I'm just quoting this (with a tiny edit) because it needs to be said repeatedly. With a hammer.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being smug, or trying to act superior, Suoq. I am quite unsure as to how NOT changing the System is considered Gaming the System. It isn't, and you know it.



Okay, I am going to rant a bit:

You continue to miss the point... Many of the "Weak Points," as you call them, are discussions on how to make the characters even more powerful (Raise the Skill levels, Remove Essence, Why can't attributes be higher, etc). I think that many people here are unhappy with the system (or maybe it is really about Catalyst, and the fact that they still have the license that pisses people off, I don't know) because they cannot game it enough. I continuously hear that the Power curve is just so over the top, that you can have Dice Pools in the 20's, 30's and even 50's in some areas, That Skills are so misrepresented as to mean absolutely nothing; and yet it appears that NONE of those complaining seem to have even tried to play the game as it is written (ie. have your Primary Dice Pools in the somewhat sane area of 12-14 Dice, instead of double that). Many, it seems, are trying to make it so that characters can be even MORE powerful and over the top (Higher Attributes, Higher Skills, etc). There are very clear indicators in the game books that show exactly what the writers considered adequate. And yet, very few are happy with that. Why is that?

Yes, I get that, in theory, you can create a Starting Character that can be at the top of his game (I have yet to see one that actually fits that bill, however) with little to no room to advance in the Primary Singel Dice Pool of SPecialty. SO WHAT. So Tell me, Why should someone who is Legendary in Skill, even to those who are otherwise considered the Best in the World, have more room to grow? In myu opinion, they should not. The Game's Opinion is apparently the same, because they can't. But again, Why Should they?

I keep hearing Yerameyahu chiming in that the table I game at is a Unique Snowflake in some manner (sometimes in jest, and other times not); a sentiment that you (and others) have mentioned a time or two as well. I disagree. I have run into more tables that play like we do, than tables that play like the vocal Minority here on Dumpshck does. That may be anecdotal, but it is still true, nonetheless. And it is very telling. I do not think the game is as broken as many here claim it is.

Anyways. Rant Over. I will attempot to refrain from posting in this thread again; at least until something grabs my eye again.

Why should you be on such good terms (Yes, Even a Loyal Friend) that he drops EVERYTHING to come to your aid. He will not be a Connection Rating 6 if he does that constantly. Doing "Whatever he CAN" is not the same thing as "Being available at the drop of a hat to satisfy some character's whims and desires." So, that being said, let me Quote this...



Looks pretty clear to me. That 6/6 Contact of yours is not going to be all that much of a help if you USE THE RULES that are in Black and White. *Shrug* Maybe you should determine if YOU Are doing it wrong there Suoq.

Those are optional, 'if the GM doesn't care' rules. Loyalty 6 is Friend for Life, period. We're not using very precise terms here ('constantly'), but the point is that a Mafia Boss or a Corp CEO who is your Friend for Life is a huge deal. A much bigger deal than 12 1/1 Nobodies-Who've-Met-You.

I don't even recognize the various 'weak points' you mention; they're certainly not what we're talking about at the moment. We're definitely not talking about making the game *easier* to power… I can't even imagine where you got that. Whatever your reason, popping in to say, 'this is stupid, the existing rules are fine' is simply not very helpful. Especially when your reason is 'the GM can just deal with it'. You're not being disparaged for however your games work; it's just not relevant to us.

On top of that, I just can't understand why you're being so goofy about this. You *know* what we mean when we say 'increasing costs', because we give examples. If you find that label imprecise, say that, and offer a replacement. If you're just in a mood, come on back later. :/

TJ: Try reading what you WROTE and applying the rule you quoted to it. Your claim is that the loyalty 1 contacts are MORE available* than the loyalty 6 contacts. The rule you quoted in no way supports that.

What you then try to do is put words into our mouths that aren't there to back up the rule you quoted. You're claiming
1) that we're claiming "constantly" for coming to our aid. We're not. The only "constant" was "in contact". Facebook, messaging, or e-mail would do the job.
2) that we're claiming the contact is "Being available at the drop of a hat to satisfy some character's whims and desires.". Again, we're not claiming any such thing.

If you care so little that you can't be bothered to read and understand what people are saying, why are you spending time even replying to it?

--------
*

Indeed. I had to tell him no less than three times what I was suggesting be done for the cost of buying contacts and all he could come up with was "there is an increased cost" (no shit) and "that's not like skills at all!" (same basic mathematical function used in both cases) and "you can't raise them after chargen" (I wasn't talking post-gen at all).

I also think he's forgotten that this thread is about designing a new system not about SR4.

Ah well. :/ How do we feel about pooled versus non-pooled? For equal Base and *N, pooled is obviously a fair bit costlier, but that can be adjusted.

Just for reference, the Base 2, N=1 progression is: +2, +3, +4…, for a total of 4, 7, 11…. As Draco pointed out, this would cost 42 Karma for a 6/6 if non-pooled, and 79 (I think?) if pooled. A quick adjustment for the latter might simply be 'X/2, rounded'. Do we think that 42 is too high/low? If 1 BP roughly equals 2 Karma, then this puts 2/2 and 3/3 contacts roughly at parity (I kind of consider 2/2 and 3/3 the sweet spot for normal, solid contacts), so that's good. At 4/4 and up, you're paying increasingly more than BP… which is the goal.

Seems fine to me. I rather liked how it came out, and all I did was blindly start somewhere and run the numbers. 42 Karma for a 6/6 contact is pretty costly, roughly equal to a 6 in a skill (44 Karma).

How about a cap on starting contacts' rating? No matter what it costs, having Lofwyr as a buddy is just wrong for a starting PC. There are starting caps on equipement and skills, why not contacts? It should be easier to get a Move-By-Wire 3 than Damien Knight's commcode. A cap at 4 looks reasonable.

I was also thinking about a cap at CharGen, similar to the Availability cap; you can get it later, but you can't start with a 6/6.

Just my two bits, and some of this is going to be a rehash there should likely be three hits for a contact, connection, loyalty, and personal ability (maybe this needs soemthing catchier). This would more accurately model the wide range of personage you could have in Shadowrun. The highly skilled surgeon who's kid you rescued a few years back but has almost no shadow connections could be 1//3/3. You could make the system as granular as you needed from there. I do like the idea of higher caps as there should be a break out between, highly connected and skilled fixer 5/?/3 and Damian Knight 8/?/9. More often then not the latter shouldn't be available at character generation where you put that cap on it is your bit.

I'll leave people to their brainstorm session with my previous disclaimers in place.

I'm fine with re-numbering the scale to go above 6, but we'd have to double-check the effect on any Contact-based tests later. If we're using increasing costs—honestly, is this a clear enough label, or do we need to say 'quadratic'? Technically, triangular?—then those increases should be self-limiting.

I'm not opposed to a 3-bit method in general, if people think that level of precision is useful. I still feel like a generic 'power' rating covers it; worst case, Damien Knight is a slight 'bargain' at… 85 Karma for Loyalty 1? (Non-pooled).

I'm not sure it is needed: most contacts use either one of them, not both. Just keep one rating to represent how good a contact is in his craft, and keep in mind that connections is the craft of some contacts (fixers, informants,...). If I have a barman contact, I don't need a number to tell me how good he is at mixing cocktails, I just want to know who talks in his bar.

Also, if you make it 2 different stats, you end up with a world full of unconnected street docs, and that is unrealistic. Connection level should more or less follow the rating: highly skilled individuals will try to cash on their skills, and to do so they need to get in touch with clients who can afford their services.

To take your example back, the surgeon might not have connections in the shadows, but he definitely has some links with insurance companies, lawyers, pharmacists, his whole client book, entries in clinics,... It's not only how many people they know, it's also what kind of people they know.

The thing is though a lot of contact you don't know them for who they know, you know them for what they can do and what they know so the current system breaks down when in order to presumably have a competent street doc I have to have one with a high connection rating. For a barman your exactly right, what he can actually do for me is pretty inconsequential a one or a two at best but who he knows becomes more important. That's the problem, we do need a diliniation between who you know, and what you personally can do, currently Shadowrun doesn't have that so you end up with a 1/1 Surgeon or Lawyer contact costs the same as a 1/1 Hooker.

For me this is normal, the opposite is broken. If your street doc is that good, how come he doesn't have clients? How does he pay for his clinic? The GM just has to remember that "high connections" means different things for different contacts and that the type of the contact is more important than his rating.

If it is inconsequential, why bother putting a stat on it? And even for him, the two are linked: to be well-connected, he has to work in a well-known establishment, and if he wasn't good at his job they would have fired him. You create a min-max problem here. Connections and professional rating should be balanced, but the player only has use for one of them, so if you let him stat his contacts he will min/max them.

This is fine: at level 1 you don't get a surgeon, you get an alcoholic cast-off with rusted knives.

Yeah. See, I just feel like whatever use they are is still reasonably glommed into a single 'power' rating. It does make contacts a little stronger, because you get skill and connection together. I think that's both realistic (per Traul) and workable, though. You're paying for both at once, but you're still paying for both. If anything, it stops people from minmaxing their contacts (world-class surgeon… hermit).

I did... Loyalty has nothing to do with how contacting your Contact works out, nor on what I quoted. It is all about the Connection rating. If they are highly connected, you will have less contact with them than if they are not Highly connected, regardless of Loyalty. A Connection 1 Contact WILL be More accessable than a Connection 6 Contact. A 6L/1C Contact is ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE, while a 6L/6C Contact is Rarely Accessible. Connection HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on how loyal they are. Read the Rules. Loyalty gives you extra dice in Negotiations tests.

From what I was reading, and I could be worng here, you think that a More Loyal contact should be more accessible. I disagree. I think it should be determined on how busy they are. In the current Rule set, that is based upon Connection Rating. Loyalty has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether they will actually talk to you at any given time.

Okay, I can admit some of that. Terminology is constantly fluid. A Contact will be a available as they are Needed. Note that I said NEEDED not WANTED. And yes, a 6/6 Mafia Boss or Corp CEO is a huge deal, WHEN YOU CAN GET HOLD OF THEM, which should be rare, outside of the Needs of the Story. However, those 12 1/1 "Nobodies" may be just as useful, or even more so, in most of the context of the game, because they will be ALWAYS Available. The 1/1 Contacts will be ubiquitous in Game, the 6/6 should be a rarity. And I know you hate this fallback, but the GM should control that. Players should have absolutely no control of that aspect of the game whatsoever.

As for the points that you are ignoring (possibly rightfully), they are there if you look for them. How many times have we talked about Raising Attributes, Raising Skills, Eliminating Essence, etc? These are all designed to make the characters MORE powerful, not more balanced. It is Hard to argue otherwise.

I did say I found the label imprecise. It made absolutely no sense to me on first, second or even third look, which is why I questioned Draco18s on his formula. The fact is that Contacts have an increasing cost (which I stated a few times), that is pretty steep already (2-12 BP, or 4-24 Karma). That is a lot of points, regardless of the System used to generate them. I truly see no need to increase the costs of a resource that is not in the hands (or should not be) of the Players to start with. As for the "Stupid" comment, that is not what I said. I said I did not "Undserstand" the reasons for doing so, because to me, they make no sense as currently discussed. I have yet to see a "Good" argument for the increase in costs for Contacts. THAT is what I am wanting. If the reasons for an increase in cost are not even agreed upon, there is no reason to move along to design, since everyone will not be on the same page.

Sorry if I come of "abrasive or argumentative" but there is a lack of agreement on reasons currently, which is what I am trying to nail down. I could care less about design until the reasoning is quantified and accepted as a whole. Liek I said earlier. Why does it matter to change the cost of a resopurce that is not in the hands of the Player to start with? Now, if the design goal is to give the player control of that, I would say that is a bad design choice and should be re-examined.

Thanks...

Raising the limit to 9 shouldn't effect the tests all that much. As it is, a contact is rolling 2x Connectedness for their tests. If we assume it's their professional rating, then a "Professional" contact is throwing 6 or 8 dice. Most shadowrunners can throw more dice at the same problem without even being terribly well skilled.

I guess my question is, Draco18s, is why a 6/6 Contact should be roughly the same cost as a Rating 6 Skill? The Contact (and his utility) is not in the purview of the Player/Character, so it willl only be useful when the GM allows it to be useful; in comparispon to the Skill which will always be more useful, since the Player/Character has more of a direct control on that aspect of the game. In fact, I would not place a 6/6 Contact as more useful, even, than a Knowloedge Skill at 6 (which costs 22 Karma), most of the time.

Whereas other people, such as myself, would disagree.

On which point? That the costs are way to low (as you appear to be arguing), or that the Players Should be able to control exactly when the Contact comes into play? My stance is that since Players have absolutely no control when a Contact actually comes into play, the costs are not all that bad, and work to limit what Contacts are actually selected. That, and that the GM controls exactly WHAT contacts you can take. I would not allow somkeone to take a Mafia Don or Megacorp CEO as a Contact, whether he was rated 6/6 or not. Those types of contacts are the realm of GM Choice, not Player Choice.

TJ, contacts are and should be in the hands of the players. They spent (and spend) resources on them. The bit you quoted is a section (AFAIK) about telling the GM to ignore anything that doesn't fit his campaign, which is bad and wrong. I don't think I've ever played a game where the players were denied access to their contacts out of GM spite (/laziness/unpreparedness).

I still don't agree that 12 1/1s are better, or even close, but let's just let that lie.

I don't believe you when you say you don't grasp the difference between linear costs (BPgen) and accelerating costs (Karmagen… for everything but contacts), but now you know. BP costs are linear: they do not increase, because the cost for each level is the same. Karma costs are increasing or accelerating: they go up as the stat goes up.

We're discussing the general principle that *everything* should have accelerating costs. I personally do not consider contact 'exploitation' a major issue to be fixed, but this thread is about clean, clear, general design principles. Something that is six times better should cost significantly more than six times as much. Look at the prices for Wired Reflexes, for Reaction 6, etc. There are some aspects of the game that are linear instead (much of the gear, though not all), and I'm not convinced *that* should be the case either. A Rating 6 Agent should probably cost a fair bit more than 6 Rating 1 Agents; this is why many program costs are two-tiered, I assume.

I appreciate if you're trying to contribute to the discussion about first principles, but I think you did it wrong this last time. That's all. One principle that I think you have to accept for this thread is that good game design requires *less* GM intervention. Yes, a 6/6 contact should be very rare; the game design should lead to that, instead of relying 100% on the GM. That's why we have stats and costs at all, instead of just playing freeform.

--
As for the precise numeric cost of a 6/6, that's a balancing issue. It comes later. We can always change the numbers.

Okay, Point Taken. But you and I both know that if you stat it, characters will get it. And in the case of Contacts, I disagree that they character should have contrtol of that. They do not spend any resources after play to gain them after all.

As for the Quote I posted, it was not about how a GM should ignore everything not pertinent to his game. It was a quote on how CONTACTS ARE TO BE USED. Contacts, like gear, have availability. This is controlled by their Connection rating. The higher the Connection rating, the harder they are to use. If there is a Highly rated contact, he should not be useful at the character's whim, regardless of how loyal he may be, and this is what that rule simulates.

I will try to tone it back a bit. Sorry for any confusion.

In my experience, Less GM intervention leads to two things...
1. Less granularity in characters and the world.
2. Characters that overpower the world the GM has in mind.

Both are bad. Hopefully, this idea is NOT the primary goal of this design principle. If it is, I see it failing dramatically.

This.

I've only seen a contact denied once, and only because that contact glitched their connectedness roll (or crit-glitched, I forget which) and the GM said it was because he'd been arrested and was in jail, and as such unable to help us at the time.



And this.



And this.



But not this, although I agree with it and could be saying this.

I mean, you buy contacts. You take actions to cultivate them. When you need a gun, a piece of info, an invite, etc., you call them and ask. That's all player control. The GM doesn't (usually) call your contacts for you, or have them email offers for guns out of the blue, and so on. The only GM control is basically saying 'no'. Yes, a good GM will integrate some of your contacts into the current mission, either deeply or just shallowly. No, I'm not saying you 'control' a contact like you control your own PC.

I think interpreting the quoted rules to mean that contacts are meaningless investments subject to GM whim could be correct, but terrible. It's bad roleplaying and bad player management, along the lines of 'your horse gets the flu and dies'. I also think that Loyalty certainly should increase Availability; it's painfully illogical for it not to. Not overwhelmingly, but significantly.

Personally, I also think you *should* spend Karma on upgrading contacts post-chargen (if the GM gives you a contact/upgrade, that's a Karma gift, just like finding loot is a cash gift), so that's not the issue.

Yes, you do cultivate them, and even groom them, or whatever, in game. You need to do that just to maintain them. I have no issues with that. As for Calling your Contacts, that is what the Roll is for (to contact them). They are only as available as the roll allows, based upon their connection rating. Yes, a Good GM will allow for osme cxontact interaction, but much of that interaction will rely upon how available they are at any given time. A 6/6 Contact is not going to be very available for random interaction, because they are unavailable to you most of that time (Need to roll a 6 on that Dice roll for availability), while the 3/3 Contact is likely very reliable in terms of interaction, and a 1/1 is ALWAYS available.

I have never said that contacts are meaningless investments. They are just very conditional ones at high level, as they should be. I disagree that loyalty should increase the availability. In my opinion (and the way the rules are currently set up), the loyalty comes into play once you have successfully made contact. They may be busy, but will rearrange their schedule for you because you did manage to contact him between meetings.

As for spending Karma, post character generation, on Contacts, I would disagree. That is what your upkeep and cultivation is for (Optional Rules for such are in Runner's Companion, Page 131. Obviously our table uses this). You spend time and money invested in maintianing, advancing, or even acquiring Contacts. You should not also have to invest in Karma. Now, in games that do not enforce the cultivation and upkeep of Contacts, then yes, maybe you probably should charge them something karma-wise, but it should not be in the category of Karma Costs equal to High Level Skills, even for High Level Contacts.

One, this is an optional rule.

And by that logic (that a connectedness 6 contact is rarely available) then it would be impossible for me to call my grandmother and wish her happy birthday.* She knew bloody everyone, I swear. And by "everyone" I mean it. "Knowing the Dali Lama on first name basis" level know everyone.

One trip we took out that way (was going to be 2 weeks in Nepal, but due to civil unrest, we only spent 3 days, the rest of the time was in Thailand) we got in late (a 12 hour time zone flight will do that) and we had dinner in a restaurant that put on a stage play.

So here, imagine this. 500 person dining room. With a stage. After midnight. The...12? of us the only ones in it. They fed us and put on their stageplay. There was a full waitstaff (like 3 guys) at least one chef, the actors, everything.

Just for us.

I have no idea what my grandmother had to do to pull that off. But I have a feeling it wasn't more than a phone call.

*Irrespective of the fact that she died a few weeks ago.

It's just silly, in 2070, to say that you get a busy signal. In 2010, you can always get everyone, if only to leave a voicemail, text, email, whatever. These are things that people respond to quickly, and even more so if you're actual friends or important clients. Loyalty should absolutely make someone more Available—that's half the point of Loyalty.

Yes, you can always get a 1/1 (if using that silly random rule in the first place), or a 1/2, 1/6, whatever. They're still worthless. If the GM gives them something really useful to say, then he's cheating and they're not Connection 1 anymore.

This topic is a bit of a segue, but it's interesting enough. I always assumed everyone knew that Contacts were a resource. You buy them at chargen, just like stats and guns. They damned well better *do* something besides give me info the GM already wanted to give me. Otherwise, they're just backstory details, which doesn't cost karma; talk about an argument for the 'X free contacts' house rules.

I also don't see the problem with paying for what you get. Yes, if you acquire a contact in play (that is, the GM *gives* you one), then that's a GM gift (just like any other). If you say, 'I want to get a bartender contact', then you just pay the karma and *get* one. Just like buying gear. There's no reason for the GM to waste the group's time on your saga of bribing and schmoozing a bartender *if* it's not part of the story. This is solo downtime stuff.

This is exactly my thought.

As a GM, I've always treated contacts as a contract between myself and the players. They can contact them whenever, and I try to keep them as useful as their ratings imply. I also work with the players to make sure that contacts aren't abused, since their usefulness is a very intangible thing.

A 6/6 contact is meant to be amazingly useful. I think that they're really cool when they are. But, I also think they should be expensive. Very expensive. Enough that most high level contacts should be in the 3/3 to 4/4 range.

Lastly, contacts should be able to be purchased with karma after character creation. Good karma should land you useful relationships.

This. It is bizarre that the current rules make a 6/6 contact so hard to contact, no matter how much they like you. I mean, they're willing to risk their life for you (per the definition of Loyalty 6), but not pick up the phone?

I'd rather reverse the current mechanic - you succeed in reaching the contact if you roll Loyalty or lower on a d6.

The current mechanic is absurd, and certainly not an argument for maintaining the status quo.




A new Contact is just like a looted gun: interesting fallout from an adventure. And just like new guns, you can also spend resources to get exactly the kind you like.

So it's nice if the new mechanic actively supports this, by providing a clear mechanic for gaining and advancing the ratings of a contact. Want to raise your 3/3 contact to 3/4? That's 3 karma then - time spent on buttering them up during downtime.

That is fundamentally not true, the nature and skills of your contact is decided by their profession and GM whim not their connection rating I point you tot he whole list of contacts in the main book. That is the basic problem witht he system, as it is right now a persons connection rating and loyalty are all that's tracked, their skills, power, and abilityies are not tracked in any realistic way. You want to glom it into connection rating which while it has it's advantages from me as a GM point of view is sub optimal. TYhe truth of the matter is for an NPC that only coems up periodicly and by default is a name, a profession and a seires of ratings the more granular I make those ratings the more ability I have to quickly, easily, and consistently describe the character.

The question is really whether Connection is the important aspect of a contact, or if instead it's 'how good are they at their purpose?' I feel like the latter makes much more sense. The GM shouldn't be taking any big liberties with contact skills. I do see that additional detail is useful, but I'm asking if it's worth the extra complexity. I mean, we could have a system where you fully build the NPC contact, and you pay like Karma/20 for them as a contact, plus a surcharge for Loyalty. That's superbly detailed, but just rarely worth the effort.

If I wanted to choose just 2 aspects, it seems like Loyalty and Professional (good at their purpose, whatever it is) do a good job covering it. If anything, it helps the GM much more. They know how powerful the contact should be, how good at various tasks. Otherwise, how can the GM deal with the difference between a Connection 6 street junkie and a Connection 6 Tir Ghost? With effort. If you're using just 2, Professional best describes the character quickly and easily. Three is indeed an option, but I can't see saying that Connection/Loyalty is better than Profession/Loyalty.

Guess what time it is?

Yep, time for Seerow to go off on another tangent to derail the topic onto a different line of discussion.


In another topic, it is brought up that concealment power is too strong on high force spirits. When you think about it though, it's not just the concealment power. There are a ton of powers that are just outright silly past a certain point (for example a high force spirit's movement power can get people moving faster than the speed of sound without breaking a sweat). The counterargument to this is that high force spirits are exceptionally rare and hard to summon, and summoning a high force spirit -will- kill a mage.


So here's the real question: Is that enough? Is the threat of death enough to make the scaling of these powers okay? I ask, because it seems to me that a much simpler solution is to simply make most critter powers be a flat bonus, rather than a multiplier of magic. Movement increases movement speed by x3. Concealment grants a -4 concealment modifier (possibly stacking with chameleon suit and the like, maybe changed to not). Some powers (such as ITNW) could still scale with force, but possibly even have that scaling lowered (say something like [6 or 8]+force rather than forcex2). But the big thing is that most powers should be much less effective in their scaling. However, a lot of people seemed to think that the powers are fine as they are.

On a similar note, I do think skills should either capped or not depending on which way the system goes. If skills get capped at any arbitrary number, no spirit should be able to exceed that number just because of its force. On the other hand, if we go with diminishing returns but uncapped skills, spirits skills not being capped as they are is fine.



As an aside, earlier in the thread it was touched on wanting hermetic mages to have exclusive access to binding, and be encouraged to have just one or two bound spirits of a decent force, while shamans have exclusive access to summoning on the fly, and are expected to summon weaker spirits frequently mid combat. I do think this is a cool idea, and is important to consider if talking about remodeling the scaling of spirits. We want the hermetic high force spirits to feel useful, but we don't want the shaman's low force spirits to feel like a waste of time, which is a fine line to walk. Personally I think lowering the scaling of most powers makes the shaman a more attractive option for utility. The shaman has a spirit for every task, and may even use spirit powers to outright replace spellcasting (summoning a low force spirit with 1 service and using that service on a power immediately should be something a shaman is capable of doing). On the other hand, leaving attribute and stat scaling in tact for spirits makes Hermetic Spirits much as they currently are: Tanks that scare people silly because they're that strong, just their spirit powers are no longer quite so awesome.

In fact, I may even suggest taking it a step further, and make all hermetic spirits basically allied spirits, but with less free spirit powers, but with the ability to assign skills, spells, and powers individually to the spirit. While the shaman's spirits have access to any spirit power in the book when he summons them, but can only get one service out of the spirit per summon. Basically the hermetic summoner has one really strong but fairly niche spirit, while the Shamanic summoner has a wide diversity of effects, but his spirits don't really stand alone, he has to constantly be summoning spirits to use the powers he wants.



Just some thoughts.

Additionally critter powers of this nature that are in players hands (such as playing a pixie or a drake) need to be considered.

Drakes have 4/4 hardened armor (flat)
Pixies have Concealment (Magic rating)

The drake comes off worse because of the flat amount, and that amount being useless (I have yet to see a scenario where the "hardened" aspect matters) whereas the pixie gets to increase its racial ability without limit, by raising it's primary stat (what pixie isn't going to be a mage or adept?)

The simplest solution I've heard is to just allow Powers to be resisted as spells, and to allow either Counterspelling or maybe even Banishing to counter Powers.

Drakes (and pixies) are a just their own private messes.

Seerow, I think dividing into 'Binding' and 'Summoning' traditions sounds neat (and presumable, some revised version of Possession?), but it's a huge change. :/

True, but they do need to be considered.

Concealment needs to be reworked to provide an answer to the question: how is using magic to conceal something not noticeable to those senses that sense magic? Spells are supposed to be bright and obvious on the astral plane, so how does concealment make someone hard to notice?

One explanation is that it warpes the mundane environment to "cover" the subject. On the astral, it could be causing so much glare that it's hard to see what is being concealed, but it's obvious there's something there causing all that glare.

---

Likewise with Movement. It needs to be explained how Movement speeds things up. Do they gain greater momentum? How does it interact with crash damage? It has the potential to be a very violent offensive power, which it's not really balanced for.

---

Re-doing ItNW completely differently is an interesting idea. Currently it's very awkward; either it doesn't do much (SnS...), or it's complained about because it causes MagicRun and tummy cramps.

I favor making it an actual immunity - no damage taken from mundane things at all - but giving spirits specific vulnerabilities, like silver bullets, insecticides, or a better-designed Attack of Will.

---

Many activated critter powers are basically innate spells. So they should be resistable with countermagic in exactly the same way as spells.

That would probably help some. But it doesn't solve the problem of really fast scaling. One of the biggest offenders is the Movement power, you would make it dispellable, but it doesn't change the fact you have guys running around at mach 2. For that, and probably some other powers, it's simpler to just remove the scaling component. Either that or severely reduce it (like add force to walk speed rather than multiply by force.)

That said I do love the idea of making Banishing effectively a counter spelling for spirit powers. It gives Banishing a huge boost that it sorely needs (how often do you see it suggested to buy summoning and binding separately rather than as a part of the skillgroup because banishing is effectively useless?), and fills a cool niche pretty nicely.




It is, but from what I understand (mind you this is from reading the forums, I never messed with summoning back then), it's much like 3e summoning. Really my post was just an extrapolation from what other people posted earlier in the topic. Some people expressed that hermetics and shamans are too close together currently, and wanted something more like the old days where the traditions had a bigger divide. What I propose seems like a fairly logical way to bring that divide back without hugely imbalancing one or the other.

One problem that does arise that occurred to me while responding above, is that with the separation of summoning on the fly (Shamans) and binding (Hermetics), is you can't really have a Conjuring skill group anymore, there's only 2 relevant skills to any caster. So what if we shift skills around a bit to something like:

Sorcery:
-Spellcasting
-Summoning (now fulfills use of binding for hermetics)
-Counterspelling
-Binding

Basically a single skill group that gives you the basics of what you need to be a mage, which is what I feel skill groups should do. If someone wants to specialize in one or the other, they can buy the skills individually.


Remaining magic skills after that: Ritual Magic, Arcana, Enchanting, Assensing, Astral Combat. I could easily see rolling Enchanting into Arcana (they do basically the same thing, no need for the separation there.) Ritual Magic either needs to be reworked to be not so bad, or eliminated. The other 3 skills (the 3 As, Arcana, Assensing, and Astral Combat) could all be rolled into a single secondary skill group "Mana Lore" or something along those lines.

Well ITNW already has that basically built in: If you're allergic to something ITNW doesn't apply. So a werewolf with allergy to silver would not have its hardened armor applied.


That said, I don't care for outright immunity, I like a suggestion that's been tossed around that rather than full force as hardened armor, you get half the force as automatic successes on damage resistance tests. That way it's clearer what gets past, and it's more useful even when the damage exceeds the hardened armor. (though I'd also say creatures that rely wholly on hardened armor should also get some normal armor to go along with it if this is put in effect, and of course stack the two for determining physical or stun damage)

This also addresses the issue of the useless 4/4 hardened armor.

I'd like to get rid of AP (from SnS and such) applying to ItNW. It's necessary in SR4* for game balance, but it's ugly game design all the same.

Hardened Armor counting as auto-hits on damage resistance tests (and the amount of HA balanced towards that) is much prettier than the current rule, with it's awkward list of things that count (called shot?) and don't count (burst modes).

Making Attack of Will work with the melee attack skill instead of Banishing? 2 birds, one stone: provide mundane counters to spirits and enhance melee.

You mean, rather than F*2 hardened armour, full force as automatic successes? And no other armour for spirits, then then only roll body.

However, this removes consistency with vehicles. Currently, a vehicle with 20 armour can take a lot of damage from that 21P attack, while the NEW vehicle with 20 armour will take 1P, or maybe not even that, because it still has a few body dice to roll. OR you have to rework vehicle armour as well.

Actually when you think about it, hardened armour as it is now is quite realistic: You have to increase the attack power up to the breaking point, and then suddenly you cause massive damage. This is how real armour works - you either scratch the paint, or you make a hole, and when you do, usually people die.

This would be a fantastically stupid idea for the record. It would make spirits completely immune to anything but specialized ammo (always a stupid gimmick) or being beaten to death in hand to hand. Welcome to Magicrun. High altitude bombing run? Completely ineffectual against spirits, yea, that's a great game of tech and magic.

I think I'd go for Intimidation, myself. Melee is a bit odd if it doesn't really matter what you're hitting the spirit with. Intimidation is something a street sam should have (if he hasn't dumpstatted social...)

I honestly don't see why. I see it as a skill he could have or might have. but I'm not seeing "should".

-------------------------------------------------

While we're on the subject, the whole "only mages can take Banishing" limitation is really stale. They're the one group that doesn't need it and it isn't like mundanes CAN'T see the astral anymore. Drugs can take even the most cyberwired to the gills, DNA lacking, non-believer out to the astral for a joyride. Letting everyone be able to purchase Banishing goes far to even out the field without removing the home team advantage.

*Cough*
Vehicles don't have hardened armor as per Hardened Armor. They have normal armor and no stun track.

And there's no particular reason for spirits and vehicles to have parity. It might not be a *bad* thing, but it's not a game principle or anything. So changing spirits to make them tough (in this alternate way; they're already tough) wouldn't make tanks invulnerable.

Exactly.

Besides, all values of hardened armor would be halved. So F*2 -> F, which means that a tank (20 armor now), if it were to be considered hardened, would become 10.

YES, of course. However, the way hardened spirit armour works now is the same as vehicle armour - they take no stun damage for physical attacks < armour rating. So, you are right, of course.

I think parity with vehicles is necessary for the simple reason that every unified mechanic that doesn't make you memorize x special cases is good.

Then again, I don't think ITNW is overly unbalancing at present, and would continue not to be if you could manage to find a way to stop people from summoning over F7 or so. Generally I haven't found spirits to be unbeatably strong - strong, sure enough, and perhaps too strong for the fact that a mage can summon them so easily, but not in a way to kill the game.

Innate Spell, now that is a dangerous power. I was yesterday confronted with the fact that our group's mage has 5 spells sustained on him via innate spell!