NEWS

BGC Question

  • 25 Replies
  • 1554 Views

Marcus

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2193
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #15 on: (11:53:21/02-14-18) »
I have no issue with limit, it does what it is intended to do, and it's manageable

Your method is reasonable and it fits the description of the effect better and is more in keeping with the other side.

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

catrone3

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #16 on: (16:48:36/03-22-18) »
So I am bringing my concerns with BGC here as it hasn't been talked about much here and where it started is not the proper place for it. Firebug, you mention mana storms as an example of a BGC over 12, which I would agree with completely. The concern comes from places like the nazi death camps (auschwits is 16 in 5e), Hiroshima/Nagasaki (13), the five sacred mountains (one being lungs lair), the aura borealis, and the great cairn being over 12 for a BGC now, and other examples having doubled in BGC but not being over 12 (pyramids of egypt and stonehenge being 2 of them).

In previous editions (not just 4e so these didn't double for the extra dice we now throw, which would make sense for the scale as a whole increasing) these sites that are above the damage code start point were below the damage code start point, if only just. In 2e and 3e Auschwitz and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were rating 5 (1-10 scale where 6+ causes physical damage), in 4e it was rating 6 (1-12 where 7+ causes physical damage). So then what is the reason for Auschwitz and several other locations going from just barely under the deadly BGC but very difficult to work in, to higher than the damaging BGC as well as hard to work in
« Last Edit: (16:52:19/03-22-18) by catrone3 »

ShadowMaster

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 55
« Reply #17 on: (10:58:13/04-10-18) »
The force of the spells are reduced, which will likely result in the loss of hits beyond the (new) limit of the spell if there's any significant background count.

Where is this mentioned in the rules or errata that the force is decreased? I thought it was a loss of dice to the dice pool.
I see stuff in street grimoire about it, but I only see dice pool changes,nothing to force.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Chummer
  • *
  • Posts: 112
« Reply #18 on: (11:54:37/04-10-18) »
You have the read past the initial sentence to gather the Force reduction piece.

"Pre-existing active foci, sustained spells, quickened/anchored
spells and rituals are reduced by the background count. If they are
reduced to 0 or less, spells fizzle, wards and rituals collapse, foci
deactivate. A foci cannot activate while under the influence of the
background count. Anchored rituals and quickened spells if they
have not expired revive themselves at 1 point of Force per hour,
up to their preexisting Force
."

That sentence indicates that the background reduction of pre-existing magic applies to the Force.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Chummer
  • *
  • Posts: 112
« Reply #19 on: (11:59:58/04-10-18) »
As for the general discussion, I agree with Marcus that the possibility of background counts higher/lower than 12 is pretty nuts. Even the current season of Missions has had at least once instance of 12, and one of 8.

But that said, the impact of low to mid background count really only impacts young characters. Once you get into that 200+ karma range, it is just a balancing factor for how grossly underpowered everything else is compared to magic.
« Last Edit: (12:01:51/04-10-18) by Lormyr »

ShadowMaster

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 55
« Reply #20 on: (18:03:15/04-10-18) »
You have the read past the initial sentence to gather the Force reduction piece.

"Pre-existing active foci, sustained spells, quickened/anchored
spells and rituals are reduced by the background count. If they are
reduced to 0 or less, spells fizzle, wards and rituals collapse, foci
deactivate. A foci cannot activate while under the influence of the
background count. Anchored rituals and quickened spells if they
have not expired revive themselves at 1 point of Force per hour,
up to their preexisting Force
."

That sentence indicates that the background reduction of pre-existing magic applies to the Force.

That only talks about a mechanism for how they come back in strength after being outside of the background count.
It doesn't even give a mechanic for how it goes down in the first place.
I would imagine that it decreases either force or net successes. Either is appropriate, but it doesn't in fact mention either.

« Reply #21 on: (18:25:33/04-10-18) »
It's not formally official, but the intent appears to be Force is what's lowered.

And even if that unofficial clarification is discarded as unofficial, you can lean towards Force as from a book-keeping standpoint that's the only feasible way to really do it... several real-world hours after the spell was cast at the table odds are the only way anyone remembers how many hits were scored is whatever the limit on the spell happened to have been.

ShadowMaster

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 55
« Reply #22 on: (18:54:57/04-10-18) »
I would lean towards successes over force.
Force 6 spell, 4 successes means the spell effect is unaffected by a 2 point background count.
I think decreasing the successes is more inline and when no successes are left the spell drops, and in the case of quickened spells returns over time.

« Reply #23 on: (18:57:30/04-10-18) »
You know, in light of Dispelling working that way (reduces hits not force) you might be on to something.  I guess it already just needs to be standard table practice to record # of hits anyway in case the spell might be Dispelled at some point later down the pike.  BGC can just piggyback off that infrastructure.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Chummer
  • *
  • Posts: 112
« Reply #24 on: (20:27:41/04-10-18) »
That only talks about a mechanism for how they come back in strength after being outside of the background count.
It doesn't even give a mechanic for how it goes down in the first place.
I would imagine that it decreases either force or net successes. Either is appropriate, but it doesn't in fact mention either.

I know that the game mechanic is worded poorly. Based on what is written though, Force reduction is the only logical conclusion.

1. Active magic stuff in a background is reduced by the background count.
2. In that sentence, it does not clearly indicate what is reduced. Spells only have two factors to reduce though: either hits or force
3. Later in the paragraph, it states that active magic who's force was reduced while in a background count but did not expire restore themselves at the rate of 1 force/hour once out of the background.
4. Finally, foci do not have "hits". The only deductible numeric of them is Force.

I believe the result is clear, personally. If the background did not reduce Force, there would be no need for the force of magic that survived a background count to restore itself.
« Last Edit: (20:29:45/04-10-18) by Lormyr »

« Reply #25 on: (21:31:20/04-10-18) »
Semi new question about the nature of spells being reduced by BGC:

If you cast a spell within a BGC, obviously you suffer the dice pool penalties.  And just as obviously, the spell isn't reduced as it's not a pre-existing spell being brought in to a BGC.  But what if:

A) you cast, sustain, leave the BGC, and then re-enter the same BGC?  I read it as the spell being reduced, although for fairness' sake maybe it shouldn't be.  (was already penalized on casting)

B) you cast, sustain, leave the BGC, and then enter a new BGC of equal or greater rating than the one in which it was cast.  Surely it's reduced... but is it by the total new BGC or by the difference in ratings?  That's less clear...