Full Version: Shadowrun 3rd Revised
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| Saying barrier and armor are balanced because a mage can cast it on a sam ignores the stipulation of the problem, sams are in trouble without magical support. A mage with firearms skill and a sustained armor spell can easily shrug off a 10S shot. I can come up with a dozen situations where the mage has a clear advantage solely by virtue of being a mage, while very few when the sam has an advantage (the one big one is when they're 'toe to toe', but that's really about it.) |
I think I'm seeing the problem Nezumi. You equate alot of 'sammie' goods into the Mage. I mean, a Sammie is better at alot of things, but only initially. He's more interactive with the cyberworld, has a datajack, a computer skill, can even use a RCD for drones, he has cool armours, nice weapons, etc. All things that a Mage can obtain, though usually at the cost to some of his magical repertoire at char-gen, or through money/experience/geasa in his career.
The problem seems to be that the Sammie doesn't have access to become a mage later on in life. He sacrificed that option at character generation in order to have a better initial character in other areas. After all, anything a sammie has, a mage can have after awhile, plus a mage has lotsa nifty spells. I'm sorry, but you can never find a balance if that's how you're seeing things. The solutions (like, you can't cast spells in armour) are too off-base with the shadowrun theme. The next best thing to a solution is to buy up your mage in the sammie (possible with the new magic system that -might- get implemented. All you need to do is buy a tradition, some magic, and some sorcery)
As some asides...
I don't have enough experience to say if adepts reliably trump mages. Generally adepts have such short range, and have so much trouble hiding against astral perception, that mages still have the upper hand, so it doesn't become paper, rock, scissors, it becomes paper, rock, dynamite. I could be wrong, however.
Mages almost always have armor as good or better than sams. If the mages take a penalty to their quickness linked skills, it generally isn't much of a loss, since they have other options. The only question is whether it's better to dodge or soak. Most of my mages have had a body of 4-6, and almost always have their body higher than sams have their willpower.
Some of these suggestions are very good, and I do implement them in my games, but I would like to see them implemented in SR3R, which is why I'm bringing them up. Grounding certainly IS feasible, and someone made a great suggestion to prevent the abuse Kage pointed out. The idea is everything has its home 'start' and a finish point. Spirits all start on the astral, because that's their preferred home. Foci all start on the physical, because they're made of physical objects, same with mages. They 'project' into the other realm. Spells can only be grounded in the direction CONTRARY to the way they are projecting, so the grounded effects of a spell on a foci ONLY impact the physical, on a spirit ONLY impact the astral.
From my understanding, sustaining foci are so closely tied to the mage that no smart mage would EVER sell it to a known criminal. If we made rules to 'buy' sustained spells, that would be a good solution.
As for Sphynx' post... You're partially right and partially wrong. In my experience, starting mages always have the same armor as most sams (discounting cybernetic armor). Armor jackets or lined coats and RTL suits are standard. Let's be honest, 'cool armour' is dirt cheap, all told. Same with weapons. With the exception of smartlinks, mages have access to the exact same weapons as sams. They generally have a more limited selection, due to lack of funds and varied skills, but in the game I'm running now, all the sams and all the mages rely heavily on the exact same SMGs and handguns, and exchange ammo regularly. Sams do sometimes bother to invest in computer skills, although the cost of a deck and programs makes that ultimately pretty prohibitive early on (unless he just kills the decker). I've never seen a sam get into using drones, perhaps it's a failure on the part of my sams.
But ultimately you're right. Sams cap out much sooner than mages. Mages simply have more OPTIONS. Options are always good. Now I'm not suggesting that mages need to be more restricted in their long term growth potential, or that sams should be allowed to awaken later on. Both are silly ideas. All I'm suggesting is what everyone has been suggesting for the past few days; give sams more options. More varied cyber, more skills, more specialties. If a sam can get anti-magic cyber, learn to erect wards and perhaps get that cool astral camera, these let the sam truly become the generalist he is supposed to be.
I don't have enough experience to say if adepts reliably trump mages. Generally adepts have such short range, and have so much trouble hiding against astral perception, that mages still have the upper hand, so it doesn't become paper, rock, scissors, it becomes paper, rock, dynamite. I could be wrong, however.
Mages almost always have armor as good or better than sams. If the mages take a penalty to their quickness linked skills, it generally isn't much of a loss, since they have other options. The only question is whether it's better to dodge or soak. Most of my mages have had a body of 4-6, and almost always have their body higher than sams have their willpower.
Some of these suggestions are very good, and I do implement them in my games, but I would like to see them implemented in SR3R, which is why I'm bringing them up. Grounding certainly IS feasible, and someone made a great suggestion to prevent the abuse Kage pointed out. The idea is everything has its home 'start' and a finish point. Spirits all start on the astral, because that's their preferred home. Foci all start on the physical, because they're made of physical objects, same with mages. They 'project' into the other realm. Spells can only be grounded in the direction CONTRARY to the way they are projecting, so the grounded effects of a spell on a foci ONLY impact the physical, on a spirit ONLY impact the astral.
From my understanding, sustaining foci are so closely tied to the mage that no smart mage would EVER sell it to a known criminal. If we made rules to 'buy' sustained spells, that would be a good solution.
As for Sphynx' post... You're partially right and partially wrong. In my experience, starting mages always have the same armor as most sams (discounting cybernetic armor). Armor jackets or lined coats and RTL suits are standard. Let's be honest, 'cool armour' is dirt cheap, all told. Same with weapons. With the exception of smartlinks, mages have access to the exact same weapons as sams. They generally have a more limited selection, due to lack of funds and varied skills, but in the game I'm running now, all the sams and all the mages rely heavily on the exact same SMGs and handguns, and exchange ammo regularly. Sams do sometimes bother to invest in computer skills, although the cost of a deck and programs makes that ultimately pretty prohibitive early on (unless he just kills the decker). I've never seen a sam get into using drones, perhaps it's a failure on the part of my sams.
But ultimately you're right. Sams cap out much sooner than mages. Mages simply have more OPTIONS. Options are always good. Now I'm not suggesting that mages need to be more restricted in their long term growth potential, or that sams should be allowed to awaken later on. Both are silly ideas. All I'm suggesting is what everyone has been suggesting for the past few days; give sams more options. More varied cyber, more skills, more specialties. If a sam can get anti-magic cyber, learn to erect wards and perhaps get that cool astral camera, these let the sam truly become the generalist he is supposed to be.
In response to Sphinx re:adepts.
Adepts will take down a mage, usually with little problems. They will have weapon foci that they can activate and deactivate, also as they initiate they take centering and shielding. If the mage goes invisible, they use astral perception.
Nezumi and Sphinx re:sammies
As for sammies, yes they typically cap out a bit sooner, but they they start to focus on more skills. A mage is continually using karma for initiations, spells, and foci. A sammie will be a master of a huge selection of skills. Each archtype has a specific focus. A sammie after a while that starts controlling drones, has a way to get back at that mage who uses binoculars from a mile away.
I like the idea of grounding going 1 way, towards the plane of origin.
I am not one for the anti-magic cyber ..... but if there was a way that they could go through rituals to up their magic resistance.... 10 karma for an extra +1 TN that would be more paletable to me. Any mechanic that allows a sammie to gain magic ability just screams of abuse.
If you feel sammies are ripped off then play burned out mages. I personally don't have a problem with sammies not being able to defend well against magic. That is what my team mage is for. It just seems that people are always finding the other side greener.
I have a 300 karma sammie who is my favorite and most experience player, but don't people typically retire their chars around this point? I have so much more that I want to do with him, so I don't feel restricted by the options. What are you guys playing that makes you feel like you are lacking? Could that be more of the issue?
Adepts will take down a mage, usually with little problems. They will have weapon foci that they can activate and deactivate, also as they initiate they take centering and shielding. If the mage goes invisible, they use astral perception.
Nezumi and Sphinx re:sammies
As for sammies, yes they typically cap out a bit sooner, but they they start to focus on more skills. A mage is continually using karma for initiations, spells, and foci. A sammie will be a master of a huge selection of skills. Each archtype has a specific focus. A sammie after a while that starts controlling drones, has a way to get back at that mage who uses binoculars from a mile away.
I like the idea of grounding going 1 way, towards the plane of origin.
I am not one for the anti-magic cyber ..... but if there was a way that they could go through rituals to up their magic resistance.... 10 karma for an extra +1 TN that would be more paletable to me. Any mechanic that allows a sammie to gain magic ability just screams of abuse.
If you feel sammies are ripped off then play burned out mages. I personally don't have a problem with sammies not being able to defend well against magic. That is what my team mage is for. It just seems that people are always finding the other side greener.
I have a 300 karma sammie who is my favorite and most experience player, but don't people typically retire their chars around this point? I have so much more that I want to do with him, so I don't feel restricted by the options. What are you guys playing that makes you feel like you are lacking? Could that be more of the issue?
Huh? I never said anything about adepts? o.O
Anyhows, I'm not agreeing with Nezumi (no offense my friend), the premise for his side is basically the gun vs spell conundrum. Spells are more effective than Guns because there is less defense to spells. Anyone can get a gun, bullets are dirt cheap. Spells are learned through karma and tend to cause stun damage when cast at a level that they are effective. If it were true that spells were 'better', and there was less defense for them, that's how it should be. However, experience tells me that the gun is still better unless I need it to be quiet and even then, expect to take drain (not all of us focus on combat foci/totems).
I don't see any imbalance despite all the arguements for that imbalance. Things seem as they should be. Buy your weapon with karma (I know, not a possibility) and then it should be more powerful, aka Weapon Foci where you get to roll all those extra dice vs smaller defenses.
Anyhows, I'm not agreeing with Nezumi (no offense my friend), the premise for his side is basically the gun vs spell conundrum. Spells are more effective than Guns because there is less defense to spells. Anyone can get a gun, bullets are dirt cheap. Spells are learned through karma and tend to cause stun damage when cast at a level that they are effective. If it were true that spells were 'better', and there was less defense for them, that's how it should be. However, experience tells me that the gun is still better unless I need it to be quiet and even then, expect to take drain (not all of us focus on combat foci/totems).
I don't see any imbalance despite all the arguements for that imbalance. Things seem as they should be. Buy your weapon with karma (I know, not a possibility) and then it should be more powerful, aka Weapon Foci where you get to roll all those extra dice vs smaller defenses.
Could you post an example of a chargen Adept that you think could reliably take down a typical chargen PC mage?
~J
~J
i can. increased reflexes 2, astral perception, and a firearm skill at 5 (7). a high Will would help. the mage can't beat his average init score, can't hide from him with invis, and can't throw up a barrier strong enough to block his shots. the mage might survive the first attack, but he's going to take wound mods--no avoiding it. at which point, the mage is looking at wound mods, sustaining penalties, and a high Will (or a high combat pool, if he goes for a manip). a really min-maxed mage designed to survive firearms attacks could give this guy a challenge, but it'd still be a pretty fair fight.
So, aside from the Astral Perception (only useful vs Invis), nothing a Street Sam couldn't do either. 
Don't forget that he's got a lot more than 5 Power Points to play with, too. With the Geasa rules (either to offset magic loss from a Smartlink and some good Optics, or 2 points worth of Bioware, or just to get a discount and pay .75 the cost of all his powers so far, or both) you can stretch even a starting Adept pretty far.
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| So, aside from the Astral Perception (only useful vs Invis), nothing a Street Sam couldn't do either. |
astral perception is useful against a bit more than just invis. as far as doing things a street sam can't do, well, astral perception is a damn nifty trick that most street sams will never match. regardless, doing things a street sam can't do wasn't the question i was trying to answer.
How about you stick a weapon foci in his hand... The extra magic points that he gets can also give a few extra dice (from the foci) in there to slice through an elementals the mage might have, not just the spell slinger once he meets him face to face.
Magic Resistance will help out of the box (and in IMO out of the box it should be +1 to tn, instead of +1 dice), and once the adept initiates, centering will allow him to own any mage. Second initiation, he gets shielding. it helps a great deal.
Sorry about the mixup Sphinx.
Magic Resistance will help out of the box (and in IMO out of the box it should be +1 to tn, instead of +1 dice), and once the adept initiates, centering will allow him to own any mage. Second initiation, he gets shielding. it helps a great deal.
Sorry about the mixup Sphinx.
| QUOTE (Platinum @ Jul 3 2007, 01:49 PM) |
| Second initiation, he gets shielding. it helps a great deal. |
Not to ruin your twink-fest, but Shielding requires Spell Defense which requires Sorcery. Mystic adepts can do this, but they can also do almost anything a regular full mage can depending on how you prioritize your build.
I was under the impression that a physad could just use his initiation level directly. It stipulates that it is the initated version of spell defence. This was something that another GM in a group I was playing in allowed so I didn't look at it closer or even review.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
astral perception is useful against a bit more than just invis. as far as doing things a street sam can't do, well, astral perception is a damn nifty trick that most street sams will never match. regardless, doing things a street sam can't do wasn't the question i was trying to answer. |
Of course it is, we're talking about in the 'taking out a mage straight out of char-gen' though. That 'combat', AP is only useful for ignoring Invis.
i agree, but i'm not sure what bearing that point has.
A mage with a few force 1 sustaining foci can have an initiative comparable to or higher than that of the adept, improved invisibility which will stump any adept who hasn't spent 2 points (ugh!) on astral perception, and maybe another fun thing or two.
Weapon foci require karma to bond, and therefore, even if the adept can afford it (which is awfully tough at chargen), he can't use it until he's gotten a few karma under his belt. An adept still generally has a reasonable chance against even high powered elementals with a katana. You also can't have magic resist if you're awakened, so that's not an option.
It would be an awfully close match. Hardly a paper/scissors competition But I would tend to agree that an adept will generally have a better chance than a sam.
Weapon foci require karma to bond, and therefore, even if the adept can afford it (which is awfully tough at chargen), he can't use it until he's gotten a few karma under his belt. An adept still generally has a reasonable chance against even high powered elementals with a katana. You also can't have magic resist if you're awakened, so that's not an option.
It would be an awfully close match. Hardly a paper/scissors competition
But I would tend to agree that an adept will generally have a better chance than a sam.
he can use the spell points in chargen under the old priority system under resources (I am still stuck on SR2 rules)... I am not sure how it works with the point system, so you can still bond foci out of chargen. Even if you didn't spend 2 points on perception, there is ultrasound.
All of this is moot, because shadowrun isn't a solo game. Not everyone plays mages because they can't do everything.
All of this is moot, because shadowrun isn't a solo game. Not everyone plays mages because they can't do everything.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| A mage with a few force 1 sustaining foci can have an initiative comparable to or higher than that of the adept, improved invisibility which will stump any adept who hasn't spent 2 points (ugh!) on astral perception, and maybe another fun thing or two. Weapon foci require karma to bond, and therefore, even if the adept can afford it (which is awfully tough at chargen), he can't use it until he's gotten a few karma under his belt. |
The points I quoted you on tell me you do not consider the full cost to the mage character, it is like these are freebies for him. Priority C or 10 BP to afford 2 Force 1 foci is hardly cheap, maybe the 2 spell points needed to know the 2 spells is. There is also that Priority A or 30 BP to be a mage. Just to have the 2 Force 1 foci and ability to use magic costs the mage 1/3 of the available BP.
What can a mundane get with 40 BP, or a spare Priority A and Priority C? To really see, build a mundane without those Priorities available, as that is what the mage is giving up to get his advantages.
I'll never understand the fetish some people have with weapon foci for Adepts, who can get themselves buckets of dice anyways (and bypass regeneration, etc, with Killing Hands just fine).
...1: Reach
...2: DC Power Modifier
...3: Addition to Dice Pool from Force Rating (yeah, a bigger bucket)
...4: PPs left free for other powers.
...and, would you want to physically touch a toxic spirit? eeeeyuuuuu...!!!
...2: DC Power Modifier
...3: Addition to Dice Pool from Force Rating (yeah, a bigger bucket)
...4: PPs left free for other powers.
...and, would you want to physically touch a toxic spirit? eeeeyuuuuu...!!!
In exchange for money, more money, the fact you NEED a weapon to be effective, lugging around something everyone else wants, karma to spend on bonding with it, always hoping your opponent doesn't just use Close Combat to negate that reach modifier, etc, etc.
If you make an Adept that happens to have Edged Weapons instead of or in addition to an applicable martial art, a GM that lets you tote around reach melee weapons without problem, a guy that has a couple hundred thousand dollars burning a hole in his credstick, a GM that lets you tote around foci without problem, and an Adept with the karma to burn on being able to use it, great.
But for a starting character in particular, I don't see "LOL PLUS TEH WEAPON FOCUS!" as a solid argument, y'know? If anything, I've always seen Weapon Foci as something a Mage would be interested in (as a way to get a halfway decent combat skill), since Adepts already have so many ways to do the things a Weapon Focus does, just built in.
If you make an Adept that happens to have Edged Weapons instead of or in addition to an applicable martial art, a GM that lets you tote around reach melee weapons without problem, a guy that has a couple hundred thousand dollars burning a hole in his credstick, a GM that lets you tote around foci without problem, and an Adept with the karma to burn on being able to use it, great.
But for a starting character in particular, I don't see "LOL PLUS TEH WEAPON FOCUS!" as a solid argument, y'know? If anything, I've always seen Weapon Foci as something a Mage would be interested in (as a way to get a halfway decent combat skill), since Adepts already have so many ways to do the things a Weapon Focus does, just built in.
Close Combat in its current form needs to die. Actually, the whole Martial Arts system needs to be gutted and either discarded or reworked—most of the maneuvers are useless, and the ones that aren't are typically excessively powerful ("oh, I'll just cancel out a bunch of modifiers for little to no cost!").
~J
~J
Well, yeah. There are a few must-have manuevers, and the rest of them blow goats (I know one Adept that took Vicious Blow!). Whirling, Close Combat, Focus Strength, maybe Kick Attack and Kip-Up...everything else is pretty worthless. The martial arts don't seem to have been researched very well, either, nevermind balanced against one another.
*shrugs* But that's just me.
*shrugs* But that's just me.
i like the system, though i agree that the maneuvers need to be rebalanced.
I'd like it better if you weren't a flaming retard for trying to be a well rounded fighter (IE, schooled in more than one martial art). The argument is that Brawling is supposed to be the fix to that (for a "mixed martial art" sort of feel), but if that's meant to be the case than Brawling should have access to every manuever.
As it is, if you try to be good at more than one art, you're just being horrifically inefficient with karma. Mind bogglingly so.
As it is, if you try to be good at more than one art, you're just being horrifically inefficient with karma. Mind bogglingly so.
In the spirit of SR3R, here are the martial arts manoeuvres. Copy, paste & fix. 
[ Spoiler ]
.
I think the mistake made was in separating the martial arts into different arts. I think the maneuvers should have been added as tools for Unarmed Combat. If you want to explain it as "Karate", then you have Unarmed/Karate or Edged Weapons/Karate. There was no need to complicate things (and open up a can of worms for what martial arts get what) when a KISS would have worked well. Use the same rules, but just for already-existing combat skills.
And of course, Whirling and Close Combat were by far the most powerful manuevers. I think that was because they figured they'd over-done the TN modifiers and over-compensated. Whirling should simply be that the TN never exceeds +2 (IMHO), and CloseCombat only halves (round up, not down) the modifiers for reach.
And of course, Whirling and Close Combat were by far the most powerful manuevers. I think that was because they figured they'd over-done the TN modifiers and over-compensated. Whirling should simply be that the TN never exceeds +2 (IMHO), and CloseCombat only halves (round up, not down) the modifiers for reach.
Melee, as I said before earlier, should be more close to blow-by-blow, considering the time-frame we are talking about.
If it is blow-by-blow, it not only follows plausibility to the human concept of time better, but it also means that this ridiculous concept of maneuvers and styles is not needed as then you would be simply talking about a character that claims an open skill in a style of their choice that they so name, and declares a specific attack as they so decide in the middle of combat, as a fighter would be doing...not some ridiculous Kata form.
This would be inherently balanced by the GM at his discretion of appropriate difficulty rating based on the guidance of the difficulty scale provided in SR for this very concept of situations, and then the player would roll their open skill of fighting style in dice to succeed at the specific attack.
Or in other words, this is a called fricken shot in a blow-by-blow melee system.
Boy....that was real hard to make.
If it is blow-by-blow, it not only follows plausibility to the human concept of time better, but it also means that this ridiculous concept of maneuvers and styles is not needed as then you would be simply talking about a character that claims an open skill in a style of their choice that they so name, and declares a specific attack as they so decide in the middle of combat, as a fighter would be doing...not some ridiculous Kata form.
This would be inherently balanced by the GM at his discretion of appropriate difficulty rating based on the guidance of the difficulty scale provided in SR for this very concept of situations, and then the player would roll their open skill of fighting style in dice to succeed at the specific attack.
Or in other words, this is a called fricken shot in a blow-by-blow melee system.
Boy....that was real hard to make.
Yeah, but then you have to figure out how much to lower damage by, to note that it's now a single attack being made instead of the old "several seconds of feints, attacks, counters, and blocks, made by both parties" and shit like that.
Oh, and while we're vaguely on the subject, FUCK AMBIDEXTERITY. The two-weapno fighting rules essentially made it a required Edge for anyone with any interest in fighting in close combat well.
Oh, and while we're vaguely on the subject, FUCK AMBIDEXTERITY. The two-weapno fighting rules essentially made it a required Edge for anyone with any interest in fighting in close combat well.
| QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm) | ||
Not to ruin your twink-fest, but Shielding requires Spell Defense which requires Sorcery. Mystic adepts can do this, but they can also do almost anything a regular full mage can depending on how you prioritize your build. |
Ah, but they can learn Sorcery, mainly for the Astral Combat specialization. I don't know if this translates into being able to use Spell Defense or Shielding, though (I still think not), but an adept can still learn Sorcery.
| QUOTE (nezumi @ Jul 3 2007, 08:33 AM) |
| From my understanding, sustaining foci are so closely tied to the mage that no smart mage would EVER sell it to a known criminal. |
I am guessing this is the total response dismissing my suggestion mundanes can buy the same magically sustained/anchored spells that you insist give mages unfair power?
Then why should the PC mage be forced to run such horrendous risks to try to survive by owning the same magical accessories? Really, safeguarding magical equipment should be in line with safeguarding any major piece of equipment.
Also, if you see mages as so overpowered, then adjusting your game (or your understanding) to make it easier for mundanes to control magical accessories seems like a fair equalizer.
And I believe I said to take a mage contact to buy from, in fact make them a buddy or better. Or give the Contact an Intelligence of 1.
[edit]
I just had a better idea for a solution. Have the mundane take a high Force free spirit as a Contact (or make it a part of your game world that high Force Free Spirits provide this service) and let him buy foci from it. He can pay nuyen and karma just like everyone else, and the Free spirit should be of sufficient Force that no one is going to mess with them.
[/edit]
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Oh, and while we're vaguely on the subject, FUCK AMBIDEXTERITY. The two-weapno fighting rules essentially made it a required Edge for anyone with any interest in fighting in close combat well. |
Yeah, I do not really care for the way Ambidexterity works in unarmed combat. I can kind of understand in ranged combat.
But in close combat having a second weapon in your off hand should give you an advantage, not a penalty.
Just a quick note. If we use the system I've donated, a 'sam' could spend as little as 6 points to have a spell pool for spell defense via the sorcery skill as a mage does. 2 points for a tradition, 2 points for a magic rating of 1, 2 points for the ability to learn Sorcery. (could even create a 1 point sorcery item that only lets you learn Sorcery for spell defense for a 5 point Spell Defense 'edge')
BTW, as anyone looked at that pdf at all? I joined this conversation and posted it per request, but haven't heard anything from anyone about it yet. Is it that good (or that bad) that there's nothing to say?
Alternate Magic Creation House Rules (Includes Psionics)
BTW, as anyone looked at that pdf at all? I joined this conversation and posted it per request, but haven't heard anything from anyone about it yet. Is it that good (or that bad) that there's nothing to say?
Alternate Magic Creation House Rules (Includes Psionics)
I don't understand why unarmed combat was changed, but I think that it should go back to how it was back in second edition. I don't like the mauevers, they just over complicate things. There were rules for subduing, etc... pretty much every scenario was covered. It was up to you and the GM to sort out the choreography of the fight.
Critias is right Ambidexterity needs to be removed.
Critias is right Ambidexterity needs to be removed.
I read nezumi's copy (same version?) but use the old priority system so don't fully comprehend the intricacies of build points. With your 1 Magic 'sam' above, he'd be unable to use cyberware. Such characters would be limited in their roles wouldn't they? No decent samurai, riggers or deckers.
Very true. Guess that was a bad idea.
| QUOTE (tisoz @ Jul 4 2007, 07:44 AM) | ||
Yeah, I do not really care for the way Ambidexterity works in unarmed combat. I can kind of understand in ranged combat. But in close combat having a second weapon in your off hand should give you an advantage, not a penalty. |
Oh, it gives you plenty of an advantage, but only with the Edge. That's my issue with it. It makes the Edge a must-have for any would be knife fighter (or even boxer, with shock gloves suddenly you're magically half again as awesome with fisticuffs).
I genuinely prefer just the simplicity of the SR3 core "two cyber weapons" sort of rule. Add a little Power, no Edge required, and call it a day. As written, you're a dumbass if you want to be any good in melee and don't carry multiple weapons (with 6 points of your Edges spoken for, to give you x1.5 your dice pool).
Because as written Ambidexterity is just too good (as well as not making sense for not benefiting most unarmed combatants). I wouldn't mind seeing a 1, 2, 3, 4 (as opposed to 2, 4, 6, 8 pt.) breakdown for Ambidexterity where it only worked to offset the two-gun penalties, but where it left melee completely alone.
| QUOTE (Sphynx) |
| BTW, as anyone looked at that pdf at all? I joined this conversation and posted it per request, but haven't heard anything from anyone about it yet. Is it that good (or that bad) that there's nothing to say? |
My co-developer looked at it and thought it deserved deeper examination. I haven't had a chance to look at it closely, but it sounds like we'll be using it as a base, at least for now.
~J
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Yeah, but then you have to figure out how much to lower damage by, to note that it's now a single attack being made instead of the old "several seconds of feints, attacks, counters, and blocks, made by both parties" and shit like that. Oh, and while we're vaguely on the subject, FUCK AMBIDEXTERITY. The two-weapno fighting rules essentially made it a required Edge for anyone with any interest in fighting in close combat well. |
Not really that big of a deal.
Of all conversions in SR, that has to be one of the easiest.
The problem with SR3 was that it became a system of mass complexity and detail for mechanics.
SR's raw power is in handing the base formula's to the GM and loosely identifying some examples, templates, and pre-mades, and then letting the GM determine the rest as needed.
This explosion of a mechanic for every instance has done nothing but produced a really fun and interesting rule debating community, but an absolute crap hole of a fluid play system without referring to, or editing the system heavily.
Platinum - adepts get the same number of spell points as mundanes - 0. No bound foci.
| QUOTE |
| I am guessing this is the total response dismissing my suggestion mundanes can buy the same magically sustained/anchored spells that you insist give mages unfair power? Then why should the PC mage be forced to run such horrendous risks to try to survive by owning the same magical accessories? Really, safeguarding magical equipment should be in line with safeguarding any major piece of equipment. |
The difference being that if a mage is caught with a sustaining focus with his signature on, there's no additional trouble (unless it's over force 3, and even then, it probably pales in comparison to the trouble he's already in). If a sam is caught with that same force 1 focus, the mage is suddenly in significant trouble he wasn't in before. Not only is he likely wanted by the law, it's trivial to follow that trail, or even send combat spells through it to basically blow him up. That is what makes the difference.
Having free spirits selling sustaining foci to people is an option, just like we apparently have free spirits selling piles of gold in exchange for karma. I will try setting up a free spirit on a street corner in my next game and see how the group takes to it.
Sphynx, I read your pdf. It had not occurred to me that it allows a sam to learn spell defense without becoming a mage. Although when that sam gets a single piece of cyber, wouldn't that reduce his magic to 0 and thereby eliminate his spell defense ability? Maybe we could just rewrite the burn-out rules so spell defense doesn't disappear when magic disappears. On the other hand, that means the percentage of the shadowrun communities goes from around 30% to 99%. That is a major flavor change.
True Nezumi. Since I created the system, our entire team is magically active. Even those who got it for nothing other than Astral Perception. Seriously though, unless we ran a ganger campaign, nobody ever bought less than a Magic rating of 6. Sounds cool to have it dynamic, but everytime, even the 'pure sam' bought it up to 6 (because he needed all the cyber without losing his magic). Breaking it down to parts in the BP system -will- seriously increase the amount of magic in the game (though not everyone will be casting and/or summoning). Personally, I play a Telekinetic Psionic with no Astral Perception or Projection. He's admittedly alot weaker than a Shaman who focuses on telekinetic manip (no foci, no totem bonuses, weaker drain resist, etc). But he's tons more fun to play too.
It blows me away how many little things were houseruled in our game. I would have
sworn that you could have used that, but I did read in 3rd that you can't, as you said.
I am not a complete intentional munchkin.
I remember a few adepts taking weapon foci, and using force points to
bond them. Then again ... last time I played we still used 2nd edition. And there
is no definitive statement in there like there is in 3rd. Thanks for correcting my
error.
sworn that you could have used that, but I did read in 3rd that you can't, as you said.
I am not a complete intentional munchkin.
I remember a few adepts taking weapon foci, and using force points to
bond them. Then again ... last time I played we still used 2nd edition. And there
is no definitive statement in there like there is in 3rd. Thanks for correcting my
error.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| The difference being that if a mage is caught with a sustaining focus with his signature on, there's no additional trouble (unless it's over force 3, and even then, it probably pales in comparison to the trouble he's already in). If a sam is caught with that same force 1 focus, the mage is suddenly in significant trouble he wasn't in before. Not only is he likely wanted by the law, it's trivial to follow that trail, or even send combat spells through it to basically blow him up. |
Possibly, but I can think of more likely possibilities.
First, you were talking about the impact of Force 1 spells and foci. Now you are talking about the illegality of ones over force 2. Simple solution - buy a permit, just like the sammie should have a permit for all his other weapons and equipment.
Why would someone bother using ritual sorcery to "blow up" an enchanter or talismonger. This is a resource, and according to you, a very rare resource of someone willing to be a third party provider. To compare to a mundane supplier, if someone discovered a rare supplier of an in demand product, are they more likely to "blow up" the source or take advantage of the source.
By this logic of killing a service provider, I am going to have to assume shadowrunners are pursued forever for every run they pull.
Lone Star can afford their own mages who make their own sustaining foci. On the other hand, any mage who is making sustaining foci for criminals isn't someone they want on the streets.
Let me ask it like this, if a criminal came up to you and said 'hey, let me buy your car off of you, but uh... I'm not going to change the plates or the registry on it or anything, and you can't claim it's stolen."
Sure, you're not TECHNICALLY committing a crime (although with magical equipment, you almost certainly would be. I imagine it would be controlled like firearms, so selling to a criminal is a federal offense). But you're definitely inviting trouble. Like you said, a free spirit MIGHT do it (but again, if a free spirit is distributing sustaining foci to criminals, he's either going to get killed or somehow spirit-napped. The powers that be really can't allow such an easily controlled source of illegal weapons.)
Let me ask it like this, if a criminal came up to you and said 'hey, let me buy your car off of you, but uh... I'm not going to change the plates or the registry on it or anything, and you can't claim it's stolen."
Sure, you're not TECHNICALLY committing a crime (although with magical equipment, you almost certainly would be. I imagine it would be controlled like firearms, so selling to a criminal is a federal offense). But you're definitely inviting trouble. Like you said, a free spirit MIGHT do it (but again, if a free spirit is distributing sustaining foci to criminals, he's either going to get killed or somehow spirit-napped. The powers that be really can't allow such an easily controlled source of illegal weapons.)
Sphynx: I like your system, though I agree that introducing it would, in the short term, radically increase the number of PC mages. I can't seem to figure out adepts, though: they pay 2bp for a Tradition, 1 for Adeptery, and then 12 for 6 power points, for a total of 15bp, much less than the 25bp they'd normally pay under the build point system. Is this deliberate? It seems to make it too easy to add adept powers to pure mage characters.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| If you make an Adept that happens to have Edged Weapons instead of or in addition to an applicable martial art, a GM that lets you tote around reach melee weapons without problem, a guy that has a couple hundred thousand dollars burning a hole in his credstick, a GM that lets you tote around foci without problem, and an Adept with the karma to burn on being able to use it, great. |
...which is why as an adept you wait until you initiate and get Masking MetaMagic before getting the Weapon Focus (as the original KK did). Also, as long as it is not Activated it doesn't broadcast it's a focus. So carrying it around, even using it in its "turned off" mode would not draw any more attention than another mundane weapon. Also I would like to think most adepts are not so stupid as to openly carry something like a Katana or a Bastard Sword everywhere they go (that's what smaller more concealable weapons like Cougar Fineblades are for). Someone who does so asking for it.
Unfortunately until the rewrite (addition of the Critical Strike power), Unarmed combat was fairly pitiful in the damage category for you only received your Strength(M) as the power rating which, (unless you were a Troll Adept, or going the way of the burnout with Titanium Bone Lacing) could pretty much be staged down if not shaken off by someone wearing an Armoured Jacket, a bike messenger helmet, & forearm guards.
I'm not saying that Unarmed combat is a total waste for a human or elf, just that I see it is more a backup than a primary attack.
| QUOTE (Taran) |
| Sphynx: I like your system, though I agree that introducing it would, in the short term, radically increase the number of PC mages. I can't seem to figure out adepts, though: they pay 2bp for a Tradition, 1 for Adeptery, and then 12 for 6 power points, for a total of 15bp, much less than the 25bp they'd normally pay under the build point system. Is this deliberate? It seems to make it too easy to add adept powers to pure mage characters. |
They still need to pay 12 points for 6 magic.
So:
2 for tradition
1 for adept
10 for magic 6
12 for 6 powers.
so 24, one less then normal point build rules.
Good catch; I missed that (and it actually does balance perfectly; 2 + 1 + 10 + 12 = 25). It still only costs 13bp to add full adept powers to a mage, though, right? Or 15 if you need 2 traditions? Equivalently, it's only 5-10bp to add full spellcasting to a normal adept? Note that although this costs about as much as Magician's Way in the current system, it's much better because you don't need to trade your power points for Magic.
ETA: It occurs to me that everything I'm worried about can easily be fixed with a hard cap on the number of build points spent on magic at chargen. Every other category in the BP system is capped (no more than 60bp attributes, 60bp skills, etc.), so this is a perfectly precedented thing to do. In a standard 123 game like mine was years ago I'd probably set it at 30 or 35; this might be low. Speak, o creators! Does this sound reasonable to you?
ETA: It occurs to me that everything I'm worried about can easily be fixed with a hard cap on the number of build points spent on magic at chargen. Every other category in the BP system is capped (no more than 60bp attributes, 60bp skills, etc.), so this is a perfectly precedented thing to do. In a standard 123 game like mine was years ago I'd probably set it at 30 or 35; this might be low. Speak, o creators! Does this sound reasonable to you?
| QUOTE (Taran) |
| Every other category in the BP system is capped (no more than 60bp attributes |
This is a recommendation, not a rule. We need to decide whether we want to make it a rule or eliminate it.
| QUOTE |
| 60bp skills |
! I hadn't noticed that. Can someone think of a justification for that rule's existence? Given that skills are capped at 6 points anyway, and skills don't seem to me to have the same wide-ranging effects (pools, etc.) that an extremely high set of attributes can give, my opinion is that this is just silly.
~J
Yeah, I only just noticed that myself. I think it's desirable, though, if for no other reason than to legitimize the magic cap I just proposed. I do think that straight sixes (or the racial equivalent) are kinda degenerate at chargen; skills really aren't but I doubt that anyone in a standard 123 game is going to butt up against that limit; you'd have to spend too much keeping your attributes up, for one thing.
...@Sphynx
Just looked over and downloaded your house rules PDF. Overall, very nice indeed.
A few questions:
Astral Abilities: As I read it, an Adept can begin with Astral Perception (provided she spends the BPs for it) in addition to the powers she purchases with Power Points?
Advancement: Does the character need to allocate Karma to improving her Magic Attribute/Power Points in addition to initiating? Or, once play has started, do just the normal rules for magical advancement in MiTS apply? (This is part of my dislike of SR4 for it could take months of RL time to see any perceptible advancement unless every other mission was a Karma haul or you played several times a week).
Magic Loss: My one other concern is that pesky old rule about Magic Loss from wounds. This is partially brought up by the wording in the description of Power Points where it says that Magic Loss reduces Magic Points allocated to Spellcraft before reducing Power Points. So for a "full adept" (no spellcasting ability) it would still subtract from the Powers as per the original system then, correct?
Admittedly, this is one sore spot I have regarding Adepts since they tend to be more combat focused and therefore more prone to taking wounds than a strict spellcaster (eliminating this rule was one of the few improvements in 4th ED). Adepts also tend to pay a higher price for magic loss, the loss of actual abilities, as opposed to reducing the limit of how powerful of a spell that can be tossed. Furthermore, a spellcaster has several options to compensate for this (foci, overcasting, Elemental assistance, etc) which an adept does not have access to. Basically once the powers are lost, she has to initiate to get them back.
Just looked over and downloaded your house rules PDF. Overall, very nice indeed.
A few questions:
Astral Abilities: As I read it, an Adept can begin with Astral Perception (provided she spends the BPs for it) in addition to the powers she purchases with Power Points?
Advancement: Does the character need to allocate Karma to improving her Magic Attribute/Power Points in addition to initiating? Or, once play has started, do just the normal rules for magical advancement in MiTS apply? (This is part of my dislike of SR4 for it could take months of RL time to see any perceptible advancement unless every other mission was a Karma haul or you played several times a week).
Magic Loss: My one other concern is that pesky old rule about Magic Loss from wounds. This is partially brought up by the wording in the description of Power Points where it says that Magic Loss reduces Magic Points allocated to Spellcraft before reducing Power Points. So for a "full adept" (no spellcasting ability) it would still subtract from the Powers as per the original system then, correct?
Admittedly, this is one sore spot I have regarding Adepts since they tend to be more combat focused and therefore more prone to taking wounds than a strict spellcaster (eliminating this rule was one of the few improvements in 4th ED). Adepts also tend to pay a higher price for magic loss, the loss of actual abilities, as opposed to reducing the limit of how powerful of a spell that can be tossed. Furthermore, a spellcaster has several options to compensate for this (foci, overcasting, Elemental assistance, etc) which an adept does not have access to. Basically once the powers are lost, she has to initiate to get them back.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.