[markelphoenix]

Do Power Foci boost the effect of spells whose effect is based on magic rating?

I am immediately thinking of Indirect Combat Spells and Physical/Mana Barrier

Indirect Combat DV is Magic/2 Round Up. So if you had Magic 7 + Power Foci 4, would it be 11/2 Round Up, or just Magic of 7?

Power Foci
Power foci live up to their name. They are very
powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective
Magic rating. That means they add to your
Sorcery dice pools whenever you use that skill,
along with any other test where Magic is involved.
Power foci can take any form, but for some reason,
rings and amulets are quite popular.

That one line makes me question it, because Magic being involved in the DV of the spell directly effects the damage resistance threshold to resist all or partial damage.

Like wise with Barriers, Magic establishes base barrier rating before hits. Does the Power Foci rating apply to that base Magic value?

[Shinobi Killfist]

wow they kept that wording even though it caused confusion the last 2 editions. It is a new edition so maybe it has changed but in 4e/5e this part; Power foci live up to their name. They are very
powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective Magic rating; is fluff, where as this part; They add to your Sorcery dice pools whenever you use that skill, along with any other test where Magic is involved. ; is rules, something like the base damage of your indirect combat spells is not a TEST so would not be effected.

[Xenon]

wow they kept that wording

Yes, I agree with you.

In previous edition the general consensus was that the game effect of a power focus is that it act as a positive dice pool modifier on tests where magic is involved (that it does not act as an augmentation to your magic rating).

Since they kept the wording I am assuming that we are ruling it the same way in this edition.

But really.... that they didn't take the opportunity to change this wording after all debate we had over this in previous editions.... :/

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

A power focus gives you bonus dice to tests that invoke MAG.  It does not give you a bonus to your MAG attribute.

[Lormyr]

But really.... that they didn't take the opportunity to change this wording after all debate we had over this in previous editions.... :/

You can't possibly be surprised by this dude. :p

[Chopper]

“Is fluff”, seems like an arbitrary delineation and brings almost a majority of content in the core rule book into question.

As a GM team we should strive to influence the future (SR7) and not relive the same mistakes (lack of clarity, as what’s rules and what’s fluff) as the past.

-Chopper

[Shinobi Killfist]

“Is fluff”, seems like an arbitrary delineation and brings almost a majority of content in the core rule book into question.

As a GM team we should strive to influence the future (SR7) and not relive the same mistakes (lack of clarity, as what’s rules and what’s fluff) as the past.

-Chopper

I don't disagree.  There was no question what was fluff and what was rules in some editions. But, I'd say 4e on its been harder to nail down. Which would be fine in 4e, but when the same line of fluff which the designers let us know is fluff in faqs/errata pops up every edition wtf.

Is fluff is arbitrary sort of in this case.  1 previous editions using the same exact language have clarified it.

Here.

Power foci live up to their name. They are very
powerful foci that temporarily increase your effective
Magic rating.

Okay what does effective magic rating mean, it isn't specific like it increases your magic attribute, it uses wishy washy terms like effective magic rating. The next sentence may clarify.


That means they add to your
Sorcery dice pools whenever you use that skill,
along with any other test where Magic is involved.
Power foci can take any form, but for some reason,
rings and amulets are quite popular.

Well there you go it does seem to clarify it to some degree. So its sort of arbitrary but its also sort of in the text what the thing it supposed to do. It is absolute shit that you have to read into it though to figure it out, especially since its been 2 editions where this question has popped up before due to the exact same wording. Rules should be clear. There is no excuse for this.  But, while you have to read between the lines the answer is there.

[Xenon]

For qualities in SR6 they first describe the intent ("fluff") and then they follow up with the phrase "game effect:" followed with the actual rules ("crunch"). I like this approach. In the next edition, hopefully they will use it for more than just positive and negative qualities :-)


Having said that, the phrase "That means" was probably originally intended to have the same meaning as the new "game effect:"

But between the two, the intent behind "game effect" is a lot more clear.

I also think that when talking about "game effect" (strict rules) they should always use "reserved keywords". For example, when it comes to skills; "augmented increase can never be more than +4". If the intent for power foci is to be be restricted by this then power focus should perhaps also use the word 'augmented', to make this crystal clear:

Power Foci
Power foci live up to their name. They are very powerful foci that temporarily increase your Magic-related skills. Power foci can take any form, but for some reason, rings and amulets are quite popular.
Game effect: Power foci augments Sorcery, Conjuring and Enchanting skills with its rating.

[markelphoenix]

For qualities in SR6 they first describe the intent ("fluff") and then they follow up with the phrase "game effect:" followed with the actual rules ("crunch"). I like this approach. In the next edition, hopefully they will use it for more than just positive and negative qualities :-)


Having said that, the phrase "That means" was probably originally intended to have the same meaning as the new "game effect:"

But between the two, the intent behind "game effect" is a lot more clear.

I also think that when talking about "game effect" (strict rules) they should always use "reserved keywords". For example, when it comes to skills; "augmented increase can never be more than +4". If the intent for power foci is to be be restricted by this then power focus should perhaps also use the word 'augmented', to make this crystal clear:

Power Foci
Power foci live up to their name. They are very powerful foci that temporarily increase your Magic-related skills. Power foci can take any form, but for some reason, rings and amulets are quite popular.
Game effect: Power foci augments Sorcery, Conjuring and Enchanting skills with its rating.

Game Effect: Power foci augments all tests that require the use of magic in a dice roll

This would be more in line, given that you also have Masking, which is an  opposed roll that uses Magic as part of the dice pool. Explicitly listing a set of 3 skills narrows and boxes future books (i.e. Magic book) from utilizing the Power Foci rules or updating them (taking up real-estate in the source book that could be used else where).

Simply being clear that it:
1) Applies to when diced are rolled
2) Only applies to dice rolled where one of the dice pools is based off your Magic rating.

That is all they need to do.

Strongly agree with the pattern of Fluff/Mechanics being separate chunks. I've seen this in several RPGs and it makes things a lot clearer.

[Chopper]

Anyone know the background why the work "temporary" was deleted, because I think it implies a change towards adding towards adding power foci to magic rating calculations as written.

It is a four sentence paragraph. Three sentences out of four is a lot of fluff. I think we can encourage a higher standard and at least not realize the same issues each edition.

How do we, as a group of concerned GM/Players effect clarity in the next edition?

Let's make it better. #SR7in2025

-Chopper