The current Increase Reflexes thread has mostly turned into a flamewar, so I'm posting this in its own thread. Part of the issue there was that, unlike most other powerful spells, the Increase Reflexes spells had no intrinsic power gain from increased Force (although the Force still affects vulnerability to dispelling, wards, and so forth). Here's a possible solution.
Okay, in First and Second Edition, a lot of (currently) single spells were divided into three or four levels--e.g., Mana Dart/Missile/Bolt instead of Manabolt, or Heal Light/Moderate/Serious/Deadly Wounds instead of Heal. In Third, almost all of these were merged into one spell, with either a variable drain level or scaled effects depending on number of successes, capped by Force. The Increase Reflexes spells were the only ones not merged, that I can think of.
So, why not merge them into a single spell? Give it +1(D) drain (the same as Increase Reflexes +2, if anyone's counting) and say that every two successes increase the subject's Initiative dice by one, to a maximum of half the Force of the spell (rounded down), and by no more than three in any case.
This is modeled off the Increase Attribute spells, which add one to the target for every two successes and cap at the spell's Force. I've halved the cap and given it a hard maximum, given how powerful extra initiative dice can be. For the record, it now takes a Force of 5, Drain of 5D, and 6 successes to achieve +3 init dice, rather than a Force of 1, drain of 3D, and 1 success. Does that seem balanced?
Full Version: Modified Increase Reflexes spell
Hmm. That's a decent idea - mostly because in my experience, adding to the force of a spell solely so it's harder to dispel is incredibly wasteful. If the enemy mages are trying to dispel your stuff and not actually kill you, they're screwed (in general) - and any mage worth his salt oughta suppress or shatter a ward before moving through it.
Personally, what I've done this this: each extra die is a separate spell, and in order to be effective at its' maximum level, it must be learned at a force equal to twice the extra dice it'll give you, and you must gather at least two successes per extra die you wanna get. I.E. if you learned Increase Reflexes +3 at force 6 (so you could gather the absolute bonus, given enough successes), and got four successes, you'd nab an extra two dice, but not three. The only reason to learn these spells at less than their required 'maximum effectiveness' force is so that you can later increase the force with a minimum of research (I.E. house rule - it's easier to increase the force of a spell you already know, research wise, than to research an entirely new spell.)
Personally, what I've done this this: each extra die is a separate spell, and in order to be effective at its' maximum level, it must be learned at a force equal to twice the extra dice it'll give you, and you must gather at least two successes per extra die you wanna get. I.E. if you learned Increase Reflexes +3 at force 6 (so you could gather the absolute bonus, given enough successes), and got four successes, you'd nab an extra two dice, but not three. The only reason to learn these spells at less than their required 'maximum effectiveness' force is so that you can later increase the force with a minimum of research (I.E. house rule - it's easier to increase the force of a spell you already know, research wise, than to research an entirely new spell.)
Problem is, you're trying to fix something that isn't actually broken. While making the spell dependent on Force is more elegant, the solution you propose actually cripples the spell. You're increasing its cost while decreasing its effectiveness. As I pointed out in the other thread, when you figure up the resource costs of starting with Increase Reflexes +3 at Force 1, and a sustaining focus for it, it slots fairly neatly into the cost structure of cyber reflex enhancements. With your proposal, in order to get the same effect, you have to get Increase Reflexes at Force 6... which means paying six times as much for the sustaining focus, and using six times as many Spell Points to bond it, and six times as many Spell Points for the spell itself. And it uses up half of the Spell Points a Priority A full mage gets. If you want to have anything like a decent spell selection, you have to replace those... at 25,000Y a pop. Add in the price of the focus hardware, and you've just spent 390,000Y of your starting resources on a magical reflex booster that's inferior to Wired 2, which only costs 165,000Y. Hell, you can go alphaware on the Wired 2 and still come out ahead.
And consider that, if you're a full mage, you don't have that 1,000,000Y A Resources priority available to pay for all this, so that huge price tag is even more painful than it is for sammies...
And consider that, if you're a full mage, you don't have that 1,000,000Y A Resources priority available to pay for all this, so that huge price tag is even more painful than it is for sammies...
I agree with John. The increase reflexes spell is not close to the level of speed that a sammie can get (especially if you allow bioware - which most GMs do). It lets the mage have a slightly better chance of surviving and an opportunity to do a few extra actions such as ducking under cover. A Force: 1 increase reflexes spell and a sustaining focus for it let a low-resource mage have a chance, and are only part of the arsenal that a high-resource mage needs to buy. Increasing its cost gimps the mage too much for what is a second-rate initiative boost.
The solution I always look at as most likely is this:
Increase Reflexes
Type: M * Target: Reaction * Duration: S * Drain: +1(S)
This spell increases the reflexes of a voluntary target. For every two successes in casting, the target gains one extra initiative die to a maximum number of additional dice equal to the force of the spell or three, whichever is lower.
Which means you now need a force 3 spell for +3 dice of initiative. The drain is lower, but you're also going to be rolling fewer dice to resist it because you need more dice on the casting. A force 3 sustaining focus is 45,000
and permit only. Six spell points run you 150,000 for a "cost" of 195,000 for the lot. This compares fairly well with the closest equivalent (wired reflexes 2 with a reflex trigger, for 178,000 ), particularly considering the cyber equivalent represents fully 1/2 of a sammie's available essence whereas this represents approximately 1/4 of a mage's starting spell points (of which more can be purchased cheaply, unlike a samie's essence).
Increase Reflexes
Type: M * Target: Reaction * Duration: S * Drain: +1(S)
This spell increases the reflexes of a voluntary target. For every two successes in casting, the target gains one extra initiative die to a maximum number of additional dice equal to the force of the spell or three, whichever is lower.
Which means you now need a force 3 spell for +3 dice of initiative. The drain is lower, but you're also going to be rolling fewer dice to resist it because you need more dice on the casting. A force 3 sustaining focus is 45,000
and permit only. Six spell points run you 150,000 for a "cost" of 195,000 for the lot. This compares fairly well with the closest equivalent (wired reflexes 2 with a reflex trigger, for 178,000 ), particularly considering the cyber equivalent represents fully 1/2 of a sammie's available essence whereas this represents approximately 1/4 of a mage's starting spell points (of which more can be purchased cheaply, unlike a samie's essence).
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
| The solution I always look at as most likely is this |
Mine is exactly the same, except that the maximum number of extra initiative dice is equal to half the Force of the spell, requiring the spell be cast at a Force of 6 to gain +3 dice.
Guys,
First of all I am going to do my utmost to discuss the issue without any emotional context and I am asking everyone else here to do likewise.
That said, I rather like Phesma's house rule and I add that our table uses a rule very much like it (except you get +3d6 at force 5 rather than six but that is the only real difference).
Let's compare Increased Reflexes +3 to Wired Reflexes 2 (the closest cyberware counterpart), and I think you will quickly see why a fix is in order.
Increase Reflexes +3:
Benefit: +3d6 initiative anywhere (even astral) [average of +10.5 init]
Cost: 15,000 nuyen and two spell points.
Legality: Legal
Wired Reflexes 2:
Benefit: +4 reaction, +2d6 initiative [average +11 init]
Cost: 165,000 nuyen and three essense
Legality: 4P-Q
Please note that I broke apart the opportunity cost (spell points and essense) and the actual cost you pay in nuyen. I do so because not all mages in fact pay 50,000 nuyen for the spell and focus.
For example, if a mage simply allocated the two spell points without replaceing them, then the actual cost is merely 15,000 nuyen. There is an opportunity cost of 2 spell points but that doesn't have an exact nuyen value.
In another example, it is quite possible with Pointbuy (a canonical char-gen system) to have both 1 million starting nuyen and be a fully awakened mage. In such a case you will probably buy the maximum (50) spell points anyway and so again you don't have any extra nuyen cost for this combination (other than the focus), just the opportunity cost.
Likewise the street-sam doesn't just pay nuyen for wired reflexes. He also pays three essense and while there isn't a canonical way of buying essense with nuyen (which is a good thing btw), it does reflect a severe opportunity cost since the street sam only gets six essense to start with. Indeed the opportunity cost is actually steeper for the street-sam (50%) than the mage (4-8%)
So let's look at it:
Gross Benefit: This is nearly a tie with the edge going to wired reflexes two because the +4 reaction is generally better than the extra die of initiative.
Nuyen Cost: The magical way wins by a mile here by 150,000 nuyen which is no joke.
Opportunity Cost: Again the magical way comes out way ahead. The mage has to dedicate 4-8% of his starting spell points while the street-sam has to dedicate 50% of his essense.
Net Benefit: The magical way is clearly and overwhelmingly better. The reason mundanes don't use it is because no mage (with any sense and most have it) will cast the spell/focus on them because the focus represents a material link.
Now let's repeat the analysis if you need a force 6 spell to get the same effect:
New Improved Init Force 6:
Benefit: +3d6 Init [+10.5 init average]
Cost: 180,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 12 spell points
Wired Reflexes 2:
Benefit: +4 reaction, +2d6 Init [+11 init average]
Cost: 165,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 3 essense
Now the analysis shows that the two are nearly balanced with the street-sam having a slight edge (which is good because speed is a street-sam speciality)
Gross Benefit: Again almost a tie with the wired reflexes coming out slightly ahead.
Cost: Now the wired reflexes has a slight (15,000 nuyen) edge but the two are nearly the same.
Opportunity Cost: The mage still has the edge in this category since this combo only takes 24-48% of the starting spell points while the wired reflexes will still take 50% of the street-sam's starting essence. The gap is much closer but the mage still has the edge.
Net Benefit: The street sam has the edge in two categories (slighly) while the mage has the edge in one (slightly). Thus I would say that this is nearly balanced with the nod going to the street sam.
Conclusion: This is a good houserule at least on first analysis and seems to be balanced.
-Polaris
First of all I am going to do my utmost to discuss the issue without any emotional context and I am asking everyone else here to do likewise.
That said, I rather like Phesma's house rule and I add that our table uses a rule very much like it (except you get +3d6 at force 5 rather than six but that is the only real difference).
Let's compare Increased Reflexes +3 to Wired Reflexes 2 (the closest cyberware counterpart), and I think you will quickly see why a fix is in order.
Increase Reflexes +3:
Benefit: +3d6 initiative anywhere (even astral) [average of +10.5 init]
Cost: 15,000 nuyen and two spell points.
Legality: Legal
Wired Reflexes 2:
Benefit: +4 reaction, +2d6 initiative [average +11 init]
Cost: 165,000 nuyen and three essense
Legality: 4P-Q
Please note that I broke apart the opportunity cost (spell points and essense) and the actual cost you pay in nuyen. I do so because not all mages in fact pay 50,000 nuyen for the spell and focus.
For example, if a mage simply allocated the two spell points without replaceing them, then the actual cost is merely 15,000 nuyen. There is an opportunity cost of 2 spell points but that doesn't have an exact nuyen value.
In another example, it is quite possible with Pointbuy (a canonical char-gen system) to have both 1 million starting nuyen and be a fully awakened mage. In such a case you will probably buy the maximum (50) spell points anyway and so again you don't have any extra nuyen cost for this combination (other than the focus), just the opportunity cost.
Likewise the street-sam doesn't just pay nuyen for wired reflexes. He also pays three essense and while there isn't a canonical way of buying essense with nuyen (which is a good thing btw), it does reflect a severe opportunity cost since the street sam only gets six essense to start with. Indeed the opportunity cost is actually steeper for the street-sam (50%) than the mage (4-8%)
So let's look at it:
Gross Benefit: This is nearly a tie with the edge going to wired reflexes two because the +4 reaction is generally better than the extra die of initiative.
Nuyen Cost: The magical way wins by a mile here by 150,000 nuyen which is no joke.
Opportunity Cost: Again the magical way comes out way ahead. The mage has to dedicate 4-8% of his starting spell points while the street-sam has to dedicate 50% of his essense.
Net Benefit: The magical way is clearly and overwhelmingly better. The reason mundanes don't use it is because no mage (with any sense and most have it) will cast the spell/focus on them because the focus represents a material link.
Now let's repeat the analysis if you need a force 6 spell to get the same effect:
New Improved Init Force 6:
Benefit: +3d6 Init [+10.5 init average]
Cost: 180,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 12 spell points
Wired Reflexes 2:
Benefit: +4 reaction, +2d6 Init [+11 init average]
Cost: 165,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 3 essense
Now the analysis shows that the two are nearly balanced with the street-sam having a slight edge (which is good because speed is a street-sam speciality)
Gross Benefit: Again almost a tie with the wired reflexes coming out slightly ahead.
Cost: Now the wired reflexes has a slight (15,000 nuyen) edge but the two are nearly the same.
Opportunity Cost: The mage still has the edge in this category since this combo only takes 24-48% of the starting spell points while the wired reflexes will still take 50% of the street-sam's starting essence. The gap is much closer but the mage still has the edge.
Net Benefit: The street sam has the edge in two categories (slighly) while the mage has the edge in one (slightly). Thus I would say that this is nearly balanced with the nod going to the street sam.
Conclusion: This is a good houserule at least on first analysis and seems to be balanced.
-Polaris
Tinker: That's better, but still problematic.The two successes for one Initiative die thing is painful (this actually applies to the previous variants as well, but I forgot to mention it earlier).
Consider if you've got what I'd say is a fairly standard starting combat mage, reasonably min-maxed without being ludicrously excessive: 6 Int, 6 Will, 4 Quickness, 6 Magic, 6 Sorcery. This gives 5 Reaction and 6 Spell Pool.
With 12 dice to throw at your Increase Reflexes spell and a TN of 5, you can expect 2-3 successes, which'll give you +1Initiative, maybe +2 if you're lucky. And that's if you dedicate the entire Spell Pool to the casting, which leaves you with no margin of error for soaking S Drain. Even with a drain resistance TN at the minimum 2, you'll be taking L Drain more often than not. If you've got only a 4 Reaction, you can probably make the +3 the majority of the time, if you use your entire Spell Pool, but that still leaves no margin of error on the Drain. If you play it safe on the Drain, you're back down to the +2.
If you really think the spell needs fixing (I don't think it's broken, personally... as it stands, it's not pretty, but it works), I'd suggest bonus Initiative dice equal to Force (max 3... and capping the useful Force that way is also not pretty, but is necessary to avoid munchkinism), but either only one success necessary for full effect, or one success per bonus die. Requiring two successes per bonus die makes it too ineffective.
Consider if you've got what I'd say is a fairly standard starting combat mage, reasonably min-maxed without being ludicrously excessive: 6 Int, 6 Will, 4 Quickness, 6 Magic, 6 Sorcery. This gives 5 Reaction and 6 Spell Pool.
With 12 dice to throw at your Increase Reflexes spell and a TN of 5, you can expect 2-3 successes, which'll give you +1Initiative, maybe +2 if you're lucky. And that's if you dedicate the entire Spell Pool to the casting, which leaves you with no margin of error for soaking S Drain. Even with a drain resistance TN at the minimum 2, you'll be taking L Drain more often than not. If you've got only a 4 Reaction, you can probably make the +3 the majority of the time, if you use your entire Spell Pool, but that still leaves no margin of error on the Drain. If you play it safe on the Drain, you're back down to the +2.
If you really think the spell needs fixing (I don't think it's broken, personally... as it stands, it's not pretty, but it works), I'd suggest bonus Initiative dice equal to Force (max 3... and capping the useful Force that way is also not pretty, but is necessary to avoid munchkinism), but either only one success necessary for full effect, or one success per bonus die. Requiring two successes per bonus die makes it too ineffective.
I don't have any issue with the way the spell is in the book now, and I don't mind the suggestions listed above.
I simply like the unified single spell instead of the three separate spells becuase that's consistent with the way spells were changed in SR. Almost all other spells were unified... treat and heal, all combat and damaging manipulations spells. I just want to see this one make sense incontext by seeing it as one spell.
Since noone in my game has yet taken this spell I haven't had it come up, but some of the suggestions I have seen are good.
The fact or the matter is that virtually all the opponents a SR team will face will have no reflex enhancements. Due to the permanence of cyberware and the costs of anchoring magic on mndanes 99.9% of all corp security and police just dont use it. The people that do use it, if you're competent and stealthy you can nearly always avoid them. But hey, everyone's game is different.
I simply like the unified single spell instead of the three separate spells becuase that's consistent with the way spells were changed in SR. Almost all other spells were unified... treat and heal, all combat and damaging manipulations spells. I just want to see this one make sense incontext by seeing it as one spell.
Since noone in my game has yet taken this spell I haven't had it come up, but some of the suggestions I have seen are good.
The fact or the matter is that virtually all the opponents a SR team will face will have no reflex enhancements. Due to the permanence of cyberware and the costs of anchoring magic on mndanes 99.9% of all corp security and police just dont use it. The people that do use it, if you're competent and stealthy you can nearly always avoid them. But hey, everyone's game is different.
I've never had a big problem with the spell in general, the only thing we changed is that a force 2 spell cannot give you +3 anything, ever.
But you do compare it to wired reflexes which is not terribly fair. For starters, your force 2 spell is a joke for any mage to take down and I do mean, a joke.
Also, you forget that mages don't do anywhere near as much with their actions as samurai for one simple reason: sorcery dice get used up, firearms dice don't.
Other than that, I don't have a big problem with reflex spells, it depends on the GM, like most other things. My current shaman for instance, is waiting to get rank 3 before getting a force 3 reflex booster tattooed, spending 6 karma will give me force 12 for purposes of resisting people messing with it and my masking and rank 3 will enable me to conceal the spell.
I'd say that whole show is gonna run me a little more than 15k and 2 spell points.
Sunday.
But you do compare it to wired reflexes which is not terribly fair. For starters, your force 2 spell is a joke for any mage to take down and I do mean, a joke.
Also, you forget that mages don't do anywhere near as much with their actions as samurai for one simple reason: sorcery dice get used up, firearms dice don't.
Other than that, I don't have a big problem with reflex spells, it depends on the GM, like most other things. My current shaman for instance, is waiting to get rank 3 before getting a force 3 reflex booster tattooed, spending 6 karma will give me force 12 for purposes of resisting people messing with it and my masking and rank 3 will enable me to conceal the spell.
I'd say that whole show is gonna run me a little more than 15k and 2 spell points.
Sunday.
Sunday Gamer,
How is the comparison unfair. I already discussed (and pretty convincingly showed) in the prior thread that you can pretty much insure that the focus is down until you need it (such as passing through wards) and up when you do.
Even Cain admitted that dispelling is not an issue in this case.
Because of that, you are looking are a 2 spell point investment (one for the spell and one for the foci) and 15000 nuyen.
Also, sorcerery dice do not get used up. Spell Pool dice do, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that you have to use sorcerery dice for spell defense. You get to use sorcerer dice and/or spell pool dice. That means you can cast with your full sorcerery skill at every pass....and even use it to fight elementals (if astral).
As for your plan, have at it, I suppose. Personally, I would have that pretty far down on my list of priorites especially if I had the masking metamagic technique (which I almost always take early).
-Polaris
How is the comparison unfair. I already discussed (and pretty convincingly showed) in the prior thread that you can pretty much insure that the focus is down until you need it (such as passing through wards) and up when you do.
Even Cain admitted that dispelling is not an issue in this case.
Because of that, you are looking are a 2 spell point investment (one for the spell and one for the foci) and 15000 nuyen.
Also, sorcerery dice do not get used up. Spell Pool dice do, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that you have to use sorcerery dice for spell defense. You get to use sorcerer dice and/or spell pool dice. That means you can cast with your full sorcerery skill at every pass....and even use it to fight elementals (if astral).
As for your plan, have at it, I suppose. Personally, I would have that pretty far down on my list of priorites especially if I had the masking metamagic technique (which I almost always take early).
-Polaris
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| Tinker: That's better, but still problematic.The two successes for one Initiative die thing is painful (this actually applies to the previous variants as well, but I forgot to mention it earlier). |
It is, however, completely consistant with the way other increase/decrease spells work. By lowering the drain to +1(S), it becomes easier to cast, meaning you can throw more dice at it (and thus get better results). Is there a good reason why it should be easier to cast a spell to give you an initiative die than a single point of reaction?
The cap of 1/2 force in dice is also dead on with other spells which boost things. Functionally, if you want three points of reaction boost, you only have to have a increase reaction spell at force 3. Why make reflexes harder than the other spells?
As an option, take out the three dice cap. It's hard enough to get six successes, so someone who could get, say, twelve successes with a force six spell deserves +6 dice. Maybe? He's probably taking M drain or better, at that point, so it balances out.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| How is the comparison unfair. I already discussed (and pretty convincingly showed) in the prior thread that you can pretty much insure that the focus is down until you need it (such as passing through wards) and up when you do. |
By being an exceptionally willful albino dwarf crab shaman?
Anyway, I think the comparison was unfair because of a whole bunch of advantages to Wired 2, which make it worth the extra cost:
Wired is much more durable. Force 1 foci can pop like firecrackers, not so with cyberware. Yes, you can take pains to protect them, but a Wired user need not inconvenience himself with such things.
Wired increases reaction, which is nice for a whole slew of things. Surprise tests, driving defaults, etc. all benefit from that hefty +4 reaction bonus.
Wired has resale value when you want to upgrade.
You don't need to be awakened to make good use of Wired. This is, I think, a more important point than you realize. 99% of the population is mundane!
| QUOTE |
| You don't need to be awakened to make good use of Wired. This is, I think, a more important point than you realize. 99% of the population is mundane! |
Zazen sir,
Are you willfully trying to be obtuse? This is a balance between shadowrunners. 99% of the world doesn't have over 2 essense worth of combat enhancing cyberware either.
| QUOTE |
| But you do compare it to wired reflexes which is not terribly fair. For starters, your force 2 spell is a joke for any mage to take down and I do mean, a joke. Also, you forget that mages don't do anywhere near as much with their actions as samurai for one simple reason: sorcery dice get used up, firearms dice don't. |
Sunday gamer, you're really reaching here, and I (hope) we both know it. Mages do less with their actions because spells limit their options compared to guns? LOL. Even if this were true even 30% of the time, there's no reason for the massive disparity. Do you realize the cyberware, being permanent, has as many drawbacks if not more than a spell? Cyberware can take damage, short out without constant upkeep... And seriously, try buying a plane ticket, or going into a decent restraunt for that matter... "Would you please remove any metallic items you're carrying, keys, any loose change?"
Curugul
| QUOTE (Curugul) |
| Zazen sir, Are you willfully trying to be obtuse? This is a balance between shadowrunners. 99% of the world doesn't have over 2 essense worth of combat enhancing cyberware either. |
I think you've missed my point.
Say you're a random runner who desires reflex enhancement. You have a 1% chance to be awakened. If you're not, then you've got to rule out Increase Reflexes +3d6, but not Wired Reflexes. They can be used by almost anyone, and that's why I listed it as an advantage.
Back to the original topic, what you should do is use the MitS to 'create' the spell. If you do, you end up with a spell that has the same drain as the +1D6 spell (+1S), that works exactly like the attribute spells in regards to every 2 successes grants a +1 dice. Exception being that now a Force 6 spell could get to +6Dice for +1S drain.
That's the one and ONLY reason I agree that the exception to an increased Reflex spell should be limited ot Force/2, and why I'd allow a Force 8 spell to have +4D6 and a Force 10 to have a +5D6, etc, etc.
PS, there was a Poll started on this topic, by me, some time back, might wanna go read the comments in there.
Sphynx
That's the one and ONLY reason I agree that the exception to an increased Reflex spell should be limited ot Force/2, and why I'd allow a Force 8 spell to have +4D6 and a Force 10 to have a +5D6, etc, etc.
PS, there was a Poll started on this topic, by me, some time back, might wanna go read the comments in there.
Sphynx
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| PS, there was a Poll started on this topic, by me, some time back, might wanna go read the comments in there. |
In my experience, the polls on this spell don't accurately reflect what's being done. I tend to vote differently if I'm looking at it from a player or GM perspective, for instance, and I'm sure people who only do one or the other have vastly different viewpoints.
The MitS rules look geared to creating the spells that are currently in SR3. Ie, the drain increases by a level for every "level" of increase the spell gives to initative. The wording is kind of murky, but it seems fairly obvious that it's an attempt to cover the loophole used to create those three spells.
The ideas here are along the lines that most people think of when trying to make this spell fit the context of the others. I personally dont use any house rule on it, because the way our games pan out its not considered a "must have" and even when taken is hardly broken. But thats us.
If youre going to make the (inevitable) comparison to cyber enchancements, one must also consider the "non-stat" aspects. Basically that the spell version does NOT add to reaction, CAN be negated by the enemy, and DOES have issues with wards. The cyber version DOES boost reaction, and while it gets through wards okay I suppose a cyberscanner could be problematic (although I see that as very rare compared to wards, at least for consideration on a run).
Those instances alone, coupled with the average total initiative curve of both (I posted a comparision in the other thread but it was overlooked) make the spell version weaker IMO, relative to the cyber.
Another thing to consider is that in order to make the most use of the force 1 sustaining focus, masking can come into play. When this is added to the cost it balances out well as is. This is of course, very style dependant (not everyone will "need" masking for this) but Im just pointing out that if you extrapolate the cost/use out some it can balance whereas before maybe it didnt. The comparison is very situationally dependant for cost to benefit.
If youre going to make the (inevitable) comparison to cyber enchancements, one must also consider the "non-stat" aspects. Basically that the spell version does NOT add to reaction, CAN be negated by the enemy, and DOES have issues with wards. The cyber version DOES boost reaction, and while it gets through wards okay I suppose a cyberscanner could be problematic (although I see that as very rare compared to wards, at least for consideration on a run).
Those instances alone, coupled with the average total initiative curve of both (I posted a comparision in the other thread but it was overlooked) make the spell version weaker IMO, relative to the cyber.
Another thing to consider is that in order to make the most use of the force 1 sustaining focus, masking can come into play. When this is added to the cost it balances out well as is. This is of course, very style dependant (not everyone will "need" masking for this) but Im just pointing out that if you extrapolate the cost/use out some it can balance whereas before maybe it didnt. The comparison is very situationally dependant for cost to benefit.
I dont think anyone (other than Polaris) ever worries about the 'balance' issue between spell and cyber. The purpose of all these threads (up until someone de-rails it by trying to prove balance issues) is to ask a simple question of 'how to standardize the obviously non-standard way of the reflex spell". Cyber having nothing to do with it at all.
Making it like all the other attribute spells is a VERY common idea that people pick up on, though apparently don't always stick too according to the Poll earlier. It makes ALOT more sense to convert it to a single spell with Force and Successes being the factor on how many dice you get. The need for Force and Success aren't because it's unbalanced otherwise, but rather to 'clean up' the last of the spells.
There was a time when ALL attribute spells were learned in the same manner, I recall my first +4 Body spell. The cap of 4 was removed and the Force/Success was added in its stead. Why not the Reflex Spell? And although I imagine in a 4th Edition it will be done the same as the attribute spells, for now everyone who goes through it eventually asks the 'why' and a few of us who have create our House Rule to make more sense and 'clean up' the last of the Attribute spells in the process.
Sphynx
Making it like all the other attribute spells is a VERY common idea that people pick up on, though apparently don't always stick too according to the Poll earlier. It makes ALOT more sense to convert it to a single spell with Force and Successes being the factor on how many dice you get. The need for Force and Success aren't because it's unbalanced otherwise, but rather to 'clean up' the last of the spells.
There was a time when ALL attribute spells were learned in the same manner, I recall my first +4 Body spell. The cap of 4 was removed and the Force/Success was added in its stead. Why not the Reflex Spell? And although I imagine in a 4th Edition it will be done the same as the attribute spells, for now everyone who goes through it eventually asks the 'why' and a few of us who have create our House Rule to make more sense and 'clean up' the last of the Attribute spells in the process.
Sphynx
Rofl, true enough. I think if it was changed to a sliding scale (not that it needs to be imo, but it would make sense to fit it in with the others), something such as "2 successes = +1 die, up to a bonus = to spell force" would work well enough. Its similar to a lot of spells but doesnt ream you into needing double the force of the bonus, and I cant think of any spells off the top of my head that limit the bonus to half the force. That would up it to a force 3 minimum for the full bonus, and be difficult enough to cast that, while doable, its hard enough you couldnt just recast all the time. However, it would also make the spell far less useful; I mean we almost never take any "buff" spells as is, and this one only rarely. Changing it would probably cross it off the lists in our game for good.
While this method makes it harder to cast, it also makes it significantly easier to resist the drain for. A force 3 version of the spell would have a drain of 2S. Compared to the 3D you currently face when trying to get +3, it's a far sight easier to resist, which means you can throw more dice to successes and probably come up with +2d6 reliably 
Guys,
Even if you include the reaction bonuses, Magic still comes way out ahead with the rules as written. I can show this by comparing these two combinations:
Magic:
Increased Reaction Force 6 w/Force 6 Sustaining Foci
Increased Reflexes +3 Force 1 w/Force 1 Sustaining Foci
Cyber:
Wired Reflexes +3
Magic:
Gain: +3d6 Initiative, +6 Reaction
Cost: 195,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 14 spell points
Cyberware:
Gain: +3d6 initiative, +6 Reaction
Cost: 500,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 5 essence
Gross Gains: These are identical in both cases.
Gross Cost: Magic is miles ahead here with a 305,000 nuyen advantage
Gross Opportunity Cost: Magic is again miles ahead since the opportunity cost for a mage is 28-56% of your starting spell points while the opportunity cost for the street-sam is 78%(!!) of his starting essence.
Again, magic is overwhelmingly superior which means some sort of house rule is badly needed.
-Polaris
Even if you include the reaction bonuses, Magic still comes way out ahead with the rules as written. I can show this by comparing these two combinations:
Magic:
Increased Reaction Force 6 w/Force 6 Sustaining Foci
Increased Reflexes +3 Force 1 w/Force 1 Sustaining Foci
Cyber:
Wired Reflexes +3
Magic:
Gain: +3d6 Initiative, +6 Reaction
Cost: 195,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 14 spell points
Cyberware:
Gain: +3d6 initiative, +6 Reaction
Cost: 500,000 nuyen
Opportunity Cost: 5 essence
Gross Gains: These are identical in both cases.
Gross Cost: Magic is miles ahead here with a 305,000 nuyen advantage
Gross Opportunity Cost: Magic is again miles ahead since the opportunity cost for a mage is 28-56% of your starting spell points while the opportunity cost for the street-sam is 78%(!!) of his starting essence.
Again, magic is overwhelmingly superior which means some sort of house rule is badly needed.
-Polaris
Zazen,
I make a cogent, topical, and perfectly fair comparison and you just roll your eyes. 'nuff said.
-Polaris
I make a cogent, topical, and perfectly fair comparison and you just roll your eyes. 'nuff said.
-Polaris
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| I make a cogent, topical, and perfectly fair comparison |
I obviously disagree. I posted a list of pros for wired reflexes earlier and you ignored 75% of it in your perfectly fair comparison. So I rolled my proverbial eyes.
By the way, you really overuse the word "cogent".
I think he rolled his eyes because you broke it down only to numbers while it is more complex than that. There are advantages/disadvantages to both the magic and the ware that cannot be quantified down into a cash value.
THat post is entirely correct if cash is all you consider, but the vast majority of the time that is only a fraction of what "balance" is in SR.
THat post is entirely correct if cash is all you consider, but the vast majority of the time that is only a fraction of what "balance" is in SR.
Not to mention that you also state the need for the +6 WP, using 13 of your 12 Force before Foci Addiction. Not to mention that since the Reflex Spell is the one you're always 'recasting' to walk through wards and such the +6 TN for that Improved Reaction makes the spell a near impossibility to recast.
Regardless, start a thread on the wonderful imbalances of Reflexes so we can, for once, stay on-track with the thread about how best to House Rule the 3 spells into a single spell.
White Dwarf,
Yeah, I personally agree with Force 3 for +3 cap, but you have to be careful then about people exceeding 3 dice. If you cap it at 3 dice (sensible) then have a good explanation as to why Reflexes work that way and not attributes (the arguement that I believe caused this to be the last, if ever, spell converted to a single spell), and realize this spell will suddenly always be learned at Force 3. At least with a Force/2 cap people will still learn the spell at Force 4, if for no reason other than 3S drain and never expecting more than 4 successes.
Sphynx
Not to mention that since the Reflex Spell is the one you're always 'recasting' to walk through wards and such the +6 TN for that Improved Reaction makes the spell a near impossibility to recast.Regardless, start a thread on the wonderful imbalances of Reflexes so we can, for once, stay on-track with the thread about how best to House Rule the 3 spells into a single spell.
White Dwarf,
Yeah, I personally agree with Force 3 for +3 cap, but you have to be careful then about people exceeding 3 dice. If you cap it at 3 dice (sensible) then have a good explanation as to why Reflexes work that way and not attributes (the arguement that I believe caused this to be the last, if ever, spell converted to a single spell), and realize this spell will suddenly always be learned at Force 3. At least with a Force/2 cap people will still learn the spell at Force 4, if for no reason other than 3S drain and never expecting more than 4 successes.
Sphynx
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| THat post is entirely correct if cash is all you consider, but the vast majority of the time that is only a fraction of what "balance" is in SR. |
It's not even correct then, because he's still dismissing the large majority of the monetary cost of the magical methods. Spell Points aren't cheap. Categorizing them as "opportunity cost" doesn't change the fact that they're worth 25,000Y apiece, and in using them to buy and bond those spells and foci, you've deprived yourself of 25,000Y per Spell Point of something else. (That's what "opportunity cost" means!) The babble about percentages of Essence and starting Spell Points is pure bulldrek... Essence and starting Spell Points don't fill the same role, or even particularly similar ones, and can't be converted back and forth, so it's apples to oranges. He's also assuming, with the Increase Reaction spell, that everyone is going to be cheating like he does. It's bloody near impossible to get the 12 successes necessary to get an actual +6 Reaction bonus out of it without doing so, unless your Reaction sucks to begin with... in which case, it's still not comparable to Wired 3, because Wired 3 will give +6 Reaction to anyone, even if they've naturally got a 7 Reaction already. And, hell, even if you are cheating like Polaris, you have to include the costs of the Decrease Reaction spell you're using to do it into the costs...
Which reminds me, mages whose Reaction naturally sucks are a very good reason not to remove the cap on Increase Reflexes' effects... if you do, you'll end up with mages wandering around with 2+7d6 Initiatives. If you remove the cap on the spell's effect, it'd be a very good idea to change the TN from Reaction to something fixed in the 4+ range. Come to think of it, I'm not sure it makes sense for the TN to be Reaction to begin with...
My PC has a Reaction of 5 and 16 successes on his Increased Reflexes. So, having a cap (equal to half the Force of the Spell) is a VERY good idea as it's quite easy to get the number of successes needed to outdo a Sammie otherwise. With it being equal to the Force, I'd be a +6D6 right now. (Hell, with a Reaction of 2 I'd have 24 successes).
Sphynx
Sphynx
How in gods name are you throwing that many dice? To get 16 sucesses at TN5 you need on average to toss 48 dice!
Joe average combat mage has 7 sorcery dice for spellcasting, a spellpool of 6, a reaction of 4, and a willpower of 6 (aka, the troll combate mage archtype). Statistically, he could have 6 successes on his casting (5 spell pool) and take no drain (1 spell pool) with the modified spell (drain +1S).
Bob the Destroyer has 7 sorcery dice for spellcasting, a spellpool of 7, a reaction of 4, and a willpower of 10 (aka, albino gnome shaman). Since he's also following the Bear totem (or pick any other with the bonus), he has +2 dice for health spells. So the best he could do (statisticly) would be eight successes (7 spell pool), and no drain.
Actually, that comparison isn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be At reaction 5, these numbers get a little smoother.
Bob the Destroyer has 7 sorcery dice for spellcasting, a spellpool of 7, a reaction of 4, and a willpower of 10 (aka, albino gnome shaman). Since he's also following the Bear totem (or pick any other with the bonus), he has +2 dice for health spells. So the best he could do (statisticly) would be eight successes (7 spell pool), and no drain.
Actually, that comparison isn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be
At reaction 5, these numbers get a little smoother.
2, Force 6 Expendable Spell Foci and 3 Karma Pool for re-rolls. I always throw at least 24 dice for any spell I intend to have with me for a long-ass time.
Sphynx
Sphynx
Sphynx good call with the hardcoded limit. It might cause the spell to be learned at a "static" force level, but if swapped to a scaling, no cap version a la the attribute spells you obviously will get imbalance. The more its examined the more this is just an anomoly you cant really get around in a way that solves all the issues, but the current version works fine anyhow, so nbd.
Polaris you cannot make the comparison from cyber to magic without comparing the other factors like cyber cannot be dispelled or lost to an astral attack or the fact that magic costs 30 bp extra which inflates the magic cost. The game does not boil down to some "effect for nuyen" bottom line which you keep trying to get to; there are other considerations. Im tired if repeating the instances where the stat for nuyen comparison breaks down, so Im no longer going to respond to anything posted on the subject. One can ignore these factors should you choose to come up with some "pure, valid" example, but much like a guy in an R&D lab the theoretical comparison wont hold up in play without due attention to gameplay variables.
Polaris you cannot make the comparison from cyber to magic without comparing the other factors like cyber cannot be dispelled or lost to an astral attack or the fact that magic costs 30 bp extra which inflates the magic cost. The game does not boil down to some "effect for nuyen" bottom line which you keep trying to get to; there are other considerations. Im tired if repeating the instances where the stat for nuyen comparison breaks down, so Im no longer going to respond to anything posted on the subject. One can ignore these factors should you choose to come up with some "pure, valid" example, but much like a guy in an R&D lab the theoretical comparison wont hold up in play without due attention to gameplay variables.
The White Dwarf,
I am sorry to hear that because I noticed the imbalance in actual play and then I crunched the numbers to figure out why. In short the imbalance is quite real and badly needs a houserule....both the experimental (play testing) and numeric analysis show this. BTW, 'research scientists' care very much about experimental data in IRL so the comparison is unfair.
-Polaris
I am sorry to hear that because I noticed the imbalance in actual play and then I crunched the numbers to figure out why. In short the imbalance is quite real and badly needs a houserule....both the experimental (play testing) and numeric analysis show this. BTW, 'research scientists' care very much about experimental data in IRL so the comparison is unfair.
-Polaris
Sphynx, you can't always count on being able to have the spell on you for a long time. I'd wager to say that in most games, mages have to recast their increased reflexes spell after every other run or so, if not more often than that.
Agreed TG, but you have to be prepared for it as a GM. Look at my PC with his 12 Karma Quickened spell and 16 successes. I prove right there that a 'permanent' spell is possible with up to +6 (since it's a Force 6 spell) dice for initiative if you don't cap it at Force/2. Or, you could just hard-cap it at 3 dice, ever, but that's also non-standardized and defeats the purpose of trying to standardize it.
Sphynx
Sphynx
How do you handle runs where there is a lot of astral security? If you're not at least grade 3 with masking, (the level at which you can start holding your own against standard astral barriers when synchronizing... you'll probably never get past a force 5 ward at grade 2) I'd be interested in knowing your methods.
Well, as I've stated before, I either keep it legal, or take care of the Astral Security long before we arrive at the site. You can click on the background of my character (in my signature) for how our games go. We don't "shadowrun" perse, or when we do actually hit a place, we remove all threats long before we enter the grounds.
Also, check out our Astral Guardian by looking on my page for the character called 'Spirit'. He insures that anyone who shows up to investigate in the Astral doesn't get far. Then you have the whole 'planning' stage where you make sure that the patrols are busy somewhere else, that the response time is timed, and that all your fields are covered. I don't need to stealth if there's nobody to notice I broke through the barrier, or if there's no response (or a greatly delayed response) to my intrusion. It's how you play/plan that makes stealth, not just being stealthy.
Sphynx
Also, check out our Astral Guardian by looking on my page for the character called 'Spirit'. He insures that anyone who shows up to investigate in the Astral doesn't get far. Then you have the whole 'planning' stage where you make sure that the patrols are busy somewhere else, that the response time is timed, and that all your fields are covered. I don't need to stealth if there's nobody to notice I broke through the barrier, or if there's no response (or a greatly delayed response) to my intrusion. It's how you play/plan that makes stealth, not just being stealthy.
Sphynx
Hmm... I don't know if that strategy would work very often in one of my games... Security mages tend to show up with elementals and a "if something happens to me" watcher close behind. If someone's breaking the wards on a building, it also tends to put everyone on alert, and elemental and watcher patrols get tighter. As a carefully timed and orchestrated plan, though, I could see it being very effective (you'd have to do the astral assault within minutes of the physical assault).
Though I can see horror stories floating around about mages who are breaking wards and laying in wait for the astral response to waylay them. It'd make any mage think about a career change.
Though I can see horror stories floating around about mages who are breaking wards and laying in wait for the astral response to waylay them. It'd make any mage think about a career change.
Yeah, it's not something you do every game, but I got bored of planning building hits some 10 years ago in this game. I like the non-shadowrun, shadowrun games. Police/LoneStar jobs, Merc work, post-apocalyptic (bug city), etc are more our style. You can only 'shadowrun' so many times before it gets a bit.... boring.
The few times we hit a building, we have plenty of time to do the Italian Job on it. Anything less is just flavorless. I find it difficult to believe that people who understand the min-max potential of the metatechniques are still hitting buildings game in and game out.
Sphynx
The few times we hit a building, we have plenty of time to do the Italian Job on it. Anything less is just flavorless. I find it difficult to believe that people who understand the min-max potential of the metatechniques are still hitting buildings game in and game out.
Sphynx
Well, I've never been much for traditional shadowruns, either (our team once got hired to take a Johnson big game hunting... awakened big game). However, I'd still (as a GM) throw in situations where it gets difficult to walk around shattering astral barriers and the like. At the very least, the spell had better be properly licensed on a real SIN. Eventually fake SINs get caught.
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| Agreed TG, but you have to be prepared for it as a GM. Look at my PC with his 12 Karma Quickened spell and 16 successes. I prove right there that a 'permanent' spell is possible with up to +6 (since it's a Force 6 spell) dice for initiative if you don't cap it at Force/2. Or, you could just hard-cap it at 3 dice, ever, but that's also non-standardized and defeats the purpose of trying to standardize it. |
The problem with that method is that, while it's nicely standardized, you've reduced the effectiveness and increased the cost of the spell to the point that it's just not worth taking. Under those rules, my combat mage would simply suck it up, get wired 2 or boosted 3, and take the geasa necessary to keep his Magic from being crippled, because it's cheaper, more effective, and less hassle to do it that way - and to a sufficient degree to overcome my natural disinclination to give mages any cyber at all, however practical it might be.
In order to keep the potential to actually get the +3 Reflex dice, you need a Force 6 spell and focus, which costs 90,000Y cash, 12 Spell Points (worth 300,000Y), and half of your available focus space. You could buy Boosted 3 just for the price of the focus hardware, say nothing about the Spell Points.
On top of that, I, for one, would be hard put to scrounge up the successes necessary to actually get +3 dice out of it. I'd probably end up at +2, and that'd take all of my Spell Pool... even with my 7 Will, I would be taking significant Drain, which makes casting at need an unattractive option. Burning an expendable spell focus every time I wanted to cast it isn't cost-effective (especially since I couldn't just leave it up all the time, because at Force 6, it's out of the legal range). Specific spell foci or category foci would be effective, but they're also very expensive, in both cash and Spell Points/Karma. And it's a Health spell, so elementals wouldn't help (and I'm a sorcerer, anyway, so I don't have that option). So, basically, since as a combat mage, I want to be able to at least compete with the cyber guys, I'd have to go cyber myself.
Standardization is all well and good, but ther's a reason, I think, that this was the only spell that wasn't standardized between 2nd and 3rd Edition...
Not true. First off, to make the spell castable at Force 1, you'd obviously round-down meaning a Force 5 could get +3D6. Secondly, you have to ignore the 'cumulative increase' of the MitS and give it a 1 time drain increase meaning you end up with a +1S spell. At +1S, you can afford alot more dice to casting instead of drain. Average spell caster rolls 6+dice to cast and 6+ dice to drain with a Spell Pool of 5+. If you take this at Force 3 (which I imagine will be the most common) you end up with a 2S drain which is easily taken cared of with 8 dice (or 6 with a trauma dampener) and allows you to roll at least 8 dice, TN Reaction(most commonly not higher than 5). With a Reaction of 4, you can pretty much guarantee that your 8 dice can get you your 4 successes needed for a +2D6. If you a bit better min-maxxer, you're guaranteed to not take drain nor ever get +1D6.
That doesn't make the spell useless, it only makes the spell not auto-default to +3D6 with +2D6 being an almost guarantee.
Now to compare it to Cyberware is the mistake I think. That's like complaining that Enhance Aim isn't as effective as a Smartlink. Good. A mage character has so many more options than a Sammie will ever have that it's ok if you're a bit slower. If you want the Geasa and Cyber, get that.
There's no way to convince me a +2D6 at +1S is 'useless' to take as a Mage. Hell, learn it at Force 6, cast it at Force 3 until you Quicken it and you have a pretty nice setup.
Sphynx
That doesn't make the spell useless, it only makes the spell not auto-default to +3D6 with +2D6 being an almost guarantee.
Now to compare it to Cyberware is the mistake I think. That's like complaining that Enhance Aim isn't as effective as a Smartlink. Good.
A mage character has so many more options than a Sammie will ever have that it's ok if you're a bit slower. If you want the Geasa and Cyber, get that. There's no way to convince me a +2D6 at +1S is 'useless' to take as a Mage. Hell, learn it at Force 6, cast it at Force 3 until you Quicken it and you have a pretty nice setup.
Sphynx
Sphynx sez:
| QUOTE |
| Problem is, you're trying to fix something that isn't actually broken. While making the spell dependent on Force is more elegant, the solution you propose actually cripples the spell. You're increasing its cost while decreasing its effectiveness. |
Yes. You're exactly right - this is precisely what I'm doing. Because *I* think it's broken.
And really, for an extra two dice of initiative, I paid four karma and no money, because I have quickening. I'd have paid 1 karma and no money for 3 dice if I hadn't changed it.
So I changed it.
Errr.... John Campbell sez that, not me.
Sphynx
Sphynx
Oops. Quite right.
Sorry, I have a 'default' setting for posters that my mind goes back to when it gets confused. In gun discussions, it's Raygun, in magic, it's you. <G>
Sorry, I have a 'default' setting for posters that my mind goes back to when it gets confused. In gun discussions, it's Raygun, in magic, it's you. <G>
Well Polaris: You should probably include all of the factors in your equation:
People with spells sustained on them are about as astrally stealthy as a one-man trollish thrash metal band. In many buildings that have any form of security the building will have at least a few wards around the most valuable (read shadowrun-critical) areas. Also: Isn't it impossible to attack a ward without the owner knowing? Against any form of roving paranormal security (watchers, elementals, paranimals, ETC) you'd have to mask the foci near-constantly meaning that you either need to be an uber grade (>6th) or so initiate or you have just set-off an alarm and have an anti-mage strike team on its way to meet you.
Also: it is hard to cast the spell on anyone who already has a good reaction, and mages will probably have a poorer quickness than your average sammie type (fewer attribute points to spend). Isn't that a bit of a balancing factor? remember: he who moves first tends to win.
Lastly: The designers of shadowrun obviously followed a different technique making the increase reflexes spell than with any other spell. The current sustem may well have been put there on purpose. You'd be as well arguing that wired reflexes should be cheaper.
People with spells sustained on them are about as astrally stealthy as a one-man trollish thrash metal band. In many buildings that have any form of security the building will have at least a few wards around the most valuable (read shadowrun-critical) areas. Also: Isn't it impossible to attack a ward without the owner knowing? Against any form of roving paranormal security (watchers, elementals, paranimals, ETC) you'd have to mask the foci near-constantly meaning that you either need to be an uber grade (>6th) or so initiate or you have just set-off an alarm and have an anti-mage strike team on its way to meet you.
Also: it is hard to cast the spell on anyone who already has a good reaction, and mages will probably have a poorer quickness than your average sammie type (fewer attribute points to spend). Isn't that a bit of a balancing factor? remember: he who moves first tends to win.
Lastly: The designers of shadowrun obviously followed a different technique making the increase reflexes spell than with any other spell. The current sustem may well have been put there on purpose. You'd be as well arguing that wired reflexes should be cheaper.
| QUOTE |
| People with spells sustained on them are about as astrally stealthy as a one-man trollish thrash metal band. |
Says who? I can't imagine you being more wrong actually. Why? Because a character with sustained spells can't get past a Ward? That mean your stealth-character who walks past an ultrasound camera while using the stealth skill is about as stealthy as a one-nam trollish thrash metal band?
You are as stealthy as the upper end roll of your stealth roll is. You may need to find a way to get past a Ward, but nobody knows your location unless they see you, which is still an opposed perception vs stealth roll. Sustained spells have NOTHING to do with how stealthy/unseen you can be. The ONLY thing they might do, in regards to being unstealthy, is warn a 'patrol' that someone has entered their patrolled area, but they still need to seek you out which requires that perception vs stealth roll.
As for comparing it to argueing that Wired Reflexes should be cheaper, that is a valid reason for a thread as well. Kinda the whole idea of having a discussion.
Anyhows, Adarael, thanks for the compliment.
Sphynx
Lilt,
Several things:
1. In of itself, the force 1 focus with Increased Reflexes +3 can be very stealthy. It can also be turned off when you encounter wards and turned on again with very little difficulty.
2. While it is true that you can not breach a ward without the owner knowing, that owner may not be (and if you did your legwork will not be) the mage on duty. That means that the owner-mage has to react and notify security that there is a problem.....or go there himself.
The problem with that of course is that the only way to notify security in *time* is to go astral yourself.....and when I run a team, there is a mage with about 2-4 force 8 elementals sitting on his ass waiting for him to do just that.
3. As for paranormal animals, they are a joke. Anything that is dual natured is helpless against an astral mage or shaman. Anyone that puts out paranormal animals as security may as well just shoot the dumb beasts themselves. The same applies to elementals without immediate magical support.
4. To mask the focus in question, you only have to be a grade one initiate. That's not hard.
5. Any focus that is force 6 or more will blow through almost any ward with impunity. Double-Strength quickened spells virtually ignore wards.
In short, I have covered all these points and many others at great length elsewhere. The designers have simply underestimated the power of foci-sustained spells and overestimated the drawbacks....as do many dumpshockers. I guess that is because too many people still believe in the back of their minds that spells can still be grounded through spell-anchors. That is no longer true, but a lot of posters here (and SR players in general) still *act* as though it were still true.
-Polaris
Several things:
1. In of itself, the force 1 focus with Increased Reflexes +3 can be very stealthy. It can also be turned off when you encounter wards and turned on again with very little difficulty.
2. While it is true that you can not breach a ward without the owner knowing, that owner may not be (and if you did your legwork will not be) the mage on duty. That means that the owner-mage has to react and notify security that there is a problem.....or go there himself.
The problem with that of course is that the only way to notify security in *time* is to go astral yourself.....and when I run a team, there is a mage with about 2-4 force 8 elementals sitting on his ass waiting for him to do just that.
3. As for paranormal animals, they are a joke. Anything that is dual natured is helpless against an astral mage or shaman. Anyone that puts out paranormal animals as security may as well just shoot the dumb beasts themselves. The same applies to elementals without immediate magical support.
4. To mask the focus in question, you only have to be a grade one initiate. That's not hard.
5. Any focus that is force 6 or more will blow through almost any ward with impunity. Double-Strength quickened spells virtually ignore wards.
In short, I have covered all these points and many others at great length elsewhere. The designers have simply underestimated the power of foci-sustained spells and overestimated the drawbacks....as do many dumpshockers. I guess that is because too many people still believe in the back of their minds that spells can still be grounded through spell-anchors. That is no longer true, but a lot of posters here (and SR players in general) still *act* as though it were still true.
-Polaris
4. To mask the focus in question, you only have to be a grade one initiate. That's not hard.
Actually.... that's not quite true. To Mask a foci in a manner that synchronizes it with the ward, you get to roll your Gradex2 against a TN of the Barrier, and that's opposed by the barrier using it's Force against the Grade. So, a Grade 1 is going to roll 2 dice, tn 5 and the barrier gets 5 dice, TN 2 (assuming we have a common Force 5 Ward here, and minimum TN is 2).
Your chances if the 5 dice coming up all 1's is pretty damn slim.
Sphynx
Actually.... that's not quite true.
To Mask a foci in a manner that synchronizes it with the ward, you get to roll your Gradex2 against a TN of the Barrier, and that's opposed by the barrier using it's Force against the Grade. So, a Grade 1 is going to roll 2 dice, tn 5 and the barrier gets 5 dice, TN 2 (assuming we have a common Force 5 Ward here, and minimum TN is 2).Your chances if the 5 dice coming up all 1's is pretty damn slim.
Sphynx
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.