Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hephaestus on <07-03-19/1947:19>
-
Was the magic article posted somewhere else? I didn't see it on the main stage today.
-
It's up now...somewhat intrigued by the modularity of spell casting being suggested.
Magic in SR6 (https://www.shadowrunsixthworld.com/2019/07/magic-in-sr6/)
-
I already reverse-engineered a bunch of Drain components based on differences between spells. It's a consistent system, so will be quite doable to design your own spells when the Magic book comes out.
-
I already reverse-engineered a bunch of Drain components based on differences between spells. It's a consistent system, so will be quite doable to design your own spells when the Magic book comes out.
This is something I wish to see more of. Not just for spells, but also weapons, drones and vehicles, critters...
-
Interesting mechanic change. The ability to build your own spells is very appealing, and I can't wait to see spellcasters explode themselves casting overpowered spells!
Too bad we won't be able to fully utilize it for at least 6 months.
-
Well, I'm definitely interested. Customization in general is something 5e sorely lacked, so it is good to see that magic is getting some more customization options. I can see some ways that this would definitely be useful.
-
I'm curious to see the Mind Affecting/Detection side of components for spells :D
I hope they keep this kind of creativity up for Matrix/Technomancy as well!
-
This is something I wish to see more of. Not just for spells, but also weapons, drones and vehicles, critters...
Very much this...would love to be able to tweak gear and such!
-
This is something I wish to see more of. Not just for spells, but also weapons, drones and vehicles, critters...
I'm 100% with this as well. Having a consistent system for modifications would be amazing. All of these would also be great opportunities for living documents that people could subscribe to.
-
I worry that it could hurt their ability to sell more crunch. Well, unless they offer 'better modules' to plug in. Just from the perspective that 'crunch sells' so they need to be able to market a certain amount of crunch to support the meta-plot and adventures and area books and so on.
-
I worry that it could hurt their ability to sell more crunch. Well, unless they offer 'better modules' to plug in. Just from the perspective that 'crunch sells' so they need to be able to market a certain amount of crunch to support the meta-plot and adventures and area books and so on.
This could be mitigated by having an online database with subscription access. Pay like $1-$3/month for the stats archives, then give subscribers a discount (10%-20% maybe?) on PDF prices for books and Missions modules.
The stats archive would be updated continuously, but would have no real fluff. The gear could be earmarked with a link to the document it came from.
-
Given the large variety of gear-stats, I don't think gear is as modular as Spells are. But if we get customization options, I will greatly enjoy those in HeroLab Online.
-
Some interesting comments re selling crunch.
I think this lets them focus on different kinds of crunch. Rather than each new book needing to include stats for weapons, spells, etc...you can focus on new additions that complement existing. For example, a rules for blood magic, rune magic, etc; rules for ammunition; etc. each of these could be completely optional and added based on GM/group preference. You could then have a range if accessories, such as cards, that could be POD/PDF. Have the weapon cards...no problems...the file could be updated with the new tweaks/add-ones which you can use as needed. This would really let people dial up the crunch to their comfort level.
I like the idea of subscriptions...sort of. When you’re paying a monthly fee, you expect to get stuff monthly (kinda like Patreon?). We’ll be doing that already for HLO (at least those if us who go down that path), so not exactly how that might look/work for CGL.
-
Some interesting comments re selling crunch.
I think this lets them focus on different kinds of crunch. Rather than each new book needing to include stats for weapons, spells, etc...you can focus on new additions that complement existing. For example, a rules for blood magic, rune magic, etc; rules for ammunition; etc. each of these could be completely optional and added based on GM/group preference. You could then have a range if accessories, such as cards, that could be POD/PDF. Have the weapon cards...no problems...the file could be updated with the new tweaks/add-ones which you can use as needed. This would really let people dial up the crunch to their comfort level.
I like the idea of subscriptions...sort of. When you’re paying a monthly fee, you expect to get stuff monthly (kinda like Patreon?). We’ll be doing that already for HLO (at least those if us who go down that path), so not exactly how that might look/work for CGL.
For weapons, one of the things that could be done is to tag on each weapon with what upgrades can be applied to it. That way, you wouldn't be able to have a full-auto Barret with a chopped barrel and drum mag, but you would be able to have an optimized Barret with a recoil compensating stock and a precision-rifled barrel. That would also open up the ability for some weapons that have lower stats to have more upgrade potential.
As for subscription services, I think it depends on how they structure it. If they are charging $10-$15/month, then players should be getting free PDFs of new books as they drop. If they are charging $1-$3/month as a maintenance fee for keeping the database up to date, then I don't think many people would be clamoring for constant item updates.
And, keeping a living document online allows for instantaneous correction of errors, instead of having to task a team of people with compiling errata and eventually releasing a PDF to catalog changes months later.
-
I like your ideas re the weapons...each could have a certain number of “hard points” you could use for options, with limitations on those applicable.
Still unsure re the subs...don’t think CGL would have the resources to maintain this consistently. Don’t get me wrong, would love to be proven wrong, just a little pessimistic on this one.
-
So my take away from that, is drain is clearly intended to be a serious issue, spells are "Modular" (like a Battlemech? If so does it mean we all
will be using Omni-spells?) and lastly spirits are still here, and everything they have always been.
Any word on Foci? Do they have force?
-
Hi all,
My fault for not getting this article posted here and on the other websites sooner - been overwhelmed on the BT front. Glad you were able to find and discuss it anyway.
-
I do like the modular nature, as it gives really good guidelines to whip up variants of spells without worry. I also like that drain looks like it's going to be more of an issue for casters trying to chuck force deadly stunballs at everyone. I'm intrigued by this warm healing and cool healing thing. Could now have a magical version of Icyhot for heals and pranks ;D
Some interesting comments re selling crunch.
I think this lets them focus on different kinds of crunch. Rather than each new book needing to include stats for weapons, spells, etc...you can focus on new additions that complement existing. For example, a rules for blood magic, rune magic, etc; rules for ammunition; etc. each of these could be completely optional and added based on GM/group preference. You could then have a range if accessories, such as cards, that could be POD/PDF. Have the weapon cards...no problems...the file could be updated with the new tweaks/add-ones which you can use as needed. This would really let people dial up the crunch to their comfort level.
I like the idea of subscriptions...sort of. When you’re paying a monthly fee, you expect to get stuff monthly (kinda like Patreon?). We’ll be doing that already for HLO (at least those if us who go down that path), so not exactly how that might look/work for CGL.
For weapons, one of the things that could be done is to tag on each weapon with what upgrades can be applied to it. That way, you wouldn't be able to have a full-auto Barret with a chopped barrel and drum mag, but you would be able to have an optimized Barret with a recoil compensating stock and a precision-rifled barrel. That would also open up the ability for some weapons that have lower stats to have more upgrade potential.
As for subscription services, I think it depends on how they structure it. If they are charging $10-$15/month, then players should be getting free PDFs of new books as they drop. If they are charging $1-$3/month as a maintenance fee for keeping the database up to date, then I don't think many people would be clamoring for constant item updates.
And, keeping a living document online allows for instantaneous correction of errors, instead of having to task a team of people with compiling errata and eventually releasing a PDF to catalog changes months later.
At the least more detail on what guns have what mounting points. Some is common sense sure, but some guns not so much.
-
Couldn’t resist...a case study in what NOT to do ;D:
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a1/24/94/a12494b57b1ee2c4de146c57dfaaef2f--tactical-firearms-tactical-gear.jpg)
-
How much of a penalty to Concealability must that thing accumulate?
As for Magic in Sixth World, has there been any word on the viability of builds like, "The Great Big Spirit With the Cowardly Conjurer Over There?" Maybe putting Blight in core, or just making the drain too much?
-
Drain is more average, you get less services and Edge gains you less so you can't easily cancel out bad Drain rolls. No Binding but instead summoning multiple spirits means you can't go crazy in downtime for a massive army either.
I suspect 3xF4+1xF6 will become a default tactic.
-
Given the large variety of gear-stats, I don't think gear is as modular as Spells are. But if we get customization options, I will greatly enjoy those in HeroLab Online.
Gear also has the complicating factors of availability and cost. It's much more plugged into the game systems wise so unless they've really standardized NuYen costs gear making rules would just be like, a spread of text in a given book going over rough guidelines and so on.
-
Drain is more average, you get less services and Edge gains you less so you can't easily cancel out bad Drain rolls. No Binding but instead summoning multiple spirits means you can't go crazy in downtime for a massive army either.
I suspect 3xF4+1xF6 will become a default tactic.
So that´s 4 additional Combatants, without any material costs, that can practically teleport around the battlefield and (at least) one of which brings about the same power to the table as an average Streetsam. How is that even remotely considered balanced? Not to mention the hassle of managing the additional Initiative Scores, Condition monitors and Edge Pools. And not to mention that Spirits still have their Immunity against normal weapons, while Metas, Critters and Drones only have magical origami Armor.
What Spiritrun needed was a significant reduction in power (and also, a higher incentive for good roleplaying). Instead, it gets a pat on the back.
-
Having finally had a chance to read SR6 in it's entirety, and without getting myself in trouble, my take:
- Defensively, magic got toned WAY down.
- Offensively, it is less overbearing at the low to mid tier. God mages will still annihilate everything late game that does not also have a god mage to neutralize them.
- Spirit summoning is even stronger overall, both in terms of minion count/power, and the lower damage averages vs. hardened armor making them even tougher than before.
-
Spirits weren't balanced in 5e. Well, low force ones were, but why ever summon anything less than 6 force in 5e. Less than 9 force, really.
I've got some slim hope that the balance ends up being slightly corrected... but it might be more likely it just ends up being exacerbated instead.
-
Given how much more Edge it costs to safely summon higher ones, how less services you get from them and that you can't prepare a whole bunch in downtime through Binding anymore, I'm less worried myself. Especially since the key to any Spirit is still: Geek the mage.
As for minion count/power: I've seen what an army of 9 Force 8 Spirits can do. That possibility is gone now. So I don't think that got worse.
-
Having finally had a chance to read SR6 in it's entirety, and without getting myself in trouble, my take:
- Defensively, magic got toned WAY down.
- Offensively, it is less overbearing at the low to mid tier. God mages will still annihilate everything late game that does not also have a god mage to neutralize them.
- Spirit summoning is even stronger overall, both in terms of minion count/power, and the lower damage averages vs. hardened armor making them even tougher than before.
Given that spirits were the most broken part of 5e even if it’s a wash and not more powerful that’s pretty bad. From what had been released it does sound more powerful. Also setting wise I’m not seeing the value add in removing binding. I’m sure they will have story point x explaining why but it doesn’t seem to be a value add. Hell I’d of preferred ditching summoning instead of binding. On the fly has always been more powerful than hypothetical spirit army.
I’m not sure I’ve seen powerful defensive magic since like 2e, useful but not super powerful. But I guess any little bit of nerfing helps a.
-
Spirits weren't balanced in 5e. Well, low force ones were, but why ever summon anything less than 6 force in 5e. Less than 9 force, really.
I've got some slim hope that the balance ends up being slightly corrected... but it might be more likely it just ends up being exacerbated instead.
It was easier to hurt spirits in 5e then any previous edition. Given how soak works in 6e I strongly suspect spirits will be unstoppable in 6e.
-
Spirits weren't balanced in 5e. Well, low force ones were, but why ever summon anything less than 6 force in 5e. Less than 9 force, really.
I've got some slim hope that the balance ends up being slightly corrected... but it might be more likely it just ends up being exacerbated instead.
It was easier to hurt spirits in 5e then any previous edition. Given how soak works in 6e I strongly suspect spirits will be unstoppable in 6e.
Unless/until Blight is legal in 6e, yes high force spirits will probably be largely unstoppable. However since it costs way more edge to reroll failures, and you can only spend edge on the summoning OR the drain, I have my hopes that higher force spirits, despite potentially being even better in 6e than in 5e (for lots of reasons, not just lower DV vs ItNW), they still may end up being more rarely employed than lower <6 Force spirits.
-
I think your missing a point SSDR. If a force 4 is now as unstoppable as a force 8 or 12 was in 5e, assuming pools are even kinda close to what they were in 5e, re-rolling won't be needed.
-
I think your missing a point SSDR. If a force 4 is now as unstoppable as a force 8 or 12 was in 5e, assuming pools are even kinda close to what they were in 5e, re-rolling won't be needed.
I don't consider how hard it is to kill a spirit as being as important as what that spirit can do to rock your world. For argument's sake.. if a 6e F4 spirit is just as hard to kill as a 5e F8 spirit, that F4 still doesn't have the F8's offensive threat.
-
Given how much more Edge it costs to safely summon higher ones
What do you need edge for when a mage can come out of chargen with 26ish drain resistance dice?
From what had been released it does sound more powerful.
High end of the spectrum of force, definitely. Up to about force 6 stays relatively equal to before all things considered.
I’m not sure I’ve seen powerful defensive magic since like 2e, useful but not super powerful.
If you are willing to quicken defense it gets insane quickly. My missions mystic adept from chicago had 41 defense dice vs. melee, 50 defense dice vs. ranged, 56 damage resistance dice, 41/47 toxin resistance dice, and 34 radiation resistance dice. That was waking up for breakfast before stuff like full defense, and with only buying hits for the spells. It cost me the ability to be subtle around magic through because I was never going to not set off an alarm if I went (broke) through a ward.
Given how soak works in 6e I strongly suspect spirits will be unstoppable in 6e.
It looks to me like the "my role is to kill the opposition" PC is going to have an average DV of about 7 or 8 + net hits, after extra like burst fire and what not. So up through force 6 spirits I think things will roughly be status quo to what we are used to 5. Past that it will quickly outpace potential player damage values. The sole exception being physical adepts, who actually have the potential to do incredible melee damage despite strength being completely useless on all but unarmed builds.
-
Given how much more Edge it costs to safely summon higher ones
What do you need edge for when a mage can come out of chargen with 26ish drain resistance dice?
I'll gladly run drain math if you can tell me how easy that is to reach.
-
I can see 20 dice for a min/maxer (10s in the two drain stats), but since you can't start with initation (i.e. no centering foci) I'm not sure where beyond 20 could be coming from.
-
Depends on how you read things. But banning initiation in chargen suffices to make it take a while if hyperfocus on drain is something you worry about as GM.
You could also make a gentlemen agreement with your players of course.
-
I didn't see anything preventing initiation at chargen. If it is there and I missed it then cool, but I did make every effort to be thorough. 20 is max if I missed verbage banning it, otherwise high 20s.
-
Even if we assume that initiation is allowed, how do you manage to have two attributes at 10 and afford initiation and a centering focus?
-
With points to spare. Elf, exceptional charisma, 2 initiations or 2 focused concentration and 1 initiation, rating 6 focus.
-
The chargen step describing spending leftover karma lists 3 things you may spend karma on. Initiation isn't one of them.
Edit: Technically 4 things, including converting karma to nuyen. Still, initiation isn't one of the 4 things.
-
Some of that I’m not worried about. Player x can break the game just isn’t a concern. Because pretty much any game that slows you to build a character can be broken. I’m more concerned with how the game breaks in normal play not when people stretch it to absurdity.
That being said the new focused concentration imo moves the game towards breaking the game in normal play. Having 16-20 drain dice might be the norm at char gen. And when they foolishly add intuition drain stats in again it will get even worse as your sustained +4 intuition spell will do double duty, combat boost and drain stat boost.
-
Foci do exists!
-
Foci do exists!
Existing I assumed. If they are as abusable as before is what Ive been wondering. 6 dice for 36 karma when boosting your magic or skill by 1 for 1 die costs 35 is a bit too big of a discount.
Basically
1. how to they add dice/function.
2. Monetary costs
3. Karma costs
4. Are the breakable without you effectively being captured.
5. If broken can you easily fix or just turn them on again or is the karma/money lost.
6. Do they add a element of risk like in 1e/2e.
-
As an aside I hope blight etc gets fired out of a canon into the sun. You don’t fix a broken rule by making a piece of gear that counters it. You fix the rule. The whole I have x gear for just this occasion thing gets absurd quick.
-
As an aside I hope blight etc gets fired out of a canon into the sun. You don’t fix a broken rule by making a piece of gear that counters it. You fix the rule. The whole I have x gear for just this occasion thing gets absurd quick.
You're not wrong.
-
Blight is whatever. It's simply the answer to the question can you inject someone with something that disrupts their connection to magic? If yes then it's a tax. As every magic user then uses magic to become immune to it. If that answer is no, then carry on as is. I don't think unreasonable question to asking in a setting that has magic.
Did someone say if quickening still exists? Even if doesn't though, so long as there are sustaining foci. Folks are eventually going to run around with magically boosted stats. How super human they get remains to be seen. Making magic less defensive is consistent with everything that has been done in 6e that I'm aware of too date. It does mean some spells and adept power will fall out of use. Hopefully other will be found to take their place. Odds are we can simply write off combat sense and magic armor.
-
I’m not sure the existence of sustaining focuses or quickening means super buffed mages in itself. With the right limitations that doesn’t have to occur.
-
Incidentally I think we're getting too close to breaking NDA here since this conversation requires rule quotes including from sections that changed since SR5 and aren't spoiled yet. So maybe we should table it for now or continue in the demo team agent forum to discuss if we need an SRM decision. :-\ :-X
-
I’m not sure the existence of sustaining focuses or quickening means super buffed mages in itself. With the right limitations that doesn’t have to occur.
Just for the record I said magical boosted stats not super buffed mages. If the attribute booster spells exist and the ability to extend duration exists. Then I think the eventual result is fairly obvious. If you take steps to lock that out that’s probably game on SR magic. Maybe not if something replaces it, but I wouldn’t want to be the one explaining it. That said extent is a real question.
-
I'm less worried about how it balances out for Karl 'The Kaster' Drago looking at the rules saying I'll break you, and how it balances out for an solid-but-not-min/maxed runner. No matter how well you try to make the rules Karl will find the loop-holes that let him break the game. More so then other archetypes awakened need to have a good player/GM confab to make sure everyone is on the same page with what is and isn't the level of campaign you're building. If the player insists on constantly OPing your game with their mage just remember the ol' adage, "Anything you can do the Corps can do better. They can do everything better then you." Magic users are supposed to be fairly rare in world, but you can bet if Karl is going around being a magical mass murderer and terrorist, a High Threat Response Team with a bunch of mages and adepts with spirit backup will come to remove him from existence.
Also something that I haven't seen mentioned for spirits. All the talk so far seems to treat them like disposable drones, which just strikes me as wrong. Spirits are living, reasoning beings, and aren't just going to blindly follow the full intent of commands. They can (and probably will if the mage has a bad rap in the spirit world) twist the orders they're given to something the mage never intended, wasting favors and shortening their service.
-
Incidentally I think we're getting too close to breaking NDA here since this conversation requires rule quotes including from sections that changed since SR5 and aren't spoiled yet. So maybe we should table it for now or continue in the demo team agent forum to discuss if we need an SRM decision. :-\ :-X
Wild guess: Attribute Enhancement spells now explicitly state that they don´t increase drain soak? Because that would be the most obvious solution to this (TBH, kinda under-exposed) problem of previous Editions.
Anyways, I´m more worried about Spiritrun. So far, I´ve seen nothing that tells me that the writers have even understood where the problems with spirits are (instant "reloadability", durability, power scaling...). If anything, spirits seem to be balanced even worse now: - Spells get a fixed rating , but spirits still have linear power scaling.
- The effect of armor is greatly reduced, along with damage codes, but spirits still have their flat damage reduction against nonmagical attacks, likely making them even more impossible to take out.
- Spirit armies are now possible without binding and material investment.
- While changes to the summoning roll make reckless summoning a lot harder, drain is also more reliable now, making instant resummoning in the battle less risky.
I can´t think of many things anything that would even this out right now. Mandatory Material/Reagent costs for summoning spirits in the first place or - godforbidd! - additional requirements and restrictions based on the summoner´s tradition instead of UMT streamlining, maybe. But I´m sure we would have already heard about any changes in this direction...
-
I’m not sure the existence of sustaining focuses or quickening means super buffed mages in itself. With the right limitations that doesn’t have to occur.
Just for the record I said magical boosted stats not super buffed mages. If the attribute booster spells exist and the ability to extend duration exists. Then I think the eventual result is fairly obvious. If you take steps to lock that out that’s probably game on SR magic. Maybe not if something replaces it, but I wouldn’t want to be the one explaining it. That said extent is a real question.
Well assuming they didn’t read the rules wrong we already know focussed concentration handles up to 3 spells at least. So that covers a lot of stats. Past that I think we are talking super buffed mage zone.
Something like reflex spell, one drain stat and combat sense or reaction or intuition boost.
The “fix” seems to be scaling drain based on how many hits you use to power the spell. I think for the reflex spell they said in the play it was 5 base drain +2 for every initiative due added. I think a attribute boosts had a lower base and were +2 drain for every boost last +1. So the theoretical limiting factor is shit tons of drain. Seems like mages morning routines will be brutal.
There may be more to it than that. Like how things stack like maybe only one attribute spell can boost a single pool. So if you boost reaction/intuition and combat sense you only get the highest boost spell for dodging. I guess we will see in a month or so.
-
Seems like mages morning routines will be brutal.
Basically. But you can build up to it slowly if you're really concerned about it. Otherwise, wake up at Sunrise, do stuff, nap till noon.
Personally I would just skip the sustained drain stat boosts and keep Increased Reflexes on the pair of Force 6 Spirits. If all you're doing is occasional utility and healing you don't need to buff up Drain stats. For combat spend your actions ordering Spirits around/re-summoning. YMMV though.
-
I'm less worried about how it balances out for Karl 'The Kaster' Drago looking at the rules saying I'll break you, and how it balances out for an solid-but-not-min/maxed runner. No matter how well you try to make the rules Karl will find the loop-holes that let him break the game. More so then other archetypes awakened need to have a good player/GM confab to make sure everyone is on the same page with what is and isn't the level of campaign you're building. If the player insists on constantly OPing your game with their mage just remember the ol' adage, "Anything you can do the Corps can do better. They can do everything better then you." Magic users are supposed to be fairly rare in world, but you can bet if Karl is going around being a magical mass murderer and terrorist, a High Threat Response Team with a bunch of mages and adepts with spirit backup will come to remove him from existence.
Also something that I haven't seen mentioned for spirits. All the talk so far seems to treat them like disposable drones, which just strikes me as wrong. Spirits are living, reasoning beings, and aren't just going to blindly follow the full intent of commands. They can (and probably will if the mage has a bad rap in the spirit world) twist the orders they're given to something the mage never intended, wasting favors and shortening their service.
Typical example of trying to fix bad rule design by arbitrary ingame bullying.
The main problem of OP mages is not that they kill people (maybe even more than other runners, because they are more effective) but that they are taking away the fun from the other players. Same goes for too powerful spirits.
The logic to let the game world retaliate because a player used totally viable game mechanics (what is rule abuse anyway? either something is allowed or not. At what point should I feel guilty?) is just bad GMing.
If players want equally powerful characters (which might not even be the case) and the rule set does not deliver that, the only thing that helps is house rules (and a good discussion about the problem, which might result in more house rules). NOT "The Game World strikes back!".
BTW: There is such thing as rules with no loopholes. Thats what a balanced rulesystem provides. Of course you can never get that with linear rule systems (without limits). You need power laws or exponential curves in it AKA "diminishing returns".
-
Seems like mages morning routines will be brutal.
Basically. But you can build up to it slowly if you're really concerned about it. Otherwise, wake up at Sunrise, do stuff, nap till noon.
Personally I would just skip the sustained drain stat boosts and keep Increased Reflexes on the pair of Force 6 Spirits. If all you're doing is occasional utility and healing you don't need to buff up Drain stats. For combat spend your actions ordering Spirits around/re-summoning. YMMV though.
In previous editions I never saw the drain stats being boosted. As combat stats were more important. Improved reflexes first, then combat sense, if there was a 3rd they might double down with deflection or reaction/intuition. But two sustaining focusses was already a lot in my games. People initiated, learned new spells, bumped skills etc.
With focussed concentration x3 I’m kind of expecting improved reflexes, improved attribute body and maybe combat sense depending on how it works in the full edition as the starting go to. Though once people deal with higher drain they may min max around that more.
Spirits depending on how powerful their attacks end up being I can see that being your go to combat action. Just to avoid dealing with drain as an alternative.
-
Typical example of trying to fix bad rule design by arbitrary ingame bullying.
The main problem of OP mages is not that they kill people (maybe even more than other runners, because they are more effective) but that they are taking away the fun from the other players. Same goes for too powerful spirits.
The logic to let the game world retaliate because a player used totally viable game mechanics (what is rule abuse anyway? either something is allowed or not. At what point should I feel guilty?) is just bad GMing.
Players can toss around a bag of grenades in every encounter and walk around in MilSpec, and there are in-universe counters to that. 'If you cross the line, the setting supports backlash' is not bad GMing. Spirits not liking abuse is explicit in the rules, and HTR when you go around creating too big a splash is something that's always been a thing.
Going 'you got 2 dice too many so let me increase the competition' is a problem. 'You're throwing around so many high-Force Spirits that the government has taken an interest' is not.
-
Typical example of trying to fix bad rule design by arbitrary ingame bullying.
The main problem of OP mages is not that they kill people (maybe even more than other runners, because they are more effective) but that they are taking away the fun from the other players. Same goes for too powerful spirits.
The logic to let the game world retaliate because a player used totally viable game mechanics (what is rule abuse anyway? either something is allowed or not. At what point should I feel guilty?) is just bad GMing.
Players can toss around a bag of grenades in every encounter and walk around in MilSpec, and there are in-universe counters to that. 'If you cross the line, the setting supports backlash' is not bad GMing. Spirits not liking abuse is explicit in the rules, and HTR when you go around creating too big a splash is something that's always been a thing.
Going 'you got 2 dice too many so let me increase the competition' is a problem. 'You're throwing around so many high-Force Spirits that the government has taken an interest' is not.
Even the first part is sort of a last resort imo unless the team on the whole is doing it. If it’s just the mage with stupid force fireballs or the street sam with a bag of grenades talk to the player first. I prefer not to TPK over one player.
Though for focus abuse again I preferred early editions and they had a built in setting fix. Go ahead build your focus drop karma and money and the first astral security mage who spots you on a run destroys them all and you wasted piles of karma and money. They have got harder and harder to destroy over the editions. It used to be in my games no one took a focus until they could mask it as the setting risk was too high. Now it seems people start with multiples of them in various builds I see on this forum.
That’s my hope for this edition. Make focuses easy to permanently destroy again. Make active focuses the turning on your wireless with a crap comlink for defense for mages instead of turning on your wireless but with firewall 20.
-
The chargen step describing spending leftover karma lists 3 things you may spend karma on. Initiation isn't one of them.
Edit: Technically 4 things, including converting karma to nuyen. Still, initiation isn't one of the 4 things.
See, I read it that way at first as well, but I later decided that I couldn't have understood that reading accurately because all of the magically active premades do not abide by that reading. The Adept has more pp than possible, the combat mage has 2 more spells than possible, and the street shaman has 5 more spells than possible without being able to purchase them directly.
Therefore the only reading that makes sense to me is the final line of (paraphrasing) "see the chart for how much the stuff you can spend karma on costs". That interpretation is supported by the first sentence under character advancement section.
As far as what is actually intended I couldn't begin to speculate.
Existing I assumed. If they are as abusable as before is what Ive been wondering.
They are every bit as unbalanced as before.
-
Something like reflex spell, one drain stat and combat sense or reaction or intuition boost.
Initiative booster, drain stat, and probably Rec/Int or possibly Body.
Would be my guess, it was already mentioned on here that combat sense no longer increase defense pool so that spell is DOA in 6.
Defense is always better then Soak. But as we seem to swinging similar sized die pools in 6e compared 5e with about 2/3 to 1/2 the damage and 1/8 of the soak. With something like 1/3 or 1/4 of the action economy, which just means wiggle room on combat is gonna be really small.
-
The chargen step describing spending leftover karma lists 3 things you may spend karma on. Initiation isn't one of them.
Edit: Technically 4 things, including converting karma to nuyen. Still, initiation isn't one of the 4 things.
See, I read it that way at first as well, but I later decided that I couldn't have understood that reading accurately because all of the magically active premades do not abide by that reading. The Adept has more pp than possible, the combat mage has 2 more spells than possible, and the street shaman has 5 more spells than possible without being able to purchase them directly.
Therefore the only reading that makes sense to me is the final line of (paraphrasing) "see the chart for how much the stuff you can spend karma on costs". That interpretation is supported by the first sentence under character advancement section.
As far as what is actually intended I couldn't begin to speculate.
Existing I assumed. If they are as abusable as before is what Ive been wondering.
They are every bit as unbalanced as before.
I find very re-assuring to know something don't change. LOL Example Character are always a problem it seems.
In 5e No initiation in creation had to be specific errata in, as I think most regulars on here are probably aware of that. Sounds like 6 has the same issue. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it got missed.
-
I'm less worried about how it balances out for Karl 'The Kaster' Drago looking at the rules saying I'll break you, and how it balances out for an solid-but-not-min/maxed runner. No matter how well you try to make the rules Karl will find the loop-holes that let him break the game. More so then other archetypes awakened need to have a good player/GM confab to make sure everyone is on the same page with what is and isn't the level of campaign you're building. If the player insists on constantly OPing your game with their mage just remember the ol' adage, "Anything you can do the Corps can do better. They can do everything better then you." Magic users are supposed to be fairly rare in world, but you can bet if Karl is going around being a magical mass murderer and terrorist, a High Threat Response Team with a bunch of mages and adepts with spirit backup will come to remove him from existence.
Also something that I haven't seen mentioned for spirits. All the talk so far seems to treat them like disposable drones, which just strikes me as wrong. Spirits are living, reasoning beings, and aren't just going to blindly follow the full intent of commands. They can (and probably will if the mage has a bad rap in the spirit world) twist the orders they're given to something the mage never intended, wasting favors and shortening their service.
Typical example of trying to fix bad rule design by arbitrary ingame bullying.
The main problem of OP mages is not that they kill people (maybe even more than other runners, because they are more effective) but that they are taking away the fun from the other players. Same goes for too powerful spirits.
The logic to let the game world retaliate because a player used totally viable game mechanics (what is rule abuse anyway? either something is allowed or not. At what point should I feel guilty?) is just bad GMing.
If players want equally powerful characters (which might not even be the case) and the rule set does not deliver that, the only thing that helps is house rules (and a good discussion about the problem, which might result in more house rules). NOT "The Game World strikes back!".
I'm sorry, I thought we were playing a game where characters often operate under the tagline "I kill people. For money."
"The Game World strikes back!" is what happens in literally every game ever made. You're not the only people moving in a world in stasis. If you go lobbing acid bombs into a cubical farm full of wage slaves, guards will come to arrest or put you down. Get in a bar fight with the Halloweeners cause your buddy Lucky Eyes wanted to talk smack, his buddies may come find you and practice the Art of Beating on your bones (then you go punch Lucky Eyes in that secondhand eye-ware he calls cyber). In game bullying would be sending the Red Samurai after you for painting 'Renraku Sucks!' on the side of their building. Sending them when you blow up a floor of the tower with a few pounds of C4 is a proper response.
There are rules and guild lines for security responses in the books, just as there is a rule (called Spirit Index) for how much of a fragger the local spirit world thinks you are. Not to mention every piece of Shadowrun fluff all the way back to the very first novel that has had spirits in it has shown them to be complex beings with thoughts and feelings and emotions alien to but on par with the meatsacs who summon them. Why would they react differently then any other NPC just because of a compulsion.
BTW: There is such thing as rules with no loopholes. Thats what a balanced rulesystem provides. Of course you can never get that with linear rule systems (without limits). You need power laws or exponential curves in it AKA "diminishing returns".
Even with 'exponential curve' rules, there's still ways to break them. Every rule can be broken, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how. If you've never ran into this then Congrats! Seriously, it means neither you nor your group is a min/maxing munchkin and that is a reason to celebrate. If Karl Kaster is acting out badly, talk to them first as they may not realize what they're doing (or just got carried away) and have them tone it back a bit. If they pull a "well it says in the rules that I can so *pssst*" then you bring in a precision response and re-evaluate if Karl Kaster has a place at your table.
just bad GMing.
Going 'you got 2 dice too many so let me increase the competition' is a problem. 'You're throwing around so many high-Force Spirits that the government has taken an interest' is not.
Even the first part is sort of a last resort imo unless the team on the whole is doing it. If it’s just the mage with stupid force fireballs or the street sam with a bag of grenades talk to the player first. I prefer not to TPK over one player.
I'll admit, I didn't think that needed to be said as it should be a given. Players sometimes don't realize what their doing or just plain get carried away. It happens. And other players shouldn't be punished for one persons bad table manners.
Though for focus abuse again I preferred early editions and they had a built in setting fix. Go ahead build your focus drop karma and money and the first astral security mage who spots you on a run destroys them all and you wasted piles of karma and money. They have got harder and harder to destroy over the editions. It used to be in my games no one took a focus until they could mask it as the setting risk was too high. Now it seems people start with multiples of them in various builds I see on this forum.
That’s my hope for this edition. Make focuses easy to permanently destroy again. Make active focuses the turning on your wireless with a crap comlink for defense for mages instead of turning on your wireless but with firewall 20.
Ghost yes! I'm glad the old 'ground a fireball through the focus' is gone, but if I can unravel a spell or spirit from a ways off, I should be able to unravel the magic in a focus, temporarily or permanently.
-
Ghost yes! I'm glad the old 'ground a fireball through the focus' is gone, but if I can unravel a spell or spirit from a ways off, I should be able to unravel the magic in a focus, temporarily or permanently.
They had a grounding I kind of liked in forbidden arcana in that it only effected the focus user. I’d have no problems with grounding spells or attacks through focuses if the attack stopped at the mage wearing the focus. Just like if you attack cyber with a decker the effects stop with the cyber dude.
Problem with the forbidden arcana thing is it was a initiation and it should have been the default.
-
Typical example of trying to fix bad rule design by arbitrary ingame bullying.
The main problem of OP mages is not that they kill people (maybe even more than other runners, because they are more effective) but that they are taking away the fun from the other players. Same goes for too powerful spirits.
The logic to let the game world retaliate because a player used totally viable game mechanics (what is rule abuse anyway? either something is allowed or not. At what point should I feel guilty?) is just bad GMing.
Players can toss around a bag of grenades in every encounter and walk around in MilSpec, and there are in-universe counters to that. 'If you cross the line, the setting supports backlash' is not bad GMing. Spirits not liking abuse is explicit in the rules, and HTR when you go around creating too big a splash is something that's always been a thing.
Correct, you can backlash on bad behaviour with setting, but not on exploitation of rules. Fix setting with setting and rules with rules. Fixing bad rules by punish a player that is appenrently using them with setting measures is a no go.
-
I'm sorry, I thought we were playing a game where characters often operate under the tagline "I kill people. For money."
"The Game World strikes back!" is what happens in literally every game ever made. You're not the only people moving in a world in stasis. If you go lobbing acid bombs into a cubical farm full of wage slaves, guards will come to arrest or put you down. Get in a bar fight with the Halloweeners cause your buddy Lucky Eyes wanted to talk smack, his buddies may come find you and practice the Art of Beating on your bones (then you go punch Lucky Eyes in that secondhand eye-ware he calls cyber). In game bullying would be sending the Red Samurai after you for painting 'Renraku Sucks!' on the side of their building. Sending them when you blow up a floor of the tower with a few pounds of C4 is a proper response.
There are rules and guild lines for security responses in the books, just as there is a rule (called Spirit Index) for how much of a fragger the local spirit world thinks you are. Not to mention every piece of Shadowrun fluff all the way back to the very first novel that has had spirits in it has shown them to be complex beings with thoughts and feelings and emotions alien to but on par with the meatsacs who summon them. Why would they react differently then any other NPC just because of a compulsion.
All true, what has this to do with bad rules? Bad rules means that, in case of bad rules creating OP chartacters, the OP character is much better than the others. It does not mean (necessarily) that he goes on a rampage. It just means that he can do the (for the run required and thus by the game world accepted) fighting all, or allmost all, by himself. Or any task, that the runners are required to do, depending on the field of OP. How do you fix this with an ingame response? The caracter is just doing what the job requires, but so effectively that others dont shine. THAT is an OP rules problem. Not somebody being so powerfull that he goes on a rampage (THAT is a setting problem). Of course they are connected as in they both require power. But they are different problems.
The Magicrun problem is when a (OP) mage can do everything himself and better than all the other runners, not when the magician kills the whole city. And this is, at least what i perceive, the point of discusison right now.
-
Just got not future. So budding mages of the world. Flamethrower spell or a bottle filled with gas and lit on fire.
-
Just got not future. So budding mages of the world. Flamethrower spell or a bottle filled with gas and lit on fire.
I don't know if you got No Future with the 5E stats, but the cocktail is 8P with -6 AP and Flamethrower needs to be cast at Force 8 to have 8P/-8AP with 7 Drain to resist. In comparison, the cocktail does 10P in 6E and Flamestrike needs 10 hits to get 10P damage, but the DV is 5 to resist.
Of course, they do talk about in the description for the Molotov Cocktail that it is hard to make one nowadays since glass bottles aren't as common, gas costs a lot more, and tanks (their main target) are sealed against liquids. I admit, that's not reflected in the price of the item, but is listed as 6F availablility.
-
Just got not future. So budding mages of the world. Flamethrower spell or a bottle filled with gas and lit on fire.
I don't know if you got No Future with the 5E stats, but the cocktail is 8P with -6 AP and Flamethrower needs to be cast at Force 8 to have 8P/-8AP with 7 Drain to resist. In comparison, the cocktail does 10P in 6E and Flamestrike needs 10 hits to get 10P damage, but the DV is 5 to resist.
Of course, they do talk about in the description for the Molotov Cocktail that it is hard to make one nowadays since glass bottles aren't as common, gas costs a lot more, and tanks (their main target) are sealed against liquids. I admit, that's not reflected in the price of the item, but is listed as 6F availablility.
i have the 6e stats but I knew the 5e ones. Which I think make the 6e ones a error. Though admittedly I don’t have any other grenades to reference. But effectively the molotov in 6e is doing the same damage as the 5e where other weapons do less. The 6e ones damage should be 1/2d most likely and that’s being generous. Probably 4 damage really. But I don’t know if it’s damage scales up with net hits.
Not sure why SR5 on seems to want to make grenades 100% kill weapons but that is what it’s looking like.
Be that as it may needing 10 hits to match it is crazy. Direct combat spells continue to seem to be useless. Indirect are okay. Base damage probably 3 for most starting mages. That’s weak weapon level but as you initiate etc it will get better. Actually like that as I never felt there was much reason to actually boost your magic stat before.
-
GRENADES IMPACT 2M 5M 10M AVAIL COST NOTES
Molotov 10P 4P 2P — 6F 15¥ Fire damage
That's what the updated version says.
With no basis for comparison I have no idea how good or bad that is.
-
GRENADES IMPACT 2M 5M 10M AVAIL COST NOTES
Molotov 10P 4P 2P — 6F 15¥ Fire damage
That's what the updated version says.
With no basis for comparison I have no idea how good or bad that is.
Only thing I’m comparing it to is QSR and it’s super deadly compared to that. As pointed out 5e version did 8p with 6 ap which math wise is pretty close to 10p. With all other weapons going down in damage it seems like a mistake. But maybe high explosive grenades do 20dv in 6e.
-
There's the potential 10P damage value, but the 4P and 2P are much more likely to be relevant. And those values can be compared to QSR weapons.
-
Impact implies maximum possible damage?
-
There's the potential 10P damage value, but the 4P and 2P are much more likely to be relevant. And those values can be compared to QSR weapons.
I assume impact means you beaned someone with it so not in the splash. You have to hit with most weapons to do anything. So unless impact is some code in 6e that makes it super hard to pull off it seems to be a weapon that out does sniper rifles, assault rifles on full auto etc.
-
I believe the other ones are for distance from target - 10P on impact, 4P within 2m, 2P within 5m.
Edit: also, please remember that, even in the write-up for the entry, molotovs are used against tanks and large groups of heavily armored troops. Being covered in burning gas is a pretty serious thing (the only thing worse is napalm). Gas and oil float on water, so to douse the flames with water isn't just throwing a glass of water on it, but drenching/submerging the burning target in water. Case in point, stove grease fires.
-
There's the potential 10P damage value, but the 4P and 2P are much more likely to be relevant. And those values can be compared to QSR weapons.
I assume impact means you beaned someone with it so not in the splash. You have to hit with most weapons to do anything. So unless impact is some code in 6e that makes it super hard to pull off it seems to be a weapon that out does sniper rifles, assault rifles on full auto etc.
It might seem that way sure. Except for factors that make it not so. Obviously it's possible you could be directly hit. But you probably won't be. I don't think I can go into concrete details, so however frustrating that is... all I'm saying is those 2nd and 3rd numbers are the ones you really ought to worry about rather than the 1st one.
-
There's the potential 10P damage value, but the 4P and 2P are much more likely to be relevant. And those values can be compared to QSR weapons.
I assume impact means you beaned someone with it so not in the splash. You have to hit with most weapons to do anything. So unless impact is some code in 6e that makes it super hard to pull off it seems to be a weapon that out does sniper rifles, assault rifles on full auto etc.
It might seem that way sure. Except for factors that make it not so. Obviously it's possible you could be directly hit. But you probably won't be. I don't think I can go into concrete details, so however frustrating that is... all I'm saying is those 2nd and 3rd numbers are the ones you really ought to worry about rather than the 1st one.
Cool. 4 seems reasonable for a improvised weapon. 10 didn’t given where other weapons were.
-
While Karl Kaster obviously will find the optimal path no matter what, there is a huge difference between recognizing this fact and not freaking out if he notices something really good and throwing up your hands saying 'whelp guess we don't have to care.'
A huge problem with 5e magic is that it didn't take Karl Kaster for things to get out of hand. "Combos" (as far as they could be called combos) as simple as 'Combine sustaining spells with the thing that reduces sustaining penalties and then sustain lots of spells' resulted in very unfun table situations where either the mage just was way too good at everything or mages who didn't sustain and adepts would be cruuuuushed by the attempt to balance magic 'in universe' against sustaining.
In essence, despite the fact that optimizers are going to optimize, it doesn't let the design off the hook when the balance is just bad. The logic fails because you can't apply it in other identical situations and sound sane: "Because Sammy Samurai is going to find the optimal path anyway we can just make things really broken and release a gun that does 20p and automatically hits and costs 200 nuyen, is avail 4R, and is concealment +2." That is a hyperbolic example, but obviously the goal SHOULD be that things are fair.
A huge problem with 'in universe' attempts to 'fix' magic is that magic usage is completely under the control of the PC with no inherent downsides to the PC. Like if an aspect of magic is not a good tool for a specific situation you can just choose not to use that aspect, and in many cases the 'downsides' of magic can be trivially avoided, like drain just via resting (Though the healing changes may fix that). If X buff spells are worth the penalty but X+1 isn't, people will just use X, if you can sustain Y drain safely without really losing anything people will. If combat magic is worse than a gun mages will just buff and use a gun. None of these are INHERENTLY bad things but you want the numbers involved to be good numbers and want to respect the fact that there is a strong emotional attachment to mundanity among many players and the perception that mages get special treatment from the designers has caused... amazingly bitter feelings that have destroyed groups.
Balance isn't really important to keep things balanced, because Karl Kaster is going to find the best thing to do anyway, but you need to make sure that A: Being any role has an upshot that feels like its yours and B: No one feels like the designers are playing favorites or that any one thing has so much upside not picking it actively makes you feel bad.
There are indications the problem might be solved (For example, sustaining penalties don't really work conceptually to balance buffs, buffs are either efficient dicepool wise or they aren't and if they are they REALLY are, so getting rid of them and balancing on a different axis makes total sense) and drain plus the new healing changes might really work to prevent mages from just casting a bajillion small effects before summoning one big spirit and steamrolling everything. But the problem that severe imbalances create really shouldn't be laid at karl Kaster's feet. Minor imbalances get smoothed out by the fact some archetypes have strengths others can't emulate, and while Karl Kaster will still exploit those he probably won't ruin anyone's day with them.
The issue is when the strength of an archtype is so huge it warps the entire game and setting around it, like 5e mages with their summoning mini-gods, once your starting PC can consistently summon a force 12 and survive the fact they can't personally get good soak sorta pales as Spiritzilla solos an indefinite amount of HTR opponents unless they summon their OWN spiritzilla that no one else can touch and suddenly the only people who can really affect the outcome of the conflict are Pokemon Battler mages who aren't even on site and everyone else might as well go home. That isn't Karl's fault, that behavior can be done by Danny McNevercastaspell on his first mage just because "Push drain resistance and casting and summoning to as high as you can go" isn't exactly a nuanced breakage of game mechanics so much as being a thing rookie players often instinctively do because its easy to understand. The 'in universe' cure is inevitably as bad as the disease (See: High Background Counts that can turn off force 12 sustained quickened spells absolutely DEMOLISHING adepts as a playable concept) and it really just is smarter (and also literally the job of a game designer) to ensure THAT doesn't happen.
Ideally (and it seems like this may be the case, though rumors of spirits STILL having hardened armor are spooky) mages should be tossing out big spoopy scary effects that make everyone turn their head, as well as small tricky effects, but should suffer in terms of sustaining big effects for a long time, or personally being the biggest badass in the room, and they shouldn't just be smashing through problems by tactically limiting their expected drain to be 1-3 stun and just laughing off a -6 sustaining penalty because their combined buffs give em +9 to everything. You should have SOME idea what is healthy behavior for an archetype and should make pretty significant effort to ensure that healthy behavior is the natural 'lane' the archetpye falls into, without specifically designing the archetype to be defined by what they can't do (like 5e hackers kinda were).
I think things that would be a red flag for 6e balance for magic as far as we know with public information would be combat buffs that are as selfish and potent as they used to be in 5e, strong tools for supporting buffs that can compete with augs head to head, spirits of even moderate force being unkillable by mundanes, infinite force scaling, ways to nullify drain, and tools that make drain hit softer like centering foci. As the power level for many mundane things has drastically fallen due to how edge is going to work, mages kinda need to feel that drain pinch, need to essentially lose access to augmentations now that the big upshot of augmentations are likely weaker, and definitely shouldn't be able to essentially summon 5e style sams. That seems like what is actually happening, but it really just takes one stinker to bring us back to the status quo where Little Billy's first mage may accidently crack their campaign's spine over their knee.
Also, I am hecka interested in POSITIVE elemental effects on things like healing, just to end on a somewhat positive non-sequitur. Like color me intrigued in the extreme, as weirdo side boons and buffs and debuffs always seemed like a great way to make mages feel magicky while not making their effects just superior to mundane ones.
-
Goodness Dez. I understand you're doing the grad school thing, and that's totally great. But perhaps aim for 2 paragraphs?
I feel like reading the opening remarks at the UN here.
-
Goodness Dez. I understand you're doing the grad school thing, and that's totally great. But perhaps aim for 2 paragraphs?
I feel like reading the opening remarks at the UN here.
LISTEN, when I get nervous about having to write something, I write something else!
Where do you think the 6000 words on martial arts came from?!?
It is an impractical solution to the problem as opposed to just... finishing the work, but there ya go.
The TL;DR was basically that just because people might break the game doesn't mean the game should be broken, because 'baseline' balance matters a lot to players on an emotional level as well as just in terms of basic usability.
-
LISTEN, when I get nervous about having to write something, I write something else!
Where do you think the 6000 words on martial arts came from?!?
Clearly a good habit and skill to have. But I would suggest the forums are not something you need to be nervous about.
We may get tense from time to time, but all the regulars are just the SR family. Maybe a slightly dysfunction and very opinionated family.
But still the SR family.
-
LISTEN, when I get nervous about having to write something, I write something else!
Where do you think the 6000 words on martial arts came from?!?
Clearly a good habit and skill to have. But I would suggest the forums are not something you need to be nervous about.
They may get tense from time to time, but all the regulars are just the SR family. Maybe a slightly dysfunction and very opinionated family.
But still the SR family.
I am familiar with those! And I trust you are all nice people, I was more talking about distracting myself from writing I HAVE to do as coursework by doing writing I don't have to do because if I stare at my research sources for any longer I would go nuts.
Probably shouldn't word barf on unsuspecting unrelated people though just to contain that spicy hot academia energy, so I will try to trim the fat from posts in the future!
-
i have the 6e stats but I knew the 5e ones. Which I think make the 6e ones a error. Though admittedly I don’t have any other grenades to reference. But effectively the molotov in 6e is doing the same damage as the 5e where other weapons do less. The 6e ones damage should be 1/2d most likely and that’s being generous. Probably 4 damage really. But I don’t know if it’s damage scales up with net hits.
Not sure why SR5 on seems to want to make grenades 100% kill weapons but that is what it’s looking like.
Base explosives damage is largely unchanged from 5e, but the damage formula from impact differs. Ground zero 16P, close range 12P, near range 8P, 20m radius total is average. For a fully comparative DV chart:
Bows: 1-7P
Tasers: 4-6S
Melee Weapons: 1-5, S and P
Monofilament Whip: 6P
Holdouts and Light Pistols: 2-3P
Machine Pistols: 2P
Heavy Pistols: 3-4P
Submachine Guns: 3-4P
Shotgun: 4-5P
Rifles: 4-6P
Machineguns: 4-7P
Explosive ammo will get you +1 DV. SA fire mode will get you +1 DV, or +2 DV for BF. So the damage on ranged weapons remains solid overall.
Highest damage resistance dice pool is 14 for comparison. Thats a troll with exceptional attribute for body and bone density 4 or quickened increase body at max.
Adept combat sense (but not mage combat sense) still adds dice to defense tests to avoid hits. Indirect aoe combat spells now allow a defense test to avoid, but non-magical aoe attacks (grenades, gases, ect.) still do not and require a 1/round maximum minor action to potentially avoid some/all of the radius.
So yes, grenades are even more of a 100% kill weapon in this edition than they were. I don't understand what is so damn hard about understanding that any time one character wants to affect another character there should always be an opposed roll of some kind (attacker roll vs. defense roll).
-
Wait magic AoE has a defense test but tech AoE does not? Wow.
-
Wait magic AoE has a defense test but tech AoE does not? Wow.
Magical and mundane area attacks use different rules mechanics.
-
One other thing, which I worry more about possible reactions to it:
From what I surmise, Mystic Adepts in 4th were seen as less useful than a magician or adept; in 5th, they had all the advantages of both with only one major disadvantage, which wasn't as much of a disadvantage as it seemed on paper.
My hopes, for 6th, is that you can pick magician or adept at chargen, but you have to choose which side to prefer, with no ability to be superlative in both. That way, you can be mainly a magician with a little qi, or mainly an adept who can do a spell or two.
-
Mystic adepts are just a tough nut to crack because their entire gimmick is giving you access to basically the whole buffet of magical options, so limiting their choices sorta goes against that, but if you force a literal divide of resources they become too weak.
5e maybe was on the right track in terms of how they handled their adept side, mainly that Mysads in 5e didn't get a major benefit adepts got by raising magic. But it didn't work because they didn't lose anything relevant from their mage side (Astral projection, while cool as heck, is sorta a joke because... spirits exist and are so overwhelmingly better than a projecting mage in every way that astrally projecting not only isn't meaningful to lose, but astral projecting is almost always actively a bad idea to do in any situation) and the mage side was the stronger side, to the point where despite mysads obviously being 'stronger' than mages, the mere at gen opportunity cost of being a mystic adept was big enough that they didn't actually overtake mages in terms of character optimization: Spending a bunch of karma at gen on PP to get increase reflexes really was you spending 20% of your gen karma budget on a +1 bonus to dicerolls, which is good but didn't fit into high end builds, which says a LOT about how strong 5e mages were when what was essentially 12 karma for a generic +1 to everything wouldn't make the cut!
While "Buffs over nerfs" is a bit of a meme that doesn't really reflect good game design, it may be that the best way to make mystic adepts work is to not take away their options per-say but give adepts and mages something that makes the choice to give up being a 'pure' archetype not as clear cut. Adepts could stand to get a buff anyway because the entire scheme of a hyper-specialized power source resource where you can only augment a few very specific things doesn't really work with how SR PCs are made, and it would be nice for astrally active mages to be the biggest meanest things on the astral plane with lots of cool astral tricks and toys rather than being idiots who are going to get eaten by a force 4 spirit.
Either way, I don't think 'try to limit mystic adepts by removing specific aspects of magery' is a good plan because that is pretty binary: Either you have enough magic stuff to basically get all the good stuff, or you don't. Like if you only get one of enchanting, sorcery, or conjuration, then its super obvious (at least with 5e's balance between those abilities and adept powers) its crazy not worth it to be an adept ever, because sorcery+conjuration is going to be way stronger than anything you get as an adept. But that has a lot to do with how 5e handles buffs and spirits. 6e seems to have toned down buffs, but not as much spirits, and so if you did that and spirits ended up being the 'good part' of mages, then you still have mystic adepts being way better than being a mage.
-
The best way to fix mystic adepts is to fire them out of a canon into the sun and accept they were a bad idea from the getgo back at what end of 2e did the idea start to fester.
Barring that go the 4e route. Too weak is better than too strong. You take it so for the idea not to break the game.
That being said two separate magic attributes you had to invest in might work given scaling karma
Costs but it kind of depends on how many special attribute points you can get etc at char gen. Given catalysts history I suspect that would still be broken.
-
Speaking as someone who thinks MysAds are hideously OP in 5e and resultantly has something of a hate-on for them:
I'm ok with 6w's version of MysAds. I wish they were nerfed further, but in all fairness they're someplace between 4e and 5e. If you DO like MysAds, they still should feel like they're viable.
-
Barring that go the 4e route. Too weak is better than too strong. You take it so for the idea not to break the game.
I strongly disagree. The worst thing you can do is create trap options based on something really cool that will attract new players who are lured by the promise of cool powers and fun times and fall on their face.
That said there are gradients. Way way way way too strong is worse than way way way way too weak, because one warps the game and the other is merely a trap, but 'kinda just better than everything else' is better than 'kinda not fun to play' as players are pretty forgiving of power differences as long as they feel like they get to have their own scenes, spotlight times to shine, and aren't constantly being shoved out of the way.
Of course perceived power matters a lot and can create animosity, and Mysads naturally attract jellous eyes due to their ability to use every relevant power source from 'ware to magic to drugs (sorry technos :-\ ). So even in 5e where being an adept wasn't actually optimal because adept powers are so much weaker than spell buffs anyway and generally were not compatible (so it was better to take that mysad karma and get yourself some good qualities and a nice power focus), it still felt unfair on principle. Same reason many people wish Mage burnouts were nerfed so bad that they can't ever get 'ware ever, because 'ware is 'mundane stuff' even though burnouts are interesting, an integral part of lore, and mostly exist as a problem of a few specific design choices rather than the entire concept being no good. So Mysads have this other problem where if they are working they FEEL really unfair because... well it sorta is unfair they get their cake and eat it too from an in universe standpoint... or they just aren't working and everyone feels bad for them and they are a trap option because they are so cool but don't work.
-
Barring that go the 4e route. Too weak is better than too strong. You take it so for the idea not to break the game.
I strongly disagree. The worst thing you can do is create trap options based on something really cool that will attract new players who are lured by the promise of cool powers and fun times and fall on their face.
That said there are gradients. Way way way way too strong is worse than way way way way too weak, because one warps the game and the other is merely a trap, but 'kinda just better than everything else' is better than 'kinda not fun to play' as players are pretty forgiving of power differences as long as they feel like they get to have their own scenes, spotlight times to shine, and aren't constantly being shoved out of the way.
Of course perceived power matters a lot and can create animosity, and Mysads naturally attract jellous eyes due to their ability to use every relevant power source from 'ware to magic to drugs (sorry technos :-\ ). So even in 5e where being an adept wasn't actually optimal because adept powers are so much weaker than spell buffs anyway and generally were not compatible (so it was better to take that mysad karma and get yourself some good qualities and a nice power focus), it still felt unfair on principle. Same reason many people wish Mage burnouts were nerfed so bad that they can't ever get 'ware ever, because 'ware is 'mundane stuff' even though burnouts are interesting, an integral part of lore, and mostly exist as a problem of a few specific design choices rather than the entire concept being no good. So Mysads have this other problem where if they are working they FEEL really unfair because... well it sorta is unfair they get their cake and eat it too from an in universe standpoint... or they just aren't working and everyone feels bad for them and they are a trap option because they are so cool but don't work.
4e wasn’t a trap option in my opinion. Weaker than a pure mage because pure mages were too good but it was basically a better themed burnout mage using adept powers in place or cyber. And that is what they should always have been if they existed. If you get more bang than that you are just broken. And damage the game for everyone around you.
-
Mystic Adepts are still king in 6th, they just come out of the door a bit slower. In short, your single magic attribute governs both "sides", but you have to split your initial score for the purpose of spells and power choices at chargen.
The real nerf was defensive magic, and not being able to stack both combat senses, both armor/mystic, both natural immunity/prophlyaxis, ect. That is where they were truly OP in 5th imo.
-
Mystic Adepts are still king in 6th, they just come out of the door a bit slower. In short, your single magic attribute governs both "sides", but you have to split your initial score for the purpose of spells and power choices at chargen.
The real nerf was defensive magic, and not being able to stack both combat senses, both armor/mystic, both natural immunity/prophlyaxis, ect. That is where they were truly OP in 5th imo.
Probably another edition where they are banned at my table then.
-
I suppose it will depend on the reason you banned them in 5th. Overall, their performance will be only slightly better than an equal powered mage. All the same offense plus adept combat sense for defense pools will be the only real difference on a primarily caster build.
-
Honestly MA always seem like role infringement. I don’t get why of all things that stupidity keeps getting rolled forward. They nerf armor in oblivion but MA just get slapped on the wrist and sent on. We could totally do without MAs. Is there any willingness to trade MA’s for something else?
-
I suppose it will depend on the reason you banned them in 5th. Overall, their performance will be only slightly better than an equal powered mage. All the same offense plus adept combat sense for defense pools will be the only real difference on a primarily caster build.
That’s sort of my issue. If they are basically mage+ you are in a terrible design space on both a setting, rules and game group perspective.
-
Well they exist because the archetype of a mystical warrior is a fantasy staple. Ninja, The Witcher, D&D rangers, paladins, and warlocks, take your pick.
They aren't better than an optimized mage (In this hypothetical soak tank/defense tank build a mage with a power foci granting 3 extra dice is rocking 4 extra defense dice, 1 extra soak dice, .5d6+2 more initiative, an extra 3 dice to cast spells, +2 dice on offensive actions, and this is if they decide not to also boost reflexes, strength, and body for an extra 1 defense dice and an extra 2 soak dice in a quickening build and the interaction between edge and quickening that makes 3 dice in reality some odd 5 dice which boosts everything further and puts the mage above 6 PP, which comes out to 4 PP ignoring the casting pool bonus and when the mage isn't trying very hard. Yes, in theory a mysad tank build can go higher than an extra 3 dice to resist damage at gen, but only by 3, and the difference between 40 soak and 43 is rather immaterial when the mage is also doing a heck of a lot of other things better.
But while this is a good mechanical comparison, its easier for a GM to spot that mage and say 'no' and its harder for a player to stumble upon the fact the mage with a power focus is so strong if they just buff like crazy and take psyche or view buffs as a consumable they will lose once every few runs (if ever, its REALLY hard to lose high force quickened spells, like dragons struggle to counterspell those suckers) and just quicken. So while a mage can be stronger than a mysad and is just generally a better more versatile build, it is easier to break mysads than mages.
But what about a 'fairly' played mysad? The guy who is getting some increased reflexes, 1-2 ranks of improved ability (blades), and maybe a rank in combat sense? Those seem to be ok. They are better than adepts just because summoning, but summoning was way too strong and nothing with summoning can be fair until summoning itself gets nerfed, and adepts are pretty bad in 5e and desperately need to augment with secondary power sources like 'ware or drugs anyway, so balancing 'down' to adepts doesn't make sense. In that scenario it seems to me what makes that mysad 'fair' even in 5e where they merely pay a bit of starting karma is the fact they aren't pushing the PP limit that hard. That may be a key to balancing mysads, capping the limit on bonus dice from their powers much lower than an adept, rather than removing magery for adeptness, because doing that doesn't really encourage the "Paladin who fights good with a sword and can also heal" so much as divides resources too much. In essence, a limit on how much you can invest adept powers to particular dice (say... only +1/3rd your magic as opposed to +your whole magic score to any given dice roll like most adepts have) might encourage mystical ninjas and the like and stop buff stacking. With buffs getting weaker in 6e that means the mystic adept can't as easily just buff themselves past a normal adept as well.
Course this is all navel gazing not super related to 6e. I just really enjoy the concept of myasds (They get people into the finger wiggler side of magic might otherwise not be) even though I don't like their implementation.
-
No. What you still had was a mage+. He gave up jack shit of being a mage and got extra shit thrown on top. I don’t care if you gimp one side a bit he’s still the other side+. You have to right fully screw both sides so when added together they are roughly equal to either archetype. Nothing limitation+ is terrible. Mystic warriors could have been handled perfectly well just by adepts in earlier editions. Or a mage who just takes some damn combat skills. You don’t need mage+ to get there.
-
They aren't better than an optimized mage
Assuming we are talking about 5e, I believe they are strictly better, especially at defense. Long term:
A theory crafted optimized mage will run quickened armor, astral armor, combat sense, deflection, element aura, hawkeye, increase attribute all, increase reflexes, prophylaxis, and radiation shield. He'll have counterspelling and shielding to help resist hostile magic. He'll have centering, and run the best power foci and centering foci he can get his hands on.
The theory crafted optimized mystic adept will have all of that, plus combat sense and spell resistance maxed out. Depending on the build, it will also run some less than maxed combination of mystic armor and/or natural immunity. He'll also have hapsum-do and harmonious defense.
Defensively, there is no comparison. Because the mystic adept has to branch out a touch further, the mage is likely to have an extra die or 4 for spellcasting, but that is irrelevant to the mystic adept when nothing in your general ballpark of power level can touch or harm you.
That’s sort of my issue. If they are basically mage+ you are in a terrible design space on both a setting, rules and game group perspective.
A legit position. I have no rebuttal.
-
Given my druthers, a MysAd would lose Summoning and gain Physical Adept powers.
This still gives you your high-end ninja stuff, like walking through walls and turning invisible, but takes away the pet element. This also leaves room for bullet mages, Paladins, and so on. Trade the ability to call for help for the ability to help yourself.
Of course, you'd have to deal with a bit of an uprising from the players who want all the power, but, it's the most fair, I think.
-
Given my druthers, a MysAd would lose Summoning and gain Physical Adept powers.
This still gives you your high-end ninja stuff, like walking through walls and turning invisible, but takes away the pet element. This also leaves room for bullet mages, Paladins, and so on. Trade the ability to call for help for the ability to help yourself.
Of course, you'd have to deal with a bit of an uprising from the players who want all the power, but, it's the most fair, I think.
That sounds reasonable to me. As I understand them currently they get all the mage abilities (spells, summoning, and enchanting) except astral travel and perception, plus adept powers correct? Making them adepts plus limiting them to just spells seems to make them better balanced than they seem to be currently.
-
It's hard to imagine learning to cast spells or summon spirits without being able to perceive astral space. If mystic adepts don't start with astral perception, it should be a mandatory use of a power point.
-
Has anyone got an idea of how alchemy is being treated in the new edition?
I am a fan of the magical tinkerer archetype so I thought its inclusion in 5e was great and would like to see it expand
-
Has anyone got an idea of how alchemy is being treated in the new edition?
I am a fan of the magical tinkerer archetype so I thought its inclusion in 5e was great and would like to see it expand
I loved the idea of it in 5e. The implementation sucked ass even after its pseudo patches in supplements. Hopefully they figured out the math this time.
-
So, I'm glad that I didn't cause all that much of a flare-up, and also that we got to toss around ideas around MysAds. I like the idea of "basically make them Aspected Spellcasters With Qi," because then you get the most exciting options - spells & fancy adept stuff - without the less-exciting-but-more-frustrating stuff.
-
I admit, I'm wondering if this will lead to combat+effect not living things+electricity+area+ranged = target tech things including head cases by zapping nanites and doing matrix damage to things via a spell.
-
They aren't better than an optimized mage
Assuming we are talking about 5e, I believe they are strictly better, especially at defense. Long term:
A theory crafted optimized mage will run quickened armor, astral armor, combat sense, deflection, element aura, hawkeye, increase attribute all, increase reflexes, prophylaxis, and radiation shield. He'll have counterspelling and shielding to help resist hostile magic. He'll have centering, and run the best power foci and centering foci he can get his hands on.
The theory crafted optimized mystic adept will have all of that, plus combat sense and spell resistance maxed out. Depending on the build, it will also run some less than maxed combination of mystic armor and/or natural immunity. He'll also have hapsum-do and harmonious defense.
Defensively, there is no comparison. Because the mystic adept has to branch out a touch further, the mage is likely to have an extra die or 4 for spellcasting, but that is irrelevant to the mystic adept when nothing in your general ballpark of power level can touch or harm you.
I disagree. At early levels, the karma cost of power points keeps mystic adepts on par with (I would argue slightly worse than) magicians. At higher levels, if the mystic adept keeps spending the karma for power points, the magician pulls ahead. In order to keep the analysis focused, just consider Combat Sense. It is both a spell and a power.
At chargen, the mystic adept spends 15 karma to get 3 power points, all of which go into Combat Sense, giving him +6 defense and the ability to always make a surprise check. The mage uses one of the spells he learned (worth 7 karma) to pick up Combat Sense the spell. He also spends 12 karma to bond to a sustaining focus 6 and has to spend 24k nuyen (worth 12 karma), then casts until he gets 6 hits and now gets +6 defense and +6 to surprise tests. It seems like a good deal (15 karma to 31 karma), but the mage gets astral perception and projection, which are exceptionally valuable (mysad can spend another 5 karma to be able to afford astral perception, so now 20 karma to 31 karma) and the sustaining focus can be used for whatever spell the mage wants to sustain, so it's more versatile, and the spell can be cast on allies. If the mystic adept also took the spell to cast on allies, he would be paying twice, so not a good use of resources. IMO, astral projection is worth more than 11 karma; we use it all the time. And the spell/focus combo is also worth more than 11 karma because you can put it on allies and use the focus for something else when needed. If the mysad went with spell resistance at max instead of astral perception, mage could match that with a counterspelling focus, which is more versatile (can be used for dispelling) and helps everyone in the party.
A couple hundred karma later, the magician and mysad now have MAG 8. Now the karma differential spell-to-power is 20 to 39, but I think the advantage still goes to the mage.
-
MysAds of 6WE are not the MysAds of 5e. (Then again, they're not the MysAds of 4e, either...)
Hundreds of karma down the line MysAds will be as broken as they ever were, but not right out of chargen at least.
-
I disagree.
All good! Let's discuss further:
At higher levels, if the mystic adept keeps spending the karma for power points, the magician pulls ahead.
To be clear, pulls ahead at what? Both have the exact same offense potential, as they both have access to the exact same things. Strictly on the defense side, the mystic adept is completely unrivaled.
In order to keep the analysis focused, just consider Combat Sense. It is both a spell and a power.
At chargen, the mystic adept spends 15 karma to get 3 power points, all of which go into Combat Sense, giving him +6 defense and the ability to always make a surprise check. The mage uses one of the spells he learned (worth 7 karma) to pick up Combat Sense the spell. He also spends 12 karma to bond to a sustaining focus 6 and has to spend 24k nuyen (worth 12 karma), then casts until he gets 6 hits and now gets +6 defense and +6 to surprise tests. It seems like a good deal (15 karma to 31 karma)
Yes, the mage gets projection which is slick, but even in your own example here the mage is spending more resources to get his 6 combat sense dice than the mystic adept did, and that is before the mystic adept does the same thing (or quickens, the real winning move) to have double what the mage does since adept combat sense stacks with spell combat sense.
and the sustaining focus can be used for whatever spell the mage wants to sustain, so it's more versatile
Not exactly. Sustaining foci have to be dedicated to one spell category. I consider the use of foci less than optimal since quickening exits anyhow, personally.
If the mystic adept also took the spell to cast on allies, he would be paying twice, so not a good use of resources
Sure, unless you are planning to optimize defense. Shadowrun 5th is very clear about what does not stack, and that is Initiative boosts and attribute augmentation past +4.
If the mysad went with spell resistance at max instead of astral perception, mage could match that with a counterspelling focus, which is more versatile
Again not exactly, since counterspelling foci also have to be dedicated to one category. Plus the defensive minded mystic adept will have harmonious defense, which makes the issue of resisting magic leagues apart.
The mage will have standard resistance test for the spell in question, plus ranks in counterspelling, plus shielding, possibly plus a foci.
The mystic adept will have standard resistance test for the spell in question, plus max ranks of spell resistance, plus counterspelling ranks, plus shielding, plus willpower+magic+initiate grade from harmonious defense.
A couple hundred karma later, the magician and mysad now have MAG 8. Now the karma differential spell-to-power is 20 to 39, but I think the advantage still goes to the mage.
If a person makes a mystic adept with optimized defense for the build then yes, a mage of equal karma will be a slightly more effective spellcaster. The mystic adept will be untouchable outside of a horrible dice roll, or an adept with a high force weapon focus buffed by diagnostics from a technomancer sprite.
-
MysAds of 6WE are not the MysAds of 5e. (Then again, they're not the MysAds of 4e, either...)
Hundreds of karma down the line MysAds will be as broken as they ever were, but not right out of chargen at least.
With one exception, the worse of that has been tempered by the changes to powers though. At least as compared to 5th.
-
Yeah, I don't know what Adept powers can't be simulated/approximated/outclassed by Conjured Spirits or Spells. I've come to peace with the minimal opportunity cost of Mystic Adepts from the last two editions. Mostly because Mages are so powerful anyway.
-
I disagree.
All good! Let's discuss further:
At higher levels, if the mystic adept keeps spending the karma for power points, the magician pulls ahead.
To be clear, pulls ahead at what? Both have the exact same offense potential, as they both have access to the exact same things. Strictly on the defense side, the mystic adept is completely unrivaled.
In order to keep the analysis focused, just consider Combat Sense. It is both a spell and a power.
At chargen, the mystic adept spends 15 karma to get 3 power points, all of which go into Combat Sense, giving him +6 defense and the ability to always make a surprise check. The mage uses one of the spells he learned (worth 7 karma) to pick up Combat Sense the spell. He also spends 12 karma to bond to a sustaining focus 6 and has to spend 24k nuyen (worth 12 karma), then casts until he gets 6 hits and now gets +6 defense and +6 to surprise tests. It seems like a good deal (15 karma to 31 karma)
Yes, the mage gets projection which is slick, but even in your own example here the mage is spending more resources to get his 6 combat sense dice than the mystic adept did, and that is before the mystic adept does the same thing (or quickens, the real winning move) to have double what the mage does since adept combat sense stacks with spell combat sense.
and the sustaining focus can be used for whatever spell the mage wants to sustain, so it's more versatile
Not exactly. Sustaining foci have to be dedicated to one spell category. I consider the use of foci less than optimal since quickening exits anyhow, personally.
If the mystic adept also took the spell to cast on allies, he would be paying twice, so not a good use of resources
Sure, unless you are planning to optimize defense. Shadowrun 5th is very clear about what does not stack, and that is Initiative boosts and attribute augmentation past +4.
If the mysad went with spell resistance at max instead of astral perception, mage could match that with a counterspelling focus, which is more versatile
Again not exactly, since counterspelling foci also have to be dedicated to one category. Plus the defensive minded mystic adept will have harmonious defense, which makes the issue of resisting magic leagues apart.
The mage will have standard resistance test for the spell in question, plus ranks in counterspelling, plus shielding, possibly plus a foci.
The mystic adept will have standard resistance test for the spell in question, plus max ranks of spell resistance, plus counterspelling ranks, plus shielding, plus willpower+magic+initiate grade from harmonious defense.
A couple hundred karma later, the magician and mysad now have MAG 8. Now the karma differential spell-to-power is 20 to 39, but I think the advantage still goes to the mage.
If a person makes a mystic adept with optimized defense for the build then yes, a mage of equal karma will be a slightly more effective spellcaster. The mystic adept will be untouchable outside of a horrible dice roll, or an adept with a high force weapon focus buffed by diagnostics from a technomancer sprite.
I believe you have swayed me. There is a build magicians can't really match.
-
An asides: A few of the 'you can do X' notes aren't correct in SR6. Combat Sense spell doesn't do the same as the power now. And while allowing Diagnostics to work on weapons, especially melee weapons, was always ridiculously against RAI, SR6 fixes the exploit explicitly.
-
I believe you have swayed me. There is a build magicians can't really match.
Nothing can, in 5th ed at least. On the extreme end with about 500 karma, you have defense dice in high 40's (50's vs. ranged), soak in the 50's or 60's with milspec, toxin resistance in the 40's, and so many magic resistance dice (more than 60) that not even immortal elves with nonsense magic attributes of 30's can land spells on you without exceptionally improbable rolls.
Everything comes at a price though, so your offense will suffer somewhat to get there.
An asides: A few of the 'you can do X' notes aren't correct in SR6. Combat Sense spell doesn't do the same as the power now.
Yeah. But all the same things stack/don't as in SR5, so we'll see what future options do to that balance.
-
How many of these spell changes have basically made the spells worthless though.
If a spell pretty much just adds to defense values now it’s a waste of ink with the current edge rules.
-
How many of these spell changes have basically made the spells worthless though.
If a spell pretty much just adds to defense values now it’s a waste of ink with the current edge rules.
Imo a number of formerly useful spells aren't any longer. But that sentiment also applies to qualities and adept powers as well.
-
How many of these spell changes have basically made the spells worthless though.
If a spell pretty much just adds to defense values now it’s a waste of ink with the current edge rules.
Well, the Armor Spell in the QSR adds to the defense value and to the soak pool. As it seems, it´s mostly the "everyday" bullet-proof west that´s got nerfed. Which is also pretty much a buff to all the "tanky" perks like armor/evasion spells, adept Powers and augmentations.
-
How many of these spell changes have basically made the spells worthless though.
If a spell pretty much just adds to defense values now it’s a waste of ink with the current edge rules.
Imo a number of formerly useful spells aren't any longer. But that sentiment also applies to qualities and adept powers as well.
I’d rather they cut content waiting for an actual good idea than put something worthless together assuming edge fixes everything. I think they said 1/2 the qualities were edge things. I don’t think you can have that many and have the system work well.
Note they have stated the armor spell in the full rules doesn’t do that. It does not add soak.
God I hope physical barrier adds armor of some kind. An imaginary wall that has no armor/structure and only provides potential edge would be a bridge too far.
-
I just want to make this a bit more clear, as I was heading over to state the same thing.
Well, the Armor Spell in the QSR adds to the defense value and to the soak pool.
Note they have stated the armor spell in the full rules doesn’t do that. It does not add soak.
-
I think they said 1/2 the qualities were edge things. I don’t think you can have that many and have the system work well.
Half is about accurate. The qualities are at least clearly written, however. Some of the adept powers allow multiple ranks of purchase, but the wording either makes no sense for how it would work at multiple ranks, or makes multiple ranks irrelevant. Spell Resistance for example gives you a point of edge when targeted by a spell. Presumably multiple ranks = extra edge per spell, but then any amount past 2 would be useless.
Note they have stated the armor spell in the full rules doesn’t do that. It does not add soak.
Correct. In my opinion, as things currently stand, both the spells of armor and combat sense have no value.
God I hope physical barrier adds armor of some kind. An imaginary wall that has no armor/structure and only provides potential edge would be a bridge too far.
So no armor from barriers, as they work differently, but better than 5th. You basically subtract 1/2 the structure rating from incoming damage, and physical barrier makes one hell of a barrier now. That said, potentially collapsing or just making a hole in the barrier is still pretty easy. I am not sure of its value overall.
-
I’m fine with barrier not being super effective at stopping bullets. But the mental gymnastics of something just providing edge while trying to represent a barrier that stoped movement would be too much for me. I usually just use it as an umbrella for my mages in the rare case I get to play.