Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Techno Mage
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
PiXeL01
Yeah I know the topic sounds very munchin but I still like your all's opinion on it anyway. It is for SR3 which I refuse to move away from... still at least

One of my players came up with an idea for a Chaos Mage who is walking towards burnout quite rapidly, especially since he has extensive implants (Cyberhorns and so on) and a picture from Mage the Assencion popped into my head. I cant remember the specific name on that tradition in Mage, but I believe it was something like Techno Mage or similar. On the picture there was a mage weaarin VR goggles and having what I remember to be a cyberarm (It could of course just be a VR glove but what the heck)

Anyways I wondered if it was possible for a tradition to evoled around the use of cyberware or at least so the impact of implants wasnt as great. Basicly atm I let my player do the following

Magic Loss for implants under the base cost of 1 essence are halved, though with the cost of +1 Power on all Drains.

Of course when you reach 0 in Essence all magic sustaining material is gone so is the ability to use magic naturally

I have thought about increasing the cost for learning spells with 1 Good Karma, but havent yet.

Do you think the penalties arent steep enough?
Is it too easy to abuse?
Any suggestions?
Herald of Verjigorm
Oh look, another toaster shaman...

If you want to be nice, just let him use his distinctive style inducing cyberwear as talisman geasa to compensate for some of the magic loss. If that's not enough, tell him to switch to betaware.
Eggs
QUOTE
Do you think the penalties arent steep enough?

Yes.
QUOTE
Is it too easy to abuse?

Yes.
QUOTE
Any suggestions?

Other than accepting the fact that magic really just doesn't work as well when you're full of metal? Not really. biggrin.gif
On a more serious note, read the above sentence again. grinbig.gif
Eggs
Actually, after thinking for a moment, I think I've come up a revision that might be useful.
1)
QUOTE
Magic Loss for implants under the base cost of 1 essence are halved, though with the cost of +1 Power on all Drains.

Revise this to state, "The reduction in essence due to cyberware reduces your Magic stat at a rate of -1 magic per point of lost essence, rounded up."
biggrin.gif
I'm just kidding, btw.
If you Really Must have a mage with cyberware who gets lessened penalties on implants then go right ahead. Be warned, however, that the God of Game Balance will Smite You for totally FUBARing a fundamental rule of Shadowrun.
Realisitically, it might just be easier to dress up in a street samurai costume (Metal/Chrome full-body armor) and anchor improved attribute/reaction/skill spells on yourself. It basically amounts to having cyberware and a Crazy Mage™ who is operating under the delusion that cyberware enhances/is related to his Magical Abilities. Combine with various Geasa for best results.
caramel frappuccino
While I don't think the mechanic is in line with the rest of the rules set forth by the game, I doubt that it'll be unbalancing. +1 TN to all Drain Resistance tests is harsh.
Velocity
I don't think it's all that harsh and it's easy enough to compensate for it, especially with cyber- and bio- modifications available.

While I understand the appeal of cybermages, the existing Essence loss rules are fair and PiXeL01's original proposal is severely unbalancing.
caramel frappuccino
QUOTE (Velocity)
I don't think it's all that harsh and it's easy enough to compensate for it, especially with cyber- and bio- modifications available.

In what way? There is no cyberware that I know of that affects drain, and the drain penalty means that other mages can throw out spells that are 50-100% more powerful than your own at the same drain cost.

The only benefit received in return is having your cyberware cost roughly as much in terms of magic loss as bioware. The disparity in effectiveness between a point of cyberware and a point of bioware is not large enough to compensate for the drawbacks of taking the option. In fact, I would argue that such a disparity does not exist at all.
Edward
Given the geasa rules as they stand you can already ply a cybered mage with up to 5 essence spent on cyberwear with no practical loss of magic (geasa it all to things that wont be a problem, like presence of your cyberwear). If you want to create a tradition that goes in for this kind of thing then do so but I donít think they need any more advantages, and thus should not be penalised beyond other characters. If the rules for magic loss and geasa where to be tightened up to prevent the common abuse of the fully cybered mage (that I believe should happon) I would perhaps concede the possibility of a tradition that got benefits for cyber and some other penalty.

Edward
Glyph
Yeah... my first reaction to a character concept is "How can this be done within the existing rules?" Between geasa for magic loss and things like initiation or power foci to compensate for it, a cybered mage is a perfectly viable concept. I would just make it a chaos mage who has some wacky delusions regarding his cyberware.

If anything, a cyber-mage should be a gimped character type, like the psionic from MITS, someone who suffers because of a faulty understanding of how his magic really works.

The problem with house-rules for a cyber mage isn't merely one of game balance. It also flouts some of the basic concepts of the game, regarding how magic works despite different totems or traditions. I would be just as skeptical about, say, a spell to heal stun damage, whether it was "balanced" or not.
PiXeL01
I have to admit I didnt realize nor have never allowed taking Geasa to cover for Magic Loss involving Implants of any kind. I thought it only applied to loss following damage, negleble first aid attempts and so on. Maybe I just need to read through my books again.

Also, by base cost I meant before the appliance of Graded ware of any kind. You are still gonna lose close to 4 magic for having implants a Delta Graded Move by Wire system IV for instance.

I think I saw somewhere that implanting bioware could be geased giving the nature of the implants, but dont recall anything on cyberware in general, which might be why I dont allow it
hyzmarca
Any magic loss can be geased, by canon.
Edward
The original SR3 rules actually had it imposable to geasa magic loss due to biowear (because it wasnít lost, just suppressed, but there was no way to get it back) this was changed in the errata, now biowear causes actual magic loss, and all magic loss can be geasad.

Edward
PiXeL01
Then other than having a over geased character I see your point. Then again there is always house rules to compensate muhuhahaha
The Stainless Steel Rat
QUOTE (Edward)
...(geasa it all to things that wont be a problem, like presence of your cyberwear). ...

Why would any GM allow such a Geas? Much like a Flaw, if it doesn't affect the gameplay, it shouldn't be allowed.

How about some other great Geasa?

I have to have a pulse.

I have to have eaten in the past week.

I have to have slept within the past 48 hours.

I can't be thirsty.

My eyes have to be open.
Herald of Verjigorm
Why allow it?
1) cyberware can be removed (painfully)
2) you can only have as many geasa as intelligence, so you are slightly more vulnerable to other sources of magic loss
3) mages (or shamen, or wujeneers, etc.) suffer the penalties of all their geasa when even one is broken

Why not allow it?
1) players don't lose their cyber often in most games
2) if it's all non-obvious subtle cyberware (as that wouldn't be flashy enough for what I think talisman should require)
3) stupid cyber-adept twinkmachines
mfb
i'm generally of the opinion that the more geasa a non-adept character has, the less debilitating each individual geas can be. non-adept characters can't really be said to have multiple geasa, if you think about it. rather, they have one big geasa that can be broken in multiple ways. the more geasa you have, the more suck you're inflicted with when even one of those conditions are not met; ergo, lots of less-debilitating geasa are roughly equal to a single really debilitating geas.
Edward
It dose say in the book that a item of cyber wear can form a talisman geasa.

And where do you get the idear that a geasa must be showy. Some of the standard ones are imposable to notice (such as time of day).

Edward
Calvin Hobbes
Don't Talisman geasa show up for Mages and Spirits? It kind of hampers you for going undetected when they can *see you* shining like a beacon. Also, what if some mages decided they want your cyberware to study this metamagic, to hell if you want it?
PiXeL01
As far as I can tell by reading the rules in Magic in the Shadows and the FAQ it isnt specified if you are allowed to or not at taking Cyberware as a Talisman, though you have to bound to it like a Fetish if you do and it has to have three distinct features. Kinda hard to place on cyberware, isnt it?

Another thing. Why take a shitload of Geasa? If you break just one of them you break ALL of them and not only lose the magic but also get +1 to any magic test pr point geased. Why limit yourself in such a way?
nick012000
QUOTE (PiXeL01)
As far as I can tell by reading the rules in Magic in the Shadows and the FAQ it isnt specified if you are allowed to or not at taking Cyberware as a Talisman, though you have to bound to it like a Fetish if you do and it has to have three distinct features. Kinda hard to place on cyberware, isnt it?

Another thing. Why take a shitload of Geasa? If you break just one of them you break ALL of them and not only lose the magic but also get +1 to any magic test pr point geased. Why limit yourself in such a way?

Well, firstly, it would be fairly easy to make three features for your cyberware. Just pull out the engraver and start engraving your name, your totem symbol for shamans (or the symbols of the four elements for hermetics), and something else of value to your character into the limb. Easy.

As for the second... I'd rather have 6 Magic with some restrictions on it (and some penalties when the restrictions are broken), than 1 Magic all the time.
Wireknight
I play a Knight-Errant Firewatch cybermage character, and I have managed to achieve this, shockingly, without using any crazy new rules about reduced magic loss from cyberware. It's simple. He started off with Essence of around 4. As he trained, and initiated, his cybersystems and bioware augmentations were upgraded. At the end, he had Essence of 2, Bio Index of 2, and 4 initiate grades. That, plus a power focus, puts him, magically, a bit beyond an uninitiated magician, with a very solid array of augmentations.

If you want to play a cybermage, you just have to decide how close to the burnout mark you want to tread, start there, and make certain you initiate enough to balance out any magic losses to bioware and cyberware. There's no need to make up new and potentially gamebreaking rules to cover this sort of thing.
tisoz
QUOTE (PiXeL01)
<snip> it has to have three distinct features. Kinda hard to place on cyberware, isnt it?


Actually, the 3 distinctions for a talisman could be: cybereyes with low-light, vision magnification 3, and flare compensation. Some sick bastard takes them, you get them replaced with another set with the same features and your talisman geas is restored.
Critias
QUOTE (Wireknight)
There's no need to make up new and potentially gamebreaking rules to cover this sort of thing.

There's more of your crazy talk. Much like playing a middle-aged or older character, a man meeting magic and machine requires extensive house ruling!
Calvin Hobbes
QUOTE
Actually, the 3 distinctions for a talisman could be: cybereyes with low-light, vision magnification 3, and flare compensation. Some sick bastard takes them, you get them replaced with another set with the same features and your talisman geas is restored.


Who the frag will get you to the point where they can take your eyeballs, and leave you alive?
tisoz
QUOTE
Some sick bastard ...


Or they left you for dead and looted your 'ware, or they wanted to keep you from casting LOS spells, or ...
PiXeL01
Well there are multiple ways of coming up with distinct features and then there is the point of getting it past your GM. Those features you suggest wouldnt be allowed by me.

Guess it all depends on how the rules are read, interpretted and bent
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012