No, that's not what it says. It says that if a modifier is unidentified then it is a dice pool modifier instead of a threshold modifier. It says nothing about extra dice, as from Edge, Foci, and Specialization, which are not identified as modifiers in their relevant entries, even though every other instance of +/- dice in the book is identified as a modifier or dice pool modifier. They opted not to use that language to describe six foci, specialization, and Edge.



That's not how rules work. If they want the two-firearm rule for dice pool splitting to be generic, then it should be in the Game Concepts section and not specifically tied to two firearms.

I'm going to reiterate here that you're the folks that are trying to say this stuff is RAW so you can keep it in the discussion about Magic. The fact that it isn't in the book should probably deter you slightly.

At Magic 6 it costs 35 karma to get to Magic 7. Instead I could spend 32 karma for an ally spirit which has force 4 and thus adds +4 dice to all my spellcasting and counterspelling pools (plus other nifty abilities). Alternatively I could get a Force 8 spellcasting or summoning foci and really rock out on one category (or Force 4 Power if I didn't already cheese out on that). Upping Magic Attribute is one of the least interesting ways to gain more power as a mage. Yay! I can now 1 shot anyone who is 2-shotted by a gun anyway! Woopie...

And never forget that it only takes 1 initiation to start the quest for immortality.

And yet, I still disagree with you, and have posted relevant sections of the rules that back me up... Apparently, though, that is not enough for you. So.....
Have a great evening...

That's really seriously nitpick rules-lawyering there.

And this is coming from an obsessively min-max hyperoptimizing power-gamer.

If it's not a direct attribute or skill rating boost, it's a Dice Pool Modifier. Period.

To use any other interpretation creates a massive amount of headache as you have to examine the minute wording of every possible item and ability description to see if it's a "Dice Pool Modifier" or not. That's just silly. From a design point of view, that's a horrid idea.

Rules As Intended is kinda important too, especially since we KNOW the Rules As Written in Shadowrun sometimes are really poorly written.



-k

Actually the rules are very consistent in listing things as modifiers and dice pool modifiers. Since people are going out of their way to ignore RAI and rules-lawyer in their pet extra bonuses (even when RAW doesn't support them in the absolute strictest sense), especially in a discussion about Magic being super-powerful already, I think it's relevant to point out the holes in their reading of the far-and-away most abused poor wording in the book.

Psh. The "far-and-away most abused poor wording in the book"? There's tough competition for *that*.

You know what? Fine, all the dice go in, then you split.

So I'm going to multicast a Stunbolt and....A Heal spell.

6 Magic
4 Spellcasting (+2 for Health spells)
3 Spellcasting focus (Health)
2 Spellcasting focus (Combat)
1 Power focus
2 Mentor spirit (Bear)

6 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 20 dice.

So I got 20 dice, I split:

19 dice (Stunbolt)
1 die (Heal)

Compared to the 13 dice I'd have if I just cast the Stunbolt by itself.

Well played, sir. Well played.

I am curious if this would work with our GM. ^^ I didn´t read the whole topic but can you really choose how much dice you use for every action? I always thought you can only split equally (e.g. in half, quarter, etc.)

Your using too many focis there, so thats not a rules legal move, but the following is.
My Norse tradition combat mage with:
Magic 6
Spellcasting(combat) 5(+2)
Spellcasting(combat) focus force 5
Mentor spirit Dark Goddess
Has a bound force 6 Guardian spirit to help in combat

Now she wants to cast Increase Charisma spell she learned to help the teams face. dicepool for this is:
Normally:
Magic 6 + Spellcasting 5 + mentor spirit 2 = 13 dice

With all modifiers added before split when she also casts a force 1 lightning bolt at the wall next to her:
Magic 6 + Spellcasting 5 + mentor spirit 2 + spec 2 + focus 5 + mentor spirit 2 + spirit using aid sorcery 6 + point blank 2 + massive target 2 - the dice used for the ligthning bolt 1
= 6+5+2+2+5+2+6+2+2-1 = 31, holy shit for 1 more drain we way more then doubled the casting pool for the spell.


From page 183 of SR4A the important part bolded by me
"Casting Multiple Spells: In some circumstances, a magician
may seek to cast multiple spells simultaneously (including multiples
of the same spell—for example, targeting two different opponents
with a mana bolt in the same action). Multiple spells may be cast with
the same Complex Action, but to do so the magician must split her
Spellcasting + Magic dice pool between each target. Additionally, the
Drain Value for each of the spells is increased by +1 per additional
spell (Drain Resistance Tests are also handled separately). Multiple
spells are resolved in whatever order the caster desires. The maximum
number of spells a character can cast in a single Complex Action is
equal to her Spellcasting skill, and each spell must be allocated at least
one die."

If I were GMing that table, I'd rule that each spell could only be modified by compatible bonus dice; in the latest examples, I would allow the combat focus dice to affect only the combat spell (and the health focus only on the health spell), and the mentor would only affect spells it would normally modify.

Why should the foci/Specs etc be applied if one spell is the needed category?
(Max is even applying both!)

This I see often in rule discussions people aim only for the most benefitial option possible.

The other possibility would be:

You get a pool of 6+5=11 and are allowed to use it as you please!
And wow, all the problems go away. Strange.


Does not mean I do not see the reasons why to apply afterwards. (But this would then also be true for wounds, vision etc.)

You choose how many Dice to apply to each test.

It is an extreme example to show (prove?) that you split the Dice pool PRIOR to applying modifiers to the spells being cast. Any other method is just flat out ignorant, as the example shows.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Not quite.
It is one possible interpretation how applying modifiers to the dicepool before splitting could look like.

Technically speaking it is an straw man fallacy.

I just find it funny, that most people always go for the most benefitial interpretation. Which in this case is also the one making an argument for your (?) side.

Of course I use the RAI method and only allow the smallest pool to be split (so you can't use a specialization, combat spellcasting focus, mentor spirits, etc, if you're mixing spell types).

But we are of course talking about RAW. Strictly speaking, the system doesn't explicitly tell you how to apply modifiers to Magic dice pool splitting, as it tells you in the combat section for attacking with two weapons. While I can't say that your method is a good one, it does require about the same amount of making stuff up as any other method.

I'm curious about applying multiple foci to one pool, though. I skimmed through the rules and couldn't find any mention of it, for or against. Is there something that disallows this, or is it kosher?

Perhaps, but I would say that there are more people "on my side" of the argument, as you so eloquently put it, than on yours.
And it is not a Straw man Fallacy.

Splitting is detailed in multiple places. For spells, you MUST go through the steps.
Step 3 tells you to splity the pool (Skill + Attribute)
Step 4 indicates that Modifiers now apply.

I don't know. Doing it that way is the same as the Combat method detailed in the Combat section. Why would you argue for different mechanics for the same basic principle? The example that was provided shows the absurdity of doing it the other way.

Anyways...

From the SR4A page 199:
"Regardless of the number of foci a magician may possess, only one focus may add its Force to any single dice pool."

I actually do not see why.

That's a fallacy itself. That it has more supporters doesn't make it necessarily correct.

My entire point, which got left behind about six days ago, is that the rules for these things are ambiguous. In that ambiguity, people have settled on the method that gives them the most extra dice without being completely egregious, as Draco's method went -- rather, they attempted to follow earlier precedent. But earlier precedent doesn't make RAW, and the popular choice here inflates low-drain mana spell multicasts to the point that it partially breaks the usefulness of other systems, including overcasting and banishing.

See my post right above yours.

Actually as my example showed, the "apply modifiers before split" method can give much more extra dice and from sources that make no sense.

Ah, of course. Duh.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Thats what I said.


Oh yes it is exactly the definition. It is an example trying to show how ridiculous the idea of Epicedion is. This is achieved by using assumptions he never made.
This is the definition of a Straw man Fallacy.

The kind of argument in the quote above I do not recall how it is called but there is a nice saying about it:
Shit has to taste good, millions of flys can't be misstaken.

Numbers do not count if it comes to right or wrong. As a matter of fact I mostly am under the imperession that the side with the "numbers" tends to be wrong.
(Looked at it from both sides. And I am not even saying we have a disagreement here at this topic)

This happens often, because the bigger side tends often to just reuse argument used by another "follower" of their position. So a mistake made by one is soon adopted by everyone. If you are the minority you have (in the case of for example a Shadowrun debate) check your rulebook for arguments.
Very funny if both sides are wrong in the beginning. Even if the majority was closer to the truth in the beginning, chances are good that this will switch.

There are zero assumptions made in that example, it purely follows RAW except that it applies all the modifiers for spell casting in to the pool before splitting it.

Alright fine then, show us an example that follows the rules as YOU see them.

Because modifiers before the split get you dice to a spell that you would not normally get (by casting two DIFFERENT spells, which is VALID, the rules only say "casting multiple spells, such as a lightning bolt at two targets").

I used to think that applying Mentor and Specialization bonuses after splitting dice was cheesy and wrong, but I had to change my mind about it. The bonuses might apply to only one spell, so it makes much more sense to apply them after the split.

Likewise, penalties for situation (darkness) might apply to only some targets, so it makes more sense to only apply them to the dice pool for affecting those specific targets.

Honestly, the text in the book is really rather vague. A few chance remarks and the order in which they're made on the same page is very tenuous to build a case from either way. But when I think about it, only applying the modifiers after the split makes good sense to me.

I still think getting the bonuses twice for casting the same spell twice is cheesy and a bit OP, but it makes sense. That's mostly because the bonuses are rather big in comparison to the actual Magic+Spellcasting pool.

@Mäx
1. Assumption: I am allowed to apply the boni of a combat foci for a heal/combat spell. Combat foci apply for combat only spells.
2. Assumption: Same as the first with mentor spirits.


@Draco18s

Foci and Mentor boni do not apply to mixed spell pools is a equally valid interpretation.
They only apply half is a possible interpretation too.
And of course: Foki can not be used at all when multicasting. (The most RAW since modifications are not mentioned)
They are all assumptions.


Only if you go with the assumption to apply both modifiers.
But: If I would apply two different modifiers when casting two different spells I would also have to apply the double modifier when casting a single spell twice.

Example:
Magic 5, Spellcasting 5, Mentor:Dark Goddess.
Your way:
Casting Heal and Stunbolt: 5+5+2+2=14
Casting 2 Stunbolts:5+5+2*2=14.

No modifiers for different spells:
Heal and Stunbolt: 5+5=10
2 Stunbolts: 5+5=12

Modifiers only count half
Heal and Stunbolt= 5+5 +1 +1=12
2 Stunbolts = 5+5+2 =12

No modifiers if multicasting
Heal and Stunbolt:5+5=10
2 Stunbolts: 5+5=10

Those aren't assumptions, thats how the rules work.

Combat spellcasting focus adds dice to the pool when casting a combat spell and i'm casting a combat spell, ergo i add the focis force as a modifier to my ppol.
Same goes for mentor spirit and specializations.

Is it just me or does the idea of letting off a lightning bolt while becoming more Charismatic seem insanely fucking awesome? I think I've finally found a purpose for indirect combat spells -- randomly firing off special effects while doing something totally not related. It'd be like Obi-wan letting off some force lightning while saying "These are not the droids you are looking for." Sweet.

There is no such thing as a "combat/heal" spell. You have a combat spell (foci/mentor spirit applies) and a heal spell (foci/mentor does not). The two are simply being cast at the same time.

I used to think that it was cheesy and wrong to apply modifiers after splitting, because then you could get a bonus twice.

But the alternative makes far, far less sense; that modifiers end up modifying the wrong things.

So I believe that applying modifiers after splitting is correct RAW&RAI, even if it's somewhat unbalanced. That's mainly because the modifiers are so big compared to Magic+Spellcasting.

---

You could impose house rules to handle that. For example, you could rule that the final dice pool for any spell can't be more than twice it's base Magic+Spellcasting dice pool (after splitting). This discourages overspecialization on one particular spell type.

Or, you could lump all the Drain for all the spells together, resisted with only one Drain Resistance test - making it more difficult to swallow.

Most definitely not just you

I would disagree, because some spells can get very high in their drain very quickly (stunbolt is just a good spell to multicast, because you can multicast it about 4 times before the drain actually becomes meaningful: 4S for F5 or less) and summing them together would mean no one would EVER multicast them (say, fireball).

The way I actually play this is:

Magic M
Spellcasting S
Focus F
Specialization P
Mentor Spirit T

A normal dice pool would be generated by M+S+F+P+T, and then altered by situational modifiers -- cover, visibility, etc.

A split dice pool would be done the following way:

Assume the Focus (F) and Specialization (P) and Mentor Spirit (T) are all for combat spells.

For two combat spells:
M+S+F+P+T

For two noncombat spells:
M+S

For a combat spell and a noncombat spell:
M+S


Now things can get tricky: assume the Specialization is for Combat spells, the Focus is for Health spells and the Mentor Spirit is for Illusion.

Here we pick the smallest pool.

For a multicast Combat and Health spell:
The smaller of M+S+P and M+S+F

For Combat, Health, and Illusion:
The smallest of M+S+P, M+S+F, and M+S+T

So if you have Magic 6, Spellcasting 6, Health Spellcasting Focus 3, Mentor Spirit (+2 Illusion), and Specialization (Combat +2), you could...

Cast Fireball and Heal:
M+S+P = 6+6+2 = 14
M+S+F = 6+6+3 = 15
Split 14 dice, then apply modifiers.

Cast Fireball, Heal, and Invisibility:
M+S+P = 6+6+2 = 14
M+S+F = 6+6+3 = 15
M+S+T = 6+6+2 = 14
Split 14 dice, then apply modifiers.

Now let's go a little crazy, and say Magic 6, Spellcasting 6, Combat Focus 4, Health Focus 2, Illusion Focus 3, Mentor Spirit (+2 Illusion), Specialization (Combat +2)

Fireball and Heal:
M+S+P+F = 6+6+2+4 = 18
M+S+F = 6+6+2 = 14
Split 14 dice.

Heal and Invis:
M+S+F = 6+6+2 = 14
M+S+F+T = 6+6+3+2 = 17
Split 14 dice.

All three:
M+S+P+F = 18
M+S+F = 14
M+S+F+T = 17
Split 14 dice.

(on this last one, your method would be to split 12 dice, let's say 4, 4, 4, then add +6 to the first, +2 to the second, and +5 to the third, for 10/6/9, or 25 dice)

You can use all the mechanical dice pool rules in any way you want, but the most useful way to deal with Uncapped Magic attributes in any games is very simple.

Geek the Mage.

It's what the entire world knows to do about any mage.

Go ahead, get your Magic attribute as high as you want. Shadowrun universe always has more dice.

Quoted for Truth. What more need be said?

And how do you recognize the mage?

It's the one casting spells!

Or we could just go "split the Attribute + Skill, add modifiers to appropriate pools." Because that's simpler (oh Occam's Razor) and it works for doing any two skills at the same time. Casting Stunbolt and firing a gun?

Smaller of Agility + Guns and Magic + Spellcasting, split, then add modifiers.

First, my logic is not complicated unless you failed third grade arithmetic.

Second, the simplest solution is not always the best. Occam's razor is for help in determining the correct path to get to equivalent endpoints, not for selecting the better endpoint.

Third, you can't cast a spell and fire a gun on one action. The only two mechanics that are even remotely supported for splitting dice pools are multiple firearms, or multiple spells. There's likewise no "drive a car and shoot a gun" dice pool split. Everything else (other than these two specific split actions) requires individual actions. You're thinking of White Wolf.

Having never played a White Wolf game, no I'm not.
Second, what I just did was find a solution that works for all cases. I don't see why I couldn't drive a car and shoot a gun at the same time.

Side note:



And? That's how it works for shooting different guns.

6 Agl, 4 skill, spec, tacnet 4:

6+4 = 10, split 5/5

5/5 + spec = 7/5

7/5 + tacnet 4 = 11/9 or 18 total dice. Compared to 16 for shooting the one (spec) gun.

Because by the rules of the game you have to spend an action to drive the car and a different action to shoot the gun.

There are no other cases. The only dice pool splitting in the main rules are for firing two firearms, and casting multiple spells. Actually there's room for splitting melee attacks, but it simply says: "The attacker’s dice pool is split between each attack, and each attack is handled separately." This is not very helpful.

As I said earlier, there are no generic mechanics for splitting dice pools. There are certainly no generic rules for combining multiple actions.

Minus the block of text on firing multiple guns, it takes an action to shoot a gun and a different action to shoot another gun, no?

Correct. However, shooting two firearms at once is allowed as a single action by that specific block of text you're talking about.

Where are you going with this? You essentially just said that if were written differently it would say something different.

Actually there is mention of using multiple skills together in the books (Other than shooting or Spellcasting). It references using the smaller of the pools, split, and then adding appropriate modifiers to each split. Not sure exactly where it is currently, as I am not with my Resources.

Oh, oh, oh, by the way.



How do you know that?

No where in the spellcasting section does it mention taking the smallest pool.

Double double post post.

I've run a search on the word "split" (includes "splitting") through the main PDFs. The only game mechanic references for splitting dice pools are the multiple firearm, multiple melee, and multiple spell sections.

There is also an odd Sprite power (Assault) with its own weird half-Pilot-rating + full Complex Form mechanic.

He's making up rules as he goes along.

If your master plan here is to point out that I don't play using bad interpretations of ambiguous rules, you're late to that party.

The first line of the post you quoted:



In the face of ambiguity, I side with my RPG experience and the very helpful document released by the game developers, where they explained the rule as it's intended. You know, for actual games.

Where I have a problem is, in the middle of a discussion about the power level of Magic, we have to drag out the old hat: "something something something why don't you just throw 4 stunbolts at it because it's so easy et cetera and so forth." And then the presumption is that the character is going to be designed to blatantly take advantage of a poorly worded rule whose literal meaning is ambiguous (and incomplete), by squeezing 8 dice out of a 2 point specialization and 16 dice out of a rating 4 spellcasting focus, all on the same action.

Well yes, now magic seems overpowered, if you're going to stipulate that all of your assumptions are true. But they're not RAW.