Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: I will seek council from the Dumpshockians...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
The Red Menace
During our last game session a few players got into a lengthy discussion about the spell Increased Reflexes (SR4 Source book) and Decreased Reflexes (Streets of Magic). One of the players felt that Decreased reflexes has a clear and unfair advantage over Increased Reflexes in a couple of ways.

-First off, the Decreased Reflexes spell is cheaper on DV.

-Next, when given an example in which an ally casts Increased Reflexes on a teammate and sustains the spell in a sustaining foci, then an opponent casts Decreased Reflexes on that same teammate...Though the foci is being consistently used each Initiative Pass, the Decreased Reflexes spell spoils any use that the foci has so long as the opponent caster sustains the spell.

-Some players thought this was unfair and feel that if both Increased Reflexes and Decreased Reflexes are used, both spells net hit successes should be recorded and the higher net hits should be able to exist while the other spell cancels.

-Another suggestion was that no matter what, the last person to cast their spell should be the one to have the appropriate affect on the host.

What I am looking for is any aid,references or evidence anyone may be able to find that could help resolve the matter. We attempted to search for some, but a gridlock of translation put us at a dead end.

My only request is that if you are going to chime in with a suggestion, factoid or any other aid...PLEASE be respectful when answering as I plan on showing the players any and all replies.
Thanks for any help,
The Red Menace
Ryu
So the always useful, cheaper than any other form of +3 IP spell is countered by another spell. How unbalancing *sarcasm*

- Decreased reflexes is another type of spell, therefore it has a different DV. No argument here. You´ll hardly ever cast Increase Reflexes on an opponent.

- Sustaining a spell puts the opponent at a -2 distraction modifier, so the Increase Reflexes focus has a desireable effect, if not the choosen one.

- Casting a special counterspell should have a better effect than just using counterspelling against the spell.

- I don´t want to be disrespectful, but I consider the attitude a bit on the whiney side. One spell chancelling another is par for the course for any game system. Heal can be used on manabolt damage, too. If I had invested in Decrease Reflexes, my spell would be countered by Increase Reflexes, wouldn´t it? See the mechanics from both sides.
Whipstitch
The question should be "Is Decrease Reflexes worth using at all?" rather than "Is it fair that Decrease Reflexes counters Increase Reflexes (and Increased Reflexes certainly IS worth using)?" Debuffs and indirect effects are great and all in other games, but to work in the fast paced combat system of Shadowrun they typically need to make someone useless immediately (the other Decrease Attribute spells, Turn to Goo) or be capable of immediately hindering many people for modest drain (like Stench). I mean, let's look at what Decrease Reflexes does; it has a pretty mild effect compared to other offensive spells and is +1 Drain code despite being touch range; a pretty bad start considering this is something only of use against your enemies. Of course, it also helps to know whether they have extra passes or not in the first place, lest the spell be an even bigger waste of time than it usually is. Honestly, it's just a bad spell; the goal isn't to reduce your opponent's initiative passes to one, it's to reduce them to zero via incapacitation and at touch range there's a whole mess of far superior options and most of them even take less drain.
Karaden
I've got to agree with Ryu, I don't see a real problem here. Decreased Reflexes has a lower DV because a mage can cast the Increased Reflexes days or weeks before actual combat, the DV isn't usually a huge issue, whereas Decreased Reflexes -must- be cast in mid combat, so of course it should have a lower DV.

I also agree there is no reason it shouldn't cancel out. Why should Increased Reflexes have -even more- advantages over the cyber/bioware counterparts? Also, why would anyone used Decreased Reflexes over simply using a counterspell if you did it the way you are thinking of it.

You also have to take into consideration that it is a -touch- ranged attack, that needs to be used on enemies. That is very difficult to pull off, so shouldn't really come up all that often anyway.

All in all I don't see that there is any problem to be resolved here. Oh, and also keep in mind that afterwards the enemy mage has to sustain the spell, meaning the Increased Reflexes spell at least has some kind of benifit.
FrankTrollman
Even if Decreased Reflexes was castable on an area for the same drain it would hardly ever get used.

Why remove some of their IPs with strange occultism when you can just fragging kill them and remove all of their IPs with the same action by a number of means.

-Frank
Whipstitch
Heh, my mages would be puzzled if someone tried it; for one thing, I tend to use Jazz for passes more than anything else (and even then not often) so I'm not even the terribly biggest fan of Increase Reflexes for non-combat mages. Carden from the Impending Doom game would lose his whole extra initiative pass and probably respond with a "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!" before casting a Turn To Goo or a Force 5+ Stunbolt.
The Red Menace
I appreciate the input.

Subquestion which came up: If a street samurai using Wired Reflexes Rating 2 (giving him 3 I.P.'s) is hit with a Decreased Reflexes spell that drops him down to one I.P. and in an attempt to counter the spell takes a drug that adds an additional I.P., should the effects work even though the spell is still being sustained to drop the host down to one I.P.?
Whipstitch
Wired Reflexes isn't really compatible with other forms of Initiative enhancement so a lot of people would probably rule that the drug doesn't really have any effect to begin with. To look at a straight Increase Reflexes vs. Decrease Reflexes contest though, I'd say you should treat the Decrease Reflexes spell as suppressing a number of Initiative Passes equal to the number of net hits on the test and that where those passes are coming from shouldn't matter too much. So even if you dropped Increase Reflexes and cast it again it shouldn't do much good untill the Decrease Reflexes spell is dropped. A Force 4 Decrease Reflexes with 4 net hits will be prepared to suppress 4 Initiative and up to 4 passes (which is typically excessive, btw) until it ends.
Ryu
He gets IP boni, he gets an IP malus. Add them up, cut at four IPs.

Other way to put it: Depends on the successes of the Decrease Reflexes spell.
knasser
QUOTE (Ryu)
He gets IP boni, he gets an IP malus.


I bet you've beenm waiting ages for the chance to say "IP malus." biggrin.gif
Gelare
QUOTE (knasser)
QUOTE (Ryu @ Dec 31 2007, 05:06 PM)
He gets IP boni, he gets an IP malus.


I bet you've beenm waiting ages for the chance to say "IP malus." biggrin.gif

Man, I know I would. That's an awesome word, I've gotta start using that.
FrankTrollman
But he loses points for using the word "boni" which is not an English word. The plural of bonus is bonuses. The Latin word bonus is an adjective, which only becomes Boni for modifying plural nominative masculine nouns. Used as a noun, as it was in this case, it would be 4th declension and the plural would be Bones.

-Frank
Mercer
My next character will be Bones Malus.
Jaid
QUOTE (Mercer)
My next character will be Bones Malus.

heh, that's actually not a bad name =D

he should definitely be a doctor though (dammit Jim, i'm a doctor, not a stonemason!)
FrankTrollman
I'm a doctor, not a surgeon.

-Frank
Glyph
Decrease reflexes is a horrible choice to use against a street samurai.

First, from the FAQ:
QUOTE

Does the penalty for low Essence (noted in Healing Characters with Implants, p. 199, SR4) apply to all Health spells or simply those that heal damage?

It applies to all Health spells, including Negative Health spells.


Secondly, it is a touch-based spell, meaning you have to physically touch the sammie in combat.

Third, it is not only resisted by reaction, which will tend to be around seven or so (and you will be incurring a penalty for the target's low Essense on top of that), but the spell Force has to equal or exceed the target's reaction. In other words, most mages will have to overcast it to even have a chance of it working.

Finally, it is a sustained spell - you have to expend concentration, to the detriment of your other attempted actions, and risk having your concentration disrupted by distraction or injury, and all to keep the sammie limited to one, instead of three, initiative passes.

Frankly, a mage has about a kazillion better options against a street sammie than this spell.


And against someone with the increase reflexes spell, dispelling is way better - you can take out the spell completely, from a distance, with a relatively even chance of doing so, as opposed to going up against a boosted Reaction Attribute combined with counterspelling, and having to get in touch range, overcast, and keep sustaining it.

The other advantage of dispelling is that your Drain is only the same as the spell you are trying to negate - with decrease reflexes, you might be casting a Force: 5 spell against a Force: 3 increase reflexes spell - or against a Reaction of 6 that completely negates the spell from the very start.


That's the other thing you can point out if your players complain about the lower Drain code for decrease reflexes - you only need Force: 4 to get +3 initiative passes, but you need to overcast decrease reflexes at Force: 7 or higher, since the Force needs to be at least as high as the Reaction you are trying to affect. So, in actuality, it is decrease reflexes that will usually have the higher Drain.
Ryu
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
But he loses points for using the word "boni" which is not an English word. The plural of bonus is bonuses. The Latin word bonus is an adjective, which only becomes Boni for modifying plural nominative masculine nouns. Used as a noun, as it was in this case, it would be 4th declension and the plural would be Bones.

-Frank

notworthy.gif rotfl.gif



About the only use I can see for Decrease Reflexes is annoying Samurai that come to a high-security meeting. And that would be me as a GM using the spell, my mage will never learn it.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Ryu)
About the only use I can see for Decrease Reflexes is annoying Samurai that come to a high-security meeting. And that would be me as a GM using the spell, my mage will never learn it.

Sort of a not-so-subtle "don't f*** with the plot" spell. I guess that could be useful if you have a player who thinks a good opening to negotiations is a long burst and a short burst. cool.gif
Jhaiisiin
QUOTE
Secondly, it is a touch-based spell, meaning you have to physically touch the sammie in combat.

Can't you just have your mage create a new, LOS version of the spell? Then he doesn't have to get anywhere near the walking deathbot.
Karaden
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
QUOTE
Secondly, it is a touch-based spell, meaning you have to physically touch the sammie in combat.

Can't you just have your mage create a new, LOS version of the spell? Then he doesn't have to get anywhere near the walking deathbot.

That is actually a -really- good idea.
Whipstitch
Too bad giving it LOS range would change the spells drain code from excessive but manageable to outright nasty. dead.gif
Jhaiisiin
It's a balancing factor though. Heck, when the spell design rules came out, the first thing my group did was bring back LOS heal/treat/cure spells. Having to run out to the bullet-ridden samurai amidst a deadly firefight was *not* a desired method of healing in my group. LOL
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Whipstitch)
Too bad giving it LOS range would change the spells drain code from excessive but manageable to outright nasty. dead.gif

And it would still be an inferior way to take someone out.
Jhaiisiin
I'm not certain that's even being argued. There are *tons* better ways of dealing with fast samurai, the primary one being to attack their Willpower attribute, because that's the least protected, generally speaking. We're just hashing over the viability of using a non-optimized spell to tilt things in your favor, I think.

One thing I've noticed here is that far too many people instantly dismiss an item, spell, character concept or whatever if it doesn't min/max or optimize to the fullest and thus give the best benefit. Sometimes you choose non-optimal on purpose just to give you something to roleplay and have fun with. If I wanted to lay waste to an area with impunity, I'd be packing stun spells, mana ball/bolt, and a nice spirit army to just kill whatever is in my way. Sometimes super-optimization isn't fun, at least for some people.

That's my 10nuyen anyway...
Stahlseele
Levitation is minmaxed up to nowhere . . it is the most usefull spell EVER O.o
bibliophile20
QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
I'm a doctor, not a surgeon.

-Frank

And I can just imagine your bedside manner. smile.gif
Fortune
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
Can't you just have your mage create a new, LOS version of the spell?

Not according to the SR4 rules ...

QUOTE (Street Magic pg. 163)
Health Spells
Most Health spells are curative, healing damage, curing disease, and neutralizing toxins; these are treated as Success Tests, with the net hits determining the effect. Though these spells have a Permanent duration, they do not receive the Permanent Drain modifier because they are restoring the target to his natural
health. Most Health spells are mana spells, though spells that affect attribute scores must by physical.
All Health spells (including the Negative Health spells) are required to have the Touch range Drain modifier (–2), unless the gamemaster specifically allows otherwise. Health spells may never be area effect, because they must be focused on a specific organic system. Negative Health spells, which impede the target’s health, are treated as Opposed Tests (see p. 199, SR4).
hyzmarca
In previous editions, the paralysis caused by decreasing Quickness to 0 would also paralyze the diaphragm, causing the target to asphyxiate. Combined with Cleansing to remove the signature, it was the perfect subtle assasination method, completely indistinguishable from natural causes. That may make it worth the touch range and the high threshold.
Jhaiisiin
Ah, so my GM houseruled it. Got it. It just doesn't make sense to limit them to touch only. One of those freaky-balance-things-that-make-no-sense they introduced in 4e, I guess. Wunderbar.
Ranneko
I'm quite sure the same restriction appeared in SR3 as well.
Fortune
QUOTE (Ranneko @ Jan 3 2008, 01:57 PM)
I'm quite sure the same restriction appeared in SR3 as well.

Actually, as far as I can recall (no SR3 books at the moment), there was no restriction on Health spells in SR3 for either LOS or Area Effect modification. I know that if there was, I (and my GMs) never noticed it, because I have used the LOS mod on Health spells in the past (which is why I particularly noticed the restriction in this edition).
Glyph
QUOTE (MITS pg. 51)

Health spells may not produce an area effect because they must be focused on a specific organic system.



QUOTE (MITS pg. 54)

For health spells that can be cast at LOS Range, apply a +1 Drain Level modifier...



Street Magic is more hardline on the latter than SR3, making it require a GM ruling to allow it, but at least if a GM does allow LOS health spells, there is a rule for the Drain (it doesn't get the touch range modifier).
Fortune
Well, there you go. Merci. smile.gif
Ranneko
Right you are, I thought I remembered reading a similar rule in SR3, but checking now you are right. Serves me right for posting without having books to check.
Ryu
Minor note to my players, and a stance I strongly suggest for other GMs. All custom spells require GM approval. I always think of the "requires GM approval" tag as discussion aid for denying the request. Something I fortunately don´t need with my group.
Jhaiisiin
Yeah, within our own games, we just upped the drain as appropriate to create the LOS heals. Of course, the bad guys soon got the upgrades too, but that's escalation for you.
The Red Menace
I appreciate the replies.

On a side note about adjusting spells, If it's not astronomically overpowering I usually allow it. As some of you have pointed out, in the end its about having fun. If a custom spell (that isn't overpowered) would make one of your players happier then a pig in crap, I tend to allow it. Rules need to exist, but nit-picking usually just turns the players off of a game in my opinion.
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