Well I guess I just have a clueless group of players. We have fun, tell a good story(I hope), enjoy the game. All I hear on these forums, is how this is really going to screw up mages and ruin SR forever. Does everyone realize that the whole purpose is to have fun? I have yet to play a mage or have a mage character the was not a fun intergal part of the group and used all his skills as best he could. I have had spellcasters knocked out from drain, blow whole city blocks and everything inbetween. If you don't like the rules don't use them. If you like the rules use them. CGL has made a great edition to SR. I have been playing this since day 1, I was one of the first to pick this game up in Milwaukee(I know hard to prove but I am pretty sure on that) and I am getting worn out listening to all these complaints. Hey we all love the game and I know most of it is done with love in mind, just wanting to make sure out beloved game continues, but come on people lets all step back take a deep breath and call Mr. Johnson and ask what the next job is.


Just my $.02. Sorry if this sounds like trolling or flaming just like everyone else I just want to see my favorite game survive.

Trevor L.

It's nice to see a positive, non-flaming post about this

No matter what play style you prefer, I agree: Please remember that we're here to have fun.

So in other words, it's fun to Not Be Capable Of Anything?

That is, an illusion mage who can't cast illusions well enough to hide from a simple camera just because he didn't buy his magic up to 8.

Yes, the idea is to have fun.
We can have fun with the rules changes. We can, and will, adapt.
The problem is not changing the rules. The problem is the way they where changed.

And: 'Drink up Socrates! It's all natural!"

Well, I will say I have not used the SR4A rules yet, but I guess my play style is just out there. I can honestly say have have never used an Illusion spell in SR.

Besides - a lot of the complaints are coming from people who play at conventions...which pretty much means they're stuck with the rules-as-written.

And this isn't nearly the doom-and-gloom scene that was the launch of SR4.

I like most of the changes and have a lot of respect for the devs and what they've accomplished. And I've been praising the loveliness of the Anniversary Edition repeatedly.

There are just two changes of concern to me. One has issues but I'm keeping it. The other I don't like and am getting rid of. But in neither case am I giving up on a great edition of a great game.

So, yes - good to have a positive thread on this.

Blatant exaggeration hurts your cause.

Synnner posted OR 4 for cameras, yes? 5 magic 5 spellcasting 2 from mentor, average roll...(Rod Forbid that someone with an illusion mentor spirit have an edge )
The caster knows how successful before field test, yes?
Mages can do sooo much more than trick cameras yes?

And they are the only ones who can fool all the cameras.

Is it harder now? Yes.

The forums are certainly not as much fun when one has to read the same biased information over and over.
This goes for me too, so I have tried to slow down the old post chain on these subjects

This really happened:

Mage: I mind control the troll and have him open fire on the rest of the security guards.
GM: The other security open fire and drop him
Mage: I cast Trid Phatasm and make it look like the troll rises from the dead and saunters into the room, taking all the lead the security team can throw at him.
PCs: Under the cover of the distraction we grab what we need and run.

You have no idea how effective Illusions can be. Same mage a few sessions later Trid Phantasm'd up some trolls in the middle of a gang fight (we were busting in on the gang's headquaters) and the four or six guys in this other room see these trolls walk in with miniguns and surrender (the first room we'd slaughtered, trolls did take a little flak, but being illusions it didn't matter...except that it was flak not directed at a PC).

O.o

I'm building an illusionist now.

A generous GM will cause the firearms from the illusions to use up dodges.
Ours wasn't that generous.

The irony to me is that most of the people screaming bloody murder probably use their own houserules already, anyway. The only people who care deeply about the fine-tuned mechanics of the game system are the same people who tweak and re-tweak it to their liking. People are going to throw a huge fit, and then either keep using the same old rules, or house-rule the stuff they don't like. Which they've probably done already -- nobody who's going to pitch a fit about these things is likely to be a purist who plays SR4 wholly unaltered in the first place. You can rage about how the game system should be perfect and you shouldn't need to make house rules, it should fit you like a glove fresh out of the box, but it's not going to change anything.

I agree with the OP's laid back style. It's a game about having fun. If the rules are messing up your fun, change them. The designers are trying to write a game that they think is fun, but despite their best efforts some people won't like it. Anyone who can blame them for that needs to get over themselves.

I think I saw you there!

and seem to approach it a competetive sport...

thanks for the positive view

its all about the fun

yeah, if you play at conventions, these are the rules you are stuck with

homegames, i am gonna do th esame, keep what i like & toss the rest out the window

and i still say its great designed book

What if the purpose is to have more fine-tuneable statistics? What if fun is defined as tactical battles with ninjas and little margin for error, like a 1970s groin-punching Avalon Hill game?

Why are old Avalon Hill games like Titan still fun, whereas the blur of forgettable console video games rolling out today is totally forgettable? Because the first was challenging, cereberal, and memorable. The crap coming out today is two dimensional, easy, and repetitite.

Maybe you are, but I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of gum.

Conversely, I'm all out of ass.

In addition to the con players, there's some of us who play online heavily. Having to have different characters for SR4.0 and 4.5 is a pain in the butt.

There's also a good percentage of people who like the idea of the changes, but don't like how they're implemented, feeling like there's gaping abuse holes left in the ruleset. Overcasting direct combat spells is a huge example of this.

You know, if you're getting "worn out with the complaints", no one's forcing you to read the threads which are clearly labeled as SR4A discussion. People who have had their play style crapped all over by a drastic rules change have every right to speak their mind in a (relatively) civil manner. I haven't seen any obscenity-filled tirades or death threats in the discussion, just people's expressions of their disappointment with the changes, usually pretty specific and well-reasoned.

We all play for "fun", but some people's idea of fun involves their favorite characters being able to function well in certain areas within the fictional world of shadowrun. The rules of the game are there to provide a framework for resolving how everyone's characters fail or succeed, letting everyone participate in the same shared reality and adding a genuine random element to it. So anything impacting their fairness or consistency can make the game less fun.

I'll kill you for that!

Out of topic:
I've just noticed that your head's spinning with negative angular velocity.

I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but they're re-making that film. Or maybe "They" are re-making this film. Not against that in principle - all the cool ideas with non of the Eighties directing and plastic aliens... But based on previous examples of remakes, you might want to be afraid. And not for a good reason.

You got to be kidding me. I am curious though, how much they will change the premise. Something along the lines of "They are the good guys and the guy with glasses is a terrorist loathing their way of life". I'm sure they can think of something worse, more removed even. Well, at least it will have improved visual value. Maybe it will entertain at least a little.

I have to re-watch that movie now.

And yes, in a way I am afraid. Very much so. I just need to remember The Day the Earth was not told what the hell just happend to see possibilities for laughter and tears alike.

1) It's not fun needing a completely tricked out mage with 18+ dice to affect even a microdrone.

2) It's easy for GMs to change the rules. But not having to change rules is better. Also, not everyone is in charge of changing the rules in the games they play in.

3) the designers are attempting to fix perceived problems, but are going about them in the wrong ways. They also tried to keep the spell design system intact, while simultaneously ruining 3 significantly large groups of spells.

For me, these things are the opposite of fun.

If you think it's not fun that your mage can't kill everything equally easily, then it sounds to me like you only have fun when you're an ultimate killy badass with no limitations. That doesn't sound like fun to me, that sounds too easy. I guess everyone has a different definition of fun -- after all, there are GMs whose idea of fun is to torture the players with draconian "consequences," and players whose idea of fun is to spoil everyone else's good time by PKing them. I guess the point I was trying to make was this: if you settle down, go with the flow, and don't fret the rule tweaks, you'll have more fun. Because obviously, bashing your head against the wall isn't going to change the RAW or make Catalyst do what you want in the future, it just hurts your head. Maybe you can't settle down, and if that's so, then I'm sorry

Anyway, all the change to direct combat does is force you to branch out your spell selections a little. Instead of throwing futile power bolts at drones, throw a lightning bolt and fry the crap out of them without even needing to add net hits. It would be one thing to nerf direct combat spells if those were the only thing that made mages good. It's quite another thing to nerf them because they're unbalanced, and nobody ever uses anything else.

I'm pretty sure the second "ruined" spell class is illusions (not sure what the third one is ) but here's a novel idea: rely on your team! There's no reason for one team member's abilities to be able to handle every situation equally. Mages have been spoiled by being able to do everything, in many cases better than a mundo ever could. The changes make them a bit less of a swiss army knife, making the mundos a lot more important and probably increasing their fun quite a bit. After all, it's a cooperative game. Even if the changes don't increase your own fun, the net increase in fun may well be positive, so long as it's not a whole team of mages

Sigh...that's 18 dice to have a 50% chance of affecting a drone with a OR resisted spell. Not "killing it equally easily" just affecting it. So anybody with radar, thermosense (not thermovision), echolocation, or even an image link to a camera is pretty damn close to immune to invisibility spells now.

On the other hand, if you can count on those 6 successes, then you're already a hammer in a world of nails.

And electricity spells don't "fry" drones - in fact, they take no damage from them - electricity causes stun damage which they're immune to. They can get the secondary effects, though.
They get a dodge test and if they fail, then body+armor test (needing more successes than the mage's net spellcasting hits) or be stunned for a few rounds. (p. 154 SR4 - probably a different page in SR4A.)

the spell specifically specify P type damage.

yep, its one of those contradictions that has not been cleared up, tho im tempted to say that the stun damage is for when someone plays around with source of electricity of unknown quantity. that is, the specifics override the generics.

Every mage I know takes Stunbolt and one other combat spell (of some kind) and then fills in with character appropriate spells (our current mage took Control Actions and Trid Phantasm). Heal was another "every mage should have" spell, though our current mage still doesn't have it.

Stunbolt hasn't gotten any less deadly (a Force 10 stunbolt still incapacitates an NPC and does no more drain than it did before), but it's now not economical to normal-cast it, if you can ignore ~3 drain then from that Force 10 you'll take about 2P (ouch, but not deadly), whereas the Force 5 stunbolt does 4S to you for the same effect. Stun is less "dangerous" than physical, but 2P doesn't cause any DP penalties, whereas 4S does. And if you're doing this repeatedly you could throw 3 of the Force 5 bolts before falling unconscious, but 5 of the Force 10's.

No one is even coming close to asking to be the "ultimate killy badass with no limitations." In fact, most of us have been pointing out that the arguments claiming mages having no limitations are incorrect and that magic, and mages, have a lot of limitations that are being ignored in order to claim that they are currrently overpowered. If you are ignoring their limitations now, what about these new rules will suddenly balance mages in your games?

On a side note, your condescending attitude towards our complaints is neither warranted nor welcome. I have no problem with people making their own house rules that "fix" perceived problems in their own game. I do have a problem with game developers making changes to rules that are not needed and seemingly done without much, if any, forethought.

But you seem to assume that the devs, on the other hand, love complaints that may not be warranted or welcome being tossed around in a fairly condescending manner.



I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you alone, but the boards are alight with people tossing around the idea that Peter and crew just "fucked up the game" and "changed stuff that didn't need to be changed" and "never listen to fans" (with the implied follow on of "that know so much better than they do"). And most of the people making such claims are hardly doing so with any tact (some are, but they are a deistinct minority).

So maybe you don't like some of the changes. Maybe they don't work for your table. It's perfectly awesome to state as much. But to sit around portraying the devs as a bunch of bumbling morons, or assholes, or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be, while implying that they just change the game at their whim because they like sitting around laughing at people that don't like the changes? That's where the majority of you folks that don't like the changes are really falling down.

My comment was that I believe these changes were made with little forethought and are not needed. I maintain that this is true. I asked a specific question on this board about why a certain change was made (the new OR thresholds). My question, both times it was asked, was replied to with an answer that didn't address the question. While I agree that developers might not like that their work is being criticized this seems like the proper place to do it. Also, while some may feel that only positive criticism is constructive I believe this view is incorrect.

I've shown why I don't believe the changes were needed (in several threads) and I've been given evidence that the changes affect on the game was not fully thought out (Synner's responses). If you'd like to argue that I'm wrong, I'm more than willing to hear it, but I'll not hold back on giving a opinion simply because it may insult someone. (I may hold back if it lacks any basis in fact and would insult someone, but that's not the case here.)

Also, I'm not sure how my comments are condescending. I didn't say that the developers were "bumbling morons" or even "assholes", but I will say that they are wrong. However, the previous claim (not yours but the one I was responding to) was that we shouldn't complain about the developers being wrong because we'd have more "fun" and equating our arguments with wanting to be the ultimate killing machines. The post I was responding to claimed I was acting childish. I didn't say the developers were children, I said they were adults that had made a mistake. There seems to be a rather distinct difference there, at least to me.

eidolon,

That was kinda the point I was trying to make in the original post. I have no issue with people airing out the problems with the changes, but there does seem to be a very vocal crowd that are trying to make Peter and crew look like they have no idea what they are doing and have screwed up the game. Hey, complain away but at least don't portray the people in charge as moron's, this is not the official SR forum although I know it does fill that role. But nothing is stopping the dev's from just quitting coming in here. At least they talk to us. I can think of some dev's that could care less and never talk to their fans.

Trevor L.

That would be an even bigger mistake. Nothing makes people find something better than a company that doesn't listen to its customers.

One of the things about listening to your fan base is realizing that they have good points and that a particular fix didn't do what it intended, at which point they take it back to the drawing board and talk it over again.

sadly, so far its the same people complaining that was beating their chest around the release time of SR4...

at some point one is tempted to tell them to either shut up, or go make their own game, and try to sell it.

Your arguments are, at best, circular. You state that mages weren't overpowered, and this somehow constitutes proof that they weren't and thus the changes were stupid. You're also setting up straw men to make my arguments look baseless -- if you were being fair, you wouldn't assume that I was trying to imply that mages had no limitations at all. If you were willing to assume that I'm not a retard and I have a basic familiarity with the game, you wouldn't be assuming that the basis for my thinking mages are overpowered is that I'm ignorant of all limitations that they suffer from. The argument "mages are unlimited and therefore broken" is not one that I intended to make, so refuting it does not help your case.

As for condescension, that was not my intention. To me, it is a simple thing: if people relax and go with the flow instead of raising hell, they'll have more fun. I think people have made their opinions known. At this point, it isn't just letting the devs know what you think and hoping they listen. It's weakening your own position if you persist in being unpleasant and rude to them. Dumpshockers never agree on anything, and it's a total non sequitur to assume that they don't listen because they don't do what you want. The correct inference is that when they don't do what you want, they're not listening to you. But the support I've seen for the SR4A changes convinces me that they're listening to at least some people.

Mages are not overpowered:
For instance:
Invisibility:
*Works only against minds.
Improved Invisibility:
Works against any sensor that senses light and other electromagnetic waves (within a certain range)
Downlsides/Failings/Weakness:
*Ultrasound
*Heat Sensor
*Motion Detector
*SONAR

Reason OR needs to be raised:
None. Just use a different sensor.

There you have it, one example. How many more do you want?

I had some concerns about SR4's fixed target numbers and the streamlining of traditions so that both short term and long-term spirits could be used by each, but I found the system as a whole very good and I liked it. I considered it an improvement over 3rd not merely for some of the rules but also for the much improved presentation and some wonderful setting updates. I'm a big fan of 4th. But I'm also in the faction that finds problems in the rules changes. Admittedly only in two areas (and only one of which so badly that I'm house-ruling it), but nonetheless I don't think it's fair to imply everyone who doesn't like all of the new rules are is just someone against change on principle. I certainly have a very high regard for the devs and what they've achieved with SR4. I hope I haven't been impolite or detracted from that in expressing my feelings about a couple of changes amidst the ones I do like (which are most of them).

I think people do value the devs highly and I'm sorry that they must be getting a slightly distorted impression from all the debate. The SR4A edition is beautiful and is clearly the result of great effort and thought. That there's strong debate going on about some of the errata doesn't mean people don't think that, I hope.

K.

Most of what I said about overpowering was about direct combat spells, where the enemy had a 0% chance to resist, with 100% chance of death, with little chance of drain on the mage's part.

As for making illusions almost useless against sensors, I'm not going to try and justify it from a game balance perspective. You're right, invisibility was already pretty much suck because of how many kinds of sensors could pierce it. But your argument makes a critical assumption in the first place: that mages ought to be able to routinely mess with technological sensors. That's how it worked in the past, but is it how it should work in the future? Obviously you think so. But clearly it's a matter of preference. The devs apparently wanted to make the magic/machine distinction a firmer than it's ever been. That's not going to please everyone, people who liked the way it was obviously won't be happy. But is it a bad thing in some kind of objective, absolute sense? No. Nothing ever is. Every argument about the "right" balance for a game system comes down to preference. There is no mathematically correct balance, there is only a balance that you like or dislike, which will differ from person to person. That's why it's important to focus not on system tweaks, but on trying to have fun. The devs can't please everyone, and they're not trying to. They're trying to build a good game, but whether they succeed or fail depends primarily on whether people play it and enjoy themselves, not whether a small handful of dumpshockers scream their lungs out.

Then the solution is to lower it's effectiveness (damage) by giving it a resist test, not making the drain optionally higher (as I've repeatedly pointed out: if you want to drop someone NOW in SR4 or SR4A the mage will chose to overcast, in SR4A the mage takes no additional drain over SR4 in doing so)



I have no problems with mages making people invisible on cameras. What organization worth its salt in a world where they know that mages can make people invisible to cameras would not install an unltrasound system? Clearly it should detect the presence of people and if they aren't on camera, set off an alarm (and optionally douse the hallway with flour).

Magic isn't about only doing those things that technology cant (say, making people fly, healing serious wounds in minutes, causing electricity or fire to appear from nothing) it's about doing magical things. Some mage wanted to have a spell that made him invisible, so he made an invisibility spell. Another mage wanted his illusions to show up on camera, so he made Trid Phantasm. With the rules revision now these spells simply do not do what the fluff says they do. If you want to fuck with the OR thresholds, then give the specific "this spell was designed with the implicit intention of being more effective against technology than this other spell" some bonus over the other spell.

Reminds me of Turn to Stone and Turn to Goo. If successful the target falls unconscious and turns into the respective material and gives them an armor/structure value equal to the target's Body + the spells Net Hits.

Wait. They both do? So if I turn someone to Stone and poke them with a stick I don't expect the stick to do anything, but if I turn them to Goo, the stick still does nothing? There's really no reason to have both of these spells, they are functionally identical and even have the same drain, etc.

Dunsany, it wasn't my intent to imply that you had distinctly used any of the wording in that last bit of the post. If I didn't clarify that it wasn't entirely a direct response to you well enough, I apologize. I used your post as a springboard to a larger point.



And if I had my way, those two sentences would be in gigantic hot pink letters across the top of the front page.

Of course, while you can listen to everyone [and I think we have a proven track record of listening to and interacting with the fanbase] you can't always do exactly what they want. Some people use "listen" as a code word for that: "I don't like this book! They're obviously not listening to me!"

You can listen to everyone [although doing so is very, very time consuming ...] but you can't please everyone.

Very true Adam. But like any debate over whether the changes were good, it is nice to have feedback on the arguments of "here's why X doesn't work." If there's a particularly potent reason for why a rule change doesn't do anything (or seems to do the wrong thing) then we like to hear back from the devs as to what they were trying to fix.

One example is the new drain mechanic for direct combat spells seeming to encourage Overcasting (Synner said this wasn't an issue, but it confuses some of us as to why the drain would be lower (value wise) on a higher force spell dong the same effect: 10 damage).

Well, near as I can tell...
Many think that overcasting is more dangerous and there for a more valuable balancing factor because it does physical damage instead of stun even if the drain amount is the same.

I'm not sure I understand that logic.


But hay.... I've always been "different."

Heck, I was told to dual cast overcast F5 stunbolt for 2 drain. And then, when I get the karma, buy up magic so I dont need to overcast F5. Resist 2 drain twice with 8 dice each time I should wind up with no drain. Personaly, something about that rubs me the wrong way.

Under the new rules you still won't be taking any drain, how's that sound? You'll just do 10 damage instead of 16!
(The target is still unconscious, so the extra 6 damage doesn't matter in most cases, if you want him dead then double-cast again after combat)

I was using the new rules as an example. F5 stunbolt (5/2)-1=1 and +1 for dualcasting = 2 drain

I know... Thats what My GM said...
Call me stupid but I have difficulty with doing that. I think that is power gaming. Weird, comming from a player.

I don't want to powergame just to play. I don't think is fun...

So now I get to have fun by being forced to use a set of spells I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole before because they just ruined all of my other spells.... wonderful idea of fun you have there. Now if I want a decent chance to removing a target from combat I'm forced to over cast to avoid dropping myself, a tactic virtually the entire SR4 world considers overpowered and cheesy... So I'm basically limited to being cheesy or shooting NOTHING larger then a heavy pistol once per pass while a street sami can rock and roll with an assault rifle doing ~16+net hits DV and not worry about blowing his own head open.


They can't affect technology worth affecting right now without blowing their edge.... and given tech is a very important part of SR4 you've locked mages completely out of a very significant portion of the game. I'd call that something worth being concerned about.

Last I checked enemies could resist with will power + edge.
Now try being a mage and having a sami shoot at you with a full burst form a recoil compensated assualt rifle. Chance of him hitting... VERY GOOD, chance of him doing >10 points of damage.... ~100%, chances of you being able to resist enough not to be in a body bag... ~ 0%. So... what the hell is your point exactly?

OR changes in SR4A have been misrepresented as having nerfed Illusion and other spells. See this thread for evidence to the contrary.

First of all, the entire world considers overcasting to be cheesy? I wasn't aware of this. Maybe the relevant issue shouldn't be what people call cheesy, but rather what the system allows you to do. As long as it's not cheating, anyone who says you can't do it is wrong. Being prejudiced against overcasting isn't an argument about why you shouldn't have to overcast. Plus, the net hits rule totally nerfed overcasting. Anyone who thinks it's cheesy to overcast after overcasting got hit by a serious nerf needs to do a double-take on that one.

As for forcing you to use indirect spells, how is it negative that they've made those relevant? You now have a broader, more interesting line of spells to use. You didn't use them before because the mechanics favored direct spells so heavily. Now they don't, and you don't have to be gimping yourself to use those other spells.

And it's actually quite difficult for anyone to one-shot a decent opponent in SR4. Against guns, full defense means that people have a pretty good chance to dodge anything super deadly like a narrow full burst. And with DV's of 6 or less, most single-shot weapons can't one-shot anyone without at least 4 net hits. Mages don't have some kind of inalienable right to one-shot everyone. I think the change actually brings them more into line with most firearms. Of course, you have things like full auto assault rifles, grenades, rockets, and other super high damage things that will tend to shame mages, I understand that. But most of these things have the disadvantage of being extremely noisy, highly illegal, and almost impossible to conceal. Unlike magic which is silent and can't be discovered in a pat-down search or with a MAD detector. Combat spells can still one-shot people, it's just not quite as easy. I don't see the problem.



Non-hackers are shut out from the matrix, and that's a very significant portion of the game. Non-mages are shut out from the astral, and that's pretty significant too. Non-mages are also shut out from being able to hurt powerful spirits, while the same spirits have an armor of 0 against virtually any attack that a mage throws at them. Again, there's a team for a reason. Mages are being turned into meat masters, they can heal you, levitate you, they can control minds, and explode heads... But they need help when it comes to technology. How is that any different from a hacker, who is the master of technology but needs help when it comes to flying through the air? :/




That's true, that was a mistatement on my part. Mundos can indeed use Edge to prove pretty resilient to magic. But of course, they can do the exact same thing to dodge dangerous gunfire, as well. And a mage who wants to deliver the knockout punch can add Edge as well... Edge is on all sides of the equation, so it cancels out. The point is, without taking Edge into account, direct combat spells are AMAZING. You're talking about rolling skill + attribute against an enemy's bare attribute. That's like firing a gun at someone and getting automatic surprise every time so they can never use full defense.


The #1 issue that I hear, that makes a lot of sense, is about what to do with existing characters. It's true that if you built a mage under the old rules, applying SR4A right in the middle of the campaign would be a huge catastrophe. But I remember reading at least one dev who thought that would be a bad idea... Isn't that just common sense? What kind of twisted GM would just pick those changes up and punish mage characters who did nothing wrong? There's undoubtedly the complicated issue of what to do with existing characters and campaigns, but there are certainly going to be solutions. Either you can ignore the new errata, or you can allow mage characters to retcon their sheets and change them around, using the same amount of BP or karma, and let them build the sheet they would have had if they'd been playing under the newest rules all along. That seems like a much better solution than coming on here and casting aspersions doesn't it?