Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Aria on <02-21-21/1736:39>
-
Ok, so the spell design rules are here and I wanted to start a thread to recreate some old favorites from SR5 and possible add some new ones. Preferably with an eye to some measure of game balance so a sane GM (is there such a thing?) doesn't throw them out instantly...
So, to start off I'll have a go at Powerblade (who doesn't love a lightsabre?)... I've based it on the stone fists spell they use as an example of the build system but replace 'stone' with 'metal' for +1DV and +1drain. The glowing sword bit is fluff, it could just as easily be a magically created katana...most people would just carry an actual katana but still ::)
End result: Touch spell, Type P, Duration S, Drain 6 (ouch?!)
Raises 'unarmed combat' to 4P, 5P if agility is 5 or more (yes, not strength, it's a lightsabre) and net hits add +1AR
So is that grossly unbalanced? The Agi might be a reach for some but the drain is quite high, same as Fireball!
Thoughts? And let's see what everyone else can come up with :o ;D
-
Here's my take on a couple of perennial Shadowrun favorites:
Urban Renewal, and Turn to Goo!
Urban Renewal (aka Summon Heat Penalties) causes destruction, so probably ought to be classified as a Combat spell. Although IIRC back in the early editions it was Manipulation? Whatever. Damage=Combat spell, by my rationale.
Ingredients: Area Effect (+1DV), which must included Ranged (+1DV)
Narrow Target (buildings and walls) (-1DV)
Wallop (+1DV) (because we want to do physical damage to walls, not stun them :P
Weaken barrier ratings (+XDV) (because, well, we want to actually KNOCK THOSE WALLS DOWN)
So, without the effect of softening barrier ratings, we're at 3DV for the spell. Let's go nuts and make the demolitions work rather well and subtract 5 from affected barrier ratings!
End result:
Urban Renewal: Area, Ranged, Type P, Duration I, Drain 8 (lol) This spell only affects walls and structures. Reduce affected barrier ratings by 5 before applying damage.
and:
Turn to Goo! This is clearly a sustained manipulation.
Affect Living Things (obviously) +1DV
Petrification (being turned into goo is kind of like being petrified? doesn't make much of a difference, when you look at the petrified status rules) +1DV
Ranged (even though it's free for manipulation, this is clearly an offensive/hostile spell, so pricing it like combat here) +1DV
That adds up to 4 drain. still not a whole lot for what's essentially "I win". Probably have to score [BOD] net hits over and above the resistance in order to turn someone into goo. or you can only sustain the spell for 10-BOD rounds, or something. Yeah, I like that better. That way being Turned to Goo isn't automatically death.
-
I'm not sure I could recreate 1/2 the existing spells with those rules.
-
I'm not sure I could recreate 1/2 the existing spells with those rules.
Got any particular favourites we could have a go at?! :)
-
The barrier spells spring to mind as I was looking at those last. Some spells line up perfectly, hey look here is a animate feature. If I wanted to increase a wall structure I think they had something directly of that, but create a wall of force out of tin air, didn't see anything. And honestly I flat out didn't understand the illusions and how those worked with people vs machines. And i saw veil, increase light/shadow, nausea but what if you are going for something like trid phantasm, mask spells.
-
Narrow Target (buildings and walls) (-1DV
Can this ingredient be used for objects, being it states individuals? If so may need errata, but I also have a new personal favorite custom spell if applicable.
Grenades Are Dumb
+1 DV, Manipulation Spell
+1 DV, Animate (metal)
+1 DV, Animate (plastic)
+1 DV, Area of Affect
-1 DV, Narrow Target (grenades)
-, Ranged
Final DV 3
Roll Sorcery + Magic vs. object resistance for all grenades within the radius. If successful, the spell animates said grenades to either arm or pull their pin (as appropriate), and slam into the ground at their feet of the person who possesses them, causing them to detonate.
Edit: Come to think of it, it doesn't matter. The spell would be better off without narrow targets, take that extra 1 drain, and do this to grenades and missiles and rockets! Fuck your explosives, game!
-
With an OR of ~9 that is going to burn most runner teams (I'm thinking your average corpsec doesn't go around with too many grenades, too much risk of property damage)...as an 'I win' button it's pretty nasty... and what would net hits do? Maybe only one grenade per net hit? Even that's nasty!
-
By a strict reading it seems that net hits would increase the volume of objects affected, which I think would be a fine application. OR 9 should be pretty easy to reliably overcome with even an only moderately optimized casting pool.
Explosive grenades? Probably not frequently. Stun and gas grenades? I could see those being fairly common place.
Another fun variation would be manipulation/repel (metal and/or plastic)/narrow target (grenades/missiles/rockets). When thrown or fired at you, they would auto scatter away from you at some distance based upon hits when casting.
Overall I like the idea of custom spells, but in practice the rules appear exceptionally abusable, which ultimately means bad design. Yes GM discretion can prevent bad cases, but that doesn't cover the fact that the fundamental design is unbalanced.
-
Overall I like the idea of custom spells, but in practice the rules appear exceptionally abusable, which ultimately means bad design. Yes GM discretion can prevent bad cases, but that doesn't cover the fact that the fundamental design is unbalanced.
I guess that's why I was originally thinking of recreating spells that have some SR precedent... not that that precedent necessarily means the spells were ever balanced ::)
-
Urban Renewal (aka Summon Heat Penalties) causes destruction, so probably ought to be classified as a Combat spell. Although IIRC back in the early editions it was Manipulation? Whatever. Damage=Combat spell, by my rationale.
Ingredients: Area Effect (+1DV), which must included Ranged (+1DV)
Narrow Target (buildings and walls) (-1DV)
Wallop (+1DV) (because we want to do physical damage to walls, not stun them :P
Weaken barrier ratings (+XDV) (because, well, we want to actually KNOCK THOSE WALLS DOWN)
So, without the effect of softening barrier ratings, we're at 3DV for the spell. Let's go nuts and make the demolitions work rather well and subtract 5 from affected barrier ratings!
End result:
Urban Renewal: Area, Ranged, Type P, Duration I, Drain 8 (lol) This spell only affects walls and structures. Reduce affected barrier ratings by 5 before applying damage.
It makes sense... now how did Demolish (Object) somehow do the same thing with 6 Drain?
-
By a strict reading ...
I get where you're coming from. I really, really do. I'm sympathetic to it, even. I love arguing about technical and syntanctic nuances, so how could I not be sympathetic to this? :D
But... these rules are a context where a "strict reading"/RAW just isn't relevant, because these rules are not meant to be taken literally or to cover every potential idea a player might have. They're intentionally loosey-goosey and subject to interpretation. Put another way: they provide a framework upon which a spell can be built. A framework is in of itself just a framework.
The rules are not intended to ensure that if you give 2 different people the same spell idea that they independently crunch that idea down to identical game stats. (pardon the bolding, but this is super important!)
Overall I like the idea of custom spells, but in practice the rules appear exceptionally abusable, which ultimately means bad design. Yes GM discretion can prevent bad cases, but that doesn't cover the fact that the fundamental design is unbalanced.
This is where we really look at this differently. Open-ended options of course allow for virtually anything. That's the intended feature, not a bug! The extreme openness in fact makes the designed spells impossible to abuse (well, in a home game anyway. No idea how SRM is gonna handle this). Every spell explicitly must be cooperatively designed by player and GM both. Implicitly, this also means both must come to an agreement about the final form of the spell. So long as the GM is approving (which is different than failing to veto), the spell can't be abusive, is it? At best, the player and GM didn't think all the angles through and something comes up later... at which point you enter the art of GMing. "How do you fix a mistake?" No one correct answer, but there are options. Let's segue into MercilessMing giving a potential example!
Urban Renewal (aka Summon Heat Penalties) causes destruction, so probably ought to be classified as a Combat spell. Although IIRC back in the early editions it was Manipulation? Whatever. Damage=Combat spell, by my rationale.
Ingredients: Area Effect (+1DV), which must included Ranged (+1DV)
Narrow Target (buildings and walls) (-1DV)
Wallop (+1DV) (because we want to do physical damage to walls, not stun them :P
Weaken barrier ratings (+XDV) (because, well, we want to actually KNOCK THOSE WALLS DOWN)
So, without the effect of softening barrier ratings, we're at 3DV for the spell. Let's go nuts and make the demolitions work rather well and subtract 5 from affected barrier ratings!
End result:
Urban Renewal: Area, Ranged, Type P, Duration I, Drain 8 (lol) This spell only affects walls and structures. Reduce affected barrier ratings by 5 before applying damage.
It makes sense... now how did Demolish (Object) somehow do the same thing with 6 Drain?
Well, to start with, I completely forgot Demolish Walls/Barriers is already a thing. So right out of the gates we have a spell that potentially can be forgotten about, since that wheel was already invented for this edition! If I worked with Lormyr to make this spell for a hypothetical home game, and MercilessMing points out that the spell already basically exists under another name, we could just forget about the new spell (and probably refunding any in-game costs for development) or go back and re-jigger the spell to differentiate it more from Demolish Walls/Barriers. Or, if everyone's happy with the slight difference as-is, then this hypothetical Urban Renewal spell can be an arcane (pun intended) distinction from Demolish Walls/Barriers.
To MercilessMing's question:
There are a couple of differences. One is very minor: there's no option to narrow the target for edge in the custom Urban Renewal spell. Of course that doesn't warrant MORE drain... but perhaps the angle where barrier rating is lowered DOES warrant more drain. Because it flatly reduces barrier rating before dealing damage, so that makes it easier to hit 0 barrier rating and therefore cause holes/collapses. That does warrant a bit more dain, I'd say?
-
But... these rules are a context where a "strict reading"/RAW just isn't relevant, because these rules are not meant to be taken literally or to cover every potential idea a player might have. They're intentionally loosey-goosey and subject to interpretation. Put another way: they provide a framework upon which a spell can be built. A framework is in of itself just a framework.
The rules are not intended to ensure that if you give 2 different people the same spell idea that they independently crunch that idea down to identical game stats. (pardon the bolding, but this is super important!)
I get it. Since this is mostly a matter of personal taste, I have no real rebuttal other than I prefer my rules to be streamlined and succinct, so the not so rules rules are more frustrating to me than.
No idea how SRM is gonna handle this
I think we both know it's going to get flat banned. There is no other way to handle it without giving pages of house rules, which is not attractive.
For me personally, and you might disagree, I do not overly concern myself with how folks handle rules elements in their home games, because home games can be as balanced/unbalanced and GM discretion heavy as the table likes. I personally find the better measure for how well implemented and balanced rules are to be can they hold up to a living campaign as written. Heavily narrative game mechanics, for example say a quality that gave someone high social standing, I would be willing to give a pass too since they can be fun for a home game but simply won't work for living campaigns. I mostly relegate that pass to mechanics revolving around social status and followers though.
-
No idea how SRM is gonna handle this
I think we both know it's going to get flat banned. There is no other way to handle it without giving pages of house rules, which is not attractive.
For me personally, and you might disagree, I do not overly concern myself with how folks handle rules elements in their home games, because home games can be as balanced/unbalanced and GM discretion heavy as the table likes. I personally find the better measure for how well implemented and balanced rules are to be can they hold up to a living campaign as written. Heavily narrative game mechanics, for example say a quality that gave someone high social standing, I would be willing to give a pass too since they can be fun for a home game but simply won't work for living campaigns. I mostly relegate that pass to mechanics revolving around social status and followers though.
Eh, banned for players certainly, but not necessarily banned from Missions. Gives Mission Writers a framework for unique spells that can be used by NPCs or handed out as a reward.
Could be someone on the Mission team wanting to make (or re-make) a few favorites and adding them to the Mission FAQ.
I could also see aspects of this being okay for a player use in a Missions game. Change an existing spell in a specific way, essentially giving every existing spell a couple of variants that are okay'd for Missions.
But yeah, custom spell design is going to be mostly for home games. Some things just aren't going to be appropriate for a living campaign.
-
Just things I have gotten from this and previous post:
SSDR doesn’t seem to be a SRM player so he aligns with flexibility.
Lormyr plays more SRM. He prefers strict rules.
In my mind, that is why you two have different rules Philosophies.
I tend to fall in the SSDR camp. I will admit, the first thing I thought when I got to spell creation was “I can’t wait to see what Lormyr comes up with, to break it”. No offense intended Lormyr. Also, your grenade idea reminded me of a Magneto trick.
How would you all create Shapechange or (Critter) form?
Regards,
SL
-
Just things I have gotten from this and previous post:
SSDR doesn’t seem to be a SRM player so he aligns with flexibility.
Lormyr plays more SRM. He prefers strict rules.
In my mind, that is why you two have different rules Philosophies.
I tend to fall in the SSDR camp. I will admit, the first thing I thought when I got to spell creation was “I can’t wait to see what Lormyr comes up with, to break it”. No offense intended Lormyr. Also, your grenade idea reminded me of a Magneto trick.
How would you all create Shapechange or (Critter) form?
Regards,
SL
I don't play missions. I don't like loose rules. I always know I can change things as a DM or make calls no matter how strict the rules are, that's just part of being a GM. Requiring it for it to function is just tossing more work on my table. And honestly I find the loose rules a lot harder on me as a DM.
These spell making rules are too loose for me, its making a series of weird calls saying x is like y sort of so we go with that. It is like I am working through metaphor. As a example look at the example for levitate I'm like WTF repel earth.
I'd have no idea how to do shape change, there is no transform option. Is it possible to get that from here, maybe but its all weird sort of decisions, like the levitate one above, like you'd be affects living things, then what? There is nothing to get there, but they'd probably come up with some weird justification like petrifaction transforms the body, then shape material stone changes it into the shape you want instead of 1kg of material its 1 body per net hit to get it to work so 7DV. 1 base, 1 affects livings, 1 petrification, 1 shape, 3 stone. Does that make a lick of sense, no not really but neither did levitate, and I can't figure out how they made magic fingers, or barrier, or mask, or trid phantasm etc either.
-
No offense intended Lormyr.
None taken brother. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head on all points.
Breaking the offering is extremely easy. CRB pg. 35 basically explains that any time you are rolling dice you are performing a test. The ingredient "affect specific type of test" therefore applies to any dice pool.
Spell to increase defense test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap is applies.
Spell to increase drain resistance test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap applies.
Spell to increase soak test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap applies.
Spell to increase toxin resistance test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap applies.
Spell to deflect/scatter grenades.
Done. There is nothing left that can hit or hurt you once you apply the other usual suspects, such as attribute augmentation, combat sense, centering foci, ect.
These are all 100% allowable by the book, but would likely never pass GM discretion, which is my entire beef. Why do the rules permit insanity that no sane person will allow lol. It defeats the purpose.
-
Just things I have gotten from this and previous post:
SSDR doesn’t seem to be a SRM player so he aligns with flexibility.
Lormyr plays more SRM. He prefers strict rules.
In my mind, that is why you two have different rules Philosophies.
I tend to fall in the SSDR camp. I will admit, the first thing I thought when I got to spell creation was “I can’t wait to see what Lormyr comes up with, to break it”. No offense intended Lormyr. Also, your grenade idea reminded me of a Magneto trick.
I find your observation fascinating! And, no insult intended, somewhat humorous, as I'm actually quite involved with SRM.
I think I have quite a bit in common with Lormyr on how we view the rules, actually. I daresay our main differences in opinion (other than some 6e specific hangups) is not being on the same perspective on when "a reasonable" amount of reliance on GM discretion becomes "too much" of the same.
How would you all create Shapechange or (Critter) form?
Regards,
SL
I think crowdsourcing would be an interesting way to explore the spell creation rules, since they're (by design) so free and unrestricted.
As a player potentially wanting to use the spell, I'd want to primarily gain a new or enhanced movement mode... or ability to survive in an extreme environment (turn into a fish underwater, turn into a polar bear out in a blizzard, etc). The other reason I'd be interested in the spell is for stealth/surveillance... noone thinks twice about a rat moving down the alleyway behind the yakuza warehouse, or a pigeon landing on the roof of a corp research facility.
As a gm, I'd be concerned with keeping the spell from opening up "game hacks". I don't want to, for example, see a mage be able to ignore crappy physical stats by turning into a powerful critter. Neither do I want to see someone using the spell as a way to by default generate a "portable hole" that gear goes into while you're transformed. In my opinion, it's a hard no on using a spell to turn into a pigeon or cat to bypass 1) encumbrance and 2) security sensors that would otherwise detect your gear if you were wearing it while NOT transformed.
So with all that in mind, here's my crack at a (Critter) Form spell! (I've already decided that the spell has to be learned and relearned for different critters.. Cat Form, Pigeon Form, Hammerhead Shark Form, etc)
Category: Clearly Manipulation. (base 1DV)
Ingredients:
It's gotta work on at least myself, and I probably want to be able to cast it on other people too? Either way, this calls for: Affect Living Targets +1DV
If I'm turning into a combat beast, presumably I should be getting tougher/faster/stronger/etc. Using the attribute augmented limit satisfies preventing someone with 1 body becoming a 10 body piasma. Attribute Boost +1DV per increased attribute
Of course, I need the Shape Material ingredient to warp flesh into an animal shape. +1DV
And I'm gonna add in the Affect Speed ingredient as a catch all for gaining flight, gaining cheetah speed, breathing underwater. +1DV
There isn't a good ingredient to represent gaining extra sensory powers like a bat's ultrasound or a dog's expanded hearing, but such an ingredient seems like it should also be +1DV.
As a raw subtotal, I'm looking at anything from 2DV to 10DV, depending on how many ingredients are triggered by the specific critter.
I'm also thinking that the Attribute Boost is worthy of being customized. If I can get stronger by turning into a bear, then it stands to reason I should be getting weaker if I turn into a mouse. Rather than having a DV of +0 to +4, I'm going to have 1 set DV where everything potentially goes up or down, depending on your own stat vs the critter statblock. I'm calling this feature +2DV.
Additionally, I think maybe the Shape Material ingredient may need some sort of attention. Can I turn into something as big as a Juggernaut? As small as a microbe? What's the limit here? I notice that Manipulation category is the natural choice, but the mechanic of what you roll against isn't well defined. So, geeking 2 Pigeon Formed mages with one bullet here! The net hits will be tweaked to go from how much volume of flesh you can transform to establishing a threshold your spellcasting test has to hit to attain the form. Ergo, spells where you remain roughly the same mass but take on a new shape (tiger, wolf, horse if you're a troll, etc) will be easier than turning into something huge or tiny.
So, last thing to do is hammer out the particular mechanics:
(Critter) Form: Manipulation Spell
Range: Touch Type: Physical Duration: Sustained Drain: 7 (See below)
This spell transforms the target's physical body into a critter, gaining the size and mass and basic properties of that new form. The specific form cannot be changed, a new spell must be learned for each critter form. The target retains its normal mental faculties, but will gain or lose physical prowess based on the new form. This will usually include the loss of ability to speak, as only sounds normal for that critter can be produced.
Terms and Conditions:
This spell can duplicate the form of any mundane critter, or an awakened critter that still has a biological body. However the spell grants no magical critter powers. So a Hell Hound Form spell could exist, but the target would not gain the ability to project flame. The threshold to cast this spell on a willing target is [2]. The threshold increases by 1 for every doubling or halving of the target's mass. This spell cannot be cast on an unwilling target.
The target's physical attributes (Body, Strength, Agility, Reaction) may go up or down based on the target's normal value compared to the critter's attribute. For every net hit on the spell, increase these attributes up to the critter's stat block value, subject to the augmented maximum or critter's stat block, whichever is lower. In turn, reduce every physical attribute down to the critter stat block value when it is lower (minimum value of 1 in all attributes). This reduction is decreased by 1 for every net hit. Example: Turning a troll samurai with Body 10, Agility 3, Reaction 2, and Strength 6 into a wolf with Body 4, Agility 3, Reaction 5, Strength 4 with 2 net hits ends up with the troll having Body 6, Agility 3, Reaction 4, Strength 4 in Wolf Form. Recalculate physical condition monitor if necessary, and carry over any preexisting damage. Mental stats do not change, although few critter forms possess the vocal capacity to permit speech.
The spell grants purely mundane powers possessed by the critter. For example bats have ultrasound, dogs have enhanced senses, vipers have Venom (use the caster's Magic if the target is a mundane) and etc. If the form gains no such power, then the Drain Value is reduced by 1. If the critter flies or swims or even breathes underwater, the form gains these capabilities as well. If the form lacks these, lower the Drain Value by 1. If the form grants neither critter powers nor enhanced movement, then lower the Drain Value by 2.
The target's equipment does not transform, and may harm or even strangle the target if it outgrows clothing and armor. Gear that is paid for via essence transforms but ceases to function for the duration of the spell. Drugs and toxins may affect the critter form differently than a metahuman, at the GM's discretion.
-
No offense intended Lormyr.
None taken brother. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head on all points.
Breaking the offering is extremely easy. CRB pg. 35 basically explains that any time you are rolling dice you are performing a test. The ingredient "affect specific type of test" therefore applies to any dice pool.
Spell to increase defense test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap is applies.
Spell to increase drain resistance test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap applies.
Spell to increase soak test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap applies.
Spell to increase toxin resistance test pool. Capped only by hits as neither an augmented attribute or skill cap applies.
Spell to deflect/scatter grenades.
Done. There is nothing left that can hit or hurt you once you apply the other usual suspects, such as attribute augmentation, combat sense, centering foci, ect.
These are all 100% allowable by the book, but would likely never pass GM discretion, which is my entire beef. Why do the rules permit insanity that no sane person will allow lol. It defeats the purpose.
The rules are written with the assumption that good faith is being used by both player and GM. Obviously you can make a spell that destroys the universe. Hell, you don't even have to.. the CRB already allows that by not putting a limit on the number of spell modifications you can put on a fireball :D Infinite damage over infinite area, baybee!
If you want to look for ways to break the spell design rules, well of course you'll find ways. The rules aren't even trying to prevent breakage. It's literally not a goal, given that you have the GM for that.
For example, the +dice ingredients. Just because they didn't say +4 limit in every sort of ingredient that gives bonus dice, it doesn't mean the GM can't just insist on there being one. Or, literally, not. Maybe player and GM both are comfortable with a spell that potentially gives more than that.
-
I think I have quite a bit in common with Lormyr on how we view the rules, actually. I daresay our main differences in opinion (other than some 6e specific hangups) is not being on the same perspective on when "a reasonable" amount of reliance on GM discretion becomes "too much" of the same.
I mostly agree. Our desired destination point is usually relatively close, the roads we choose to get there sometimes just diverge.
There is nothing inherently wrong with GM discretion, I just think that the better written and balanced a system is the less it is needed in terms of interacting with rules.
The rules are written with the assumption that good faith is being used by both player and GM. Obviously you can make a spell that destroys the universe. Hell, you don't even have to.. the CRB already allows that by not putting a limit on the number of spell modifications you can put on a fireball :D Infinite damage over infinite area, baybee!
See, I personally don't consider players using rules elements that are written to be used as bad faith, even if hyper min-maxed. Cheating on dice rolls is bad faith (and this goes for GMs too in my book - screens are for the weak!!!!). Lying about stuff that is on your character sheet is bad faith. Using the rules the game gave you creatively/intelligently/optimally is, to put it in baseball terms, safe.
But if we decide we don't want to play baseball anymore, that is acceptable, but then why are we using baseball's rules for whatever game we are now playing?
-
@SSDR: like your take on the critter form spell! Will add something like it to my excel generator :)
-
I find your observation fascinating! And, no insult intended, somewhat humorous, as I'm actually quite involved with SRM.
SSDR,
Takes quit a bit to insult me, so no worries. Glad I could at least bring a little humor to your day. That’s the thing about a theory, sometimes it is correct…. most times, not so much.
Your take on the critter form spell was a lot better than mine. I had already told the player 1 animal per spell and asked what they wanted. The answer was cat or dog. So, at least no Grizzle Bears.
Regards,
SL
-
@SSDR for your Critter Form Spell I'd go with the Targets Physical Attributes stay the same, but are capped by the Critter's attributes (+4). For each extra hit on the spellcasting test one physical Attribute can be increased, or decreased, by 1 for a +1 Drain, again, up to the Critter's attributes (+4).
Basically your Critter Form spell becomes an Increase (or Decrease) Attributes spell with whatever bonus Movement, Size change, or Mundane Critter Powers from the Critter choice for the higher Drain code.
Since there isn't a "Willing Subjects" clause, Critter Form can also be targeted against unwilling targets. I'd use the Turn to Goo mechanics, if successful an unwilling target is turned into the Critter instead of a Goo. *Poof* You're a mouse. Which is probably better than Goo.
My own 2 Nuyen.
-
Absolutely the nitty gritties are highly variable. Hence the requirement for GM involvement!
In the case or attributes, I'm firmly of the opinion that you should be as strong as a mouse if you become a mouse... and as strong as an elephant if you become an elephant. Subject to augmented limits, as always. (There's no limit on going DOWN, only up!)
So, yes, indeed other players gms may prefer to do it differently.
On the topic of "require a willing target":
That seems like an obvious omission. It could have been -1 DV. No reason you couldn't just use it anyway, I suppose.
I went with requiring a willing target because of how my spell works, especially on the test being against the severity of the transformation rather than a resistance test. My version of the spell denies resistance, AND disarms you of your gear? Broken if it could be used offensively. A witch turning you into a newt ought to be possible, but the spell would imo have to work completely different mechanically. I found it desireable to just remove the offensive aspect.
Edit: I accept my own challenge. I'll update this post with an offensive "baleful polymorph" style version of critter form!
-
Making this a new post rather than editing previous one:
Baleful Polymorph (aka "She turned me into a newt!")
Category: I actually am somewhat torn between health and manipulation. However, I plan to treat the carried equipment differently than my Critter Form spell... in that this WILL create a "bag of holding" effect to keep the spell from having the side effect of being a way to separate a target from any gear. So if guns and armor and so on are gonna merge into the new form, then clearly Manipulation. Base 1DV
Ingredients:
Affect Living Things +1
Affect Technology +1
Petrification +1 (target isn't being precisely petrified, but being turned into a mouse is still a "game over" effect on the target in a combat sense, so seems like a good fit)
Ranged spell +1 (yes, technically manipulations can be extended beyond Touch range for free, but since Combat spells have to pay +1, I believe purely hostile/offensive spells ought to, too. To give room for a touch range version of the spell having a niche at -1DV, comparatively)
Total is 5 Drain. For a spell that is an "i win" button if you land it. For starters, the drain on this spell has got to be comparable to other automatic fight-enders. In the CRB: Flamestrike has Drain 5, and it's certainly not an automatic incapacitation. OTOH, Control Actions and Control Thoughts are 1) also manipulation spells and 2) only Drain 4... but also they have a very limited duration. Hmm. The spell construction rules don't have an ingredient for Limited duration, nor do they reference them in the category header. The CRB doesn't assign them by default to Manipulation spells either... so. Hmm. I'll just arbitrarily decide that like Control Thoughts/Actions, my Baleful Polymorph will also use Limited duration (as should that Turn To Goo spell I half-designed, upthread!) That makes the 5 drain look slightly better. Probably "good enough" for what it's doing, I'd say. And as an aside, comparing it to my Critter Form, it's 5 Drain vs 5 Drain, when Critter Form is giving an innocuous form that has no special powers. Nice symmetry.
So, the spell:
Baleful Polymorph: Manipulation spell
Range: LOS Type: Physical Duration: L Drain: 5
This spell turns the target into an innocuous animal such as a mouse, newt, or frog. The specific form can vary from casting to casting, but can never result in a form that is harmed by being in its environment. For example, the target cannot be turned into a goldfish unless it is in a suitable body of water. If the target is in free fall, it must become a form capable of flight, or at minimum surviving the landing with the terrain below.
Terms and Conditions: The spell is resisted by Body + Willpower. If the spell is successful, the spell may be sustained for a number of minutes equal to the net hits. During the transformation, the target's physical attributes all become 0 but the target is not incapacitated by these values. The mental attributes remain unchanged, but the target cannot speak. All implants and worn possessions merge with the new form and cease to function, but any handheld objects are dropped and remain unaffected by the spell.
I also want to take one of Lormyr's ideas... I rather enjoy the concept of a spell that pulls the pins on someone's grenades for them.
Another spell that's clearly Manipulation, so base 1DV.
I would say Affect Technology and Narrow Target are necessary to specifically target grenade triggers and restrict the spell ONLY to grenade triggers, but these cancel each other out, drain-wise.
We're gonna Animate material, so +1DV.
We're gonna use Area Effect, so +1DV. This requires the Ranged ingredient, but is normally free for Manipulation spells. So, only mentioning it for thoroughness.
The key materials we're dealing with here are made from metal, so +4DV. Ouch! I wonder if targeting the explosives themselves and directly making them explode might be the more efficient way to go? I'd call the chemicals composing explosives "plastic", if my categorical choices were Fabric, Metal, Plastic, Rubber, Stone, and Wood. That's only +3DV. Of course, a potential problem with this route is setting off bullets too, which is not a side effect I'm at all interested in. I'd have to say the spell magically knows the difference between grenades and bullets, and since I'm applying the Narrow Target ingredient, that's absolutely valid. But it implies without that ingredient, then it WOULD work on bullets... I think I'll just stick with the idea of a spell that makes pins jump free from their grenades.
so here it is. It's got sick drain, but... well.. will insta-gibb someone in all probability:
Lormyr's Instant Karma (aka, "What comes around, goes BOOOM!!!)
Category: Manipulation
Range: LOS(A) Type: Physical Duration: Instant Drain: 7
Grenades (but not rockets or bullets or other explosives) in the area detonate due to the pins jumping free from their housings.
Terms and Conditions: Each grenade in the spell's area resists with Object Resistance (9 dice). A character holding a grenade in their hand may instead resist with Reaction + Intuition to try to keep the pin in place. Each grenade that fails to resist the spell detonates.
-
Lormyr's Instant Karma (aka, "What comes around, goes BOOOM!!!)
Lormyr approves.
This must mean I've finally gained enough levels to become and Archmage since I have a spell named after me. Suck on that, Harlequin!
-
Animated Pins would also make for great Acupuncture. ;D
5E Shapechange was somewhat exploitable by MySads or Physical Adepts with Adept Spell as it let them dump physical attributes and become a Magical Ninja Gator (or whatever). 5E was somewhat mitigated by lack of Armor. 6e, for better or worse, armor is simply less mechanically relevant so the Mystic Adept that turns into a Silverback Gorilla with a Combat Axe Weapon Focus kind of gets the powergamer engine running.
Noodle armed Elf Face Summoner MySad that can turn into a literal combat monster, Wheeeee!
Totally irrelevant because it's all house rules and the GM would just say "No" to the spell at that table for that character if it would be problematic. Just pointing out what I would do with such a spell for anyone passing through 8)
-
As an aside to this in SR4? whatever the last book with spell creation rules they made it fairly clear that runners were not making spells, it was a process that took years with multiple researchers, best equipment money could buy etc. I don't see any indication of time required in this book, though I may have missed it. But my normal assumption was this was here for the GM to add spells to the campaign not the players to custom craft spells, but that is just because of the last SR edition I saw crafting in not anything from the book it self. Though the fluff shadowtalk seemed to maybe imply something else, honestly it seemed silly as it was almost implying people just could make spells up on the fly. And, it isn't even like the rocker book where they have tests to determine how long it takes, how effective it is etc. I'd assume a Arcana test of some kind etc. Any who if I were to allow this into the game I'd probably put some fairly rough thresholds on a extended tests expected to last months if not years, with shit tons of costs. But all of that has to be winged as there aren't even suggested guidelines for it as far as I can tell.
-
Given that there has been a few decades of steady Magical research and rediscovery, it's fair to say there aren't just the spells in the CRB and one splat book that have been worked out. There are at least the dozens of spells from older editions that haven't made it to 6th yet.
I wouldn't say a PC needs to create a spell from scratch, they just need to search enough data-bases, ask enough fixers / talismongers to find out who is selling the formulae.
Or at least find something close enough its tweakable out in the shop/garage/backyard/magic lodge.
-
Sure, I guess but if anyone could just slap together a spell with a couple weeks of effort there wouldn't be a need for spell formulas to buy. And I'm not against putting old spells back in, I'd assume the formula is out there, work with the DM to figure out how it works(like combat senses is in the game, so combat sense 2 electric boogaloo this time it helps your defense pool I just wouldn't allow as the game already determined how combat sense works this edition), its drain and assume the formula can be bought from a talismonger.
You want to actually create a new spell from scratch, well again it takes specialists in spell creation a long time, working 60 hour shifts with a team of other specialists, how fast does the lone PC going on runs often enough to fund their research and pay the bills make that in. You don't have to remove it from the game entirely, I can see a character concept about a researcher who doesn't want his art to be controlled by the corps or something as a fun character idea. But it would be a slow process imo, not just crap some numbers out and spend 5 karma.
-
Fully agree. Bear in mind that if a PC invents up a unique new spell ingame, the benefit goes far beyond just having another spell in your arsenal: The PC also could decide to publish and sell the formular, or just stick his/her name to it for fame in the magic community.* I absolutely would allow this, but it should involve serious material und time investment and even some side quests to get there. Apart from this, the main way of using the spell creation section is to add new formulars as an open ingame resource that everyone (including NPCs) has access to. If player has a good idea for a spell that might already exist in the 6th world and the GM approves it, it is a good practice to keep record of all the homebrew spells that are available at the table. Or even publish and discuss them in the forum, as we are doing now ;) An official "extended Grimoire" could even serve as a way to make spell creation usable for Missions.
So, a few additions to the original purpose of this thread: One easy route to cook up spells is to just slap some fitting status effects on the "boring" non-elemental combat spells for additional Drain. Some suggestions:
- Force Choke: Like Stunbolt, but also inflicts the Muted status for [Net hits] Combat rounds, +1 Drain.
- Bonecrusher: Like Manabolt, but also inflicts one level of the
Paralyzed Disabled Status to a chosen limb (or a number of limbs, distributed evenly) for every 2 Net Hits. The Status lasts until treated. +1 Drain. - Mana Disruption: Like Manabolt, but also inflicts the target with the Hazed Status for [Net Hits] Combat rounds if the net hits exceed the targets Magic/2. Limited to dual-natured and astral targets, which sets the additional Drain back to +0. (Fun fact: Besides the description of the effect, the Hazed status is never mentioned again in the Core rules. And in Street Wyrd, it´s only mentioned as a spell ingredient. You´d think that an effect with such wide-reaching consequences would have a little more support behind it... ::))
- Aneurysm: Like Manabolt, but also inflicts the target with the Dazed status for [Net hits] Combat rounds. +1 Drain.
- Ground Wave: Like Clout, but the force is concentrated close to the ground to sweep the target of its feet. 1 Net Hit inflicts the Off Balance Status, 3+ Net Hits knock the target prone. +1 Drain (Or even +0 if you also specify that his spell can be used only on non-flying targets that are on the same ground level as the caster).
You could also turn each of these into Touch-Range (-1 Drain) or AOE spells (+1 Drain). It´s also worth noting that elemental effects are not limited to indirect combat spells, so you can also implement direct combat versions of the existing elemental combat spells for pretty much the same amount of drain: Instead of throwing fire at your target, you set it ablaze directly.
*Side Note: I absolutely love the DnD style of naming spells, where many are directly named after a certain legendary magician: Melf's Acid Arrow, Aganazzar’s Scorcher, Larloch's Drain etc. IMO, this would be even more fitting in Shadowrun, since magic is also partly commercialized. It´s worth noting that previous editions made pretty clear that there can multiple multiple different formulas for the (mechanically) same spell, based on different traditions, teachers and other subtleties. This could also extend to the naming of spells: Mechanically, you have learned the "Heal" spell, but on the fluffy side, it might be called the "Manadyne ParacelsusTM v4.0"
-
As an aside, does 6e have a section on things magic can't do. I know 5e did and they ignored it for a couple spells, with bad excuses, we aren't creating food we are copying it or something. But does 6e even have that in. I don't remember reading anything like that but my eyes could have skipped past it. And if not, is that intentional, teleportation is incoming, or it is one of those well if you played earlier editions you know things.
-
So, a few additions to the original purpose of this thread: One easy route to cook up spells is to just slap some fitting status effects on the "boring" non-elemental combat spells for additional Drain. Some suggestions:
- Force Choke: Like Stunbolt, but also inflicts the Muted status for [Net hits] Combat rounds, +1 Drain.
- Bonecrusher: Like Manabolt, but also inflicts one level of the Paralyzed Status for every 2 Net Hits. The Status lasts until treated. +1 Drain.
- Mana Disruption: Like Manabolt, but also inflicts the target with the Hazed Status for [Net Hits] Combat rounds if the net hits exceed the targets Magic/2. Limited to dual-natured and astral targets, which sets the additional Drain back to +0. (Fun fact: Besides the description of the effect, the Hazed status is never mentioned again in the Core rules. And in Street Wyrd, it´s only mentioned as a spell ingredient. You´d think that an effect with such wide-reaching consequences would have a little more support behind it... ::))
- Aneurysm: Like Manabolt, but also inflicts the target with the Dazed status for [Net hits] Combat rounds. +1 Drain.
- Ground Wave: Like Clout, but the force is concentrated close to the ground to sweep the target of its feet. 1 Net Hit inflicts the Off Balance Status, 3+ Net Hits knock the target prone. +1 Drain (Or even +0 if you also specify that his spell can be used only on non-flying targets that are on the same ground level as the caster).
Absolutely agreed. Look at the spells I scratch-built upthread... so many individual points could have been implemented in a different way! The spell design process is inherently and highly mutable. But when you use these mechanics to modify existing spells, it's much more of a regimented system along the lines of what players like Lormyr prefer.
As an aside, does 6e have a section on things magic can't do. I know 5e did and they ignored it for a couple spells, with bad excuses, we aren't creating food we are copying it or something. But does 6e even have that in. I don't remember reading anything like that but my eyes could have skipped past it. And if not, is that intentional, teleportation is incoming, or it is one of those well if you played earlier editions you know things.
I haven't read all the fluff yet, but the spell design section does not mention the Unholy Trinity (no teleportation, no communicating with the dead, no time travel) directly. At least that I've noticed. The spell design fluff DOES indirectly mention the "no teleportation" aspect... part of the in-universe fluff discusses how "hard" it is to teleport and the jackpointer points out that it's easier to just design a spell that opens a hole in a wall, which is a way to bypass solving how to teleport through it.
-
[Elemantal] Aura: armour spell plus fire/electricity/cold etc... anyone touching it (close combat) gets burning/zapped etc status... drain +2 for 6DV. I don’t mind that it doesn’t do damage as previous editions did... they always felt a bit OTT to me :)
-
Necroposting cause we made a new spell in my home game:
During the widespread blackout that rocked the UCAS, a shadowrunner magician called Moose was stranded in the dark in the city of Toronto. For most of the residents this was a dangerous time, but Moose was also one of the thousands addicted to BTL sims. As hours became days and days turned into weeks, Moose suffered greatly from withdrawl of the electronic drugs. His hands would shake, his vision blurry, and it was impossible to focus. Then one cold night, Moose had a fevered dream inspired by his Mentor Bear. Moose was in a refugee camp like the one he grew up in. Shaking and sweating, in the dream he came upon a campsite enclosed by tarps where two wounded people from his past lay dying. As a trained healer, Moose immediately set to work on them. But try as he might, he could only save one. Afterward however, he found that while he was working, his hands stopped shaking and his focus was clear. This was a power he could call on when he awoke, and he knew its name as Bear's Steady Hands.
Bear's Steady Hands (Health Spell)
Range: T
Type: P
Duration: S
DV: 4
This spell alleviates the effects of addiction withdrawl (pg 74, SR6). Each net hit on the Sorcery test reduces negative dice pool modifiers due to withdrawl by 1. If the negative dice pool modifiers are reduced to 0, the subject can gain and spend Edge normally. However, use of this spell does not stop withdrawl time from accumulating. It only alleviates symptoms due to withdrawl that the subject is currently experiencing.
When the spell is no longer sustained, all the symptoms and negative modifiers of withdrawl return.
-
Would the boost skill ingredient work like the increase attribute spell where you learn one spell then pick a specific attribute to increase or do you need to clarify the skill in the spell design? It seems like the wording is similar to the attribute boost ingredient. Is this intentionally vague to be GM discretion? I also wondered why affect specific type of test doesn't have a cap like the skill boost. Lomyr does point out though that although the wording is narrower than a skill doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a skill.
-
Would the boost skill ingredient work like the increase attribute spell where you learn one spell then pick a specific attribute to increase or do you need to clarify the skill in the spell design? It seems like the wording is similar to the attribute boost ingredient. Is this intentionally vague to be GM discretion? I also wondered why affect specific type of test doesn't have a cap like the skill boost. Lomyr does point out though that although the wording is narrower than a skill doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a skill.
Yeah they seem to contradict themselves by making the Increase Attribute spell generic, chosen at the time of casting, and then making the Attribute Boost Ingredient specific, chosen at the time of spell creation. I don't think this is intentionally vague, I think they're making the Increase Attribute spell a special case and for home brewed spells making you choose it at creation.
The other option is that they are going to retcon Increase Attribute to Increase (Attribute) in the next round of errata and make you pick the attribute when you learn the spell.
-
Would the boost skill ingredient work like the increase attribute spell where you learn one spell then pick a specific attribute to increase or do you need to clarify the skill in the spell design? It seems like the wording is similar to the attribute boost ingredient. Is this intentionally vague to be GM discretion? I also wondered why affect specific type of test doesn't have a cap like the skill boost. Lomyr does point out though that although the wording is narrower than a skill doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a skill.
Yeah they seem to contradict themselves by making the Increase Attribute spell generic, chosen at the time of casting, and then making the Attribute Boost Ingredient specific, chosen at the time of spell creation. I don't think this is intentionally vague, I think they're making the Increase Attribute spell a special case and for home brewed spells making you choose it at creation.
The other option is that they are going to retcon Increase Attribute to Increase (Attribute) in the next round of errata and make you pick the attribute when you learn the spell.
What a way lose 30 Karma. Is having the increase skill spell generic much more powerful than rating 6 skill wires? With that you can get 7 dice on any skill in the game and still use edge with the wireless bonus.
-
There are 8 attributes. There are 17 skills. you do the math.
a r:6 skillwires system is $240,000, not exactly simple or cheap.