Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Naturally limiting magician characters, without it seeming like your picking on them
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
The Jopp
Well, a simple rule of thumb could be this:

1. Ward must be a stationary F X Cubic meters large area or...

2. Can be placed INSIDE a vehicle with a minimum BOD value equal to Force or more. Severe damage to vehicle will most likely destroy ward.

3. Can only be placed in enclosed vehicles (no bikes, drones, hanggliders etc).
_Pax._
For vehicles, you could disallow wards stronger than, say ... Body/4, or even Body/6. So someone's Nightsky limo could have a Ward of up to rating 2 or 3. Enough to secure privacy, NOT enough to stand up to a determined attack. smile.gif
Neraph
QUOTE (_Pax._ @ Apr 27 2012, 08:55 AM) *
For vehicles, you could disallow wards stronger than, say ... Body/4, or even Body/6. So someone's Nightsky limo could have a Ward of up to rating 2 or 3. Enough to secure privacy, NOT enough to stand up to a determined attack. smile.gif

Why? On what basis do you place that? There is no size difference between a R1 Ward or a R10 Ward - they can each be as small as one cubic meter.
Yerameyahu
… He's suggesting a house rule, in which there *is* a size (or size-like) difference between R1 and R10. They both are; it's the whole point. smile.gif RAW is always totally meaningless and crap, except as a baseline. biggrin.gif

Re: the portable 'personal' (non-weapon) wards I mentioned before, the 'need' to restrict this really depends on how you're running your game. If wards are pretty common in the world (and they really should be), then carrying your warded necklace (or even knife/bullet) anywhere is going to be a big pain. At least as much as sustained spells/active foci, but I'd say more. Indeed, if you really were allowing warded bullets (which you can't for various reasons already mentioned), you could only ever carry one anyway.
Neraph
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 27 2012, 09:39 AM) *
smile.gif RAW is always totally meaningless and crap, except as a baseline. biggrin.gif

You can't tell, but right now I'm foaming at the mouth...

EDIT: It took me nearly twenty minutes to track down that comic.
Yerameyahu
Hehe. How about, 'except as a baseline, or for amusing numerical/logical exercises'? The point is, literally no one 'plays RAW'. We play what we understand it to be, and insofar as that matches what we want to play. So, for example, these guys want a game world where wards are somehow size-limited WRT vehicles.
_Pax._
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 27 2012, 10:39 AM) *
… He's suggesting a house rule, in which there *is* a size (or size-like) difference between R1 and R10. They both are; it's the whole point. smile.gif RAW is always totally meaningless and crap, except as a baseline. biggrin.gif

This. And, rather it's a "the stronger the ward you want, the more substantial the anchor or defining space needs to be" sort of idea. A way to allow wards-inside-moving-vehicles, but limit them so they don't get out of hand. smile.gif
Neraph
Backround Count limits wards nicely. In the same vein, Mana Static.

Or hell, the 'Star K-E magical department jumping all over you for collapsing wards everywhere you go.
Yerameyahu
I agree, and I mentioned that. It depends a lot on how much the GM is actually using wards, BGC, etc.

But, one might still want a rule that specifically (and clearly) limits wards to geographic locations and large (however defined) vehicles. Clear rules that reflect the world people want are how you avoid not just shenanigans, but also the thought of shenanigans, attempted shenanigans, fights over attempted shenanigans, and old grudges about fights over attempted shenanigans. … Shenanigans. wink.gif
Mordinvan
My understand is wards were always some kind of 3d geometric shape, and each of the corners of that shape needed to be 'anchored' to a object which was not going to move relative to the ward in question. Thus one couldn't set up a ward unless there were a minimum of 4 objects a minimum of 1 meter apart to act as anchors for it. Thus things like bullets, and arrows could not serve as the anchor points as they are seldom more then 1 meter wide in all 3 dimensions.
_Pax._
That's not really supported by the rules, though Modinvan. It's an interesting idea for house rules, mind.
Yerameyahu
Yeah, and I don't think he's alone in that 'misconception' (there was a longish thread about it not too long ago). I say the rules are at fault. wink.gif
pbangarth
That sounds familiar. Was the four point anchoring in earlier SR?
Mordinvan
Ya, looks to be the way my brain interpreted what I read, as what I read, both in SR4A and Street Magic, does not appear to make a whole lot of sense.
DMiller
QUOTE (Mordinvan @ Apr 28 2012, 07:01 AM) *
My understand is wards were always some kind of 3d geometric shape, and each of the corners of that shape needed to be 'anchored' to a object which was not going to move relative to the ward in question. Thus one couldn't set up a ward unless there were a minimum of 4 objects a minimum of 1 meter apart to act as anchors for it. Thus things like bullets, and arrows could not serve as the anchor points as they are seldom more then 1 meter wide in all 3 dimensions.

This.

I would have to say that 4 anchoring points would be the absolute minimum as that would provide a pyramid shaped ward; 6 anchoring points would provide a rectangle and so forth. I realize that RAW doesn't state this, however after reading the descriptions of wards (through all versions of SR (from SR1 through 4A)) I would say that that is RAI. Of course I could be dead wrong on this and I'm sure someone will be kind enough to tell me so. smile.gif

It would be nice to see a bit more detail on this from the writers, but we know that will not happen. frown.gif

-D
Neraph
What do you need more detail on? You have the primary anchor, which, if moved/destroyed, collapses the ward, and the ward exists. You can be out in the Salt Flats, find a pedestal with a rock crystal on it, and that rock crystal is the anchor for a 5 cubic meter F10 ward in the shape of a pentagon.
Yerameyahu
You can, under the RAW… probably. That doesn't make it a satisfying or robust system. If the rules really wanted to say, 'a ward can be anywhere, is fully locked to its anchor (and no other points/objects!), takes one of various simple convex shapes, and the anchor can't move (period)', they could have said that.

Instead, we have this weird mess that describes planes of the ward coexisting with walls, and things like 'the anchor can't move relative to the ward', leading to the whole *recurring* 'are vehicle wards okay? what about swords, or belts?' question. … That's what more detail you need.
Neraph
I really don't see the problem. You could have a sword-ward, but the second that 1 meter cube ward gets into contact with the Gaiasphere it'd collapse (as no ward of any strength [metahuman made] could collapse the gaiasphere). In combat it'd be like hitting spirits with a crate, not a sword.

In short, it's more trouble than it's worth.
Yerameyahu
I didn't say it was a balance issue. smile.gif It's a clean, detailed rules issue.

Though, I bet people are lining up to hit spirits with a (weightless, magic) crate.
_Pax._
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 28 2012, 11:54 AM) *
You can, under the RAW… probably. That doesn't make it a satisfying or robust system.

However, it does match some real-world "magical" traditions. Inscribe a circle on the ground, doe the right things, say the right words, and poof (supposedly): magical ward, tied to that circle. In SR4 terms, anchored to the ground/floor probably, with the physical circle merely serving to delineate the extend of said ward.
Yerameyahu
Yup. So? That's not related to my point at all. If anything, the specific problem is the current ward rules are too lax (and/or vague), so it's to be expected that they can match many real and fictional traditions.

The issue is what wards are 'supposed to be' in the game (at your table). If they're supposed to be arbitrary-shape bubbles around portable single anchors, then you're fine. But it's clear that opinions differ (even among the writers, oops), and some people would want to have additional restrictions beyond that: geographic, multi-anchor, limits on what is 'portable', etc.
Draco18s
QUOTE (_Pax._ @ Apr 28 2012, 12:47 PM) *
However, it does match some real-world "magical" traditions. Inscribe a circle on the ground, doe the right things, say the right words, and poof (supposedly): magical ward, tied to that circle. In SR4 terms, anchored to the ground/floor probably, with the physical circle merely serving to delineate the extend of said ward.


I'd like to kindly point out that a circle in the ground would be very much the description of "multiple corner anchors" and less the "tied to a central point."

Why?

Because of the damn circle in the ground: that's an EDGE. Rub out any of the circle (moving its points) and it collapses.
Lantzer
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Apr 27 2012, 03:26 PM) *
I think I preferred Dumpshock sans images. :/

It seems clear that wards are not intended to be placed on projectiles, or even things typically considered 'portable'. On the other hand, the RAW has some problematic contradictions that require you to either allow such things, or significantly rewrite. smile.gif There is no good answer. What you really have to do is decide exactly what kind(s) of wards you want in your game, and declare it. Magic is arbitrary enough to support whatever you say is true.

Given that, I can certainly see why you might want actual portable wards (as opposed to BS magic bullets) just as a fluff element: it makes sense (in one possible world) for someone to carry a magic warding talisman that protects their person. On the other hand, it makes just as much sense for wards to be possible only on 'permanent' (geographic locations, ignoring tides/skyscraper-bending/etc.), or only on those + large vehicles, and so on. In these cases, personal magic protection depends on your other options: mostly counterspelling, and a good offense.

Luckily, this will all be answered in an upcoming sourcebook! ;D



On the Ward-based weaponry - The Atral plane is based on intent, not physics:

There is no reason for a ward embedded in a moving bullet, or baseball bat, or car to hurt a spirit, Simply because the spirit doesn't need to enter the ward. People tend to mix the astral plane up with the real world. In the astral, there is no mass, momentum, or kinetic energy. Just because you swing a ward at a spirit, it doesn't mean the spirit is forced to cross the ward. it'll just flow around the outside. Wards are astral objects whose entire intent is to keep things on one side or the other. The spirit is probably quite happy with that. A spirit only crosses a ward if it wants to.

Lets not get wards mixed up with weapon foci - objects with an astral presense devoted to hurting things.

Dual natured critters may not be so lucky in avoiding wards, but considering that any reasonable mobile ward will have physical boundaries, you are already hitting them with that car. The ward will likely break down due to anchor issues if Mr. Shapeshifter busts up the car enough to actually cross the ward in an impact.
Yerameyahu
That is an interpretation, certainly, of 'astral physics'. I don't care either way, and wasn't suggesting one.

However, spirits are frequently dual-natured, so you'd want to bear that in mind. I'm not sure most people would want their theoretical ward-weapons for fighting astral spirits… the only people who'd want to (non-mages/mysads) can't see them. A suppose a spirit could manifest and *then* get shot while astral. biggrin.gif

The problem is exactly that there *isn't* much in the rules to force a ward to have physical boundaries, vehicle or not.
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