Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Raising magic on a char. with Astral Hazing
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
toturi
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Apr 30 2014, 12:21 PM) *
Pretty much this.

You know that whole thing about "being allergic to salt water when playing a game in Arizona"? Yeah, this falls into that.

In fact, I'd pretty much say that the only way to buy off Astral Hazing would be Geomancy. That is, you can't get rid of it without the kinds of things Geomancy can do. But that doesn't make it a boon, it just fixes the problem and makes it go away. That or serious psychotherapy, which would take years, not months.

A Negative Quality that does not hinder is still a Negative Quality. Simple as that, really.

That whole thing about "being allergic to salt water when playing a game in Arizona" does not apply because you are not in playing Arizona or allergic to salt water. So no, it does not fall into that.
Sternenwind
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 29 2014, 11:54 PM) *
Ummm - You do realize that any mage can use Geomancy, right? It is only a metamagic, and is non-specific to tradition.


Yes I do. Any mage can use it, and „anymage“ has a specific tradition. What that tradition is does not matter. Important is just that he has to have one, unlike adepts. And if he has one, there will be most likely someone else with the same. And for this someone else it’s not a domain with a negative effect.
Neraph
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 29 2014, 05:56 PM) *
A Negative Quality that does not Hinder isn't a Negative Quality. Simple as that, really. smile.gif

Addiction (Mild, Betel).
Spirit Bane (Watcher).
Draco18s
QUOTE (toturi @ Apr 29 2014, 11:30 PM) *
A Negative Quality that does not hinder is still a Negative Quality. Simple as that, really.

That whole thing about "being allergic to salt water when playing a game in Arizona" does not apply because you are not in playing Arizona or allergic to salt water. So no, it does not fall into that.


Excuse me, you didn't get the point.

QUOTE
Addiction
(note that nicotine, caffeine, and sugar do not count).


Addiction to nicotine in the real world has severe health problems and yet it doesn't count within the game. As for what Betel does, I'd look that one up but I don't know what book it's from. Even so, a craving for it once a week does have an impact, even if the drug itself is mild and doesn't do anything (which may fall into the same category as nicotine if the GM decides that it should).

QUOTE
Allergy Table
Uncommon 2 The substance or condition is rare for the local environment. Examples: silver, gold, seawater in a landlocked campaign setting (like Denver).
Common 7 The substance or condition is common for the local environment. Examples: sunlight, plastic, pollutants, seawater in a coastal setting (like Seattle).


Gosh, it seems that an Allergy to saltwater in Arizona isn't much of a flaw after all. The SAME substance in a different context (Seattle) suddenly has an impact.

So the game clearly recognizes negative qualities that aren't a serious impact as being "a thing" and discounts them.
toturi
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Apr 30 2014, 10:46 PM) *
Excuse me, you didn't get the point.

Addiction to nicotine in the real world has severe health problems and yet it doesn't count within the game. As for what Betel does, I'd look that one up but I don't know what book it's from. Even so, a craving for it once a week does have an impact, even if the drug itself is mild and doesn't do anything (which may fall into the same category as nicotine if the GM decides that it should).

Gosh, it seems that an Allergy to saltwater in Arizona isn't much of a flaw after all. The SAME substance in a different context (Seattle) suddenly has an impact.

So the game clearly recognizes negative qualities that aren't a serious impact as being "a thing" and discounts them.

It appears that neither have you.

Addiction to nicotine in the real world may lead to severe health problems but in the SR world, evidently it does not.

Gosh, allergy to saltwater in Arizona still does give you BP/karma, still affects people with that Allergy the same way it does other people with other Allergies of similar severity and you can have a mage cast Alleviate Allergy on you.

So the game very clearly recognises Negative Qualties that aren't a serious impact as not being a "thing" and encourages them.
Sendaz
Think he was referring to the fact that Addiction: Betel is not much of a negative in itself as Betel (Arsenal, pg 74) provides a +1 bonus to Perception lasting 10 x 1D6 minutes.

Plus you can never have higher than a Mild Addiction to it, so it is one of those weird ones they wrote in with just a comment at the end about it be a potential gateway drug, but again the game doesn't really have anything to play that last bit out.
Draco18s
Yes, but they have a different BP cost, don't they?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Sternenwind @ Apr 30 2014, 12:17 AM) *
Yes I do. Any mage can use it, and „anymage“ has a specific tradition. What that tradition is does not matter. Important is just that he has to have one, unlike adepts. And if he has one, there will be most likely someone else with the same. And for this someone else it’s not a domain with a negative effect.


Why would adepts not have a Tradition? All Awakened should adhere to a "Tradition" of some sort, as that is where their magic comes from.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 30 2014, 06:33 AM) *
Addiction (Mild, Betel).
Spirit Bane (Watcher).


Hmmm...
No and No.
Simple as that. After all, it is incumbent upon the GM to moderate such things. Both would get ZERO Traction with me. smile.gif
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 30 2014, 11:24 PM) *
Hmmm...
No and No.
Simple as that. After all, it is incumbent upon the GM to moderate such things. Both would get ZERO Traction with me. smile.gif

Yes. And Yes.

Simple as that. After all, it it is incumbent upon the RAW to provide the baseline for such things. Both would get 100% traction with me.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Apr 30 2014, 08:32 AM) *
Yes. And Yes.

Simple as that. After all, it is incumbent upon the RAW to provide the baseline for such things. Both would get 100% traction with me.


As for Betel Nut - If the player is willing to suffer the consequences of its use, then I MIGHT be willing to allow it (It is a Human Carcinogen after all). Most players are not willing to take that risk, so receive a BIG NO from me. smile.gif

We are allowed to disagree on the utility of the Qualities, Toturi, the world won't end if we do, you know. Out of curiosity, though, have your mooks learned to talk yet, or are they still spouting "Oook Oook?" smile.gif
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 30 2014, 11:43 PM) *
As for Betel Nut - If the player is willing to suffer the consequences of its use, then I MIGHT be willing to allow it (It is a Human Carcinogen after all). Most players are not willing to take that risk, so receive a BIG NO from me. smile.gif

We are allowed to disagree on the utility of the Qualities, Toturi, the world won't end if we do, you know. Out of curiosity, though, have your mooks learned to talk yet, or are they still spouting "Oook Oook?" smile.gif

Betel is not described as a carcinogen in the write up in Arsenal. The Betel in the SR world may not be the same Betel in the real world.

Grunts with listed Languages can speak those languages. Those without can default in the Language Test to make themselves understood.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Apr 30 2014, 08:59 AM) *
Betel is not described as a carcinogen in the write up in Arsenal. The Betel in the SR world may not be the same Betel in the real world.

Spurious Argument. *shrug*

QUOTE
Grunts with listed Languages can speak those languages. Those without can default in the Language Test to make themselves understood.


So, still going "Oook Oook," Got it. Since if they do not have it listed, they cannot roll, since their social SKILL dice are capped by their Language (so Zero Plus Zero, carry the Zero, is still Zero Dice), so if No Native is listed, they are Neanderthal still... Works for me. smile.gif
Neraph
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Apr 30 2014, 09:07 AM) *
Yes, but they have a different BP cost, don't they?

Nope. Mild Addiction to Betel costs the same 5 BP as a Mild Addiction to K-10.

QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 30 2014, 09:43 AM) *
We are allowed to disagree on the utility of the Qualities, Toturi, the world won't end if we do, you know. Out of curiosity, though, have your mooks learned to talk yet, or are they still spouting "Oook Oook?" smile.gif

Technically, all sapient creatures have a Native language for free. Since it is not listed in the book it would be up to the GM to determine what the Native Language of a mook would be.

EDIT: I have deja vu on this subject. I remember, on more than one occasion, making many of these same arguments and having the same people attempting to use the same counter-arguments.

I propose we consolidate all the arguments into an informative debate-style post, bookmark it, and every time in the future when an Astral Hazing post is made we simply link the debate.

That said; consider that, instead of simply buying off the quality for 30 karma, you're paying well in excess of that for the proper metamagic techniques and Magic increases to turn your disability into an advantage, not to mention the required 4 month in-game time minimum (which will probably last much longer than 4 months IRL) to accomplish it. For the resources, planning, and effort alone it should be possible. The fact that the RAW supports it makes it even better.
toturi
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ May 1 2014, 12:15 AM) *
Spurious Argument. *shrug*

So, still going "Oook Oook," Got it. Since if they do not have it listed, they cannot roll, since their social SKILL dice are capped by their Language (so Zero Plus Zero, carry the Zero, is still Zero Dice), so if No Native is listed, they are Neanderthal still... Works for me. smile.gif

Argument by RAW is never spurious.

They cannot roll their Social Skill dice. It does not mean that they do not have Attribute dice to roll, while they do not roll their Social Skill dice, they are not defaulting their roll and with Attribute of minimum 1, they do have at least 1 die. By RAW there are Grunts with listed Languages and Grunts without.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (toturi @ Apr 30 2014, 09:30 AM) *
Argument by RAW is never spurious.

They cannot roll their Social Skill dice. It does not mean that they do not have Attribute dice to roll, while they do not roll their Social Skill dice, they are not defaulting their roll and with Attribute of minimum 1, they do have at least 1 die. By RAW there are Grunts with listed Languages and Grunts without.


Which to me is still funny that you support such nonsense. There is such a thing as word count. And EVERYONE can be assumed to have a Native Language within the area they operate in.

And prey tell HOW they communicate with no Language (with their Attribute-1 roll) - Again, I say it is in Grunts and Groans at best, not anything as defined as a Language. So your PC's will NEVER understand what the Neanderthal Guard actually WANTS them to do. No worries, It is just humorous to me, is all. smile.gif

AS for your Stand on Betel... You are welcome to that, but I disagree. smile.gif
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Apr 30 2014, 09:25 AM) *
Technically, all sapient creatures have a Native language for free. Since it is not listed in the book it would be up to the GM to determine what the Native Language of a mook would be.

EDIT: I have deja vu on this subject. I remember, on more than one occasion, making many of these same arguments and having the same people attempting to use the same counter-arguments.

I propose we consolidate all the arguments into an informative debate-style post, bookmark it, and every time in the future when an Astral Hazing post is made we simply link the debate.


We have indeed had these same conversations/debates over the last few years, with the exact same participants. smile.gif
Sternenwind
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Apr 30 2014, 04:24 PM) *
Why would adepts not have a Tradition? All Awakened should adhere to a "Tradition" of some sort, as that is where their magic comes from.


They can have one. But they can choose not to. Unlike magicians, which always follow a tradition. In theory you can create your own magical tradition. With your character the one and only living follower. But I don’t think he did, or he would. Pretty hard to create all this spells and technics on your own. And good luck finding a spirit teacher or guide, with astral hazing.
SpellBinder
On the subject of Spirit Bane, I'd never allow watchers as a choice. I know the quality specifically says "... not part of their tradition." but personally I take it to mean "... spirits the magician can summon." Or you can go on the argument that watchers are constructs and not actually spirits (especially since they don't follow the same rules pertaining to how many spirits you can have hanging around at one time), and again are disqualified.

At least this was covered for SR5, with watchers and minions being definitively classed as constructs and not spirits. I do find it funny that the quality actually mentions a -2 DP penalty for attempting to summon the bane spirit when technically the magician can't choose any type that they can summon to begin with.
Neraph
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Apr 30 2014, 11:46 AM) *
At least this was covered for SR5, with watchers and minions being definitively classed as constructs and not spirits. I do find it funny that the quality actually mentions a -2 DP penalty for attempting to summon the bane spirit when technically the magician can't choose any type that they can summon to begin with.

For taking control of another's.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ May 1 2014, 08:26 AM) *
For taking control of another's.


Which I maintain you should not be capable of doing, unless your opponent is of the same tradition as you are... frown.gif
If you cannot summon it in the first place, you should be unable to actually "Summon" on Banishment.
Sendaz
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ May 1 2014, 09:44 AM) *
Which I maintain you should not be capable of doing, unless your opponent is of the same tradition as you are... frown.gif
If you cannot summon it in the first place, you should be unable to actually "Summon" on Banishment.

It is a rule clunky way to handle it, but it is a way to explain the hijacking someone else's summoned spirit, even if they should have worded it a bit better.

It was even in the novels, think it was in the original SR trilogy, where the shaman summoned a spirit and the baddie took it over and made it into a toxic.

Yes, novels are prone to do things we can't in game, but that is probably the basis for the idea.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Sendaz @ May 1 2014, 08:52 AM) *
It is a rule clunky way to handle it, but it is a way to explain the hijacking someone else's summoned spirit, even if they should have worded it a bit better.

It was even in the novels, think it was in the original SR trilogy, where the shaman summoned a spirit and the baddie took it over and made it into a toxic.

Yes, novels are prone to do things we can't in game, but that is probably the basis for the idea.


Yeah, I know... I just don't like it. It grates aesthetically. frown.gif
Gotta have 'em all...
SpellBinder
QUOTE (Neraph @ May 1 2014, 08:26 AM) *
For taking control of another's.
Originally I thought that was strictly under the Binding skill. Did look and see that I was wrong in that regard. Still, if you're a bane of a spirit type I'd just say it's not possible.

But not a bane and of a different tradition? Sure, I'll allow it, regardless of the actual type of spirit. With a -2 DP penalty to Summoning/Binding, and the spirit will use Edge (if available) to resist every single time (among other things).
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