So i started looking into making a power foci for my character i wanted it at R4 but the 100k price tag was a little steep. But now looking at the rules for making one why wouldnt you just by buying hits it would take me 25 days to make this foci and just at the cost of the mats for the telesma.

So why would you buy one instead of making it yourself

Because the rules are not good. The creation should cost more karma. I mean ONE point, no matter how powerful... is just weird.

But you also need to have the shop, and a good gm would need you to have rare and exotic ingredients, or base an "adventure", not really a run, around it.

But yeah if you follow the rules and have the equipment/skills... it is easy to do IF you got the downtime.

A focus.

Researching a focus formula is an Arcana + Magic (Force x Force, 1 day) Extended Test; or you can buy it (10k¥, Avail 32R). And, you're prolly going to be using Diminishing Pool rules for the Extended Test: "Gamemasters may wish to enforce the limit on Extended Tests to preserve game balance." Who invests in Arcana, anyway?

Most people don't invest in the Enchanting skill, which is linked to Magic (so you'll need to be pretty decent at both). The Enchanting Modifiers table is pulling you back by -Force off the bat, so you'll want decent (pricey) telesma/reagents/orich.

25 days is a long time, anyway.

If you have invested in Arcana, it's probably easier to make a focus formula than find one with a 32 Availability. I mean, if I reading this correctly, assume a 1 Arcana and a 6 Magic for 7 dice needing 16 hits for a Rating 4 versus the 32 hits needed on the Negotiation+CHA test-- quicker too, with 1 day per test to make, 2 days per test to find.

It depends on the Extended test rules you're using. As I said, the book suggests the GM bring the pain. Still, 6 Magic isn't nothing.

Don't forget that creating the Focus Formula is a requirement before manufacturing the Focus (unless you just buy the formula). I see you mentioned that already.
And Arcana is not linked to Magic, it is linked to Logic.
Enchanting is linked to Magic.
So 2 Attributes at good levels and 2 skills at good levels. Completely seperate from your casting and summoning skills no less.
Don't forget your reagents and exotic telesma components.

And reducing pools is not your friend here. But is likely to be enforced.

I copied Arcana+Magic from the book. *shrug* Either way.

Yeah couple thousand for reagents for the telesma vs 100k for the foci is worth it and since im not in missions we arent dealing w/ diminishing dice pools

It's not a Missions rule, but it's your GM's funeral if he lets you get away with stuff.

Several weeks (did you remember the formula?) is still not nothing, even assuming you just happen to have all the relevant skills, materials, and luck. Don't forget to find and rent an enchanting shop for the duration, or buy one (50k), and the magical lodge, etc.

And the 1 karma investment is for the making, not for the binding.

This.

@pbangarth
Which kind of sucks, but one karma for 100k of cash is still not a bad deal. And thinking about how very usefull the skills of arcana and enchantment are...

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Was changed as far as I know.
@Yerameyahu

Arcana and enchanting are classic support-skills. Need to keep your head down but you want Spell X? Make it yourself.

Arcana and Enchanting are skills that a lot of mages (esp mages posted on DS) skimp on; allowing those that have invested in those skills to use them to create foci is more than fair enough.

Remember that creating the formula and enchanting the focus take time and materials (a lodge, enchanting shop, materials for the focus), and as Yerameyahu says a good GM will probably require rare and hard to get materials to make a powerful focus.

I'd so love to learn these skills but Logic is a dumpstat for my character. Unless I get my GM to swing the optional rule which allows you to tie that skill to my casting attribute, I'll never invest XP into it.

- J.

We do not often see mages with Logic as the Drain stat. Many a time the drain stat tend to be Charisma. IMO, a Charisma drain caster would be better served by simply buying the foci.

Any caster is better off just buying the focus - investing karma in enchanting and arcana for saving a few bucks on the focus? buying foci, conjuring materials and lifestyle is the only things mages do with money, whereas they need karma for everything else.

@NiL_FisK_Urd
Up to the second you get yourself a Karma for cash rule. At this point saving 100k means (if we would assume 5k per point of Karma) saving 15 Karma. (Assuming you need 20k for raw materials)

But thats just for logic based casters,sure. (Probably having logic 8 to begin with and getting adding a skill of 3-4)
If your logic is around 2, well you better stop thinking about it...

And of course the helpfullness of such skill is very depending on how your GM is handeling things in game.
I am not talking about letting you sell refined materials list price, that would be stupid.
But maybe one of your contact is in desprete need for orichalcum and asks the character. (So you get Karma and maybe some gift for fulfilling this request.)

After trying to calculate out the earnings of one of my NPCs (one of the PCs took Perfect Roommate, so I ended up building an enchanter boyfriend), I ended up just working out about a page's worth of houserules for enchanting. In particular, I reworked the foci enchanting test to "Enchanting a focus is an Enchanting + Magic (8+Karma Bonding Multiplier+Object Resistance, 1 Day) test." and also reworked the modifiers table a bit to suit. Yes, it's a lower threshold for most foci, but I use the diminishing dice pool rule by default, so this makes crafting lower powered foci within the realm of possibility for average enchanters, while reserving the potent, like power foci or monofilament whip weapon foci (), for the skilled.

@bibliophile20
And it leaves out the Force.

Rules to make crafting work:
First: Reduce the prices for refined and radical materials. They are just silly.
Something like that.
"refined"= 1000+1.10*"normal"
"radical"= 2000+1.20*"normal"
Second
Get the limits up for enchanting foci and now Orichalcum should do shit.

Crafting a focus is an Enchanting + Magic (6 + Object
Resistance+karma needed to bind the focus , 1 day)

Now lets take a look at the modifier table(only changes):
Exotic Telesma: +8
(Force) Radical Reagents of one type: +1 per 5k of worth(every reagent only once, add worth before dividing)
Orichalcum, per unit: +8 (with at least one onit, save the one point of Karma, every 4 above the first 1 Point on the binding test)

To build one powerfocus you should at least use one portion of orichalcum.

Example: The avarage talismonger tries to create a focus:
The so much liked powerfocus, force 4.
He takes a Handmade Telesma and uses 1 unit of radical gold and one unit orichalcum.
His dice pool: Attribute(5)+Skill(4)+8(orichalcum)+3(15k for radical gold)-Force=8+11-4=16
Hits needed: 6+ 2(something around wood or metal)+ 32(Karma to bind it)=40
Kosts: 50k(orichalcum)+15k gold
(Lets say he rolls always avarage, round down)
1. Roll: 5 hits
2. Roll: 5 hits
3. Roll: 4 hits
4. Roll: 4 Hits
5. Roll: 4 Hits
6. Roll: 3 Hits (Dicepool 11, hits: 29)
7. Roll: 3 Hits
8: Roll: 3 Hits
9: Roll: 2 Hits
10. Roll: 2 Hits (Dicepool 7, hits 39)
11. Roll: 2 Hits (41 made it)

So our guy could cash around 30k for 11 days of work. Thats quite a good deal. Might want to increase some things...
(There are some tricks to give him a edge though...)

And Orichalcum:
Now takes two of each radical metal and throws out 5 units max not 8.
Allowing a profit here of around 200k. Not 350k.
28 days of work (meaning it is better than enchanting foci, but you won't get the full profit all the time and you need to be quite good to get anything. Might make it a higher threshold or give one unit per two net hits, round up.)

I was under the impression that the default was to "assume that given enough time a competent character will eventually complete a given task," and that the book suggests the GM bring the pain only when "the character can’t finish it with a certain amount of effort" because "she simply doesn’t have the skills to complete it." Why would the "bring the pain" version of the Extended Test rules apply to this situation?

… Cuz it specifically says to, as I quoted? That's what quotes and 'as the book suggests' mean.

Yeah, thanks, I missed the earlier quote, but it only suggests, "GMs may wish to enforce the limit on Extended Tests to preserve game balance," [emphasis mine] and I guess I'm having trouble figuring out why that applies in this situation.

@3278
Very simple:
The reduction of the dicepool should always apply if you need "skill" to complete a task.
It should not apply, if it is only a question of time.

For example:
Urok the Garden Troll is digging a big hole to plant a tree. The bigger the tree the more Urok has to dig. But Urok will be able to plant the tree, the question is WHEN
->Bring the pain does NOT apply

Grolosh the hacker Dwarf wants to write a program raiting 6. As the the program grows more and more complex, the difficulty for Grolosh rises. It is questionable if he will be able to complete it.
->Bring the pain DOES apply.

What have we here? Is it as easy to enchant a force 2 sustaining foci as it is to enchant a force 8 Powerfocus? We do not know, but I would assume so.
This means a enchanting a force 8 powerfocus is not the same as enchanting 4 force 2 powerfoci.
This means, that the "bring the pain rule" applys.

How to easy test if the rule is to be used.
Can you cut down the process in small, repeating steps? The rule does not apply.
For example our troll may just dig out one shovel full of earth. He is repeating this step. The rule does not apply.
Our hacker can't just keep writing the same code over and over again. It would not accomplish anything. So the rule applys.

A questionable case is a mage pressing through earth.
It is a step by step form of application but it adds the problem of getting lost.
So it is not the same to press through 10 times 1m thick walls compared to press through one 1 Meter thick wall.
So you may bring the pain or make some composure test or something like that.

*shrug* That's up to the GM, 3278, but when the OP says, 'are foci really this easy to make?!!', that's a clue that game balance may be involved. If it's too good to be true, it's not true.

Nope. A Mundane can use the Arcana Skill. No Magic is actually required.

That's not the point: for the only relevant roll (focus formula), it's paired with Magic. I apologize for confusing people by calling that 'linking'; I thought it was clear, given that I quoted the exact dice pool and test specification.

See... I disagree with most of this.

TIME is the great equalizer. It takes more time to create that Rating 8 Power Focus than it likely does the multiple rating 2 foci. That is a great equalizer. if you do not have the requisite time, you cannot do the work. Simple as that. Now, I have no horse in this race. I don't have issues with the Foci creation rules, because, frankly, they have yet to be abused in our games (Imagine That).

That being said. If the PC has unlimited time to make whatever he wants, it COULD cause an issue with play balance. I don't know. While he is making his uber-foci of doom over the next month or so, the others are likely earning more money and gaining new things as well. Just because you can make a Rating 8 Focus (for instance) does not mean that you actually have the karma to bond it, and if you do, well, you should be congratulated for your single minded focus on acquiring a powerful Focus. Heh.

Of the various things you said above, this would be the one I'd most agree with. I think this puts it better than the book, honestly, but I also think the diminishing pool cuts out a lot of things that don't involve small, repeating steps, but that do require very long periods of time to do. You might have low skill in building cars, but you could do it: it's not like digging 100 holes,* but given time, you could certainly accomplish the task, even if you only have a 1 or 2 [or even defaulted!] in the skill. Your definition, for all its utility, excludes such situations.


Yeah, but aren't you the guy who pointed out that a month of working eight hours a day isn't exactly "easy?" I don't know: I've never had a problem with game balance, so I'm the wrong guy to ask, but this doesn't seem game-breaking to me, although as you point out, it apparently seemed an issue of concern for the developers.

*I use this and not your "one big hole" because I'm pedantic: digging a big hole is actually disproportionately more difficult than digging a small one.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
In some instances it is just silly. Espacially if you use small steps. Extended (X, hour) or something like that.
Because no matter how few dice you have, you will make it in a week.

@3278

It is kind of, anyway. (Well, now I feel a bit stupid for deleting an "or" I added to the sentance, because I felt it would be to complicated...
"repeating the same step or consisting of a lot of quite independent steps" (Well, I worked on the wording, sounded horrible when I firt wrote it)

The car would be an example for the second. Here it is important to note that you can't build more complicated parts with such a low skill. Such parts would call for the rule again.
(This problem always comes up if the single step (repairing this single part of the car) would call for the rule but you would actually have to do an other test for every test.)
Paint the car, get new seats, repair the lights, get a new engine, get new tires and so on.

Yeah, I really like the way you've framed the difference, Irion: shallow vs. deep tasks.

What do you mean? That someone with a Build Car skill of 1 or 2 couldn't build a working car? Because they most certainly could! It might take a while, but yeah, they do it all the time. People who default do it all the time, in real life.

@3278
I doubt he could invent an engine.
I doubt he would know how to produce the parts for the gearbox.
And so on.

You he put an old car back in shape as long as he does not need to fix the more complicated parts? Yes, but it will take time.

So if you want to simulate to restore a car (I guess thats what you are talking about), you would actually make several small tests for each part you are fixing, with the "bring the pain" rule. (So if one part is too complicated for you, you wont make it)
But since this would be quite a pain in the ass you may just assume that every part can be fixes by you.
So you just want to know how long it takes. So you make one big test WITHOUT THE PAIN.

It is really not that hard, just think of what question you are asking...

Certainly, but since the skill we're talking about isn't "Invent Engine," or, "CNC Operation," I'm not certain how that's applicable. If your point is that, no matter how much time someone has, a person with a low skill could not ever invent an engine, I would absolutely promise you that's not true.


That's exactly right. He can do it, but it'll take time. Not, "He can't do it," which is what the diminishing pool represents with a task like this and a small pool, but, "He can do it, but it'll take time." And that applies to the more complicated parts, too. I mean, the whole thing is a kind of complicated part, to be honest.


Oh, it's probably better if you ask, rather than guess, if I'm not clear about something, which I'm probably often not. In this case, for example, I could spare you the time, because no, I'm not talking about restoring a car, but I think that's a fine example, too. I'm talking about building a car. [From parts; machining is a different thing, but as above, that's also applicable.] If you and I got drunk one night and took my car apart - which we could do with the hand tools in my garage, if you happened to bring magical rust-dissolving ointment - we could put it back together, despite the fact that I would imagine neither you nor I has what anyone would call a "high skill" in building a car.


It's incredibly difficult for me, and I'm thinking quite a bit about the question I'm asking. It's possible that the problem is that I'm extremely stupid, but my perception is that actually, it's a complex issue at the margins, like most judgment calls in roleplaying rules, without a single, simple applicable rule, because if there were one of those, we wouldn't need the judgment call in the first place. But, again, it's also possible I'm very dumb: I've tried smashing my head into things to see if it gets worse, but it's been years now, without any kind of result I can discern, so your guess is probably almost precisely as good as mine.

Way back in the day I was a boy scout (shocking admission, I know ), we took apart one of our leaders' motorbikes and put it back together again for our Mechanic's badge. Without his instruction and watchful eye, I am sure we wouldn't have been able to do so.

So yes, I agree that (relatively) simple tasks like changing out a windscreen, recalibrating the points, replacing the battery etc, with a knowledgesoft the task can be completed without the rule of diminishing DP; but for something complicated like assembling a car from parts (esp where jury-rigging may be required) it is entirely possible for the novice to get completely stuck (rule of diminishing DP).

@3278

How could he? How could he do it, if he is lacking major parts of knowledge.
Yes, he could build some engine...
But this would be around 0.05PS and an efficiency of 0.1%. Nothing you could run a car with.


Why would it. If you lack the knowledge (Skill) to understand the complicated part you won't understand it by looking longer at it. (Unless you start increasing your skill by doing basic research on your own.)


I disagree. It is more about the dicepool. If we have plans and special tools to help us, it might be possible. (Of course we would need to be able to read those plans.)
So yes, generally I would say the rule of diminishing dicepools would apply.

That's a group of children, defaulting, wouldn't you say? Not exactly what the Shadowrun rules are reflecting.

[edit: That's a little flip of me. Let me say, instead: I agree (as below) that getting stuck is definitely a possibility, and the rules should reflect that. But the rules are, in this case, also intended to reflect what would have happened if you'd all had several months or years to reassemble it, not just hours or weeks! Even then, failure should be an option! But so should success. I don't want to make it sound like I think that, given time, anyone will successfully build the Eiffel Tower, just that, given time, anyone might be able to. The diminishing pool prevents this latter possibility.]


Well, that's how invention works, Irion. You do know that there was a day when no engines existed, right? And someone, lacking major parts of knowledge, had to invent one? If that's quite possible, then why is the assembly of an existing engine by a novice not possible? Well, of course, it is: it happens all the time.


Oh, Irion, have faith! You honestly don't think you and I could take apart my car and put it back together without plans and special tools? I mean, pickle forks and pulley removers, sure, but what kind of "special tools" do you think we need!? Anyway, I promise you - I absolutely promise you - that you and I, with our low skills and hand tools, could completely disassemble my car and re-assemble it - correctly! - given nothing but time. I'm not sure what it is that makes you doubt that, but I can assure you it wouldn't really be a problem. Hell, we could probably do the same with your car, and it's probably a lot more complicated than mine.

That's not to say we couldn't get stuck! Lord knows that my tiny Vehicle B/R skill has gotten me stuck once or twice, to where I couldn't proceed without a skill or tool injection!* The rules should certainly reflect the possibility that we won't succeed. But the existing rules for diminishing die pools basically completely eliminate any possibility that a years-long project can ever be completed by someone with a low skill, and that does not accurately reflect reality.

I don't see any other real way of testing the hypothesis, though, beyond you just coming over, having a few too many, and picking up a wrench. I can borrow someone else's car for a couple weeks if you want to give it a go.

*The top bolt on the transmission bellhousing of a BMW 3-series requires a set of extensions almost as long as the car to remove. Frankly, I should have just cut a whole in the sheet metal of the interior. And don't get me started on what it takes to swap the engine on front-wheel-drive Cadillac.

Mostly it is rewiring the electronic components. After that missing something.
The point is, if you have absolutely no idea where something goes, you have to find out by trail and error. Thus you are learning, increasing your skill...

Yeah, wiring a car's not that difficult. If something's given you the impression you couldn't rewire a car, given time, you should set that aside: you have every ability to rewire a car, my help or not. As for missing something, well, that happens rather a lot in my experience. That's a real time-multiplier for me, but it hasn't stopped me yet.


That's a very interesting point, if certainly a new one, and I would tentatively agree, but the rules don't reflect this possibility, either. If you're suggesting some kind of system for improving skills as they're used, I'd be very interested in discussing one, but that wouldn't effect the diminishing pool sufficiently to allow for months- or years-long projects by persons with low skills, would it?

@3278
The Problem is, that those thing are out of the scope of the rules from the start.
The major issue is, that double the time means you can do it with half the dice pool. This is only true for very few things.
The issue with this fixing a car is, that if you have to much tests the loss of dices is just too big.

If we tune it down to 2 or 3 rolls, the differance would be only 3 dice in total.

The problem is, you can't streatch those kinds of test for too long. Or nobody could make them.
This means you can't just say a test can be made once per day. You have to say: To finish something you should have to roll X rolls.

So reassembling your car would be probably only 2-4 rolls.


Ok. Now we are on the same page, I guess.

There are a lot of ways to tune the rolls for large tests featuring multiple steps; one test, a test for each subsystem, whatever. The GM gets to pick. And for my part, I don't care how many rolls there are, so long as the diminishing pool rules don't end up making impossible in the game something that's perfectly possible in real life. The game's always going to be about abstractions and judgment calls, and I don't have any problem with that, so long as they're internally consistent, and so long as they accurately reflect the portions of Shadowrun's settings that overlap with reality.

This. This is the purpose of the rules, and as long as the GM and the players both understand this, and agree on it, then there should be no problems.

@3278

The problem is those two are quite connected.
Make one roll every week for 4 weeks, and the rule does not matter.
Make one roll every day for 4 weeks, and the rule does matter.

The SR dice mechanics for extended tests aren't designed for long-term projects, which is why they don't work for them. For an R&D wage mage doing metaplanar research, how does his Magic and his Skill and the time he is spending on the research affect the outcome? Who the fuck knows? This is ShadowRun not 2070 Research Geek.

The reason that I and others use the diminishing DP rule is to prevent low DP characters plugging away at impossibly hard tasks until they get the requisite number of successes. For less earth-shattering tasks, I am happy not to use this diminishing DP mechanic; with knowledge softs/Data Search, time and trial-and-error a non-mechanic could be able to rewire a car if he so desires. Of course, considering the money he might need to outlay on knowledge softs, purchase or rental of tools and his time, it might be cheaper for a low LOG unskilled character to find a chop shop guy who could do it for them in 48 hours for 1,000 ny ...

Not really, as it takes both people 4 weeks to complete the rolls (Asssuming the rolls went all 4 weeks). Who cares. Is it Time Critical?
If it is not time critical, it does not matter.

I think he's saying that the diminishing DP rule functions differently on those, TJ. The second person *won't* finish in 4 weeks, because he won't finish at all.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

I think we had this before. You got the ruling wrong.
Only time matters: No decreasing dicepool. (Time-critical)
It is questionable if he can do it: Decreasing dicepool.

Actually, if it is time critical (ie, you have 15 Seconds to bypass the Lock), your dice pool should diminish, because you may not have adequate knowledge to complete the process in the time allotted, thus the Diminishing Dice pool. If time is of no consequence, there is no need to have diminishing dicepools, because you can re-focus whenever you need to so as to not loose Dice.

In effect, when it is dramatically appropriate, you should enforce the Diminishing Dice Pool Optional Rule. If it is not dramatic, then why care?

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Not really.
Think of it like that:
For this example I am just fresh out of elementary school.
Now I need to take a math test.
The first test are hundreds of multiplications, sums and everything I did in elementary.

The second is one system of differential equation.

The first thing I will be able to finish at some point. Just a question of time. (My dicepool should not decrease)
The second I won't finish if I am not a genius. (My dicepool should decrease)

Of course the threashold for the second one will be even smaller than for the first one, because for a math professor it will only take 5 minutes to solve the second one, but he will still need 3-4 hours for the first one.

And yet, in Shadowrun, for the second one, I can look up the formulaic solution and apply it with no skill whatsoever, and solve it eventually. I may not understand everything, but I could still get the correct answer. Your argument does not take that into account.

Again, someone had to make up that formula before it ever existed, and did so with no reall applicable skill, because it had yet to be an applicable skill.

It's a metaphor.