Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Spellcasting Specialisation question
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
_Pax._
My group's mage - actually, a Pixie Mystic Adept with a pyromaniac bent - asked me why she couldn't specialise her Spellcasting in "Fire" ... and I'm not personally opposed to the idea of it.

I'm wary of possible flaws in balance that might arise from that, though. So ... what do the folks here think of the idea? What problems can be forseen, if I allow spell-chuckers to specialise in an Element, rather than a category of spell?
Tanegar
I've always taken the position that the Specializations listed in the book are examples rather than an exhaustive catalog. I really don't think Spellcasting (Fire) poses any balance problems at all. It's actually narrower than Spellcasting (Combat). Fireball, Shape Fire, Fire Wall... there aren't that many fire spells.
_Pax._
That is definitely my general feeling too - I just want to see of the other fine folks hereabouts can see any potential pitfalls in it.
Xenefungus
It's fine. Plus, it's only 2 dice after all.
UmaroVI
It's definitely weaker than a school specialization; I don't see any problems with allowing it.
Glyph
QUOTE (_Pax._ @ Jul 11 2012, 02:38 PM) *
That is definitely my general feeling too - I just want to see of the other fine folks hereabouts can see any potential pitfalls in it.

It's not that unbalancing with the current list of spells - a few combat and manipulation spells, basically. It would only become unbalancing if the player tried to come up with a bunch of custom "fire"-themed spells for everything - fire scrying, flames of healing, a fire illusion that works similarly to chaotic world, etc. So if your player isn't a munchkin, it should be all right.
Neraph
/agree
Critias
Yup, it certainly sounds like fair game to me.
Makki
Just make sure, beforehand, what kind of spells of his will fall under this category.
The aforementioned are obvious. But what about
Ignite? I say of course.
Hot Potatoe? nah
A custom designed version of Bugs/Swarm that makes you feel like burning? Yes!
...
Lantzer
QUOTE (Makki @ Jul 12 2012, 07:21 AM) *
A custom designed version of Bugs/Swarm that makes you feel like burning? Yes!


I'd disagree with this last one. It's not fire. It's just an illusion. Nothing wrong with the spell, it just doesn't fit the specialization.

I'd expect Spellcasting (Fire) to deal with spells that involve actual fire.
Jeremiah Kraye
Also kind of makes it worth while to create or modify existing spells towards that bent.

Beware the swarm of fire-ants.
Makki
Wait! So what about Napalm? It's only half fire.
Yerameyahu
That counts. It's not half-fire, it's one whole fire, plus one whole water (water, right?). Does anyone else think 'Firewater' spell should be about alcohol?
Jeremiah Kraye
Bloodboil, cook your victim from the inside out?

Melt, turn his cyberware into slag.
Yerameyahu
You can't target sub-parts of a living whole (and if you could, you'd still need LOS; bloody them first, like that Marvel character?).

But those are heat, not 'Fire'?
Jeremiah Kraye
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 12 2012, 02:35 PM) *
You can't target sub-parts of a living whole (and if you could, you'd still need LOS; bloody them first, like that Marvel character?).

But those are heat, not 'Fire'?


I suppose, didn't realize heat was seperated from fire.

As for seperation, it's all fun and games till someone rips someone elses cyberarm off and beats them to death with it.
Yerameyahu
It's magic, so all the categorical distinctions are arbitrary. So 'Fire' might well be separated from heat… or not. smile.gif But you did choose clear examples where there's no 'fire' (flame) at all.

Aha, but that's hard: you attack them and inflict 7+ boxes of damage (I'd require physical), they fail Edge (1), *and* the GM chooses Limb Loss from the Severe Wounds optional rules… and then there's no reason to beat them to death, as the rules stipulate they're bleeding to death already. biggrin.gif
Jeremiah Kraye
True, suppose it all depends on how you want to think about it. Heat is a component of fire, if you think of fire as a domain of magic does heat fall into it? Maybe, just as fear is a sub-component of illusion or emotion.
Yerameyahu
Exactly: it depends. Which is perfect, because that's how Specializations work.
_Pax._
I would say that heat is part of Fire. For one thing, the spell Ignite. For another thing, a "light touch" with fire magic could be used to, say, warm a room. Or defrost a steak, for that matter.

I'm willing to let almost any "do it with fire" slide, if it makes logical sense to me.

The bit earlier about "fire scrying", for example; staring into a fire (typically a candle-flame) is a real-world divination practise. So, I'd allow it without hesitation - and to make it even better, she could get a particular candle-holder as her Fetish. Pop a candle in, light it, and whoosh, Scrying! smile.gif

...

Healing, OTOH, not likely. Oh, I could see her developing a spell called "cauterise" ... do 1 more box of damage, but then stabilise the target (if it's still alive). Threshold equal to 1, plus their number of pre-spell Overflow damage boxes, say. smile.gif Maybe something that gives a bonus to resisting diseases (but does as many boxes of Stun as it gives bonus dice), representing a magically-induced "fever". A bit of creativity, and accepting drawbacks, I would be happy to let fly.

But full-on, regular healing? Nope. smile.gif
Yerameyahu
It's all just opinion at that point, though. Literally anything can 'make logical sense'. So the point is, you have to fully discuss novel specializations with the player beforehand.
VykosDarkSoul
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 12 2012, 09:39 AM) *
and then there's no reason to beat them to death, as the rules stipulate they're bleeding to death already. biggrin.gif


but there is a reason!!!!

Because you can!
nyahnyah.gif
gargaMONK
The only potential issue I see is if all of his spells are fire spells. In theory, you could take Aspected Magic: Fire, a specialization in Fire, and only spells considered "Fire" type, have 2 extra dice for 2BP (or karma after char creation), and 5BP of neg qualities to boot, and you'd ALWAYS get the specialization bonus, and NEVER suffer the aspected penalty.

Barring that, elements seem like a cool way to specialize "outside of the box."
Halinn
You suffer the aspected penalty just by not using the whole toolbox normally available to you.
Neraph
QUOTE (Jeremiah Kraye @ Jul 12 2012, 08:43 AM) *
True, suppose it all depends on how you want to think about it. Heat is a component of fire, if you think of fire as a domain of magic does heat fall into it? Maybe, just as fear is a sub-component of illusion or emotion.

Remember your pyramid.
Krishach
There is a large difference between what fire can cause and what it is. I'd agree with Pax, that anything with "Fire" would satisfy this specialization. As it is a specialization that spans 2 sub-categories of magic (if not more, creatively used), I'd simply disagree with trying to "relate" things to fire without using it.

Heat alone does not require fire. Fire can be used to create heat, for warming a room or defrosting a steak, but I'd require the fire, which brings fire alarms into play, fire extinguishers, consumption of oxygen, etc. If you are using traditional oxygen ignition, then it could do things like clear oxygen from a room, ignite combustibles, and all that jazz. It is also not subtle in the least.

Super-heated air can kill someone easy. It's not easy to see though. There is a Kuldon Sorcery spell in VTM that does this without fire, for example.
Choke can be done with a spell, but again, it's more subtle than a flamethrower burst.

As long as the GM draws a clear line, I don't think this could really be abused. So I'd say go ahead.
Falconer
Pax

The specialization in elemental type isn't a problem. I've even seen it suggested elsewhere. It's even a suggestion for 'aspected magicians' limiting to a single element/spirit type like that. Really it's pretty limited to spells which produce an elemental effect.

All spells which invoke an elemental effect have at least a +2 drain on tacked on before the other mods on the spell crafting chart. So I don't think you'll have too much issue there.

I wouldn't extend the specialization to a spell which maintains temperature in a region though... the farthest I might go is the 'ignite' spell and I'm not sure I'd go that far as it's not an elemental spell.


You'll have far more problems with the player and the character selection. Pixie mystic adept raises immediate red flags for abuse in my head (but not for the specialization). The reason is normal mystic adepts need to pay 1PP for access to the astral plane to clean up their spellcasting activities. Pixies get it for free AND they get the best mental drain stats right out the gate. So it immediately triggers my power-gamer alert flag. If the entire group is power-gamer then probably no problem... if not you run into power mismatch problems.

On a slightly OT note, I heavily suggest not giving the character access to PP for initiations (as a mystic adept) it'll have full access to all the magician and adept metamagics... so there's no shortage (which is the reason for the allowance for adepts in the first place). Similarly, I would take a 5/0 split on such a character as evidence of playing a magician for reduced cost. I've been in 3 games where this was allowed, and in each and every one the mystic adepts advanced far faster than the rest because they had the best access to bargain karma advancements (PP, cyber/bio, or spell).
_Pax._
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jul 13 2012, 12:35 AM) *
Pixie mystic adept raises immediate red flags for abuse in my head (but not for the specialization). The reason is normal mystic adepts need to pay 1PP for access to the astral plane to clean up their spellcasting activities. Pixies get it for free AND they get the best mental drain stats right out the gate. So it immediately triggers my power-gamer alert flag. If the entire group is power-gamer then probably no problem... if not you run into power mismatch problems.

Well, first off, there are several ways to have Astral perception racially (Ghoul or Shifter, for example). Also, the player doesn't know the mechanics of SR well enough to powergame - I've done most of the actual construction of the character, while talking to her about what sort of things each option woudl mean in terms of abilities, actions, weaknesses, and so on.

QUOTE
On a slightly OT note, I heavily suggest not giving the character access to PP for initiations (as a mystic adept) it'll have full access to all the magician and adept metamagics... so there's no shortage (which is the reason for the allowance for adepts in the first place).

I will probably allow it anyway - but I might limit it to "no more bonus PP than your Adept magic rating". And I've already impressed upon her the value of several metamagics, so she's unlikely to divert too many initiations that way anyway.

QUOTE
Similarly, I would take a 5/0 split on such a character as evidence of playing a magician for reduced cost.

She's not 5/0. She's 4 Magician, 2 Adept - and her PP were spent on Reflexes (1), Enhanced Perception 2. Not really powergamey, IMO.

Also, the campaign has a hard Karma limit beyond which the characters will be retired: I'm running the Missions adventures, and the SRM retirement rules will be used: at the end of any given season, if anyone has 150+ karma I'm going to hit the Reset Button, and have everyone make new characters. Probably also strongly encourage people to change up who fills which role on the team.
Xenefungus
Actually, that last Karma Limit rule would have quite a different effect on a lot of tables: People would roleplay worse and fail their jobs intentionally (getting ess karma) just to be able to keep their characters in play longer.
Yerameyahu
Do you really think they would? Does that happen in Missions?
Makki
QUOTE (Xenefungus @ Jul 13 2012, 11:04 AM) *
Actually, that last Karma Limit rule would have quite a different effect on a lot of tables: People would roleplay worse and fail their jobs intentionally (getting ess karma) just to be able to keep their characters in play longer.

Do you really believe that?
On my table there would be a race about who will retire first. He will then send the residual team members holidays pictures of him sitting at a beach with a mojito and a big smile.
Jeremiah Kraye
QUOTE (Makki @ Jul 13 2012, 02:46 PM) *
Do you really believe that?
On my table there would be a race about who will retire first. He will then send the residual team members holidays pictures of him sitting at a beach with a mojito and a big smile.


I was thinking exactly this! and you get to build a new character, you can even do some bull about "Oh I had heard so and so was part of this crew! what happened to him, he was the reason I became a shadowrunner"
Falconer
Sounds like you have it well in hand then Pax. Mostly when I say 'here there be dragons' it's not because every character in that zone is a dragon it's because it's fertile ground for powergaming dragons if you're not careful.

Mostly, I've had far too much interaction with powergamers and wannabe rules lawyers. (Really it's hard when you get people who constantly want to stretch the rules about magic... it's shadowrun not magicrun).

It's something of a truism I've noticed that wargames like battletech, or the absolutely no grey star fleet battles. Are written in such a way that things are distinct with no grey because it's for 2 adversarial players and the rules take the place of the GM. On the other hand, RPG's tend to be much fuzzier because the GM is there to serve as an arbiter and judge.
Midas
Along with most other posters, I think a specialization in "Fire Magic" would be fine. Saying that, like Falconer I would be very leery about allowing the spec to count for fire themed spells outside the indirect combat and manipulation fire magics. Doing that would open up the door to allowing the spec dice for most/all her spells, and that would be BAD.
Neraph
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jul 13 2012, 07:25 PM) *
It's something of a truism I've noticed that wargames like battletech, or the absolutely no grey star fleet battles. Are written in such a way that things are distinct with no grey because it's for 2 adversarial players and the rules take the place of the GM. On the other hand, RPG's tend to be much fuzzier because the GM is there to serve as an arbiter and judge.

You don't know the power of rules lawyering then. There was a time when Space Marine Terminators didn't have Terminator Armor because it wasn't listed in their wargear, despite them having the stats of it. Or any freaking number of other things about Warhammer 40K (ork tanks come to mind also), or Anima. Wherever there are rules, there are loopholes or unintended consequences, and you would be crazy to think otherwise. I can even think of a rule in Go that was probably the result of an unintended consequence of their rules (making an 'eye,' if anyone here plays).
Yerameyahu
That sounds like an error, not a grey area at all.
Neraph
Some are errors, but many are gray areas. The ork tank example is one, as are a few from Anima. I'll have to find the specifics about the tank, but from a prior edition of WH40K you could have an ork custom built wartrakk or whatever that was like 4 feet long so it pivoted from the start of the game so that you could assault your enemy's army on Turn 1, and it was completely legal. In Anima they have similar things about certain abilities that aren't supposed to be used multiple times being able to be used multiple times because of other rules.

My point being, however, that wherever you have a certain number of rules you will have loopholes. I do not know how many rules are required before loopholes start appearing, but it would be fallacious to declare that wargames are without gray-areas or loopholes and RPGs only have them.
Falconer
You fail to see my point... those grey areas aren't intentional in wargames. I won't comment on WH40k because I don't know it. The rules are the arbiter of the game. No GM or judge is typically required.

You're mistaking an editing error... for GM manuever room intentionally written into many RPG's.

Or are you going to try and argue that those kind of mistakes are intentional in WH40K?
Yerameyahu
Loopholes are not grey areas, Neraph. They're *errors*.

It's an interesting thesis that tabletops (things with GMs) have areas that require GM management, while no-GM games don't (perhaps "can't"); whether these grey areas are the result of intentionally leaving wiggle room for the GM, or 'lazy writers' leaving the work to the GM, I can't say. wink.gif
Neraph
I still disagree, primarily because when tabletops have tournaments they have referees. If Falconer's statement were true no referees would be necessary. Not just loopholes but gray areas exist wherever there are rulebooks. Hell, Lego Heroica (which is totally awesome by the way) has gray areas, and their rules fill about three pages roughly the size of a CD lyrics booklet.
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