Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Give the sammies a little love...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Apathy
Okay, the general feedback I've gotten seems to be: "Street Sams have their uses, and make good generalists, but there's nothing that they can accomplish (except maybe decking) that can't also be done by mages and adepts." With this in mind, I'm thinking about house-ruling away some of the things that require mages or adepts to overcome.

What does everybody think would happen if I made the critter power of regeneration work against both physical and magical damage. In other words, if they healed from the manabolt as easily as they healed from the assault rifle?
K2Grey
Regeneration doesn't work against central nervous system damage, though, as referenced by the book (called shot to the head). While I dislike called shots, shouldn't a sammie breeze over that? After all a sammie will likely roll a ton more dice to shoot than the enemy rolls to dodge and if you've shot the critter into physical overflow the wound modifiers ought to make it easy prey for the called shot.
Lilt
QUOTE (James McMurray)
QUOTE
Really any character with skillwires can cover the skill-monkey role just as well, and almost any cybered character has a good reason to have them.
As a guy that's running a skillwire character I have to disagree with that. You can't get skill ratings as high with wires as you can with normal skills, you can't spend edge on wired skills, and those programs are expensive as hell (at least in games with a moderate to low income rate).

I don't think that getting the skills high is all that much of an issue. I suppose I can see the advantage of grabbing a bunch of skills 'naturally' though. When I said skill-monkey, I was thinking things like outdoors skills and nautical mechanic skills which are nice to have but are hardly critical. Even a rating 1 skillsoft gives a good dice pool when combined with an attribute, which can save the party or reveal useful information. That's what I mean by skill-monkey, having the right skill for the right job rather than being able to throw 20 dice to do something obscure.

I'd usually be happy for the party to just have a medium-rated demolitions skillsoft... Better to have one than to have nobody with demolitions. I do see the advantage, however, of being able to spend edge on it so I might consider advising taking Demolitions 1 to the next Edge 8 guy I see someone make.

@X-Kalibur: Good point that mages can trace mages, but there are other ways around it. If the mage summons a spirit to do it, summoning from far enough away not to arouse suspicion or soon enough in advance that his own signature has faded, then the only signature on the crime scene will be that odf the spirit. That may potentially lead to repurcussions if the spirit's bound and recognised on a later use, but not every time. Another option is to go for the high-drain but more-effective spells but cast them at low force. Facing 4 mooks, four low-force mannaballs will fade faster than 4 higher-force mannabolts and could equally-likely take the group out.

Mages also have the option of using stun spells (sometimes referred to as 'sleep' spells) which are far less obtrusive than shooting a place up. That buys them the extra time they need to clear their signature, or they can just walk away and rely on the fact that no crime was comitted. If they really want someone dead then they can just slit their unconcious throat.

The problem of astral signatures eventually goes away to some extent once they pick-up the Flexible Signature metamagic. Add a few more grades of initiation onto that and they reduce the duration that their sicnature stays for down significantly, not leaving any for lower-force magic.
Cain
QUOTE
Yes and no... Mages can initiate and take metamagics like centering which add to all magical abilities. They can buy power foci, which are remarkably cheap under this edition for what they do. Magic and Willpower are rolled for both conjuring and spellcasting, so a boost to either of them would be good. It is possible to get a fair bit by specialising, but you also lose a lot if you abandon aspects of magic which you could otherwise be fairly good at.

It may just be that I value versatility, but I'd rather have a character who wins in most situations rather than oblitterating a few and struggling in others.

That's what I meant by the fact that a mage has to specialize in magic. If they get into a situation where magic isn't quite as valueable, then they're just as hosed as anyone else. Drones, for example, can be a mage's nightmare.

A hyperspecialized starting sam is looking at a minimum of 15 attack dice, far more than a starting mage can get under most circumstances.
James McMurray
QUOTE (Lilt)
If the mage summons a spirit to do it, summoning from far enough away not to arouse suspicion or soon enough in advance that his own signature has faded, then the only signature on the crime scene will be that odf the spirit.

I know it's just a house rule (and one that hasn't even been implemented yet) but I would have the tie between spirit and summoner show up on the crime's astral signature. Spirits are beefy enough without letting them be used as trace free assassins, burglars, etc.
Nim
QUOTE (James McMurray)

I know it's just a house rule (and one that hasn't even been implemented yet) but I would have the tie between spirit and summoner show up on the crime's astral signature. Spirits are beefy enough without letting them be used as trace free assassins, burglars, etc.

That certainly seems reasonable from a worldview perspective. You could even have the tie be stronger (ie, easier to track) if the spirit was bound, rather than merely summoned.
Nim
Hmm. Another option, actually, would be to allow a mage who gets enough assensing hits on a spirit's astral signature to then turn around and summon THAT SPIRIT, and use that as an avenue for finding out who summoned it. That depends a bit on how you think spirits work, though. Was that fire elemental summoned away from an independent existence to which it returned afterwards, or did the summoning CREATE the spirit out of th energy of the appropriate metaplane? And does it make a difference whether or not the spirit was Sapient?
Apathy
QUOTE (K2Grey)
Regeneration doesn't work against central nervous system damage, though, as referenced by the book (called shot to the head). While I dislike called shots, shouldn't a sammie breeze over that? After all a sammie will likely roll a ton more dice to shoot than the enemy rolls to dodge and if you've shot the critter into physical overflow the wound modifiers ought to make it easy prey for the called shot.

...But that's already true. I'm not advocating making the sammie's damage potential any greater, only maybe making mages slightly less powerful for this one particular scenario.

That said, I'd agree that called shots are exceptionally powerful. +4 DV (which would, on average, require 12 dice) in exchange for just giving up 4 dice is a no-brainer. Also, the way the rules are layed out it's still half-way abstracted and don't make sense to me. Say I've got a goon in 8/6 armor but no helmet - I have to choose between bypassing armor and upping damage, even though logically a head shot in that scenario would do both.
James McMurray
Nim: that's a good rule. I think if it comes up I'll use that instead of my option. It hasn't been needed yet, but players and GMs love to come up with crazy ideas, so I'm sure it'll happen eventually.
James McMurray
QUOTE (Apathy)
Say I've got a goon in 8/6 armor but no helmet - I have to choose between bypassing armor and upping damage, even though logically a head shot in that scenario would do both.

In that case your called shot to the head is a called shot to negate armor. Called shots come in a few varieties. One is bypassing armor, one is upping damage value, and one is for special effects. How each of those occur is up to the player and GM. Sometimes a called shot to up DV means you hit him in the head, but sometimes it might mean you got him square in the chest. A called shot to bypass armor may mean you hit him in the head, or it may mean you found a crease where his armor is thinner to allow for more mobility.

That said though, my group doesn't use called shots except when thematically appropriate. The +4 DV one is never thematically appropriate, especially since it's just a way to turn lots of dice into even more damage than normal. Obviously YMMV, but we've ignored called shots for the most part in every game system we've played in the last 10 years and never regretted it.
Nim
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Nim: that's a good rule. I think if it comes up I'll use that instead of my option. It hasn't been needed yet, but players and GMs love to come up with crazy ideas, so I'm sure it'll happen eventually.

If you mean the idea about summoning the spirit the runners used and then expending a service to order it to tell you all about what happened...it's pretty tempting. It would have a MAJOR impact on the utility of spirits to runners, though. Bringing a spirit in on your run would be like involving an accomplice who you KNOW will instantly spill their guts if the other side finds them...and then leaving their comm ID at the scene of the crime. Mages would need to be a lot more proactive about cleaning up their traces - or else would have to expend services to order the spirits to clean up after themselves.

If you decide to go there, you might want to rule that spirits that are still Bound can't be summoned by anyone else...or maybe give the summoning a threshold based on the strength of the current binding. That would make unbound spirits something you use mainly when you're not expecting opposition.
Apathy
QUOTE (James McMurray)
In that case your called shot to the head is a called shot to negate armor. Called shots come in a few varieties. One is bypassing armor, one is upping damage value, and one is for special effects. How each of those occur is up to the player and GM. Sometimes a called shot to up DV means you hit him in the head, but sometimes it might mean you got him square in the chest. A called shot to bypass armor may mean you hit him in the head, or it may mean you found a crease where his armor is thinner to allow for more mobility.

That said though, my group doesn't use called shots except when thematically appropriate. The +4 DV one is never thematically appropriate, especially since it's just a way to turn lots of dice into even more damage than normal. Obviously YMMV, but we've ignored called shots for the most part in every game system we've played in the last 10 years and never regretted it.

I would agree that the called shot to up DV seems broken, and are sufficiently represented by just getting lots of successes ("18 successes? you shot him right through the eye...")

I don't find the rules for called shots to bypass armor to be unbalanced, since your giving up dice to reduce the target's soak roll by an equal amount of dice. There are times when bypassing doesn't make sense (no, you cant bypass the armor on the spirit's immunity - there is no weak spot that isn't covered), but most of the time it'll basically be a wash.
James McMurray
I don't see a big problem with bypassign armor either, except when used to bypass hardened armor (perhaps from being inside a vehicle) or spirit armor (as you say, there are no weak spots). The rest of the time ignoring armor is usually fine.
Shrike30
Actually, I don't have much of a problem with using it to bypass hardened armor, either. You're targeting a part of the vehicle that's not as well armored as the rest, be it a view slit, the tires, the vents for the engine or some other spot where it's just not as well protected.

I houseruled the -1 die for +1 DV thing out of existence.
James McMurray
I'm not talking about bypassing hardened armor to hurt the vehicle, but to hurt people inside. Someone gave an example of shooting someone in the back of an armored vehicle, which doesn't make a lot of sense given that there's no weak spots to find on a giant box of metal.
Lilt
QUOTE (Apathy @ Jun 20 2006, 05:41 PM)
Okay, the general feedback I've gotten seems to be: "Street Sams have their uses, and make good generalists, but there's nothing that they can accomplish (except maybe decking) that can't also be done by mages and adepts." With this in mind, I'm thinking about house-ruling away some of the things that require mages or adepts to overcome.

What I'd suggest, if you want to encourage sammies, is to make cyberlimbs cheaper (or more powerful by default, and cheaper to increase). Some people rate Wired Reflexes and the Smartlink as the epitomy of sammie gear, but really it's good for faces and covert ops too. Cyberlimbs are the epitomy of physical advancement through cyberware which is the sammie, often too obvious for faces and covert ops, so if you encourage them (particularly the obvious versions) by making them cheaper and more powerful then you have a clear push for sammies.
Cain
QUOTE (James McMurray)
I'm not talking about bypassing hardened armor to hurt the vehicle, but to hurt people inside. Someone gave an example of shooting someone in the back of an armored vehicle, which doesn't make a lot of sense given that there's no weak spots to find on a giant box of metal.

There's plenty of spots that are weaker on a hardened vehicle, and they tend to be centered around the passenger compartment. Bulletproof glass simply isn't as tough as steel plate. Calling a shot to hit the driver is a lot more believeable than calling a shot to hit the distributor cap.
James McMurray
Reread the example.
Apathy
As far as calling shots to bypass armor on vehicles, maybe we should just exercise more GM discretion on that. In an example where they're trying to shoot through the less-armored glass, the armor would logically drop some (maybe from 8 to 4 on the brinks truck), but wouldn't disappear altogether. If you try to bypass armor to hit people in a tank, the GM just says "No" and slaps you with a carp™.

(to Lilt):
I agree with your statement in principle, but don't think I could make house rules for cyber-limbs without breaking a lot of other stuff and making character generation more complicated. Unless somebody else has good suggestions for cyberlimb house rules I'll just table that one until the appropriate supplemental (Arsenal?) comes out.
Lilt
QUOTE (Apathy)
(to Lilt):
I agree with your statement in principle, but don't think I could make house rules for cyber-limbs without breaking a lot of other stuff and making character generation more complicated. Unless somebody else has good suggestions for cyberlimb house rules I'll just table that one until the appropriate supplemental (Arsenal?) comes out.

What? Balance isn't that delicate. You could quite easily start obvious cyberlimb stats at 4s (rather than 3s) across the board and they'd become more worthwhile. Another good (practically nessecary) idea is to apply metatype stat mods to cyberlimbs. Otherwise trolls can't even buy cyberarms as strong as they are normally unless tey also get cybertorsos, which makes no sense.

That's not broken and makes cyberlimbs worthwhile for the normally-stronger metatypes. It's not entierly nessecary, but you can also cut the price of them by 10 to 20% (particularly for obvious limbs).

If you want for sammies to shine then make it so that they can. Waiting for arsenal is fine, but I would in no way expect that to solve anything. If you expect a book to put the aspect of the game it's based on ahead in the world, remember there'll be a magic book out at some point too.
phelious fogg
The easiest thing to do would to say cyberlimbs start at the users normal stats.
Shrike30
The houserule I use is that cyberlimbs have stats matching their users, except their strength is set to racial maximum. Strength is the only stat upgrade you can buy for cyberlimbs (to avoid insanity like the Agility-tweaked cyberarm gunner). If a character increases one of his other stats naturally, he requires an hour or so in a cybershop (or a couple of days occasionally tweaking at the limb settings with his commlink... I should really figure out an Extended Cybertechnology test for this) in order to "tune" the limb to balance it out with the rest of his body again, during which time he takes a -1 penalty per different stat point to any actions involving the limb (obviously, this would rarely be more than a -1).

Armoring cyberlimbs is something I haven't bothered with... it's too much of a pain in the ass under the current (lack of) rules.
Cain
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Reread the example.

I did. Your example had nothing to do with your argument.

In general, most vehicles with hardened armor aren't going to be solid boxes of metal; every vehicle with any armor is automatically hardened, so we're talking about mid-to-lightly armored passenger cars. Even on the high end, Citymasters still have window-slits, and even tanks have vulnerable spots.

Saying "you can't call a shot to the passenger compartment of any vehicle with armor, because there's never any weak holes in a metal box" is a fallacy of the first order.

If you want to make a logical argument, then I suggest:

Rewrite the example. cool.gif
James McMurray
I never said "you can't call a shot to the passenger compartment of any vehicle with armor, because there's never any weak holes in a metal box" despite your attempts to make it look like I did by surrounding it in quotes.
Shrike30
QUOTE (James McMurray)
I'm not talking about bypassing hardened armor to hurt the vehicle, but to hurt people inside. Someone gave an example of shooting someone in the back of an armored vehicle, which doesn't make a lot of sense given that there's no weak spots to find on a giant box of metal.

Bypassing that much armor on a seriously armored vehicle would slap on enough penalties that I'd start thinking about disallowing even a Long Shot to try for it, and tell the player to try shooting something a little more reasonable.
James McMurray
I agree, but per the most rules lawyery interpretation of the rules if a target is inside a large glass box with wheels and is getting 5 armor from it, all it costs you is 5 dice to make it as if that solid box doesn't exist. A more liberal interpretation will look at the "target an area not protected by armor" clause and say "sorry, he has no area not protected by armor, so you can't take the called shot."
Shrike30
Heh... to be honest, I think the "target an area not protected by armor" ruling is a perfect example of rules lawyering towards reasonability.

"Hey, it doesn't say there has to BE an area not protected by armor..."
2bit
I'm gonna nod in agreement with cyberlimb mods suggestion; I think the right way to go is to make the samurai tougher; here are some suggestions i'm brainstorming off the top of my head:

Nerf Mystic armor (raise cost or take away ballistic bonus)
Every X amount of essence lost acts as 1 level of pain tolerance
Every X amount of essnece lost confers some other mixed blessing
Cyberlimbs act as pain tolerance
Decrease healing time for characters with cyberlimbs
make up cyberlimb mods (str, body, armor) as suggested
Invent damage scattering rules for characters with cyberlimbs (shudder)
James McMurray
On the original topic: my group has a mage, a rigger/sammie hybrid, a gunbunnie street sam, and a face. The street sam has never complained about being overpowered by the mage, despite the mage being played by a true minmaxer.
Lilt
QUOTE (James McMurray)
On the original topic: my group has a mage, a rigger/sammie hybrid, a gunbunnie street sam, and a face. The street sam has never complained about being overpowered by the mage, despite the mage being played by a true minmaxer.
A lack of complaints in one instance doesn't mean anything on the whole sammy versus mage debait.
The sammie could be glad of powerful magical backup, or perhaps even not understand that he is insignificant (like a bug) compared to the power of the mage. Perhaps he expects to be out-done by the min-maxxer no-matter what respective characters they choose, or perhaps the mage is holding back with his true powers as an ace in the hole. Another possibility is that the min-maxxer screwed-up and didn't actually make a powerful character, or that the sammie is just content that his character's stronger physically.
Shadowmeet
QUOTE (Lilt)
QUOTE (James McMurray)
On the original topic: my group has a mage, a rigger/sammie hybrid, a gunbunnie street sam, and a face. The street sam has never complained about being overpowered by the mage, despite the mage being played by a true minmaxer.
A lack of complaints in one instance doesn't mean anything on the whole sammy versus mage debait.
The sammie could be glad of powerful magical backup, or perhaps even not understand that he is insignificant (like a bug) compared to the power of the mage. Perhaps he expects to be out-done by the min-maxxer no-matter what respective characters they choose, or perhaps the mage is holding back with his true powers as an ace in the hole. Another possibility is that the min-maxxer screwed-up and didn't actually make a powerful character, or that the sammie is just content that his character's stronger physically.

Actually, it does mean something. It means that the only people who are bothered by any power difference, are the ones who are dissecting the rules.

Seriously, if your game has a problem with mages overpowering the sammies, make it better for the sams. Give them ware with better features and less essence. Give them enemies with horrible amounts of magic resistance.

If your game doesn't have that problem, or the players are content with their roles, then there is no problem. After all, the game is about having fun, not balancing things out. Life is unfair. So is game life sometimes.
Grinder
In my campaigns and one-shot-games we never had the problem that a mage outhshines sammies in every way. Mages and adepts can become very powerful in the long run, thanks to no limit in their magic increase, while a sammie can only get so much new cyber/bio, but he can focus instead on a broad range of skills.
Lilt
QUOTE (Shadowmeet)
Actually, it does mean something. It means that the only people who are bothered by any power difference, are the ones who are dissecting the rules.

You think that no complaints in one instance means that? If only researchers could back-up their projects with such rigorously un-tested evidence...

I have run a game which involved a mage, an adept, and a coupple of sammie types. Although they weren't exactly complaints, it was noted that there were encounters which the mundane characters had little chance against and the magical characters (a melee adept and a cat shaman) were noted as being more powerful in certain other encounters too. These comments were made by players who were not dissecting the rules.

Now, I admit that the above game was run under 3rd edition. I can hardly see it going the other way if it was run under 4th edition though. Adepts have been given a power boost under 4th edition, and shamans are still generally very powerful (spirits are generally more powerful with an array of powerful abilities, shamans can now bind spirits, and now they don't need to worry about taking unbound spirits across domain lines).
James McMurray
You're right about one instance not meaning much on a more upper level view. Of course, my experience is all I have to offer, so that's what I did. smile.gif

I will say that both the sammie and the mage in my group are minmaxers (they aren't the onle ones). The sammie knocks people over as fast as the mage does, and is better at stealth. The sammie is better at taking damage, primarily because of those wonderful little things called platelet factories. Overall the two seem well balanced, but we also tend to run sessions where every character gets their time in the sun. Shadowrun is primarily a game about teamwork. No archetype, even the adept or mage, can go it alone and excel in all instances, at least not until a huge chunk of karma down the road, in which case they'll be good generalists but not as good as a specialist.
Nim
QUOTE (Grinder)
In my campaigns and one-shot-games we never had the problem that a mage outhshines sammies in every way. Mages and adepts can become very powerful in the long run, thanks to no limit in their magic increase, while a sammie can only get so much new cyber/bio, but he can focus instead on a broad range of skills.

Actually, I was thinking about the whole Magic-increase issue, and I think I figured out part of what bothers me about advancement for magicians. It's just too...boring.

As a street-sam advances, he has to think about what 'ware he wants...there are tradeoffs, because there's more good ware than you can have all at once. Karma-wise, there are lots of skills to pick from that enhance different aspects of their role. Stealth skills, direct combat skills and athletics are obvious, but they also benefit from a smattering of other skills. There are several paths for advancement.

With magicians, advancement pretty much consists of: max out Spellcasting. Possibly max out some conjuring skills. Initiate. Raise Magic. Initiate. Raise Magic. Rinse. Repeat. Occasionally pick up a new spell. It just feels very one-dimensional. If there were more paths of advancement for magicians, more diversity, it might end up hitting some of the perceived balance issues also.
Lilt
QUOTE (James McMurray)
I will say that both the sammie and the mage in my group are minmaxers (they aren't the onle ones). The sammie knocks people over as fast as the mage does, and is better at stealth. The sammie is better at taking damage, primarily because of those wonderful little things called platelet factories. Overall the two seem well balanced, but we also tend to run sessions where every character gets their time in the sun. Shadowrun is primarily a game about teamwork. No archetype, even the adept or mage, can go it alone and excel in all instances, at least not until a huge chunk of karma down the road, in which case they'll be good generalists but not as good as a specialist.

Weird. Does the mage use spirits ever? What about astral projection? Does he have the invisibility spell?

It's all fair to say that he's run by a min-maxxer, but a concealing spirit and the invisibility spell are about as much stealth as anyone needs. Failing that astrally projecting can let you scout stealthily. Spirits can soak-up more damage than platet factories, they're pretty-much immune to most attacks and they can just be re-summoned. I'm not going to argue which one downs people faster, that depends a lot on spell and equipment selection.
James McMurray
Not necessarily. If you want to be truly versatile you coul spend a huge amount of karma just learning spells before even looking at upping your initiate grade, skills, or magic attribute. There's also mentor spirits to contact, specializations to choose, and foci to create/buy/bond.
Nim
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Not necessarily. If you want to be truly versatile you coul spend a huge amount of karma just learning spells before even looking at upping your initiate grade, skills, or magic attribute. There's also mentor spirits to contact, specializations to choose, and foci to create/buy/bond.

Yeah. Intellectually, I can look at it and see that there ARE decisions being made. But it still feels like mages of a certain power level tend to look alike, where samurai are more variable in the paths they choose. Might it be that there's just a more obvious 'best path' for magicians, in terms of what maximizes their power, where the choices of weapons and 'ware are more 'equal-but-different', varying more by what circumstances they're best in?
James McMurray
QUOTE
It's all fair to say that he's run by a min-maxxer, but a concealing spirit and the invisibility spell are about as much stealth as anyone needs.


Of course he has those, but as it's a teamwork style game the sammie benefits as well, meaning with his stealth skill he comes out ahead.

QUOTE
Failing that astrally projecting can let you scout stealthily.


Hence my comments above about scouting until you hit a ward. The mage can't scout astrally past that ward without alerting someone. The sammie can walk right through it.

QUOTE
Spirits can soak-up more damage than platet factories, they're pretty-much immune to most attacks and they can just be re-summoned.


Which is why the opposition will frequently have access to them as well, leaving spirits to fight one another. Until you hit force 6 or more (5 in a low-powered setting), spirits aren't really all that resilient against challenging opposition. Bullets tear right through 10 points of immunity, and since the DV isn't actually lowered, anything that does bypass a spirit's immunity is likely to seriously hurt or totally disrupt the spirit.

Re-summoning a high force involves risking drain in combat. Launching another grenade involves marking off a chunk of ammunition.
Lilt
I believe this falls into the category I suggested above that the sammie is happy with his magical backup, so why would he complain? Your game format sees the mage's advantages cancelled by other mages (they don't seem overpowered if they're pitted against someone osing the same tools as them), so everything is peachy. Yes?

No, because the imbalances still exist. Lets say that the party are missing their mage and they come up against a magical enemy, or the party face an enemy with no magical backup. Then, the overpowering nature comes into effect.

In-fact, overpowering magical threats should be more common than they are. Lets say the enemy has a powerful spirit (force 9), that the sammie just can't nail (11 dice to dodge, 18 points of hardened armor). Either the mage takes it out, or the party are wiped-out.

Seem an unfair encounter? The problem is that practically any starting mage can summon a force 9 spirit if they're willing to spend a bit of edge and accept a bit of physical drain. If they can't get a force 9, they can probably get a force 7 or 8 one which is still enough to pose a serious threat to a physical group. The sammie can't just spend edge in response and hope that the spirit goes away, it's a big honking pile of ass-whupping on a plate. A mage can banish the spirit (perhaps not the first choice as that probably wants edge and risks physical drain too), damage the spirit with combat spells, tie it up with a watcher pack and his own spirits, go into astral combat with it, or maybe even summon his own uber-spirit in response.

Once it becomes apparent that it is possible to do this, doesn't it become a preferable option to death if your gang are being wiped-out by a powerful group of runners? You see, if the mage doesn't summon an ultra-powerful spirit when they're facing death then you may technically be under-playing the opponents.

As I said, the imabalnces do exist. Mages can get by trying to avoid serious drain up until the end, preferring a bullet in the head to summoning something big and posing a difficult threat to a sammie-heavy squad, but in the end one of them might actually develop a survival instinct. I've seen things like this actually happen when someone comes in and guest-NPCs a character too, playing them far more effectively than the GM normally would have.
James McMurray
QUOTE
No, because the imbalances still exist. Lets say that the party are missing their mage and they come up against a magical enemy, or the party face an enemy with no magical backup. Then, the overpowering nature comes into effect.


Which is why it's up to the GM to develop fun encounters. If the opposition has no armor, the streetsam will destroy them. If they have no melee combat skills, the melee physad will own them. If they have no computer skills the hacker can destroy their lives through electronic manipulation.

And of course there's the fact (or at least my opinion) that an encounter which is unbalanced, even massively unbalanced, is not necessarily a bad thing when done in moderation. The PCs need to know sometimes that they're not on the bottom of the barrel, but neither are they the cream that rose to the top. Unbalanced encounters generally demonstrate that fairly easily.

QUOTE
The problem is that practically any starting mage can summon a force 9 spirit if they're willing to spend a bit of edge and accept a bit of physical drain.


It isn't about which NPCs can do what. It's about what sort of games are fun for the players. GMs, with or without spirits, can throw whatever extreme power levels of opposition they like against the players. Those spirits could just as easily be high armor vehicles or drones, troops in hardened armor, unhittable because of massive stealth and reaction mundanes.

QUOTE
As I said, the imabalnces do exist.


Obviously they do, or there wouldn't be umpteen threads about how overpowered magic is. But most perceived imbalances can be fixed by simply using the rules as written, since most people who come here with complaints aren't doing that. A large portion of the remaining imbalances can be fixed by having a group willing to fix them, or willing to forego absolute power in exchange for fun. The rest can mostly be fixed with GM foresight.

I'll just say again, I've never had problems with overpowered magic in my group, either when I'm running or someone else. The mage knows he couldn't survive long in the shadows without the hacker, rigger, or sammie. The sammie knows that the mage, hacker, and rigger increases his lifespan. The hacker and rigger know that they need each other and the mage and sammie.

Heck, the only time we almost had a TPK was when the opposition had no magical support whatsoever. Grenades go a long way towards showing people that they aren't as beefy as they think they are. smile.gif

Again, I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist for some people. It just hasn't bothered my group, despite being filled with minmaxers that like to have as much time in the spotlight as possible.
Nim
QUOTE (James McMurray)

Obviously they do, or there wouldn't be umpteen threads about how overpowered magic is. But most perceived imbalances can be fixed by simply using the rules as written, since most people who come here with complaints aren't doing that. A large portion of the remaining imbalances can be fixed by having a group willing to fix them, or willing to forego absolute power in exchange for fun. The rest can mostly be fixed with GM foresight.

Do you have a Top Ten list of overlooked rules that you think contribute to this?
James McMurray
No top ten list, but just from what I can think of offhand (in no particular order):

1) Invisibility is not complete stealth, and there are several cheap (or even free) counters to it that every business should know and use.

2) Spirit armor is not bypassed only by the weapon's damage value, but by the DV modified by successes.

3) Mind Reading is going to be noticed. You might not be able to stop them if you can't move away, but you can certainly remember them for later if you have an idea of who is doing it.

4) Mind Control is horribly powerful. Used on NPCs it can sway almost any situation. Used on PCs it can quickly and easily result in everyone burning edge to avoid a TPK. This isn't something that people miss, but is something that should be kept in mind when starting a campaign.

5) You can't have more successes than the force of the spell. This doesn't mean net successes, but flat successes.

6) What's good for the goose is good for the gander.* The opposition has magic as well, and unless you're incredibly creative they know all the same tricks.

7) What constitutes a service can be a very small thing. Just saying "protect me" isn't enough if you want it to cover you with concealment, materialize when you're attacked, and use it's gaurd power to prevent accidents.

cool.gif Getting a spirit into combat takes time. It's a complex action to summon it. Then you take a simple action to command it. Then it takes a complex action to materialize (probably losing any IPs it still had left). Then it appears and starts to act. Depending on the combat the fight might be long over when that last action comes around.

9) Wards can be bypassed, but if you don't see it or don't shut off spells and foci before going through it someone will know you're there. a great setup involves multilayered wards. One ward around the perimeter of your area (i.e. around your whole block if your company owns it all) will stop all astral scouting of your building, even by curisoty seekers. Another ward on the building itself stops the real threats, or alerts the mage if the intruder gets inside and does like many will do, forgetting to reevaluate the situation astrally. I've seen incredibly experienced players just stop astral activity once they've passed the ward.

10) Security forces know that magic exists. They know that people can turn invisible and silent. They know that spirits can be summoned and can hide people. They know that if a caster can see you he can nuke you. All this needs to be kept in mind when designing a challenge for a group. Huge amounts of cakewalks wouldn't be cakewalks if the mage were considered more during the GM's planning stages.

11) Change things on the fly if you have to. If you've designed an excellent run and it's all about to fall apart because you forgot to think of a counter for mind control, don't let it. Just because you didn't think of it doesn't mean that the security people wouldn't have. If it logically would be in place, put it in place whether you thought of it the Wednesday night when you were writing the run or halfway through Friday's session when the caster said "I wanna mind control him."

Ok, so maybe that's a top 11. I didn't realize there would be so many until I started writing. And I've probably missed quite a few.
Nim
Looks like a good list. Probably worth bookmarking smile.gif
Shadowmeet
QUOTE (James McMurray)
No top ten list, but just from what I can think of offhand (in no particular order):

1) Invisibility is not complete stealth, and there are several cheap (or even free) counters to it that every business should know and use.

2) Spirit armor is not bypassed only by the weapon's damage value, but by the DV modified by successes.

3) Mind Reading is going to be noticed. You might not be able to stop them if you can't move away, but you can certainly remember them for later if you have an idea of who is doing it.

4) Mind Control is horribly powerful. Used on NPCs it can sway almost any situation. Used on PCs it can quickly and easily result in everyone burning edge to avoid a TPK. This isn't something that people miss, but is something that should be kept in mind when starting a campaign.

5) You can't have more successes than the force of the spell. This doesn't mean net successes, but flat successes.

6) What's good for the goose is good for the gander.* The opposition has magic as well, and unless you're incredibly creative they know all the same tricks.

7) What constitutes a service can be a very small thing. Just saying "protect me" isn't enough if you want it to cover you with concealment, materialize when you're attacked, and use it's gaurd power to prevent accidents.

cool.gif Getting a spirit into combat takes time. It's a complex action to summon it. Then you take a simple action to command it. Then it takes a complex action to materialize (probably losing any IPs it still had left). Then it appears and starts to act. Depending on the combat the fight might be long over when that last action comes around.

9) Wards can be bypassed, but if you don't see it or don't shut off spells and foci before going through it someone will know you're there. a great setup involves multilayered wards. One ward around the perimeter of your area (i.e. around your whole block if your company owns it all) will stop all astral scouting of your building, even by curisoty seekers. Another ward on the building itself stops the real threats, or alerts the mage if the intruder gets inside and does like many will do, forgetting to reevaluate the situation astrally. I've seen incredibly experienced players just stop astral activity once they've passed the ward.

10) Security forces know that magic exists. They know that people can turn invisible and silent. They know that spirits can be summoned and can hide people. They know that if a caster can see you he can nuke you. All this needs to be kept in mind when designing a challenge for a group. Huge amounts of cakewalks wouldn't be cakewalks if the mage were considered more during the GM's planning stages.

11) Change things on the fly if you have to. If you've designed an excellent run and it's all about to fall apart because you forgot to think of a counter for mind control, don't let it. Just because you didn't think of it doesn't mean that the security people wouldn't have. If it logically would be in place, put it in place whether you thought of it the Wednesday night when you were writing the run or halfway through Friday's session when the caster said "I wanna mind control him."

Ok, so maybe that's a top 11. I didn't realize there would be so many until I started writing. And I've probably missed quite a few.

That's quite a list. I really like it. I think all potential GM's should keep those things in mind.
James McMurray
One thing I've mentioned in the past about invisibility is that there is a free and unobtrusive method of working around it: closed doors. If you alarm those doors with something that can't be disarmed at the door itself (such as central control over your wired network) then you've forced the invisible character to rely on someone else (in this case a hacker, but other options are available).

To protect the really important doors on the shift where workers aren't using it, you have your gaurd sit on a chair directly in front of it (still alarmed as before).

There are ways around these things, but it forces mages to think beyond a simple "levitate + invisibility = I rule."
Nim
The door doesn't even have to be alarmed...just locked in some way that requires you to be visible to open it smile.gif Retina scanner, facial regonition, etc.

Really secure areas should have an airlock entrance, with appropriate scanners to verify that there is, in fact, only one person present in the room - to keep invisible intruders from tailing authorized personnel through doors. A thermo scanner would be good here. Also, a pressure plate in the floor to judge weight, and a chem-sniffer to judge how many people are breathing in the room. Or a watcher spirit: "If an astral form enters this room, materialize HERE and tell the guard." In the event of an alert, lock both doors and flood the room with gas.
Shrike30
You don't even have to be that secure of a facility to have an "airlock" style door. Darkrooms sometimes use these rotary doors that consist of a C-shaped 3/4 cylinder upright on a round base. The person steps inside, and spins the cylinder around 180 degrees to step out on the other side. Light never gets through. You could make them wireless-opaque, put locks on them (so they can be stuck closed, becoming a trap), and put pressure sensors, ultrasound, and/or cyberware scanners (which work using millimeter-wave radar, and will pick up the non-cyber parts of a person's body, too) on the inside to make life hard for anyone going through. These doors arguably take up less space than a standard swinging door in terms of clear floorspace required, and if it's not a "constant flow" traffic zone, they shouldn't cause any major slowdowns unless they get swarmed (like, say, someone sets off the fire alarm, in which case the emergency exits would open anyway).
James McMurray
The facility I work in uses badges for all personnel. All entryways have revolving doors with badge readers. They only stay mobile for long enough to get one person through. Supposedly (I've never rsiked it) you can actually get caught in the door if you're too slow, and have to reswipe.
Nim
Hmm. Yeah. I was thinking of secure areas only because of the inconvenience factor.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012