Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR5 Preview #5: Magic
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Irion
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 22 2013, 05:28 PM) *
Sure, attack actions can be anything, the question is what is an attack action.(and well it is a magic thread) If I can cast levitate on my friend and then levitate again on my self, why is it now only castable at one target when its an enemy? If I pre set up some explosives to be triggeered by my wireless command(free action?) is that an attack action or can I shoot you in the face while blowing you up. While I get the intent to speed up play, the free action, simple action, complex action thing really worked well in all the previous editions.

Multible attacks are covered on a page not in the preview, so I guess you have to buy the book to find out. In general I would assume, that the "action" will be taken into account not the target. So either spells in general are a no-go or all spells are a go. I would really, really be stupid to allow a combat and a manipulation spell but not two combat spells.
The reasonable approach would probably be to count spells in general as an attack action.
NeoJudas
QUOTE (Daedelus @ Jun 22 2013, 12:52 PM) *
It should be noted that reckless spellcasting is specifically mentioned in the multi-attack free action

Yes, but it is also mentioned specifically because it is taking a single action and dividing the dice functions (to use a previous edition terminology) functions into multiple targets. It is NOT creating a new attack action ... it is dividing the benefits of the one attack action. Please note, I'm not defending this use of terminology or the rule, I'm merely stating the flat terminology. Nothing more or less. I personally feel what I've seen in the Previews leads me to believe that 5th Edition is going to be a nightmare of confused terminologies.
Daedelus
[quote name='binarywraith' date='Jun 22 2013, 09:54 AM' post='1235145']
You should read Preview #4.

There is a Chart.

It is a quarter of a page, with a nice list of actions, and what kind of action they are.

It solves this sort of confusion, and prevents speculation that is baseless.

It is page 162, for those following along at home.


Um yea I saw the chart, but it does not indicate which of these actions are "Attack Actions". This entire discussion is indicative of the need to have it cleared up. If it was clear we would all be discussion something else that was not explained clearly enough.
Seerow
QUOTE (Irion @ Jun 22 2013, 05:22 PM) *
Mhm, if everybody is whining the rules must be good.


Not what I said. What I said is if you have people in one group arguing one set of abilities is overpowered, and the other is underpowered; while a different group is arguing to exact opposite, and neither can actually be demonstrated as false, chances are it's pretty well balanced.


QUOTE
And guys in general: Why is everybody assuming that "attack"-action involves spells. Jesus. Thats maybe a 50% chance, I would even but it lower, because it was not the case in the 4.01.


Given some of the people who were writing for the project have indicated that spells are intended to fall under that catch-all attack rule, it's not a bad assumption to make. Of course the fact that you believe spells do not fall under that rule shows why having such a broad catch-all rather than indicating each action type specifically is a bad idea.
Bull
If it effects an enemy in any way, shape, or form, it's an attack.
Daedelus
Thanks Bull! Is this from the book? I hope it is defined there somewhere. If not you may want to define it in the season 5 document for Missions. I have a feeling it will avoid a lot of headaches for you and other Event Coordinators.
Seerow
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 06:38 PM) *
If it effects an enemy in any way, shape, or form, it's an attack.


So invisibility (enemy has to resist) counts as an attack? Putting up a barrier (affects the enemy's ability to attack you)? Commanding a Spirit? Commanding a Drone?


The rule sounds good in a vacuum when the only things that might possibly affect an enemy are actual attacks, but Shadowrun has a multitude of different things you can do that will affect the enemy indirectly. Such a broad rule is really dumb. Having the broad rule followed by individual actions indicating whether they're affected (ie under the spellcasting section indicate casting a spell is considered an attack. Or if it is intended you can multicast spells then indicate whether it is an attack or not in the description). Because this is the sort of thing that no two people are ever going to agree on everything in every instance. It reeks of lazy design.
Bull
Those do not directly effect the enemy, so no, those don't count, IMO.

Not 100% official, but how I'm treating it for the Missions FAQ.

You can us the Multiple Attack Free Action to cast two offensive spells, as a note. This bypasses the normal "one attack rule", but you have to split your dice. If you recklessly spellcast these, then you can also take a second simple action (WHich could be to multiple attack with spellcasting again), however the second simple action cannot be an attack of any sort.

Think "Offensive actions".

*shrug*

Sometimes you simply cannot clarify for every single individual possiblity, because they're too numerous. But, don't be a cheese monkey. DOn;t try and bend the rules. If you're not certain, don't do it. Or ask your GM and let him decide.
Seerow
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 06:58 PM) *
Those do not directly effect the enemy, so no, those don't count, IMO.

Not 100% official, but how I'm treating it for the Missions FAQ.

You can us the Multiple Attack Free Action to cast two offensive spells, as a note. This bypasses the normal "one attack rule", but you have to split your dice. If you recklessly spellcast these, then you can also take a second simple action (WHich could be to multiple attack with spellcasting again), however the second simple action cannot be an attack of any sort.

Think "Offensive actions".

*shrug*

Sometimes you simply cannot clarify for every single individual possiblity, because they're too numerous. But, don't be a cheese monkey. DOn;t try and bend the rules. If you're not certain, don't do it. Or ask your GM and let him decide.


If invisibility does not directly affect the enemy, why do they have to roll a resistance check? My commanding a spirit is directly having the spirit attack. By your reasoning there, the original question of Ice Sheet after hitting an enemy is perfectly okay because it's not doing anything directly to them. Hell if we're talking about "directly affect" an enemy, then a grenade throw shouldn't count, nor should an indirect spell, since the throw/spell cast doesn't cause any damage, it just triggers an effect that deals damage.

So like I said, lazy design. Your job as the game designer should not be to punt the decision making as to what does or does not constitute an attack back to the GM. It would have been perfectly reasonable to say "All spells count as an attack action, the only way to cast more than one in a round is with multicast. The fast casting is used so you can use a non-attack simple action". Add something similar for spirits, and you've covered 90% of the weird cornercases right there. So don't give bullshit about it being too hard to make clearcut rules.
Bull
QUOTE (Seerow @ Jun 22 2013, 03:06 PM) *
So don't give bullshit about it being too hard to make clearcut rules.


Fuck it, I'm done trying to help.

You're on your own.
Seerow
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 07:09 PM) *
Fuck it, I'm done trying to help.

You're on your own.


Apparently we were on our own from the second you wrote down any rules, not sure how this is any different.
bannockburn
Simply ... wow.
An RPG book is not a tech manual. People are getting entitled about the stupidest details and rude to one of the most helpful people on this board. Instead of taking the advice in the spirit it was offered, insults follow.

Take a look back at SR3 and how many loopholes were in there. SR2. SR1. If you're THAT hung up about such things, I recommend you pay yourself a technical writer (hint: those people are kinda expensive in comparison to an author) and have him craft you the perfect rulebook.

I'm baffled, seriously.
Daedelus
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 10:58 AM) *
Those do not directly effect the enemy, so no, those don't count, IMO.

Not 100% official, but how I'm treating it for the Missions FAQ.

You can us the Multiple Attack Free Action to cast two offensive spells, as a note. This bypasses the normal "one attack rule", but you have to split your dice. If you recklessly spellcast these, then you can also take a second simple action (WHich could be to multiple attack with spellcasting again), however the second simple action cannot be an attack of any sort.

Think "Offensive actions".

*shrug*

Sometimes you simply cannot clarify for every single individual possiblity, because they're too numerous. But, don't be a cheese monkey. DOn;t try and bend the rules. If you're not certain, don't do it. Or ask your GM and let him decide.

Thanks Bull. I'm glad you will be addressing it in the FAQ. I was not trying to be difficult, just to clear up a confusion I was having. There is a extreme level of hostile personal opinion flying about these boards and I am sorry if I came across as one of them. Your is and always will be appreciated.
LurkerOutThere
Deleted, i misunderstood something. Nothing to see here.
bonehead
QUOTE (Seerow @ Jun 22 2013, 03:11 PM) *
Apparently we were on our own from the second you wrote down any rules, not sure how this is any different.


Wow...I really don't even know what to say. Obviously you don't like how the rules were worded but is this really the best way to respond to it? There's a good way to give feedback and this just isn't it. frown.gif
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (bannockburn @ Jun 22 2013, 03:15 PM) *
Simply ... wow.
An RPG book is not a tech manual. People are getting entitled about the stupidest details and rude to one of the most helpful people on this board. Instead of taking the advice in the spirit it was offered, insults follow.

Take a look back at SR3 and how many loopholes were in there. SR2. SR1. If you're THAT hung up about such things, I recommend you pay yourself a technical writer (hint: those people are kinda expensive in comparison to an author) and have him craft you the perfect rulebook.

I'm baffled, seriously.


While I don't like the way it is phrased I do agree with some of what he is trying to get across. While stroytelling is an essential part of RPGs it should not be used as a reason to avoid making solid rules. You need solid rules to make the game work. Yeah you can't catch everything but if people are asking it a couple days into seeing the rules, it should have been caught before the rules were finished.
bannockburn
I'm not disputing that.
But sometimes it simply helps to jumpstart a brain, let the GM decide (or in the case where it actually matters, at convention games that use the Missions rules, the fraggin' Missions Coordinator) and just go from there. An attack action is pretty self-explanatory for most people, and even if it is not, and someone is rules-lawyering the crap out of such a term, the GM is the final arbiter.

Contrary to some people's opinion, RPG rule systems do not need to be water-tight.
The game does not break when a wizard casts two spells to attack the darkness. They could do that in SR4 with no problems, and with the higher drain codes of SR5, it's a lot less likely to be actually useful.
So getting someone's panties in a bunch over such a minor infraction and lashing out like this is, IMO really unnecessary.
Shinobi Killfist
While I agree its not worth the outbursts, I do think this should have been handled. Not everything will be, and it probably should nt be as I think it would reduce the flexibility of the game. So no I don't want water tight, jus try to avoid ship sinking holes, a GM can't bail that fast.

spells, spirit commands, are obvious grey areas. But again what would you do it I planted a claymore mine set up with wireless and I send a free action command to go boom. Is that an attack or was the complex action I used 2 minutes ago the attack? I can throw a grenade simple action attack and send a free aciton command to blow up int he same round is the difference its not a attack throw since I am targeting a location, is there no difference? Can a GM handle these things, certainly but whatever answer he gives will shape how the game is played. If its yes to the free action command planted explosive may become a much bigger part of SR than before at it is the only way to make 2 non-split die pool attacks in one pass, if not it feels weird because you are sitting around doing nothing for an entire pass since it only took a free action.


I just hate when a decent message gets lost because of the messenger.
Moirdryd
Totally with you there Bannockburn.

Seerow there is a BIG difference between an RPG and a Skirmish scale Wargame Ruleset, which is what you seem to want. But if you're after some that tight I recommend that you look up Role Master or Pheonix Command because in most of the RPG market yo won't find things that tight and even where they are there is usuall a guide to the GM on how to break those rules when the story needs it.

There is also a big degree of civility and respect you seem to be lacking and I would suggest IF you don't like it YOU write up a definitive list of what is and isn't an attack action under every possible Likely circumstance and post it up on Dumpshock for the collective community to see and find out IF it holds up under the scrutiny of your peers. Bull basically told us the intent and was clear enough to me (indeed sounded like my last example was on the money). Accusing the system written of not being 'solid' when you haven't even seen it all is just plain dumb.

Bull, if you're still reading this thread, ThankYou for your input.
Moirdryd
Those situations are exactly Why you get rulesets that help simulate the story aspect of an RPG instead of strict structures. There are systems that would very clearly define the mine as an attack and thus the only thing you can do in a round, which when compared to a 'Life Model' is silly (the WH40k rpg games series is infact guilty of this under the exact scenario). There should be a degree of logic and common sense applied when looking at these things, that's why it's an RPG after all.
bannockburn
Careful now, dangerously subjective diatribe following:

Yes. There are rules that can make totally harmless things go insanely stupid and make the system go boom. Bloodzilla, as an example. Yes, those things totally need a fix, sometimes. But I'll go out on a limb and say that at 90% of all tables, it does not matter. People will point it out when they come across it. They'll have a good laugh about it. Then one player will get that glint in his eye. And the GM will say "Don't even think about it. Not in this game." Then everyone will be slightly disappointed and realize that this is for the better. SR2 vehicles with 21 armor? Essentially unkillable. How many people over the age of 12 seriously tried to play these?

Some people treat SR as a tactics simulator. Those people have always been in for a cold shock, because SR (and most other RPGs) simply don't cater to this crowd. Pen & Paper RPGs are notoriously bad at this, because they have, among other things, inherent flaws that necessitate a level of abstraction that makes some situations rather difficult to deal with (such as a lack of visualization). This is why there is a GM.
RPGs are not board games where two parties kill each other with BattleMechs and / or Space Marines. Such opposed games really need a good and solid ruleset, and hell, even M:TG, BattleTech and Warhammer tournaments are heavily in need of referee decisions. Two of the games mentioned in the previous sentence are known for rather clear rulesets and thousands of people play all three of them competitively.
RPGs are usually not played competitively and people who try that end up (in my experience) invariably disappointed. Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues, until their GM explains them what an RPG is generally about.
I'm fine with people trying to do this, really. If those people get together at a table, great fun can be had and dead characters will abound. But experience shows that these people are often the same ones who find the flaws in the rules. Sometimes you can fit an aircraft carrier through those cracks, sometimes they just make you go "huh?". Only in a very small number of cases does it actually matter for the ... let's call it day-to-day business of roleplaying. The large majority of tables just rules it fast and loose and maybe makes a note about it in their house rule binder.

SR has the issue of a living campaign though. There are people here, who like to min to the max, and a living campaign must accomodate these people. However, when the dude who's at the helm of said living campaign makes a ruling, it is as if your home GM just told you to shut the fuck up and take it or leave.
Now, Bull is usually a rather laid back kind of person and probably wouldn't use the above phrase. But he very much is the authority in this, and the fact of the matter is, you can take it or leave it. No one cares what you do at your home table and you or your GM is free to rule it however your consensus decrees. You can explode that claymore however you want. But if it's in a missions game, and Bull says "Nope, can't." then, nope, you can't. It comes down to this.

tl;dr version:
I don't see it as an issue at all. It's not ambiguous.
I shoot a gun at someone => attack action
I change a device mode (explodey claymore?) => not an attack action, because there is no opposed roll anymore
I throw a grenade => attack action, even without an opposed roll
I cast a spell => if spell category==combat spell, then attack action, else not an attack action
I order a spirit to attack someone => not an attack action, the spirit will do this at the earliest in his own initiative and uses his own action to attack someone

All these points may seem arbitrary, and arguments may possibly go in either direction, but what I want to illustrate is:
It is really rather simple to just rule those things on the fly. The system does not implode with exploding claymores.
Bull
*sigh* Still around, as a note.

As I posted in the other thread, there are a million possible exceptions. All the crap someones going to pull out to ask "is this an attack" is all stuff that is usually an incredibly rare exception and not going to come up often, and it's stuff that often COULD be an attack if used properly.

It's not lazy game design, it's practical game design. Because we can't list every single exception. We give you an outline as to what does and doesn't count, and say "use your common sense".

Generally speaking? If you think it might be an attack, it probably is. But at the end of the day, the GM is the final arbiter. And he has my permission to use the rulebook as a weapon to deal with unruly players trying to abuse these guidelines.

Bull
Sendaz
Thanks Bull for responding to this, sorry if we have been poking and prodding this a bit like a sore tooth.

As the one who will be GMing, I like to over-analyse the problems a bit as I will be the one having to deal with the player questions and actions so have to try and anticipate what they might do as well as what I can do with the NPC's so they react effectively.

That said, I think I will have to go with the premise of only one attack action per action phase to include either a melee attack, range attack or a spell casting regardless of intent(offensive or otherwise). The caster can still opt to use the Multiple Casting option with the subsequent splitting of the dice pool as well as Reckless casting to change the casting from Complex to a Simple action.

But for my own campaign I will not go with a second simple action of Reckless casting as it is simply opening too big a can of worms.

The argument of one combat action aside, and I think it has been well argued and explained already by all around, allowing another full on casting with a full dice pool even with the increased drain for reckless casting is just a bit too powerful even if not used in a direct combative matter. In reflection the purpose of RC was to allow a faster option for the mage so he might cast and move or include another simple action, but the addition of the remark saying you can RC twice as both are simple actions will prove unbalanced compared to the other players in the long run even when you stay within the combat guideline of one attack action per phase.

For example: Team is out on the night barhopping and coming out of the back of the club comes under fire from an ambush so to even the odds I want to cast Armor on the Face and myself to score some better defense (what? sorry but I don't wear the heavy armor when out clubbing - well maybe when going to the mosh pits) while we take cover. Realistically I would take my complex action to cast this on the Face OR myself as I need a decent amount of net hits to beef up Defense, so splitting the dice pool via Multiple casting really wouldn't be a good idea. If I reckless cast just once I could cover the Face and maybe secure better cover for myself with a simple movement to behind a dumpster.

But if I am willing to take the burn under the additional bit under Reckless saying I can actually cast twice in the same action phase via RC , I could get off two full casts of the Armor for myself AND the Face with full dice pools for each. Yes the drain is going to suck big bananas, but I am still essentially getting two full dice pools to power the spells in one Action Phase which normally would have required two separate Actions phases to accomplish.

Nowhere do I see this ability being extended to the other types of characters possible without the subsequent splitting of dice pools.

So to be clear I am not arguing the concept of attack action vs Reckless, rather I am pointing out the potential for RC to be a bit unbalancing as it is bypassing the necessity of splitting dice pools to accomplish multiple magical actions in general.

Maybe that was the intent of the concept of RC, magic IS powerful and should be treated as such, but this small addition to RC is a real game changer.
Seerow
QUOTE
There is also a big degree of civility and respect you seem to be lacking and I would suggest IF you don't like it YOU write up a definitive list of what is and isn't an attack action under every possible Likely circumstance and post it up on Dumpshock for the collective community to see and find out IF it holds up under the scrutiny of your peers. Bull basically told us the intent and was clear enough to me (indeed sounded like my last example was on the money). Accusing the system written of not being 'solid' when you haven't even seen it all is just plain dumb.


Why would I waste my time with making a definitive list to present to the community? My whole complaint is that there isn't a definitive list that will hold up between any two people, because everyone will have different opinions on what is and is not an attack. If three of us went through the rules and wrote up a list of what we considered attacks, I would expect three very different results, which is why there needs to be a standard established in the rules, so players know what to expect. If I made up a list of things I considered attacks and posted it, and people disagreed, all it would do is further prove my point. That is why you need the designers, the guys actually in charge of writing the rules, to lay down a consistent line that

This isn't wanting to turn the game into a miniatures wargame. That's a stupid claim to make. You can have rules that are clear without having a focus on miniatures, and while still being an RPG. The idea that to be a real RPG you need to have major holes in the rules for the DM to arbitrate is dumb. What I want is to have a consistent experience across tables, and when something as fundamental as what actions you can take in combat is such a huge grey area, that's a major red flag.


QUOTE
I cast a spell => if spell category==combat spell, then attack action, else not an attack action


So only combat spells are attack actions? Control Actions, not an attack? Chaos, not an attack? Fling? Turn to Goo? Decrease Attribute? These are all spells just from SR4 core that are cast directly on the target, and by Bull's definition are attacks, but by yours are not.

QUOTE
I throw a grenade => attack action, even without an opposed roll


By Bull's definition, this is not an attack action, because throwing the grenade does not affect an enemy, you throw the grenade, and later the grenade blows up. Obviously this does not hold up consistently.


I'm pointing these things out to highlight just how big the difference of opinions are here, and how all of those opinions fit easily within the actual written rules. It's a rule that isn't really a rule, and not the sort of thing you should see in a game as rules heavy as Shadowrun is.

Could I have voiced my opinion in a better way? Probably. But I stand by what I said, because it is the game designer's job to make sure when we all sit down at the table to play, we all have a good idea of what we're getting into. If I wanted the DM to decide everything on the fly, why would I shell out 50+ dollars for a book that allegedly provides a ruleset? In an RPG the ruleset you use serves as a foundation within which everyone works to interact with the world. When something as big as what kinds of actions you can use in a turn is a massive grey area, the system has failed to provide that foundation. Bad rules you can deal with. Rules that provide loopholes players can take advantage of are one thing. Rules that actually are good in theory, but in practice will cause everyone to argue over what constitutes an attack for the first several sessions they play together? That is something else altogether.
bannockburn
I stated it before, Seerow: I'm not discussing with you anymore because I don't see you as a worthwhile contributor to anything that affects me even tangentially, as proven by you totally missing the point (again).
Seerow
QUOTE (bannockburn @ Jun 22 2013, 10:18 PM) *
I stated it before, Seerow: I'm not discussing with you anymore because I don't see you as a worthwhile contributor to anything that affects me even tangentially, as proven by you totally missing the point (again).


No, your point is that you don't mind ruling things on the fly. My point is that your on the fly rulings contradict with what anyone else might expect. You can't say "Default to common sense" when common sense can get you drastically different answers.
Moirdryd
Okay, we're off topic here.

Wjhat else have we gleaned from the Magic Preview vs the knowledge held by those who have the book from origins? I;m still curious on the other differences brought back in to the two Traditions and also why you wouldnt play a Mystic Adept (as I;ve seen almost nothing that means you wouldn't outside of Initiation limits...whch are not all that).
Sendaz
No Astral Projection for the Mystic Adept, though you can buy the Astral Perception bit.

Not a major setback as perception least lets you still use Assensing and in a pinch you could find a willing Spirit who could invoke Astral Gateway I suppose.

Really wish they had provided some more spells in the previews as curious to see changes to spell descriptions if any and more on the other elemental effects like those from Street Magic.

Maybe someone with the Book could tease out a few of the spells, especially anything new or changed.
Moirdryd
Yeah, I spotted those ones, but that still makes a Mystic adept almost a no braner (astral projection beng all you lose really)
Sendaz
Pretty much.. no major drawback except where to keep all that mojo nyahnyah.gif
Moirdryd
Well hot damn! I can see that getting lmited at my table from the outset.
Bull
Just as a note, the bit with Mystic Adept power point costs at Chargen may be a typo and is getting looked at. But otherwise, yes, they use their full magic rating for stuff.
Grinder
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 23 2013, 12:09 AM) *
It's not lazy game design, it's practical game design. Because we can't list every single exception. We give you an outline as to what does and doesn't count, and say "use your common sense".


I'm not sure if I like that approach at all - it's a safe way to FAQs and erratas (and we all know how well that works).

Bull
QUOTE (Grinder @ Jun 22 2013, 07:23 PM) *
I'm not sure if I like that approach at all - it's a safe way to FAQs and erratas (and we all know how well that works).


Maybe. But as I said, there are a million exceptions.

Does casting an Illusion Spell count? What if it's purely defensive (Covering a hole in a wall that you're hiding behind?) WHat if it's offensive (Making the target thing he's about to be attacked by a troll with an axe, or covering a hole in the floor he's about to step in?)

HE grenades are offensive, but smoke grenades are defensive. And what if the enemy just happens to be allergic to that particular chemical your smoke uses, and it could kill him?

Using ice sheet to knock down my enemies vs using Ice Sheet to provide a slick surface for me to easily slide down to escape combat.

We wanted there to be versatility. one of the points of removing the "double tap" for guns was to loosen up combat a little and make it less about "i fire, now you fire, now I fire" and make it more strategic. Because now you can fire, but you can also do something ELSE. Being creative, maneuvering, taking defensive actions. We want players to be able to do that. And a blanket "Only one spell" or classifying all grenades as "Offensive" stifles that ability greatly.

Say what you want, but for every thing I can think of as "purely defensive" I'm sure someone could find an offensive action to use it with. And vice-versa for everything offensive, there are only a couple actions I can think of that I can't imagine some kind of rare, one in a million defensive opportunity to use it for.

Sometimes, you have to rely on players good sense and the GMs ability to make rulings. That's just the way it goes.
Shinobi Killfist
So its official then, mystic adepts=no brainer.
Redjack
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 06:33 PM) *
Because now you can fire, but you can also do something ELSE. Being creative, maneuvering, taking defensive actions. We want players to be able to do that. And a blanket "Only one spell" or classifying all grenades as "Offensive" stifles that ability greatly.
Not to poke the Bull with a stick, but I could always (and many times did) do other things before... smile.gif
Sendaz
Well it all depends on your character concept and what you want to do.

The gunslinger adept will be no slouch mixing adept magics with gun bunny goodness.

Depending on how much they expand on the metaplanes you might want a full mage to go tripping the astral.

But yeah, for an all around good base to start off from with great growth potential mystic adepts do seem the new shiny.
Moirdryd
It looks that way Shinobi. But of course there are limits that have been mentioned and in a long game they'll probabley rack up. A mystic Adept will be wanting those Metamagics for example but to do so will be not improving adept abilities, also any magic loss is massively bad for the Mysad, I'm also guessing the karma cost for Powerpoints at chargen will bite due to lacking qualities. However, Bull has said some of that's being looked at for Errata anyway. (I'm likely to rule away Mysads from my game when I start a sr5 campaign or reduce their starting stuff).
Bull
QUOTE (Redjack @ Jun 22 2013, 06:48 PM) *
Not to poke the Bull with a stick, but I could always (and many times did) do other things before... smile.gif


Well, yes. But now you're kinda forced to do so. It also brings the power of guns down a little bit. They're a bit less of the "no brainer" option.

QUOTE ('moirdryd')
However, Bull has said some of that's being looked at for Errata anyway. (I'm likely to rule away Mysads from my game when I start a sr5 campaign or reduce their starting stuff).


Yeah. 2 Karma per point at Chargen is extremely cheap, and I'm fairly certain it was supposed to be more expensive by a fair bit at one point during playtest. I'm guessing a typo slipped in to the basic rules, and since it was just a single number, no one caught it, and whoever did the examples and made the archetypes assumed it was the correct number and used it.

So it's being looked at to see if 2 points is too broken to leave as is, and to see what we should revert it to if that's the case. I know I know where I'd like to see it go, but that's not my call to make nor is it my place to say or speculate at this time.

Bull
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Moirdryd @ Jun 22 2013, 07:53 PM) *
It looks that way Shinobi. But of course there are limits that have been mentioned and in a long game they'll probabley rack up. A mystic Adept will be wanting those Metamagics for example but to do so will be not improving adept abilities, also any magic loss is massively bad for the Mysad, I'm also guessing the karma cost for Powerpoints at chargen will bite due to lacking qualities. However, Bull has said some of that's being looked at for Errata anyway. (I'm likely to rule away Mysads from my game when I start a sr5 campaign or reduce their starting stuff).


I want my limit to be I have too much shit to spend my resources on. smile.gif

But yeah unless there is a BIG limit that we don't know about they are banned from my games.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 08:09 PM) *
So it's being looked at to see if 2 points is too broken to leave as is, and to see what we should revert it to if that's the case. I know I know where I'd like to see it go, but that's not my call to make nor is it my place to say or speculate at this time.

Bull


Even at 5 points per PP its broken, hell at 10 per PP its probably still broken. Full magic and full adept in one package wont be made up for by 50 karma.
Epicedion
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 22 2013, 07:19 PM) *
Even at 5 points per PP its broken, hell at 10 per PP its probably still broken. Full magic and full adept in one package wont be made up for by 50 karma.


Yeah, this is a little nuts.
Seerow
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 23 2013, 12:19 AM) *
Even at 5 points per PP its broken, hell at 10 per PP its probably still broken. Full magic and full adept in one package wont be made up for by 50 karma.


Yeah, I was kind of expecting some big limit to be in the magic section. Something like mystic adepts give up PP to learn spells, or have a much stricter restriction on spells known/spirits summoned, or something along those lines. Something where they give up some of the raw versatility of the full mage in exchange for getting the extra flexibility from adept powers.

I guess a higher karma cost can balance it, because that's karma that could be going into extra spells, more initiations/magic, or whatever else, but yeah at 2 karma it's definitely a no-brainer.
Bull
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 22 2013, 08:19 PM) *
Even at 5 points per PP its broken, hell at 10 per PP its probably still broken. Full magic and full adept in one package wont be made up for by 50 karma.


Well, I don;t disagree, but I was overridden. Apparently too many folks thought they were too crippled under SR4, even though I personally thought that was the first time they weren't utterly broken. But not my call.

Honestly though, even at 2 PP each they're not entirely horrible, UNLESS you're building a massively synergistic Adept/Spellcasting build. Just to play around I built a Mystic Adept that was an old school Phsyical Mage... PhysAd powers boosting him physically, plus decent spellcasting, and the points just were spread too thin and he was mediocre at best across the board. Not terrible, but not great.

But you go with a Mystic Adept Shaman Face, and you can really get abusive.
Epicedion
Well it's sort of like letting magicians take nearly free cyberware or permanently sustained spells. Even if you never ever ever improve your mystic adept abilities, you're still at a sizable advantage from it.
Shinobi Killfist
I actually liked them in 4e. If you focused on magic like 5/1 magic/adept you were a rock solid mage with a trick or 2. If you went the oposite you were a solid adept with the potnetial of a weak spirits and spells for utility. Now you are just better than a mage, and just better than a adept. Yeah resources are tight, but its bad ass. I kind of look at it this way. If I was playing a mage and you gave me the option to dump 50 karma in after the game start and get 6 PPs to play with I'd do it in a heartbeat. Helll just go 6 in combat sense and 6 in mystic armor and its a bad ass add to your character, you don't need to work that into your character build very hard.
Epicedion
This would be a fair alternative:

Assign the Mystic Adept two separate Magic stats -- one for magical skills/spells, and one for adept powers.

Done.
Shinobi Killfist
If it were 2 seperate magic stats it would be slower advancement at least. Not as slow as 4e, but not as fast a normal mage or adept in 5e. Maybe start them at 3/3, it could be boosted with special stats, karma etc. Probbaly not to the full 6/6. And post char gen they would slow down. Since i knew it wasn't that way what I hoped for is more like Seerow pointed out.
RHat
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 22 2013, 05:19 PM) *
Even at 5 points per PP its broken, hell at 10 per PP its probably still broken. Full magic and full adept in one package wont be made up for by 50 karma.


Every point of Karma is a point not spent on foci, spells, qualities, skills, attributes... If that cost is high enough, for example, that for standard chargen you have to dip well into your Negative Quality allocation to get all 6 points, that's more balanced than you think. A martial artist combat mystad cannot then be a full martial arts adept and a full combat mage, because either of those other two will have qualities, skills, attributes, and more giving them help in their area that the mystad does not have. It might have been better to give them fewer starting spells than full mages, as well, but that cannot be known without testing and I suspect that they tested that (it seems a little obvious to me, after all).
Glyph
From the preview:

You must declare the Force at which to cast the spell.
The Force acts as a limit on the spell. Higher Force
spells are more powerful, but cause more Drain. You
can cast a spell at a Force up to twice your Magic rating.
If the number of hits (not net hits) you get after applying
the limit exceeds your Magic rating, the spell’s Drain is
Physical instead of Stun damage.

Now, does this only apply to overcasting? I'm asking because if uncapping your hits will turn the Drain to physical damage (keeping in mind that Drain is higher is SR5 and can't be healed with first aid or magic), then using Edge suddenly becomes a lot riskier for mages.
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