Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: argouru on <02-27-20/1509:43>
-
So I was reading the 6e rulebook and have some questions...
Is the damage from a direct attack spell the same as with indirect spells only they cannot use Body to resist the damage? The wording in the book is rather vague. Say I have a magic of 4 Would the damage of the spell be 2 per hit ir only 1 damage for each 5 and/or 6 rolled?
On page 132 there's a box containing an example of casting a fireball at a group. The pc used has a magic score of 5, but the damage is listed as 3P, but with 2 net hits the damage increases to 5P. Is this a typo? Since the base damage is 3p, shouldn't the 2 hits equal 6P damage?
-
Direct spell damage is equal to the net hits. But it can't be soaked.
-
Indirect start at magic/2, direct start at 0. Indirect gets a defense test+a soak. Direct doesn't get soaked, just a defense test. Unless you are blowing massive edge, or rolling a crazy high defense pool direct attack spells are pretty bad without a ton of drain from boosting the spell.
Magic 6
Lets say you have a very nice spell casting pool of 21 dice, you get 7 hits, rando security guard probably drops that by 2 hits for 5 net hits.
Indirect they are soaking 8 probably taking 7.
Direct they just take 5.
As your magic goes up base damage goes up, and your dice pool so potential damage scales as well. So direct falls behind even further. Against enemies with large soak pools direct can be useful in comparison.
That's a massive starting pool for a mage. Probably out of the possible range, but I may be missing a die. Many guns would get you to one shot kill range against rando guard with a smaller die pool. Not saying don't use them, they have their place. But you probably want to risk drain and amp them if you do, target already heavily damaged enemies(good tactic anyways). Or go with a different spell like mind control.
-
I ran numbers on this the other day... I agree with SK. I don't know why anyone would take manabolt, or any other direct damage spell, in 6e.
(Context: Alice is casting mana bolt at Bob.)
Let’s make Optimised Alice. Bump her drain stats to 6 and 5 and her Sorcery skill to 6. And we’ll weaken Bob to the absolute lowest goon in the CRB, with all 2s for his stats. Then run it again.
Starting with her drain roll and working backwards: she now rolls 11 dice, so has a good chance of taking no drain from a non-amped manabolt, with its drain value of 4. But amping it would quite likely hurt her, so we won't do that. Her spellcasting roll is now 11 dice, for four (being generous) expected hits. Bob’s resistance roll is 4 dice, for one hit (again, being generous to Alice.) Net three hits. Bob takes 3 boxes; Alice takes none. Hmm. Not exactly overwhelming.
(BTW how is amping up a combat spell in 6e not the same basic thing as selecting the force in 5e? “Streamlined” my arse. But I digress.)
Let’s make Supercharged Alice. We’ll give her drain stats of 7 and 5, two levels of Initiation, and Centering. We’ll increase her Magic stat to 7 and a power focus at rating 2. We’ll also give her Increase Attribute at +4 on both her drain stats, sustained without penalty via Focused Concentration. That’s an impressive 22 dice, for an average of 7 hits. Let’s say she amps the spell twice, meaning she’s resisting 8 points of drain. Her spellcasting roll is now 15 dice, for 5 expected hits. Less Bob’s 1 expected hit to resist. Bob takes 6 boxes, Alice maybe takes 1.
Hmm some more. It's hitting hard now, but golly, Alice had to do a lot of work to get there. And don’t forget Bob is a compete schlub in this scenario.
Let’s say instead Ordinary Alice has an Ares Predator and can scrape up 6 dice in Firearms. She shoots Bob, with two expected hits. Bob’s defence test has one expected hit, for one net hit to Alice. Bob now rolls to soak 3P damage on Body 2, receiving 3 or 4 boxes of damage. Instead of facing drain, Alice has used one bullet.
I’m not seeing why Alice would ever spent five karma on learning manabolt.
Edit: forgot to add. In moving from 5e to 6e, when resisting physical damage, characters lost their armour, so dice pools went down from circa 12-20 to circa 3-6. Big step down. OK. But at the same time, when resisting direct combat spells, characters now get to add intuition to their willpower, approximately doubling their dice pool. This seems inconsistent.
...
Reaver, you mentioned summoning. Let's look at that. We know manabolt has a drain value of 4 before amping up. When summoning, the spirit rolls Force x2 dice, and the drain value is equal to the hits it rolls. So that means, someone, somewhere, said "yes, this manabolt spell is correctly balanced at the same drain as summoning a Force 6 spirit." Which, honestly, what the fuck. This makes no sense to me at all.
-
So combat spells (damaging ones) are pretty poor in this game and it would be better to stick with guns for ranged combat?
-
Direct spells are weak. Indirect are not as bad.
Consider manabolt, as mentioned above, compared to lightning bolt. MB does 0 base damage. LB does (Magic/2) base damage. In both cases the spell casting roll is the same, and the resistance roll is similar. But for a Magic 6 caster, LB is doing 3 more boxes of damage.
Now for soak. MB doesn’t have this, LB does. But if your target has lower than Body 6, you’re still going to come out ahead on that roll, on average.
Lightning bolt has one extra point of drain to consider, but again: you’d need to amp up manabolt 3x (at 6 boxes more drain) to equalise it to LB’s base damage. So I think LB still comes out a long way ahead, most of the time. Especially as it also gives your target the Zapped status, to boot.
-
So combat spells (damaging ones) are pretty poor in this game and it would be better to stick with guns for ranged combat?
Something that was there more explicit in the past, is that Direct spells require LOS, while Indirect also require effect: You can't cast a fireball through a window (and a weak gun will also fail against a strong window), but Direct spells could hit someone through a window/mirror.
This difference isn't made explicit in SR6 rules, so a GM can rule otherwise. They may also rule that in SR6, you only need LOS to cast at a spot and the fireball sparks from there. But against single-target spells, the advantage of a Direct spell may be (nothing solid in rules either way) that you can cast them through windows / mirrors.
(Note that this logic helps expose that Powerbolt is weird: By all logic, it should be an Indirect spell.)
And of course against Hardened Armor, you definitely want a Direct spell.
-
And of course against Hardened Armor, you definitely want a Direct spell.
Mana bolt is now officially an anti-shark spell I guess. (HT u/D4rvill for pointing this out to me. I just checked and no, it wasn't fixed in the January errata, mundane 6e sharks are still bulletproof.)
Edit: In fact... in the entire 6e CRB, hardened armour only comes up for (a) sharks (b) dracoforms and (c) materialised spirits in the context of Immunity to Normal Weapons. ItNW doesn't grant defence against spells anyway, and if you're hunting dragons you're in over your head.
So yeah. It's literally for sharks.
-
SR6: where even the errata's errata needs errata. :P
-
SR6: where even the errata's errata needs errata. :P
SR5's fourth printing (2016) still says that Matrix Perception can tell you about the target's commode. And I just found that typo mentioned on Dumpshock at least as far back as 2014.
Shadowrun deserves better than this.
-
Right?
I want to make it clear that I am not a person that wants Shadowrun to fail. It's my favorite game. I want it to thrive and be around forever.
That said, I wonder if any of line producers / quality controllers / shot callers ever look back and are just plain embarrassed. I know I would be if I had allowed things to print in this state, and then not corrected it in a timely manner.
-
SR6: where even the errata's errata needs errata. :P
Totally knew about the shark, was discussed in passing around Hardened Armor and ItNW. I thought it was funny. I don't think we even made a recommendation to change the Shark entry.
-
Sharks: better than you since prehistoric times!
-
SR6: where even the errata's errata needs errata. :P
Totally knew about the shark, was discussed in passing around Hardened Armor and ItNW. I thought it was funny. I don't think we even made a recommendation to change the Shark entry.
My headcanon explanation for it is the hardened armor represents how tough it is to hurt things when you're underwater. If a sharknado deposits a shark into your living room, then I wouldn't give it its hardened armor versus your shotgun while thrashing on your coffee table.
-
I discovered that puppy on the 3th of August. Sharks are awesome. I see it as a special blessing from the Sea Serpent.
-
I'm really glad direct damage spells are now just situational. I can remember when indirect combat spells (then called damaging manipulation spells I think) were new, they were really cool but almost never taken because they were generally more drain for less damage. Direct damage spells were easier to target, harder to notice, and more efficient damage. It's only right that this kind of attack be less damaging.
-
Currently RAW you can Manabolt/Stunbolt/Powerbolt someone down to the floor with repeated castings and unless there is an Astral observer you'd be able to do it while standing in the middle of a crowd without anyone noticing. Noticing Magic got a lot mechanically harder between editions.
Invisible Zots should not be the best Damage per Cast. It's really okay that they're not that great for damage output.
An Invisible and/or Concealed mage casting Direct damage spells is all but invulnerable to mundanes outside of calling in an Air Strike. It's okay that they need to work a bit for it.
-
Neither direct nor indirect spells look particularly good coming out of the gate, but again, magic dice pools still scale substantially higher than the dice pools to defend against them. The nerf didn't go far enough, because the wrong element was targeted for the nerf (less initial damage rather than nerfing foci and maximum potential).
-
Still looking for an answer on this one, however. Is it a typo?
On page 132 there's a box containing an example of casting a fireball at a group. The pc used has a magic score of 5, but the damage is listed as 3P, but with 2 net hits the damage increases to 5P. Is this a typo? Since the base damage is 3p, shouldn't the 2 hits equal 6P damage?
-
And that. Magic 6, Spellcasting with an Expertise is 9, so 15 dice pretty quick. Depending on your reading I think Foci actually do cap in 6th at +4 Dice since it's adding to a Skill. I'd have to go read Power Foci closely though, they add to Magic and may weasel past the Augmented Skill cap. Honestly can't recall off the top of my head. I presume the RAI is that +4 Dice would be the cap regardless of what kind of Foci, FWIW.
Anyway, 19 Dice Spellcasting after a run or three. Drain dice of 20 out of chargen and climbing reasonably fast for the optimized spell caster.
So, bad ass NPCs with stupid high stats are still going to be throwing less dice in most cases. And Drain can be mitigated. And for the most part PC mages should be easily generating Edge (Invisible, Concealed, Analytical Mind, and so forth).
Spellcasting isn't bad. It's not as crazy as the stupid tricks Conjuring can pull off, but literally nothing else is.
-
I presume the RAI is that +4 Dice would be the cap regardless of what kind of Foci, FWIW.
I have heard SSDR say that as well, but that is not how I read it at all. Quick run down:
Attributes say: "Various things modify attributes, such as spells and gear, but a character’s adjusted attribute can never be higher than their current attribute rank +4.".
Skills say: "They can be modified by spells, gear, and other effects, but their augmented increase can never be more than +4."
Nothing else in the entire game is generallyrestricted in stacking other than Initiative, but some specific things state they will not stack (such as muscle toner and a suprathyroid gland, and only being able to apply one foci to a given dice pool).
Foci say things such as "A centering focus adds its Force to the magician’s initiate grade when they use the centering metamagic on Drain Resistance tests.", and "Spellcasting foci add their Force to your Spellcasting dice pool as long as the spell is in the same category as the focus."
My point:
Foci do not add to a skill - they add to a dice pool. You could have a mystic adept with Magic 6 + Spellcasting 14 (with adept improved ability) + a foci on top of that, because no foci just flat add to a skill.
If the intent is that no dice pool can be modified by more than +4 then all three of those sections are in dire need of a re-write, because that is not at all what it says.
-
Still looking for an answer on this one, however. Is it a typo?
On page 132 there's a box containing an example of casting a fireball at a group. The pc used has a magic score of 5, but the damage is listed as 3P, but with 2 net hits the damage increases to 5P. Is this a typo? Since the base damage is 3p, shouldn't the 2 hits equal 6P damage?
Huh?_? So Magic Score 5 means damage 5/2 = 3P, 2 net hits add 2 damage, so 5P?_?
-
...
My point:
Foci do not add to a skill - they add to a dice pool. You could have a mystic adept with Magic 6 + Spellcasting 14 (with adept improved ability) + a foci on top of that, because no foci just flat add to a skill.
If the intent is that no dice pool can be modified by more than +4 then all three of those sections are in dire need of a re-write, because that is not at all what it says.
Right. The wording on pg 39 is awfully vague. What, specifically, is referred to when the augmented bonus is described: Skills in a categorical sense, or skill rank numerical value? Unfortunately, that line didn't get fixed so it's still formally unclear. But my personal view is still very much that the augmented bonus that could come from "spells, gear, and other effects" applies to skills in a categorical sense, rather than the skill rank numerical value. And ergo the max dice pool in 6we when a skill is involved is Attribute (including augmented bonus) + Skill (including spec, expertise, and other skill rank modifications) + 4 dice from all other sources.
-
I dig it man. I just can't agree with that understanding based on the current wording. I am unable to speak for what the intent is/may have been.
-
I dig it man. I just can't agree with that understanding based on the current wording. I am unable to speak for what the intent is/may have been.
Official clarification would be cool. You may have internet speculation if that does you any good? :P
-
Well, at the risk of being arrogant, I don't need clarification because the wording is quite clear. :p
-
Foci say things such as "A centering focus adds its Force to the magician’s initiate grade when they use the centering metamagic on Drain Resistance tests.", and "Spellcasting foci add their Force to your Spellcasting dice pool as long as the spell is in the same category as the focus."
My point:
Foci do not add to a skill - they add to a dice pool. You could have a mystic adept with Magic 6 + Spellcasting 14 (with adept improved ability) + a foci on top of that, because no foci just flat add to a skill.
If the intent is that no dice pool can be modified by more than +4 then all three of those sections are in dire need of a re-write, because that is not at all what it says.
If they are capped to a bonus of +4, why can you buy them at much higher force ratings?
Most gear or wear that has a limited number of upgrades tell you in description... You can't get Vision mag 43 for example... but I CAN get a force 12 Spell Focus - provided I have the cash and karma to bond it...
-
Background Counts.
In all seriousness, I like the idea of the rebalance, but it's not RAW, doesn't appear to be RAI and is definitely not for everyone.
-
If they are capped to a bonus of +4, why can you buy them at much higher force ratings?
Most gear or wear that has a limited number of upgrades tell you in description... You can't get Vision mag 43 for example... but I CAN get a force 12 Spell Focus - provided I have the cash and karma to bond it...
My understanding is that all "augmentations" to a skill, both positive and negative, are cumulative and capped at +4. So if you have -2 dice (due to wound penalties, or sustaining a spell, or etc) and +6 dice from a focus, then the resulting total of +4 dice is within the range for the maximum skill bonus.
-
Background Counts.
In all seriousness, I like the idea of the rebalance, but it's not RAW, doesn't appear to be RAI and is definitely not for everyone.
It would definitely be batter to cap foci at rating 4 for balance, but as you say, that is just not how the ruling reads.
-
Foci do not add to a skill - they add to a dice pool. You could have a mystic adept with Magic 6 + Spellcasting 14 (with adept improved ability) + a foci on top of that, because no foci just flat add to a skill.
As an aside to this, does anyone know if removing the limit that improved ability doesn't work with magic skills was intentional or an oversight. It seems kind of silly that the mistake adept is actually a better spell caster than a standard mage or aspected sorcerer at the end of the day. I guess sorcery, conjuring etc is a combat skill, not that they break it down anywhere, and yeah its expensive but it sets up a really bad situation for long campaigns.
-
My understanding is that all "augmentations" to a skill, both positive and negative, are cumulative and capped at +4.
The word 'augmentation' does not appear when 'Foci' are described, nor is a cap of +4 mentioned under Magic.
It does not say that the Magic 'rating' is increased by a Power Focus, only that the effective Magic rating is. Other Foci add the Force in Dice. No limit is mentioned.
Foci descriptions for 6E on p.154-155 are virtually unchanged from 5E on p. 318-320. They have not been 'clarified', and could have been.
There was a prior topic discussed in this Forum at great length for 5E. Some persons inserted words into the descriptions where none were stated, while some of us simply read what was as written.
-
My understanding is that all "augmentations" to a skill, both positive and negative, are cumulative and capped at +4.
The word 'augmentation' does not appear when 'Foci' are described, nor is a cap of +4 mentioned under Magic.
It's mentioned under skills, on pg 39.
The disagreement is whether the "augmented increase" that is capped at +4 applies to skill ranks, or to dice pool bonuses for skill tests. I'm in full agreement with Lormyr that the wording is very awkward and unfortunately it didn't get fixed with errata, so it is what it is. I do believe it'll be wrangled once a FAQ is published.
-
If the intent is that a dice pool involving a skill cannot be augmented beyond +4 then that is really going to neuter a lot options. For example if you have your agility augmented by +4 then there would be no need to stack improved ability firearms as an addict power because your dice pool is already benefiting from its maximum +4.
Furthermore no cyberware such as tracheal filtration or foci would ever need that be able to be a rating beyond four, even though those specific examples allow up to rating 6 and no limit. Suffering a dice pool penalty removes dice, sure, but it has no bearing on changing your augmentation level. Spellcasting + magic + rating 4 foci - wound penalty doesn't mean that you're dice pool is suddenly not augmented by + 4 in order to benefit from a higher rating foci.
None of it makes even the slightest sense in the context of the existing rules. If it does get FAQ'd to work as SSDR suggest then they're going to need to change a lot of the current augmentation mechanics and potential ratings in order to accommodate it.
-
Skill Augmentation cap is a separate concept from Attribute Augmentation cap and they'd "stack" if SSDR's (and mine) reading is correct. "stack" because they're not adding to the same thing, they're adding to two separate things. Muscle Toner adds to Agility, Reflex Recorder adds to Firearms. Agility plus Muscle Toner plus Firearms plus Reflex Recorder Firearms would be the dice pool.
Tracheal Filtration (and other toxin resistance) isn't adding to a skill, would be unaffected.
Foci are really the main thing that allow more dice to keep being added because they're broken and have no limit. I think you may have pointed that out a time or two : )
Adept Power Improved Ability (Skill) theoretically can go to 5, if you've raised the skill to 9 I guess. Any of your 1000+Karma characters ever bother to raise a skill to 9? I got a Chicago Mage that raised Spellcasting to 8, highest skill level of any of my characters....
Anyway, really only gets goofy if you're adding this, that, and the other thing to a skill, and Magic Foci.
Would require some specific clarification, does a thing add to a skill or to a dice pool? Specializations? Smartgun Links?
It was poorly worded no matter what the intent was and should be clarified, IMO.
-
Foci are really the main thing that allow more dice to keep being added because they're broken and have no limit.
Any of your 1000+Karma characters ever bother to raise a skill to 9?
It was poorly worded no matter what the intent was and should be clarified, IMO.
Broken is in the eye of the beholder. If 5E, or 6E, were intended to have a limit on Magic, that paragraph could have been easy to include - and it wasn't. My character from 5E Missions had Spellcasting 12, Magic 12, and Power Focus 11, or 35D(37D).
It was never clarified in 5E. So, it's likely that the intent was correct all along for 5E. We'll see if the wording is ever changed for 6E.
-
Broken is in the eye of the beholder. My character from 5E Missions had Spellcasting 12, Magic 12, and Power Focus 11, or 35D(37D).
Right, and that is broken as hell. :p
Balanced = when two opposing forces have equal or nearly equal potential. Broken = when game mechanics grossly favor one opposing force.
In 5e, spells potential was skill (13 max) + attribute (unlimited max) + foci (unlimited max) vs. attribute (various max rarely above 14) + attribute (various max rarely above 6). Spellcasters had a slight advantage due to Increase Attribute and Counterspelling, and Adepts could potentially laugh off spells even from Lofwyr or Harlequin if they choose to max Spell Resistance and take Harmonious Defense at high Initiate Grades. Mundanes just got totally plastered with no hope of success in the later stages of advancement though.
-
Yes. That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we. (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design. It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.
-
Broken is in the eye of the beholder. If 5E, or 6E, were intended to have a limit on Magic, that paragraph could have been easy to include - and it wasn't. My character from 5E Missions had Spellcasting 12, Magic 12, and Power Focus 11, or 35D(37D).
It was never clarified in 5E. So, it's likely that the intent was correct all along for 5E. We'll see if the wording is ever changed for 6E.
I might not be understanding you, you're presenting 35 Dice of Spellcasting as though it were just fine and not some degenerate game state.
I've got a mage with 23 dice in just Manipulation magic and I have to sit still and let the rest of the team play most of the time. Literally you're snapping your fingers and moving the plot along whenever you'd like. At least I am.
There are only a handful of Mission encounters I can think of that would marginally challenge a Mage with 35dice of Spellcasting. Yet there are lots that would stop a 1000+Karma Samurai, Decker, or Mundane Face pretty cold.
-
Yes. That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we. (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design. It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.
And I am in favor of smaller dice pools too (one of the few things I like about 6e), just not with strange, poorly worded arbitrary caps, and options that go over those caps even though you can't actually use them. Personally, I think the best plan would be:
Attributes augmented to +4
Skills augments to +4
Foci max rating 4
A small handful of rare and resource costly things that add a stray +1 on certain non-magic pools
I might not be understanding you, you're presenting 35 Dice of Spellcasting as though it were just fine and not some degenerate game state.
I've got a mage with 23 dice in just Manipulation magic and I have to sit still and let the rest of the team play most of the time. Literally you're snapping your fingers and moving the plot along whenever you'd like. At least I am.
There are only a handful of Mission encounters I can think of that would marginally challenge a Mage with 35dice of Spellcasting. Yet there are lots that would stop a 1000+Karma Samurai, Decker, or Mundane Face pretty cold.
My mystic adept also only had low 20's casting pool (magic 12, spellcasting 6, power foci 6), but all of his resistance (defense pool, soak pool, spell resistance pool, toxin pools, ect.) were 50+ dice. I just wanted to see how invulnerable I could build a character, and the answer was yes.
My favorite combat encounter with him was Platetooth in the last part of dragon's song. I literally just punched that great wyrm dragon in the mouth while it failed to affect me with anything for 2 rounds before it finally just said "Ok, fuck this." and flew off.
-
Yes. That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we. (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design. It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.
And I am in favor of smaller dice pools too (one of the few things I like about 6e), just not with strange, poorly worded arbitrary caps, and options that go over those caps even though you can't actually use them. Personally, I think the best plan would be:
Attributes augmented to +4
Skills augments to +4
Foci max rating 4
A small handful of rare and resource costly things that add a stray +1 on certain non-magic pools
I think we're on the same page, but disagreeing on the best way to format it. I prefer a blanket "all bonus dice capped at +4" rather than just saying Foci are capped because A) more things than Foci give bonuses to skill tests (lots of gear does) and B) it's more future proofed to say "everything" inclusively rather than giving an exhaustive list that therefore omits future problems. For example, a spell that might give +dice in net hits to a skill test could be stupidly broken if a dozen net hits were scored. The cap being across the board rather than specifically on this or that means that hypothetical spell still only caps out at +4 when it's all said and done on assembling your dice pool.
-
Yes, the theoretical 12th edition Shadowrun after I've won the lottery and purchased the rights from Topps would be: Augmented Attribute limit of +X, Augmented Skill Limit of +X, and rare/expensive/conditional Generic Dice pool bonus with a limit written into that gear, power, spell, quality, whatever.
-
Yes. That being a thing in 5e is part of why I'm so pro-dice pool limit for skill tests in 6we. (Attribute + Attribute bonuses) + (Skill + spec/expertise) + (max 4) = max dice pool seems like much better game design. It's not a hard cap of 24 dice, but it makes going beyond 24 extreme corner case.
And I am in favor of smaller dice pools too (one of the few things I like about 6e), just not with strange, poorly worded arbitrary caps, and options that go over those caps even though you can't actually use them. Personally, I think the best plan would be:
Attributes augmented to +4
Skills augments to +4
Foci max rating 4
A small handful of rare and resource costly things that add a stray +1 on certain non-magic pools
I think we're on the same page, but disagreeing on the best way to format it. I prefer a blanket "all bonus dice capped at +4" rather than just saying Foci are capped because A) more things than Foci give bonuses to skill tests (lots of gear does) and B) it's more future proofed to say "everything" inclusively rather than giving an exhaustive list that therefore omits future problems. For example, a spell that might give +dice in net hits to a skill test could be stupidly broken if a dozen net hits were scored. The cap being across the board rather than specifically on this or that means that hypothetical spell still only caps out at +4 when it's all said and done on assembling your dice pool.
That could be easily solved by using a universal language for said spells though. "This spell provides and augmentation bonus equal to your net spell-casting hits on" insert skill here. pretty much just a skill version of increase attribute. That said spells that provided dice pool bonuses have pretty much been axed in this edition (armor, combat Sense, ect.), so if new spells decided to break that trend it would be very bad for game balance in general in my opinion. I suppose that power creep is inevitable though.
-
Right, and that is broken as hell. :p
Balanced = when two opposing forces have equal or nearly equal potential. Broken = when game mechanics grossly favor one opposing force.
As I said, broken is in the eye of the beholder.
Most RPGs have been balanced in favor of Magicians since Basic D&D 45 years ago. Does that stop players from playing non-Mages? Even so, I usually have played Clerics.
Characters rarely have similar XP in Missions. Should Missions be rated by character XP?
While Mages may have tremendous offensive potential, they also can be very vulnerable I believe it balances out..
-
I might not be understanding you, you're presenting 35 Dice of Spellcasting as though it were just fine and not some degenerate game state.
I've got a mage with 23 dice in just Manipulation magic and I have to sit still and let the rest of the team play most of the time. Literally you're snapping your fingers and moving the plot along whenever you'd like. At least I am.
There are only a handful of Mission encounters I can think of that would marginally challenge a Mage with 35dice of Spellcasting. Yet there are lots that would stop a 1000+Karma Samurai, Decker, or Mundane Face pretty cold.
Toward the end, I did play a mostly support role, enhancing, protecting, and assisting my team members. I was able to make my team better.
If Shadowrun were real, wouldn't/shouldn't that be the goal?
-
As I said, broken is in the eye of the beholder.
Most RPGs have been balanced in favor of Magicians since Basic D&D 45 years ago. Does that stop players from playing non-Mages? Even so, I usually have played Clerics.
Characters rarely have similar XP in Missions. Should Missions be rated by character XP?
While Mages may have tremendous offensive potential, they also can be very vulnerable I believe it balances out..
To be clear, I am not judging your play style or your character.
That said, no system I have played has successfully balanced magic, and shadowrun is no exception. A shadowrun mage is anything but vulnerable if the player aims to design the character that way. Your 35 dice is busted as hell, but that is not a reflection of you or the character, just the system that allows it. I did the same thing with my Missions character on the opposite end (defense) of the spectrum.
-
Yeah, there is no badfun here. I'm an unrepentant power gamer myself.
The game should not let there be that large of a difference between the floor and the ceiling between PCs. Mages shouldn't be the "Best choice" for every role, and that includes Matrix Support. Quickened Analyzed Device on a Deck? Why not. 10 Logic, 10 Intuition? Easy. On and on it goes.
Magicrun always wins in the end.
But the fact that your character renders the rest of the team optional, and you're playing with 2/3rds your spellbook tied behind your back.... not the best. :D
-
Only way for MagicRun to not win is to set the campaign in Space.
-
Only way for MagicRun to not win is to set the campaign in Space.
They could have uncapped mundane advancement and advanced augmentations over the last 30 years. The augments in 2080 are basically the same as those in 2050. Both could happen in a supplement.
-
Only way for MagicRun to not win is to set the campaign in Space.
They could have uncapped mundane advancement and advanced augmentations over the last 30 years. The augments in 2080 are basically the same as those in 2050. Both could happen in a supplement.
+1