pool dice. So a higher force spell would allow the mage to use more bonus dice to cast.

3. Similar to #1, give all spell's a base effect if they are successfully cast. If a combat spell is cast successfully, it will due a minimum amount of damage based on the damage level it was cast at, so that same idea should be extended to all of those spells that currently have the evil phrase in their discriptions. I'm not going to list modifications for every spell, but here are 2 as an example:

Heal/Treat - this spell heals a number of boxes of damage equal to the force divided by 2 (or 3 if you want) plus one box for every 2 (or 3) successes. So casting a force 4 Heal spell will heal at least 2 boxes of damage as long as the caster gets one success on the casting test. This actually will make it easier to heal multiple boxes of damage on heavily cybered characters, if that's a problem have their essence affect the target number (as it does already) and have every point of body index (round up) remove one box of base damage healed.

Increase Reflexes - this is a popular spell to complain about. Change it to read that "the spell gives the caster extra initiative dice equal to the force of the spell divided by 3 (round down), plus 1 for every 3 successes. Maximum of 3 dice." Now casting the spell at less than force 3 results in no base initiative dice, just dice gained on the spell casting test, and casting the spell at force 6 gives two base dice, plus dice from extra successes.

If the magic rules are going to be changed, this is an important change to make.