Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Background Count Manipulations
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
bmcoomes
Well, I've been looking at some of the metamagic techniques on manipulating background count. There is Cleansing, Filtering, and Geomancy. Cleansing reduces the background count or erases traces of signatures. Filtering as is it name implies it creates a "weave" that filters the background count for the creator. Then there's Geomancy were you can create and type the background count of an area or even change the domain type. Well then we get to the only spell that I have see to manipulate the background count is Mana Static. Mana Static floods the are with mana to create a background count. So in that light I'd developed a spell to combat Mana Static with out compromising the metamagic techniques. The following if from my OOC Thread of the current games I've been running.

"OK, after some more research and brainstorming I think I found something that will fill the niche I was look for. While it really not that powerful with just the two mages combating each other the one who placed Mana Static and then the one placing Sanctification. It was built for more team play than not. Let me know what you guys think.

Sanctification (Environmental, Area)
Type: M, Range: LOS (A), Duration: S, DV: (F/2) + 4

This area-effect spell recan's an areas background count of 1 for every hit scored by the caster. Sanctification was designed to combat the effect of Mana Static. Were Mana Static floods an area with mana Sanctification soothes or places order on the area's mana. Only draw back to Sanctification is that the caster must Sustain this order but unlike normal sustain spells which only incur -2 for each sustained spell. The caster incurs half the background count (round normal) modified by the casters test as a dice penalty on all other tests."
ornot
Personally I'd rather just counterspell the casting of manastatic.

Coupla questions; obviously the intent of this spell is to counter manastatic, but does it also work on other non-artificial backgrounds? How does the increased sustaining penalty work with sustaining foci?
bmcoomes
Yes, I would rather counterspell the dame thing too. But at times it would be already in place. Yes it would work against normal background counts only in the sense of a positive background count it would not work with mana ebbs or mana voids for obvious reasons. With the sustaining foci I would have to say that the focus force would have to equal to the dice pool penalty or it would be unable to sustain it. But I think though that it would still leave a -2 dice penalty due to the fact the the weave would have to be continually maintained to prevent the clogging effect.
ornot
It is quite possible to dispell an extant spell. I'd quote a page ref, but I don't have my book.
bmcoomes
QUOTE (ornot @ Nov 24 2008, 05:57 PM) *
It is quite possible to dispell an extant spell. I'd quote a page ref, but I don't have my book.


It's BBB pg 176. And you can only dispell sustained and quickened spells only on spells that have not become permanent. Good thought though.
Muspellsheimr
As written, not only is the spell not worth taking (mostly due to Drain), but fucking with Sustaining penalties creates unnecessary & retarded complications.

Further, Sanctification does not fit with what the spell does - go check the definition before you debate this (to sanctify, in terms of Background Count, implies Aspecting it, usually to the Catholic traditions).

I do like the concept however, & so have put together something that might be a bit more attractive & usable.

Astral Purification (Environmental, Area)
Type: M • Range: LoS(A) • Duration: P • DV: (F+2)+2
Positive Background Count (p.117, Street Magic) in the area of the spell is reduced by 1 (to a minimum of 0) for each hit on the Spellcasting Test. Once made permanent, Background Count returns to normal at a rate of 1 per hour.

Drain:
+0 : Mana
+0 : Line of Sight
+2 : Area
+2 : Permanent
+0 : Minor Change
-2 : Environmental Manipulation
bmcoomes
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 24 2008, 07:14 PM) *
As written, not only is the spell not worth taking (mostly due to Drain), but fucking with Sustaining penalties creates unnecessary & retarded complications.

Further, Sanctification does not fit with what the spell does - go check the definition before you debate this (to sanctify, in terms of Background Count, implies Aspecting it, usually to the Catholic traditions).

I do like the concept however, & so have put together something that might be a bit more attractive & usable.

Astral Purification (Environmental, Area)
Type: M • Range: LoS(A) • Duration: P • DV: (F+2)+2
Positive Background Count (p.117, Street Magic) in the area of the spell is reduced by 1 (to a minimum of 0) for each hit on the Spellcasting Test. Once made permanent, Background Count returns to normal at a rate of 1 per hour.

Drain:
+0 : Mana
+0 : Line of Sight
+2 : Area
+2 : Permanent
+0 : Minor Change
-2 : Environmental Manipulation


That was the same thing I came up with on my first approach but like the mana static it's drain should be (f/2)+4 because I think is does count as a major change. But the problem with that spell is superior to the metamagic techniques and the cost in karma alone would make people choose the spell over the metamagic (15 karma vs. 5 karma).

With the use of the name I find it appropriate to make the space holy or to bless (placing order on chaos) I find it a better term then cleanse or purification which is to clean because your not cleaning the area. As far as the penalties I went with them instead of the same mechanic of filtering metamagic which only last your magic rating in turns. My thinking was that your actively maintaining the "filter" which would need more attention in higher rating background count areas then lower ones due to mana "pressure" or flow.
Muspellsheimr
Cleansing still has some advantage over the spell - namely no Drain, but after reviewing it, I am of the opinion it generally sucks (I had thought it was permanent).

Unless you also intend to rework Cleansing to be generally more useful, I would suggest not allowing any such spell to remove Background Count.

Also, to cleanse or purify is far more accurate than to bless for this. Further, as I said before, fucking with the sustaining penalties creates unnecessary complications - put simply, retarded.
Fortune
The problem with the theory of making the space 'Holy' or implying some type of 'blessing', is that these are the types of things that in and of themselves can actually cause Background Count.
bmcoomes
Muspellsheimr,
I'm afraid that our difference of opinion is no cause for foul words. Both mechanic are valid ways of dealing with the given problem. I don't intend to rework Cleasing metamagic I really see no need.

Fortune,
That is why I went with Sanctification, because it was more intended as placing order out of chaos which in some circles that is a Holy thing that was all I was trying to say.



I'm afraid that if this thread continues to deteriorate I'll have it deleted. I'm not of the mind to sit here and make this a flame war or have Trolling take place over the difference of opinions. I placed this here to get other thoughts on it to catch angles that I did not think of. So far there has been valid points that I have looked at and considered.

Thanks,
Fortune
QUOTE
Fortune,
That is why I went with Sanctification, because it was more intended as placing order out of chaos which in some circles that is a Holy thing that was all I was trying to say.


Fair enough I guess.

QUOTE
I'm afraid that if this thread continues to deteriorate I'll have it deleted. I'm not of the mind to sit here and make this a flame war or have Trolling take place over the difference of opinions. I placed this here to get other thoughts on it to catch angles that I did not think of. So far there has been valid points that I have looked at and considered.


So, I'm confused. We're only allowed to voice an opinion if it agrees with your own? And the only points that can be raised are those which have not yet occurred to you? Uh huh.
bmcoomes
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 24 2008, 09:25 PM) *
So, I'm confused. We're only allowed to voice an opinion if it agrees with your own? And the only points that can be raised are those which have not yet occurred to you? Uh huh.


No quite contrary your more than 'allowed' to voice your own opinion. I just don't see the need for continued use of the F bomb. I'm more than happy to discusses were my train of thought on this topic came from and is leading to. I just don't need all drama people like to throw around because they don't like the idea of some thing. I'm not out to cause offense I'm here to have a productive discussion not argue that's all.

Thanks,
Fortune
Ah. Again, fair enough. I mistakenly thought you were referring to my post as well as that of Muspellsheimr.
Muspellsheimr
While I likely swear more than most others on these boards, Dumpshock is not a PG place, with mature themes & language being acceptable (difficult to have otherwise with a generally mature game).

That being said, my swearing is usually limited to variations of "fuck"; as this was not directed at you or used in an insulting manner, it is perfectly okay. If you have problems with this, I would advise attempting to ignore it, or finding another forum.


Back to the original subject, to make a Background-Count-Reducing spell that is actually worth taking, it would at best make Cleansing redundant. To create a spell that Cleansing is clearly superior to would be to create a spell that is, put simply, crap. Thus, as I said earlier, unless you intend to alter Cleansing, I suggest not making such a spell.
bmcoomes
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 25 2008, 12:26 AM) *
While I likely swear more than most others on these boards, Dumpshock is not a PG place, with mature themes & language being acceptable (difficult to have otherwise with a generally mature game).

That being said, my swearing is usually limited to variations of "fuck"; as this was not directed at you or used in an insulting manner, it is perfectly okay. If you have problems with this, I would advise attempting to ignore it, or finding another forum.


Back to the original subject, to make a Background-Count-Reducing spell that is actually worth taking, it would at best make Cleansing redundant. To create a spell that Cleansing is clearly superior to would be to create a spell that is, put simply, crap. Thus, as I said earlier, unless you intend to alter Cleansing, I suggest not making such a spell.


Sorry, I'm must have misread then and taken the use out of context. Less move on then.

I'm fine with make Cleansing redundant but I would rather not make is obsolete altogether. But that is a fine line to develop around when you don't won't the throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.

This is the third take on this so I'm more then willing to revamp it or go back to the drawing board.

I'd like to hear some of the others thoughts on this.

Thanks,
Cabral
What about a spell that disrupts the aspect of a location? This isn't improving your situation unless you have Filtering, but it can screw with someone's home turf, ie a toxic mage. This doesn't step on Cleansing and is little more than a specialize Mana Static.

If the cause of the background count is removed, Cleansing is permanent. In addition, it's a stepping stone to spell matrixes-err-Filtering.
crizh
The problem here is permitting Sorcery to manipulate BC at all.

In my opinion Mana Static is a steaming dog turd. Manipulating Mana in such a fashion should have been one of the things disallowed in the 'Limits of Sorcery' sidebar.

If Mana Static is possible then there is no sensible reason that Magic cannot Manipulate BC in precisely the way Brent has suggested.

If that is a game balance issue then that whole category of Sorcery should be filed away with Teleportation and Time Travel where it belongs.
Earlydawn
Going to jump on the bandwagon and agree on a lore basis. I can accept mana static as a sorcery mechanic as it's essentially "scrambling" the mana in a given area and preventing it from being used. Any kind of magic that directly shapes the mana in its area is strictly the realm of metamagic and powerful artifacts, imo. A bit too much of the product shaping the tool, if you ask me. smile.gif
crizh
QUOTE (Earlydawn @ Nov 25 2008, 07:07 PM) *
I can accept mana static as a sorcery mechanic as it's essentially "scrambling" the mana in a given area and preventing it from being used.


Here I'm afraid I flat out disagree with you. If you can 'scramble' it you can alter it in other ways.

Like teleportation it needs a unilateral ban.
Earlydawn
Sure, you can alter it in other ways. Those ways manifest through the consistent use of magic itself. Aspected domains are a good example, as mana tends to pool around the areas in which magic occurs. Intrinsically shaping the astral environment requires a more refined touch then simple sorcery can provide.. after all, sorcery is just the sophmoric act of "grabbing a handful" of mana and shaping it into a rough approximation of what you want it to be. Metamagic represents the more fundamental skill of crafting mana with the hand of a master.

I'd equate mana static to something closer to a jamming field or electromagnetic pulse - with a raw application of force, you can easily disrupt signals and fry hardware, but that same understanding doesn't allow you to run radio signals through a filter and turn them into ultraviolet light, or gamma radiation.
bmcoomes
That too is a valid solution in just banning or removing Mana Static. Then there would be no need to a new spell to combat it. From the description of the spell it sounds like it is doing more then just scrambling the ambient mana by the description you are raising the mana level of the area to create a temporary background count. I'm leaning more toward Crizh in that it may beyond the realm of sorcery and more one of metamagic in raising the mana level and the like for an area.

Yes the use of magic and the like raises the ambient mana of an area because that the basis of it is were the metamagics are developed from raising "energy" to create the spell. Where raising energy is the base for the development of Cleansing and from there one learns through that relationship that you can filter or screen the ambient mana through construct.
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