So say you get hit with a Toxic-wave spell or something similar what would the roll be like for your foci? Would you use OR or perhaps consider adding the foci rating to the OR as well? The argument being more powerful foci are more durable, etc.
Any thoughts?
Full Version: Focus Items vs. Elemental Effects
Enless specifically targeted, I wouldn't deal with it.
Either:
Either:
- The GM is being an ass.
- The GM let something in the campaign and is trying to take it out (at which point talking oocly to the player would work better then taking the character's toys away arbitrarily).
- Or the GM is obsessed with realism.
So you never cook off ammo when folks get hit with fireballs or never have other electronics short-out when hit with lightning? I mean, that's why the drain is so high on these because they have secondary effects. People like to kill mages first because of things like this.
Often when my players face down another mage, they might want to think twice before using such spells in hope to loot some foci when the bad-guy goes down rather than melt them into slag.
Often when my players face down another mage, they might want to think twice before using such spells in hope to loot some foci when the bad-guy goes down rather than melt them into slag.
Getting your belt of ammo fried isn't exactly on the same level as having that force 6 focus that you've spent the last ten runs saving up money for get completely destroyed.
It all depends on how the player has described the nature and position of his focus. If a player comes to the table as a Voudon, sporitng a giant floppy tophat (power focus), complete with dangelling plastic skeletons and synth velour, he should not be surprised when an elemental fire spell doing M or more damage catches his precious hat on fire. Now, as a GM, I'd tend to let him try to put it out (there's nothing quite as funny than a PC smacking his head to extinguish flames, or stopping, dropping, and rolling in the middle of combat, neh?), but frankly, there are always risks to posessing obvious or fragile and expensive goods.
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Jul 30 2004, 04:40 PM) |
| So you never cook off ammo when folks get hit with fireballs or never have other electronics short-out when hit with lightning? |
I didn't say that,
It was in reference to foci, so please keep it within that context.
I will cook off a few rounds but not every last round the players have, for the exact same reason I won't slag their foci.
| QUOTE |
| I mean, that's why the drain is so high on these because they have secondary effects. |
But secondary effects are not an excuse to ruin everything around the PC's. When the secondary effects add to the story, cool. Rolling dice for everything tends to have the opposite effect.
| QUOTE |
| People like to kill mages first because of things like this. |
And a lot of other reasons. Not the least of which is the fear of the unknown.
| QUOTE |
| Often when my players face down another mage, they might want to think twice before using such spells in hope to loot some foci when the bad-guy goes down rather than melt them into slag. |
What's the difference of that and stating the bullet shattered his focus? Oustide of a combat spell, every attempt has the potential of messing with "loot." Though, my players generally don't see a mage as an oppurtunity for "loot." Particularly when the mage is already tossing spells their way.
I am not making this a personal attack tjn, I am just curious what folks have done in situations like this.
| QUOTE (tjn) |
| What's the difference of that and stating the bullet shattered his focus? Oustide of a combat spell, every attempt has the potential of messing with "loot." |
There are no established rules for wounding-bullets hitting gear (or specific locations for that matter aside from a called-shot or the implant damage rules in M&M), but there are rules for items getting hit with Elemental effects. The latter is the context of my question.
| QUOTE (tjn) |
| But secondary effects are not an excuse to ruin everything around the PC's. When the secondary effects add to the story, cool. Rolling dice for everything tends to have the opposite effect. |
The intention is not to bog the game down with extra dice and making the players lives hell, but just get some clarity on the how foci would resist Elemental Attack. These spells do have theses effects and there are rules that explain them, just no mention of foci that I can find.
| QUOTE (tjn) |
| Though, my players generally don't see a mage as an oppurtunity for "loot." Particularly when the mage is already tossing spells their way. |
Why not take the power focus that dead wage-mage was using? It's certainly cheaper than buying one. If they don't want it or can't use it, they could always sell if for some $$.
All righty, here's the rules on the subject. Normally, objects do not get a resistance roll vs magic. However, magical items do get a roll, and they get to roll to resist EM's (as they're treated like any normal attack). So, they get a standard resistance of force vs spell, as well as an OR test to resist secondary effects.
The other thing to remember is that while there are specific rules of ammo cookoff, there's no rules for partial damage to ordinary items. So, if said item takes anything short of a deadly wound, it is still intact and functional-- although how functional depends on the GM's good graces.
Personally? I don't bother with this stuff much. I find it slows down the game to make OR tests against every object a player is carrying. But YMMV, I guess.
[edit: missed this line:]
The other thing to remember is that while there are specific rules of ammo cookoff, there's no rules for partial damage to ordinary items. So, if said item takes anything short of a deadly wound, it is still intact and functional-- although how functional depends on the GM's good graces.
Personally? I don't bother with this stuff much. I find it slows down the game to make OR tests against every object a player is carrying. But YMMV, I guess.
[edit: missed this line:]
| QUOTE |
| Why not take the power focus that dead wage-mage was using? It's certainly cheaper than buying one. If they don't want it or can't use it, they could always sell if for some $$. |
Not a good idea. If they have a body, they have a ritual link right back to the focus.
Also, don't bonded foci get a karma pool equal to their force or somesuch? For when they get dragged through wards etc. Or is that quickened spells, or both? I would look it up, but my books are a good 2m away right now.
Anyway, that, and the fact that bonded foci are way harder to replace than, say, an assault rifle, would lead me (if I were a GM) to rule that they don't follow the same rules as ordinary equipment. I'm not a big fan of most of the secondary effects anyway though, so well..
Anyway, that, and the fact that bonded foci are way harder to replace than, say, an assault rifle, would lead me (if I were a GM) to rule that they don't follow the same rules as ordinary equipment. I'm not a big fan of most of the secondary effects anyway though, so well..
| QUOTE (Cain) | ||
| [edit: missed this line:]
Not a good idea. If they have a body, they have a ritual link right back to the focus. |
I thought that the bond with your foci disolved upon your death. As no one is currently sustaining the link to said foci, how would it be traced. Anyone have an official quote on this?
I don't have an official quote. But our team plays that the link is broken upon the magician's death. If we come upon a used focus with no magicial link on it, we guess that the old owner is dead or the new owner hasn't completed bonding it.
My D&D game masters roll saves for absolutely everything on our possessions whenever we get hit with any kind of damaging elemental effect spell. On the one hand, it makes using those sorts of spells that much more complicated. On the other hand, it slows the game down to a crawl and can potentially reduce many hours of gameplay into just so much pointless dice rolling.
First of all, a focus is a magical item, imbued with power beyond mortal ken. So maybe it is somewhat immune to being damaged by magical effects?
However, there's nothing wrong with nap'ing a scorceror and having one of his items dissapear. But it shouldn't be something that will reduce the character to worthlessness.
First of all, a focus is a magical item, imbued with power beyond mortal ken. So maybe it is somewhat immune to being damaged by magical effects?
However, there's nothing wrong with nap'ing a scorceror and having one of his items dissapear. But it shouldn't be something that will reduce the character to worthlessness.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| I don't have an official quote. But our team plays that the link is broken upon the magician's death. If we come upon a used focus with no magicial link on it, we guess that the old owner is dead or the new owner hasn't completed bonding it. |
I keep forgetting that the rules changed. Under 3rd ed, it still makes for a very solid sympathetic magic link; it's still a risk, ablthough not as much of one.
| QUOTE (RangerJoe) |
| It all depends on how the player has described the nature and position of his focus. If a player comes to the table as a Voudon, sporitng a giant floppy tophat (power focus), complete with dangelling plastic skeletons and synth velour, he should not be surprised when an elemental fire spell doing M or more damage catches his precious hat on fire. Now, as a GM, I'd tend to let him try to put it out (there's nothing quite as funny than a PC smacking his head to extinguish flames, or stopping, dropping, and rolling in the middle of combat, neh?), but frankly, there are always risks to posessing obvious or fragile and expensive goods. |
All that statement serves to do is dicourage players from devloping any sense of depth to thier characters.
| QUOTE (kevyn668) | ||
All that statement serves to do is dicourage players from devloping any sense of depth to thier characters. |
If you equate "depth" with "bad decisions they they dont want to face the consequences of" then yeah. Depends on the game.
Not everyone wants to play a human with Blandness who dresses in dark non-descript clothing.
Allowing a character to have a power focus in the form of a hat that's 100% within their character concept that only adds style and flavor to the character, then destroying it "just because" while leaving Mr. Boring's identical power focus alone because he described it as {insert something boring worn under his clothing so that it only provides bonuses and no on will ever see it because he's a dull twat of a character} is simply a GM being a dick.
Allowing a character to have a power focus in the form of a hat that's 100% within their character concept that only adds style and flavor to the character, then destroying it "just because" while leaving Mr. Boring's identical power focus alone because he described it as {insert something boring worn under his clothing so that it only provides bonuses and no on will ever see it because he's a dull twat of a character} is simply a GM being a dick.
Heh, you can have a player hide power foci without it being "boring". One person I know had her character (also a girl) with a piercing as a power focus. Use your imagination as to where.
I don't like to randomly destroy gear unless it needs to happen for whatever reason...but I still miss the grounding rules. Anyone still use them?
I don't like to randomly destroy gear unless it needs to happen for whatever reason...but I still miss the grounding rules. Anyone still use them?
By that token, playing a gypsy whose power focus is a fragile eggshell thin crystal baseball sized sphere that has to be held in hand may also enrich a character background and concept, but it would be reasonably very likely that it may be broken and it a freaking bad decision to take it shadowrunning.
Where do you draw the line as to what is "just accomadating a player" and what is "altering reality in a way that is unrealistic just because a player wants to"?
It all depends on the game, you can't make a blanket statement like that. Some games are very down and gritty and not of the type that will displace reality and consequneces for style. Others leave style as king as displace atmosphere and realism for said style.
Neither is wrong, and by that token neither is always right.
Some players dislike one style whereas some dislike the other. My current players would chastise a player playing the character with a floppy flammable hat because it will likely eventually be damaged in the gritty type of game they enjoy playing. They would expect it eventually. That may not stop someone from doing it, but at least he knows where he stands.
Where do you draw the line as to what is "just accomadating a player" and what is "altering reality in a way that is unrealistic just because a player wants to"?
It all depends on the game, you can't make a blanket statement like that. Some games are very down and gritty and not of the type that will displace reality and consequneces for style. Others leave style as king as displace atmosphere and realism for said style.
Neither is wrong, and by that token neither is always right.
Some players dislike one style whereas some dislike the other. My current players would chastise a player playing the character with a floppy flammable hat because it will likely eventually be damaged in the gritty type of game they enjoy playing. They would expect it eventually. That may not stop someone from doing it, but at least he knows where he stands.
I'd say the "egg shell example" is on the far side of the line separating "just accomadating a player" and "altering reality in a way that is unrealistic just because a player wants to"?
I've seen people in these very threads describing placing an impossibly large gun with accessories in a thigh holster....spacewise, that just don't fit but it happens. [shrugs]
I'd probably think that the "hat guy" is kinda foolish, too. But at the same time I think its a cool concept and he shouldn't have to live in mortal fear of losing that focus just because he went with "hat" instead of "ring". I guess in that sopt, if I were Gm, I'd probably tell the guy his hat is singed but the magic still works...I dunno.
I've seen people in these very threads describing placing an impossibly large gun with accessories in a thigh holster....spacewise, that just don't fit but it happens. [shrugs]
I'd probably think that the "hat guy" is kinda foolish, too. But at the same time I think its a cool concept and he shouldn't have to live in mortal fear of losing that focus just because he went with "hat" instead of "ring". I guess in that sopt, if I were Gm, I'd probably tell the guy his hat is singed but the magic still works...I dunno.
Destroying a focus just because it's form is more fragile than others? As in someone creates a focus out of a scarf, so you burn it up because it's simple cloth while another character who created their identical focus in the form of a golden amulet tucked under their shirt gets off scott free? That's just not right.
If an attack is directed at an obvious focus, like a gypsy twirling a fragile sphere between her fingers while working some mojo, I have no problem with it being attacked and possibly destroyed. That's what you get for showing it off and letting your enemies know its the source of your power. But I'm not going to assume it's any more fragile than any other focus simply because the player decided to give their character something they thought was cool and only added flavor to said character.
Your mileage obviously varies, but there's no way I'd do anything like that. It's just not fair to the player or the character.
If an attack is directed at an obvious focus, like a gypsy twirling a fragile sphere between her fingers while working some mojo, I have no problem with it being attacked and possibly destroyed. That's what you get for showing it off and letting your enemies know its the source of your power. But I'm not going to assume it's any more fragile than any other focus simply because the player decided to give their character something they thought was cool and only added flavor to said character.
Your mileage obviously varies, but there's no way I'd do anything like that. It's just not fair to the player or the character.
| QUOTE |
| Destroying a focus just because it's form is more fragile than others? As in someone creates a focus out of a scarf, so you burn it up because it's simple cloth while another character who created their identical focus in the form of a golden amulet tucked under their shirt gets off scott free? That's just not right. |
See, that's where our opinion varies then, becuase IMHO if one creates a focus of a scarf and another creates a ring then they are very much *not* identical foci. I believe in not making exceptions for any players about things like that. If the party gets hit with a fireball then their clothes likely catch on fire whether they are a focus or not. By that same token, I would not make the scarf stop working as a focus just because it caught fire. If they put it out, then it would be a focus that looked like a singed scarf. Only if it entirely ceased being a scarf would I say it was destroyed. The gold ring has a chance to be melted into not being a ring anymore and destroyed too. I do not discriminate. Honestly though, that never normally comes up.
I also think that generally speaking that if you choose to make a flammable items that is prone to wearing out and looking ratty over time into a several hundred thousand nuyen focus you have some questionable judgement anyway, let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't stop someone from doing it, I woiuld just make sure they were aware of the potential ramifications.
That being said I have only once ever I believe had a focus destroyed.
I also think that generally speaking that if you choose to make a flammable items that is prone to wearing out and looking ratty over time into a several hundred thousand nuyen focus you have some questionable judgement anyway, let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't stop someone from doing it, I woiuld just make sure they were aware of the potential ramifications.
That being said I have only once ever I believe had a focus destroyed.
| QUOTE |
| Your mileage obviously varies, but there's no way I'd do anything like that. It's just not fair to the player or the character. |
Yeah, I dont see it as me doing anything to the player, the player is simply facing the consequences of his own decisions which he was fully aware of. That's the player doing something to himself, but YMMV I guess.
I don't do anything to the players, I simply provide a functional world for them to play in, and that world has rules that bend for no man, PC or NPC.
I don't do anything to the players, I simply provide a functional world for them to play in, and that world has rules that bend for no man, PC or NPC.
Memo to self: when playing in BitBasher's games my foci will be sturdy constructs.
| QUOTE (kevyn668) |
| Memo to self: when playing in BitBasher's games my foci will be sturdy constructs. |
Good note, but it's kind of moot, in the last 5 years I can count on one hand the number of foci that I have seen used I believe.
Adendum to memo to self: don't play a mage. (Which is cool, b/c I like gunbunny/covert ops guys!)
(Which is cool, b/c I like gunbunny/covert ops guys!)
| QUOTE (kevyn668) |
| Adendum to memo to self: don't play a mage. (Which is cool, b/c I like gunbunny/covert ops guys!) |
Actually prolly 75% of my characters are either adepts or mages, they just rarely ever used foci!
Sounds like you could use a good gunbunny/covert ops guy then. 
When should I book my flight?
When should I book my flight?
Hey, I've said before if anyone in LV wants a game I'll try ya out, and if anyone wants to try my game they're more than welcome to sit in for one.
| QUOTE (Necro Tech) | ||||
I thought that the bond with your foci disolved upon your death. As no one is currently sustaining the link to said foci, how would it be traced. Anyone have an official quote on this? |
Necro Tech, I'd hope that my players would be smart enough to kill whoever had the foci bonded before they took it, but you never know sometimes...
Not really any rules that I could find that would prohibit or make selling "used" foci a bad idea, unless of coarse someone was looking for it...
Back to my question, considering the Elemental spell would have to do Deadly for the effects to effects other objects, we are considering OR (8 for alloys) + Foci Rating for a resistance test. That would give the foci a good chance of surviving.
Bottom line will be up to my players, cause what comes around goes around usually.
Thanks all for the....umm....diverse chat.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.