NEWS

Slip Streams is out

  • 67 Replies
  • 3077 Views

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #30 on: <08-26-20/1220:05> »
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?

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #31 on: <08-26-20/1228:45> »
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. It´s 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."

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #32 on: <08-26-20/1237:30> »
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 ;)

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 966
« Reply #33 on: <08-26-20/1318:20> »
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
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

markelphoenix

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
« Reply #34 on: <08-26-20/1345:50> »
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.

Quote
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.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2887
« Reply #35 on: <08-26-20/1400:55> »
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.

Quote
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.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #36 on: <08-26-20/1405:09> »
You’re not wrong, Hobbes, but I think it carries more psychological weight than that, if that makes any sense. Even if it’s only 1 karma, it just feels like a big deal to me (and also to my players, I think.)

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #37 on: <08-26-20/1441:13> »
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.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2887
« Reply #38 on: <08-26-20/1447:46> »
You’re not wrong, Hobbes, but I think it carries more psychological weight than that, if that makes any sense. Even if it’s 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. 

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
« Reply #39 on: <08-26-20/1451:43> »
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.
"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

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #40 on: <08-26-20/1540:17> »
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.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
« Reply #41 on: <08-26-20/1553:08> »
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.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
« Reply #42 on: <08-26-20/1605:31> »
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.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #43 on: <08-26-20/1651:10> »
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.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
« Reply #44 on: <08-26-20/1717:44> »
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.