Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Background Count
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
longbowrocks
BC reduces the magic of awakened characters inside it, and the force of pretty much everything else brought inside it. For spells, it's "any previously cast sustained spells brought inside". I see no mention of immediate spells though. I figure the reduction in magic is counted as plenty for those, so any spells cast within the BC do not have their force reduced. Might we then say the same for any spells cast into the BC from outside of it?
In other words, I'd say spells cast outside a BC are not affected by the BC. Opinions?
DamienKnight
QUOTE (longbowrocks @ Aug 11 2011, 09:36 AM) *
BC reduces the magic of awakened characters inside it, and the force of pretty much everything else brought inside it. For spells, it's "any previously cast sustained spells brought inside". I see no mention of immediate spells though. I figure the reduction in magic is counted as plenty for those, so any spells cast within the BC do not have their force reduced. Might we then say the same for any spells cast into the BC from outside of it?
In other words, I'd say spells cast outside a BC are not affected by the BC. Opinions?

From this wording, spells cast within the background count are not reduced. I guess the penalty is the casters magic rating dropping, forcing them to cast lower force spells. This is a really good point, I had not noticed this before.

A spell cast outside the Background Count INTO (or that passes through) the BC would be reduced in force by the BC. They would be considered pre-existing because they were cast outside the BC, and entered the BC after their creation.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (DamienKnight @ Aug 11 2011, 07:39 AM) *
From this wording, spells cast within the background count are not reduced. I guess the penalty is the casters magic rating dropping, forcing them to cast lower force spells. This is a really good point, I had not noticed this before.

A spell cast outside the Background Count INTO (or that passes through) the BC would be reduced in force by the BC. They would be considered pre-existing because they were cast outside the BC, and entered the BC after their creation.


Actually, Instant Spells (Like Combat Spells) are unaffected by entering the Background Count if cast from outside of it. This is why the Negative Quality Astral Hazing is a Negative Quality. smile.gif
Ascalaphus
There was a thread about this a couple of months past... the writer of the BC rules said that idea was that to cast a spell, you use magic from where you're standing, not the target location. So only the BC (if any) around the caster matter - and Astral Hazing doesn't protect someone from combat spells!
Nath
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Aug 11 2011, 08:31 PM) *
There was a thread about this a couple of months past... the writer of the BC rules said that idea was that to cast a spell, you use magic from where you're standing, not the target location. So only the BC (if any) around the caster matter - and Astral Hazing doesn't protect someone from combat spells!
If the thread you're talking about is Magic in space with Astral Hazing, what Demonseed Elite actually said was something along the line "I intended Background Counts to work that way" and "Astral Hazing rules shouldn't be used at all because they're poorly written".

The problem being, Astral Hazing rules first reads "This astral haze affects all attempts to cast magic on, at, or in the vicinity of the character" and then that its only actual effect is to create a Background Count centered on the character, which by the BC rules as intended should only affect attempt to cast magic from within its area of effect.

Even if it doesn't protect against Combat spells, Astral Hazing remain one big ace in the sleeve when dealing with spirits (among other things, it's one hell of a protection against possession). So I still would not consider it as a flaw (which it wasn't originally, since the flaw text copies the Cybermancy side-effect). But I'm digressing.
Shinobi Killfist
I hate BC in 4e. The TN modifier of previous editions provided smoother game play. I think it is especially stupid given how it works with spirits and adepts.
HunterHerne
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Aug 11 2011, 05:41 PM) *
I hate BC in 4e. The TN modifier of previous editions provided smoother game play. I think it is especially stupid given how it works with spirits and adepts.


I like BC, and use it quite often at lower values (1 and 2), with the occassional 3, and rare 4. But, I've never had anyone trying to abuse Astral Hazing, either.
Mardrax
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Aug 11 2011, 10:41 PM) *
I hate BC in 4e. The TN modifier of previous editions provided smoother game play. I think it is especially stupid given how it works with spirits and adepts.

I mostly think it's a shame most adepts don't really get to benefit from an aspected background count.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Aug 11 2011, 02:04 PM) *
I mostly think it's a shame most adepts don't really get to benefit from an aspected background count.


That is what Aspected Mana Static is for... smile.gif
It would still boost any rolls the Adept makes that includes Magic Rating (which is not that many, admittedly).
HunterHerne
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Aug 11 2011, 06:04 PM) *
I mostly think it's a shame most adepts don't really get to benefit from an aspected background count.


This is true, unfortunitely. Even with my house ruling Natural BC (Background counts that form without directed aid of metahumanity. For this purpose religious sites are concidered directed aid) to be able to be a positive or negetive modifier dependant on the emotional aspect.

For example: An old Growth forest might have a BC of 2, aspected towards entropy (fewer things grow and the old trees slowly die), and stability. Magical abilities that would return an object to a natural state or prevent changes (The Heal spell, Mystic armour adept power) would be able to get a boost, and so would things that reduce the flow of energy (Decrease [Attribute], Rooting Adept Power). Everything else, like Mana Ball, however, would still be reduced. (An adept would still suffer loss of powers, but those that would be enhanced cannot be chosen, and may get more powerful)
Mardrax
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 11 2011, 11:13 PM) *
That is what Aspected Mana Static is for... smile.gif
It would still boost any rolls the Adept makes that includes Magic Rating (which is not that many, admittedly).

This would require a broad interpretation of "Magical skill tests," since Adepts don't actually use the magical skills, just Magic + Power, mostly.
They get the drain resistance dice, at least. Which they need for eehrm... Attribute Boost? To resist a whopping 1 drain. (Because anyone who take more than 1 rank is silly)

Oh well. Pure Adepts tend to get the short end of the stick, anyway.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mardrax @ Aug 11 2011, 03:04 PM) *
This would require a broad interpretation of "Magical skill tests," since Adepts don't actually use the magical skills, just Magic + Power, mostly.
They get the drain resistance dice, at least. Which they need for eehrm... Attribute Boost? To resist a whopping 1 drain. (Because anyone who take more than 1 rank is silly)

Oh well. Pure Adepts tend to get the short end of the stick, anyway.


This is very true indeed... smile.gif
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (HunterHerne @ Aug 11 2011, 04:03 PM) *
I like BC, and use it quite often at lower values (1 and 2), with the occassional 3, and rare 4. But, I've never had anyone trying to abuse Astral Hazing, either.


I like the concept of BC just not the rules on how it is implemented. Quite often having BC of 1 or 2 means you took probably 20% of the phys adds power away from him, other types don't have to deal with this BS. It is also just a pain in the ass to use, I lose 1 point what goes, I lose 2 what goes now, 3 what now? It is mess of a rule system. A simple for these skills you lose 1 die per BC and the drain of magic goes up by 1 per 2 is easier to deal with and doesn't kick adepts an already weak choice in the balls. This also allows low force spirits to exist in the game world. Watchers where do they exist? I mean a BC of 1 is freaking almost everywhere. I understand that they wanted BC to effect phys adds this time but what they did breaks the game world once you start thinking about it.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Aug 11 2011, 03:46 PM) *
I like the concept of BC just not the rules on how it is implemented. Quite often having BC of 1 or 2 means you took probably 20% of the phys adds power away from him, other types don't have to deal with this BS. It is also just a pain in the ass to use, I lose 1 point what goes, I lose 2 what goes now, 3 what now? It is mess of a rule system. A simple for these skills you lose 1 die per BC and the drain of magic goes up by 1 per 2 is easier to deal with and doesn't kick adepts an already weak choice in the balls. This also allows low force spirits to exist in the game world. Watchers where do they exist? I mean a BC of 1 is freaking almost everywhere. I understand that they wanted BC to effect phys adds this time but what they did breaks the game world once you start thinking about it.


I disagree... It is really not all that difficult to manage at all. And It SHOULD affect the Physad significantly, it does to all other Magically Active creatures.
Irion
It is hard to make good rules for BC...

If you only reduce the hits and the force of spells, spirits do not react to BC as they should.
If you reduce the magic attribute you have the problem with the spells, which are brought out of the BC. (What force are they?)
Mardrax
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 12:55 AM) *
I disagree... It is really not all that difficult to manage at all. And It SHOULD affect the Physad significantly, it does to all other Magically Active creatures.

Well to be honest, a mage in a BC will just keep on spamming overcast stunbolts with impunity. Just two Force per BC count lower.
Until he gets to the point where he's better off just grabbing a pistol.
Glyph
I have to admit that I fall into the camp that prefers the previous rules where adepts (who internalize their magical power) were not affected by background count. Just imagine how much worse it's going to be, figuring out which powers are lost, for all of those sparkly new adepts with Ways.
Mardrax
QUOTE (Glyph @ Aug 12 2011, 04:23 AM) *
I have to admit that I fall into the camp that prefers the previous rules where adepts (who internalize their magical power) were not affected by background count. Just imagine how much worse it's going to be, figuring out which powers are lost, for all of those sparkly new adepts with Ways.

Worse? Why? They just lose more.
ggodo
I think that's what he meant by worse.
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (ggodo @ Aug 12 2011, 09:32 AM) *
I think that's what he meant by worse.


With player choice, it is now smart to pick a few specially non-combat powers which you can lose when entering a BC to do combat. If you then need to talk to someone, leave, come back in, and disable the combat powers nyahnyah.gif:
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 11 2011, 09:58 AM) *
Actually, Instant Spells (Like Combat Spells) are unaffected by entering the Background Count if cast from outside of it. This is why the Negative Quality Astral Hazing is a Negative Quality. smile.gif

Does this mean that a mage with a telescope could cast a Fireball at the moon, even though it's out of the Giasphere where Magic shouldn't exist?

QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 11 2011, 04:13 PM) *
That is what Aspected Mana Static is for... smile.gif

Which is such a thing was erased from the Symphony of Existence. Well, in the English speaking world, anyway.
Doc Byte
The real trouble with BC starts in Astral Space. How does it affect a projecting mage:

1. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of his physical body. (aka extend your time in Astral Space with aspected BC)
2. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of his astral self. (aka enter a BC after being in Astral Space for a couple of hours and die spontaneously)
3. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of both his physical body and his astral self. (aka Ouch!)
Brainpiercing7.62mm
QUOTE (Doc Byte @ Aug 12 2011, 01:06 PM) *
The real trouble with BC starts in Astral Space. How does it affect a projecting mage:

1. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of his physical body. (aka extend your time in Astral Space with aspected BC)
2. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of his astral self. (aka enter a BC after being in Astral Space for a couple of hours and die spontaneously)
3. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of both his physical body and his astral self. (aka Ouch!)


I'm fairly certain it's either 2 or 3, but I can't back that up with anything. Better safe than sorry, anyway smile.gif.
Irion
@Fortinbras
QUOTE
Does this mean that a mage with a telescope could cast a Fireball at the moon, even though it's out of the Giasphere where Magic shouldn't exist?

I do not know about that, because you are able to resist indirect spells with counterspelling (damage resistant test). So there has to be some magic there.
And I am quite sure, that it is magic until it sets other stuff on fire, which is burning with normal fire. (Because if a fireball would not be magic it would blow up in your face, the second you cast it. If we assume it is a ball flying from your position to the designated area. Which is not really stated.)

@Doc Byte
QUOTE
2. Magic is reduced by the BC at the location of his astral self. (aka enter a BC after being in Astral Space for a couple of hours and die spontaneously)

Thats the solution. Thats why it is such a bad Idea to go astral to the SOX. But well, the hole BC is in need of some houseruling it seems.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Aug 12 2011, 03:17 AM) *
Does this mean that a mage with a telescope could cast a Fireball at the moon, even though it's out of the Giasphere where Magic shouldn't exist?


Indeed it does, see previous topics on said theory.

QUOTE
Which is such a thing was erased from the Symphony of Existence. Well, in the English speaking world, anyway.


Well, I have it in my Street Magic Book. It really is not as powerful as most people make it out to be. All it does is Add Dice to the Benefactor, and is treated as a normal BGC for non-Aspectred Personnel. In an area equal to Caster's Magic Rating Radius. It is laughably Easy to avoid.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 07:58 AM) *
Indeed it does, see previous topics on said theory.

I get that thems the rules, but that still makes no sense.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 07:58 AM) *
Well, I have it in my Street Magic Book. It really is not as powerful as most people make it out to be. All it does is Add Dice to the Benefactor, and is treated as a normal BGC for non-Aspectred Personnel. In an area equal to Caster's Magic Rating Radius. It is laughably Easy to avoid.

I have it listed in the appendix of my Street Magic book, but without a description of the actual spell. I think you underestimate the possibilities of the spell.
In any event the thing was erased from Shadowrun so it's lack of existence is as solid in foundation as Magic in space.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Aug 12 2011, 06:59 AM) *
I get that thems the rules, but that still makes no sense.

I have it listed in the appendix of my Street Magic book, but without a description of the actual spell. I think you underestimate the possibilities of the spell.
In any event the thing was erased from Shadowrun so it's lack of existence is as solid in foundation as Magic in space.


If it is in the Book, it has not been erased. The spell creates an ASPECTED versaion of hte normal Mana Static Spell. So, as long as you know what taht means, you do not need any further exposition. I do understand its uses, but it is also very easy to avoid as well. Because of that, it is not as useful as other spells. In fact, it is generally a lot more useful in a static location than in a mobile location where the situation changes moment to moment.

Both Mana Static Spells are great for getting rid of opposition Spirits though. Probably better than Stun Bolt, dependant upon where you place it, though the Drain is a little more hefty.
Fortinbras
Sorry, but no spell description means no spell. Otherwise it's just your assumption.

If we have to accept that spells work in space via telescopes, we have to accept it all.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Aug 12 2011, 07:34 AM) *
Sorry, but no spell description means no spell. Otherwise it's just your assumption.

If we have to accept that spells work in space via telescopes, we have to accept it all.


So... You do not allow custom Spells in your game? Ever? Hmmmmm..... There is just as much description of the spell in there as there is for Swarm, or Physical Double Image, or Mass Agony. We all know what an Aspected Mana Field is (and how it acts, no assumptions involved at all). Do you really need to eat up additional Word count restating it? I don't. There is an entry in the Tables with the relevant information, that is enough for me.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 09:39 AM) *
So... You do not allow custom Spells in your game? Ever? Hmmmmm..... There is just as much description of the spell in there as there is for Swarm, or Physical Double Image, or Mass Agony. We all know what an Aspected Mana Field is (and how it acts, no assumptions involved at all). Do you really need to eat up additional Word count restating it? I don't. There is an entry in the Tables with the relevant information, that is enough for me.

I do, but we're not talking about my game.

Feel free to make up and ignore any rules you see fit. As long as there is an "Explosions in Space" understanding between party members it's five by five.
But if I am to accept that mages can cast fireballs on the moon, because thems the rules, then you must accept that Aspected Mana Static is not a spell in Shadowrun.
It's just a spell it your Shadowrun.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Aug 12 2011, 08:45 AM) *
I do, but we're not talking about my game.

Feel free to make up and ignore any rules you see fit. As long as there is an "Explosions in Space" understanding between party members it's five by five.
But if I am to accept that mages can cast fireballs on the moon, because thems the rules, then you must accept that Aspected Mana Static is not a spell in Shadowrun.
It's just a spell it your Shadowrun.


Hmmmmmmm, that's funny, since it is in my copy of the official Book... Seems like an official spell to me. And I treat it as such.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 10:11 AM) *
Hmmmmmmm, that's funny, since it is in my copy of the official Book... Seems like an official spell to me. And I treat it as such.

An appendix entry does not a spell make. Without a spell description it's just you assuming what the spell does.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ Aug 12 2011, 09:26 AM) *
An appendix entry does not a spell make. Without a spell description it's just you assuming what the spell does.

There is a Spell Description. Look at Mana Static. All Aspected Mana Static does is add an Aspect to the base Spell's Mana Static. No assumptions are necessary at all. Apsected Mana Zones are described in great detail in the book.

Not sure why that is so difficult, but No Worries. wobble.gif
Aku
Who installed pong over my DS forums?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Aku @ Aug 12 2011, 10:38 AM) *
Who installed pong over my DS forums?


Heh... Sorry, had to laugh. smile.gif
Irion
There is a spell description in the german book. *now running*

The spell is overpowered, but hey at least it is a permanent one. So no "I carry my own aspect mana static around with me so I never suffer from BC".
(But I am not sure of that,actually...)
KarmaInferno
Personally, I think that Background Count should be adding either a dice pool modifier or an increased threshold, not reducing ratings directly.

As it is it's a little TOO harsh to be imposing with regularity.

And a pool or threshold modifier scales better, you can use a low count in a lot of places and really ramp it up for particularly bad spots.




-k
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Aug 12 2011, 11:09 AM) *
Personally, I think that Background Count should be adding either a dice pool modifier or an increased threshold, not reducing ratings directly.

As it is it's a little TOO harsh to be imposing with regularity.

And a pool or threshold modifier scales better, you can use a low count in a lot of places and really ramp it up for particularly bad spots.

-k


Interesting Solution... wobble.gif
Irion
If it would be a dice pool modifier only, foci would not deactivate. But I have to say, it would cause less problems...
HunterHerne
QUOTE (Irion @ Aug 12 2011, 03:07 PM) *
If it would be a dice pool modifier only, foci would not deactivate. But I have to say, it would cause less problems...


Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (HunterHerne @ Aug 12 2011, 11:18 AM) *
Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"


For the record: I like Background Count as it is currently. But, it is an interesting idea being discussed. smile.gif
HunterHerne
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 03:25 PM) *
For the record: I like Background Count as it is currently. But, it is an interesting idea being discussed. smile.gif


I agree. I use it regularily. It might be interesting, but not as interesting as BC as is, which is not just a modifier, but something that has a kind of sense of life, to me. YMMV
Ascalaphus
Background Count as-is seems to me to be a fairly straightforward system. Sure, it has a few problems, but on the whole it's easy to understand what it does.

You also don't really need a whole lot of it; 1-2 points make a location pretty edgy.

With more than that it becomes a plot device - that place where you'll have to make do without magic. Which can be interesting now and then.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Aug 12 2011, 12:48 PM) *
Background Count as-is seems to me to be a fairly straightforward system. Sure, it has a few problems, but on the whole it's easy to understand what it does.

You also don't really need a whole lot of it; 1-2 points make a location pretty edgy.

With more than that it becomes a plot device - that place where you'll have to make do without magic. Which can be interesting now and then.


Indeed...
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (HunterHerne @ Aug 12 2011, 02:18 PM) *
Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"



I'm not generally concerned with the harshness except for adepts who already are vastly over costed for their powers. But, I do think it is a bit of a pain in the ass to deal with and also makes very little world sense. BC 1 is really effing common, watchers don't exist in way too many areas, how do kids train/learn they have magic when they can't start off at 1 magic in most places people live, spirits aren't just having a harder time they actually become dumber etc.
Nath
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Aug 12 2011, 11:24 PM) *
BC 1 is really effing common [...] how do kids train/learn they have magic when they can't start off at 1 magic in most places people live
Unless the type of magic Awakened character come to practice always is the one their local Background Count is aspected toward. Afterall, there are few Heka magician born in Redmond Barrens, just like there are few Amerindian shamans in Cairo. Just an idea though (which works better with Domain created by religion, rather than violent murders).
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Nath @ Aug 12 2011, 04:41 PM) *
Unless the type of magic Awakened character come to practice always is the one their local Background Count is aspected toward. Afterall, there are few Heka magician born in Redmond Barrens, just like there are few Amerindian shamans in Cairo. Just an idea though (which works better with Domain created by religion, rather than violent murders).


I'll give you that some traditions might work in BC areas, but whether it is the barrens or a corp enclave a BC of 1-2 is kind of common. Which in most cases would kick your budding magic down to 0 so you'd end up with no mages in most cases. The +X to the TN from previous editions made it harder so mages could kind of train up under harsh conditions. If it was -dice or +threshold budding mages could at least astrally perceive as a way for their magic to come out. And again it doesn't make much sense for spirit X to all of a sudden become dumber, have less will power, less charsima, less intuition, lost skills etc. Now the same spirit losing dice from his powers and actions, taking damage from being in a BC seems more fitting to me. Given how TNs scaled in previous editions I think BC was harder on mages before and I had no problem with that I just think the new BC hurts types who don't need to get hurt and makes less world sense.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (HunterHerne @ Aug 12 2011, 02:18 PM) *
Which I think is the general idea they are going for, since they say it's "too harsh"

Background Count as written works if you want to scare your players, take em down a few notches.

But they don't have much granularity of application. It goes from "okay, that's not too bad" to "OMG we're screwed" extremely fast.

So, if you want to be at all fair, you can't really throw more than 1s or occasionally 2s with regularity. If nothing else, it starts to seem punitive to the magic-based players.

Making it a test penalty gives a lot more gradual slope of difficulty, allowing you to apply the penalties with greater regularity without making it seem like you're out to get the players. You can still ramp the harshness up to extreme levels if you need to, but you now have a lot more steps between "okay, that's not too bad" and "OMG we're screwed".




-k
Neraph
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Aug 12 2011, 12:09 PM) *
Personally, I think that Background Count should be adding either a dice pool modifier or an increased threshold, not reducing ratings directly.

As it is it's a little TOO harsh to be imposing with regularity.

And a pool or threshold modifier scales better, you can use a low count in a lot of places and really ramp it up for particularly bad spots.

I actually like BC just as it is. I guess it may be because I know how to utilize it though - I've Judo'd the mechanics.

EDIT:
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Aug 12 2011, 09:11 PM) *
But they don't have much granularity of application. It goes from "okay, that's not too bad" to "OMG we're screwed" extremely fast.

Absolutely.
longbowrocks
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 12 2011, 07:26 AM) *
If it is in the Book, it has not been erased. The spell creates an ASPECTED versaion of hte normal Mana Static Spell. So, as long as you know what taht means, you do not need any further exposition. I do understand its uses, but it is also very easy to avoid as well. Because of that, it is not as useful as other spells. In fact, it is generally a lot more useful in a static location than in a mobile location where the situation changes moment to moment.

Both Mana Static Spells are great for getting rid of opposition Spirits though. Probably better than Stun Bolt, dependant upon where you place it, though the Drain is a little more hefty.

Don't you remember? Aspected mana static got errata'd out. It's not in the latest copies of street magic. Possibly because the very idea of being able to cast a spell like that is so OP that it would drive everyone and their mother to play riggers with R2 redundant manufacturing on milspec drones.
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