Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR5 magic
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Seerow
QUOTE (Starmage21 @ Jun 19 2013, 08:52 PM) *
Because Slippery Slope. Shadowrunners do not commonly carry tank cannons about, or even have access to them. However, shadowrunners DO quite commonly carry a shotgun or an assault rifle at minimum when expecting combat. The ONLY advantage of a pistol is concealability, otherwise one of the standard rules of gunfighting stands: "If you can choose what kind of gun to bring to a fight, bring a long gun. If possible, bring a friend with a long gun."


Frankly I would consider a direct spell to be equivalent to a holdout pistol. You want to compare to a larger gun, or grenades, or other such, then you compare to elemental manipulations which are still heavy hitters.

Fact is, Direct Spells were overpowered because they were incredibly hard to resist for the vast majority of people. Toning them down by reducing base damage was a good move, and the people complaining about it remind me of toddlers crying as their favorite toy gets taken away.
Starmage21
QUOTE (Seerow @ Jun 19 2013, 04:02 PM) *
Frankly I would consider a direct spell to be equivalent to a holdout pistol. You want to compare to a larger gun, or grenades, or other such, then you compare to elemental manipulations which are still heavy hitters.

Fact is, Direct Spells were overpowered because they were incredibly hard to resist for the vast majority of people. Toning them down by reducing base damage was a good move, and the people complaining about it remind me of toddlers crying as their favorite toy gets taken away.


Such derision is the mark of supreme intelligence, I'm sure.
/sarcasm
Sendaz
QUOTE (Starmage21 @ Jun 19 2013, 04:52 PM) *
Shadowrunners do not commonly carry tank cannons about,

Bull The Ork Decker may have argued that statement once upon a time. biggrin.gif


But yeah, I was fond of shotguns even as a mage or decker as a backup.

Epicedion
QUOTE (Starmage21 @ Jun 19 2013, 04:52 PM) *
Because Slippery Slope. Shadowrunners do not commonly carry tank cannons about, or even have access to them. However, shadowrunners DO quite commonly carry a shotgun or an assault rifle at minimum when expecting combat. The ONLY advantage of a pistol is concealability, otherwise one of the standard rules of gunfighting stands: "If you can choose what kind of gun to bring to a fight, bring a long gun. If possible, bring a friend with a long gun."


And mages don't commonly toss fireballs either, which is why I asked the question: what role should the direct combat spell really have? Should it be a swiss army knife of damage dealing and applicable as the best solution in all situations, or should it be more specifically a sort of light and easy weapon that you use when the fireball is a little too much or too flashy?

The problem in previous editions was that the indirect spells were incredibly difficult to use, had heavy drain, and didn't do nearly as much damage as a decent direct spell. Magic didn't really comport to a power-versus-risk curve, which was why everyone just Stunbolted everything.

The way this is set up, your direct spells are pretty easy, virtually guaranteed to have some effect, and probably won't give you any drain. If you really want to boil someone's brain in their skull you tag them with an overcast lightning bolt. It's your assault rifle rather than your light pistol.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (Starmage21 @ Jun 19 2013, 03:06 PM) *
Such derision is the mark of supreme intelligence, I'm sure.
/sarcasm


This is an example of a post that should not have been made.
It's a personal attack.
It's against the Terms of Service.
There is no other redeeming content or contribution to this discussion.
apple
QUOTE (Seerow @ Jun 19 2013, 04:02 PM) *
Toning them down by reducing base damage was a good move


Direct Damage spells were not "toned down". The devs went from one side of the extreme to the other, from perceived "overpowered-ness" to "me, holdout, I´ll take the assautl rifle"

SYL
Jizmack
Maybe the point of this reduction in combat spell effectiveness is to make magic primarily an ability to alter reality, mind-rape people, mutate things, etc. As oppose to just an alternative method of shooting.
Bigity
That would be just as lame, frankly.
Shinobi Killfist
I think one of the intents was to make it so people would use other spells equally and not just have the go to stun ball. I thnk the direct damage spells beng hold out replacements put them in the area of never pick up never use. The problem is mages aren't in a position ware its the holdout or nothing because that is all they could pack, they still have thier full spell list and needing to take 4ish shots to take someone out when you have more effective options either in spells or gear means it just wont be used. They needed to be weakened but I doubt they are balanced with the other spells.
KarmaInferno
I dunno, my mage was powerbolting plenty of NPCs into oblivion at Origins.

Then again. Well. Powergamer.




-k
Sendaz
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jun 19 2013, 07:53 PM) *
I dunno, my mage was powerbolting plenty of NPCs into oblivion at Origins.

Then again. Well. Powergamer.

-k

Expand on this please?

Loaded up with foci or specializing in combat spells?

Also what sort of targets?
Shinobi Killfist
Well, I can see it 6 magic+6 spell casting hell maybe 7 magic +2 specialization, +2 totem, a focus maybe force 2-3 and you get 20ish dice. It is a pretty maxed out build but 7ish hits 6 damage on average is not bad, though to do that its at least force 7 or 5 drain so you will prbably eating drain.
Starmage21
QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Jun 19 2013, 05:28 PM) *
This is an example of a post that should not have been made.
It's a personal attack.
It's against the Terms of Service.
There is no other redeeming content or contribution to this discussion.


Indeed. I apologize for responding to a troll with a troll. I should not have stooped to such a level.

QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist)
Well, I can see it 6 magic+6 spell casting hell maybe 7 magic +2 specialization, +2 totem, a focus maybe force 2-3 and you get 20ish dice. It is a pretty maxed out build but 7ish hits 6 damage on average is not bad, though to do that its at least force 7 or 5 drain so you will prbably eating drain.


If Mr Gun-Fu Shadowrunner invests similarly into guns, I'd expect that he'd be quite dangerous and only be good with guns, whereas the mage has the added versatility of other known spells. Still, what concerns me is that you have a situation where the mage's combat spells are not considered worthwhile because they arent as dangerous as a medium investment in guns and a medium investment in magic, which is exactly what examples we have. Brick the Troll is an edge case, which is just as bad an example of how magic should work as the tank cannon presented earlier.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 19 2013, 08:38 PM) *
Well, I can see it 6 magic+6 spell casting hell maybe 7 magic +2 specialization, +2 totem, a focus maybe force 2-3 and you get 20ish dice. It is a pretty maxed out build but 7ish hits 6 damage on average is not bad, though to do that its at least force 7 or 5 drain so you will prbably eating drain.

Pretty close.

I also discovered the wonder of Reagents.

Instead of the determining the Limit on a spell by it's Force, using Reagents sets the Limit of a spell to the number of units of Reagent you spend in the casting. Reagents can be purchased at 20 nuyen per unit.

Not something you want to use on every spell, but if you have the cash keeping some on hand at all times is very handy.

Reagents can be used for other magical activities as well, with varying effects.


-k
tasti man LH
Hmm, so reagents now have more uses besides enchanting?

Interesting. Would certainly motivate Awakened characters to do more talislegging for themselves.
Sendaz
QUOTE (tasti man LH @ Jun 19 2013, 10:41 PM) *
Interesting. Would certainly motivate Awakened characters to do more talislegging for themselves.


Given how the dragons are becoming more proactive, taking action themselves or hiring their own teams for reprisals against anyone dealing in talislegging trade for dragon bits this should be interesting.

Me? I am going to be looking for more mineral and botanical based items, or at least non-sapient based if it has to be animal. nyahnyah.gif
DMiller
Just a quick note to keep in mind... The term "reagent" may have been redefined, or at least reused to mean more than one thing (which does happen from time to time).
sk8bcn
QUOTE (Starmage21 @ Jun 20 2013, 05:18 AM) *
Indeed. I apologize for responding to a troll with a troll. I should not have stooped to such a level.



Wow, you totally understood the idea of no personnal attack...
Bull
QUOTE (sk8bcn @ Jun 20 2013, 04:40 AM) *
Wow, you totally understood the idea of no personnal attack...


Shhh. Don't respond to these things. smile.gif
Kyrel
QUOTE (Bigity @ Jun 20 2013, 01:29 AM) *
That would be just as lame, frankly.


That would be a question of the eye of the beholder. To me it would be quite perfect really, because IMO the Mage shouldn't be an easily concealed heavy weapon. Rather the Mage should fulfill some other role in the squad, than simply dealing damage.

And for the record, I'm perfectly on board with stunbolts doing net hits in damage. They were ridiculously overpowered as they were, and the other Direct spells weren't much different. Maybe they've gone overboard with the nerfing, but let's see when we have the full rules. Personally though, I would have just changed the Drain values to equal the Indirect spells (or a bit higher), making both types of damage spells viable, depending on the particular effect you were looking to achieve.
Epicedion
If you're looking to house-rule something that hasn't come out yet, you could make a "Deadlier Spells" variant and add Force/2 to the damage dealt for direct spells.

Or better yet, add the spell's Drain value (but 0 and below = 0) to the damage dealt, so Stunbolts would have to be cast at higher Force than Manabolts to get the benefit. That way a Force 10 overcast would dump something like 7 damage + net hits (and an asston of Physical Drain) out of a manabolt.

EDIT: The second one, adding Drain to damage for direct spells, would sort of mirror SR3's method of picking the Damage Level (light, moderate, serious, deadly) with Drain being set by the damage level of the spell (and Drain TN set by the Force).
Starmage21
QUOTE (Kyrel @ Jun 20 2013, 11:44 AM) *
That would be a question of the eye of the beholder. To me it would be quite perfect really, because IMO the Mage shouldn't be an easily concealed heavy weapon. Rather the Mage should fulfill some other role in the squad, than simply dealing damage.

And for the record, I'm perfectly on board with stunbolts doing net hits in damage. They were ridiculously overpowered as they were, and the other Direct spells weren't much different. Maybe they've gone overboard with the nerfing, but let's see when we have the full rules. Personally though, I would have just changed the Drain values to equal the Indirect spells (or a bit higher), making both types of damage spells viable, depending on the particular effect you were looking to achieve.


As much as there is to discuss about the rules for these particular spells, regardless of any personal opinion, the best thing that can be done is to wait for the playtest result comparisons to intended results. If the developers want combat spells to be pretty much a last resort, then they will be. I'll be bringing a long gun myself.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Starmage21 @ Jun 20 2013, 10:35 AM) *
As much as there is to discuss about the rules for these particular spells, regardless of any personal opinion, the best thing that can be done is to wait for the playtest result comparisons to intended results. If the developers want combat spells to be pretty much a last resort, then they will be. I'll be bringing a long gun myself.


My current Mage uses an Ares Viper Slivergun or Shotgun for his damage output, even in SR4A. Hard to beat.
Bigity
QUOTE (Kyrel @ Jun 20 2013, 10:44 AM) *
That would be a question of the eye of the beholder. To me it would be quite perfect really, because IMO the Mage shouldn't be an easily concealed heavy weapon. Rather the Mage should fulfill some other role in the squad, than simply dealing damage.

And for the record, I'm perfectly on board with stunbolts doing net hits in damage. They were ridiculously overpowered as they were, and the other Direct spells weren't much different. Maybe they've gone overboard with the nerfing, but let's see when we have the full rules. Personally though, I would have just changed the Drain values to equal the Indirect spells (or a bit higher), making both types of damage spells viable, depending on the particular effect you were looking to achieve.


SR is a classless game - or at least enough so you don't need to prevent magicians from being able to kick some butt. But as has been said, only some game time in the new rules will see if its prevented or not.
Kyrel
QUOTE (Bigity @ Jun 21 2013, 05:35 AM) *
SR is a classless game - or at least enough so you don't need to prevent magicians from being able to kick some butt. But as has been said, only some game time in the new rules will see if its prevented or not.


I agree with regards to SR being a classless game, but you still tend to have "specialties" within a given group, i.e. Matrix specialist, even if everyone can have a comlink and some programs and Agents. But anyway, as said elsewhere, let's see how things stack up once we see the full rules.
cryptoknight
QUOTE (apple @ Jun 17 2013, 04:43 PM) *
Yes, maybe, but on the other side we are talking now 2-3 damage for the good/competent PC player. Compared to 8-15 damage for the normal gun (pistol to rifle). Wouldn´t it be the ... better way to improve indirect spells than in effect abolish direct spells (as indirect combat spells were not used in SR1234)? Raise one, destroy the other, because it was too powerful in the previous edition?

Why should now anyone take direct combat spells? What´s their selling point?

SYL



You get to dodge and soak a gunshot.... you get to stand there with Willpower 4 and resist a direct spell.

Give the force back to mages... so long as they don't get to learn dodge or gymnastics and can't wear or cast armor... and it's the same basic concept.

cryptoknight
Did folks forget Accuracy on the pistols in all these examples?

The average accuracy is 5... if the gun is 5P gun... that's a max of 10P for a gunshot +2 perhaps for EX/EX

that's also a max of 5 hits...not net... 5 hits... then target dodges and then resists.

At least that's how I read the new BBB
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (cryptoknight @ Jun 21 2013, 09:53 AM) *
You get to dodge and soak a gunshot.... you get to stand there with Willpower 4 and resist a direct spell.

Give the force back to mages... so long as they don't get to learn dodge or gymnastics and can't wear or cast armor... and it's the same basic concept.


Willpower 4 plus any available Counterspelling, Magic Resistance, Spell Resistance. smile.gif
Mäx
QUOTE (cryptoknight @ Jun 21 2013, 06:14 PM) *
Did folks forget Accuracy on the pistols in all these examples?

The average accuracy is 5... if the gun is 5P gun... that's a max of 10P for a gunshot +2 perhaps for EX/EX

that's also a max of 5 hits...not net... 5 hits... then target dodges and then resists.

At least that's how I read the new BBB

Smartlink raises the accuracy by 2, so that +2 potential damage.
Also even a holdout pistol is 6P and it only goes up from there.
cryptoknight
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jun 21 2013, 10:59 AM) *
Smartlink raises the accuracy by 2, so that +2 potential damage.
Also even a holdout pistol is 6P and it only goes up from there.



ACC 4... so a Smartlinked Holdout pistol stops at 6 hits... you dodge that.. say you get 3... now you soak 9P


The Sniper Rifles seem a bit obscene though. Honestly, they probably would have been better off leaving the gun damage codes at 4a levels
RHat
QUOTE (cryptoknight @ Jun 21 2013, 11:15 AM) *
ACC 4... so a Smartlinked Holdout pistol stops at 6 hits... you dodge that.. say you get 3... now you soak 9P


The Sniper Rifles seem a bit obscene though. Honestly, they probably would have been better off leaving the gun damage codes at 4a levels


Not quite. Basically, how the math works now is that you get hit fewer times, but when you do get hit it's more serious by far - melee is now full Strength to damage, for example, rather than half.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (cryptoknight @ Jun 21 2013, 02:15 PM) *
ACC 4... so a Smartlinked Holdout pistol stops at 6 hits... you dodge that.. say you get 3... now you soak 9P


The Sniper Rifles seem a bit obscene though. Honestly, they probably would have been better off leaving the gun damage codes at 4a levels


Well it seems they went with a flat 50% damage boost, the problem is when you go by %s things that already had a decent base become obscene. Basically since the soak part is roughly 3 dice for 1DV, a 50% DV with 50% armor boost the damage outpases your soak and at a high enough level(grenades, sniper rifles etc) become instant death for non-tank characters. It seems to work at the pistol level, past that and just be glad edge refreshes quicker becaue getting shot b base 11DV and up weapons means you will be using it all the time to live.
Werewindlefr
So, I wrote a small python program that would compare the efficiency of an Ares Alpha, a flamethrower spell and a direct combat spell in terms of odds to hit and damage, in various combinations of body, defense test, armor, attacker dice pool and spell force.

In almost every configuration, the Ares Alpha (fired in short bursts) is appreciably more damaging and has better odds to hit. And I'm using standard ammo here. Sure, recoil's going to kick in on pass 3, but the point remains that combat magic is somewhat weaker than an assault rifle. Things turn around for a maxed out mage with a rating-3 power foci and a natural magic attribute of 7 casting at force 10, but the drain becomes really large.

Direct combat spells are way behind, unless you are facing someone with insane armor or dodge - the definition of 'insane' grows as the force of the spell grows: for a force 4 spell, direct combat spells are not uncommonly better, for force 10 spells they've become useless.
Seerow
QUOTE (Werewindlefr @ Jun 24 2013, 06:11 PM) *
So, I wrote a small python program that would compare the efficiency of an Ares Alpha, a flamethrower spell and a direct combat spell in terms of odds to hit and damage, in various combinations of body, defense test, armor, attacker dice pool and spell force.

In almost every configuration, the Ares Alpha (fired in short bursts) is appreciably more damaging and has better odds to hit. And I'm using standard ammo here. Sure, recoil's going to kick in on pass 3, but the point remains that combat magic is somewhat weaker than an assault rifle. Things turn around for a maxed out mage with a rating-3 power foci and a natural magic attribute of 7 casting at force 10, but the drain becomes really large.

Direct combat spells are way behind, unless you are facing someone with insane armor or dodge - the definition of 'insane' grows as the force of the spell grows: for a force 4 spell, direct combat spells are not uncommonly better, for force 10 spells they've become useless.


Is this also accounting for the elemental secondary effects? ie flamethrower lighting people on fire and dealing extra damage?
Epicedion
Also consider that we're not entirely sure on what some of your expendables like Reagents might do to this, what Fetishes do, and what you can accomplish with Foci and Enchanting.
Werewindlefr
I didn't take elemental effects into account, but I didn't take drain, special ammo, and other features into account. I was just trying to create an accurate hits/limit/damage soak model.

I'm putting the code in spoilers for anyone wanting to tinker with it (warning: it's very raw and I don't often use python, I didn't pay attention to good coding practice)

[ Spoiler ]
Seerow
QUOTE (Werewindlefr @ Jun 24 2013, 06:54 PM) *
I didn't take elemental effects into account, but I didn't take drain, special ammo, and other features into account. I was just trying to create an accurate hits/limit/damage soak model.


I'm just going to throw out there that the elemental effect is going to be a much bigger deal than ammo. If it's anything like SR4, having element fire added basically doubles your damage. Ammo will probably at best be +1 DV.

Failing to account for half the spell is of course going to get you something that is less effective.
Daedelus
If the damage output of a mage is slightly less that the gun bunny isn't that good thing for game balance? I mean the mage can also make the party invisible, levitate them to that second story balcony, Scout the building with impunity, heal any wound taken, and if none of that is useful fall back on his spirits. I fail to see the problem with a damage nerf.
tasti man LH
I think it's more like people are upset that the Combat Mage build suddenly became a lot less attractive.

Granted, a Fireball still has the potential to deal a hell of a lot of damage, even though it's Dodge-able and can be resisted with armor.

And Direct spells are still un-Dodgeable and can bypass armor, so that alone is still kinda awesome.
Daedelus
QUOTE (tasti man LH @ Jun 24 2013, 11:33 AM) *
I think it's more like people are upset that the Combat Mage build suddenly became a lot less attractive.

Granted, a Fireball still has the potential to deal a hell of a lot of damage, even though it's Dodge-able and can be resisted with armor.

And Direct spells are still un-Dodgeable and can bypass armor, so that alone is still kinda awesome.


I think they may be stretching the term "A Lot less attractive" a little bit. They are still effective and dangerous opponents, and will likely still be the primary target due to the other advantages they bring to the table.
Werewindlefr
QUOTE (Seerow @ Jun 24 2013, 03:22 PM) *
I'm just going to throw out there that the elemental effect is going to be a much bigger deal than ammo. If it's anything like SR4, having element fire added basically doubles your damage. Ammo will probably at best be +1 DV.

Failing to account for half the spell is of course going to get you something that is less effective.

An item is set on fire if it fails a armor - spell AP test with a threshold of net hits. Damage is 3P on turn 1, 4P on turn 2, etc., subject to damage resistance. (By the way, turns, not passes!)
It's not negligible, but it's not huge either. Certainly not a 'major effect', and certainly not on the level of APDS/Ex rounds

QUOTE
If the damage output of a mage is slightly less that the gun bunny isn't that good thing for game balance?
I'm not making a comment on game balance, although I will probably houserule away the "only one attack per pass" rule into "only one shot per pass - multiple bullets are handled using bursts", and letting mages recklessly cast themselves into unconsciousness with multiple flamethrowers per turn if they so choose. Drain is large in SR5, and 2 force 6 flamethrowers deal quite limite damage when you take into account that the caster has 6S to resist twice (with 10 dice or less, I would say)

Anyway, I was just exposing some facts about the direct damage values of these attacks, not factoring a great deal of context details (elemental effect, sammies' IPs, drain, etc). I didn't show this to make a statement about what ideal balance is.

Edit: also, summoning is really powerful in SR5, and if you're not scared to face some powerful drain, a force 10 fire spirit isn't that hard to summon at chargen with the right foci and some edge.
Daedelus
QUOTE (Werewindlefr @ Jun 24 2013, 11:43 AM) *
I'm not making a comment on game balance, although I will probably houserule away the "only one attack per pass" rule into "only one shot per pass - multiple bullets are handled using bursts", and letting mages recklessly cast themselves into unconsciousness with multiple flamethrowers per turn if they so choose. Drain is large in SR5, and 2 force 6 flamethrowers deal quite limite damage when you take into account that the caster has 6S to resist twice (with 10 dice or less, I would say)


It seems that the basis of the discussion here revolves around that concept however. So in order to effectively discuss it we need to address it. If it is simply an exercise in math with no judgment attached that is another matter, but there seems to be quite a bit of judgment in the posts.
Werewindlefr
QUOTE (Daedelus @ Jun 24 2013, 03:46 PM) *
It seems that the basis of the discussion here revolves around that concept however. So in order to effectively discuss it we need to address it. If it is simply an exercise in math with no judgment attached that is another matter, but there seems to be quite a bit of judgment in the posts.

There's no judgement in a quick computer simulation. I'm giving the results of these simulations - whether the relatively weaker combat spells are made up for with summoning, utility or anything else is up to everyone to debate and decide.

Then I'm saying separately (that's a personnal judgement, indeed, which is why I separated the statement from my initial one) that I will let mages recklessly spellcast 2 combat spells per pass - but in truth, part of the reason for my wanting that is because I think the "1 attack per pass" thing is gamey and wasn't given any plausible justification, and if a mage can recklessly cast 2 spells, then I won't put arbitrary restrictions as to what kind of spells he can cast.
Shemhazai
I think my next magician build is going to specialize in Increase and Decrease Attribute spells. I could reduce an enemies strength to make their +Armor reduce their Agility and Reaction. I could lower their dice pools, Limits and Initiative scores. Assuming these thing exist, the devs had better make the drain on them really steep. Attributes seem more important now. So the magician could give herself the best initiative possible for PCs, cast early in the combat round and call out who her teammates should focus on first. And since dodge and armor shouldn't be a factor in the resistance of those spells, splitting dice for multiple targets should be no big deal, because who wants a boatload of drain anyway?
Sendaz
QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 24 2013, 03:08 PM) *
And since dodge and armor shouldn't be a factor in the resistance of those spells, splitting dice for multiple targets should be no big deal, because who wants a boatload of drain anyway?

Don't oversplit your pools to much though as its the number of hits that determines how much your decreasing the stat.
Shemhazai
QUOTE (Sendaz @ Jun 24 2013, 04:13 PM) *
Don't oversplit your pools to much though as its the number of hits that determines how much your decreasing the stat.

Yeah, I thought about that. I think I can make a pretty large pool for health spells if I focus on just that.
Daedelus
QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 24 2013, 12:08 PM) *
I think my next magician build is going to specialize in Increase and Decrease Attribute spells. I could reduce an enemies strength to make their +Armor reduce their Agility and Reaction. I could lower their dice pools, Limits and Initiative scores. Assuming these thing exist, the devs had better make the drain on them really steep. Attributes seem more important now. So the magician could give herself the best initiative possible for PCs, cast early in the combat round and call out who her teammates should focus on first. And since dodge and armor shouldn't be a factor in the resistance of those spells, splitting dice for multiple targets should be no big deal, because who wants a boatload of drain anyway?

This has always been a very effective group of spells that was way underutilized IMO. the STR decrease spell got a big buff with the armor stacking rules. Not only do you directly reduce the characters armor on a 1:1 basis but you give a penalty as well.
Mäx
QUOTE (Daedelus @ Jun 24 2013, 10:19 PM) *
This has always been a very effective group of spells that was way underutilized IMO. the STR decrease spell got a big buff with the armor stacking rules. Not only do you directly reduce the characters armor on a 1:1 basis but you give a penalty as well.

They don't lose the armor, they just get a penalty same as if they din't have high enough strength,for the amount of +armor their using, to being with.
Shemhazai
QUOTE (Daedelus @ Jun 24 2013, 04:19 PM) *
This has always been a very effective group of spells that was way underutilized IMO. the STR decrease spell got a big buff with the armor stacking rules. Not only do you directly reduce the characters armor on a 1:1 basis but you give a penalty as well.

It's still not completely clear to me if the armor bonus disappears. That would be icing on the cake, causing many GMs to simply be conservative with the +Armor enemy combatants wear.
Werewindlefr
QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 24 2013, 04:23 PM) *
It's still not completely clear to me if the armor bonus disappears. That would be icing on the cake, causing many GMs to simply be conservative with the +Armor enemy combatants wear.

Bull said you lose part of the benefit of +armor items.

Then again, not many runners carry a ballistic shield arround, so aside from the helmet's +2, I don't see this being such a big deal (even though that rule seems quite silly to me).
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