Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Magic House Rules
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Nifft
Here are some house rules which I'm considering using. I'll try to explain my reasoning for them; if the rules suck, or don't match the reasoning, please let me know. Thanks.

Default = SR4/20A.

- - -

Removed:
  • Analyze Device - problem spell
  • Shapechange - problem spell, just take Critter Shape
  • Increase [mental attribute] - because Drain should be a problem
  • Ignite - just take Flamethrower
  • Hush
  • Control Thoughts, Mob Mind - problem spell
  • Mind Probe - problem spell


Moved:
  • Silence -> to Manipulation
  • Influence -> to Illusion
  • Control Emotions, Mob Mood -> to Illusion
(Why: it seems to me that affecting minds is the job of Illusions, and Silence is an area denial spell like Mist, Shadow, or Ice Sheet.)

Added (from Street Magic):
  • Borrow Sense, Animal Sense, Eyes of the Pack
  • Diagnose
  • Mindnet (+Extended)
  • Enabler
  • Healthy Glow - functions to remove or suppress bruises, abrasions, cuts, and other bodily evidence of recent combat
  • Chaff/Flak
  • Foreboding
  • Calm Animal, Calm Pack -> as Illusion
  • Alter Memory -> as Illusion
  • Element Aura
  • Fashion
  • Makeover
  • Mana Static
  • Mist
  • Sterilize
(Why: part of the reason I wanted to take nice things away from Manipulation was so I could give it other nice things. Street Magic has a bunch of sweet Manipulation spells.)

Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:
  • When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
  • When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
  • When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
  • If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.
(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)

Critter Form:
  • Your 'ware must fit your chosen form. If you have man-sized cyber-eyes, you can't turn into a seagull.
  • Each spell turns you into a specific, recognizable individual.
  • You can choose Human (or any base meta-type) when learning this spell. Humans have a 3 in all physical attributes; meta-types adjust accordingly (i.e. Troll Form base critter would have Bod 7, Agl 2, Rct 3, Str 7).
  • Your new form's attributes are the lower of the critter's attributes or your own attributes, except as noted below.
  • Net hits provide a bonus to one physical attribute chosen when you learn the spell (typically, the critter's highest physical attribute). Troll Form, for example, could provide a bonus to Body or Strength, but not Agility or Reaction.
  • You are always limited by the augmented maximums of your own base form.


- - -

'Ware for spellcasters. You cannot target spells using cyberware enhancements, period. Bioware works fine. (Why: clears up a lot of corner-cases with occular drones / sonar / etc., and gives bio-eyes a reason to live.)

- - -

I think these changes handle all the problems I've seen crop up both in theory and in practice of playing Shadowrun 4e. If I've missed anything -- including problem spells in the core book, or not importing a super-awesome spell from a splat -- please let me know.

Also, I don't have any particular rules changes in mind for Adepts, as they haven't been much of a problem in my limited experience. The option of allowing +1 PP in place of a Metamagic seems fine.

Thoughts? Thanks, -- N
WyldKnight
I'm still reading it over but you know without the increase mental attribute spell logic traditions have an even bigger advantage on drain. A cerebral booster 3 isn't exactly impossible to find and that gives them at least 3 more dice on drain. Taking a hit to magic is usually worth the extra dice for every logic linked skill plus your drain.
jaellot
Mainly skimmed, but Ignite is probably one of my favorite spells. I don't recall the exact wording in SR4(A), but it's less flashy than Flamethrower. It doesn't fall under the Indirect Combat spell rules and what not. Simply get the number of hits for OR and so on, and sizzle is a-go!

Of course my love of this spell has alot to do with it was the first spell I ever cast, in SR, ever. Ever. I did it on some goon's gun with enough successes to light off all the ammo and take his hand off.

I can see why you would want to move the Control Emotion and Mob Mood to Illusion. I still think it would fit under Manipulation better, maybe if they were more along the line of making the people targeted see things that would cause a reaction you would like? Sounds like more work than making things simpler though.

I do dig the move of Silence, though. That does make more sense. I also like the description of Healthy Glow, about hiding left over signs of a fight..
Neraph
While I see the reasoning behind many of these changes I do not think that any of them are warranted. It all seems superfluous. For example, your changes to Indirect/Direct Combat Spells is completely unwarranted (and your Direct versions create many problems, IMHO) - if you want your players to favor Indirect over Direct, just tell them so. I, for one, would have no issue choosing one or two Indirect spells (and I normally do anyways). The elemental effects of Indirect spells give them versatility that the Directs don't have.

Your 'ware targeting rules are ridiculous. The ocular drone question is already answered in the FAQ (if people ever tried to read it they might be surprised that sometimes it actually works).

All in all your house rules just seem to be nerfs for mages while everyone else goes on about their day.

I've already proposed a fix to the (Critter) Form spell for metahumans - it's a separate spell, (Metahuman) Form, and it gives average stats of the target form with successes only determining how hard the spell is to Counterspell and the target's appearance is simply a metahuman version of their own. As in, it doesn't make it so easy to hit augmented max with stats and you can't use it to look like that elf - just yourself if you were an elf. This keeps the Shapechange/(Critter) Form spells still useful for attribute/utility and the Mask spells good for disguise.
Nifft
QUOTE (WyldKnight @ Dec 30 2010, 01:32 PM) *
I'm still reading it over but you know without the increase mental attribute spell logic traditions have an even bigger advantage on drain. A cerebral booster 3 isn't exactly impossible to find and that gives them at least 3 more dice on drain. Taking a hit to magic is usually worth the extra dice for every logic linked skill plus your drain.
Yeah, but there's no metatype that gets a bonus to Logic, and having a high Charisma seems more generally useful for non-hackers (and much more useful for summoners).

Basically: you're right, but I think Charisma remains a very strong choice, so I don't mind the lack of gear symmetry.

Regarding Ignite: it's a cool spell, but it overshadows a similar combat spell, and Manipulation remains awesome enough without it.

QUOTE (jaellot @ Dec 30 2010, 01:37 PM) *
I can see why you would want to move the Control Emotion and Mob Mood to Illusion. I still think it would fit under Manipulation better, maybe if they were more along the line of making the people targeted see things that would cause a reaction you would like? Sounds like more work than making things simpler though.

I do dig the move of Silence, though. That does make more sense. I also like the description of Healthy Glow, about hiding left over signs of a fight..
Spells like Invisibility are already pure mental manipulation, including a very limited form of memory editing.

One big goal with the spell moves is to pare down Manipulation, so that other spell categories are less inferior.

Glad my reasoning makes some sense! smile.gif

QUOTE (Neraph @ Dec 30 2010, 01:38 PM) *
While I see the reasoning behind many of these changes I do not think that any of them are warranted. It all seems superfluous. For example, your changes to Indirect/Direct Combat Spells is completely unwarranted (and your Direct versions create many problems, IMHO)
...
Your 'ware targeting rules are ridiculous. The ocular drone question is already answered in the FAQ (if people ever tried to read it they might be surprised that sometimes it actually works).

All in all your house rules just seem to be nerfs for mages while everyone else goes on about their day.
Unfortunately, the FAQ is a source of contention, not a source of answers.

Can you articulate some specifics? For example: what problems do you think are created by my Direct rules? What ridiculous problems are created by telling a mage to buy Cats Eyes instead of slotting Low-Light into Cybereyes?

QUOTE (Neraph @ Dec 30 2010, 01:38 PM) *
if you want your players to favor Indirect over Direct, just tell them so. I, for one, would have no issue choosing one or two Indirect spells (and I normally do anyways). The elemental effects of Indirect spells give them versatility that the Directs don't have.
I don't like asking my players to make bad choices. I'd much rather change the system such that the more interesting choices are good.

Cheers, -- N
WyldKnight
Pixies get a bonus to logic and charisma is only 1 point higher whereas logic can easily get 3. There isn't anyway to boost charisma or intuition without that spell. While there is SURGE and genetics that's not always an option. Not just hackers (you barely need logic with hackers) but medic mages, the arcana skill, and all technical skills. Is it a huge gripe? Not really, I've never really liked mages because they don't suit my adaptable play style. But Logic traditions already have the advantage of being able to cheaply boost their drain stat (gaining bonuses to those skills in the process) whereas the others can't boost it at all.

I'm not saying the other two traditions aren't as good as logic, they all have their specialties, but without being able to boost their main stat it does weaken them.

Great reasons to take indirect spells is drones. You're manabolt means crap if you can't beat the drones threshold.
Adarael
Lemmie roll through these and tell you what I think of each of these:

Removed spells: no problems here. I don't think most of these are problematic in and of themselves, but if you do, by all means, toss them out.

Moved spells: silence should still be Illusion, IMO, because it's not *actually* silence. The others can roll into Illusion no problem.

Indirect combat spells reduced range: eh. Functionally, it would be better to grab a touch spell version, since a drain reduction of -1 for 10 yards is pretty crappy, especially considering closing 10 yards is nothing in SR4.

Direct Combat Spells: I don't like these changes at all. Allow me to enumerate:
1) Requiring a tactical and ritual link automatically makes Direct combat spells pretty much dead worthless in ordinary combat, since you'll almost never have a ritual link unless you're assassinating someone. It also makes Symbolic Linking pretty much requisite if you DO want to use them, since fresh bio samples are the only way around this.
2) Targeting objects with spells is already weigted toward indirect spells being more effective, due to secondary elemental effects.
3) If I only need a tactical link for astral-only entities, why the hell would I ever have a spell other than stunbolt/ball? It's already a superior choice anyway. I can see arguments for other spells, but really... it's made even more advantageous.
4) This is basically saying that if you want to use Direct Combat spells, you'd better be ready for some massive XP sinks. There's no reason to require someone use the lower of the two other than saying "Direct spells suck." Seriously, this is not an optimal solution.

Critter form: I've never had players shapeshift, but these rules seem overly limiting and overly complex. The way I'm reading it, a human who critter shapes into a Bear, he can't use his cyberware, his stats are penalized - cuz they're the lower of his, or the default animals, he's almost certainly getting no benefit for the change - and the stat bonus is laughable. It is, essentially, a worthless spell. If I am a human with maxed physical stats, and I decide I want to change into, say, a dog... I lose all my cyberware, my stats are reduced unless I roll well, in which case they are equal, and ... I'm a dog. Basically what this tells me is that nobody will take this spell, so it'll be easier to just say "critter shape and shapechange don't exist in my game." This is especially true since you have to learn the spells *again* every time you want "troll shape" to be a different troll. Fuck it, gimmie physical mask any day.

Ware: I disagree with this choice, when the answers to "can sonar and ocular drones target spells" are pretty well established. Bioware eyes already have a reason to live: reduced detection in cyberscans. By confining your players to bio-eyes, they have access to far less vision options than non-mages, AND they have to pay more essence to get them, since they don't get any eye-replacement package/capacity deals. This is doubly true because any external equivalent to cyber-enhancement also can't be used to target spells.

All told, these aren't game-enders, but I would not be a happy camper if I were one of your players, since a lot of concepts are gonna be hobbled by these. If the players are onboard with these changes, I can see them being just fine in terms of actual playability, but make sure nobody gets blindsided out of the gate. The main results I can see from this are that all mages will be a combo of the following:
1) self-buffers, because combat spells won't be as drain efficient as buffs+spirits to sustain spells + guns;
2) Unarmed Combat experts or Mystic Adepts, because Touch spells are pretty damn attractive compared to other attack spells;
3) Crowd-control experts, since attack spells took a nose dive in effectiveness compared to Control Actions or whatnot.
Seth
QUOTE
Removed:
Analyze Device - problem spell
Shapechange - problem spell, just take Critter Shape
Increase [mental attribute] - because Drain should be a problem
Ignite - just take Flamethrower
Hush
Control Thoughts, Mob Mind - problem spell

Mostly agree... surprised you didn't remove mind probe which is more problematic than all of these. I would keep ignite as its a fun spell.

QUOTE
Moved:
Silence -> to Manipulation
Influence -> to Illusion
Control Emotions, Mob Mood -> to Illusion
(Why: it seems to me that affecting minds is the job of Illusions, and Silence is an area denial spell like Mist, Shadow, or Ice Sheet.)

I don't really like the way shadowrun splits spells: there is very little of importance in them, so sure. (A house rule I have used is that each type of magic has its own spell casting skill...that has worked very well)

QUOTE
Added (from Street Magic):
Borrow Sense, Animal Sense, Eyes of the Pack
Diagnose
Mindnet (+Extended)
Enabler
Healthy Glow - functions to remove or suppress bruises, abrasions, cuts, and other bodily evidence of recent combat
Chaff/Flak
Foreboding
Calm Animal, Calm Pack -> as Illusion
Alter Memory -> as Illusion
Element Aura
Fashion
Makeover
Mana Static
Mist
Sterilize
(Why: part of the reason I wanted to take nice things away from Manipulation was so I could give it other nice things. Street Magic has a bunch of sweet Manipulation spells.)

Most of the spells in street magic are good. You missed nice ones like spirit zapper and the restricted combat spells.

QUOTE
Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Good idea.
QUOTE
Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:
When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.
(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)

The direct combat spells: especially stun bolt and stun ball are just broken. And the attempt to fix them by adding drain equal to the nett successes is even more broken. This is a huge nerf (which they need). I have tried similar things in other games (the disadvantage "needs material link"). Best way to get a material link is of course to make them bleed then touch the blood (bladed weapons work well here). I don't think this has nerfed them correctly. I would try just making the base damage of the direct combat spell equal to the magic of the caster. This is only a nerf if they regularly overcast.

QUOTE
Critter Form:
Your 'ware must fit your chosen form. If you have man-sized cyber-eyes, you can't turn into a seagull.
Each spell turns you into a specific, recognizable individual.
You can choose Human (or any base meta-type) when learning this spell. Humans have a 3 in all physical attributes; meta-types adjust accordingly (i.e. Troll Form base critter would have Bod 7, Agl 2, Rct 3, Str 7).
Your new form's attributes are the lower of the critter's attributes or your own attributes, except as noted below.
Net hits provide a bonus to one physical attribute chosen when you learn the spell (typically, the critter's highest physical attribute). Troll Form, for example, could provide a bonus to Body or Strength, but not Agility or Reaction.
You are always limited by the augmented maximums of your own base form.

Plenty of restrictions here. I take it you have had problems with this spell. I found the following three restrictions enough:
  • "limited to within 2 body of the mage" rule
  • Max attributes equal to normal limits (i.e.normal attribute max, so humans limited to 9)
  • Your clothing doesn't change, so its awkward. And you are not wearing armour. You can buy barding, but not very stuff

Wards are really cheap (a few hours every couple of months for a mage...) THis means that players are constantly sneaking through wards. Sneaking through wards means turning your spells off, recasting them on the other side (or spending hours astral tracking). This makes it awkward for the nude mage with home made barding that he has to keep taking off and putting on.
QUOTE
'Ware for spellcasters. You cannot target spells using cyberware enhancements, period. Bioware works fine. (Why: clears up a lot of corner-cases with occular drones / sonar / etc., and gives bio-eyes a reason to live.)

I don't understand why you have a problem with this. The rules are clear that radar / sonar doesn't work. Bio-eyes are much more essence friendly. But remember that shadowrun is where magic meets man and machine. That means you want the burnt out mage with the cybereyes and hydraulic jack legs as much as the dandelion eating lute playing mage.

Other issues:
  • Consider very hard how concealment works...consider banning it as an uber power
  • I mentioned it above...but don't forget to ban mind probe
  • Seriously consider banning the casting of multiple spells


I think your changes are ok. I think every GM is responsible for making their own personal changes to the game that they are running. (The RAW fanatics may disagree). Go to it!
Mäx
QUOTE (Nifft @ Dec 30 2010, 08:22 PM) *
Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:
  • When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
  • When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
  • When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
  • If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.
(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)

Just slip around the indirecr/direct combat spell darin modifiers and tada problem solved, direct spells are still bettter, but they also have higher drain then indirect spells, meaning it's not always the best idea to use direct spells.
Omenowl
My issue is with shapechange removal. The point of having shapechange is to turn into a variety of creatures instead of having to learn several different spells. As the player is limited in a size change it does not go from elephant to mouse. Now if you want to modify the spell so it is +3 rather than +2 that would make more sense.

I would simply increase the thresholds for cyberware and bioware by the essence lost for shapechange. Lose 3 essence and your threshold becomes 4 rather than 1.


As for the cybereyes I would simply rule regardless of augmentations if the target can be perceived astrally they can be targetted. If they can't be perceived astrally they cannot be targetted. Removes a lot of the wonky issues of ghouls, sonar, occular drones, etc.


One change I decided to prevent a focus on charisma for drain is conjuring resists with charisma+willpower and spell drain resists with either logic or intuition depending on the tradition. This way it discourages the elf spellcaster who ignore logic and intuition because their tradition focuses on charisma.
Mäx
QUOTE (Omenowl @ Dec 31 2010, 02:18 AM) *
As for the cybereyes I would simply rule regardless of augmentations if the target can be perceived astrally they can be targetted. If they can't be perceived astrally they cannot be targetted. Removes a lot of the wonky issues of ghouls, sonar, occular drones, etc.

What wonky is there about spell targeting, you can target spell with your eyes, cyber-eyes work too, sonar doen't work nor does ultrasound, ocular-drone works as long as it's docked into your eye.
What's sp hard about that.
Omenowl
I disagree as ghouls can cast spells on ranged targets when blind, but somehow our mage has issues with smoke grenades. Hence the part about astral targeting.
sabs
Ghouls are st00pid... mmmkay?
Any rules argument that starts with "but Ghouls can... " should be automatically disqualified smile.gif

Draco18s
QUOTE (Omenowl @ Dec 30 2010, 08:01 PM) *
I disagree as ghouls can cast spells on ranged targets when blind, but somehow our mage has issues with smoke grenades. Hence the part about astral targeting.


Smoke still creates an astral haze that is hard to see though.
(just as a wall creates a visual obstacle. You can just WALK thought it when projecting, allowing you to see the other side)
Nifft
QUOTE (WyldKnight @ Dec 30 2010, 02:37 PM) *
Pixies get a bonus to logic and charisma is only 1 point higher whereas logic can easily get 3. There isn't anyway to boost charisma or intuition without that spell. While there is SURGE and genetics that's not always an option. Not just hackers (you barely need logic with hackers) but medic mages, the arcana skill, and all technical skills. Is it a huge gripe? Not really, I've never really liked mages because they don't suit my adaptable play style. But Logic traditions already have the advantage of being able to cheaply boost their drain stat (gaining bonuses to those skills in the process) whereas the others can't boost it at all.

I'm not saying the other two traditions aren't as good as logic, they all have their specialties, but without being able to boost their main stat it does weaken them.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't see any better way.

Logic:
- Medkits
- Technical skills
- (Arcana: not present in core, or in my game)

Charisma:
- Spirit binding
- Influence skill group
- Intimidate

Charisma looks pretty darn strong to me.


QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 30 2010, 03:07 PM) *
Moved spells: silence should still be Illusion, IMO, because it's not *actually* silence. The others can roll into Illusion no problem.
Silence is actually silence. Perhaps you're thinking of Hush? That one I removed because it's confusing to explain and adjudicate.

QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 30 2010, 03:07 PM) *
Indirect combat spells reduced range: eh. Functionally, it would be better to grab a touch spell version, since a drain reduction of -1 for 10 yards is pretty crappy, especially considering closing 10 yards is nothing in SR4.
There aren't touch versions of the Indirect spells. Maybe I should use -2 drain for the 10 yard versions since they're practically touch anyway? I dunno.

QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 30 2010, 03:07 PM) *
Direct Combat Spells: I don't like these changes at all. Allow me to enumerate:
1) Requiring a tactical and ritual link automatically makes Direct combat spells pretty much dead worthless in ordinary combat, since you'll almost never have a ritual link unless you're assassinating someone. It also makes Symbolic Linking pretty much requisite if you DO want to use them, since fresh bio samples are the only way around this.
2) Targeting objects with spells is already weigted toward indirect spells being more effective, due to secondary elemental effects.
3) If I only need a tactical link for astral-only entities, why the hell would I ever have a spell other than stunbolt/ball? It's already a superior choice anyway. I can see arguments for other spells, but really... it's made even more advantageous.
4) This is basically saying that if you want to use Direct Combat spells, you'd better be ready for some massive XP sinks. There's no reason to require someone use the lower of the two other than saying "Direct spells suck." Seriously, this is not an optimal solution.
(1) is working as intended. IMHO the Direct combat spells should be situational, and masses of mooks isn't their situation.
(2) Sure.
(3) Under the core rules, why the hell would you ever have a spell other than Stunbolt/ball? You're complaining that the core spell is too strong, and you're complaining that I'm nerfing it.
(4) Yeah, this one may be going too far. But I'm tired of every dabbler always picking up Stunbolt. What else could be done?

QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 30 2010, 03:07 PM) *
Critter form: I've never had players shapeshift, but these rules seem overly limiting and overly complex. The way I'm reading it, a human who critter shapes into a Bear, he can't use his cyberware, his stats are penalized - cuz they're the lower of his, or the default animals, he's almost certainly getting no benefit for the change - and the stat bonus is laughable. It is, essentially, a worthless spell. If I am a human with maxed physical stats, and I decide I want to change into, say, a dog... I lose all my cyberware, my stats are reduced unless I roll well, in which case they are equal, and ... I'm a dog. Basically what this tells me is that nobody will take this spell, so it'll be easier to just say "critter shape and shapechange don't exist in my game." This is especially true since you have to learn the spells *again* every time you want "troll shape" to be a different troll. Fuck it, gimmie physical mask any day.
Yep, if you want to disguise yourself, you want Mask or Physical Mask. That nerf is working exactly as intended.

Who says he can't use his cyberware? All I'm requiring is that it fit in his new body. So if you have Wired Reflexes, you are limited to forms with a spinal chord. If you have cybereyes, you can't turn into a rat or a seagull, but wolves and tigers are fine.

Critter Form remains an excellent utility spell: it grants mobility, animal senses, usually a melee weapon or three, and it may work as a disguise. What I've done is take away its use as a one-stop "Now I'm A Tank!" spell.

QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 30 2010, 03:07 PM) *
Bioware eyes already have a reason to live: reduced detection in cyberscans.
Cybereyes are legal. Why would you care if they show up on a cyberscan?

QUOTE (Adarael @ Dec 30 2010, 03:07 PM) *
The main results I can see from this are that all mages will be a combo of the following:
1) self-buffers, because combat spells won't be as drain efficient as buffs+spirits to sustain spells + guns;
2) Unarmed Combat experts or Mystic Adepts, because Touch spells are pretty damn attractive compared to other attack spells;
3) Crowd-control experts, since attack spells took a nose dive in effectiveness compared to Control Actions or whatnot.
You really think the Indirect spells are so bad that you can't make a combat mage with them?

What could be done to fix that?

Cheers, -- N
Nifft
QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Mostly agree... surprised you didn't remove mind probe which is more problematic than all of these. I would keep ignite as its a fun spell.
Thanks, I did totally forget about Mind Probe.

QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
I don't really like the way shadowrun splits spells: there is very little of importance in them, so sure. (A house rule I have used is that each type of magic has its own spell casting skill...that has worked very well)
Interesting, but more of a nerf than I think I'm looking for.

QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Most of the spells in street magic are good. You missed nice ones like spirit zapper and the restricted combat spells.
Okay, I'll check those out. I don't like the restricted combat spells ("Corrode Vehicle", "Crush Weapon") because the borderline between restricted categories seems blurry. Where's the line between "drone" and "unmanned remote-operated vehicle"? Is a car a different target depending on the location of the driver? I don't like those questions, as they slow down my game.

QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
The direct combat spells: especially stun bolt and stun ball are just broken. And the attempt to fix them by adding drain equal to the nett successes is even more broken. This is a huge nerf (which they need). I have tried similar things in other games (the disadvantage "needs material link"). Best way to get a material link is of course to make them bleed then touch the blood (bladed weapons work well here). I don't think this has nerfed them correctly. I would try just making the base damage of the direct combat spell equal to the magic of the caster. This is only a nerf if they regularly overcast.
Wow, it sounds like you tried pretty much exactly what I'm thinking of, and for the same reasons. I'm very interested in your experience.

My idea was that mages can use Direct spells via teamwork ("go stab that guy and throw me the knife!"), or via infiltration runs specifically to get ritual components, or to lay some smackdown on things that mages traditionally handle (spirits, projecting wage-mages).

QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Plenty of restrictions here. I take it you have had problems with this spell. I found the following three restrictions enough:
  • "limited to within 2 body of the mage" rule
  • Max attributes equal to normal limits (i.e.normal attribute max, so humans limited to 9)
  • Your clothing doesn't change, so its awkward. And you are not wearing armour. You can buy barding, but not very stuff

Wards are really cheap (a few hours every couple of months for a mage...) THis means that players are constantly sneaking through wards. Sneaking through wards means turning your spells off, recasting them on the other side (or spending hours astral tracking). This makes it awkward for the nude mage with home made barding that he has to keep taking off and putting on.
Hmm. Maybe just letting the mage keep his own physical stats would be sufficient. Basically I want to make shape-changing a useful utility spell rather than a one-stop substitute for buying physical attributes.

QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
I don't understand why you have a problem with this. The rules are clear that radar / sonar doesn't work. Bio-eyes are much more essence friendly. But remember that shadowrun is where magic meets man and machine. That means you want the burnt out mage with the cybereyes and hydraulic jack legs as much as the dandelion eating lute playing mage.
Yeah, I'm struggling with this one. The thing is, it bugs me that it's so optimal for every character to rip his eyes out and get cyber. I'd like it if at least one archetype had an incentive to keep his own eyes.

Hell, even with my limitation, a combat mage could still easily benefit from a TacNet projected on his AR goggles using Indirect area spells.

QUOTE (Seth @ Dec 30 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Other issues:
  • Consider very hard how concealment works...consider banning it as an uber power
  • I mentioned it above...but don't forget to ban mind probe
  • Seriously consider banning the casting of multiple spells
Is there any way to nerf Concealment without banning it?
Mind Probe: done, thanks.
Multicasting... yeah. Gotta run some numbers and see how hard it can be abused.

Thanks very much for the advice, and for sharing your experience!

Cheers, -- N
Adarael
QUOTE (Nifft @ Dec 31 2010, 07:29 AM) *
Silence is actually silence. Perhaps you're thinking of Hush? That one I removed because it's confusing to explain and adjudicate.

You're probably right. I didn't have a book to reference, so I musta misremembered.

QUOTE
There aren't touch versions of the Indirect spells. Maybe I should use -2 drain for the 10 yard versions since they're practically touch anyway? I dunno.

There aren't? I was sure Street Magic had some. Like Flame Aura variants or something, but I'm probably thinking of 3rd edition spells anyhoo. I'd recommend making a -2 for the 10 yard and roll them into "basically touch", to avoid having to explain why Acid Touch doesn't burn the caster's hands off too.

QUOTE
(3) Under the core rules, why the hell would you ever have a spell other than Stunbolt/ball? You're complaining that the core spell is too strong, and you're complaining that I'm nerfing it.
(4) Yeah, this one may be going too far. But I'm tired of every dabbler always picking up Stunbolt. What else could be done?


As for Stunbolt/Stunball? I dunno, it's a great spell. Power spells are good for breaking *stuff*, though, especially when your targets have fire retardant coatings, chemseals, etc. Again, situational. But in terms of against dudes, Stunbolt is the order of the day. What I'd suggest is more of an in-game fix, in terms of stun spells. I played a mage for 10 or so years whose main gun was Stunbolt, so believe me when I say I know how far you can push it. Intelligent opposition will be prepared for these kinds of tricks, especially corporate security, other runners, or people who are aware of the Stunbolt paradox.

It only costs a tiny amount of money to outfit the opposition with a biomonitor + stim chems in an autoinjector. As soon as X boxes of stun are filled, it amps them up and the stunbolt hasn't done anything except make them mad. And the look on other people's faces when you pass out and then jump up with an AR blazing on full auto is priceless.

Alternately, rule Stunbolt and Stunball do the same drain as Mana Bolt and Mana Ball. Then it's simply player choice as to which they choose to use. You can make an easy argument that there shouldn't be a cheaper drain on a spell simply because it "only" causes stun - damage is damage, as far as magic is concerned.


QUOTE
you want to disguise yourself, you want Mask or Physical Mask. That nerf is working exactly as intended.

I'd just remove the spell's ability to allow people to take a metahuman shape, or erase it entirely. It'll be less of a red herring for people, then.

QUOTE
Who says he can't use his cyberware? All I'm requiring is that it fit in his new body. So if you have Wired Reflexes, you are limited to forms with a spinal chord. If you have cybereyes, you can't turn into a rat or a seagull, but wolves and tigers are fine.


Ohhhhh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant if there was merely a size mismatch, like "Your human cybereyes are too small for this elephant, hahaha! They fall out!"

QUOTE
Cybereyes are legal. Why would you care if they show up on a cyberscan?

Eh. Without getting into it too deeply: I don't feel bioware mods on eyes are in a bad space. I've used them, my players have used them, and I think they're doing okay. Difference of opinion, I guess.

QUOTE
You really think the Indirect spells are so bad that you can't make a combat mage with them?

I think it's a suboptimal choice if you're looking to be effective in combat as opposed to awesome in combat - which is an important distinction to make. The reason is that without fail, all indirect combat spells except *maybe* Clout are pretty obvious. They work *really* well, but you end up with three main problems: they're noisy or flashy or smelly or all of the above; they've got a pretty high drain, and are hard to fling about with impunity; the single-target spells are pretty effective but slow, being a complex action to cast, while the AOE spells are really just hand grenades in terms of how they're used. They definitely have their place in your system - don't think I don't think so. But if *I* were making a mage using your rules, I'd take an AOE combat spell, one or two single-target spells for high-value drones and whatnot, and I'd make the rest of my spells situational buffs. And that's simply because with a smartlink and an assault rifle, I could be more effective against 90% of the opposition than with my spells. The 10 yard rule spells work to ameliorate some of this, it's true, but I'd still need something longer range.

Either that, or I'd re-make Pretty Ping, the Mystic Adept with a dance-based Centering style who had all custom, personal AOE spells, because I could get the drain down fairly low that way. And dancing dudes to death is always fun.


Like... I *could* roll my spells to kill that ork security guard over there. Let me walk through two scenarios. In the first, I'm generally just throwing a lightning bolt, casually, at the dude:
Magic 5, Spellcasting/Ritual Spellcasting 5, Combat Spells +2: 12 dice, likely 4 successes. Assume the spell has been cast at Force 5.
He dodges with his Reaction of 4 (6 with Muscle Toner). He gets 2 succcesses. This leaves me with 2.
He soaks with his body of 6, plus half impact armor of 4. He likely gets 3 successes. He may or may not be stunned. This assumes he's got no non-conductivity in his armor, which wouldn't be the case in my game due to how cheap stick n shock is, but it seems normal for other gamers not to have it.
I resist drain. Willpower 5 + Logic 5, vs what, 6 Stun? I don't remember the exact drain code, but I seem to recall it's +1. I take 3 stun, and am now at -1 because I probably get 3 successes.
So, for my complex action, he takes 4P damage, and may or may not be stunned.

In this example, I want him dead. I decide to use Acid Spray, because screw you, ork.
Magic 5 + Spellcasting 5 + Combat Spells 2: 4 successes, spell is cast at Force 10, because screw you, ork.
Ork dodges, gets 2 successes. Leaves me with 2.
He soaks as before, 3 successes. He is melting. He takes 8P damage. Oh god, it burns.
I resist drain. I get 3 successes. I take 8S drain. I am at -2 to all actions. Sucks.

Or... Let's say I've thrown up an Enhance Agility spell, and I've got a bound spirit sustaining it. A bit of prep work, but hey, we're runners. I have 3 hits on it, because that's reasonable. Now I want to shoot the ork because haha, perforations. Let's say I toss out a short burst at him.
I roll Agility 3(6) + Firearms 4 + Smartlink 2. 4 successes.
Ork dodges. As before, 2 successes. I have 2.
I'm using an Ares Alpha with Explosive rounds. This means I do 7P -1AP. Ork is wearing 8/6 armored jacket; my AP reduces this to 7/5 so I'm doing physical. The 3 round burst ups my damage to 9P -1.
Ork soaks. He gets 4 successes. Sick. This reduces the damage to 7, with my succcesses.

So in this last example, I've done more damage than my average spell and only slightly less than my big spell, it costs me no drain, it can be sound suppressed, and - this is the important one - it's only used a simple action. I still have another 3 round burst or single shot I can pop off. In your system, I'd be much better off making mages who are tactician/buff/sensory improvement junkies than combat spell slingers. And that's not a problem, per se, just a quirk. In fact, I think that's pretty damn cool, just stylistically. But recognize this is one of the quirks of the changes.

Like I said, I don't think your changes break the game. Far from it. I DO think they fundamentally change the way it's played, though.
Slide7X
I suggest you watch out for the spell Detect also. It's one of those [Object] spells.

Those spell, at least for me, seem to cause a lot of trouble. I can think of one argument in particular about a mage using Detect Explosives.

Does that spell detect only intentionally explosive objects/devices? If so, does not that mean that the spell itself has to make that distinction between a grenade and a pressurized gas bottle?

I can't check at the moment, but is magic in SR not partly defined by the restriction it can't make decisions on it own? I remember reading that in the spell design section I think, just can't remember which edition. wobble.gif

So, anyway, I don't allow (most?) of the [Object] spells like Detect and the Corrode or Ram spell trees.

Of couse, I been trying to iron out the kinks in house rules that separate mana and physical spell more clearly.
Mainly by changes the allow mana based spells only to affect targets with auras. I don't link Shatter/Powerbolt/Powerball being the default 'Crush, Kill n' Destroy' trio.
tagz
Personally I think a few minor tweaks to the Drain Modifiers would be all it takes to make indirect more effective.

Change Elemental effect in Combat and Manipulation categories to +1 from +2. Seems like a simple fix to me, as they are required to be Physical Spells anyhow which comes with a build in +1.

Additionally, you might consider bumping up Mental Manipulation a bit. +0 seems pretty low considering how useful a single Mental Manipulation spell can be. Suggest taking it up to +1 and see how it plays out.

And finally, there is no drain modifier listed for Direct or Indirect spells themselves. You could just give a +1 to all Direct Combat spells.

A small amount of drain can really add up over the course of a run. Consider a mage that casts stunbolt 5 times over a run. By adding just +1 to the drain code that's an extra 5 drain that would need to be resisted, about half a typical mage's stun/physical track. Throw in the risk of taking damage from other sources and all but the best built Drain Pools will think twice.



There are also a lot of reasons beyond simple mechanics for people to use combat spells besides stunbolt as well. Stunning leaves witnesses. Stunning leaves people alive that may get fired/demoted/etc because of their failure... stunning leaves enemies. Not killing can make one look weak to certain groups. Killing may be a part of the instructions.

Stunning and then afterwords killing should be seen by the world, and by the characters, as completely different then killing in the middle of a fight. One is in the moment, the other is a cold blooded, premeditated decision.... an execution. And in a world with lots of video cameras, bio-monitors, astral signatures... that info gets out. I'd say a team that double taps guards regularly should get some Notoriety from it.
Slide7X
In my experience the "Increase the Drain makes things better" solution doesn't work.

Combat Mages are almost always tweaked for Drain Resistance tests to start with.
Simply increasing the drain, even by +3, doesn't even cause them to notice most of the time.

Besides, my problem with Indirect vs. Direct is that Direct spells, only using RAW, are broken powerful.
That leads to a two tiered system of their use.

A PC mage doing a one-shot on an NPC (or two or three, or everyone she casts at..) is all cool with the players.
But, if the GM one-shots a PC (even if it only drops hims, instead of killing him) most tables scream "Cheesey!"
It's easier in SR4 to soak a called shot sniper attack by a professional, then a powerbolt by your average wagemage.

If you try to use RAW stuff, like smoke grenades, to block LOS or impose visibility mods, the mages complain that they are "useless"
and not getting to "do what their suppose to do" or "roll enough dice". I think this is D&D fantasy ideas stinking up my near-future dystopia.

I didn't have to must trouble dealing with the issue in 2nd and 3rd, by 4th...
the "magic is broken" power creep is just crazy.

(See WAR!, gaia-sphere has "cosmic veto" over the use of nuclear weapons my ass mad.gif
if they are moving towards an ED everyone is magic paradigm I'm not going to follow
there is a reason I haven't played ED in 15 years.)

P.S.: I do thing that SR4A with some house rules (for sanity in most cases) is perfectly playable.
Aku
Shouldn't detect explosives light up every single round someone is carrying?
Draco18s
QUOTE (Aku @ Dec 31 2010, 08:33 PM) *
Shouldn't detect explosives light up every single round someone is carrying?


Yes it would. Along with other flammables like gasoline.
Mäx
QUOTE (Slide7X @ Dec 31 2010, 09:56 PM) *
In my experience the "Increase the Drain makes things better" solution doesn't work.

Combat Mages are almost always tweaked for Drain Resistance tests to start with.
Simply increasing the drain, even by +3, doesn't even cause them to notice most of the time.

+3 to drain is makes a huge difference, thats 9 more drain dice needed.
And if the change is raising the drain of direct combat spells and lowering the drain of indirect combat spells, it will absolutely affect the balance between those 2 spell classes.

QUOTE (Slide7X @ Dec 31 2010, 09:56 PM) *
(See WAR!, gaia-sphere has "cosmic veto" over the use of nuclear weapons my ass mad.gif
if they are moving towards an ED everyone is magic paradigm I'm not going to follow
there is a reason I haven't played ED in 15 years.)

You do know that the nuclear weapon think has been part of canon lore from the beginning.
Nifft
QUOTE (Slide7X @ Dec 31 2010, 02:56 PM) *
In my experience the "Increase the Drain makes things better" solution doesn't work.

Combat Mages are almost always tweaked for Drain Resistance tests to start with.
Simply increasing the drain, even by +3, doesn't even cause them to notice most of the time.
Did you try this? What kind of dice pool was your group's mage rolling?

QUOTE (Slide7X @ Dec 31 2010, 02:56 PM) *
Besides, my problem with Indirect vs. Direct is that Direct spells, only using RAW, are broken powerful.
That's been my experience as a GM and as the player of a Magician.

QUOTE (Slide7X @ Dec 31 2010, 02:56 PM) *
A PC mage doing a one-shot on an NPC (or two or three, or everyone she casts at..) is all cool with the players.
But, if the GM one-shots a PC (even if it only drops hims, instead of killing him) most tables scream "Cheesey!"
It's easier in SR4 to soak a called shot sniper attack by a professional, then a powerbolt by your average wagemage.
Yep. A lot of what I want to do is so I can intelligently optimize NPCs without risking "unfair" PC deaths.

Critter Form is how it is so NPCs can get some use out of it without becoming perfect shape-shifters who are impossible to find. I want the Naga security expert to have a fixed face in his human disguise. I want a gang of rat-magi to be an interesting and unusual challenge (rather than a routine tactical choice), and they should be screwed if you manage to corner them (rather than "OH CRAP NOW THEY'RE ALL BEARS").

Direct combat spells are how they are so my wage-magi can't just drop PCs without them having a clue that he's attacking. For the same reason, I don't generally put the PCs in places where sniping is a good idea for either side. When sniping ranges are available, I make it clear that it's on the table.

I totally don't mind if the party mage feels a little weak in combat. He's got Spirits (which are awesome), he's got battlefield control, and he can whip out his lightning bolt in situations where even tasers are problematic. Some specialized builds can still PWN combat (notably Touch spell users, since I left Touch combat spells alone and (negative) health spells like Decrease Attribute) -- and that's fine. Melee is riskier than firearms.

Thanks, -- N
Slide7X
[quote name='Nifft' date='Jan 1 2011, 03:59 PM' post='1025328']
Did you try this? What kind of dice pool was your group's mage rolling?

SR4A: Willpower 8 + Charisma 5 (or 6?) + Centering 3 + Saving Edge 5 mainly for casting tests and drain tests.
Dwarf with Exception Attribute, you guessed it ... Willpower.

Plus, the mage's player seems to routinely beat the average of 1 success per 3 dice into the 1 per 2 territory (while I watch ... eek.gif ).

I should say that the campaign was started and run for a couple of years by another GM, I took over after he left.

That said, while I was a player, he cast a Designed version of Urban Renewal and destroyed a dilapidated shopping mall..
Total drain 1 Stun! (That spell I did indeed veto when I took over...cause wow, just no.)

@Mäx (how do you get that "a" without Copy/Pasting?)
I'm aware of It in the fluff/writer fiat sense to explain why, at the beginning of the Awakening,
reactionary crack pots didn't nuke the crap out of everything they where afraid of.

Also, of it not seeming to apply to Winternight's universe altering doom's day cult stuff. (I liked that story too.)

But, I don't remember the anti-nuke thing being "rules defined" anywhere.
Of course I don't remember all my 2nd and 3rd rules (those books should be around here, in this mess, somewhere).

@Draco18s
Indeed, much to many player's dismay. But, my point is (and the major reason I remove that spell) how does the spell know
what is explosive and what is not? Especially, when cast by a mage who knows nothing about explosives, chemistry or physics.
Magic cannot make decisions on it own, I thought.
Seth
QUOTE
I totally don't mind if the party mage feels a little weak in combat. He's got Spirits (which are awesome), he's got battlefield control, and he can whip out his lightning bolt in situations where even tasers are problematic.

My experience with mages in any game is that they dominate the game.
  • They have awesome social effects (charm / mind control / detect lie / increase charisma ...)
  • They have awesome movement powers (levitate / gecko walk )
  • They can invisibly spy (astral scan / clairvoyance)
  • They have utterly awesome pets (spirits)

I think its much better if they don't dominate combat as well! To "nerf" them in combat I do the following:
  • No multicasting
  • Direct combat spells do the mages magic base damage instead of the force of the spell
  • I have the threshold rules from the old shadowrun where to mind control someone you need a number of sucesses equal to their willpower (otherwise mod mind is an "I win spell")
  • I reduce the drain of elemental indirect spells by 1 point

With these rules the mages are still very good but the gun bunnies are far better. Elemental direct spells are very good. The mage still have a lot of tactical spells that can change the scenary: physical barrier, elemental wall, shape [material], mist. But stun ball doesn't just become "force 11 stun ball. 5 successes. Can every NPC please fall unconscious".
Draco18s
QUOTE (Seth @ Jan 1 2011, 12:40 PM) *
Direct combat spells do the mages magic base damage instead of the force of the spell


What stops a mage from just casting F1 stunbolts then? 1 Drain (1/2-1, min 1) -> Magic DV.
Nifft
QUOTE (Seth @ Jan 1 2011, 12:40 PM) *
Direct combat spells do the mages magic base damage instead of the force of the spell

Hmm. I wonder if I should use this as an opportunity to boost the utility of Charisma (since in my game I remove access to Increase Ability (mental)), and have Direct combat spells deal damage equal to your Charisma.

Unlike the Magic attribute, there's a hard cap on Charisma.
Nifft
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 1 2011, 01:10 PM) *
What stops a mage from just casting F1 stunbolts then? 1 Drain (1/2-1, min 1) -> Magic DV.

You still need to overcome the target's Willpower. Force 1 = 1 hit maximum, no matter what your dice pool was.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Nifft @ Jan 1 2011, 01:48 PM) *
You still need to overcome the target's Willpower. Force 1 = 1 hit maximum, no matter what your dice pool was.


Force 2 then. Gives you 2 hits, and the target rolls their (max 6) willpower.
Teryon
QUOTE
@Draco18s
Indeed, much to many player's dismay. But, my point is (and the major reason I remove that spell) how does the spell know
what is explosive and what is not? Especially, when cast by a mage who knows nothing about explosives, chemistry or physics.
Magic cannot make decisions on it own, I thought.


It wouldnt have to 'know' anything. All explosive materials(hell, batteries and such as well) are tightly bound bundles of energy on a molecular level. Most explosives are also unstable in some manner(shock, heat, electricity, etc). So what I figure is such a spell just detects an unstable bundle of energy nearby and lights it up, pure and simple.

Course, in some ways that description could apply to mages too...
Adarael
On the subject of gaiasphere vetos and nukes:

As I said in the other thread, this is something I harp on. Also as I said in the other thread, observing that many nuclear reactions have gone oddly or been less powerful than normal is simply an observed fact. You can't argue with it. But claiming that nuclear reactions work unpredictably due to the gaiasphere's will, or because the laws of physics are unpredictable, is flat out revisionism. None of the canon nuclear reactions have any real explanation as to why they were 'off', because there are *tens of thousands* of nuclear reactions that go off every day in the 6th world without a hitch. Every nuclear sub or ship. Every nuclear power plant (which are the majority for most nations). Every science experiment involving fission or fusion.

To assume that the gaiasphere "chooses" which work normally and which don't is an interesting theory, one that I do not ascribe to. It is only a theory, and is - in canon - as valid as "some nukes didn't go off because of movers and shakers behind the scenes manipulating things."
Ascalaphus
Nuclear power is widely used in SR; I guess the very existence of magic in general doesn't alter nuclear physics that much. And occasionally nukes have worked normally (I vaguely recall Israel nuking Libya off the map).

In most of the cases where nukes were used and didn't work, there was some extra factor at work; we can guess some of them.

Lone Eagle incident: probably manipulation by the IEs/Horrors who were backing SAIM. They wanted an incident to stir things up, not global thermonuclear war.

Cermak blast: it bumped against the warding used by the hives.

Winternight: they'd enchanted some of the nukes to intensify the EMP effects. Behind the scenes, it appears at least Lofwyr and Horizon had foreknowledge of the upcoming events..



My guess is that there exist spells/metamagics that can prevent nuclear detonation, which have occasionally been applied by the IEs and GDs when their interests were at stake.
Slide7X
Hmm...How about changing the damage of direct combat spells to simply Net Hits on the casting test.
Instead of Force + Net Hits. And keep the Force limit on number of hits.

As a mage advances himself and gets more dice to roll, the spell gets more potent. So the player can fell advancement.

Direct spells ignore range, armor, cover and are soaked with willpower (max 6).
So the damage they do, despite these advantages, has always been the problem.

Making damage equal to Magic might work in the early bit, but with initiation raising Magic I don't like the idea of
high guaranteed damage. For example, I have a mage in a group with magic 9. I like the idea of purely magically attacks
being more random.
Ascalaphus
QUOTE (Nifft @ Dec 30 2010, 08:22 PM) *
Removed:
  • Analyze Device - problem spell
  • Shapechange - problem spell, just take Critter Shape
  • Increase [mental attribute] - because Drain should be a problem
  • Ignite - just take Flamethrower
  • Hush
  • Control Thoughts, Mob Mind - problem spell


I think I'd have made some different choices. I rather like Ignite, and it's different from Flamethrower. The idea of combusting something from the inside out is nice. Also different is that Ignite takes some time before it becomes Permanent, at which point it starts doing damage. That buildup time makes it different from instant-attack combat spells enough for me.

Shapechange - it needs some rewriting and clarification, but the flexibility is very nice, so I wouldn't go for the Critter Form style one-animal-only solution. I'd probably split it into Animal Form and Metahuman Form spells and pound some sense into the attribute-increases.

The rest of the spells are best killed off yeah.

QUOTE (Nifft @ Dec 30 2010, 08:22 PM) *
Added (from Street Magic):
  • Borrow Sense, Animal Sense, Eyes of the Pack
  • Diagnose
  • Mindnet (+Extended)
  • Enabler
  • Healthy Glow - functions to remove or suppress bruises, abrasions, cuts, and other bodily evidence of recent combat
  • Chaff/Flak
  • Foreboding
  • Calm Animal, Calm Pack -> as Illusion
  • Alter Memory -> as Illusion
  • Element Aura
  • Fashion
  • Makeover
  • Mana Static
  • Mist
  • Sterilize
(Why: part of the reason I wanted to take nice things away from Manipulation was so I could give it other nice things. Street Magic has a bunch of sweet Manipulation spells.)


I like to allow as many spells as possible (after removing the problem spells). Supposedly by now hundreds of spells have been invented after all. So go for a "Yes, Unless" approach to Street Magic.

QUOTE (Nifft @ Dec 30 2010, 08:22 PM) *
Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:
  • When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
  • When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
  • When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
  • If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.
(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)


That just feels like a very awkward way to stop people from using them.

I suppose the philosophy behind Direct spells was that they're "cheaper" because they have no elemental frills, but the elemental effects aren't actually better than the Direct spells.

Maybe it's more balanced to say "directly killing it with pure power is harder than with elemental power", and switch the drain for direct and indirect spells.

I'd also change the magic detection rules a bit; make Direct spells hard to detect. At that point, mages have a choice:
A) Elemental: cheap
B) Direct: expensive, but sneakier and harder to protect against

That would give mages good reason to have several different spells and use the one that fits the particular situation best.


QUOTE (Nifft @ Dec 30 2010, 08:22 PM) *
'Ware for spellcasters. You cannot target spells using cyberware enhancements, period. Bioware works fine. (Why: clears up a lot of corner-cases with occular drones / sonar / etc., and gives bio-eyes a reason to live.)


I personally like the blending of cyber and magic. Loss of a point of Essence and Magic is pretty expensive, there's something to be said for staying pure too. And the rules questions aren't all that hard;
* Only bioware eyes and cybereyes give LOS (Ultrasound and radar aren't allowed in cybereyes!)
* Ocular drones outside the body don't count
* Cybereye on a different body part counts
See? That wasn't too hard.
Mäx
QUOTE (Slide7X @ Jan 1 2011, 06:59 PM) *
@Mäx (how do you get that "a" without Copy/Pasting?)

Thats for me to know and you to find out
(in all seriousness it in my keyboard with all the other letters as it's part of Finnish alphabet)
Guide to inputting special character
Alt+0228 will produce ä

as a side question ,did you read the first part of my post?
Nifft
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Jan 1 2011, 03:37 PM) *
I think I'd have made some different choices. I rather like Ignite, and it's different from Flamethrower. The idea of combusting something from the inside out is nice. Also different is that Ignite takes some time before it becomes Permanent, at which point it starts doing damage. That buildup time makes it different from instant-attack combat spells enough for me.
The problem for me isn't that it's identical to a combat spell, it's that it steps on the toes of combat spells. Basically, Manipulation is the ultimate do-everything category (in Core and even more so in Core + SM), and I don't like that. IMHO each category should provide value, so specialization is a genuine choice.

QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Jan 1 2011, 03:37 PM) *
I like to allow as many spells as possible (after removing the problem spells). Supposedly by now hundreds of spells have been invented after all. So go for a "Yes, Unless" approach to Street Magic.
The problem for me is that there are so many great Manipulation spells in SM, and so few good spells of any other category.

Hmm, perhaps Elemental Aura should be a Combat spell. It's sort-of a sustained Touch version of the Indirect elemental combat spells.

QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Jan 1 2011, 03:37 PM) *
That just feels like a very awkward way to stop people from using them.

I suppose the philosophy behind Direct spells was that they're "cheaper" because they have no elemental frills, but the elemental effects aren't actually better than the Direct spells.
Well, I don't want to stop people from using them. But I want them to be a strategic choice with their own benefits & restrictions, so that they're not such a giant no-brainer. I absolutely agree that Direct spells are currently superior to Indirect elemental combat spells.

QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Jan 1 2011, 03:37 PM) *
Maybe it's more balanced to say "directly killing it with pure power is harder than with elemental power", and switch the drain for direct and indirect spells.

I'd also change the magic detection rules a bit; make Direct spells hard to detect. At that point, mages have a choice:
A) Elemental: cheap
B) Direct: expensive, but sneakier and harder to protect against

That would give mages good reason to have several different spells and use the one that fits the particular situation best.
That's a similar set up to what my rules do:
- It's easy to fire off an Indirect elemental spell but they're obvious (and specialized armor enhancements defend against them);
- It requires some preparation or teamwork to use a Direct attack spell but they're not obvious (and they're harder to defend against).

QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Jan 1 2011, 03:37 PM) *
I personally like the blending of cyber and magic.
So do I. What I don't like are no-brainers, like how cybereyes are just plain better than meat eyes for nearly everyone.

Even with my restriction in place, though, there are still mages who would benefit from cybereyes:
- self-buff mystical gun adepts;
- "bad-touch" martial arts magi;
- medical magi (since all Health spells are Touch);
- summoners.

What I want are tough decisions which involve weighing trade-offs. If you want the most possible Perception dice, you lose access to a bunch of spells. Is the benefit worth the price? That's the kind of thinking I want to see.

Cheers, -- N
Ascalaphus
QUOTE (Nifft @ Jan 2 2011, 04:48 AM) *
The problem for me isn't that it's identical to a combat spell, it's that it steps on the toes of combat spells. Basically, Manipulation is the ultimate do-everything category (in Core and even more so in Core + SM), and I don't like that. IMHO each category should provide value, so specialization is a genuine choice.

The problem for me is that there are so many great Manipulation spells in SM, and so few good spells of any other category.

The spell categories are rather uneven yeah, but is that actually a problem? Most mages are going to have only 8-20 spells during their whole PC career anyway. And there are a bunch of important things that Manipulation doesn't do, like instant-speed damage. You have to choose whether (Mentor, Specialization)bonus dice will be applying to Manipulation or Combat for example, and a bonus to Combat is juicy too.
If you really think Manipulation's size is a problem (instead of just a peculiarity), split it up into two or more new categories instead of banning nice spells just to prune Manipulation.

QUOTE (Nifft @ Jan 2 2011, 04:48 AM) *
Well, I don't want to stop people from using them. But I want them to be a strategic choice with their own benefits & restrictions, so that they're not such a giant no-brainer. I absolutely agree that Direct spells are currently superior to Indirect elemental combat spells.

That's a similar set up to what my rules do:
- It's easy to fire off an Indirect elemental spell but they're obvious (and specialized armor enhancements defend against them);
- It requires some preparation or teamwork to use a Direct attack spell but they're not obvious (and they're harder to defend against).


It would be way too hard to use Direct spells that way. They would basically only be useful if you were expecting to fight that particular person, in which case a sniper rifle shot is probably just as good and actually easier.

In cases where you meet an enemy without warning, acquiring a ritual sample is bullshit. If you have time to do that, then the enemy wasn't a challenge anyway. If you have the time to collect ritual samples for an AOE Direct spell - that's just ridiculous.
Really; you would first have to get close to the target, wound them and collect blood, then bring it back to the mage. That's 3IPs if all goes well; in that time the gunbunny is long done killing the target anyway. Many combats don't last that long.

It basically means Direct spells are so nerfed they're useless. You should focus on making Elemental spells better than grenades instead.

QUOTE (Nifft @ Jan 2 2011, 04:48 AM) *
So do I. What I don't like are no-brainers, like how cybereyes are just plain better than meat eyes for nearly everyone.


Are they? You trade in a point of Magic (10-25BP, or roughly 25-30 karma worth) for an occasional reduction in visibility penalties by about 3 for Thermographic vision and perhaps another 3 if you're using Vision Magnification for very long range spellcasting. But a majority of combats take place on short ranges where the distance penalty doesn't matter that much anyway.

Cybereyes are a viable choice, they're not mandatory at all. Losing the ability to cast the majority of the spells is ridiculously harsh.
Ascalaphus
Another thing about Cybereyes: if they don't provide LOS anymore, that also means you lose Counterspelling.

If I'm not mistaken Banishing also requires LOS. A summoner who can't Banish or 'Bolt spirits that go wild - is that really what you want?
Irion
QUOTE
So do I. What I don't like are no-brainers, like how cybereyes are just plain better than meat eyes for nearly everyone.

Even with my restriction in place, though, there are still mages who would benefit from cybereyes:
- self-buff mystical gun adepts;
- "bad-touch" martial arts magi;
- medical magi (since all Health spells are Touch);
- summoners.

But this is true for any other class as well. So what?

As a matter of fact I dislike this ruling, because it opens a big crate of cans of worms.
To start with the cyber arm and touch spells.
In the end we finde the Will bonus of the pain editor(I think this was the correct pice).

I always thougt that houseruling should streamline or add complitly new areas.
F.e I would be ok with a houserule concerning riding roules. Or roules about different kind of horses.
This is one of the rules you may use when needed.
But I do strongly dislike rules, which introduce new exotic mechanism in existing rules.

Some thing goes for the indirect spells. Yes, they have to be nerfed. But introducing a hole new concept. I dislike the idea.

One way to flesh out the differance between the indirect and the direct combat spells would be to revisit the rules about counterspelling and background count. (Making indirect spells much more resistant to this influences)
Muspellsheimr
Problem Spells
While there are some spells that don't function particularly well, there are incredibly few "Problem Spells" (defined as spells that require a functional rewrite or removal). Ignoring WAR! (which I have not yet read, but heard many very bad things about), I would limit this list to Petrify & Turn to Goo.

Petrify, as written, literally breaks the laws of magic defined in the system; it affects a living body without also affecting any Essence-paid implants that body has. This is an easy fix - remove that section.

Petrify and Turn to Goo are both functionally identical, and are both "you loose" spells. Functional rewrite to make these spells "work" would be to use the system the Petrification critter power uses - each Net Hit reduces the target's Agility & Reaction by 1. If both Agility and Reaction are reduced to 0, the target turns to stone/goo. Additionally, Petrify retains it's +1 Barrier Rating (changed to +1 Damage Resistance for ease of use), while Turn to Goo changes to -1 Barrier Rating (changed to -1 Damage Resistance for ease of use).

Mental control magic would fall under quasi problem spells for me. They are (essentially) "you loose" spells, but not quite as automatic as Petrify or Turn to Goo (neither of the latter require additional actions from the caster, or allow additional resistance tests for extended sustaining periods). The easiest fix, apart from removing them, would be to reduce the interval additional resistance tests are allowed, such as to 1/2 Force Combat Turns, or 1 Combat Turn. While I am not yet convinced such a change is necessary, I am also not yet convinced such a change is unnecessary.



Shapechange is only a problem because, as written, it is functionally stupid. Go read it again - it allows you to change into something with a Body attribute 2 points greater or lower than your own. Not "up to" 2 points. 2 points.

Personally I changed it to allow a new form with a Body of up to Force greater or lower than your own. While the additional attribute boost is not really a problem in itself, it is probably to much & strikes me as out of flavor for the spell. Remove the attribute increase entirely. Your Physical Attributes are replaced with the Physical Attributes of a typical creature of your new form. Note: As this is a replacement effect, not an augmentation, augmented maximums of your original form do not apply.




Direct Combat Spells are overpowered. I am not going to argue this. The amount by which they are overpowered, however, is so low as to make little or no difference in most games. Guns are often just as effective (sometimes moreso), & do not require Drain Resistance.

The problem with Direct Combat magic is that they are made to appear "better" because of their comparison to the incredibly shitty Indirect Combat magic, & their use of a different resistance system than all other forms of combat.

Fix:
First, we need to unify the spells with the rest of combat. When casting a Direct Combat spell, the caster makes an opposed Spellcasting + Magic + Modifiers test vs. the target's Intuition + Counterspelling + Modifiers. If the caster achieves at least 1 Net Hit, the target must resist Force + Net Hits damage using Body (Physical) or Willpower (Mana) + Astral Armor. Each Hit reduced the damage taken by 1.

Next, we increase the usefulness of Indirect Combat magic. Something hit by an Indirect Combat Spell suffers the full elemental effects. This means removing such things as "The acid quickly evaporates in the turn following the spell's casting". Some elemental effects may need revision to actually be mechanically useful - elemental effects like fire.

Additionally, Indirect Combat Spells can use the Blind Fire rules, sans the Intuition instead of Agility bit.




Spirits, while not included on your list, are probably the single most overpowered part of a magician's capabilities. They can easily come to dominate a game by themselves.

The primary "balancing" factor is "role playing" - aka if you treat your spirits like shit, they might use Edge to resist summoning. This fails on a number of levels, the most blatant being the use of role playing & "GM's discretion" as mechanical balancing factors.

Here are the changes I have made to balance spirits with great success:
Attributes: The Mental & Physical attributes of a conjured spirit are equal to Force ÷ 2 (round up), plus modifiers (minimum attribute of 1).

Edge: Conjured spirits do not possess an Edge attribute. The controlling magician may use their own Edge on any tests the spirit makes, following all other normal rules for Edge use.

Immunity & Hardened Armor: Immunity grants the critter (not spirit specific) Hardened Armor (or equivalent for armor-less attacks) equal to the creature's Magic attribute vs. the Immunity's type. Normal Weapons means all attacks with non-magical sources, as normal.
Hardened Armor provides a flat reduction to the Damage Value of attacks equal to it's rating. It is still subject to Armor Penetration as normal.




Ware & spellcasters. Unnecessary. Unjustified. The rules are very precise (if sometimes convoluted). Any visual enhancements paid for with Essence can be used for spell targeting. If the effect is based on non-visual means (Ultrasound) or provides a digital overlay (Ultrasound or Radar), it does not work.



Again not on your list, but Stun vs Physical Damage is one of the biggest balancing gripes about Direct Combat spells. The problem is not actually with Direct Combat spells, but with the seperation of Stun & Physical damage tracks making Stun damage almost always superior. I suggest merging the Stun & Physical damage tracks & using a method similar to White Wolf's, described below.


Characters possess a number of boxes on their Condition Monitor equal to 8 + (Body ÷ 2, round up)

Characters possess a number of boxes on their Overflow Monitor equal to their Willpower.

If a character's Condition Monitor is filled with Physical Damage, the character is unconscious & bleeding out (Physical Damage overflow rules).

If a character's Overflow Monitor is filled with Physical Damage, the character is dead.

If a character's Overflow Monitor is filled with Stun damage, the character is unconscious & any additional Stun Damage instead converts an existing point to Physical damage.


Tracking Damage
/ denotes 1 point of Stun damage
X denotes 1 point of Physical damage

Damage is tracked from the upper left to the lower right, with Physical damage being listed before Stun damage.

Any time the character takes damage, it is tracked from the left & "moves" any previously existing damage to the right.


Example:
Ashley has a Body of 5 and Willpower of 4, giving her 11 boxes on her Condition Monitor and 4 on her Overflow Monitor. She has already suffered 2 Physical and 1 Stun damage. Her Condition Monitor is marked as follows:
CODE
|X|X|/|   | | | |

| | | |   | |

| | | |

| | |

She then takes another 5 Physical damage from a gunshot. Her Condition Monitor is updated as follows:
CODE
|X|X|X|   | | | |

|X|X|X|   | |

|X|/| |

| | |

The next time she is attacked, her armor reduces the incoming damage to Stun. She takes 3 Stun damage.
CODE
|X|X|X|   | | | |

|X|X|X|   | |

|X|/|/|

|/|/|

When she is struck next, she takes 4 Physical damage.
CODE
|X|X|X|   |/|/|/|

|X|X|X|   |/|

|X|X|X|

|X|X|

Her Overflow monitor is now filled with Stun damage, rendering her unconscious. Her Condition Monitor is filled with Physical damage, also rendering her unconscious (redundant) and bleeding out.

She then takes another 1 Physical damage, putting her condition monitor at
CODE
|X|X|X|   |X|/|/|

|X|X|X|   |/|/

|X|X|X|

|X|X|

Because the Physical damage pushed 1 stun beyond her Overflow Monitor, it instead converts 1 existing Stun to Physical, as follows
CODE
|X|X|X|   |X|X|/|

|X|X|X|   |/|

|X|X|X|

|X|X|

At this point, anymore Physical damage, or 2 more Stun damage would be enough to kill Ashley.



Effects on Gameplay:
  • Physical Damage (alone): The lethality of Physical damage remains the same; no change.
  • Stun Damage (alone): Stun damage has become less dangerous by itself, and is now strictly worse than Physical damage. Any 'reductions in cost' for something using Stun damage (such as the Drain reduction for spells) is now justified, & incapacitating someone without killing them is more difficult.
  • Physical & Stun Damage (combined): Because the damage now effectively stacks, taking a combination of Physical & Stun damage is now much more harmful than it was previously.


Overall, lethality is increased slightly, but is balanced by the greater resilience armor provides by reducing incoming damage to Stun. Little or no net change.
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Jan 2 2011, 03:48 AM) *
If you really think Manipulation's size is a problem (instead of just a peculiarity), split it up into two or more new categories instead of banning nice spells just to prune Manipulation.

Just wanted to comment on this.

I am currently constructing a high fantasy game system, and the spellcasting aspect uses 5 "Orders" of magic with a layout similar to Shadowrun's. The key differences are in Evocation (combat magic) including a little bit more, such as all elemental effects & raw magical manipulation (dispel magic & such), and with Enchantment (Illusion) and Alteration (Manipulation) being divided a bit differently; Enchantment includes all forms of mental manipulation & effects that alter what is perceived (mental illusions), while Alteration has effects that alter what is being seen (physical illusions).

A similar division of effects in Shadowrun would be remarkably easy, & is something I have seriously considered doing but just never quite got around to.

Edit:
Simply move all Mental Manipulation spells to Illusion, and move all Physical Illusion spells to Manipulation. Any spell with an Elemental Effect (or possibly Environmental) is moved to Combat. Mana Static & similar could also be moved to Combat, if desired.

The only real problem with this is fluff - the category names don't quite fit what is now included in those categories.
Draco18s
Note about spirits and Immunity to Normal Weapons and Hardened Armor:

Is a spirit's Magic equal to "half force" like all its Mental and Physical attributes? If so, then no change required. If not, then I suggest that the Immunity is "half the critter's magic" as it provides a flat reduction in damage (as opposed to rolling X dice and getting about a third of them in hits*)

*Eg:
Spirit F6 (current) -> ~2 damage reduction
Spirit F6 (suggested) -> 3 Hardened Armor -> 3 damage reduction
Muspellsheimr
Magic is not reduced. Initially, I cut Magic in half as well (with Immunity & Hardened Armor functioning as explained above), but that proved to be stupidly underpowered & was quickly changed.

Keep in mind that while the Hardened Armor is a flat reduction, it is [i]also/i] still affected by Armor Penetration. Without reasonable protection, even moderate to high Force spirits would be nothing more than cannon fodder. My alterations significantly weaken spirits, while keeping them as a viable & powerful tactic.
Draco18s
The problem, though, is when you get Normal Armor stacking with Hardened Armor.* Which is effected by AP first?

What about AP -half?

Alternatively, what if Hardened Armor provided half its rating in direct damage reduction? That would allow the 6 -> 3 conversion, but retain some power against AP (6 - 2 = 4 -> 2 vs. 6 -> 3 - 2 = 1).

*Drake with Mystic Armor (adept power) or the Armor spell. Spirits with the Armor spell. Cybersams being granted ItnW by a Spirit with Endowment.
Muspellsheimr
The "Average" result of a test is 1 Hit per 3 dice. However, because the chance of rolling more than 1 Hit per 3 dice is greater than the chance of rolling less than 1 Hit per 3 dice, the "Expected" result is much closer to 1 Hit per 2 dice (It is a ~45% chance of 1 Hit or more per 3 dice, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately I lost the excel probability calculator I had set up in the last reformat so I can't currently give an exact chance).

As such, 1 Hit per 2 Dice is the basis of all my related changes.

What this means in terms of Immunity to X and Hardened Armor. The expected total damage reduction remains the same. Armor penetration becomes moderately more effective. Higher end extremes are significantly reduced ( DV>12 attack to bypass Magic 12, 12 point damage reduction vs DV>24 attack to bypass Magic 12, ~12 point damage reduction).

Overall it generates a more consistent effect that functions better within the system's rules, & weakens Immunity on the high end.



As for Armor Penetration vs. Armor and Hardened Armor, it follows all the normal rules for such cases. If I remember correctly, these "normal" rules are nonexistent outside of -half effects (all forms of armor are halved), so I would suggest applying Armor Penetration to "worn" armor first, "natural" armor second. In case of "Normal" & "Hardened" armor overlap, just be consistent on which applies first & it doesn't really matter. Personally I would apply Hardened armor first, so final order would look like this:
1st: External Hardened Armor
2nd: External Normal Armor
3rd: Natural Hardened Armor
4th: Natural Normal Armor


Edit:
Cleared a typo regarding Hit chance.

Edit:
Just ran some binomial probability calculations. At lower levels, the chance of getting at least 1/3 Hits is 60% to 75% chance, while the chance of getting at least 1/2 Hits is about 30%. These numbers both drop slowly as the total dice pool increases, meaning that at higher levels, my changes increase the power of Hardened Armor, assuming the attack is strong enough to pass the RAW Hardened Armor.

I think making Hardened Armor better at reducing the DV of an attack at higher values is a fair trade off of increasing the number of attacks capable of doing damage at all.


As I said earlier, I have played with these rules quite a bit. There has not been any problem with them during gameplay, and they are defiantly a significant improvement to the Rules as Written for spirit balance.
Nifft
QUOTE (Irion @ Jan 2 2011, 07:23 AM) *
To start with the cyber arm and touch spells.
Ah, this is a good point.

You're right, this does add complication, which is the opposite of my goal.

I'll edit my initial post.

Thanks, -- N
Nifft
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jan 2 2011, 09:27 AM) *
Just wanted to comment on this.

I am currently constructing a high fantasy game system, and the spellcasting aspect uses 5 "Orders" of magic with a layout similar to Shadowrun's. The key differences are in Evocation (combat magic) including a little bit more, such as all elemental effects & raw magical manipulation (dispel magic & such), and with Enchantment (Illusion) and Alteration (Manipulation) being divided a bit differently; Enchantment includes all forms of mental manipulation & effects that alter what is perceived (mental illusions), while Alteration has effects that alter what is being seen (physical illusions).

A similar division of effects in Shadowrun would be remarkably easy, & is something I have seriously considered doing but just never quite got around to.

Edit:
Simply move all Mental Manipulation spells to Illusion, and move all Physical Illusion spells to Manipulation. Any spell with an Elemental Effect (or possibly Environmental) is moved to Combat. Mana Static & similar could also be moved to Combat, if desired.

The only real problem with this is fluff - the category names don't quite fit what is now included in those categories.
That's pretty much exactly what I did:
- move Influence, Control Emotion / Mob Mood and Alter Memory to Illusion;
- remove Control Thoughts entirely;
- Manipulation retains Control Body.

IMHO Manipulation should be obvious.
You want subtle? You want Illusion.

Cheers, -- N
Draco18s
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jan 2 2011, 11:42 AM) *
As such, 1 Hit per 2 Dice is the basis of all my related changes.


Your entire post just said what I said, only with more math. I was suggesting that if hardened armor was direct damage reduction ("autohits" on damage resistance tests) then the value of the Hardened Armor should be half of the current values (i.e. half Force-of-spirit).

Which is why I asked if a spirit's magic was based on Force, or Half Force, as your change to ItnW made the Hardened Armor value equal to Magic.

You first said it wasn't halved, therefore a force 6 spirit would have 6 hardened armor.

Now you say that the hardened armor is halved (F6 spirit has 3 hardened armor), due to the binomial distribution on hits, etc. etc ("2:1 trade").
Muspellsheimr
No. I was explaining why I didn't halve the Hardened Armor value after the change, with a comparison of Rules as Written with my listed House Rules.

Rules as Written, Force 6 spirit has 12 Hardened Armor. An attack requires a modified DV > 12 to damage the spirit. Spirit has an expected ~6 Hits on the resistance test (~40% chance of 5 or more Hits).

House Rules, Force 6 spirit has 6 Hardened Armor. An attack requires a modified DV > 6 to damage the spirit. Spirit has 6 "Hits" on the resistance test.



With the House Rules, the spirit is significantly easier to damage, & Armor Penetration is more effective than normal. If an attack is capable of damaging the spirit, the Hardened Armor provides a generally superior (by a small margin) damage resistance.
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