Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: serjio on <04-11-20/0707:50>
-
I wanted to respond to this in the other thread, but I'll put it here instead for Skalchemist.
Overall, I agree with you. Strictly putting aside game mechanics and fun factor, just going with setting, let's look at this from a powerful corps perspective. If you have a team with top of the line firepower raiding one of your facilities, I think the most appropriate response is a quick cost vs. loss analysis. In other words, will it cost you more (money, influence, reputation, whatever) to let the raided site and/or it's assets go or more to launch enough counter firepower to put a stop to the intruders? Other factors will certainly play a part, but in most cases, profit is the bottom line.
https://snaptube.cam/ (https://snaptube.cam/) 9apps (https://9apps.cam/)
Lets look at game mechanics though. In 6e specifically, aoe spells cast even by fairly advanced spellcasters do not come anywhere close to grenades in power or radius. A magic 10 mage casting a fireball, and let's say amped up with +8 drain (4 for 2 damage, 4 to increase the radius to 8m) does 7 damage in an 8m radius. The grenade has a radius of 20m, doing a minimum of 8 damage at the same range as the spell, and much more to poor souls closer. That comparison alone is absurdly out of balance. At the risk of being an ass, I believe so strongly in the indisputable truth of that simple math that I have a very hard time taking anyone who disagrees seriously.
Fun wise, Shadowrun has two traditional styles: trenchcoat and mohawk. Neither is better, both are fun, both fit, it comes down purely to tastes. Setting aside trenchcoat for this conversation, lets focus on mohawk. What do you personally think would be more fun for the players?
-
Personally I believe that Hardened Armor, Grenades and Toxins need to be nerfed down, because of the reduction in soak pools against them yet their damage levels are still the same. I suspect (no evidence though) they were missed in the rebalances that happened during Sixth Edition's development. Having more balanced numbers will also make Mohawk have more fun, since there's no instant-win button available that way.
-
Dead is dead. In Shadowrun, that's typically 10 boxes or so. You can absolutely AOE 10 boxes of damage with two major actions over a significant area. If we're talking about min/maxed mages, they get two Major Actions and toss about 20 dice for Drain out of the gate.
Toxic wave or grenade, doesn't really matter in most cases, still kills 'em dead.
Is 16 more than 10? Absolutely. But 10 is enough to get the job done.
Sorcery is easily the second most powerful PC ability in the game, Conjuring is the only thing better.
Grenades are unsubtle and do one thing. Sorcery is Flexible and in 6th edition is damn near unnoticeable if you want it to be. RAW you can stand in a crowd (or just be invisible) and manaball folks to death and unless there is an Astral observer, nobody will know it's you. And Sorcery typically comes conveniently bundled with Conjuring.
Grenades should be tuned down, so should ItNW. But there is a reason Magicrun is derided around here.
-
Dead is dead. In Shadowrun, that's typically 10 boxes or so. You can absolutely AOE 10 boxes of damage with two major actions over a significant area. If we're talking about min/maxed mages, they get two Major Actions and toss about 20 dice for Drain out of the gate.
Toxic wave or grenade, doesn't really matter in most cases, still kills 'em dead.
Is 16 more than 10? Absolutely. But 10 is enough to get the job done.
Sorcery is easily the second most powerful PC ability in the game, Conjuring is the only thing better.
Grenades are unsubtle and do one thing. Sorcery is Flexible and in 6th edition is damn near unnoticeable if you want it to be. RAW you can stand in a crowd (or just be invisible) and manaball folks to death and unless there is an Astral observer, nobody will know it's you. And Sorcery typically comes conveniently bundled with Conjuring.
Grenades should be tuned down, so should ItNW. But there is a reason Magicrun is derided around here.
The thing about "Magicrun" is that it doesnīt apply to every branch of magic.
- Spirits: Absolutely, especially in combination with the Hardened Armor Copypasta brainfart.
- Manipulation and (some) Health Spells: Absolutely, see below.
- Combat Spells: So far from it.
The Drain levels are so punishing that they simply donīt work out unless you absolutely use the standard "1 Increase Reflexes, 2 Increase Attribute" buff loadout. And the fact this very loadout is still a thing and even encouraged by the changes to Focused Concentration and merging the 8 Increase Attribute spells into one is a huge problem on its own.
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target or made to not affect soak pools. And besides that: Should really everything be balanced about a Drain Soak pool of 20+? Isnīt there such a thing as "casual mages" in this game? Am I supposed to accept that every mage (PC or NPC) that tries to cast a fireball without "proper out of the gate min-maxing" deals more damage to himself then its targets? Whithout 2x Increase Attribute, Combat spells are almost as useless as Alchemy. Itīs shit balancing, plain and simple.
Suggestion:
- Limit Increase Attribute to one spell per target.
- Amping up the Damage of Combat Spells increases the Drain by the same amount, not double the amount. Whatīs that even supposed be, a suicide button? :o
- Indirect Area Combat Spells incur the standard Dodge Penalties for Area Effects (might be RAI? ???)
- Something more reasonable to calculate physical Drain. F.i. "Every point of Drain above Magic/2 (after soaking) goes to the physical condition" monitor.
- Hardened Armor grants additional soak dice, not Autohits.
-
Incidentally, Clout is 3 Drain: Elemental, Physical Damage, AoE all are increases to drain values.
-
To detect a spell being cast is a perception threshold 6 test in 6E. Unless there is an Astral observer or a damn lucky/high perception test made, literally, stand there casting a manaball over and over and over and over. If you can't break a game with the ability to invisibly murder everyone I don't think you're trying.
-
Serjio isn't wrong that grenades are ridiculous.
Hobbes isn't wrong that dead is dead (though I still argue grenades do it much more efficiently, if not subtle). I also agree about the perception threshold for casting being truly terrible.
But stealth manabolts also don't negate the why are grenades autowins situation. One battle at a time! :p
-
Yeah, I'm not sure what the debate is. I've stated Grenades do too much damage in 6e, I don't think you'll find any disagreement there. Just because Grenades do too much damage doesn't negate the very exploitable Magic rules.
Grenades and ItNW should be dialed back. Perceiving Magic should be a much lower threshold. Magic sustains are OP. *shrug* Magicrun has been a serious issue for most of the Shadowrun editions, I'm not sure it'll ever really be "balanced" without changing it to an unrecognizable degree.
-
Not exactly sure how I got name-checked in the first post, but hey, glad to be noticed! :-)
-
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target ...
Wait. What. Since when are you allowed by default to stack the exact same spell more than once on a single subject...??
In the previous edition you had different spells to buff different attributes. The advantage of this was that you could buff more than one attribute per subject. The drawback of this was that you had to learn how to cast (and sustain) each different spell.
In this edition you have only one spell to buff attributes. The advantage of this is that you can buff attributes without learning (and sustaining) more than one spell. The drawback of this is that you can only temporarily raise one of their attributes.
6E p.137 Increase Attribute
The touch of the mage strengthens, speeds, or enlightens the target, temporarily raising one of their attributes. The caster decides which attribute to target before casting the spell.
If you let magicians stack the same buff-spell over and over on the same subject then you will eventually break the game (no matter edition).
-
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target ...
Wait. What. Since when are you allowed by default to stack the exact same spell more than once on a single subject...??
In the previous edition you had different spells to buff different attributes. The advantage of this was that you could buff more than one attribute per subject. The drawback of this was that you had to learn how to cast (and sustain) each different spell.
In this edition you have only one spell to buff attributes. The advantage of this is that you can buff attributes without learning (and sustaining) more than one spell. The drawback of this is that you can only temporarily raise one of their attributes.
6E p.137 Increase Attribute
The touch of the mage strengthens, speeds, or enlightens the target, temporarily raising one of their attributes. The caster decides which attribute to target before casting the spell.
If you let magicians stack the same buff-spell over and over on the same subject then you will eventually break the game (no matter edition).
I agree with you completely here, Xenon.
But, near as I can tell, the prevailing opinion is that if different castings of this same spell give different bonuses, then they can all stack.
But, personally, yes I say frag that. One spell's +4 Willpower overwrites the previous spell's +4 Intuition because they're overlapping instances of the same spell even though the bonuses are different.
-
I disagree. Generally if something gives a +2 to X and a +3 to Y, you get the benefit of both. If a buff gives a +2 to X and a +3 to X, then only the +3 applies.
TM's Resonance is an example of the same buff to different things that changes around. 5E Leadership buffs would also be an example, a Face with multiple actions could easily buff Initiative and skill check on the same person, I don't think anyone would argue the target would have to pick one or the other.
From a balance perspective, I'd like to see it happen. But a limitation like that would need to be explicit in the Spell Description. Ultimately Spells only cost 5 Karma each, so I'm not really sure how much of a Nerf it really is unless there are no other Attribute boosting spells ever printed.
-
With that merge, Increase Attribute should also have been limited to one Attribute per target ...
Wait. What. Since when are you allowed by default to stack the exact same spell more than once on a single subject...??
In the previous edition you had different spells to buff different attributes. The advantage of this was that you could buff more than one attribute per subject. The drawback of this was that you had to learn how to cast (and sustain) each different spell.
In this edition you have only one spell to buff attributes. The advantage of this is that you can buff attributes without learning (and sustaining) more than one spell. The drawback of this is that you can only temporarily raise one of their attributes.
6E p.137 Increase Attribute
The touch of the mage strengthens, speeds, or enlightens the target, temporarily raising one of their attributes. The caster decides which attribute to target before casting the spell.
If you let magicians stack the same buff-spell over and over on the same subject then you will eventually break the game (no matter edition).
Well, Iīd be damn happy if it turns out that what I presumed a houserule for Increase Attribute turns out to be RAI all along. It would be just the right counterweight to the increased versatility of the spell.
The current consesus seems to be no, though. Hence the talk about the 20+ Drain Pool benchmark.
-
But, personally, yes I say frag that. One spell's +4 Willpower overwrites the previous spell's +4 Intuition because they're overlapping instances of the same spell even though the bonuses are different.
The reason I disagree with that is that what was likely done as a simplification and small buff of the system, now has turned into a punishment instead, because a player is not given a choice or alternative. Basically you're saying 'Frag you, you'll just have to wait for the Magic book to arrive so you can make custom spells to get past this arbitrary introduction I'm introducing just because I dislike Mages'. That seems like an unfair act which seems purely motivated by anti-mage hate, while not publicly indicating that, thus tainting newcomers their view on what they should use as rules.
Also: What's the benefit? You're basically nerfing the entire spell just to prevent mages from buffing 2 attributes, all because of a single Quality? If you care about that quality so much, why aren't you nerfing that in your houserules, instead of ruining a buff-tactic and buff-builds?
-
Because in my subjective opinion based on local anecdotal experiences, buff builds are OP. For example, I never got why conventional wisdom says TMs suck when they just get +4 to all their ASDF stats. It doesn't even inconvenience the caster, because he summoned a Force 9 Spirit of Man to cast and sustain the necessary buffs to get there. Now that you can have as many Spirits of Kin as you want, Focused Concentration is almost a trap of a karma investment (assuming you can summon).
Now, as I said, I recognize that the prevailing opinion seems to be to let them stack. I was just airing my own personal views :D I do take solace in how easy it is to knock spells down now via Dispelling. THAT helps reduce the Increase Attribute stat inflation. And that in turn gives more value to paying nuyen/essence for stat boosts via augmentations.
-
A Force 9 Kindred Spirit rolls 18 dice, so even if you use Edge against it, with 18 dice you'd still have only about ~50% chance to score services. And the drain is very dangerous, resisting nearly-6 drain on average will hurt a lot. And it's not as many as you want, if you have Magic 9 you're still capped at only 3, that's what, 6 buff-spells max? With Magic 6 you'd be able to only get 2, which means 4 buff spells if you're lucky.
Also, TMs are nice, but a Decker or Rigger will get less benefit from Increase Attribute spells, and a Street Sam is screwed, due to the threshold depending on your Essence.
I rolled 8 hits on 10 dice 2x in 6 summons, the Mage really regretted that.
-
You don't need force 9 any more. 6 force 3 spirits cast and sustain 6 spells, rather than the lone F9's 3.
Edit: Actually, forgot to factor in that 1 spell now buffs EVERY attribute. So, yeah. A single F6 is probably enough to suck all those sustaining penalties and buff bot all by itself.
-
And the Force 3's should have enough services that you can simply re-roll the bad buff rolls until you're happy. And such small drain you can simply re-summon if you get a long string of bad rolls.
And if you're a Hermetic using and abusing Analytical mind you're actually generating Edge. Even without Analytical mind Spirit Affinity and a complimentary Mentor Spirit bonus will go a long way. Stack all three and that Force 9 isn't really that big of a deal if you can re-roll several of the GM hits for no net cost of Edge. Re-roll most, if not all, of them if you're willing to toss a few of your own chips in.
Then once play starts and you actually get around to bonding your Foci... Force 9 with 4+ Services and a horde of Force 3's buffing it. Wheeee! Stompy! Stomp! Stomp! Oh, did the rest of you want to play? Sorry, Mage won at chargen because I can turn invisible and move 90 Meters with a minor action and cast undetectable spells. Hope the GM remembered to put up some big wards.
-
Heh. A house rule I've always fantasized about using in 5e is to cap all dice pools at 18. Hard cap. No exceptions. None. Never had the chance to really try it though, since I play SRM. It'd shift system mastery from "how big a dice pool can I get" to "how many different dice pools of 18 can I get". And IMO the game would be immensely more balanced/fun.
Such a house rule still might work (or be needed, depending on POV) in 6we, too. Heh.
-
The sustaining penalties would make it impossible for a single spirit to handle all those buffs.
-
Concealment (effectively Invisibility in 6E) and Movement, two services from the Force 9 leaving you a couple to do terrible things. Multiple Force 3's sustaining Increased Reflexes on the Mage and the Force 9 Spirit. Whatever sustain the mage may get from Focused Concentration and leftover Force 3's for whatever other buffs you want. You'd only need Focused Concentration 2 to handle your two drain stats, or just be patient. Whatever minor buffs the little guys manage are gravy.
Seems easily doable out of the gate. Likely with very little to no Drain or Edge costs. I'm willing to be wrong, but it looks achievable.
-
But, personally, yes I say frag that. One spell's +4 Willpower overwrites the previous spell's +4 Intuition because they're overlapping instances of the same spell even though the bonuses are different.
The reason I disagree with that is that what was likely done as a simplification and small buff of the system, now has turned into a punishment instead, because a player is not given a choice or alternative. Basically you're saying 'Frag you, you'll just have to wait for the Magic book to arrive so you can make custom spells to get past this arbitrary introduction I'm introducing just because I dislike Mages'. That seems like an unfair act which seems purely motivated by anti-mage hate, while not publicly indicating that, thus tainting newcomers their view on what they should use as rules.
Also: What's the benefit? You're basically nerfing the entire spell just to prevent mages from buffing 2 attributes, all because of a single Quality? If you care about that quality so much, why aren't you nerfing that in your houserules, instead of ruining a buff-tactic and buff-builds?
Who says that the specialized versions of the spell should return in a supplement? Kinda defeats the whole point.
Itīs not about "punishing mages", itīs about putting a stop to
- That 20+ Soak dice Benchmark (which would also allow for more reasonable Drain levels)
- Putting a stop to every mage having an almost identical set of "must-have" spells.
TBH, I donīt really think that Focused Concentration is that overpowered. There are other ways of removing sustaining penalties. The problem is and always has been the option to add +8 Drain dice with just two (and now, just one) spell. Itīs a no-brainer setup. Itīs the Magicrun equivalent of Attributes A at chargen. Since the previous 4th Edition, every "properly build" mage absolutetely needed to have Increase Willpower, Increase [Drain Attribute], Increase Reflexes, plus the necessary Fokus/Qualites/Spirit loadout to keep it sustained. And itīs this standard "morning routine" buff setup that turned drain into a joke in 5th Edition and lead to the punishing drain levels of 6th Edition, where a mage will likely deal more damage with a Fireball to himself then to its targets.
On the other hand, I actually like the fact that the versatility of Increase Attribute had been increased by merging the 8 different Spells together - as long as its restricted to one spell per target. Thatīs a fair deal and also scratches an itch that has been itching since 2 Editions.
How is that "ruining mages"? Talking about hyperbole here. Itīs a legitimate restriction that every other buff spell already has (and thus, might actually have been RAI after all). It only nerfs one overused tactic, but at the same time, it makes space for more interesting options. It adds an incentive for mages to either use a more diverse self-buff loadout and/or spreading their share managable Increase Attribute spells over different party members. Hooray for the new versatility! Everyone gets the buff they need! Is that really so unappealing? In fact, Increase Attribute would still be a must-have even with the added restriction. And if somethingīs a must-have even in its "nerfed" state, thatīs very good sign that said nerf is justified.
-
I do take solace in how easy it is to knock spells down now via Dispelling. THAT helps reduce the Increase Attribute stat inflation. And that in turn gives more value to paying nuyen/essence for stat boosts via augmentations.
I agree that in 5e magic buffs were entirely too good, but the dispel friendly rules of 6e, combined with the lack of good buff options present, really makes it a non issue. For example, your 5e god mages have gone from sustained / quickened:
Armor
Astral Armor
Combat Sense
Deflection
Detect Life, Extended
[Element] Aura
Hawkeye
Increase Attribute x7
Increase Reflexes
Levitate
Oxygenate
Prophylaxis
Radiation Shield
Spatial Sense, Extended
. . .that was very hard to dispel and probably caused you to explode if you did manage to, to:
Increase Attribute x7
Increase Reflexes
. . .that probably has roughly even chances of successfully being dispelled, and not exploding from the drain of doing so to boot.
-
I don't think Dispelling is by any means "Easy". Magic plus Sorcery is typically 12 dice, vs. Double the Drain value of the spell. Net hits reduce hits on the spell. It'll typically take multiple actions to knock out something like Increased Reflexes. Increased Attribute, even with 2 hits, is going to resist with 10 dice.
Dispelling is going to take multiple Major Actions to remove a single sustained spell most of the time (Edge/Good rolls/Bad rolls notwithstanding). That's worse action economy than hacking in combat.
You could probably re-cast the buffs faster than the other mage could knock them down in many cases.
While you can certainly build an NPC mage specialized in Dispelling and get a large enough dice pool to knock out most sustains with just one Major Action, you're still just breaking even as far as Action Economy goes. I'll take that exchange every time. Knock out a couple buff spells instead of a pair of Fireballs into the team or summoning and ordering a high Force Spirit to do terrible things? Done.
18 Dice specialized into Dispelling instead of melting faces? As a player I'm calling that a win.
Granted, Dispelling is better than it was in 5e, but it's still not a "good" tactical option in most cases. Mind Control/Fireball/Conjure a Spirit are still more worrisome as a PC.
-
Increase attribute's drain value caps out at drain 6 (12 dice), and increase reflexes 8 (16 dice). Few other spells are worth bothering to sustain or quicken at present. So sure, at char gen level, your odds are 50/50 or a bit worse, but that math quickly favors the dispeller as characters advance.
But yeah, I agree. Why dispel when you can incapacitate or kill? If you have that option it is superior. In some cases, you may need to axe the buffs before you can reliably hit or effect a character though. This is less likely in 6e than 5e, but can still happen with certain builds.
-
I tend to look at things from the lens of being on the GM side of things.
Will players find dispelling something they're better off doing rather often? Granted, no.
Will security mages have great use for dispelling buffs off the players? Hells to the yes. Especially since the whole planar barrier/grounding thing is almost completely undefined in this edition. Not only is it perfectly legal, it might even be intended for an astrally projecting mage to just keep picking spells off intruders. If you want to do something about it to stop him, you have to start perceiving/projecting yourself, and thereby open yourself up to attack...
-
So the general consensus seem to be that not only would it be OK to cast the Improved Attribute spell up to 8 times on the same subject, during one single test you would also not have to pick and choose which Improved Attribute spell to use and they would all stack with each other at all times with no restrictions at all. That if someone shoot at you, you would benefit from both Improved Attribute spell that increased Reaction as well as Improved Attribute spell that increased Intuition. And when you later soak the damage against the same attack you also benefit from Improved Attribute spell that increased Body. If you resist drain from a spell you would benefit from both Improved Attribute spell that increased Willpower as well as Improved Attribute that increased the Tradition attribute at the same time in the same test.
I guess this also mean you agree that it would be OK to freely stack the same Elemental Armor Spell multiple times on the same target as well, potentially granting immunity to burning status (as well as extra DR), immunity to zapped status effect (as well as extra DR), immunity to the corrosive status effect (as well as extra DR) and immunity to the chilled status effect (as well as extra DR) - all at the same time. That not only can you have the same affecting you multiple times, you also don't have to pick or choose one of them at any give defense situation, they all just simply stack...?
Interesting... :-)
Time to update my post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29993.msg524173#msg524173) in the House Rule thread.
-
Unless you can quote the explicit point where someone said 'multicasting Elemental Armor with different elements on someone, means stacking the DR boosts', it's a rotten debate trick to claim that's what they meant. If you want to have a fair debate, you know better than to put words in people's mouths. Hyperbole to try to make your point, doesn't suit you at all and is a Reddit move, not a decent move.
-
Nasty debate aside, I can't wait for spell modification. I really would prefer being able to stack multiple Elemental Heals into a single spell. And at least spell modification will take care of this whole 'but it's the same spell!' nonsense.
-
So the general consensus seem to be that not only would it be OK to cast the Improved Attribute spell up to 8 times on the same subject, during one single test you would also not have to pick and choose which Improved Attribute spell to use and they would all stack with each other at all times with no restrictions at all. That if someone shoot at you, you would benefit from both Improved Attribute spell that increased Reaction as well as Improved Attribute spell that increased Intuition. And when you later soak the damage against the same attack you also benefit from Improved Attribute spell that increased Body. If you resist drain from a spell you would benefit from both Improved Attribute spell that increased Willpower as well as Improved Attribute that increased the Tradition attribute at the same time in the same test.
I guess this also mean you agree that it would be OK to freely stack the same Elemental Armor Spell multiple times on the same target as well, potentially granting immunity to burning status (as well as extra DR), immunity to zapped status effect (as well as extra DR), immunity to the corrosive status effect (as well as extra DR) and immunity to the chilled status effect (as well as extra DR) - all at the same time. That not only can you have the same affecting you multiple times, you also don't have to pick or choose one of them at any give defense situation, they all just simply stack...?
Interesting... :-)
Time to update my post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29993.msg524173#msg524173) in the House Rule thread.
If you cast Elemental Armor 4 times picking a different element each time you have the four elemental protections and you buff you Defensive Rating by whatever the highest total was. Increase Attribute (targeting Reaction) and Increase Reflexes stack up to the +4 Augmentation limit, pretty sure they did in 5e too.
The general rule seems to be: Same Buff improving different things all work together. Same buff on the same thing, pick the best. Different buffs on the same thing, stack unless the description says otherwise.
-
What Hobbes said. Past that, unless I have overlooked or forgotten something, Shadowrun 6e has very simple and specific general rules on what does not stack: attribute augmentation past +4 and skill augmentation past +4. That's it.
There are some specific case rules regarding things that do not stack written in the description of specific items, such as bone density not stacking with other bone modification, or muscle toner being incompatible with any other agility augmentation, but all of those specific cases are noted.
By RAW, I don't even see any wording that says you can't stack the same instance of the same spell with itself, such as 4 casts of combat sense stacking.
Personally I don't think the same instance of the same spell should stack with itself (no armor twice, but increase attribute of two different stats yes), but that is simple not what the rules state, so unless I missed appropriate language tucked away to prevent that somewhere, until errata occurs (sigh. . .), it works by the rule set, though your GM can house rule otherwise. The same thing applies to cyberlimb armor - it stacks into infinity. Not even initiative has a general rule of not stacking anymore, although most of the articles that increase state a specific rule preventing it.
-
Even if it does in this instance I'm not sure its that big of a deal. The first armor spell most likely got your character to the will earn edge vs most attacks stage. There is some value in making sure you get edge but covering most things is probably enough. Your DR has a serious diminishing return on its improvement.
-
I agree. Off the top of my head I can't think of a spell that would get especially broken stacking with itself, but it is quite possible I am overlooking something by not pouring over the book again before saying that.
Still, I'd prefer to see a ruling of only the best instance applying, simply as protection for the eventual power creep that comes to every game as source books continue to expand options.
-
agreed that a rule like that would be good future proofing and just generally a solid idea, though this is more of a closing the barn door after the escaped situation with SRs balance.