Shadowrun
Catalyst Game Labs => Catalyst's Shadowrun Products => Topic started by: Boneguard on <08-24-20/1821:38>
-
I was checking DrivethruRPG when I saw it Slip Streams (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/325584/Shadowrun-Slip-Streams-Plot-Sourcebook?src=newest_since)
-
Interesting additions. I kind of like the Mana Berries and Mana Crystals. Wish they had given them an availability.
-
Got a pretty substantial re-definition for this edition of how Background Counts affect things.
-
Thanks for the post, it would have probably been a few days before I realized it was out. Only had time to skim it, but like the Diz stuff.
Best,
SL
-
Oooooh, background count rules! Now we can start using those! O_O
-
Got a pretty substantial re-definition for this edition of how Background Counts affect things.
Uhhh. . .yeah. That was unexpected. Seeing this just cements my impression that magic is going to be off the charts ridiculous good once the new book for it comes out, even compared to some other editions.
-
Seeing this just cements my impression that magic is going to be off the charts ridiculous good once the new book for it comes out, even compared to some other editions.
Uh oh. Got a tl;dr to help a brother out?
-
At worse, the most severe BCG makes magic just not function. That is a very rare area though.
Under that, the worse penalty only affects a single tradition, and results in one of: -1 die, edge actions cost 1 more edge, or can't spend edge at all.
-
I am not a fan of how they set up the background count. The different levels are completely un-intuitive.
At least with 5e's dumb "+1/+3/+6/+10," it was a modifier each time. The triangular number sequence isn't my first choice for any memorable system, but at least it goes up each time.
And from what I can tell, the effects don't stack, either. If you're at low, you get a -1 penalty. Medium means that edge costs 1 more. High means you can't spend edge. Nothing in the text says that the -1 penalty at low applies at medium or high.
Even if it stacks, you still have to memorize the order. It's just not a very well designed mechanic.
Edit: Ah, Lormyr, you made the same mistake as me- one of the definitions allows you to apply this to any tradition, and the other rule definition only applies it to one.
-
I would suggest using caution when making the assumption that the mana flows and ebbs are the same as background count. They are aspected mana zones and have a lot in common but are still slightly different from a general background count that should and would interfere with all traditions.
While it may end up being very similar there is a difference in fluff at least between the two so we may still see a different system for "general" background counts.
-
I am not a fan of how they set up the background count. The different levels are completely un-intuitive.
At least with 5e's dumb "+1/+3/+6/+10," it was a modifier each time. The triangular number sequence isn't my first choice for any memorable system, but at least it goes up each time.
And from what I can tell, the effects don't stack, either. If you're at low, you get a -1 penalty. Medium means that edge costs 1 more. High means you can't spend edge. Nothing in the text says that the -1 penalty at low applies at medium or high.
Even if it stacks, you still have to memorize the order. It's just not a very well designed mechanic.
Edit: Ah, Lormyr, you made the same mistake as me- one of the definitions allows you to apply this to any tradition, and the other rule definition only applies it to one.
I actually asked that very question about stacking during review and did bit get an answer .. sad to see it is also not addressed in the book.
It should stack in my opinion.
-
I would suggest using caution when making the assumption that the mana flows and ebbs are the same as background count. They are aspected mana zones and have a lot in common but are still slightly different from a general background count that should and would interfere with all traditions.
While it may end up being very similar there is a difference in fluff at least between the two so we may still see a different system for "general" background counts.
Ah, ok, if they're a special circumstance then that alleviates most of my concerns. Good to hear that the stacking should (does?) apply
-
I actually asked that very question about stacking during review and did bit get an answer .. sad to see it is also not addressed in the book.
It should stack in my opinion.
If that ends up the case then ok, but it begs the question from of did we really need both then?
-
I don't mind the added complexity so long as it's clear, I wish they had done something similar to this with combat (Like this house rule (https://shadowland.blog/2020/05/08/houserules-edge-ar-dr/)).
A little info table would've been nicer than parsing through text, too
-
I actually asked that very question about stacking during review and did bit get an answer .. sad to see it is also not addressed in the book.
It should stack in my opinion.
If that ends up the case then ok, but it begs the question from of did we really need both then?
Who knows... I purposefully never write any of the magic stuff and only throw ideas and comments at the wall once in awhile during development to see what sticks.
-
I would suggest using caution when making the assumption that the mana flows and ebbs are the same as background count. They are aspected mana zones and have a lot in common but are still slightly different from a general background count that should and would interfere with all traditions.
While it may end up being very similar there is a difference in fluff at least between the two so we may still see a different system for "general" background counts.
There are two section explaining Mana Ebbs/Flows (because of course there are ...), and while the general effects are the same in both instances, the first box on p. 34 states that they can be aspected to certain tradition and adds a final statement that Mana Ebbs/Flows can also be unspecific, affecting every Magic user in the same way. Which essentially makes this the new version of background count and, of course, contradicts the second description, where they are explicitly tradition-specific. You know the drill by now: From here on, about every month some confused GM will stumble into the forum ask for an "official statement" on which description is correct and/or if the effects stack, which will be met by deafening silence ::)
(Granted, maybe itīs because the second description is following the description for the Ritual Magic that can be used to create such shifts for yourself. Naturally, these would be aspected.)
Anyways: Itīs a usable version of background count if you go with the first box. Woohoo. Couldnīt have made that up myself, for it needeth the blessing of scripture :P
-
Having had 12+ hours to grieve over the loss of a MagicRun gonad-punch, I've come to a few realizations:
1) Just because I think MagicRun needs a punch in the gonads... it doesn't change that +/- dice is more of a 5e paradigm. +/- edge IS what it's all about now... and frankly it's more a case of Matrix Noise should be more like this than Magic Noise should be more like 5e's version.
2) Astral Rabies.
ASTRAL RABIES!
Guys... if you want to punch MagicRun in the gonads... we have something EVEN BETTER than 5e's Background Counts! Why take away some of their dicepool when you can take away their Willpower! It's the same thing as -dice, but even better!
-
Kudzu is a pain in the ass to get rid of, IRL. Does this mean it's going to be cropping up around lots of office buildings?
-
The returned soldiers are cool, though.
Itīs one of these crazy ideas that no one asked for, but it actually adds an interesting new flavour to the setting. A World War II sniper reawakening in the 6th world after being literally stuck in hell for over a hundred years? Call me a madman, but Iīd actually use that.
Little side note: Hey devs! It would be super duper stupid if you also add confused reanimated people that have been cryogenically frozen for centuries to the setting, like in Transmetropolitan. You might see this idea now and think: "Hey that would add interesting storytelling opportunities". But it wouldnīt. Super Stupid! Nobody would want that ever. Like, in a Biotech/Augmentation Supplement, so that it could be even used as a PC background? Donīt do that! It would be super stupid and everyone would be soooooooo mad! >:(
-
Under that, the worse penalty only affects a single tradition, and results in one of: -1 die, edge actions cost 1 more edge, or can't spend edge at all.
Hmmm.
On the one hand, I really don't like BGC as it works in 5e. Slapping dice straight outta the player's hand on the grounds the GM said so, in a way that they cannot mitigate through cleverness or preparedness: nope. That's about the least interesting approach I can think of to balancing MagicRun. Plus it screws over physads, and physads have already got enough on their plate.
On the other hand, this sounds worse. I don't care for how the escalating tiers change the type of penalty, I think that's fiddly. Also even if (as per subsequent posts) these penalties stack, even in aggregate it's not much of a penalty really. Changing dice pools feels like a tacit admission that 6e's Edge mechanic isn't flexible enough to achieve its explicit design goal of replacing modifiers. And finally, if this mechanic is in addition to a different BGC mechanic that is still to come... that's a bit redundant and cluttered.
-
I would suggest using caution when making the assumption that the mana flows and ebbs are the same as background count. They are aspected mana zones and have a lot in common but are still slightly different from a general background count that should and would interfere with all traditions.
While it may end up being very similar there is a difference in fluff at least between the two so we may still see a different system for "general" background counts.
There are two section explaining Mana Ebbs/Flows (because of course there are ...), and while the general effects are the same in both instances, the first box on p. 34 states that they can be aspected to certain tradition and adds a final statement that Mana Ebbs/Flows can also be unspecific, affecting every Magic user in the same way. Which essentially makes this the new version of background count and, of course, contradicts the second description, where they are explicitly tradition-specific. You know the drill by now: From here on, about every month some confused GM will stumble into the forum ask for an "official statement" on which description is correct and/or if the effects stack, which will be met by deafening silence ::)
(Granted, maybe itīs because the second description is following the description for the Ritual Magic that can be used to create such shifts for yourself. Naturally, these would be aspected.)
Anyways: Itīs a usable version of background count if you go with the first box. Woohoo. Couldnīt have made that up myself, for it needeth the blessing of scripture :P
Yeaaahhhh ... just came across that first section, all I had to go on during review was the second section... sooooo .... maybe this is what background count is meant to be. IDK!? ugh
-
Guys... if you want to punch MagicRun in the gonads... we have something EVEN BETTER than 5e's Background Counts! Why take away some of their dicepool when you can take away their Willpower! It's the same thing as -dice, but even better!
Crunch-wise, the Magicrun problem is mostly an internal balacing problem of the magic subsystem. There are a few no-brainer options that just continued to stay overpowered, most notably
- Spirits
- Increase Attribute (+ Focused Concentration)
- Some Adept powers (which are notoriusly tricky to balance in regards to augmentations and burnout-builds)
From there on, things get pretty tame pretty quick. And at the bottom of the list, we now have Combat spells that are more likely to knock out the caster than the target (unless they use Increase Attribute + Focused Concentration...) and whatever the fuck Alchemy is supposed to be :P
Situational stuff like Background count, kudzu or astral rabies are fine and dandy, but they donīt solve this problem.
-
^^ Finstersang speaks wisdom.
-
Yes, I do miss "your spells go away, and your foci turn off", and even Astral Rabies doesn't do that.
Mana Barriers still do, though.
And on top of that: disenchanting is easy to the point of almost automatic. Got a problem walking around with Increase Drain attribute A, Increase Drain Attribute B, and Increase Reflexes? Well, a projecting sec mage can rip each one down, immune to retaliation unless/until the problem begins astrally perceiving. At which point the sec mage's accompanying astral pack of spirits can start slapping him around for "opening the channel".
-
Increase Attribute (+ Focused Concentration)
Just to expand on this one a little, something that bothers me deeply: there's a pretty flat power curve for increase attribute. Once you have the spell and the ability to quicken or otherwise sustain it, you're almost guaranteed +3 or +4 to the stat as easily as you can get +1 or +2. Compare to (say) cybernetic or adept powers used to boost stats, which are typically at least linear (ie +2 costs twice as much as +1.).
It means you can't put mages on a progress curve, where they can get a small boost early on, then improve it as they grow in experience. Instead they just jump all the way to +4 comparatively early (and easily and cheaply, compared to other archetypes; eg consider the cost of Muscle Toner for a samurai).
-
It all depends on how often the GM uses the tools available to take sustained/quickened spells away. BGCs used to be yet another tool to make the ostensibly 'temporary' buffs go away, but honestly that tool isn't needed when there are others.
As noted upthread: the real problem with MagicRun is spirits anyway... which yes is another ball of yarn than the discussion we're having here.
-
Guys... if you want to punch MagicRun in the gonads... we have something EVEN BETTER than 5e's Background Counts! Why take away some of their dicepool when you can take away their Willpower! It's the same thing as -dice, but even better!
Well, though you and I both agree MagicRun is a problem, the various solutions to that we don't necessarily look at equally. I personally liked the concept of background but disliked its implementation, but not as much as I disliked Blight, which I know you are a fan of.
The astral rabies isn't too awful. . .but I would still rather just see a damn system in place that is mostly internally balanced and doesn't need external elements to balance.
I feel similar about noise. There is little shittier than making a character with a mechanical concept (magic / matrix) who takes a dice penalty to their roles just because the setting says so. We can do better man.
On the one hand, I really don't like BGC as it works in 5e. Slapping dice straight outta the player's hand on the grounds the GM said so, in a way that they cannot mitigate through cleverness or preparedness: nope. That's about the least interesting approach I can think of to balancing MagicRun. Plus it screws over physads, and physads have already got enough on their plate.
On the other hand, this sounds worse. I don't care for how the escalating tiers change the type of penalty, I think that's fiddly. Also even if (as per subsequent posts) these penalties stack, even in aggregate it's not much of a penalty really. Changing dice pools feels like a tacit admission that 6e's Edge mechanic isn't flexible enough to achieve its explicit design goal of replacing modifiers. And finally, if this mechanic is in addition to a different BGC mechanic that is still to come... that's a bit redundant and cluttered.
I completely agree. We can keep the concept (which I do like) but implement it in another way that does produce felt impact to the archetypes without just robbing them of the ability to perform.
Yeaaahhhh ... just came across that first section, all I had to go on during review was the second section... sooooo .... maybe this is what background count is meant to be. IDK!? ugh
Who knows man. It could well be expanded on in the magic book too. Either way, this is what we have to examine at present.
Just to expand on this one a little, something that bothers me deeply: there's a pretty flat power curve for increase attribute. Once you have the spell and the ability to quicken or otherwise sustain it, you're almost guaranteed +3 or +4 to the stat as easily as you can get +1 or +2. Compare to (say) cybernetic or adept powers used to boost stats, which are typically at least linear (ie +2 costs twice as much as +1.).
It means you can't put mages on a progress curve, where they can get a small boost early on, then improve it as they grow in experience. Instead they just jump all the way to +4 comparatively early (and easily and cheaply, compared to other archetypes; eg consider the cost of Muscle Toner for a samurai).
I don't have a problem with increase attribute existing, but I think folding them all into one spell was a big mistake. You want your 8 increases? Ok man, you can do it, but bare minimum investment is 48 post chargen karma.
I also think it would be more balanced if mages only got access to mental attribute increases, while adepts got the physical half. Even then I am not necessarily sold on the idea. I am pretty fine with everyone having access to increases. The opportunity cost could just due to be a little better. For example, maybe quickening should cost 1 karma per hit, up to your roll's allowance. That would also be quite helpful.
Yes, I do miss "your spells go away, and your foci turn off", and even Astral Rabies doesn't do that.
And that could be a version of superior BCG implementation. Maybe have 3 levels of so.
Low reduces the hits of all active spells by 1, force of all active spirits by 1, DV of damaging spells by 1, and gives targets of spells 1 extra defense die.
Medium does that at -2.
High at minus -4.
That would be pretty stiff without completely boning the mages, like say an SR5 BCG of -8 would (which came up in at least 2 missions that I recall off the top of my head).
-
I completely agree. We can keep the concept (which I do like) but implement it in another way that does produce felt impact to the archetypes without just robbing them of the ability to perform.
During some brief, idle contemplation, I've considered something like:
1) BGC comes in three types: too much mana, aspected mana, and too little mana
2) all types have an effect that scales with the force of the spell/spirit being used (so mages can choose to keep spells low-force and avoid averse effects)
3) Too little mana reduces the effective Force of the spell without changing drain, as the mage struggles to get enough juice together
4) Too much mana risks increasing the effective Force of the spell and the drain taken, as the mage struggles to control the torrent of mana.
5) Aspected mana works like (3) or (4) depending on if it matches the mage or not. For extra fun, it might corrupt summoned spirits eg. turn them toxic or bug.
I'd like to see methods the mage could pursue to mitigate these, also. A metamagic or focus type, perhaps.
-
I don't have a problem with increase attribute existing, but I think folding them all into one spell was a big mistake. You want your 8 increases? Ok man, you can do it, but bare minimum investment is 48 post chargen karma.
It should definitely ramp, somehow. I'm not sure how. But I agree that mages should have a (rebalanced) path to stat boosts.
I also think it would be more balanced if mages only got access to mental attribute increases, while adepts got the physical half. Even then I am not necessarily sold on the idea. I am pretty fine with everyone having access to increases. The opportunity cost could just due to be a little better. For example, maybe quickening should cost 1 karma per hit, up to your roll's allowance. That would also be quite helpful.
I'm actually not much of a fan of quickening costing karma at all. Karma is hard-won, so destroying something the player spent karma on feels like a really big move for me as GM. I'd prefer quickening either cost something else, or would be only temporarily disrupted (by astral barriers, counterspelling, etc) but come back without spending more karma on it. Then, as a GM, I can use that stuff more liberally without feeling I am taking the player's toys away.
-
I don't have a problem with increase attribute existing, but I think folding them all into one spell was a big mistake. You want your 8 increases? Ok man, you can do it, but bare minimum investment is 48 post chargen karma.
Or you could use the same solution as my current houserule and restrict Increase Attribute to one spell per target. ;)
That way, Mages can only boost one Drain Attribute and it also adds more incentives to user other buffs and/or buff other people than yourself. Itīs a fitting counterbalance to the increased versatility of the spell.
-
I like penllawen's idea about what high mana areas should look like. Never absorb energy bigger than your head.
Tangential, but @banshee- what do you guys use to collaborate? Slack, discord, email? Telnet chat room?
-
Or you could use the same solution as my current houserule and restrict Increase Attribute to one spell per target. ;)
That way, Mages can only boost one Drain Attribute and it also adds more incentives to user other buffs and/or buff other people than yourself. Itīs a fitting counterbalance to the increased versatility of the spell.
I went a different way, but ended up in a similar place... "The total maximum Force of all quickened spells on one person or object is equal to the lowest Magic stat that was used to cast any of the spells."
-
I like penllawen's idea about what high mana areas should look like. Never absorb energy bigger than your head.
Alternatively: be prepared to have your head expanded to match the energy. You may not enjoy this process ;)
-
I like penllawen's idea about what high mana areas should look like. Never absorb energy bigger than your head.
Tangential, but @banshee- what do you guys use to collaborate? Slack, discord, email? Telnet chat room?
Either email or Basecamp
-
I don't have a problem with increase attribute existing, but I think folding them all into one spell was a big mistake. You want your 8 increases? Ok man, you can do it, but bare minimum investment is 48 post chargen karma.
It should definitely ramp, somehow. I'm not sure how. But I agree that mages should have a (rebalanced) path to stat boosts.
I also think it would be more balanced if mages only got access to mental attribute increases, while adepts got the physical half. Even then I am not necessarily sold on the idea. I am pretty fine with everyone having access to increases. The opportunity cost could just due to be a little better. For example, maybe quickening should cost 1 karma per hit, up to your roll's allowance. That would also be quite helpful.
I'm actually not much of a fan of quickening costing karma at all. Karma is hard-won, so destroying something the player spent karma on feels like a really big move for me as GM. I'd prefer quickening either cost something else, or would be only temporarily disrupted (by astral barriers, counterspelling, etc) but come back without spending more karma on it. Then, as a GM, I can use that stuff more liberally without feeling I am taking the player's toys away.
I feel this. Quickening you have to choose as a metamagic, then for each spell, you have to spend karma to quicken it, only for GM to go, "Surprise! All of that Karma is gone along with the quickened spells!"
To frame this differently, it would be like a character buying shiny new bioware, only to have the GM strip it out of them.
-
I don't have a problem with increase attribute existing, but I think folding them all into one spell was a big mistake. You want your 8 increases? Ok man, you can do it, but bare minimum investment is 48 post chargen karma.
It should definitely ramp, somehow. I'm not sure how. But I agree that mages should have a (rebalanced) path to stat boosts.
I also think it would be more balanced if mages only got access to mental attribute increases, while adepts got the physical half. Even then I am not necessarily sold on the idea. I am pretty fine with everyone having access to increases. The opportunity cost could just due to be a little better. For example, maybe quickening should cost 1 karma per hit, up to your roll's allowance. That would also be quite helpful.
I'm actually not much of a fan of quickening costing karma at all. Karma is hard-won, so destroying something the player spent karma on feels like a really big move for me as GM. I'd prefer quickening either cost something else, or would be only temporarily disrupted (by astral barriers, counterspelling, etc) but come back without spending more karma on it. Then, as a GM, I can use that stuff more liberally without feeling I am taking the player's toys away.
I feel this. Quickening you have to choose as a metamagic, then for each spell, you have to spend karma to quicken it, only for GM to go, "Surprise! All of that Karma is gone along with the quickened spells!"
To frame this differently, it would be like a character buying shiny new bioware, only to have the GM strip it out of them.
At 1 Karma a pop Quickening is still cheaper than Bioware. Even if you're renewing it every run Quickening is a good deal.
Figure 30ish runs for a Shadowrunner's career. Roughly 30 Karma for a (mostly) permanent +3 or +4 to a stat. Figure Karma at 5,000 Nuyen each, 150k Nuyen for a +3 or +4? Right in line with a lot of Attribute 'ware.
If you value Karma at 2,000 Nuyen each, Quickening is a steal.
-
Youre not wrong, Hobbes, but I think it carries more psychological weight than that, if that makes any sense. Even if its only 1 karma, it just feels like a big deal to me (and also to my players, I think.)
-
I bet it's because the nuyen is "physical," to a certain degree. Maybe "plastic" is better? There's nothing stopping a player from selling their old gear to get more nuyen (Even if they don't make all their nuyen back). Karma, on the other hand, must come from runs and completing goals, players don't have any other way to get it.
-
Youre not wrong, Hobbes, but I think it carries more psychological weight than that, if that makes any sense. Even if its only 1 karma, it just feels like a big deal to me (and also to my players, I think.)
100% agree losing Karma has a more significant emotional impact for a player than an "Equivalent" Nuyen loss.
Drugs, bullets, explosives, reagents... a PC can blow through a few thousand Nuyen of expendables in a hurry. Seen it done with nary an eye batted. But something that straight up costs a couple karma? Very strong reaction. Myself included. Even knowing the math.
-
I feel similar about the quickening/karma loss issue. I think the easiest solution would be to have counterspelling strip hits only temporarily, like 1 hit per hit, for magic rounds.
That leaves quickening with the advantage of being the cheapest increase path, but ware with the stability of it not being able to be stripped off when you need it most in combat. Also solves the karma loss/frustrated players issue.
-
I think the easiest solution would be to have counterspelling strip hits only temporarily, like 1 hit per hit, for magic rounds.
That's about what I'm thinking as houserules. I'm considering making it astral combat, rather than counterspelling, to "disrupt" quickened spells. And also using the exact same rules for foci.
Mostly because I think it'd be cool for a PC mage to zap to the astral and start trashing foci belonging to some big bad they are up against, making it weaker and weaker while the rest of the team fights on the physical.
-
At worse, the most severe BCG makes magic just not function. That is a very rare area though.
Under that, the worse penalty only affects a single tradition, and results in one of: -1 die, edge actions cost 1 more edge, or can't spend edge at all.
I'd say Ideally this is the best way to handle BGC. It shouldn't be used to balance mages as mages should just be balanced. It should be use to add a challenge here and there maybe give spotlight time to the mage through their challenges.
But if mages end up being unbalanced you do need some balancing factor.
-
Having had 12+ hours to grieve over the loss of a MagicRun gonad-punch, I've come to a few realizations:
1) Just because I think MagicRun needs a punch in the gonads... it doesn't change that +/- dice is more of a 5e paradigm. +/- edge IS what it's all about now... and frankly it's more a case of Matrix Noise should be more like this than Magic Noise should be more like 5e's version.
2) Astral Rabies.
ASTRAL RABIES!
Guys... if you want to punch MagicRun in the gonads... we have something EVEN BETTER than 5e's Background Counts! Why take away some of their dicepool when you can take away their Willpower! It's the same thing as -dice, but even better!
This comes across as just hating magic. Things like background count don't solve magic run, they never did. They just punish all magic. They don't selectively target the areas of magic that got to far. Its just a fuck all mages tool because the Gm hates magic.
-
The nice thing about rabies, though, is it allows the mage to think about where they are- the drop off point is pretty quick. The threshold starts at 6, and every meter away from the vine you are decreases it by 1. It's almost the reverse of those spots in SR: Hong Kong that boosted magic.
Unlike background count ("you take -2 to all magic, 'cuz"), the vines are something that players can plan around. This can be tactical, but it can even be on a strategic/planning level ("the safest way to the macguffin brings us through MCT's thaumatogical research lab. That could put mage out of commission. There's a longer route, but we're more likely to trip the alarm if we go that way")
With all things, sure, the GM can use and abuse it so that the entire area is covered with vines. There's nothing stopping them from making all corpsec lesser dragons with panther cannons and make all the hosts have eleventy-five rating, either.
-
I don't mind astral vines, heck I didn't mind when all substantial life blocked astral projection, or FAB traps in 2e. But, astral projection is probably the area that needs the least nerfing if anything it probably could use some buffing. It isn't remotely too good. It has 0 connection to magic run. Its just another method of scouting among plenty of other safer and more effective methods of scouting and that was before 6es quadrupling down of all non living things being some astral shadow structure.
you want to end magic run nerf spirits, nerf a few specific spells, buff cyber/bioware, give mundanes a method of unlimited advancement or cap magic advancement at magic 10-12 or something. Nerfing all things magic with something like background count doesn't fix magic run its just shitting on mage players.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/c5k3rvA.png)
Excuse the crap map, but this is kind of what I mean. 1 through 6 are your normal office crap, board room, and cubicle farm. 7 is a "quiet room" for mages that are astral projecting. 8 is the magical research room, and 9 is the research farm.
More details for 8: the money symbol $ represents expensive equipment or experiments that the corp doesn't want to break/shoot at. So, in case of HRT, anyone squishy would want that in between them and corpsec
Corp mages will avoid doing anything destructive near the kudzu. Within those walls, the kudzu is "contained." I'm not sure how, but roll with it for now. If the walls are broken, then you can count 6 squares away from it, and that is the affected area for rabies.
If there is no way to contain kudzu that greps with your understanding of the setting, then just make the kudzu smaller and the "containment area" at least 5m by 5m. It's in the corner and will affect the outside of the building, but nobody honest is going to be flying that close to the building, right?
Incidentally, this also makes things precarious for anyone lobbing grenades all over the place.
Edit: Whoops, you posted while I was making this, so this may be irrelevant now
-
FAB traps in 2e
shudder
Those things always gave me the heebie-jeebies.
For those who don't know: in the older editions, living things were a total block on astral travel. So there was this astrally active bacteria, FAB (it survives to the current versions but works a little differently now IIRC) that you could make solutions of and pump into wall voids. It would make an unbreakable barrier to astral travel.
Except there was a nasty variant where you held the FAB in big tanks until you deteced a mage in your facility, and then -- and only then -- pumped it into the walls, sealing the astrally projecting mage in. They couldn't leave, so they'd just sit there until their life force ebbed away, like a magical version of immurement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement). Ick.
-
FAB traps in 2e
shudder
Those things always gave me the heebie-jeebies.
For those who don't know: in the older editions, living things were a total block on astral travel. So there was this astrally active bacteria, FAB (it survives to the current versions but works a little differently now IIRC) that you could make solutions of and pump into wall voids. It would make an unbreakable barrier to astral travel.
Except there was a nasty variant where you held the FAB in big tanks until you deteced a mage in your facility, and then -- and only then -- pumped it into the walls, sealing the astrally projecting mage in. They couldn't leave, so they'd just sit there until their life force ebbed away, like a magical version of immurement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement). Ick.
If you had a decent spirit on call you could summon it into the room and have it bust the wall. otherwise you had to be lucky and hope your party figured shit out.
-
Oh, to @Shinobi's point about having unlimited progression for mundanes the same way there is for mages-
After a certain rating, I feel like there shouldn't be essence costs. The concept of "essence" itself is a bit dated, but even so, technology should advance to the point where the essence change between a +4 cyberarm and a +5 cyberarm is negligible, or at least doesn't progress linearly.
You wouldn't be removing cost from it entirely, since you can always just make costs go up at a higher rate.
These are the current costs for "obvious:"
| Rating | Essence Cost | Nuyen Cost |
| Arm | 1 | 15,000 |
| +1 | 1 | 5,000 |
| +2 | 2 | 10,000 |
| +3 | 3 | 15,000 |
| +4 | 4 | 20,000 |
I would propose this:
| Rating | Essence Cost | Nuyen Cost |
| Arm | 1 | 15,000 |
| +1 | 1 | 10,000 |
| +2 | 1 | 20,000 |
| +3 | 1 | 30,000 |
| +4 | 1 | 40,000 |
Or even this:
| Rating | Essence Cost | Nuyen Cost |
| Arm | 2 | 15,000 |
| +1 | 0 | 10,000 |
| +2 | 0 | 20,000 |
| +3 | 0 | 35,000 |
| +4 | 0 | 55,000 |
The nuyen costs are possibly the same, I'm unsure if they really matter.
-
FAB traps in 2e
shudder
Those things always gave me the heebie-jeebies.
For those who don't know: in the older editions, living things were a total block on astral travel. So there was this astrally active bacteria, FAB (it survives to the current versions but works a little differently now IIRC) that you could make solutions of and pump into wall voids. It would make an unbreakable barrier to astral travel.
Except there was a nasty variant where you held the FAB in big tanks until you deteced a mage in your facility, and then -- and only then -- pumped it into the walls, sealing the astrally projecting mage in. They couldn't leave, so they'd just sit there until their life force ebbed away, like a magical version of immurement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement). Ick.
Could be worse, could be colonies of Devil Rats living in the walls. That was horrible to watch, but at least it was sorta quick.
-
These are the current costs for "obvious:"
Hold on, where are these numbers coming from? Do you mean Wired Reflexes or Muscle Replacement or something? Or are these from a book I don't know? Because last time I checked, cyberlimbs have a fixed Essence and Nuyen cost, and their upgrades simply cost Capacity, not Essence.
-
Yeah, you're right. What the hell am I thinking about, then?
-
I feel similar about the quickening/karma loss issue. I think the easiest solution would be to have counterspelling strip hits only temporarily, like 1 hit per hit, for magic rounds.
That leaves quickening with the advantage of being the cheapest increase path, but ware with the stability of it not being able to be stripped off when you need it most in combat. Also solves the karma loss/frustrated players issue.
the issue with this, is that everyone thinks of "quickening" only in the terms of a self buff, but the use of Quickening is not limited to self buffs...
A Wall of Fire spell can be quickened... (at least as of 5e)
So, by your rules... Mr. Mc asshole, the asshat mage who hates dancing... gets to live up to his namesake and cast and quicken "Wall of fire" on the entrance of Dante's Inferno.. thus making sure all the dance happy kids are either so hot, they're smoking -or- can't get into the club....Forever, as it can't be dispelled.
-
I feel similar about the quickening/karma loss issue. I think the easiest solution would be to have counterspelling strip hits only temporarily, like 1 hit per hit, for magic rounds.
That leaves quickening with the advantage of being the cheapest increase path, but ware with the stability of it not being able to be stripped off when you need it most in combat. Also solves the karma loss/frustrated players issue.
the issue with this, is that everyone thinks of "quickening" only in the terms of a self buff, but the use of Quickening is not limited to self buffs...
A Wall of Fire spell can be quickened... (at least as of 5e)
So, by your rules... Mr. Mc asshole, the asshat mage who hates dancing... gets to live up to his namesake and cast and quicken "Wall of fire" on the entrance of Dante's Inferno.. thus making sure all the dance happy kids are either so hot, they're smoking -or- can't get into the club....Forever, as it can't be dispelled.
Well that was spitballing ideas as opposed to a fully proposed fix.
But, your point holds up well, and if we wanted to run with the idea I tossed out for base concept, we could add a ritual for more permanent dispelling.
So the dispelling aspect of sorcery would only last magic in rounds, while the ritual would require say 10 mins per hit of the target spell, but permanently dispel.
Pretty simple solution, but obviously the idea requires refinement.
Edit: We could call the sorcery use of temporary dispel "Suppress" instead, and call the proper ritual "Dispel".
-
I'm not gonna say anyone's in the wrong for making house rules.
Personally though, in the case of quickened spells being easily dispelled: I love it as is. Spells incur virtually no opportunity cost, no essence loss, no nuyen, no downtime to install and heal up afterwards, and cannot be hacked. Costing some karma is not an equal balance against all that... not unless the karma cost were WAY higher.
Y'all do you, but I'm 100% fine with that karma being lost forever when the spell gets scraped off by a barrier or dispelled away. If you want a long-lasting buff, you can pay the augmentation prices. I say that ephemerality is the proper realm for spells.
-
Well, the ideal would be to just have a better balanced magic system. We have what we have to work with though.
-
I'm not gonna say anyone's in the wrong for making house rules.
Personally though, in the case of quickened spells being easily dispelled: I love it as is. Spells incur virtually no opportunity cost, no essence loss, no nuyen, no downtime to install and heal up afterwards, and cannot be hacked. Costing some karma is not an equal balance against all that... not unless the karma cost were WAY higher.
Y'all do you, but I'm 100% fine with that karma being lost forever when the spell gets scraped off by a barrier or dispelled away. If you want a long-lasting buff, you can pay the augmentation prices. I say that ephemerality is the proper realm for spells.
I'm 100% in agreement. Quickening is entirely optional, and very clear on how it works. No mage needs to take it.
-
I feel similar about the quickening/karma loss issue. I think the easiest solution would be to have counterspelling strip hits only temporarily, like 1 hit per hit, for magic rounds.
That leaves quickening with the advantage of being the cheapest increase path, but ware with the stability of it not being able to be stripped off when you need it most in combat. Also solves the karma loss/frustrated players issue.
the issue with this, is that everyone thinks of "quickening" only in the terms of a self buff, but the use of Quickening is not limited to self buffs...
A Wall of Fire spell can be quickened... (at least as of 5e)
So, by your rules... Mr. Mc asshole, the asshat mage who hates dancing... gets to live up to his namesake and cast and quicken "Wall of fire" on the entrance of Dante's Inferno.. thus making sure all the dance happy kids are either so hot, they're smoking -or- can't get into the club....Forever, as it can't be dispelled.
My wish for quickening is that it only made permanent spells on areas. But obviously dispellable. I don't think mages should have any permanent buffs but if they do make it through focuses so it hits them in the pocket book like every other permanent buff.
-
I'm not gonna say anyone's in the wrong for making house rules.
Personally though, in the case of quickened spells being easily dispelled: I love it as is. Spells incur virtually no opportunity cost, no essence loss, no nuyen, no downtime to install and heal up afterwards, and cannot be hacked. Costing some karma is not an equal balance against all that... not unless the karma cost were WAY higher.
Y'all do you, but I'm 100% fine with that karma being lost forever when the spell gets scraped off by a barrier or dispelled away. If you want a long-lasting buff, you can pay the augmentation prices. I say that ephemerality is the proper realm for spells.
Same, though again I'd prefer no permanent buffs for mages. I think that is the adepts and street sams gimmick.
-
I'm not gonna say anyone's in the wrong for making house rules.
Personally though, in the case of quickened spells being easily dispelled: I love it as is. Spells incur virtually no opportunity cost, no essence loss, no nuyen, no downtime to install and heal up afterwards, and cannot be hacked. Costing some karma is not an equal balance against all that... not unless the karma cost were WAY higher.
Y'all do you, but I'm 100% fine with that karma being lost forever when the spell gets scraped off by a barrier or dispelled away. If you want a long-lasting buff, you can pay the augmentation prices. I say that ephemerality is the proper realm for spells.
Same, though again I'd prefer no permanent buffs for mages. I think that is the adepts and street sams gimmick.
I think you have the most important point. It's not really a matter of making sure the cost of quickening an increased attribute is equal to the cost of cyberware or an adept power. It's that SR is a very role-based system, even if that wasn't the original intent. Consider the different archetypes in 1e compared to 6e.
Nobody's going to complain if a mage doesn't have as much drain when they shoot a fireball, or if they last longer in astral space, because those are both magey things. I think if you want a mage to be able to do things like boosting attributes to put them on-par with sammy/adept, it needs to cost far more than it does for the sammy/adept, almost to the point where you'd be better off going and hiring some local muscle than having the mage cast the spell.
-
Quickening is simply a cheaper version of other ways to keep the buffs active, with downside that it can be broken and cause a permanent loss of Karma. If that downside actually features, people will need to start weighing their options. If they never feature the downside and/or can hunt for those massive hits (which is why usually people mandate buying hits), it becomes overkill. Don't forget that to subtly quicken spells, you already need 3 Metamagics. The SR4 cost for quickening was way too high given the risk involved.
If, as a GM, you are sure you are not capable or willing of featuring the downsides of Quickening properly, just ban the metamagic from your game and save everyone a headache. The mages can still get sustaining Foci or Focused Concentration, take the penalty with Psyche, or have a Spirit sustain the spell on them for a while. If you are going to use dispell and wards well, then all you need is 'can only quicken spells that use bought hits' to prevent cheesy abuse.
-
Quickening is simply a cheaper version of other ways to keep the buffs active, with downside that it can be broken and cause a permanent loss of Karma. If that downside actually features, people will need to start weighing their options. If they never feature the downside and/or can hunt for those massive hits (which is why usually people mandate buying hits), it becomes overkill. Don't forget that to subtly quicken spells, you already need 3 Metamagics. The SR4 cost for quickening was way too high given the risk involved.
If, as a GM, you are sure you are not capable or willing of featuring the downsides of Quickening properly, just ban the metamagic from your game and save everyone a headache. The mages can still get sustaining Foci or Focused Concentration, take the penalty with Psyche, or have a Spirit sustain the spell on them for a while. If you are going to use dispell and wards well, then all you need is 'can only quicken spells that use bought hits' to prevent cheesy abuse.
The info on the astral is pretty sparse right now. I'm curious if even Focuses will be able to survive in the future. You used to be able to break them from the astral i think through 3rd edition, not just grounding but astral attacks on them. I'm a big fan of it personally as I feel that it is needed to balance mages. The general rule used to be if you can't safely mask it you don't put karma into it. Surprise barriers/wards still might tank it though. TThis would make focused concentration even more attractive, which I am not sure is good. I'm not sure I'd suggest that kind of stuff for missions though, the variety of GMs might set up false expectations. As long as you know its a risk, its a choice you make.
-
Quickening is simply a cheaper version of other ways to keep the buffs active, with downside that it can be broken and cause a permanent loss of Karma. If that downside actually features, people will need to start weighing their options. If they never feature the downside and/or can hunt for those massive hits (which is why usually people mandate buying hits), it becomes overkill. Don't forget that to subtly quicken spells, you already need 3 Metamagics. The SR4 cost for quickening was way too high given the risk involved.
If, as a GM, you are sure you are not capable or willing of featuring the downsides of Quickening properly, just ban the metamagic from your game and save everyone a headache. The mages can still get sustaining Foci or Focused Concentration, take the penalty with Psyche, or have a Spirit sustain the spell on them for a while. If you are going to use dispell and wards well, then all you need is 'can only quicken spells that use bought hits' to prevent cheesy abuse.
The info on the astral is pretty sparse right now. I'm curious if even Focuses will be able to survive in the future. You used to be able to break them from the astral i think through 3rd edition, not just grounding but astral attacks on them. I'm a big fan of it personally as I feel that it is needed to balance mages. The general rule used to be if you can't safely mask it you don't put karma into it. Surprise barriers/wards still might tank it though. TThis would make focused concentration even more attractive, which I am not sure is good. I'm not sure I'd suggest that kind of stuff for missions though, the variety of GMs might set up false expectations. As long as you know its a risk, its a choice you make.
There's actually no reason you can't just target the astral forms of spells/foci with astral combat or combat mana spells, even in 5E. 5E just never explained what happened if you did. Of course, neither does 6e.
-
There's specific ways to target spells and foci from the astral, so I wouldn't let you use simpler unspecified ways instead.
-
Quickening is simply a cheaper version of other ways to keep the buffs active, with downside that it can be broken and cause a permanent loss of Karma. If that downside actually features, people will need to start weighing their options. If they never feature the downside and/or can hunt for those massive hits (which is why usually people mandate buying hits), it becomes overkill. Don't forget that to subtly quicken spells, you already need 3 Metamagics. The SR4 cost for quickening was way too high given the risk involved.
If, as a GM, you are sure you are not capable or willing of featuring the downsides of Quickening properly, just ban the metamagic from your game and save everyone a headache. The mages can still get sustaining Foci or Focused Concentration, take the penalty with Psyche, or have a Spirit sustain the spell on them for a while. If you are going to use dispell and wards well, then all you need is 'can only quicken spells that use bought hits' to prevent cheesy abuse.
The info on the astral is pretty sparse right now. I'm curious if even Focuses will be able to survive in the future. You used to be able to break them from the astral i think through 3rd edition, not just grounding but astral attacks on them. I'm a big fan of it personally as I feel that it is needed to balance mages. The general rule used to be if you can't safely mask it you don't put karma into it. Surprise barriers/wards still might tank it though. TThis would make focused concentration even more attractive, which I am not sure is good. I'm not sure I'd suggest that kind of stuff for missions though, the variety of GMs might set up false expectations. As long as you know its a risk, its a choice you make.
There's actually no reason you can't just target the astral forms of spells/foci with astral combat or combat mana spells, even in 5E. 5E just never explained what happened if you did. Of course, neither does 6e.
Yeah I can't remember if 4e had an answer to what happened if you did either. I know 1e-2e did, I'm fairly certain 3e did. And the answer to that is a pretty big thing, especially in a setting where magical security is frequently a mage showing up on the astral to see what triggered their ward or alerted their spirit. With no explanation on how it works the implication is it doesn't. Logically you should just be able to astrally punch it if you wanted to, its a astral form attack it. It used to be focuses resisted attacks like wards did at forcex2. But I haven;t see anything about that in at least 2 editions. Personally I'd like it back as I think focuses should be risky. But I'm old and still wish they had kept grounding, just changing it so the only thing hurt by it was the focus(or spirit) and the person it was linked to.
-
Didn't see anywhere. When is the hardcopy out?
Trevor L.
-
The hardcover is available in the Catalyst store, but I'm not sure when FLGS or other outlets will have it available.
-
It has probably been available for a while, but I can confirm I picked up the hardcover in my FLGS last weekend.
And I asked this elsewhere but I'll try in this thread too: inside the front and back cover of the hardcover is a stylized map, looks like of some port city. Anyone know what city is?