Berserker Adepts in SOTA: 2064 do not get any magic without being berserk. Any ideas on any benifits they should get? Or should they get any advantages?

Sounds like all their powers are geas'ed to the state of berserk. So I guess a straight reduction to the power point cost of all powers by 25% and maybe some kind of pain resistance built into a berserk flaw/edge (flaw if it is attack the closest living thing, edge if it is attack the closest enemy with the most effective weapon).

Let them take a power equivalent to an adrenal pump (including PP cost ~= bio index), and make all other powers geased on that one being active.

We actually had a straight-forward solution similar to the gaesa situation Kanada's proposed, but we opted to leave it out and allow GMs to interpret that concept in whatever way best suits their campaigns. The gaesa option with a 1 or 2 pt. Berserker flaw (possibly using berserk rules in various Totem descriptions) also seems appropriate.

I would think they don't get any additional benefits of being a "Berserker" - you take the geas, you have to make Willpower 4 rolls to voluntarily enter a Berserker rage.

That's a mighty hefty lock on someone's magic, but if it fits the character, go for it.

I'd suggest letting the adept pick which powers to geas so as not to be as crippling - "Oh no, the adept is losing it again! Relax, it's just the beer."

-Siege

But do they turn green and increase in bulk?

Id allow it

A Bear physical adept might have two different geas going, depending on the power and relative state:

Geas: Physical Mask (ya start to look like a bear)
Geas: Berserk (Only functions while "berserk")

And if ya wanna be a goofball: -2 flaw: Berserk (Willpower 4 or better to resist going nuts)

The Bear adept might buy "empathic healing" with the Physical Mask Geas - as it is a Bear bonus.

Berserk Bear would probably be along the lines of: Pain Resistance, Killing Hands, Increased Reflexes and so on. Just for fun, he might even double-Geas these powers - although most GMs will probably nix the idea after they stop laughing.

-Siege

Actually that's one possibility we discussed which is why the Shamanic Adept's shamanic mask effect wasn't spelled out in the rules. GMs might prefer to handle it as part of a gaesa, as a standard shamanic mask or as something that only crops up when the adept uses a lot of his powers at once.

That was part of my problem with the "hands off" approach to the Ways.

At least provide a section of "Option 1" and "Option 2" rather than having players attempt to reverse engineer possible solutions - not every player or gm is as free-form as that.

Players buy rule books for a reason.

-Siege

I was about to comment on the same thing, but since I don't have a copy of SOTA:2064 yet, I refrained. But since this does seem to be the case... it kind of concerns me. What's the point in buying a rulebook if you leave everything up to the GMs to decide?

i'm not sure SOTA:64 leaves "everything" up to the GMs to decide. SOTA:64 does provide basic, optional rules on how to run Ways--the rule being, if you don't have one, your powers are more expensive. i'm not even going to use that rule, in my games; i think adepts are limited as they are, and limiting them more makes them even harder to play.

Sota 2064 isn't completely freeform - there are a fair number of hard-and-fast rules and numbers behind the fluff, but a good portion of the book is fluff.

Entertaining fluff, to be sure, but fluff nonetheless.

If you play adepts, it's a "gotta have" book - if you don't play adepts, it's highly optional. I'll refrain from enumerating all the neat things to be found in it's pages and the adept section will, if nothing else, give some of the more creative players ideas for comparable cyberware.

The Ways and a couple of other places are spots where I would have included more numbers to give readers a frame of reference for creating, extrapolating or outright mutilating the possibilities. That said, thumb through the book and make your own decision - the balance may be so skewed you don't care for the material or you might find it a good blend of both.

And on a side note, the role-playing hooks in back are fun, even if you never use them in any of your games.

-Siege

Edited

I've just seen that comment mentioned twice in this thread, so it didn't inspire much confidence. But again, I don't have the book yet (had to put the game to the side for a few months due to the real world), but I should have it in a couple of days. Hope it's not as bad as it's been sounding.

It's not Bad as in, "oh goddess, why did I waste my money and life buying this pile of snail droppings wrapped in hobbit snot?" kind of bad.

In fact, I found the book to be quite enjoyable -> although to be fair, I am a player of adepts.

I found the fluff to be enjoyable and diverting, but since this is a feedback thread, I and othe readers were trying to give a semi-critical review of our impressions of the book and how it could have been better (in our humble opinions).

And since you and I have ended up on opposing sides of discussions in the past, you may not agree with all my observations.

-Siege

well, fluff is important. SR isn't just a game system, it's a game world.

Sure - to a point.

But I disagree that a 3/4 fluff, 1/4 mechanics is a good balance.

-Siege

It's also worth pointing out there is a fairly in depth (16 page or so, I think) thread all about SOTA 64.

The issue of Ways was addressed in the other thread. I explained there that it was decided that GMs and players shouldn't be forced to enforce one specific set of rules for the Ways when the concept itself allowed for so much leeway (as compared with magical traditions for instance). This leeway also ruled out simply introducing lists of powers "associated" with each way (ie. one of the shadowtalkers makes a pretty good example of how a Artist adept might use Smashing Blow or Killing Hands as a creative tool).

We also ruled out the option of leaving it entirely up to GM fiat whether powers fitted (or not) with a given character's interpretation of a Way, thereby excluding the player.

In fact most of us believed that Ways are integral to the character concept and that defining and integrating a Way in play should be simply a natural aspect of roleplaying an adept and a challenge for the GM. In fact we enourage GMs to play up the ramifications of a character's choice of Way in the game itself beyond simply adding mechanics.

For those that would, inevitably, want more teeth to the concept an alternative was actually included in the text as an Optional Rule, which provides a mixed solution where the player defines the adept's individual approach to his Way at creation, the GM then discusses with the player whether or not a given power is appropriate to that character. If the player can't present a good reasoning (such as an Artist using Smashing Blow to sculpt rock with his bare hands) for the character developing that power through the his Way, the GM can allow it at a slightly increased power point cost because it is beyond the focus of the character's training. The rule also applies to power development in play or when a character strays from his way (ie. an Invisible Way adept always using his powers to fight in the open) or characters who never chose a formal Way (the "Lost").


Regarding the fluff to rules ratio, I would point out that many people think SR already has a heavy rule set and that if you look closer at the fluff in the Spy, Adept, Cop and EuroMagic chapters you'll find plenty of hooks and links to ongoing subplots as well as fluff to frame the rules.

As I noted, individual results may vary.

While I agree some books are massively rule-prone, swinging to the other side isn't necessarily a good thing either.

-Siege

I agre with Siege here. I think SR is a little rules bulky, not heavy since it's more padding than anything else (and proper indexes would help).

But it's still nice to see something in a book, and then be told how it is done, or even how it could be done. I don't get a lot of time with my players, so the less time I have to spend reading rules the better, but I'd much rather read rules which are hard and fast (ish) than to have to read the whole chapter and decide how I interpret a whole bunch of stuff.

Then god help the player (and PC) if I lose my notes or change my mind..... that's happened and gets sticky.

I one major problem with the idea of a rules-benefitted "berserker" adept. The "must be berserk" geas is not limiting enough. If it takes a Willpower(4) test to go berserk, and is a free action(it's not stated anywhere what type of action it is, and I would call it a free action before I'd call it a simple action), what's to stop an adept with high Willpower from almost always fulfilling the condition for their geas?

Geasa should ensure that a character's adept powers are not functioning at least half of the time. When we get into the fact(it's stated in SOTA:2064) that initiated adept berserkers reduce the TN# on the Willpower test by their initiate grade, it becomes even less acceptable. A berserker adept with a few grades of initiation under their belt will be able to go berserk except in the event of a critical failure of their Willpower test.

However, ignoring this for a moment, if I, personally, were to make a berserker adept, I wouldn't give them a weird non-canon "magical adrenal pump". There's no reason to. The effects of an adrenal pump can be simulated, in all the ways that a berserker might need, with simple application of Attribute Boost. Here's a 6-point(with geasa) loadout I've used in the past for a NPC adept working for Winternight:

Adept Powers(Universally Geased: Berserk): Pain Resistance(Rating 6), Improved Reflexes(Rating 2), Strength Boost(Rating 8).

While they might pass out or be seriously fatigued after activating their powers(as they should be), during the period of time that they are berserk(and they always activate Strength Boost when this occurs) they are very dangerous with their weapon of choice(this one, a toxic idol worshipper of Thor, used a warhammer weapon focus and a pair of shock gloves). 16M, or 13M Stun + 8S Stun(Shock), is nothing to sneeze at.

I'm not sure what it says in the book (still waiting for my author copies), but the target number is supposed to be 6, and you have to be an initate to even make this test.

Still, the limiting aspect is that you have gone berserk, "attacking the closest living thing, friend or foe, using the most powerful weapon available" (BBB, p 163). Half the time you attack your friends rather than your friends. Uninitated adepts have to be wounded to go berserk, or take so much drugs or booze that they enter a combat frenzy automatically. Though when rereading the rules for berserkers they are bit vague on this.

As a sidenote I never intended the shamanic mask to be a geas. Actually I can't see how it can be as isn't limiting the adept in any way. Shamanic masks on berserkers acts like it does on shamans (BBB. p 163), except for cultural variants where they turn blue or green

The drawback to being Berserk?

You'd better hope you run out of Berserk before you run out of enemies - your teammates are gonna be really cranky if they have to subdue you every time a fight ends.

And you don't have the option of withdrawing from combat until/unless you lose the Berserk state which, whoops, there go your linked powers.

I think it's a pretty hefty price to hang on one's powers because the chance for something to go very wrong very quickly is very real. (As spoken by any first level party adventuring with a barbarian )

-Siege

As for the Shamanic Mask - it defeats the whole "subtle" aspect of the adept.

While it won't be limiting all the time, there is no mistaking the adept for being magical when (s)he starts doing something that invokes the Mask. And let's face it, there are sometimes when you don't want to draw attention to yourself.

And it might get you shot by the enemy thinking you're a shaman and not a lowly adept.

-Siege

Edit: And Adun kinda makes my point for me - there aren't any numbers on how the Berserk geas would/could/should work. So if I wanted to make a Berserker, I'd have to write up a proposal, submit it to my gm and see if he agrees with my reasoning as to how or why this would work.

Are we using the Bear or Shark berserker rules?

-Siege

Yeah, you'd almost think they were supposed to be some kind of hindrance.

In certain situations, they are. Your ignorance to the actual rules and preference to grossly overrate their limitation notwithstanding.

EDIT: What's next? Shotguns should only be usable 50% of the time because they have a limitation to shotgun ammunition? Or spells with the fetish limitation should be useless half the time because of said limitation? How about shamans? Should they be rendered useless 50% of the time because they're limited to nature spirits? The word "limitation" does not mean "constant thorn in your side that renders you powerless half the time."

Never said otherwise. I only objected to the comment that they should all limit a character half the time -- that's completely bogus save for a few geasa.

A berserker geas *is* the situation that causes the limitation itself. If you don't give a rat's ass about your fellow runners, innocent bystandards, or anyone else, feel free to rage out to your heart's content.

I agree with Funk. While there are a lot of "should"s and "must"s in the chapter in MitS detailing geasa, there is no absolute limitation to "at least half the time". To take an absolute rules point of view, this limitation is not even limiting in certain circumstances.

For example, consider that there are 24 hours in the day, a geas that states the the magician needs to be in combat to use his magic is way more limiting than the 50% needed since combat doesn't last for more than a few combat rounds!

A couple of notes:

A "combat frenzy" geas, if we use the Bear shaman rules presents a couple of problems:

1. An adept must suffer "physical" damage - this does not specify an actual Light or greater wound or if cosmetic damage is sufficient. Cosmetic being descriptive rather than mechanical - "I get slapped across the face and suffer one helluva paper cut, do I make my Berserk roll now?"

2. A Bear's berserk lasts for three turns - that's a really, really short time to have an adept's magic to actually work. After the three turns, the adept has to be wounded again to get the nifties. And if we're using the "real damage" rule from above, that's gonna add up pretty quickly.

According to the note, Initiated Berserker adepts can Frenzy at will with a (Willpower - Init Grade) versus TN 6. I'd suggest allowing berserkers to frenzy at will with a TN 6 Willpower check. They won't be as good as Initiated adepts, but it'll save wear-and-tear on the adept in question.

-Siege

This thread should be in Sota64's folder, I think.

Perpetual berserks? Chained berserks? Oooooooh.

Since I gather you're the one who wrote the rule, I gather you know you're already correct about the "TN 6 - Init Grade".

Without referencing the book again, it was my impression only Initiated Berskers could opt to use the "6 -grade" ruling. All non-inits must be injured and fail a Willpower check to go berserk which struck me as a tad crippling, above and beyond the idea of a geas.

-Siege

You're correct that only inititated berserkers may go berserk at will. IMHO the rule is balanced, but it might have something to do with the way I play (in forge terminology I'm a narrativist). Maybe it's too crippling in your game, but it is difficult for me to predict what is crippling in other people's games. Also as a newbie freelancer I found it better to build on established rules rather than designing a whole new set of rules for berserker adepts (it is also a very minor part of the game and this isn't RIFTS).
I hope you liked the rest of the chapter even if you find the berserker geasa too crippling.

"Oh frag, the adept is foaming! Quick, someone dose him!"

Adept: "No, wait...it's only bee....zzzzzzzzz...."

Great argument for remote controlled autoinjectors with tranq drugs.

As a rule I did enjoy it, but I wasn't particularly happy with the general layout - if you'd like specifics, I can provide a more detailed analysis regarding my opinion on the subject.

And do keep in mind, it is only my opinion.

-Siege

I'd like specifics.

Ok - the header in each section is the same font and approximate size as the sub-sections before it, which makes it annoying to skim the book for specific topics.

Example:
Page 104 - 105

We have "Traditiona Witchcraft" by Willow (cute), followed by "Peculiarities of the Craft" and "Street Witches". Those are all sub-sections of "Witchcraft Reloaded".

But since the intro to the following section "Druids" looks exactly like the previous section and sub-sections, it gives the feeling of disjointed topics flowing together.

"A Question of Paradigm" - by Nicholas Flamel?

Now - the format is almost identical to the police section, but I don't get the same feeling of jumbled disjointed-ness.

The Adept Ways
I have a similar observation about this section - it all flows together to my eye(s) and I have to focus on the specific sentences to read the material.

-Siege