I'm attempting to reverse-engineer the spell formulae of the spells in the core SR4 rulebook, mainly because my players are dying to create some new spells to match those they made back in the day.
I'd like to know first off, since I'm new here, if posting my results of these formulae would be kosher on these forums.
If so, tell me, and I'll continue and discuss =)
Full Version: Reverse-Engineering the Spell Formulae
I'd have no problem with it. That being said, I tried reverse-engineering the NPC grunt/lieutenant system a while back and posted some slapped-together enemy creation rules for it, but nobody seemed to care much.
My advise is to do as much as you need, but don't expect anyone to give a crap.
My advise is to do as much as you need, but don't expect anyone to give a crap.
Well, so far I've worked out the Combat spells, using Manabolt as the base spell. Drain starts at F/2, Type is Mana, Damage is Physical, Range is LOS and Direct, Duration is Instant.
The following modifiers adjust the drain:
Physical Type +1
Stun Damage -1
Touch Range -2
Area Effect +2
Indirect Effect -1
Elemental Effect +3
So far, the only spells that don't fit, as presented in the Core book, are the Punch/Clout/Blast line, which these mods would give a drain of 1 less than listed.
Working on Illusion spells now, as I'm saving the basis for Detection for when I have more time to delve deeper into the formulae.
The following modifiers adjust the drain:
Physical Type +1
Stun Damage -1
Touch Range -2
Area Effect +2
Indirect Effect -1
Elemental Effect +3
So far, the only spells that don't fit, as presented in the Core book, are the Punch/Clout/Blast line, which these mods would give a drain of 1 less than listed.
Working on Illusion spells now, as I'm saving the basis for Detection for when I have more time to delve deeper into the formulae.
Illusion spells so far have similar formulae.
The base Illusion spell template has Type as Mana (+0), Category as Illusion (-1, inspired by SR3), Sustained Duration (+1), LOS Range, Single-Sense and Realistic affectation, and Indirect effect (cast on self or other indirectly, unresisted, could also be considered "voluntary").
The following Drain mods apply:
Physical Type +1
Tough Range -1
Multi-Sense Effect +1
Area Effect +2
Obvious Effect -2
Directly Resisted by Target -1
Again, as with combat spells, only one line of spells does not fit this mold: Phantasm/Trid Phantasm. Their drain should be 1 point higher, and when compared to the similar-yet-weaker spells Hush/Silence, which have the same drain, this makes sense.
The base Illusion spell template has Type as Mana (+0), Category as Illusion (-1, inspired by SR3), Sustained Duration (+1), LOS Range, Single-Sense and Realistic affectation, and Indirect effect (cast on self or other indirectly, unresisted, could also be considered "voluntary").
The following Drain mods apply:
Physical Type +1
Tough Range -1
Multi-Sense Effect +1
Area Effect +2
Obvious Effect -2
Directly Resisted by Target -1
Again, as with combat spells, only one line of spells does not fit this mold: Phantasm/Trid Phantasm. Their drain should be 1 point higher, and when compared to the similar-yet-weaker spells Hush/Silence, which have the same drain, this makes sense.
I wonder if some spells were given a fudge factor. For instance, it's been suggested elsewhere on this forum that Clout is undesirable due to the way spell mechanics work out; maybe the discount is in there to help make up for that.
| QUOTE (Azralon) |
| I wonder if some spells were given a fudge factor. For instance, it's been suggested elsewhere on this forum that Clout is undesirable due to the way spell mechanics work out; maybe the discount is in there to help make up for that. |
Possibly. Clout should have a lower drain, it seems, especially when compared to a spell like Stunbolt, which essentially does the same thing while completely ypassing armor. In fact, clout is the only indirect combat spell without elemental effect.
Perhaps Indirect should have no modifiers, and Elemental should have +2?
I think I've figured out the Health spells.
Base Spell: Mana Type (+0), Touch Range (-1), Permanent Duration (+1), DV F/2
MODIFIERS:
Physical Type +1
Voluntary Subject -2
Symptoms Only -2
Sustained Duration (+1, same as permenent)
Affects Initiative +1
This works for all the Health Spells Except Hibernate and Increase Attribute, both of which should have DV 1 point higher than listed. I guess Hibernate's might be lower because it only have a somewhat minor, non-healing effect. As for Increase Attribute, I'm not sure from where that additional -1 comes. I can think of different modifiers that would raise DECREASE attribute, but not increase.
Base Spell: Mana Type (+0), Touch Range (-1), Permanent Duration (+1), DV F/2
MODIFIERS:
Physical Type +1
Voluntary Subject -2
Symptoms Only -2
Sustained Duration (+1, same as permenent)
Affects Initiative +1
This works for all the Health Spells Except Hibernate and Increase Attribute, both of which should have DV 1 point higher than listed. I guess Hibernate's might be lower because it only have a somewhat minor, non-healing effect. As for Increase Attribute, I'm not sure from where that additional -1 comes. I can think of different modifiers that would raise DECREASE attribute, but not increase.
| QUOTE (Azralon) |
| Perhaps Indirect should have no modifiers, and Elemental should have +2? |
That works quite well, actually. Good call!
But something about it still just does not feel right. From a balance-of-power perspective, it would make sense for an Indirect spell to have less drain than a direct one, because you're skimping on the armor-bypassing power. Stunbolt bypasses the armor and hits then with stum damage, yet has LESS drain than clout, which doesn't bypass the armor?
Just seems... weird...
| QUOTE (phasmaphobic) |
| Physical Type +1 Stun Damage -1 Touch Range -2 Area Effect +2 Indirect Effect -1 Elemental Effect +3 |
The following modifiers seem to work:
Physical Type +1
Stun Damage -1
Touch Range -2
Area Effect +2
Elemental Effect +2
Acid Stream, Flamethrower, Lightning Bolt (Physical Type, Elemental Effect) +3
Toxic Wave, Fireball, Ball Lightning (Physical Type, Area Effect, Elemental Effect) +5
Punch (Physical Type, Touch Range, Stun Damage) -2
Clout (Physical Type, Stun Damage) +0
Blast (Physical Type, Stun Damage, Area Effect) +2
Death Touch (Touch Range) -2
Manabolt (no mods) +0
Manaball (Area Effect) +2
Shatter (Physical Type, Touch Range) -1
Powerbolt (Physical Type) +1
Powerball (Physical Type, Area Effect) +3
Knockout (Touch Range, Stun Damage) -3
Stunbolt (Stun Damage) -1
Stunball (Stun Damage, Area Effect) +1
just out of curiosity, are you beginning with the spell design from MItS? or are you starting from complete scratch?
| QUOTE (phasmaphobic) |
| But something about it still just does not feel right. From a balance-of-power perspective, it would make sense for an Indirect spell to have less drain than a direct one, because you're skimping on the armor-bypassing power. Stunbolt bypasses the armor and hits then with stun damage, yet has LESS drain than clout, which doesn't bypass the armor? |
I agree, it does seem weird.
I suppose the tradeoff is that the listed Indirects (since they're all Physical type) can be used against nonliving targets and Counterspelling is used to soak rather than avoid the damage.
| QUOTE (Aku) |
| just out of curiosity, are you beginning with the spell design from MItS? or are you starting from complete scratch? |
Both, actually. I understand that the SR3 system is incompatible due to the change in drain and the different minor systems introduced in spells and labelling in SR4, but it does provide a good frame of reference, in showing what aspects of spells affect the way they are cast.
Mostly, though, I'm cross-referencing common descriptors and figuring our their relations.
| QUOTE (phasmaphobic) | ||
That works quite well, actually. Good call! But something about it still just does not feel right. From a balance-of-power perspective, it would make sense for an Indirect spell to have less drain than a direct one, because you're skimping on the armor-bypassing power. Stunbolt bypasses the armor and hits then with stum damage, yet has LESS drain than clout, which doesn't bypass the armor? Just seems... weird... |
Direct spells are generally easier to resist because they only cause damage if the caster has at least one net success against the target's attribute+counterspelling. Indirect spells are treated as ranged attacks, meaning that the target has to stage down all of their damage if it fails to dodge. If the spell is area effect indirect then the target doesn't even have a chance to dodge.
When faced with high attributes and/or high counterspelling, area effect indirect is best.
| QUOTE (Azralon) | ||
I agree, it does seem weird. I suppose the tradeoff is that the listed Indirects (since they're all Physical type) can be used against nonliving targets and Counterspelling is used to soak rather than avoid the damage. |
Well, look at Powerbolt. It's physical, and affects nonliving targets, bypasses armor, does physical damange, and only has a +1 code higher than Clout.
That Clout spell, the more I look at it, is getting more and more worthless.
Hrm. Maybe the choice between Stunbolt and Clout is more like the decision to have Counterspelling (if present) used in the resistance test or the soak test.
Even so, you're looking at Clout -- like all Indirects -- having four die sets employable to counter it (Reaction, Body, half Impact, Counterspelling) as opposed to the Directs with just two (Body or Willpower, Counterspelling).
Oh, and Indirects don't have to deal with object resistance thresholds. Forgot that bit. But hey, what drone or vehicle cares about Stun damage?
Did we ever come to a consensus on called shots and Indirects?
Right, so I guess at best Clout is for unarmored living objects that can't defend with Reaction (unaware or immobile) and don't have available Counterspelling. Like, say, a potted plant.
Even so, you're looking at Clout -- like all Indirects -- having four die sets employable to counter it (Reaction, Body, half Impact, Counterspelling) as opposed to the Directs with just two (Body or Willpower, Counterspelling).
Oh, and Indirects don't have to deal with object resistance thresholds. Forgot that bit. But hey, what drone or vehicle cares about Stun damage?
Did we ever come to a consensus on called shots and Indirects?
Right, so I guess at best Clout is for unarmored living objects that can't defend with Reaction (unaware or immobile) and don't have available Counterspelling. Like, say, a potted plant.
Wow. I had been trying to reverse=engineer firearms, but I haven't been anywhere near as successful. I certainly am very interested and grateful for this analysis.
| QUOTE (Big Crow) |
| Wow. I had been trying to reverse=engineer firearms, but I haven't been anywhere near as successful. I certainly am very interested and grateful for this analysis. |
At the moment, I haven't really even had the notion to do so with firearms. I'm currently running the Shadowrun system in a fantasy-with-firearms setting (The Iron Kingdoms), and I'm trying to figure out how to allow a more fantasy-specific array of spells, while keeping them balanced with the rest of the system.
The formulae deduced here for Combat, Health, and Illusion spells have so far allowed me to port in some DnD-like spells, and so far the conversions are pretty balanced with the rest of the gamut. Detection and Manipulation spells are still a bit confusing to me, though.
On the firearms note, I don't know if reverse-engineering them will work that well. In all previous editions, stock firearms were not created with the firearms creation rules, and attempts to approximate them were usually way off in nuyen costs. Although, I would definitely like to see some Dice Pool mods and a good firearm creation system.
Regarding Detection spells, I might stand corrected. I think I'm seeing more of a basic pattern.
Looking only at the "Detect XX" spells, here's that I think might be going on:
BASE: Type Mana (+0), Touch Range (-1), Sustained Duration (+1), DV: F/2
MODIFIERS:
Physical Spell +1
Area +2
Restricted Target -2 (life, magic, etc)
Very Restricted -3 (specific life form, specific person, specific type of object)
Actually, I could be wrong here. Detect Enemies and Detect Object don't fit this formula right. Not sure how Detect Enemies was calculated, but Detect Object, if calculated the same as Detect Life Form, should have an additional +1 to its DV for being a physical spell, unless Detection Spells don't care about Mana/Physical types.
If that were the case, I would go further and break down the Analyze/Clairsentient spells (the first four on p. 198):
Touch (-1), Sustained (+1) = DV F/2
Passive -1 (simple extension of sense, no additional insight gleamed)
Should all of thise hold true, the ones I am still at a loss to explain are Combat Sense, Detect Enemies, Mindlink, and Mind probe. I would assume Detect Enemies would be the same as Detect Life Form, as you're scanning for only a specific target. Mindlink is Voluntary, so I would place it's base drain at F/2 -2, but there are other factors working to raise that Drain three whole points. Perhaps the "Psychic" descriptor adds +2, which would explain Combat Sense, but I'm not sure where mindlink gets the additional +1. Mind Probe, by its description, sounds like it qualifies for the "Psychic" descriptor, and thus it's Drain Value calculates smoothly.
God I want that new Magic sourcebook!
... So, in short: Detection Spells
BASE SPELL: Mana Type (+0), Touch Range (-1), Sustained Duration (+1), Directional Descriptor, DV: F/2
MODIFIERS:
Passive -1
Physical: No Modifier!
Restricted Target -2 (life, magic, etc)
Area +2
Very Restricted -3 (specific life form, specific person, specific type of object)
Extended +2
Psychic +2
EXCEPTIONS: Detect Enemies (listed DV should be 2 less), Mindlink (listed DV should be 1 less)
EDIT: Perhaps Mindlink has that additional +1 DV because it allows two characters (caster and subject) to equally benefit from the spell, without actually being an area spell?
Looking only at the "Detect XX" spells, here's that I think might be going on:
BASE: Type Mana (+0), Touch Range (-1), Sustained Duration (+1), DV: F/2
MODIFIERS:
Physical Spell +1
Area +2
Restricted Target -2 (life, magic, etc)
Very Restricted -3 (specific life form, specific person, specific type of object)
Actually, I could be wrong here. Detect Enemies and Detect Object don't fit this formula right. Not sure how Detect Enemies was calculated, but Detect Object, if calculated the same as Detect Life Form, should have an additional +1 to its DV for being a physical spell, unless Detection Spells don't care about Mana/Physical types.
If that were the case, I would go further and break down the Analyze/Clairsentient spells (the first four on p. 198):
Touch (-1), Sustained (+1) = DV F/2
Passive -1 (simple extension of sense, no additional insight gleamed)
Should all of thise hold true, the ones I am still at a loss to explain are Combat Sense, Detect Enemies, Mindlink, and Mind probe. I would assume Detect Enemies would be the same as Detect Life Form, as you're scanning for only a specific target. Mindlink is Voluntary, so I would place it's base drain at F/2 -2, but there are other factors working to raise that Drain three whole points. Perhaps the "Psychic" descriptor adds +2, which would explain Combat Sense, but I'm not sure where mindlink gets the additional +1. Mind Probe, by its description, sounds like it qualifies for the "Psychic" descriptor, and thus it's Drain Value calculates smoothly.
God I want that new Magic sourcebook!
... So, in short: Detection Spells
BASE SPELL: Mana Type (+0), Touch Range (-1), Sustained Duration (+1), Directional Descriptor, DV: F/2
MODIFIERS:
Passive -1
Physical: No Modifier!
Restricted Target -2 (life, magic, etc)
Area +2
Very Restricted -3 (specific life form, specific person, specific type of object)
Extended +2
Psychic +2
EXCEPTIONS: Detect Enemies (listed DV should be 2 less), Mindlink (listed DV should be 1 less)
EDIT: Perhaps Mindlink has that additional +1 DV because it allows two characters (caster and subject) to equally benefit from the spell, without actually being an area spell?
| QUOTE |
| God I want that new Magic sourcebook! |
Dont expect too much IIRC, MiTS doesnt hold all of the sr3 spells to it's designs either.
| QUOTE (phasmaphobic @ Dec 15 2005, 02:00 AM) | ||
At the moment, I haven't really even had the notion to do so with firearms. I'm currently running the Shadowrun system in a fantasy-with-firearms setting (The Iron Kingdoms), and I'm trying to figure out how to allow a more fantasy-specific array of spells, while keeping them balanced with the rest of the system. The formulae deduced here for Combat, Health, and Illusion spells have so far allowed me to port in some DnD-like spells, and so far the conversions are pretty balanced with the rest of the gamut. Detection and Manipulation spells are still a bit confusing to me, though. On the firearms note, I don't know if reverse-engineering them will work that well. In all previous editions, stock firearms were not created with the firearms creation rules, and attempts to approximate them were usually way off in nuyen costs. Although, I would definitely like to see some Dice Pool mods and a good firearm creation system. |
Not to get off-topic, but you are correct, they just use what sounds right, but, I have found some there are still some general assuption that can be made about a working system; something to tide my newly formed group over until we can get whatever sb that deals with it.
On a more topical note, does anyone know about the legality of converting older sr material? I mean, it is one thing to say, replace "x" line, with "y", but what about using snipets of the actual texts? Is that a big no-no for (free) distribution? I mean, I am certain we all want to know how to do a Punch Test in SR4...
Will I, or you, really need to rewrite everything applying to a basic conversion? Is Design Point Value a copywrited term? Does anyone one know what kind of rules we chould adhere too?
The reason this presses me is that, like many of you , I have a library of SR rulebooks from SR1-3 (literally every single book printed in English and a few in German I can barely read). So many of those rules/concepts became in intregal part of how I play and understand Shadowrun that I have been picking through the things I cannot live without to mark for conversion.
Spell design was on my list, but you guys are doing a bang-up job so far. If anyone is working on Adept powers, please post something!
Working on Manipulation spells, and sheesh this is tough. Starting with the back page...
Poltergeist (+3 DV) gets a +1 for sustained, a +1 for physical type, a +2 for area effect, and what... -1 for Environmental?
Shadow (+1 DV) gets +1 for physical type, +2 for area, +1 for sustained... so why a DV of only +1?
Shapechange (+2 DV) gets a +1 for physical type, +1 for sustained, -2 for voluntary subject... and perhaps is finished with a +2 for, say, Major Physical Change?
Turn to Goo (+2 DV) gets a +1 for physical type, +1 for sustained, but there's gotta be other affecting variables here.
Petrify (+2 DV) gets a +1 for physical type, +1 for sustained...
Mana Barrier (+1 DV), gets a +2 for area effect, +1 for sustained, yet the DV is two points less?
Physical Barrier (+3 DV) does the same as Mana Barrier but on the physical plane, yet a whole two points higher in DV?
Light (-1 DV) gets +1 for Physical, +2 for area effect, and +1 for sustained, yet its DV is five points lower than that total.
These just don't make any sense to me. All I can think of when looking at new manipulation spells is "call it like you see it" and the like.
Poltergeist (+3 DV) gets a +1 for sustained, a +1 for physical type, a +2 for area effect, and what... -1 for Environmental?
Shadow (+1 DV) gets +1 for physical type, +2 for area, +1 for sustained... so why a DV of only +1?
Shapechange (+2 DV) gets a +1 for physical type, +1 for sustained, -2 for voluntary subject... and perhaps is finished with a +2 for, say, Major Physical Change?
Turn to Goo (+2 DV) gets a +1 for physical type, +1 for sustained, but there's gotta be other affecting variables here.
Petrify (+2 DV) gets a +1 for physical type, +1 for sustained...
Mana Barrier (+1 DV), gets a +2 for area effect, +1 for sustained, yet the DV is two points less?
Physical Barrier (+3 DV) does the same as Mana Barrier but on the physical plane, yet a whole two points higher in DV?
Light (-1 DV) gets +1 for Physical, +2 for area effect, and +1 for sustained, yet its DV is five points lower than that total.
These just don't make any sense to me. All I can think of when looking at new manipulation spells is "call it like you see it" and the like.
| QUOTE (phasmaphobic) |
| Should all of thise hold true, the ones I am still at a loss to explain are Combat Sense, Detect Enemies, Mindlink, and Mind probe. I would assume Detect Enemies would be the same as Detect Life Form, as you're scanning for only a specific target. Mindlink is Voluntary, so I would place it's base drain at F/2 -2, but there are other factors working to raise that Drain three whole points. Perhaps the "Psychic" descriptor adds +2, which would explain Combat Sense, but I'm not sure where mindlink gets the additional +1. Mind Probe, by its description, sounds like it qualifies for the "Psychic" descriptor, and thus it's Drain Value calculates smoothly. |
I think the key on Detect Enemies is that it detects living creatures that have hostile intentions. So it's an extra level of discernment on Detect Life. That little piece of discernment is worth +2 Drain (and rather easily).
Combat Sense sees the frickin future, and merely having a bonus drain code from that is being mighty generous.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| I think the key on Detect Enemies is that it detects living creatures that have hostile intentions. So it's an extra level of discernment on Detect Life. That little piece of discernment is worth +2 Drain (and rather easily). Combat Sense sees the frickin future, and merely having a bonus drain code from that is being mighty generous. -Frank |
I think the different in Drain there, for mechanics purposes, is still too big. Detect Life Form finds all instances of one particular life form within it's range, regardless of intent. Detect Enemies finds all living creatures that have a specific intent to do you harm, and has many ifs and ands. If anything, because of it's much more pressing limitations, I'd give it a LOWER drain. But that's beside the point. I'm trying to deduce the specific variables at play here. "We think it should be higher" is not a good enough variable for a balanced numerical system, and didn't appear as one in any of the prior spell design formulae.
I think the Combat Sense drain increase would be summed up by the "Psychic" descriptor - meaning it allows an additional sense/insight that is not normally possessed by the character. In SR3 that is the "Provides a new sense" descriptor, and sets the Drain at Deadly. From a lot of these deductions and com parisons, I'm beginning to think that most of the base damage and drain levels of SR4 can be roughly based (aka eyeballed) around Medium damage in SR3, then modded up and down.
| QUOTE (phasmaphobic) |
| I'm trying to deduce the specific variables at play here. "We think it should be higher" is not a good enough variable for a balanced numerical system, and didn't appear as one in any of the prior spell design formulae. |
I don't want to get overly bogged down in senseless debate as you are doing good work. But I would point out that actually "We think it should be higher" appeared in every previous version of the spell design formulae. But the Grimoire said it best:
| QUOTE (Grimoire @ p. 115) |
| Spell design should be an artistic task, not an exercise in mathematical precision allowing a magician to get a tactical nuclear whammy for 3L Drain (no matter what the hermetics might say...). Even some of the spells in the Shadownrun rules had to be written on a "that looks good" basis, because it was almost impossible to make the rules a perfect fit. |
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| I don't want to get overly bogged down in senseless debate as you are doing good work. But I would point out that actually "We think it should be higher" appeared in every previous version of the spell design formulae. But the Grimoire said it best: |
Wow, I never noticed that before. At least I don't recall. Anyway, I gave away all my 1st and 2nd edition books to charity when 3rd Edition came out, so I can't really look it up =)
But I don't see any such reference in Magic In The Shadows. In Fact, MitS actually works out several core SR3 spells as examples. I could be missing something, though, as I'm mostly reading the meaty bits and re-skimming the fluff.
That being said, Manip spells are giving me a headache. Of course, that could be just from tonight's karaoke and alcohol...
That's actually why I brought up the "fudge factor" earlier. Some spells get weighted differently just because the gameworld needs them to be.
Don't let that stop you from trying; heck, for all we know the designers are reading this and learning from you.
Don't let that stop you from trying; heck, for all we know the designers are reading this and learning from you.
Based on the discuss here is a sample manipulation spell I was thinking about.
Blink(Physical)
Type: P Range: LOS Duration: I DV: (F/2) + 2
Blink transport/teleports the caster from his current location to another location of his choosing (force) meters away. This location has to be within the caster sight.
Suggestions, Comments, questions?
Blink(Physical)
Type: P Range: LOS Duration: I DV: (F/2) + 2
Blink transport/teleports the caster from his current location to another location of his choosing (force) meters away. This location has to be within the caster sight.
Suggestions, Comments, questions?
manipulation spells should probably be broken down into different categories, really.
i doubt there will be one formula that will cover all manipulation spells, because control manipulations are so different from, say, telekinetic manipulations, which are very different from shapechanging transformations.
of course, some modifiers will likely stay the same (area is more than single target, touch is less, physical costs more than mana, etc), but in general i think you need separate formulas for each basic concept.
i doubt there will be one formula that will cover all manipulation spells, because control manipulations are so different from, say, telekinetic manipulations, which are very different from shapechanging transformations.
of course, some modifiers will likely stay the same (area is more than single target, touch is less, physical costs more than mana, etc), but in general i think you need separate formulas for each basic concept.
| QUOTE (Haughtyelf) |
| Blink(Physical) Type: P Range: LOS Duration: I DV: (F/2) + 2 Blink transport/teleports the caster from his current location to another location of his choosing (force) meters away. This location has to be within the caster sight. |
At least in SR2 & 3, it was spelled out that magic cannot affect space and time (but it can affect the perception of it). Teleportation is a no-no in Shadowrun.
It'd also eliminate the fun half of "breaking and entering."
| QUOTE (Azralon) | ||
At least in SR2 & 3, it was spelled out that magic cannot affect space and time (but it can affect the perception of it). Teleportation is a no-no in Shadowrun. It'd also eliminate the fun half of "breaking and entering." |
I could easily see Blink as an Illusion spell, though, like Mirror Image and others from D20 canon:
Blink (Realistic, Single-Sense, Indirect)
Type: Mana
Range: Touch/Self, Area-Effect
uration: Sustained
The spell would, essentially, make the character invisible, and in addition would provide a major distracting visual, as images of the magician cascade around the location and the magician can make his escape. Each person in effect makes a resistance test. Each net nit from the caster bestows a -1 die penalty on the subject against all vision-based tests.
In effect, It' a variation of Invisibility and Mass Confusion.
| QUOTE (Azralon) | ||
At least in SR2 & 3, it was spelled out that magic cannot affect space and time (but it can affect the perception of it). Teleportation is a no-no in Shadowrun. It'd also eliminate the fun half of "breaking and entering." |
I was thinking of some restrictions on it about unable to pass physical or mana barriers, walls or doors. Since you have to see where you are going that is a big limitation.
As far as being a no-no, that was THE absolute dumpest(i'm being polite too) rule ever in dealing with magic. IMO.
depends on how you look at it, really. teleportation can be a real mess for a DM to have to deal with.
of course, i'd agree with it more if NPCs weren't able to teleport. and if it wasn't possible in ED either.
of course, i'd agree with it more if NPCs weren't able to teleport. and if it wasn't possible in ED either.
The easiest restriction is you have to have been there before. You can't teleport to someplace you don't know, plus it would be a major mana draw and a threshold test to see if you can get there.
Teleportation and time travel discussions would really be better off in their own dedicated thread(s).
Sorry, I didn't mean to get off on a tanget of what the spell did, more on deciding the drain based on the type, range, duration. It was probably a poor initial example.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.