Which is valid, but generally does not care about things such as believability and Verisimilitude. I prefer Believability. You can be Professional and have the appropriate skills, and STILL be part of a team. All I said was that your character better be believable. If it is not, then back to the drawing board you go. There are not a lot of players that need to go back to the drawing board with me. Why? Because I assist in developing the character they have in mind.

If a character has a magic attribute of 2, their magical ability is very weak and easily countered, which means they will have to rely heavily on their mundane skills to solve most problems which means that they are not being played as a magician. I'm not saying a GM should not allow a low magic character on occasion(though 1 player role playing a weak character ruins the role play of the other characters who wouldn't be caught dead running with those people), just that those type of characters are kinda irrelevant to any discussion about game rules and power levels.

I understand the debates for why people think direct combat spells are overpowered, I used to try to nerf them too, but significant play time and testing have proven that unless you're facing mecha troll in milspec armor, guns will be more effective.

I can see giving an extra body or willpower test to reduce damage on a direct spell.

But I severely disagree w/ using any attribute except willpower to resist spells. Intuition already has enough uses, spell resistance shouldn't be one of them.


Another problem I see with this whole mess is everyone forgets about visibility mods and cover (which apply to spellcasting and defense against spellcasting). So 2 attributes against one... which gets defensive bonuses and casting penalties. Also it's a complex action... while only a simple action to fire a gun. So while each gunshot has twice as many tests (and effectively 3 things reducing damage... armor, body, & reaction)... people shoot twice as often.


If direct spells are a problem... I suggest just using the basic optional rule in SR4a. Any net hits used to increase damage increase the drain by +1 each. Someone taking 4 drain off a force 11 stunbolt is going to feel it. 4 drain is enough to not reliably soak it often.

I also strongly agree w/ returning to the original SR4 rule on counterspelling indirect spells. SR4a applying it to the reaction/dodge test is much too effective. It was a lot better when it just gave some extra dice to soak the damage afterwards. Does anyone know why this rule was changed at all?!

That is untrue. Skills of 0 indicate someone with so little training that they cannot be called professional at the task. I disagree that to be professional, the skill level has to be Professional. To be a professional the character has to be able to achieve what the professional can do in the course of his work.

Thus a skill of 1 and an Attribute of 5 will match the abilities of an average Professional. Min-maxing (minimising weakness and maximising strengths) should produce characters that fit the fluff because the weaknesses will be minimised.

There are various subsets of shadowrunners, shadowrunners do not do it all. As long as the primary skill/s in which they ply their trade is at a Professional or higher rating, then the fluff would indeed fit the stats.

Why is such a character unbelievable? Fluff should be enforced, but it cannot and should not be enforced rigidly if there can be a plausible in-game explanation for it. Must every Spec Ops Team Member have Etiquette/Negotiation/Hacking at 3? If I am told to go back to the drawing board, I will come back with the exact same character because I do not really see anything that breaks verisimilitude, much less 6 ways to Sunday. He is a shooter, he shoots and loots pretty good. He wasn't there to hack the NSA's database, he wasn't there to talk the hostage taker into surrendering. He was there to do the takedown. Would he be unable to do so? I do not think so.

I call BS on your entire line of reasoning here. A Magician is not a Magician because he can be easily countered? Really. What Crap. A Magician with a MAgic Attribute of 2 is just a Low-Average Powered Magician. That is all. Are you going to tell me that if you take the Sam's Guns and other weapons away, he is useless because he is easily countered? That he is weak withiout his weapons?

You really should read what you write. You are basically saying that someone who actually plays to concept is a drain on the team. That would be news to the Team my mage runs with. I mean really, how can they stand the charcter that is the Face, The Discrete Infiltrator, The Tracker/Shadower, and the Backup Gun Bunny. Not to mention the very useful spells he often casts for them. I am not even sure why he is even there. He must really be a waste of my time.

Just WOW...

Depends on the concept. As you know, your tables and teams are weird. He only said that a Magic 2 is probably more mundane than mage; this seems like a decent statement. You're the one who said that you'd reject people for daring to specialize (in a perfectly realistic manner).

Someone with a Skill rating of "1" is a "Beginner." Skill rating of "2" is a "Novice." Neither of these terms fits with a Professional. Which is what I mean by Fluff Matters. IF you want to play a Beginner or Novice, have appropriate skills. If you want to play a Professional, have appropriate Skills.

Likewise, There is a difference between matching the number of successes, and having equal skill. Unfortunately, for your argument, the characters do not have the same skill. One has a bit of natural talent, and the other is much more highly trained. The character with the higher Skill, however, has more knowledge of that skill and its applications. Raw Talent will only take you so far, after all. Which is why I argue that Skill Fluff Matters.



Except there are a lot of characters, here on dumpshock, and at tables that I game at, that do not even fit that criteria. Which is what I indicated earlier.

And, How many of those characters have a Skill that is Higher than it should be? How many characters do you see with Skills of 6 or 7? In my opinion, there had better be a hell of a reason to have a 6 or 7 for a Skill (and should be heavily backed up in the character's concept). Even Skills at 5 are often questionable. And yet, GM's just allow it because, well, because the rules say you can do that. My first question for a character like that would be why they are not working with the Corps. Because they sure as hell would have been headhunted with skill ratings in that range.



Having all Etiquette/Negotiation/Hacking Skills at 3? Nope, notice that that was not what I indicated.

As an example. Since you (the prospective Ex-Special Forces Operative, have relevant skills in Automatics and Infiltration, What other skills should you likely have:

Tactics
Leadership
Armorer
Survival
Pistols
Heavy Weapons
Demolitions
Unarmed Combat
Bladed Weapons
Thrown Weapons
Climbing
Swimming
Running
Instruction
Navigation
Tracking
First Aid
Several Knowledge Skills I could likely name off as well, dependant upon Specialty or Interests.

As a Radioman, I also would expect:
Electronic Warfare

Additional Specailty Skills would also Include:
Parachuting
and Diving.

I was in the Marine Corps for 8 Years... Spent Time in the Desert During the Gulf War, and have a fair "level" in all of the above Skills (with the exception of Parachuting and Diving). Many of them would likely fall into the Skill 3 Category, and some of which approach 4's and 5's. And while a Marine Corps Infantryman is better trained than your Average Army Grunt, They are not The SAS, or SEALS. That Spec Ops Character better have most of those skills (Some can slide dependant upon Spec Force), at pretty significant levels if he wants to be a Spec Ops Character. Putting those skills at a 1 JUST WILL NOT CUT IT with me. So, you either alter the character to make it as it should be, or you change your concept. Not that hard of a concept really.

AS for your Inference that a SF guy only needs to Shoot and Loot good, well, you obviously have little expereince with what it takes to be a SF guy. Those kind of people wash out in the first day or two. Which may be where our disconnect is.

These are the criteria that I promote in the games that I run. They are not as onerous as you are making them out to be.

Yes, My characters tend to be a bit more concept driven than those here on Dumpshock. I can agree with that 100%.

No, he said that it was not utilizing the Mage as he was intended to be used, and should not be allowed, because it was rules gaming. And I say BS.

And that was Not what I said Yerameyahu, and you know that.

I said that their character sheets should match their concepts. Completely different thing all together. I have no problem with Specializations. As long as it does not wholly compromise the concept of the character. When it does, well, we start over again.

Ex. Someone who rarely fires a gun, should not have a skill of 4 in Firearms. Someone who is supposed to be a Veteran Console Cowboy should not have a Skill of 1 OR a Logic of 1. I have seen both of these concepts. Not going to happen, at least not in one of my games.

I am sure that I could go on and on... And I am sure that you have seen much the same as I have. Difference is, I tend to not accept a character like that. By the same token, I do not tend to design a character like that either (Which is why you belive that my characters are a bit on the weird side (Heavens, I am not throwing 20+ Dice for anything)).
But you know something? I/We Must be doing something right, because, as I have said before, we rarely have any issues at our table with the rules. That is not something that many Dumpshockers can say, at least as evidenced by the proliferation of the "How do I fix this" topics found here.

He didn't say it shouldn't be allowed. He said this: "I'm not saying a GM should not allow a low magic character on occasion".

Let's not open the Logic-hacking thing again.

All I know is that you said your 'normal team' is 3 mages of varying power (including very high) and a Res 8 technomancer… plus an assassin. Glass houses.

There *is* no difference between one DP 6 and another DP 6. That's the whole point. The fluff says one (illogical thing), and the crunch says another.

The criteria are as onerous as I am making them out to be. The rest of the non-mission critical skills can be 1 or 2 if the associated attribute is high enough or there were tools that aid in the task. You are a professional shadowrunner, but you do not do it all. You bring to the table a certain skill, therefore you should have professional levels of skill for that skill. Other skills may well be necessary for shadowrunner, but you are not being hired for those skills, so those other skills can be 1 or 2. As to why the character is not being headhunted by the corps? Who is to say that he is not? Does being a shadowrunner preclude working or being headhunted by the corps?

You get dunked into pool with all your gear. You must make it to the other side within a certain time limit (the threshold). You get there in the time limit or you flunk out. It doesn't matter if your technique(skill level) enables you to get there within the test timing or you brute force your way through the water with minimal skill(attribute). Hell, maybe you got lucky. It doesn't matter how if you crossed that line on time, just so you fucking do it. (Does the previous line sound like someone talking? Probably so, because this is exactly how I recall my instructor shouting it to me.)

Although I am ex-military(which I did not bring up until you did), I am not an SF guy and I do not claim to be so. But I do know that at the very heart of it, the soldier's primary mission is to get on the ground and kill the enemy. Anything less is mission failure. I have heard a saying, "Every Marine, a rifleman." They do not say every Marine, a runner or a swimmer or something else or other. Thus at the very base, I expect an ex-Marine to have good Longarms (not Firearms, just Longarms, maybe Automatics if the primary issued weapon is an Assault Rifle). Everything else is secondary. He may be out of training (lower Athletics skill group). He might be able to read a map and use a compass (skill 1), but he forgot the finer points of navigating in triple canopy jungle or survival in the balls-freezing artic (skill 3). The last time he even touched a LAW may be a long time ago, he could probably figure his way around to firing it (skill 1) but he probably won't be able to nail that APC on the move as he would have years ago.

Can you say that as an ex-Marine, your combat skills have not atrophied? I know my skills at arms have. I know ex-commandoes (or ex-PTIs for that matter) that I can outrun. I know ex-ossifers that can't shoot for shit (but their eye-power remain exceptional). Hell, I can honestly tell you I have only a faint idea of how to use that field dressing (which I would say that it is as good as defaulting). The character isn't a Special Ops character. He is an ex-Special Ops character. So I would probably think that at least some skill deterioration is called for unless the backstory can show why those skills have not.

There is no difference in what one DP 6 and another DP 6 can accomplish. How that task is accomplished may well be different and that can be reflected in the fluff; one is more skillful than the other but the other simply has more in-born talent.

Methinks I hit a nerve.

My intent was to say that when someone mentions a magician in the context of shadowrunners, we make a logical assumption that they are referring to a strong, professional magician with good magic who's major contributing factors to the team are their magical abilities. Further, when talking about game balance issues, we typically assume fairly optimized characters who are specialized in their roles. A magic 2 magician has no place in a thread talking about house rules for combat spells, and honestly has no place in most shadowrunner teams.

When your group creates a team, and everyone decides what role they are going to play, and one player says "magician", the other players(and the GM) are going to make a logical assumption that your character is going to be a strong magician who's major contributing factor to the teams abilities is their magic. When you show up next week with a magic 2 mage, for most teams you are going to be letting them down. A magic 2 magician cannot take a grunt out in a single hit, cannot reliably create an illusion or influence someone, and their spirits are easy to take out using small arms fire(heck they have to over summon to get an optional power). In short, they are not fulfilling the role that a team's magician is supposed to fill, and most teams would be better off leaving the liability on the wayside and recruiting a real magician. In short, your not really playing as a magician as a magician is understood to be, and by the rules the GM can nix your character if they believe it would be disruptive to their campaign.(And to pre-counter my counter arguments, playing an under-powered character is disruptive to most campaigns)

Now on the flip side, you could be playing another, mundane, archtype, who also happens to have the magician quality and have some spells to back them up in their role. That way the team and the GM will not have false expectations of what you can do, and it will be known that your magical ability is an accessory to what you do, and not your primary driving force. However, due to the cheap cost of the magician quality, these builds can get rather abusive, and the GM is within their rights by the rules to not allow such a character.

Now suppose you have a team and players who are fine with you playing a magic 2 magician, for whatever reason, then great, play that character, as long as everyone else is having fun. However, that is a really unusual case, and it mystifies me why it was even brought up.

A magic 2 magician is relying on hits from the dice pool to use binary hit/no hit spells, which typically won't be of the combat variety. This build has a place, but it's not in direct combat spells.

And i suggest you come up with pretty much any other possible house rule or use one of those provided in this topic or the previous ones.
Because that rule is really really bad and doesn't really do anything else then encourage the mage to either overcast or multicast(or both) every direct combat spell she uses.

I disagree... They are not onerous. And I never said that you must do it all. I said that your Sheet should (and in my games, must) match your Background. It is not very common here on Dumpshock. I will give a shoutout to Canray here, becasue out of almost everyone else here, the characters I have seeen him detail are well fleshed to background. Of course, There are a few others as well, but it is a rarity in the land of "How can I get the best Dicepools I can get." I often think that everyone gets so caught up in the Massive handful of dice that they can roll that they forget about what is important about the character.



Every Marine a Rifleman. And yes, Every Marine is a Runner or a Swimmer. Itr is practiced, and you must "qualify" each and every year. I did. Expected to have Longarms and or Automatics at the minimum. The unit I was in, we ALL crosstrained on heavy Weapons and Demolitions. Tjose who specialized in ti were obviously Better. Buit Everyone Knew how to do them,. This does not fit the "Begginner" or "Novi e" level of Skill in the book. Yes, Most of them would not move beyond a skill of 3 in those things, but they were proficient. Hell, even the Admin Guys had that training. Evrything else is NOT secondary. If you cannot be stealthy, you kill your team member. If you cannot patch him up on the Fly, you lose that team member. If you cannot navigate, you never make it to the Rendezvous point.

I will agree that IF you come to me with a concept that indicates your skills have atrophied due to lack of use, I allow it, but ALL of those skills better still be on the sheet. And yuour "Combat Skills" better not be 5+. THAT is my complaint. I often see various versions of "Former Military" and yet the Combat Skills are outrageously High, and the support skills are either at a 1 (rare) or non-existant (most of the time). This does not make sense. And this is what I complain about.



Outrunning a Commando is not the issue. Running for 3 hours is. Can you still do that? Can you do that with a 60+ pound combat Load? I know that I cannot, but then, I never could do that comfortably. Though I can Hump a Combat Load all damn day... STILL. Ironically, the only fireamrms skill that has deteriorated is my Pistol Skill, as I do not have an opportunity to use it much, though my skills with other such weapons are still pretty sharp (hunting and all that). I have often complained that the distinction between the Firearms skills are pretty nebulous. There is a huge amount of overlap between Longarms, Automatics, and even Heavy Weapons (Machine Guns anyways) technique wise. But that is the division they chose to go with. So I won't touch on that much. And yes, my expertise with Rockets and Missiles may also be lacking a tad bit, as it has been awhile. However, because of that intensive training I received (and the sheer number of such weapons that I have fired over the years), it would only take a coupole of rounds of either to regain competance (Just like riding a bike, you know). Same with Pistols. Keeping in mind that I would not have allocated more than 3-4 Skill levels to either to start with (My Firearms Groupd would be split, and all would have specialtied), assuming I was looking at a character sheet of myself. Anything that is mostly knowledge based I tend to not forget all that much. So strictly technical skills (like Armorer, Demolitions or First Aid) I would say that there has been litttle to no degradation of ability, though some of the new technologies in Demolitions may give me a moment of pause. But honestly, the only things that change in that field are generally the materials used (technique rarely changes), and it is still easy to come by the good old standby's (Dynamite, TNT, C4), so I do not see a huge re-learning curve there.

I don't know, maybe I am different. ALL the things I learned in the Corps, I still have a good, working knowledge of. Maybe that has to do with the way I learn things, I do not know. Suffice it to say that, having learned manyof these things to the level that I do not even think actively about most of them, they have become almost innate.

Simple example: I have been often told that I am somewhat creepy in social situations, mostly because of the way I move and interact. Most, if not all, of that is because of my military training. Simple things, like always checking lines of sight, maneuvering to optimal placement within a group, or even a room, keeping an eye on those who are deemed "questionable," eyes constantly on the move, noticinng the little things that most people completely ignore. It creeps people out, and it is something that I do not do consciously. I would give myself the Negative Quality - Nasty Vibe because of this. The ways in which I interact constantly puts people on Edge. I have heard this for many, many years. It is an incredibly difficult thing to suppress, because it has been hammered into me so thoroughly I do not even think about it. The only people who are comfortable aropund me are other Marines, or Military personnel who have been in active combat. Most would call it strange. I would not.

I am still amazed that people are discussing this. What is so criminal (or wrong, for a less volatile term) about making the character adhere to their concept? It is a standard that Most of the GM's I have gamed with follow. It was how I was introduced into the gaming world. It often amazes me that not all of you do this.

Indeed... This is exactly it. Accomplshment and Skill are not the same thing.

How arrogant. First, I do not assume that we are immediately talking about an optimized Magician when a Magicial character is mentioned. I assume that we are talking about an individual who has an actual place in the game world. The fact that the AVERAGE magician (across the board) has a Magical Attribute of 3 apparently makes no difference to you.

Secondly, why, exactly, does a Magic 2 character have no place in a thread talking about House Rules for Combat Spells? And Why does he have no place in a Shadowrunning Team? The first is extremely relevant to prove that Direct Damage Spells are NOT overpowered in the least. It is simply a perception that does not bear up. The second is so subjective that I am amazed that you even brought it up. The FACT that is occurs in games I play in refutes completely your assumption. And in fact, the Magic 2 Character is far more valuable of a character due to the sheer versatility that he brings over the Combat Spells that the others bring. If he wants to cause Damage, He is going to use a Weapon, not spells.



Wrong. No Assumptions are, or should be, made. When we create a team, we talk about what we want to do. then we do it. The team knows exactly what they will be getting. The Magic 2 character IS a strong magician. Just not an overly optimized monstrosity that has no real place in the world. Magic 2 can reliably do everything that you indicated above. It takes some planning and forethought, but it can be done. If you think that it cannot, then you do not put enough thought into your characters. Let me ask you thins. If you were playing a Mage with a Low Magic, whether he started out that way, or ended up on the path to Burnout, what would you do to make yourself useful? That is the connundrum of the Low MAgic MAge. It is not all that hard to solve, actually, but it is something that takes some thought. Subtlety is your friend when you have a Low Magic Rating. You will never pull of the flashy magic that the High magic Combat Mages do, and that is okay. Want a combat mage that will let everyone know where he is, get that Magic 6 Mage. Want a Mage that is forced to be innovative because his Magic Rating is a little lower? Well, there are plenty of them out there. There are FAR more mages with a Magic Attribute of 2-3 than there are with a Magic of 5-6. The Magic 2 character will be force to find alternatives to directly attacking something, and you know what? It works. The Magic 2 character will likely not leave carnage in his wake. And you know what? That is good. A MAgic 2 character is definitely filling the role of a Mage, as it was meant to be filled. Just not at a world shaking power level, as you claim all of your mages are. Not everyone can be a Mage with a 5 or 6 in MAgic Attribute.

Your argument about Spirits is even weaker. You can take out a Force 6 Spirit with Small Arms quite easily, so whjy is a Force 2-3 Spirit a problem?

You really do not get Magic if you believe that anything under Magic attrribute of 5 is useless.
As for Underpowered. The character I play has MORE options than any other character in the game, for solving problems. So, he cannot incinerate a Tank where it stands with a simple wave of his hands. Big deal. Can that Combat mage be Subtle? I have yet to see it. The biggest problem with Magic that I can see is that when you play a High Magic Attribute Mage, you want to use that High Magic Attribute. They choose the big spells, Why? So they can solve everything with Big Explosions, and Big Effects. The argument that any Background Count shuts down a Low Magic MAge is false, it just forces them to compensate in some other way. Can a High Magic Mage do the same? Of course he can, but that is not the point.



This is the epitome of what you are complaining about. A mage who is not fulfilling the role of the Mage. You cannot have it both ways here. And I can guarantee you this. My GM and My Team have no False Impressions of what My Mage character can do. And the Mage I play is a Mage in all its Glory. He just does not have a High Magic Rating. A high Magic Rating is not a Requirement to play a Mage. Your opinion notwithstanding. It is sheer arrogance to claim otherwise.



It was brought up to counter the arrogant assumptions that you must have a High Magic to Play a Magician Character \"Correctly,\" as was earlier stated (by you, if I remember correctly).

Except accomplishment and skill *are* the exact same thing in SR4. That was my whole point when I first mentioned this. I said, 'hey, isn't it funny that these are the same thing in SR4, like we've talked about many times?'. Facrissake. All this whining about 'arrogance' this and 'playing wrong' that, and we can't even agree on this obvious and basic point?

This. My group is currently using the house rule that drain = (F/2) + mod + number of hits target gets on resist test
While it doesn't change how powerful direct combat spells are, it does put a bit more risk into casting it. We haven't had a lot of testing with it and I'm worried about the first time the group faces a high willpowered + counterspelled NPC could equal in an unconscious mage real quick like.

No, they aren't, or they would not have a metric for what each skill level represents. The fact that such a thing exists indicates that they are NOT the same. As Toturi pointed out. There is a vast difference between someone who is an Expert in their field, and someone who just has a lot of natural talent.

I will agree that there is a disconnect between the two, because the vast majority of players are in it for the Honking big Dice pool, and could care less about what everything actually represents.

And it is not whining, is is discussion.

I like to do 2 basic rules for fixing magic combat spells.

1) no multi-casting.
2) When over casting, drain goes from F/2 to F

Tymaeus, I have the opposite problem.

I feel that the DicePool system does not represent the skill fluff properly. It's is very irritating to me that the difference between an expert, and the best in the field, is an average of 1 hit. (or 3 dice) Which can easily be overcome with the right use of augments.

Exactly. The fluff table is wrong, as I said. The dice reflect the actual reality, because they determine who wins and/or what you can do.

sabs, do you find that anyone overcasts then?

Actually yes, people overcast in dire situations, and usually they spend edge on the drain

I don't know, from what i have seen it's pretty common on characters that are actually ment to be played, instead of being a dicepool exercise.

I will admit that I have not caught all of the character exercises, so I might have missed ones that are actual, playable characters. It remains, though, that I have no problems with characters whose story matches their stats.

I think the question is purely whether you can or can't. No one but a masochist can run for 3 hours with a 60+ pound combat load comfortably, and that's only due to their definition of comfort.

Shadowrunners are not average, next point.



Because unoptimized don't break the game system. Optimized characters are the ones who test out game balance. If your magic 2 mage being over powered in your team, that's their problem, not the game rules.

Furthermore, don't put words into my mouth. I allready explained why a magic 2 magician should be cautiously allowed on a team at best, but I never said they should never be allowed, just that a GM has the right to ban them should they believe it would be disruptive, for one reason or another.

If your magic 5 character is far more valuable than a magic 5 character, either the rest of your parties characters suck, or you're playing a twink build just using the absurdly cheap magician positive quality to give you a boost without making the sacrifices a magician character is supposed to make for their power.



Funny, I never mentioned your group, and honestly this entire paragraph is borderline irrelevant. I understand how to make strong magician characters with a low magic rating, it's not hard, but those characters are not good because they are magicians, but because they have mundane skills, also they have some tricks they barely paid for. I don't know what your obsession with "average" characters, but I assure you most people who post in threads about game rules and optimization are not talking about an average mage, they are talking about serious magician who hs focused heavily on their magical abilities. Also, you seem to think for some reason the only reason to have a high magic is combat spells. The last combat mage I played used his stunbolt spell once every 3 or 4 sessions, and he was a grade 2 initiate with a 6 magic. When I needed someone dead, I shot them...or summoned a fire spirit.



Getting past 12 hardened armor isn't easy, it either takes heavy guns, special ammo, or special forces level skill. Shadowrunners often have this, Lone Star and rent a cops usually don't, at least not before reinforcements arrive. A Colt America, on the other hand, gets through a force 2's armor easy using normal rounds, two shots and the thing is gone, even from a gangbanger with 3 agility and 2 pistols. I'm sorry, but if you think I have a weak argument saying that low force spirits are not strong in combat when compared to high force spirits, you need to take a math class.



Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Lookup a strawman argument on Wikipedia, I'll wait.

You done?

I never said magic less than 5 is useless, I did however say that a character who is a magician character is going to be someone who's primary contributing factor to their team is their magical abilities. A mage 2 mage has some cool useful tricks, but a strong character magic 2 does not make. Your character is then relying on their mundane skills to fulfill their party roles, which means they are not a magician archtype, they are a guy who is good with a gun, who can also cast spells. A high magic doesn't just make your combat spells better, I have mentioned time and time again, even in this thread, magic SUCKS at killing people, even with a high magic score. Guns are more effective, cheaper, less likely to draw attention, and don't cause damage to you when you use them. However a force 5 air spirit providing concealment, or a force 5 trid phantasm spell, that kinda stuff is useful.

I think this is the problem here - you're trying to apply "classes" to SR. "I'm the mage! Ok, I'm the fighter!" A magic 2 char won't be as powerful as a magic 5 char in magic, but so what? That magic 2 char will have put points into other areas, and will be better than the magic 5 char in those other areas. So what if they're not a better "mage"? There are no "mages" in SR, just like there aren't any "fighters", "clerics", "thieves", etc. This isn't WOW.

Doesn't your group have special rules for spirits above force 4, because you think anything above force 4 is too powerful? Your argument here seems a little disingenuous...

How exactly are you doing 13 DV with a pistol easily?

Maybe it's a Super Warhawk with APDS and expert skill. I wouldn't call that 'quite easily', I'd call it 'in some cases'.

yeah, but that Spirit has 12 dodge dice.

Yeah, 'expert'. And naturally it's all customized to fire 8-round bursts or something.

Why do you need to do 13 DV with a pistol.

Well, that's a stupid question in general. Why *wouldn't* you? But specifically, they're talking about killing a Force 6 spirit with a pistol 'quite easily'.

Well, use of edge will bring your effective hit rate up to a little over 50%, so only 14 dice on a DV 6 pistol should net you an expected value of 6 DV + 7 hits = 13 DV

As far as doing 13 damage w/ a pistol in a single combat round... easy. I take two of the BF pistols in arsenal (narrow burst). Each one does 7P-1 (-5 w/ APDS), in order to hit I need one net hit... 8 damage (no drain on that extra hit!), there now target is soaking at least 8P damage twice (single action per shot... w/ option to 'multi-cast' by firing both pistols at once and splitting pool). Alternatively... core book... 2 revolvers... 6P ap-2 each base... again apds... that's min 7P damage each.

If you're managing more than 1 net hit you should be in the 16-18 damage range... after soak you shoul be down about 12-14 w/ all that armor penetration. (body 4 w/ an armor jacket say).






I suggest you look up some of my prior posts. There's a world of difference between trying to fix something and nerf it into oblivion as most of the anti-mage crowd are out to do to direct combat spells.

And no, there isn't a problem w/ overcasting or multi-casting. In either case the drain is increased by a substantial amount... (the trick is pushing them into and over the 3-4 drain mark... because that's when normal sized soak pools become unreliable). In order to reliably knock someone out w/ the extra drain for success rule, you need to multi-cast 2 spells at the same guy at force 7... w/ half give or take of the original pool (remember penalties get doubled and applied each pool separately.) If overcast at fore 11... (enough generally for a knockout... you're soaking 4 drain on a stunbolt.. more for other spells... and two force 7's are going to hammer you with two 3 drain tests (each aditional spell adds +1 drain to all spells).



As far as overcasting... you'll find I've long advocated an extra half point of drain for each point by which a spell is overcast. (mathematically the same but easier to figure on the fly. equivalent to 1 drain for each point by which a spell is overcast).

You'll also find I advocate being more likely to use edge when oversummoning, and also to only give spirits ranks in skills equal to half force instead of force. I also like the idea of using 'banishing' as counterspelling against critter powers.

Why does everyone have so much difficulty with mages? Just do what we've always done. Get the village together and burn it at the stake.

Non-witches should be safe from burning since they aren't made of wood.

If they try to counter by turning you into a newt... Don't worry, you'll get better.

For that you just load you pistol with S&S, as long as you hit you do damage to that spirit.

If you did the same about my posts on these topics, you would notice that i'm not in any way part of the anti-mage crowd your talking about, i just happen to agree with the fact that if direct combat spells need a nerf, then almost any other house rule would be better then that optional rule.(my first try would be to just swap around the drain modifiers of indirect and direct spells)

I have been known to make it so when overcasting if you resist all the drain you still take 1 stun damage, as a kinda way of ensuring you always take something for overcasting.

Falconer, narrow bursts don't beat ITNW. That's the whole point. They're talking about spirits. 13 DV is more than 8 DV + 8 DV.

Mäx, SnS goes without saying.

You obviously missed the APDS and AP-5 on the attack. The narrow burst heavy pistol is good enough for a force 5 w/ one net hit. For higher forces you'd want to mod the gun to be able to do wide bursts. (less reaction means more damage to compare against hardened totals). But you'd need 3 net hits or a called shot for damage. (if you can reliably generate 3 net hits... then the narrow is still better for damage as it's +2 assured damage... though wide is still better for 'insurance').

The revolvers can punch through a force 6 using APDS w/ just one net hit, base damage 6, ap -6... +1 net hit...

So no, my math is perfectly valid.



SnS is another broken item... I liked the house rule which just makes it match the damage code of the base pistol... (IE: light pistol SnS... 4S half... so bigger rounds carry a bigger shock).

Only the Super Warhawk, not all revolvers. Add in the (weird) Hi-Power Rounds from WAR and you have a truely scary handcannon.
Only if you restrict it at the upper end as well. SnS form a Barret with this houserule would be ridiculously powerful.

Burst fire doesn't help overcome armor, so it's not strictly neccesary. Stick and Shock rounds are cheaper and have a lower availability, unlikely your average goon will have them, but good for runners to carry around.

This exactly is the reason why i have never understood people who advocate the "S&S has the same damage code as the base weapon" house rule as a fix to S&S, becouse IMO that rule actually makes S&S totally and absolutely broken and the best ammo choice for every weapon in every situation.

SNS Ammo is cheap and easily available, Force 6 Spirits fall like Flies, according to DUmpshockers... You done?



You DID say that it was breaking the spirit, if not the Letter, of the Quality to have a Low Magic Attribute Magician. At which point, that equates to Useless. WHo cares how the Low Magic Character does what they do, they are still useful to the team. Your argumanet that their magic is not what allows them to carry the day is quite laughable. Seems to work for my character quite well. No one said that High Magic Mages (and the things they can bring to bear) were not useful, you said that Low Magic Mages were not. After all, A Magic Attribut of 2 still allows for Force 4 Spells when necessary.

Anyways...

No, no special rules. The Spirits spend Edge. It is a Canon Rule. Applied at a certain threshold (Force 4) unless the player's character takes effort to appease the spirits.

Use SnS (I know it has already been stated)... Quite Easy (This was the point I was making). There are a lot of Topics here on DS that complain about that very thing.

Forgive me for implying that you or your group would use a house rule

I meant to say, that your group considers anything force 4 and above really powerful, so powerful that certain rules get applied to them and not to lower force spirits. And then to see you argue that force 6 spirits are easily taken out by small arms fire, well, seemed as I said, disingenuous. I'm objecting to this mostly because I agree with your point of view in this thread.