NEWS

Continued debate with Hobbes?

  • 33 Replies
  • 4681 Views

serjio

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 1
« on: <04-11-20/0707:50> »
I wanted to respond to this in the other thread, but I'll put it here instead for Skalchemist.

Overall, I agree with you. Strictly putting aside game mechanics and fun factor, just going with setting, let's look at this from a powerful corps perspective. If you have a team with top of the line firepower raiding one of your facilities, I think the most appropriate response is a quick cost vs. loss analysis. In other words, will it cost you more (money, influence, reputation, whatever) to let the raided site and/or it's assets go or more to launch enough counter firepower to put a stop to the intruders? Other factors will certainly play a part, but in most cases, profit is the bottom line.
https://snaptube.cam/ 9apps
Lets look at game mechanics though. In 6e specifically, aoe spells cast even by fairly advanced spellcasters do not come anywhere close to grenades in power or radius. A magic 10 mage casting a fireball, and let's say amped up with +8 drain (4 for 2 damage, 4 to increase the radius to 8m) does 7 damage in an 8m radius. The grenade has a radius of 20m, doing a minimum of 8 damage at the same range as the spell, and much more to poor souls closer. That comparison alone is absurdly out of balance. At the risk of being an ass, I believe so strongly in the indisputable truth of that simple math that I have a very hard time taking anyone who disagrees seriously.

Fun wise, Shadowrun has two traditional styles: trenchcoat and mohawk. Neither is better, both are fun, both fit, it comes down purely to tastes. Setting aside trenchcoat for this conversation, lets focus on mohawk. What do you personally think would be more fun for the players?
« Last Edit: <04-12-20/0150:39> by serjio »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #1 on: <04-11-20/0806:03> »
Personally I believe that Hardened Armor, Grenades and Toxins need to be nerfed down, because of the reduction in soak pools against them yet their damage levels are still the same. I suspect (no evidence though) they were missed in the rebalances that happened during Sixth Edition's development. Having more balanced numbers will also make Mohawk have more fun, since there's no instant-win button available that way.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #2 on: <04-11-20/1924:59> »
Dead is dead.  In Shadowrun, that's typically 10 boxes or so.  You can absolutely AOE 10 boxes of damage with two major actions over a significant area.  If we're talking about min/maxed mages, they get two Major Actions and toss about 20 dice for Drain out of the gate.

Toxic wave or grenade, doesn't really matter in most cases, still kills 'em dead.

Is 16 more than 10?  Absolutely.  But 10 is enough to get the job done.

Sorcery is easily the second most powerful PC ability in the game, Conjuring is the only thing better.

Grenades are unsubtle and do one thing.  Sorcery is Flexible and in 6th edition is damn near unnoticeable if you want it to be.  RAW you can stand in a crowd (or just be invisible) and manaball folks to death and unless there is an Astral observer, nobody will know it's you.  And Sorcery typically comes conveniently bundled with Conjuring. 

Grenades should be tuned down, so should ItNW.  But there is a reason Magicrun is derided around here.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 751
« Reply #3 on: <04-12-20/0921:06> »
Dead is dead.  In Shadowrun, that's typically 10 boxes or so.  You can absolutely AOE 10 boxes of damage with two major actions over a significant area.  If we're talking about min/maxed mages, they get two Major Actions and toss about 20 dice for Drain out of the gate.

Toxic wave or grenade, doesn't really matter in most cases, still kills 'em dead.

Is 16 more than 10?  Absolutely.  But 10 is enough to get the job done.

Sorcery is easily the second most powerful PC ability in the game, Conjuring is the only thing better.

Grenades are unsubtle and do one thing.  Sorcery is Flexible and in 6th edition is damn near unnoticeable if you want it to be.  RAW you can stand in a crowd (or just be invisible) and manaball folks to death and unless there is an Astral observer, nobody will know it's you.  And Sorcery typically comes conveniently bundled with Conjuring. 

Grenades should be tuned down, so should ItNW.  But there is a reason Magicrun is derided around here.

The thing about "Magicrun" is that it doesn´t apply to every branch of magic.

  • Spirits: Absolutely, especially in combination with the Hardened Armor Copypasta brainfart.
  • Manipulation and (some) Health Spells: Absolutely, see below.
  • Combat Spells: So far from it.

The Drain levels are so punishing that they simply don´t work out unless you absolutely use the standard "1 Increase Reflexes, 2 Increase Attribute" buff loadout. And the fact this very loadout is still a thing and even encouraged by the changes to Focused Concentration and merging the 8 Increase Attribute spells into one is a huge problem on its own.

With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target or made to not affect soak pools. And besides that:  Should really everything be balanced about a Drain Soak pool of 20+? Isn´t there such a thing as "casual mages" in this game? Am I supposed to accept that every mage (PC or NPC) that tries to cast a fireball without "proper out of the gate min-maxing" deals more damage to himself then its targets? Whithout 2x Increase Attribute, Combat spells are almost as useless as Alchemy. It´s shit balancing, plain and simple.

Suggestion:
  • Limit Increase Attribute to one spell per target.
  • Amping up the Damage of Combat Spells increases the Drain by the same amount, not double the amount. What´s that even supposed be, a suicide button?  :o
  • Indirect Area Combat Spells incur the standard Dodge Penalties for Area Effects (might be RAI?  ???)
  • Something more reasonable to calculate physical Drain. F.i. "Every point of Drain above Magic/2 (after soaking) goes to the physical condition" monitor.
  • Hardened Armor grants additional soak dice, not Autohits.
« Last Edit: <04-12-20/0931:59> by Finstersang »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #4 on: <04-12-20/0931:27> »
Incidentally, Clout is 3 Drain: Elemental, Physical Damage, AoE all are increases to drain values.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #5 on: <04-12-20/1712:30> »
To detect a spell being cast is a perception threshold 6 test in 6E.  Unless there is an Astral observer or a damn lucky/high perception test made, literally, stand there casting a manaball over and over and over and over.  If you can't break a game with the ability to invisibly murder everyone I don't think you're trying.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 820
« Reply #6 on: <04-12-20/1825:31> »
Serjio isn't wrong that grenades are ridiculous.

Hobbes isn't wrong that dead is dead (though I still argue grenades do it much more efficiently, if not subtle). I also agree about the perception threshold for casting being truly terrible.

But stealth manabolts also don't negate the why are grenades autowins situation. One battle at a time! :p
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #7 on: <04-13-20/0939:29> »
Yeah, I'm not sure what the debate is.  I've stated Grenades do too much damage in 6e, I don't think you'll find any disagreement there.  Just because Grenades do too much damage doesn't negate the very exploitable Magic rules.

Grenades and ItNW should be dialed back.  Perceiving Magic should be a much lower threshold.  Magic sustains are OP.  *shrug*  Magicrun has been a serious issue for most of the Shadowrun editions, I'm not sure it'll ever really be "balanced" without changing it to an unrecognizable degree. 

skalchemist

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
« Reply #8 on: <04-13-20/0948:06> »
Not exactly sure how I got name-checked in the first post, but hey, glad to be noticed!  :-)

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
« Reply #9 on: <04-13-20/0956:11> »
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target ...
Wait. What. Since when are you allowed by default to stack the exact same spell more than once on a single subject...??

In the previous edition you had different spells to buff different attributes. The advantage of this was that you could buff more than one attribute per subject. The drawback of this was that you had to learn how to cast (and sustain) each different spell.

In this edition you have only one spell to buff attributes. The advantage of this is that you can buff attributes without learning (and sustaining) more than one spell. The drawback of this is that you can only temporarily raise one of their attributes.

6E p.137 Increase Attribute
The touch of the mage strengthens, speeds, or enlightens the target, temporarily raising one of their attributes. The caster decides which attribute to target before casting the spell.


If you let magicians stack the same buff-spell over and over on the same subject then you will eventually break the game (no matter edition).

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #10 on: <04-13-20/1004:31> »
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target ...
Wait. What. Since when are you allowed by default to stack the exact same spell more than once on a single subject...??

In the previous edition you had different spells to buff different attributes. The advantage of this was that you could buff more than one attribute per subject. The drawback of this was that you had to learn how to cast (and sustain) each different spell.

In this edition you have only one spell to buff attributes. The advantage of this is that you can buff attributes without learning (and sustaining) more than one spell. The drawback of this is that you can only temporarily raise one of their attributes.

6E p.137 Increase Attribute
The touch of the mage strengthens, speeds, or enlightens the target, temporarily raising one of their attributes. The caster decides which attribute to target before casting the spell.


If you let magicians stack the same buff-spell over and over on the same subject then you will eventually break the game (no matter edition).

I agree with you completely here, Xenon. 

But, near as I can tell, the prevailing opinion is that if different castings of this same spell give different bonuses, then they can all stack.

But, personally, yes I say frag that.  One spell's +4 Willpower overwrites the previous spell's +4 Intuition because they're overlapping instances of the same spell even though the bonuses are different.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #11 on: <04-13-20/1032:28> »
I disagree.  Generally if something gives a +2 to X and a +3 to Y, you get the benefit of both.  If a buff gives a +2 to X and a +3 to X, then only the +3 applies.

TM's Resonance is an example of the same buff to different things that changes around.  5E Leadership buffs would also be an example, a Face with multiple actions could easily buff Initiative and skill check on the same person, I don't think anyone would argue the target would have to pick one or the other. 

From a balance perspective, I'd like to see it happen.  But a limitation like that would need to be explicit in the Spell Description.  Ultimately Spells only cost 5 Karma each, so I'm not really sure how much of a Nerf it really is unless there are no other Attribute boosting spells ever printed.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 751
« Reply #12 on: <04-13-20/1141:07> »
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target ...
Wait. What. Since when are you allowed by default to stack the exact same spell more than once on a single subject...??

In the previous edition you had different spells to buff different attributes. The advantage of this was that you could buff more than one attribute per subject. The drawback of this was that you had to learn how to cast (and sustain) each different spell.

In this edition you have only one spell to buff attributes. The advantage of this is that you can buff attributes without learning (and sustaining) more than one spell. The drawback of this is that you can only temporarily raise one of their attributes.

6E p.137 Increase Attribute
The touch of the mage strengthens, speeds, or enlightens the target, temporarily raising one of their attributes. The caster decides which attribute to target before casting the spell.

If you let magicians stack the same buff-spell over and over on the same subject then you will eventually break the game (no matter edition).

Well, I´d be damn happy if it turns out that what I presumed a houserule for Increase Attribute turns out to be RAI all along. It would be just the right counterweight to the increased versatility of the spell.

The current consesus seems to be no, though. Hence the talk about the 20+ Drain Pool benchmark.
« Last Edit: <04-13-20/1144:22> by Finstersang »

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #13 on: <04-13-20/1203:55> »
But, personally, yes I say frag that.  One spell's +4 Willpower overwrites the previous spell's +4 Intuition because they're overlapping instances of the same spell even though the bonuses are different.
The reason I disagree with that is that what was likely done as a simplification and small buff of the system, now has turned into a punishment instead, because a player is not given a choice or alternative. Basically you're saying 'Frag you, you'll just have to wait for the Magic book to arrive so you can make custom spells to get past this arbitrary introduction I'm introducing just because I dislike Mages'. That seems like an unfair act which seems purely motivated by anti-mage hate, while not publicly indicating that, thus tainting newcomers their view on what they should use as rules.

Also: What's the benefit? You're basically nerfing the entire spell just to prevent mages from buffing 2 attributes, all because of a single Quality? If you care about that quality so much, why aren't you nerfing that in your houserules, instead of ruining a buff-tactic and buff-builds?
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #14 on: <04-13-20/1212:33> »
Because in my subjective opinion based on local anecdotal experiences, buff builds are OP.  For example, I never got why conventional wisdom says TMs suck when they just get +4 to all their ASDF stats.  It doesn't even inconvenience the caster, because he summoned a Force 9 Spirit of Man to cast and sustain the necessary buffs to get there.  Now that you can have as many Spirits of Kin as you want, Focused Concentration is almost a trap of a karma investment (assuming you can summon).

Now, as I said, I recognize that the prevailing opinion seems to be to let them stack.  I was just airing my own personal views :D  I do take solace in how easy it is to knock spells down now via Dispelling.  THAT helps reduce the Increase Attribute stat inflation.  And that in turn gives more value to paying nuyen/essence for stat boosts via augmentations.
« Last Edit: <04-13-20/1215:19> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.