Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: GloriousRuse on <09-26-12/1854:08>

Title: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: GloriousRuse on <09-26-12/1854:08>
We all know magic has plenty of "I wins" against technology. How do you level the playing field against those remarkably common allegedly rare magicians using toys and trinkets?

Topics of note:

Infiltration: How do you stop the "hah ha, you have an aura, so screw you and your infil skill?" And other tips and techniques

Surveillance: Detecting those Invisible, Concealed, Masked SOBs..using portable tech.

Survivability:

Spirit Defeat

Operational Level Evasion

Killing the feckers




Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-26-12/1908:17>
Infiltration: Drones don't have an aura, and mages tend to have better things to be doing that constantly observing astral.
Surveillance: Ultrasound defeats anything but Silence. Ultrawideband Radar defeats most forms of stealth. Olfactory Sensors can detect them though virtually anything.
Survivability: Not sure what you mean here. Tanking their attacks? Not easy. Better just to detect and shoot them first.
Spirit Defeat: Shot them. Shoot them lots. With Full Bursts and Assault Cannons.
Operational Level Evasion: Again, not sure what you mean. Avoiding wagemages? Just come by when they aren't around. They usually have better things to be doing. You can detect and kill watchers with FAB III grenades.
Killing Them: Shoot them. Shoot them lots. Stay hidden until you can ambush them, or use indirect fire. If they can't perceive you using natural/magic senses, they can't target you. Remember that a mage perceiving astral can't see that drone you have sneaking up on him.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: GloriousRuse on <09-26-12/1928:43>
For infil, I was thinking more of getting a runner in some place, not specifically killifying.And obviously whacking a spirit tends to produce interest.

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Decade Rider on <09-26-12/1934:06>
Even if the mage "is" astrally percepting he still got a blindspot aka attack him from behind be fast and hit hard. If heavy melee or weapons aint an option for you go for stun damg aka taser with a good shot there isa good chance he will cast weaker spell rather then risk knocking himself out
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-26-12/1942:10>
A mage simply seeing your aura doesn't mean that your cover is blown. Auras don't tell identity unless the mage gets at least 2 hits on his assensing test, which requires them to be currently perceiving astral; something mages are not always doing. You can also hide in greenery or amongst other living things to avoid notice. Watchers are pretty stupid, only useful for keeping people out of restricted areas. They are very unlikely to recognize auras, or even faces.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: White_Knight on <09-26-12/1950:01>
For Spirit Defeat: Lasers, Gauss, Stick and Shock ammo, APDS, silver or other exotic material bullets
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Decade Rider on <09-26-12/1952:39>
Laser and Gauss? What you think you can pick those at wal-mart or something :P
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <09-26-12/2001:31>
Laser and Gauss? What you think you can pick those at wal-mart or something :P

In the context of Missions, you should always find an excuse to have a 6/6 contact that can get you that kind of stuff... so, yeah, you can, with a bit of a mark-up on the list price.

In regular play, it's just a matter of grinding out the availability test and tipping your Face for the legwork.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-26-12/2138:02>
For Spirit Defeat: Lasers, Gauss, Stick and Shock ammo, APDS, silver or other exotic material bullets
Actually, none of these (except maybe silver, against some things) are particularly effective. Spirit armor on the physical plane comes from Immunity to Normal Weapons, granted by Materialization. Immunity armor is hardened.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <09-26-12/2151:34>
For Spirit Defeat: Lasers, Gauss, Stick and Shock ammo, APDS, silver or other exotic material bullets
Actually, none of these (except maybe silver, against some things) are particularly effective. Spirit armor on the physical plane comes from Immunity to Normal Weapons, granted by Materialization. Immunity armor is hardened.

It's still affected by Armor Penetration, though, and Lasers, Gauss Weapons, and SnS all apply AP 1/2 (1/2 - X for Gauss) against it.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-26-12/2223:52>
It's still affected by Armor Penetration, though, and Lasers, Gauss Weapons, and SnS all apply AP 1/2 (1/2 - X for Gauss) against it.
Huh. So it does. I wonder where I got the idea that AP doesn't work on hardened armor...
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: TheNarrator on <09-26-12/2233:54>
Immunity to Normal Weapons works like all other armor. With powerful weapons, called shots for +4 DV, lots of hits on the attack roll and high AP ammo, you can punch right through it.

As for Infiltration, while Astral Perception will negate the advantage of a reuthenium stealth suit, they still can't see through solid objects and they still need to succeed at a Perception test to spot you. Mages don't always keep their Perception skill and Intuition stat up to snuff, whereas the infiltrator might have very good Stealth skills and enhancements to Agility. Mages and spirits can be snuck up on or snuck past. You just don't get as many advantages as you do against mundanes.

Surviving a mage attack without a mage on your team to provide counterspelling is probably the hardest part. Direct Combat mana spells are low Drain and you only get Willpower to resist. Really easy to get popped in one hit.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-26-12/2254:14>
Pain Editors allows you to stay conscious at maxed out Stun track, giving some resistance to Stunbolt cheese.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <09-27-12/0638:32>
Infiltration: As was stated earlier, mages can't always be on the prowl, and even roving spirits must have some kind of search parameters to key on. That means legwork is your best friend there. Once you know what the mages and spirits look for, the best way in is to blend in, and not give them a reason to assense you.

Surveillance: Ultrawideband Radar or Ultrasound sensor. Explicitly works against Invisibility.

Spirit Defeat: Big guns, APDS ammo, going off weaknesses, overlapping grenades, MRSI, whatever it takes. In other words, put a big enough hole in it to overcome ITNW.

Killing the feckers: See above, except without the reference to ITNW. Remember, geek the mage first.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mäx on <09-27-12/0640:47>
Even if the mage "is" astrally percepting he still got a blindspot aka attack him from behind be fast and hit hard. If heavy melee or weapons aint an option for you go for stun damg aka taser with a good shot there isa good chance he will cast weaker spell rather then risk knocking himself out
Or he'l overcast very powerfull spells, as that doesn't cause stun damage ;)
Pain Editors allows you to stay conscious at maxed out Stun track, giving some resistance to Stunbolt cheese.
Well all it does is that you wont go unconscious in the first IP, but die from overflow in the second IP ;D
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Halancar on <09-27-12/0657:02>
Infiltration: How do you stop the "hah ha, you have an aura, so screw you and your infil skill?" And other tips and techniques

As mentioned before, the mage still has to see you. As in, have line of sight. You did remember to crawl through the ventilator shaft, duck behind the desk, and gecko crawl on the ceiling where he wasn't looking ? if you have a high infiltration skill, you certainly did. Remember, solid objects have shadows in the astral, so they block line of sight, at least to some extent.

Surveillance: Detecting those Invisible, Concealed, Masked SOBs..using portable tech.

Ultrasound sensor, Olfactory sensor, Radar and Ultrawide band radar... they are way cheaper than learning the improved invisibility spell ! Take two or three together, don't forget the cheap trideo camera, even if they have custom spells against these they'd have to be sustaining four or more together, which is bound to limit their other abilities (or else they invested a fortune in sustaining foci. But then if they have more resources then you do, then they are better, you'll just have to hope for a mistake).

Spirit Defeat

If your little gun doesn't work, then you need a bigger gun. There's also attacks of will, roll Willpower + Banishing (if any) and do (Charisma) P damage.

Operational Level Evasion
Not sure what you mean.

Killing the feckers

Sniper bullet to the back of the head at 1,000 meters. Generally speaking, shooting first. If you are close, time for a smoke grenade, you're bound to be better at fighting blind than they are.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-27-12/1413:52>
Remember also that mages can't target spells through technological sensors unless they are integrated into cybereyes (vision enhancements only, at that). They generally have to rely on natural senses, meaning normal vision, maybe low light or thermographic. Mages can't target you through astral sight unless you are dual-natured. This means a mage in a Thermal Smoke cloud is borked.

Edit: Though a mage with cybereye vision magnification could be a terror.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WhackedMaki on <09-27-12/1446:10>
Remember also that mages can't target spells through technological sensors unless they are integrated into cybereyes (vision enhancements only, at that). They generally have to rely on natural senses, meaning normal vision, maybe low light or thermographic. Mages can't target you through astral sight unless you are dual-natured. This means a mage in a Thermal Smoke cloud is borked.

Edit: Though a mage with cybereye vision magnification could be a terror.

They can attack you through astral sight, as long as they're still physical. If they go to astrally projecting, they can't target you. As long as they're physical though, they can hurt anything that's physical in any way. There's also magesight goggles (I think they're called that, away from books ATM) that they can use to target without direct LoS, but they take a negative to it.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-27-12/1455:52>
They can attack you through astral sight, as long as they're still physical.
Nevermind. So they can. Your average mage doesn't go around with his astral sight up, though, so unless you tip him off to your presence, he probably won't notice you.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <09-28-12/1802:51>
They can attack you through astral sight, as long as they're still physical.
Nevermind. So they can. Your average mage doesn't go around with his astral sight up, though, so unless you tip him off to your presence, he probably won't notice you.
Maybe not your average mage, but the shadowrunners that live longest tend to be the ones that anticipate their enemies paranoia. I would also say that a wagemage is more than likely to be conducting regular astral patrols of an area or building, he could even have a few watchers up and about.

As far as the smoke goes, even though a mage may not be astrally perceiving when it pops, most combat trained mages w ill switch to astral as soon as they can.  One who values his life will duck for cover as well.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-28-12/1827:28>
Actually, another question: How much non-living material can Astral Vision pierce?

I always run it as though you can see a short distance through a small amount of material (so hiding behind a thin wall or in a box isn't going to work), but can't see too much beyond that, or through any sort of thick material.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: FuelDrop on <09-28-12/2030:24>
could someone please give me the page number for 'cannot target mundanes while astral projecting'?
thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-28-12/2041:30>
could someone please give me the page number for 'cannot target mundanes while astral projecting'?
thanks in advance.
SR4A p193
"...the character cannot physically interact with anything..."
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: FuelDrop on <09-28-12/2055:20>
Ta
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <09-28-12/2342:37>
Actually, another question: How much non-living material can Astral Vision pierce?

I always run it as though you can see a short distance through a small amount of material (so hiding behind a thin wall or in a box isn't going to work), but can't see too much beyond that, or through any sort of thick material.
Actually, all physical objects cast shadows on the astral. A pane of glass is just as effective a hinderance to astral sight as a 10m wide wall of plascrete.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: CanRay on <09-28-12/2345:14>
Taser.  Repeat current until magician gets the idea that casting is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <09-29-12/0019:45>
Taser.  Repeat current until magician gets the idea that casting is a bad idea.
FA Belt fed Assault cannon. Hold trigger until ammo is expended.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-29-12/0048:54>
Actually, all physical objects cast shadows on the astral. A pane of glass is just as effective a hinderance to astral sight as a 10m wide wall of plascrete.
In which case, wagemages are unlikely to be personally doing the assensing rounds, in any case, so all you'd have to trick are his spirits.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <09-29-12/0053:11>
And remember, watchers are stupid as all getout.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: CanRay on <09-29-12/0128:37>
And remember, watchers are stupid as all getout.
That's putting it mildly.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Orvich on <09-29-12/1027:04>
Though as  a GM I'd rule that anything that doesn't break LOS in the physical plane (like a pane of glass) would break it in astral, provided the target is other-wise targetable (has an astral form).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <09-29-12/1117:39>
Anything can be used for cover on the astral plane. Living things give off their aura which blocks LoS. Non-living things are opaque and give off shadow. Glass, water, plastics, etc. that are transparent physically most assuredly block astral LoS. That's why ghouls stick to the underground in seattle...it's always raining shadows.  ;D
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Orvich on <09-29-12/1127:53>
Well no. Shadows of things that are transparent normally specifically only impair astral vision, not block it.

From Street Magic pg 114:
Quote
Items that are transparent or mirrored in the real world  (like a car window) simply impair visibility as astral shadows.

In other words, not all shadows are opaque. Some of them are as the name suggests, merely shadows. Looking through a window on the astral plane would show the outside world, just through a thin grey film, like a claritin commercial.

The table on the same page indicates that there is a -1 to -4 penalty for 'shadow clutter', which presumably applies here. I'm saying that if I were a GM, I'd rule that a single window pane was only a -1 visibility penalty! Or less, situationally, as the shadow clutter visibility impairment is apparently intended for use when your target is moving about in a field full of parked busses (or something like that).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <09-29-12/1148:32>
Fun fact:  Mirrors work just fine for targetting spells.  Both in the physical and the astral.

Go nuts.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mäx on <09-29-12/1231:07>
Fun fact:  Mirrors work just fine for targetting spells.  Both in the physical and the astral.

Go nuts.
But always remember that a fireball doesn't bounce of a mirror, it explodes right there.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <09-29-12/1239:00>
But always remember that a fireball doesn't bounce of a mirror, it explodes right there.
But Lasers do!
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <09-30-12/1516:03>
Spells don't "bounce" off mirrors.  They follow the direct path to the target, ignoring intervening obstacles, except in the case of indirect spells.  Indirect damage spells conjure up an effect (ball of fire) and travel across the intervening distance in the physical world.  So in the case of casting a spell at a target on the other side of a wall using a mirror, think of it like this:

(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j204/The_Gun_Nut/MirrorTarget_zps8b28c859.jpg)
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Orvich on <09-30-12/1530:15>
No one said they did! There was only talk of targeting via mirrors, and the quip that fireballs don't bounce of mirrors (Which is entirely true!).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-01-12/1243:25>
It was implied in the text.  Just clarifying.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Black on <10-03-12/0358:19>
And remember, watchers are stupid as all getout.
That's putting it mildly.

Which is why my guys use their actual bound spirits for astral scouting.  Watchers are at best look outs for mundanes (tell me when someone who looks like x arrives) or annoyances and distractions.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-04-12/1735:39>
Well, my question is whether you're asking as a runner, or as a security guard, i.e. player or GM.  Answering #2 from a GM perspective, I give you the following:

A Zero-Zone with a monowire network.

Astral shadows are well and good, and a high sneakery rating is great too - but when you get down to it, the invisible masked adept whatever has still got to put his foot down somewhere in the 30m stretch of ground between fence-lines.  Drop a mathematically-erratic webwork of monowire in there, keep it only 1-2cm off the ground, and watch your stealthy ninja slice his foot apart.  Physically link the monowire ends to an alarm system, so if he's wearing boots that are for some reason impervious to wonderful Monowire Slicing Action, then the slight pushing down will trigger the alerts.

Alternately, 'seed' it with 'technorazor grass'.  10cm grass-sized monowire-edged and -tipped blade that juts out of its holder.  When not receiving the 'arm/disarm' signal, at least half of them default to jutting out; alternately, have them only accept a short-range (2m) signal normally found on their lawn mowers and security guards.  Place in a 1.5 to 2cm hex pattern, set at the same height the grass is kept.  They see security strolling across the ground, they decide it's safe ...

Remember, don't defeat the magic; defeat what the magic can't cover all at once.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-04-12/1831:46>
Well, my question is whether you're asking as a runner, or as a security guard, i.e. player or GM.  Answering #2 from a GM perspective, I give you the following:

A Zero-Zone with a monowire network.

Astral shadows are well and good, and a high sneakery rating is great too - but when you get down to it, the invisible masked adept whatever has still got to put his foot down somewhere in the 30m stretch of ground between fence-lines.  Drop a mathematically-erratic webwork of monowire in there, keep it only 1-2cm off the ground, and watch your stealthy ninja slice his foot apart.  Physically link the monowire ends to an alarm system, so if he's wearing boots that are for some reason impervious to wonderful Monowire Slicing Action, then the slight pushing down will trigger the alerts.

Alternately, 'seed' it with 'technorazor grass'.  10cm grass-sized monowire-edged and -tipped blade that juts out of its holder.  When not receiving the 'arm/disarm' signal, at least half of them default to jutting out; alternately, have them only accept a short-range (2m) signal normally found on their lawn mowers and security guards.  Place in a 1.5 to 2cm hex pattern, set at the same height the grass is kept.  They see security strolling across the ground, they decide it's safe ...

Remember, don't defeat the magic; defeat what the magic can't cover all at once.

You're forgetting one other thing: Auto-turrets (yes, plural) armed with grenade launchers set to spray the area where an alarm goes off.

I'd suggest loading them with Freeze-Foam... not to be "merciful", but because it's the least likely to compromise your defenses to further attacks before you can clear out the grid.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-04-12/1903:19>
Just remember that you can't mask as 'nothing' - generally you have to mask as something substantial.  Which means you're still spot-able.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: nmap on <10-06-12/1828:41>
Smoke grenades are pretty close to "technological defeat of magic" and they are only few nuyens each. Make it thermal smoke if you're facing a cybermage, wear a chamelen suit, ultrasound sensor and a monowire sword, and walk softly. He cannot kill what he cannot see and power has (probably) blinded him long ago. Grenade launchers work well too, mages tend to be weaker on dodge (no reaction 6+ like a proper streetsam), grenades have that annoying -2 to dodge for being area effect, so they get to know how it feels being hit by a fireball.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WhackedMaki on <10-06-12/1839:43>
Smoke grenades are pretty close to "technological defeat of magic" and they are only few nuyens each. Make it thermal smoke if you're facing a cybermage, wear a chamelen suit, ultrasound sensor and a monowire sword, and walk softly. He cannot kill what he cannot see and power has (probably) blinded him long ago. Grenade launchers work well too, mages tend to be weaker on dodge (no reaction 6+ like a proper streetsam), grenades have that annoying -2 to dodge for being area effect, so they get to know how it feels being hit by a fireball.

Then they turn on their astral sight... and Manabolt you anyway. As long as they're still in their bodies, they can still hit you.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-06-12/1944:04>
Smoke grenades are pretty close to "technological defeat of magic" and they are only few nuyens each. Make it thermal smoke if you're facing a cybermage, wear a chamelen suit, ultrasound sensor and a monowire sword, and walk softly. He cannot kill what he cannot see and power has (probably) blinded him long ago. Grenade launchers work well too, mages tend to be weaker on dodge (no reaction 6+ like a proper streetsam), grenades have that annoying -2 to dodge for being area effect, so they get to know how it feels being hit by a fireball.

Then they turn on their astral sight... and Manabolt you anyway. As long as they're still in their bodies, they can still hit you.

Which is why you kill them before they know you're there. Or instead mix in one of those 'Petite Broume' or however it is spelled grenades from Arsenal that imposes visibility mods on the astral. Most mages don't walk around constantly watching the astral, afterall. Don't give them a reason to look until it is too late.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-07-12/0105:18>
Use some FAB ...
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-07-12/0151:40>
Use some FAB ...

Was just about to suggest that. Specifically FAB-IIb, which increases the Threshold of all Assensing tests by 2. That means they need to get 3 hits on Assensing just to be able to see you with Astral Sight, while regular vision only takes a -2 penalty for Light Mist.

Also, they'd have a short "shelf life", but you could probably mix a unit of FAB-IIb and a unit of FAB Nutrients into a smoke grenade to get the double whammy going.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-07-12/0444:38>
It really does come down to information - knowing what you're going up against.  In the immortal words of GI Joe, "Knowing is half the battle."
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-07-12/1314:54>
The hard part is spotting the mage before you get cooked.  I don't mean physically seeing her/him, I mean identifying the target as a mage in the first place.  This isn't like trope laden fantasy settings where the mage is always walking around wearing robes and carrying a staff.  The mage is wearing the same armor as everyone else on his team and is carrying the same weapon they are because that is the smart thing to do.

Hell, the mage could use the visual sights on his weapon to get a better look at you to target you, and you would be just as dead as if he pulled the trigger.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: CanRay on <10-07-12/1450:29>
It really does come down to information - knowing what you're going up against.  In the immortal words of GI Joe, "Knowing is half the battle."
From what I remember of the cartoon, the other half seems to be violence.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-07-12/1455:25>
It really does come down to information - knowing what you're going up against.  In the immortal words of GI Joe, "Knowing is half the battle."
From what I remember of the cartoon, the other half seems to be violence.
In which visible laser weapons blow up vehicles in a single shot, and yet leave the pilots completely unharmed.

The hard part is spotting the mage before you get cooked.  I don't mean physically seeing her/him, I mean identifying the target as a mage in the first place.  This isn't like trope laden fantasy settings where the mage is always walking around wearing robes and carrying a staff.  The mage is wearing the same armor as everyone else on his team and is carrying the same weapon they are because that is the smart thing to do.

Hell, the mage could use the visual sights on his weapon to get a better look at you to target you, and you would be just as dead as if he pulled the trigger.
Not quite true, Gunny. A corpsec mage will often have some trapping of his tradition on his person (especially if they use fetishes, foci, or talismans), and their armor will often be lighter, since the mage doesn't spend as much time with the physical training as the guy carrying the LMG on a gyromount. They also have a higher likelihood of bringing melee weapons to the party, for their use as weapon foci, among other things. So if you see a squad of boys in heavy milspec, and one guy in light milspec, with a sword at his side, then kill him first. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but in general mages and hackers tend to make themselves stand out, especially as the gunbunnies start doing their thing.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: beowulf_of_wa on <10-07-12/1825:59>
It really does come down to information - knowing what you're going up against.  In the immortal words of GI Joe, "Knowing is half the battle."
From what I remember of the cartoon, the other half seems to be violence.
In which visible laser weapons blow up vehicles in a single shot, and yet leave the pilots completely unharmed.

anti-tech weaponry in a non-cyber world. ok, very limited cyber.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-08-12/1314:47>
It really does come down to information - knowing what you're going up against.  In the immortal words of GI Joe, "Knowing is half the battle."
From what I remember of the cartoon, the other half seems to be violence.
In which visible laser weapons blow up vehicles in a single shot, and yet leave the pilots completely unharmed.

The hard part is spotting the mage before you get cooked.  I don't mean physically seeing her/him, I mean identifying the target as a mage in the first place.  This isn't like trope laden fantasy settings where the mage is always walking around wearing robes and carrying a staff.  The mage is wearing the same armor as everyone else on his team and is carrying the same weapon they are because that is the smart thing to do.

Hell, the mage could use the visual sights on his weapon to get a better look at you to target you, and you would be just as dead as if he pulled the trigger.
Not quite true, Gunny. A corpsec mage will often have some trapping of his tradition on his person (especially if they use fetishes, foci, or talismans), and their armor will often be lighter, since the mage doesn't spend as much time with the physical training as the guy carrying the LMG on a gyromount. They also have a higher likelihood of bringing melee weapons to the party, for their use as weapon foci, among other things. So if you see a squad of boys in heavy milspec, and one guy in light milspec, with a sword at his side, then kill him first. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but in general mages and hackers tend to make themselves stand out, especially as the gunbunnies start doing their thing.
That is absolutely not true.  Still a trope from fantasy.

The security folks will physically train the mage so that he can carry the same armor as everyone else.  Because doing otherwise is really stupid. 

Carrying an object that is too large to be safely tucked into one's armor which is also large enough to be spotted at a distance which can identify you as someone to kill right now, is incredibly stupid.

The stupid one's died off in the 20's and 30's.  The one's we have now are those that either A:  figured this out already or B:  were trained by corpsec not to do something this stupid.  Officers in the military don't wear highly visible and identifiable indicators of their rank in the field just for this reason.  It's painting a bullseye on yourself to do this.

Hackers don't need to be there in person to support their team, unless they and their team are the one's doing the raid.

Here's a broad stroke piece of intel/advice:  If it's something that would increase the likelyhood of getting YOU killed IRL, why would someone in a fictional setting do so?  If the answer is "to make it easier for the PC's to kill her/him" then consider it a Bad Idea (TM).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-08-12/1336:33>
Remember that Force 6+ spells are readily apparent when cast (Threshold of 0), so the mage will, in general, get of exactly one spell before everyone knows who he is. Also, I doubt that wagemage is going to be willing to risk himself serious injury unless his life is immediately and directly on the line, so that first spell isn't likely to be a Force 10 Stunball.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-08-12/1427:30>
Remember that Force 6+ spells are readily apparent when cast (Threshold of 0), so the mage will, in general, get of exactly one spell before everyone knows who he is. Also, I doubt that wagemage is going to be willing to risk himself serious injury unless his life is immediately and directly on the line, so that first spell isn't likely to be a Force 10 Stunball.

>.> a few things..... first you can spend edge to exceed the hits so casting F3 or lower isn't a problem for most mage with good dice pools. Most can exceed the force and do like they had casted a higher force spell.

Second, you just said the very first thing I would do if there are more than 3 enemies. xD
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <10-08-12/1434:31>
It really does come down to information - knowing what you're going up against.  In the immortal words of GI Joe, "Knowing is half the battle."
From what I remember of the cartoon, the other half seems to be violence.
In which visible laser weapons blow up vehicles in a single shot, and yet leave the pilots completely unharmed.

The hard part is spotting the mage before you get cooked.  I don't mean physically seeing her/him, I mean identifying the target as a mage in the first place.  This isn't like trope laden fantasy settings where the mage is always walking around wearing robes and carrying a staff.  The mage is wearing the same armor as everyone else on his team and is carrying the same weapon they are because that is the smart thing to do.

Hell, the mage could use the visual sights on his weapon to get a better look at you to target you, and you would be just as dead as if he pulled the trigger.
Not quite true, Gunny. A corpsec mage will often have some trapping of his tradition on his person (especially if they use fetishes, foci, or talismans), and their armor will often be lighter, since the mage doesn't spend as much time with the physical training as the guy carrying the LMG on a gyromount. They also have a higher likelihood of bringing melee weapons to the party, for their use as weapon foci, among other things. So if you see a squad of boys in heavy milspec, and one guy in light milspec, with a sword at his side, then kill him first. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but in general mages and hackers tend to make themselves stand out, especially as the gunbunnies start doing their thing.
That is absolutely not true.  Still a trope from fantasy.

The security folks will physically train the mage so that he can carry the same armor as everyone else.  Because doing otherwise is really stupid. 

Carrying an object that is too large to be safely tucked into one's armor which is also large enough to be spotted at a distance which can identify you as someone to kill right now, is incredibly stupid.

The stupid one's died off in the 20's and 30's.  The one's we have now are those that either A:  figured this out already or B:  were trained by corpsec not to do something this stupid.  Officers in the military don't wear highly visible and identifiable indicators of their rank in the field just for this reason.  It's painting a bullseye on yourself to do this.

Hackers don't need to be there in person to support their team, unless they and their team are the one's doing the raid.

Here's a broad stroke piece of intel/advice:  If it's something that would increase the likelyhood of getting YOU killed IRL, why would someone in a fictional setting do so?  If the answer is "to make it easier for the PC's to kill her/him" then consider it a Bad Idea (TM).

That's the thing, mages not training as much physically isn't because it "makes them easier to kill", that is merely an unfortunate side effect. It's just like someone going for a PhD as opposed to someone training to try for an Olympic gold medal, the PhD person won't be as physically tough/strong nor have the endurance of the Olympian. Now this isn't to say that the first could never reach that point, after all, isn't that what more experience is for? To improve.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Kot on <10-08-12/1440:36>
A little bit about barriers in the astral: If it's not dual-natured, you can stick your head through it, or even walk through. So, you can take a peek through 10 meters of concrete and steel. That's why any corp outpost with resources has Barriers first, wagemages second. Barriers can be bought, as can be patrolling spirits.

As for security mages, they are primarily used for Astral and Magical security (obviously, you buy a hammer to hit nails). Dealing with intruders on the astral, summoning spirit patrols, maintaining watchers in key areas, and such. Plus they should also server as advisors if magical threats are present. And who said they can't support security troops with Counterspelling and surveillance from the astral? Remember that an astrally projecting mage is as fast as a wired street sam. And he moves with blinding speed.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-08-12/1530:23>
>.> a few things..... first you can spend edge to exceed the hits so casting F3 or lower isn't a problem for most mage with good dice pools. Most can exceed the force and do like they had casted a higher force spell.

Second, you just said the very first thing I would do if there are more than 3 enemies. xD
Wagemages (and non-prime runner enemies in general) shouldn't have Edge (other than group Edge, which should be used sparingly). Edge is a PC/important NPC resource. Second, a wagemage isn't going to be willing to inflict physical damage on himself (physical damage from overcast being things like concussions and other nasty effects) in order to fry some runners, unless his own life is clearly and immediately on the line.

Wagemages are likely to also have some sort of visible focus (most traditions' foci are either fairly apparent, or else require manipulation to use); the problem is identifying what that may be. Wagemages are likely to wear lighter armor (or at least Softweave/Mobility enhanced armor), since they are likely to have a lower Body score (lower physical training, and all).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-08-12/1745:00>
Yes they'd have shared edge... and you use it when it's most important to get the team's objective done. (well if the mage can flatten the runner team with a F10 Stun ball or a low cast stun ball without taking physical by casting it under his magic) let 'em have it. I'm sure a wageslave has more than the gangers edge pool of 0-1. :D

and as for 'light armor" i'm sure there's adepts running around with melee weapons as well so your not going to know %100 percent by looking for those. <.< Also most mages aren't going to make it obvious at first that they are the mage because they most definately know the first rule of shadowrun "Geek the Mage first" So their going to do everything in their power to make sure they don't get shot at first. Whether that's casting low and edging, or dressing like the security personel in heavy armor. (Do they have power armor yet?)

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <10-08-12/2026:13>
I'm sure a wageslave has more than the gangers edge pool of 0-1. :D

Maybe pool 2 or 3 to be drawn on by ALL of the NPCs in the session--if that. Edge, IMO, is supposed to be the thing that PCs have that NPCs don't have for those times when it's absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-08-12/2142:04>
I'm sure a wageslave has more than the gangers edge pool of 0-1. :D

Maybe pool 2 or 3 to be drawn on by ALL of the NPCs in the session--if that. Edge, IMO, is supposed to be the thing that PCs have that NPCs don't have for those times when it's absolutely necessary.

no no no no no.... read the rules again. That's per team. So for example they face gangers early in the session 0-1 edge sure. They go on to find the gangers had something way over their head and want to go sell it on their own. They are attacked by red samurai 5-6 edge, and they get out of that ok, then the next group is some Errant Knight who got wind of them being around and they are wanted. They are about 3-4 edge if i remember right in the book? Something like that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say even if it was only 1 pool for the ENTIRE SESSION edging on a mage roll is probably going to be one of the best bets against the PC's to make it a bit challenging.

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-08-12/2218:16>
I'm going to go out on a limb and say even if it was only 1 pool for the ENTIRE SESSION edging on a mage roll is probably going to be one of the best bets against the PC's to make it a bit challenging.
A Force 10 surprise Stunball counts as "challenge"? I'd say it counts more as "Abort Mission Now!".

I maintain that a wagemage is unlikely to be willing to intentionally injure himself in the line of duty (ie overcasting), unless he is in personal danger, or is a fanatic. I personally don't let my mooks spend group Edge unless some dramatic tension to the action (saving self/comrade, last ditch effort, ect.). I would never open with an Edged attack against a player or players, though I might use one to set the scene (pierce a natural gas line, ect.).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <10-08-12/2335:54>
I'm sure a wageslave has more than the gangers edge pool of 0-1. :D

Maybe pool 2 or 3 to be drawn on by ALL of the NPCs in the session--if that. Edge, IMO, is supposed to be the thing that PCs have that NPCs don't have for those times when it's absolutely necessary.

no no no no no.... read the rules again. That's per team. So for example they face gangers early in the session 0-1 edge sure. They go on to find the gangers had something way over their head and want to go sell it on their own. They are attacked by red samurai 5-6 edge, and they get out of that ok, then the next group is some Errant Knight who got wind of them being around and they are wanted. They are about 3-4 edge if i remember right in the book? Something like that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say even if it was only 1 pool for the ENTIRE SESSION edging on a mage roll is probably going to be one of the best bets against the PC's to make it a bit challenging.

The problem with it being a separate pool for each team of antagonists is the GMs who Edge every NPC roll that goes against a player (or even those who do it to "counter" a player's Edge expenditure). It would be far better, IMO, if Edge were just plain stated in the rule books that NPCs could not use Edge, ever. Sure it's one less tool for a good GM, but why should GMs not lose something because of bad ones when players lose things because of bad ones all the time?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-09-12/0019:51>
A bad GM won't follow your advice.  A good GM is gauging his table.

All game rules are designed suggestions; the good GM is already using Edge the way it's meant to be used.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/0048:43>
The problem with it being a separate pool for each team of antagonists is the GMs who Edge every NPC roll that goes against a player (or even those who do it to "counter" a player's Edge expenditure). It would be far better, IMO, if Edge were just plain stated in the rule books that NPCs could not use Edge, ever. Sure it's one less tool for a good GM, but why should GMs not lose something because of bad ones when players lose things because of bad ones all the time?
A bad GM can screw up any rule. Heck, they don't even need to screw up the rules to screw up the game, poorly planned and executed sessions are just as likely to screw up a game as poor rule interpretation. The rules shouldn't make concessions for bad GMs. Bad GMs shouldn't GM until they learn how to GM appropriately.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Unahim on <10-09-12/0614:46>
... But they need to GM to learn, at least to some extent.

Wagemages are likely to also have some sort of visible focus (most traditions' foci are either fairly apparent, or else require manipulation to use);

True, but the book specifically states that a mage can use anything for a focus. Wagemages make plenty of sacrifices for their employer, and using a focus that is inconspicous seems a likely one.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-09-12/0708:56>
... But they need to GM to learn, at least to some extent.

Wagemages are likely to also have some sort of visible focus (most traditions' foci are either fairly apparent, or else require manipulation to use);

True, but the book specifically states that a mage can use anything for a focus. Wagemages make plenty of sacrifices for their employer, and using a focus that is inconspicous seems a likely one.

Agreed.

Probably the only thing telling them apart in the seriously high-end fights is the fact that they've got Rating 3 Mobility Enhancement on their Heavy Milspec Armor and a patch or tab.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: FuelDrop on <10-09-12/0856:21>
It's actually a lot easier to spot the mage in a group than that.

just get your hacker to check which one has spell formulas stored on their commlink. That's your sniper's first target.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Unahim on <10-09-12/0916:14>
Why would they store spell formulas on their commlinks? Especially if they, like pretty much everyone, have seperate ones when on the job.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-09-12/0957:43>
Especially if they come from a tradition that doesn't tend towards using matrix formulae. Granted most wagemages do. It's cheaper to train them and the terminology is more standardized. Unahim has a point about having separate comlinks. Mages are harder to replace, and more expensive to train for corps, so you can bet they'll be well versed in survival protocol.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Unahim on <10-09-12/1039:02>
The best technological defense against magic continues to be tinted windows ^^
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-09-12/1039:33>
Easiest way to spot the mage? Have your mage take a look-see on the astral. Anyone who glows, blast them. How many corpsec mages do you think keep masking up all the time?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1042:23>
I'm going to go out on a limb and say even if it was only 1 pool for the ENTIRE SESSION edging on a mage roll is probably going to be one of the best bets against the PC's to make it a bit challenging.
A Force 10 surprise Stunball counts as "challenge"? I'd say it counts more as "Abort Mission Now!".

I maintain that a wagemage is unlikely to be willing to intentionally injure himself in the line of duty (ie overcasting), unless he is in personal danger, or is a fanatic. I personally don't let my mooks spend group Edge unless some dramatic tension to the action (saving self/comrade, last ditch effort, ect.). I would never open with an Edged attack against a player or players, though I might use one to set the scene (pierce a natural gas line, ect.).

F10 Stun ball is hardly scary when cast by a wageslave if you have counter spelling. If you don't have a mage, then you have two options shoot that mage before he sees you or gets a turn. (your supposed to do that anyways) or abort because you have no magic support. It's just like when a F10 spirit shows up, go big or go home. (Yeah.... I remember fighting 4 of those suckers being the mage on the team I had to eat plenty of high spells for Drain)

Also All4BigGuns, your right you should not edge all the time I've played against a DM that did that. He gave low gangers like edge pools of 4 and used it like 6 times. <.< I've also had a different DM who introduce us not understand the rules and edge a dice pool of 30 and only get 3 hits, then spent edge to reroll them and only got 2 more additional hits. (unlucky!) So he edged one last time, saying the Dragon had 6 edge. (yes.... dragon on our second game. XD) (needless to say my Slivergun called shot burst fire (Base 12DV) with an additional 12 hits probably should have killed that dragon. xD It's soak rolls sucked. xD

The key is using edge to further the goal of the group that your playing. They have edge at their disposal why wouldn't they use it? I also allow spirits to use edge when I think the player's treated the spirit well enough that they "want" to succeed. Guess it's personal preference.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-09-12/1045:44>
Just remember that if your mage loses LOS from you, then they can't counterspell for you until you're back in LOS and they redeclare it. Even so, yes, a F10 Stunball is going to put a major hurt on a party, and probably take most of them out, unless your mage is a counterspelling specialist.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1052:50>
Just remember that if your mage loses LOS from you, then they can't counterspell for you until you're back in LOS and they redeclare it. Even so, yes, a F10 Stunball is going to put a major hurt on a party, and probably take most of them out, unless your mage is a counterspelling specialist.

>.> I think I have ten counter spell dice.... 14 if a power focus works for this check. (Because I don't focus on it) which would negate 3 hits to 4 hits, average will power will negate 1 hit for a total of 4-5 hits. meaning the wage slave would have to have 15-18 dice on average to even hit you. That's assuming something like 6 spell casting 5-6 magic and a foci or two to get the last amount. I'm sure many wage slaves don't even have the magic to cast F10 xD. He'd definately be on my to hit next IP though.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-09-12/1057:15>
Easiest way to spot the mage? Have your mage take a look-see on the astral. Anyone who glows, blast them. How many corpsec mages do you think keep masking up all the time?

If they're expecting trouble? All of them.

Also, don't forget about Adepts. Mind-whammied the Awakened chick having sex with the assassination target and ordered her to kill him. Turns out she was a Social Adept, not the Wagemage we were warned about.

Needless to say, it didn't end well.

However, our former target paid us to go kill our former employer, which was much easier, and paid more.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1137:52>
Missed what happened here... is the adept your party? or enemy?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-09-12/1158:05>
Just remember that if your mage loses LOS from you, then they can't counterspell for you until you're back in LOS and they redeclare it. Even so, yes, a F10 Stunball is going to put a major hurt on a party, and probably take most of them out, unless your mage is a counterspelling specialist.

>.> I think I have ten counter spell dice.... 14 if a power focus works for this check. (Because I don't focus on it) which would negate 3 hits to 4 hits, average will power will negate 1 hit for a total of 4-5 hits. meaning the wage slave would have to have 15-18 dice on average to even hit you. That's assuming something like 6 spell casting 5-6 magic and a foci or two to get the last amount. I'm sure many wage slaves don't even have the magic to cast F10 xD. He'd definately be on my to hit next IP though.
Reread the sections on counterspelling and power foci. It specifically says that a Power focus does not aid counterspelling. And when you are defending multiple people from a spell, you roll only your Counterspelling skill dice once, and then add those hits to whatever they have as their attribute. In the case of a Stunball, you would roll the counterspelling dice (If you have counterspelling 3, you'd roll three dice) and then add whatever you get on that to what the individual party members get on their Willpower rolls.

So even if you have five ranks in counterspelling, that still means the average non-awakened type is going to have 8-9 dice to resist, compared to the 8-12 the caster is rolling on the spellcasting, if not more. If they get one net hit on a guy, they soak 11 Stun off that F10 Stunball. That's enough to down many PCs in one blow.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-09-12/1208:42>
Of course there are counterspelling foci, and edge. As a mage, I tend to spend edge more on mass counterspelling than casting or soaking drain. Tossing my four dice (8 if it's a combat spell so my counterspelling foci works) into someone's pool is nice, but if my whole team is being affected I'll spend an edge and toss eight dice (12 if it's combat) with exploding sixes and add the hits to everyone's.

I really wish that the rules allowed for you to hold an action (or burn your next) for an active counterspell for your whole Magic+Counterspell vs. target spell. You can technically do it (with a held action) against sustained spells, but not against other types.

Then again, I think mages should also always have to soak drain on counterspelling too.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/1213:02>
Reread the sections on counterspelling and power foci. It specifically says that a Power focus does not aid counterspelling. And when you are defending multiple people from a spell, you roll only your Counterspelling skill dice once, and then add those hits to whatever they have as their attribute. In the case of a Stunball, you would roll the counterspelling dice (If you have counterspelling 3, you'd roll three dice) and then add whatever you get on that to what the individual party members get on their Willpower rolls.

So even if you have five ranks in counterspelling, that still means the average non-awakened type is going to have 8-9 dice to resist, compared to the 8-12 the caster is rolling on the spellcasting, if not more. If they get one net hit on a guy, they soak 11 Stun off that F10 Stunball. That's enough to down many PCs in one blow.
Exactly. Not to mention that the wagemage now has 6P drain to soak with maybe 8-10 dice. That's an average of 3 physical boxes; enough require at least a day of bedrest. Why would a wagemage be willing to injure himself unless he was desperate?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1227:11>
3 boxes of physical that could be healed with first aid which no doubt they keep on hand somewhere in the facility for just the occasion. If he's wearing heavy armor like he should be he probably was already taking S from the group shooting at him. So his physical track is probably the most "free" at the moment. I did not know Counterspelling only added the skill to your friend's dicepools. Does it only add that dice to your dice pool as well? Or do you get Magic + Counter spelling? o.O'

That's how we've always rolled it. Good to find out the real rules if so :D thanks. Just makes me want to get a counterspelling focus.

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/1248:06>
So his physical track is probably the most "free" at the moment.
That's a strictly OOC thought. Think of what 3 Physical means to a character. That's getting shot in the shoulder/arm by a small caliber weapon. In terms of spellcasting, that's probably some ruptured blood vessels and possibly a concussion. Nothing that a company is likely to contractually obligate a mage to do. Your average professional rating 3-4 wagemage isn't going to be willing to put himself directly in harms way, much less intentionally injure himself, unless he absolutely has to. Your average wagemage also is unlikely to have Milspec armor; that would be an elite battlemage, who WOULD be much more willing to overcast. Most wagemages aren't trained for combat, they are trained to summon watchers and keep an eye on the astral plane.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-09-12/1302:38>
Quote
The problem with it being a separate pool for each team of antagonists is the GMs who Edge every NPC roll that goes against a player (or even those who do it to "counter" a player's Edge expenditure). It would be far better, IMO, if Edge were just plain stated in the rule books that NPCs could not use Edge, ever. Sure it's one less tool for a good GM, but why should GMs not lose something because of bad ones when players lose things because of bad ones all the time?
It seems, based off of most of your posts, that you've had a lot of bad GMs. Why should every system limit what the GMs are able to do because there are bad GMs? Bad GMs don't need limiting rules, because they'll still find a way to be bad GMs. Players don't lose something because of bad GMs all the time. They lose something because of bad GMs, when they continue playing under bad GMs. That's it.

Edge is not an issue in your scenario, bad GMing is the issue.

PCs are already special because they get their full edge on each character in the group. NPCs for the most part (excluding named NPCs) share a relatively small pool of edge. If the GM is giving a PR 2 group of gangers 6 edge, he's a bad GM. The rules already state that isn't what's supposed to happen.

If he spends a point of edge for a ganger to dodge an attack or make a called shot, it isn't bad GMing because that's what the ganger is trying to accomplish. It's his goal, it's what he's putting that extra effort into. It's no more bad gaming than a player spending edge to dodge a shot, make an attack, or soak damage. It doesn't matter if the player spent/spends edge on the opposing action if it fits the NPCs motive.

Quote
Exactly. Not to mention that the wagemage now has 6P drain to soak with maybe 8-10 dice. That's an average of 3 physical boxes; enough require at least a day of bedrest. Why would a wagemage be willing to injure himself unless he was desperate?
With a good doctor or paramedic (which should be easily available for the wagemage afterward) rolling 4 Attribute + 4 First Aid + 6 Medkit (very cheap for a corp doc) -2 for awakened target = 12 DP. That will leave an average of 1P left over to be healed.

Now, look at the alternative. Getting shot. Assuming an average dude (Body 3) with good armor (9 points ballistic), he'll wind of with 1 pt. of stun from Light and Hold out pistols (1 net hit). Not scary enough to warrant a stun nuke. Even heavy pistols are still going to be doing only 2-3 points of stun on average (1 net hit). No big deal.

Up the ante though. SMGs and machine pistols open up a new world of hurt. Sure, it's still stun, but it's easy to go from 1-3 to 3-5 (Short bursts), 6-8 (long bursts), or 10-12 (Full Bursts). What happens when a wagemage goes down? Does he wake up later and get fired? Does he wind up in a body bag afterward? It varies widely, but why would he take the risk when he can drop a stun nuke?

Up the ante again and we come into rifle classed weapons and heavy weapons. This is where it goes from "why take the risk" to complete "self preservation". An AR (6P base with -1AP) is still doing stun damage with only one net hit, but how many runners rock and roll with standard ammo? Standard AR load seems to be Ex-Ex or APDS. In these cases the AR is going to be doing 4-5P each shot, and that easily becomes 6-7P (short burst), 9-10P (long burst), or 13-14P (full burst).

So hop into the wagemage's point of view for a second. You've got a group of shadowrunners breaking into your facility (a decent classed facility to even have a wagemage on hand). Society has taught you that these guys are pretty much sociopaths with an itch for taking it to the corps, and they're (usually) armed to the teeth with firepower that makes the local law enforcement officers hesitate for a second. On top of all of this, you've got this doctrine ground into your brain "drop the mage first" and know that it's a universal slogan. Your at the top of their priority target list. Do you A.) toss spells that are safely soaked by your abilities or B.) do everything in your power to drop them first? In all honesty the wagemage is going to either run away or drop a stun nuke.

Quote
I did not know Counterspelling only added the skill to your friend's dicepools. Does it only add that dice to your dice pool as well? Or do you get Magic + Counter spelling? o.O'
It only adds the skill rating to your dice pool for resisting most spells (so usually Body+Counterspelling or Willpower+Counterspelling).

That said, you use the full Magic+Counterspelling for dispelling sustained/quickened spells. Doing so requires a complex action and forces you to soak drain as though you had just cast the spell you're dispelling at the same force it was cast at.

Quote
That's a strictly OOC thought. Think of what 3 Physical means to a character. That's getting shot in the shoulder/arm by a small caliber weapon. In terms of spellcasting, that's probably some ruptured blood vessels and possibly a concussion. Nothing that a company is likely to contractually obligate a mage to do. Your average professional rating 3-4 wagemage isn't going to be willing to put himself directly in harms way, much less intentionally injure himself, unless he absolutely has to.
I'm going to go ahead and state now, we have wildly varied views on what the corps in the dystopian world require of their slav...err...I mean...uhm...employees, yeah, that's the word. Would the wagemage do it? Maybe, that's what Composure checks are for. I find it just as likely for him to be willing to hurt himself minorly as stand up to a group of heavily armed criminals though.

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1314:13>
So his physical track is probably the most "free" at the moment.
That's a strictly OOC thought. Think of what 3 Physical means to a character. That's getting shot in the shoulder/arm by a small caliber weapon. In terms of spellcasting, that's probably some ruptured blood vessels and possibly a concussion. Nothing that a company is likely to contractually obligate a mage to do. Your average professional rating 3-4 wagemage isn't going to be willing to put himself directly in harms way, much less intentionally injure himself, unless he absolutely has to. Your average wagemage also is unlikely to have Milspec armor; that would be an elite battlemage, who WOULD be much more willing to overcast. Most wagemages aren't trained for combat, they are trained to summon watchers and keep an eye on the astral plane.

>.> actually if you shoot someone with a small caliber weapon assuming they have no armor and where just shooting themselves it'd be more than 3 physical. This damage again can be healed by a medical kit they probably have on station somewhere. As for what's in the mage's contract... the companies OWN you in situations like that. I was under the impression they can just toss wageslaves (note the word slave) like there's no consequence because it's their land they do what they want. Same with a Wagemage. If he survives i'm not sure the company wouldn't cap him for failing in his duty. This is of course forgetting that he could also have spirits to help resist drain, and fight for him. xD
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-09-12/1321:02>
3 boxes of physical that could be healed with first aid which no doubt they keep on hand somewhere in the facility for just the occasion. If he's wearing heavy armor like he should be he probably was already taking S from the group shooting at him. So his physical track is probably the most "free" at the moment. I did not know Counterspelling only added the skill to your friend's dicepools. Does it only add that dice to your dice pool as well? Or do you get Magic + Counter spelling? o.O'

That's how we've always rolled it. Good to find out the real rules if so :D thanks. Just makes me want to get a counterspelling focus.
You only add the skill to your defense against spells. Meaning that you'd get your Will+Counterspelling to resist a stunball thrown back at you.

As for the mage thinking which track was more 'free', that is an OOC abstraction. Don't think about it in those terms, but think about it as stabbing yourself in the gut in order to clock your opponent a good one. You have to be crazy or desperate to do such a thing.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1346:57>
3 boxes of physical that could be healed with first aid which no doubt they keep on hand somewhere in the facility for just the occasion. If he's wearing heavy armor like he should be he probably was already taking S from the group shooting at him. So his physical track is probably the most "free" at the moment. I did not know Counterspelling only added the skill to your friend's dicepools. Does it only add that dice to your dice pool as well? Or do you get Magic + Counter spelling? o.O'

That's how we've always rolled it. Good to find out the real rules if so :D thanks. Just makes me want to get a counterspelling focus.
You only add the skill to your defense against spells. Meaning that you'd get your Will+Counterspelling to resist a stunball thrown back at you.

As for the mage thinking which track was more 'free', that is an OOC abstraction. Don't think about it in those terms, but think about it as stabbing yourself in the gut in order to clock your opponent a good one. You have to be crazy or desperate to do such a thing.

That's what the pain killers are for! I'd rather stab myself then take bullets from automatic rifles from four different people in a firing squad that may be packing APDS rounds, and that troll I see coming with a Panthar cannon. Just sayin, 3 physical is nothing compared to what your going to take from your enemies. I thought the point of the game was that it was lethal, yeah you hurt yourself when casting spells so what? It's something you life with day to day and by now your probably used to overcasting or knowing your limits. I'm sure part of your training is "finding those limits" or "casting under pressure" Life or death situation training.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Orvich on <10-09-12/1359:11>
The other thing is that simply being hired as a rent-a-mage for a corp doesn't really mean you're willing to put your life on the line for that corp. There's a difference between "Those Shadowrunners are breaking in and attacking the corp, I should earn my pay and try to stop them" and "Those shadowrunners are attacking my family, I need to throw myself against them at maximum power even if it kills me."

Personally, I figure that a fair amount of wageslaves would view Shadowrunners kind of like Robin Hood figures. The wageslaves have no real love for the corp that enslaves them, why would they put up more than a cover-your-ass resistance? With mages being (supposedly) <10% (or was it 1%?) of the population, they're kind of outsiders already too.

If I saw a troll coming at me with a minicannon and I was the equivalent of a trained for-hire security guard, I'd GTFO or duck and call for reinforcements, not do something in an attempt to knock out the troll that has a chance to incapacitate me for his friends to kill me later.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-09-12/1407:30>
Orvich raises a valid point. Corpsec are people too, and they don't like dying. So they aren't going to do kamikaze charges into machine gun fire, unless they're real zealots, or they have some kind of edge that makes it not out and out suicide.

As for overcasting, you're thinking small scale, not even on the tactical level, much less the strategic level, Zilfer. Sure, you might win that exchange, in return for wounding yourself, but what about the next exchange? What if the enemies you could see weren't the only ones there? That's the problem with thinking "Meh, it's only 3P." That kind of thinking is reckless and, ultimately, suicidal. Because one of these days, you're going to overcast and botch the roll to resist drain, just in time to see that there was a guy with a grenade launcher you didn't see when you launched the spell. And then you're chunky salsa.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1410:16>
Eh looks like you haven't been watching the news as shadowrunners have killed 100+ at an orphanage.... xD I'm sure they might have a few "robin hood" characters, but base line they are criminals. I'm not sure about you but if criminals are breaking into a facility, your right i probably wouldn't want to go near them.

I was under the impression that a wageslave/wagemage again is expendible if you don't do your job your going to get shitcanned anyways. The only way to get ahead is to excel in your job. If you stop the shadowrunners from taking your facility i'm sure there's a promotion or more pay coming. If you don't however and survive. The Corp probably doesn't care that they were all wielding automatic panthar's they hired you for a reason and you didn't deliever.

Again I thought wagemage's are 'owned' by the company not an outsource like an Errant Knight mage <.< am I wrong on that?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1415:02>
Orvich raises a valid point. Corpsec are people too, and they don't like dying. So they aren't going to do kamikaze charges into machine gun fire, unless they're real zealots, or they have some kind of edge that makes it not out and out suicide.

As for overcasting, you're thinking small scale, not even on the tactical level, much less the strategic level, Zilfer. Sure, you might win that exchange, in return for wounding yourself, but what about the next exchange? What if the enemies you could see weren't the only ones there? That's the problem with thinking "Meh, it's only 3P." That kind of thinking is reckless and, ultimately, suicidal. Because one of these days, you're going to overcast and botch the roll to resist drain, just in time to see that there was a guy with a grenade launcher you didn't see when you launched the spell. And then you're chunky salsa.

But that's true of anything! I could also hold by my shot and the people I just failed to stun or knock out go full burst with APDS rounds, with nice recoil compensation to boot. Good as dead there anyways, once more these guys aren't really known for being nice. Are they going to leave me as a witness? Probably not. If they even get a whiff that i'm a mage, even if I said or did nothing they probably are going to blast me "just in case."

Secondly if I sit there and do nothing who says taht guy with the grenade launcher wasn't going to hit me anyways? Again 3 boxes of physical is hardly a price to pay in this situation. Especially if you have no back up from the corps, if we add those guys in sure you could play conservatively but I had the chance to drop them with a little pain to me, but would probably level the floor with most of those guys then sure i'd pull the trigger on that chance.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/1455:53>
I was under the impression that a wageslave/wagemage again is expendible
Awakened make up 1% of the population. Adepts make up half of those. Only a small minority of the remainder have any real talent. Maybe 1 in 1000 people have the potential to be a wagemage, and not all of them want to be.  Mages, even wagemages, are nowhere near as expendable as regular wageslaves are. Even a moderately skilled wagemage can command an much more impressive salary, and much more favorable contract, than the vast majority of other wageslaves. The corp still owns them, but they have some bargaining power, being substantially more difficult to replace. Besides, even in the dystopian future, corps have to at least TRY to keep positive PR; you can do a lot to your employees, but you can't require them to injure themselves on command.

Like I've said on another thread, wasting talented assets is stupid; expendable is not a byword for "can afford to be stupid". A corp isn't going to "cap" a mage for failing to stop a team of runners. A mage MIGHT be willing to throw a Force 10 Stunball or two if the situation goes south (or he is personally in danger), but he isn't going to open with it. Apprehending criminals is what security/the cops are for.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-09-12/1539:39>
Quote
Apprehending criminals is what security/the cops are for.
What is a wagemage if not part of security?
Quote
A mage MIGHT be willing to throw a Force 10 Stunball or two if the situation goes south (or he is personally in danger), but he isn't going to open with it.
Again, varies wildly on what he's looking at. A few guys with pistols and a rotten attitude, maybe not. A few guys decked out in pseudo-milspec gear looking to take names, why wouldn't he?

If your choices are drop a big nuke that could hurt you, or drop a little nuke that could hurt you less and isn't as likely to hurt them, why would you choose the second route if you're in mortal danger? Bullets tend to hurt worse than physical drain for the most part. Especially lots of them.
Quote
Like I've said on another thread, wasting talented assets is stupid; expendable is not a byword for "can afford to be stupid". A corp isn't going to "cap" a mage for failing to stop a team of runners
On that same note, keeping dead weight is stupid. If you hire a wagemage to provide security and he doesn't perform, why keep him on your staff. I'm not saying they'd kill him, but they'd likely demote or fire him.
Quote
Besides, even in the dystopian future, corps have to at least TRY to keep positive PR; you can do a lot to your employees, but you can't require them to injure themselves on command.
Sure you can. Who's going to report it? The employee. The corp can just spin him off as a disgruntled employee making things up. They have entire branches for that. If the employee blabs or tries to reveal secrets, well that's where wetwork does come in. Expecting a wagemage to risk his personal health is no different than expecting police and security to stand up to criminals with guns.
Quote
The corp still owns them, but they have some bargaining power, being substantially more difficult to replace.
No corp wants an asset that cannot perform it's function. That's pretty much the bottom line.

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/1608:39>
You misunderstand what Corpsec security (at least, corpsec security that is outside of extraterritorial Corp areas) is supposed to do. It isn't intended to apprehend criminals. It is intended to keep them away from important locations/keep them pinned down long enough for the police/corp paramilitary forces to get there. Outside of extraterritorial areas, corps do NOT have the right to respond with lethal force unless the attackers use it first, or refuse to surrender. A Force 10 Combat spell? Probably qualifies as lethal (or at least excessive) force, unless the criminals have already opened fire on you.

Basically, a wagemage isn't going to use his Vision Magnification enhancement to snipe a group of criminals with a Force 10 spell unless they attack first, or refuse to surrender (unless they are in extraterritorial Corp lands).

Bottom line: The function of a wagemage is to provide astral security; that is the area they are trained in. They may be trained to assist in physical security (with combat spells, ect.), but that's just an extra duty, not primary function. A corp might be angry if some runners escape with a drone prototype, but they aren't going to be any more angry with the wagemage than they would be with the rest of the security team, unless the method of theft was astral. Think of it this way: would a corporate spider be fired for not grabbing a weapon and hunting down the criminals? Of course not, that's not his area of expertise. The same applies to the wagemage.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1647:08>
Fluff wise Stun spells are called "Sleep spells" That hardly sounds like "Excessive force".

Further, I do not believe your statement to be true. A Wagemage can be hired for a multitude of things, providing astral could be one of their things, or providings spirits might be another. They aren't just strickly hired for "This." They provide a multitude of functions, not every wagemage is going to be hired for astral security.

Your assuming the rest of the security survived. xD If the Wagemage had a chance to stop them and didn't and the other security did try to stop them, your damn right their going to have a problem with that mage slave.

Also for your 1% of the population is astral..... <.<  1% of what's our world population now? 5 billion? so drop the decimal 2 places and you have the "awakened" population of 50 Million people. <.< that still not sound like a lot? I don't suppose the population went even higher after 70 years... especially with orc's giving birth to litters of babies.

The spider would be fired if he was working in the building and they had to go past him to get to whatever they stole yeah. I could see the spider getting fired, there's always someone to blame. The saying goes "Shit rolls uphill." your damn right he's going to be fired if he didn't try anything to hinder the shadowrunners and he was hired for security on site. If he's at home aw well, least he could do was try and hack the shadowrunner's comlinks to track them when they leave. I don't see any part of security being 'lax' and not risking themselves as part of the job. That's why they're in security.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/1717:03>
Also for your 1% of the population is astral..... <.<  1% of what's our world population now? 5 billion? so drop the decimal 2 places and you have the "awakened" population of 50 Million people. <.< that still not sound like a lot? I don't suppose the population went even higher after 70 years... especially with orc's giving birth to litters of babies.
Better check your fluff again. VITAS wiped out 25% of the world population the first time, 10% the second time. Ecological disasters following the Awakening killed many more, and rendered large areas of the globe uninhabitable. The Crash and Year of the Comet killed even more. The global population in SR is smaller than modern day (unless I am greatly mistaken). BTW, current population is about 7 billion.

Even if we assume that global population has mostly recovered, we're still looking a global population of no more than 6 billion. 1 in 100 of those is awakened (60 million), only half of those are magicians (30 million), of those, most (let's be generous and say 50%) have only small talent (no more than 15 million). Now, let's be generous again and say that a third of those are SINless, or don't want to work for Corps (10 million). Let's be generous once more and say that only 1 in 10 has destroyed their talent with drugs or 'ware. Now you're down to, at most, only 9 million potential wagemages. Worldwide. And that's a VERY liberal estimate.
Now let's look at Seattle's population. A bit over 3 million total, according to the book. That means that, at absolute most, you are looking at 9000 potential wagemages in ALL of Seattle. Again, that's being extremely generous. [Edit: With maybe 3000 of those in Security)

I would say that a better conservative estimate is 3000 potential wagemages for the entire city (and not all of those are going to choose to work in security). Powerful mages are scarce enough compared to the demand for their talents that they can get away with bargaining for better contracts, or choosing assignments that are less likely to put them in harm's way. Mages that do have to get in harm's way? They are getting payed quite a bit. I suggest that you read "The Wired Workforce" in Unwired; employees that have talents that can't be duplicated with skill/knowsofts or drones are treated much, much better than your average wageslave, and are in fair demand. A wagemage who is repeatedly being abused (being forced to overcast,ect.) is going to start looking for a better job; there is always demand for skilled mages.

[Edit: Heck, only maybe 1000 of those wagemages are going to be working in security. The rest will be in magical research, alchemy, enchanting ect.]

[Edit Deux: A wagemage can be doing MANY things to assist in security that don't require them to be in harms way. They can send watchers to track, then relay that info. They can be conjuring spirits to attack the criminals. They can be sustaining illusions to lead the criminals into traps, ect. It's not as though the ONLY thing a wagemage can do is overcast Stunballs at criminals.]
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-09-12/1753:30>
A few quick points. The awakened percentage in a heavily corp city is going to skew upward from the world average. You have to account for all those areas that don't have any "awakened" career potential. No one needs a wagemage to milk the cows or plow up dirt in plainlands. Drones are much cheaper.

They will go where the jobs are, wagemages are in corporate lifestyles because they want to be, it pays them well. Doesn't mean it's a picnic for them, it means it's better pay than you average wageslave. Those jobs are going to be in cities with a heavy corp population. Just like you're going to have more academic mages in cities with a arcane academics program. Seattle likely has a much higher awakened population than 1%.

At the same time, a pukehole like Kowloon would likely have a much much lower awakened population than 1%.

On a similar note, nothing keeps the corps from picking up that mage off the streets in Haiti and offering him a job in Seattle protecting corporate assets. Using 1% for Seattle makes it out as though everyone born in Seattle stays in Seattle and no one ever comes into Seattle without an equally awakened/mundane person leaving Seattle. That's not really a valid persepective.
Quote
employees that have talents that can't be duplicated with skill/knowsofts or drones are treated much, much better than your average wageslave, and are in fair demand
If the wageslave's talent isn't working for the company, why would they keep him around? Sure, they might overlook a failed op or two, but it's in the wageslave's best interest to perform top notch (even at his own personal detriment) for better treatment and pay.

Wagemages are wageslaves in the end. How many wageslaves work endless hours, struggle with sleep deprivation and depression, just to keep what little they have? People are almost always willing to risk health for reward now. Anyone in a Security Position has made the choice to take a substantially larger risk at personal health for their reward. Drain (physical and stun) are both just another part of a wagemage's job.

Quote
A Force 10 Combat spell? Probably qualifies as lethal (or at least excessive) force, unless the criminals have already opened fire on you.
From a very talented/lucky mage, it's going to cap out at 20 boxes of stun which will put an average person exactly out. Most of the time it's not going to be near lethal. Impressive, yes, but not lethal force.

I would also disagree on why they'd use it. Unauthorized armed personnel on the premises. Why would you wait to stun them? Better to surprise them with the preemptive strike and hope that lesser spells can finish off any stragglers. After all, they are trespassing on corp property and many areas do allow the use of lethal force against armed trespassers. Doubly so if they are obviously armed.

Quote
The function of a wagemage is to provide astral security; that is the area they are trained in.
A Mage can Astrally Perceive and still cast spells. I fail to see how the first overrides the other.
Quote
they aren't going to be any more angry with the wagemage than they would be with the rest of the security team
Never said they would. Good chance the whole sec. team is getting replaced. Hiring a mage for security detail isn't done just to ward off astral threats. It's because mages are damned effective at security. They're hard to hide from and can launch a wallop of mana that only other mages can readily resist. If it's just astral security the corp wants, they can hire an awakened security designer to put up wards and/or use bound patrolling spirits instead of hiring a fulltime wagemage.

Quote
Basically, a wagemage isn't going to use his Vision Magnification enhancement to snipe a group of criminals with a Force 10 spell unless they attack first, or refuse to surrender (unless they are in extraterritorial Corp lands).
I guess this is where I completely disagree. If the group of criminals is A.) trespassing on corp property and B.) obviously armed, then I see no reason why the mage wouldn't launch an immediate spell attack as he notifies other security personnel. Especially if he's in a secure location where excess drain damage won't leave him lying at the criminals feet.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1809:26>
And most of the world seems to go to big cities that are over populated making 1% of the population a very concentrated number compared to the amount of "indian" land I remember seeing in the back of my book. Indian numbers are pretty low right now last I checked but if they own quite a bit of the USA like that I'm pretty sure something had to have happened to brought them back. Again with as fast as Orc's can breed I doubt the population is down by far.

Though I do have a question, when the crash happened did it happen world wide? Or just local seattle? I think i got the wrong impression on the crash.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-09-12/1817:24>
The crash was world wide.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/1851:17>
Fun. I can't even imagine that real world wise. Partly from it never happening (just electronic's side). I wonder how they programmed a new system that wouldn't do that for a third time.... xD
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-09-12/1912:59>
OK, this is highly derailed. My more-or-less final words on the topic: A corp could no more fault a security mage for not giving himself an aneurysm overcasting his spells than they could a security guard for not running through a hail of gunfire to pursue a target. Wells, you have a valid point that wagemages would come to big cities like Seattle for work. Zilfer, percentage doesn't work like that; increasing the number of people doesn't increase the density by population of mages. My point still stands, however: the demand for skilled mages exceeds the readily available supply, meaning that mages can better afford losing/quitting their jobs in order to preserve their health. This means that most wagemages are loathe to overcast, except when it's vital.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-09-12/2001:25>
I was trying to say the density of people in shadowrun seems to be mostly consentrated in cities compared to the whole world. (unless i'm waaaaay off fluff wise again) Seattle the city itself is an hour drive from my currently location and in shadowrun it's currently a part of seattle. The cities are big, over crowded, and hold of the population i was thinking at least. Kinda like the original judge dread movie is a little bit what i was picturing. I've yet to read anything about indian owned lands or europe in this setting.

I don't think 3 Physical is anything, like a brain anurism. It would take on average for him to cast 4 F10's of those before he even started to bleed out and possibly killed himself. I think casting one of them if it cuases him to die wouldn't matter because at 1/4 your health. If the enemy is taking out 3/4's they probably massively overflowed you.

>.> Also projected growth charts just for the next few years puts us up there even higher in the billions with just 'normal' human birth rates. Again adding these other races into the mix AND, stunting it by 25% and then 10% isn't going to stop the growth rate by being higher than it was before. I'm sure if China didn't have it's child laws we'd be even higher than we are now! xD

But we digress so we'll call it a gentlemen's agreement to disagree shall we? :D No harm no foul.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-10-12/0118:21>
Magic is too rare to simply throw away like that, Zilfer. Remember, only 1/100 people has any talent at all. Of those, only a small percentage has anything worth writing home about. A trained security mage is an expensive commodity, and you don't go throwing away expensive commodities. The untrained ork on the assembly line is expendable. Trained security personnel represent an investment of time and nuyen, which is why corps get testy if you waste too many of them. And that's just the regular, unawakened type.

Now, it is another story entirely if the corpsec mage actually steps back and lets the runners go on their merry, without being under some form of compulsion, but if the mage is actively engaged in protecting the facility, and survives even though the runners got away, they aren't going to get shitcanned for that, unless there was something so major going on that the entire facility is going to be 'downsized'.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: FuelDrop on <10-10-12/0755:56>
Wait... Hang on, are you saying that there's supposed to be a facility left after our run? and there's supposed to be a chance for some of the guards to survive?

Oops.

Maybe that's why our expenses account is so high, what with all the explosives.

(For the record we don't actually do that, but it seemed like a funny thing to add considering the last comment)
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-10-12/0839:19>
This is why grenade launchers are frowned upon, which in turn is why flash-bangs are so handy.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: FuelDrop on <10-10-12/0843:03>
This is why grenade launchers are frowned upon, which in turn is why flash-bangs are so handy.

Flash-bangs are nice, but for real shock and awe you can't really go past gecko white phosphorus. The gift that keeps on giving!
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-10-12/0858:40>
This is why grenade launchers are frowned upon, which in turn is why flash-bangs are so handy.

Flash-bangs are nice, but for real shock and awe you can't really go past gecko white phosphorus. The gift that keeps on giving!
Those are vicious, but they're pricey and in a corporate office collateral damage is a given. Unless they have a damn good extinguishing system, in which case the secondary effects would be nullified. Meanwhile flash-bangs have a non-degrading 10 meter radius, cost only 30n, and you don't have to worry about killing anyone you shouldn't be killing in the blast radius. Good for hostage situations and public extractions, wagemages too! Especially since you don't have to give him LOS on you to hit him.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-10-12/1047:41>
This is why grenade launchers are frowned upon, which in turn is why flash-bangs are so handy.

Flash-bangs are nice, but for real shock and awe you can't really go past gecko white phosphorus. The gift that keeps on giving!
Those are vicious, but they're pricey and in a corporate office collateral damage is a given. Unless they have a damn good extinguishing system, in which case the secondary effects would be nullified. Meanwhile flash-bangs have a non-degrading 10 meter radius, cost only 30n, and you don't have to worry about killing anyone you shouldn't be killing in the blast radius. Good for hostage situations and public extractions, wagemages too! Especially since you don't have to give him LOS on you to hit him.

And just remember, you can fire Flash-bangs from a grenade launcher.

And, since the MGL-6 is pistol sized, that gives you a nice way to say "hello" even in low-profile situations.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-10-12/1240:20>
I was going to put a long post here regarding identifying the mage from a group of schmoos, but this thread has moved on so much (and great posts as to why the mage wouldn't be in harms way have been posted) that it seems redundant.  I will post this tidbit regarding the wimpy/geeky mage stereotype in the Shadowrun setting vs. the standard trope:

You don't hire Ph. D's to change your car's oil, why would you hire one to get shot at?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Twitchy D on <10-10-12/1359:08>
You don't hire Ph. D's to change your car's oil, why would you hire one to get shot at?

Because being a regestered mage is like getting a "set people on fire with your mind" diploma, in a world where they say "Now dont you go setting people on fire, now!" when you leave college, yet filled with people will pay you extremely good money to set people on fire for them. Actually using your powers illegaly when you first got them, then being unable to find legal work after their crimes are discovered and the punishment complete is a possible reason why some mages are Shadowrunning. Some mages even prefer to be on the wrong side, dispite having enough talent to get them in the big leagues legitamately.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-10-12/1409:27>
You'll need to be in a good place if your "combat casting" isn't going to get noticed in the reports. :D I'm sure hooking up with triple A's helps keep your 'record clean'. xD
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-10-12/2054:48>
And being magical doesn't necessarily make you smart.  You hire people for what they do - legbreakers to break legs, scientists to science.  You aren't going to put a Ph.D. in Thaumaturgy into security; you won't put a guy recruited from the street into spell research.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-10-12/2100:02>
And being magical doesn't necessarily make you smart.  You hire people for what they do - legbreakers to break legs, scientists to science.  You aren't going to put a Ph.D. in Thaumaturgy into security; you won't put a guy recruited from the street into spell research.
Right, but equally you wouldn't want to risk your comparatively rare and expensive mages on frontline combat (unless, that is in fact their specialty). That's what trolls and miniguns are for.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Unahim on <10-11-12/0525:50>
I feel this falls somewhat within the first rule of Shadowrunning, being "If anything would make Shadowrunners or Shadowrunning impossible or unfeasible, ignore it." Only here it is "If anything would make regular climatic battles against enemy mages unfeasible, ignore it."
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: beowulf_of_wa on <10-11-12/1336:16>
in others words: don't let reality intrude on your ShadowRun.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-11-12/1637:09>
Just geek the caster before they have the chance, and no one has to think about what they'd do in that situation. :P
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-12-12/1249:48>
If you are tossing "realism" out the window, just have your shadowrunners teleport in, steal the thing, and kill everyone within a 3 block radius with one spell with zero drain.  Oh, and let them wear Ghostwalker's skull as a hat while doing it.

There is "realism" (which isn't strictly the correct word choice, here) and there is "plausiblility" (which IS the word we are looking for, here).  The world of Shadowrun works because of the latter, people everywhere are doing what would be plausibe, I.E. what is appropriate and makes sense for the context of their world (the Shadowrun setting).

Is it plausible that a corp would pick someone up off the street (or from a corp enclave, or what have you), spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of nuyen and 8 to 10 years of training on someone they expect to, conceiveably, take a bullet as part of their job?  Does that make sense?  Is it plausible?

Or does it make more sense to have someone with 6 to 12 months of specialized training, worth only tens of thousands, maybe 100,000 nuyen, give them the exact same gear as every other grunt out there so that they don't get singled out and killed before doing their job, and then put them in a position to best aid the security forces posted at a facility, even if that position is in a secure room summoning spirits and siccing them on the opposition and/or spying on them?  (Sorry, long sentance.)

Setting up the opposition like a standard fantasy RPG style adventure is fine for some groups.  It is fun for a while, and some groups never leave that style of play.  It's a little too Pink Mohawk for me, and feels like lazy writing.  I much prefer a game set up plausibly and organically, based upon what would actually work IRL (assuming magic and cyber and what-all).

There common sense rules the day, and I can expect my actions, and the actions of the opposition, to follow simple rules and chains of logic, even if they are not immediately evident.  It allows me to put more faith in the GM that things will work the way they should, and gives me deeper immersion due to greater versimilitude.

While this is simply opinion on my part, I feel Shadowrun (and RPGs in general) works much better in longer campaigns this way.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Ethan on <10-12-12/1258:58>
Except that it does make sense because Mages can do things others can't. It makes sense to have magical security, and the mage can still summon Spirits. Sure, you won't be protecting every warehouse with one. But in a world full of magical threats it is necessary to have some magical defense.

Have you ever played a Mage fighting against corpsec? I mean, a full-on no holds-barred Magician with Mind Control spells and a Bound Spirit? It's not even remotely fair.

So no, there isn't a wagemage security guard at the Stuffer Shack. Or an office building. But certainly in important areas. Also, not all Magicians are Hermetics, there are corp shaman out there as well, and all the other traditions. Some require far less training.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-12-12/1322:39>
In basic Shadowrun, it doesn't make sense for mages to agree to contracts that requires them to be frontline fighters, unless, of course, the corp is paying them substantially more. It also means that there are generally only going to be real security mages in high security facilities. Low end buildings simply won't have astral security (or may have a weak ward), while mid-range buildings will likely have watchers and a more powerful ward, and MAYBE a low-end security mage.

Remember that skilled security mages are in enough demand to command fairly high wages. Corpsec isn't going to stick them places where that wage isn't worth it.

That's why I chose to edit the setting in my campaign, to make Awakening much more common. I would rather change the setting to make more sense (make it so corps can easily replace injured mages) than simply ignore the implications of skilled mages being very rare.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Zilfer on <10-12-12/1353:44>
^Even a mage without skill is dangerous, it's why awakened have to register themselves as awakened on their sins. Otherwise i believe you can get into trouble just for not registering that.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-12-12/1400:18>
^Even a mage without skill is dangerous, it's why awakened have to register themselves as awakened on their sins. Otherwise i believe you can get into trouble just for not registering that.
Depends on what you call unskilled. I call unskilled Magic < 4 and Spellcasting < 3 with no initiation, no foci, and average drain resistance. Magic is just an attribute like anything else; most people (even most mages) don't have higher than a 3 or 4 base magic.

That means that an unskilled mage has 7 casting dice, max Force of 6, and 6 Drain resistance dice. Not particularly dangerous to most runners; more likely to fry himself than stop anyone.

Yes, mages have to register. You also have to register your handgun. Both are dangerous, but untrained mages are hardly "special case" dangerous.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-12-12/1432:13>
7 casting dice vs. the average 3 body or willpower is still quite dangerous. Especially from a public viewpoint.

A gun shoots you,, and kill or knocks you out. Mages can torture you, interrogate you, fry you, electrocute you, turn your skin to goo, rape you, make you rape someone else, force you to commit suicide, put thoughts in your head, read your thoughts, look like you, look like your significant other, etc.

It's the vast amount of things the mages can do that makes them "special case" dangerous to the public. Which is scarier, getting shot and killed, or being forced to take a backride seat as you murder and rape your wife and kids then take a swan dive out the fifth floor?
Quote
In basic Shadowrun, it doesn't make sense for mages to agree to contracts that requires them to be frontline fighters, unless, of course, the corp is paying them substantially more.
Depends on the mage doesn't it? They're people too, and they have to take the jobs available. Sure, Mr. Superace that's excelled as his job for the past 5-10 won't be taking a job in the danger zone, but what about Mr. Crappypants that's already botched two high paying jobs and is having trouble finding work that will hire him.

Just because the Mages are rare and special does not mean they have a magical free pass. They're normal people with an abnormal skill, they've got outside lives, work habbits, work ethics, and pasts. Any number of things can be a reason they're working as Joe Mage Security at the Break In Gallery.

Sure, the Mage probably isn't going to be walking patrols with the other guy. It makes more sense to put him somewhere high with a good view of the grounds, or preferably in a security room that has a fiber optic web to get views of the whole compound/grounds so he can cast from the safety of a locked sealed room.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-12-12/1502:36>
A gun shoots you,, and kill or knocks you out. Mages can torture you, interrogate you, fry you, electrocute you, turn your skin to goo, rape you, make you rape someone else, force you to commit suicide, put thoughts in your head, read your thoughts, look like you, look like your significant other, etc.
All of those circumstances can be replicated with Restricted/Forbidden (or not) technology, except for though reading/control. Said 7 die mage will, on average, be able to maintain his Force 6 mental manipulation on a Will 3 human for about 30 seconds. In the mean time, he has just had to eat 3 Physical drain. As to thought reading? Gamma-Scopolamine is called truth serum for a reason.

And I thought that mages couldn't force you to directly harm yourself with Control Thoughts... I can't find a passage that says to though.

Sure, the Mage probably isn't going to be walking patrols with the other guy. It makes more sense to put him somewhere high with a good view of the grounds, or preferably in a security room that has a fiber optic web to get views of the whole compound/grounds so he can cast from the safety of a locked sealed room.
So we agree then. The mage is unlikely to be joining the security forces in attacking the runners head on, unless he is specifically trained to do so.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-12-12/1519:51>
Quote
So we agree then. The mage is unlikely to be joining the security forces in attacking the runners head on, unless he is specifically trained to do so.
He can drop a stun nuke from anywhere with LoS and in a secure location he's less likely to be at the runners mercy than if he botches a drain check, so I see no reason for him to ever be patrolling with other security members unless there is no other viable route for him to do his job.

I can only see them being in a squad formation if their training is primarily touch based spells.
Quote
And I thought that mages couldn't force you to directly harm yourself with Control Thoughts... I can't find a passage that says to though.
In Shadowrun you can force them to do anything you want with Control Thoughts/Control Actions. They are, for all intents and purposes, a true meat puppet if you get control of them.

Quote
All of those circumstances can be replicated with Restricted/Forbidden (or not) technology, except for though reading/control. Said 7 die mage will, on average, be able to maintain his Force 6 mental manipulation on a Will 3 human for about 30 seconds. In the mean time, he has just had to eat 3 Physical drain. As to thought reading? Gamma-Scopolamine is called truth serum for a reason.
To a degree they can be replaced, but the mage can do it with his mind, no obvious accessories required. The average human maxes out at -3 and -3 for pain penalties. What can a mage achieve with things like agony, worst case scenario it's -3, -3, and -1, just a little bit worse than a normal torturer because they can use everything normal and then magic.

Sure, you've got truth serum for finding the truth, but with mind probe you can potentially get things that the target doesn't even realize they know but have stored subconciously.

Manipulation, well manipulate him to do it, and while he's doing it, alter his memory so that he thinks he wants to do it. Then put his memory back after he's done it so that he knows he didn't ever ever want to. And alter memory lasts what? Force months.

There are truly massive amounts of things that mages can do that are unreplicated by technology. You never know who they are, or what they'll do. You can't even really trust that your friends/family aren't one (whether naturally or because one has masked himself like them).
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-12-12/1758:25>
I admit that I find it somewhat amusing that initation is considered so utterly vital.  I have to admit it'd be nice to get some formal statistics on the Awakened - percentage of the population, percentage active/capable (as compared to having only a hint of power), and how many of those have undergone even one grade of Initiation ...
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Black on <10-12-12/2324:45>
I admit that I find it somewhat amusing that initation is considered so utterly vital.  I have to admit it'd be nice to get some formal statistics on the Awakened - percentage of the population, percentage active/capable (as compared to having only a hint of power), and how many of those have undergone even one grade of Initiation ...

I've always consider initiation to be fairly rare for the most part, but maybe thats a hang over from earlier editions were initiation was not in the core rule book and involved astral quests etc.  Always seemed like a big deal to me.

But it would make sense for corp mages to form circles and help each other initiate...  but really only one or two levels at best.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-13-12/0009:28>
I don't really consider mages a "real" member of their tradition until they've taken their first initiation. The idea of initiation is that you delve into the practice of your tradition; if you haven't initiated, you're just a trainee/wannabe.

I consider mages with 3+ initiation to be considered masters and mages with 6+ initiation (even without Magic increases) to be considered more-or-less archmagi, leaders of societies of lesser mages.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: WellsIDidIt on <10-13-12/0259:13>
I consider mages with 4-6 magic at the unskilled/amateur range. Anything less than that, I pass off to burnout before starting. Then again, I'm still use to 5 or 6 being a guarantee for most starting mages.

The real place where skill starts to show up is initiation and spellcasting ratings. Initiation affects metamagics which tend to be a huge deal from my experience. Spellcasting shows their actual skill with using their magic, but the magic attribute is just their natural raw ability.

Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-13-12/0622:06>
I look at magic a little differently than both of the above posts. First of all real members of traditions don't even have to be awakened. Is an unawakened Buddhist or Christian priest a wannabe?

And again, with the immediate above post. I personally consider initiation to be comparable to a path to enlightenment. A long road that even many skilled users don't reach. When you ignore the fact that with initiation magic has no cap, magic is like any other attribute. 6 magic and you're damn gifted, above that and you start getting into a different league.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: foolofsound on <10-13-12/1046:07>
I look at magic a little differently than both of the above posts. First of all real members of traditions don't even have to be awakened. Is an unawakened Buddhist or Christian priest a wannabe?
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what the religious traditions mean. A Christian priest and a Christian theugre are different (one preaches, the other does magic), someone can be both, a lack of training in one does not inhibit the other. All of the faiths are similar; only Awakened members of the faith are actually part of that faith's mystic tradition, in addition to the faith itself.

Think of it this way, a Jewish rabbi is going to have Knowledge skills about his faith, and probably have some Social skills, to better be a religious leader. He may even understand some of the Kabbalah (aka, has an Arcana score). A true Kabbalistic scholar, on the other hand, is Awakened, and initiates as he pursues the greater mysteries of his faith's esoteric knowledge.


I agree with you on Magic scores; a Magic score of 6-7 is quite gifted (I would say no more than 1 in 10 Awakened reach this level). You can be a powerful mage without having even initiated, or initiated only once. You can't be a leader of a mystic society based solely on being powerful however (in most societies at least); you must also be a master of the tradition it teaches.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-13-12/1329:34>
My point still stands:  Ph'D's aren't manning the front lines of corpsec.  It doesn't require 8 to 10 years of schooling to know when and how to blast someone.  What you will have is a highly trained specialist with just enough to make her/him a formidible addition to the team.

Please pay special attention to and note that last word.  TEAM.  The mage isn't by himself any more than any single corpsec member is by themselves.  This is why the mage doesn't need dozens of dice in his pool to be effective.  Heck, 4 magic and 4 in the various magical skills makes him a significant enough threat contribution to the corpsec team breathing down your throat.  With all the bullets, small spirits and spells being slung at the shadowrunners, corpsec's disadvantage in skill is more than made up for through sheer numbers and firepower.

Remember, if the team has alerted corpsec and is having to fight its way in or out, they have failed.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-24-12/0659:46>
Wow this topic ran away from itself. Anyhoo, as far as cost effective ways to defeat magic, specifically spirits, electricity is your friend. Tasers and stick and shot. White phosphorous grenades are expensive but good for cutting off that mage's escape route at the same time. Flamethrowers are a nice touch as well, especially if you're going up against a water spirit, ironically.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-24-12/0855:33>
Wow this topic ran away from itself. Anyhoo, as far as cost effective ways to defeat magic, specifically spirits, electricity is your friend. Tasers and stick and shot. White phosphorous grenades are expensive but good for cutting off that mage's escape route at the same time. Flamethrowers are a nice touch as well, especially if you're going up against a water spirit, ironically.

Willie Pete is one destructive SoB, though. The stuff is great for taking out just about anything. Heck, use burst-fire and even tanks are gonna be "feeling the burn."
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-24-12/0935:30>
Oh yeah. You do NOT want to mess with WP. That stuff is harder to put out than Napalm. Get some on you, you're on fire. Dive in the water, the fire goes out, until you get back out of the water and it LIGHTS ON FIRE AGAIN!
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-24-12/1042:03>
That would be one mean runner to burn security to death like that. Even if it doesn't burn a tank to dust, which I don't doubt, it'll incapacitate the occupants unless they have the cabin sealed off and pumping fresh oxygen through.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-24-12/1142:30>
It won't burn a tank to dust.  It will eat all the O2 in the area and superheat the insides, cooking the crew.

You are thinking of thermite.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: beowulf_of_wa on <10-24-12/1406:51>
WP will ignite the on the surface of the tank, burning stuff on the outside, heating the shell and making the tank a larger glowing target on thermo with a column of smoke.

a nest of thermite CAN burn thru the shell and pour a decent stream of flaming hate into the interior, but that's not nearly guaranteed,

you got to remember that a tank generally has the best armor that could be put on at the time it was designed.
and many tanks have a lifespan of several crews. in that minor damage that would kill the crew just requires a bit of cleaning for the next crew.

and 95% of the ordnance on earth is designed to damage/disable/destroy a tank.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-24-12/1822:48>
It won't burn a tank to dust.  It will eat all the O2 in the area and superheat the insides, cooking the crew.

You are thinking of thermite.

I'm talking about WP, per the game-system rules, not the RL uses of WP.

Assuming you get enough Net Hits to kill scatter, and using the Overlapping Explosion rules from War! (which make so much more sense for grenades than +1 DV per extra grenade), a Full Burst from an ITS Gonryu would do 8P + (9 * 8P / 2 = 32P) = 40P vs 1/2 Impact, with half that (20P vs I/2) "ticking" again every Combat Turn after that for 10 Combat Turns.

I'm pretty sure that's going to be enough to seriously destroy most tanks... especially the ones with huge Armor scores and relatively little Body.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-24-12/1939:05>
It should be noted that there are various types of 'destroyed'. Under the game rules, a vehicle or drone melted to slag by thermite, blown to bits by explosives, roasted completely with WP, or shot up with bullets would still have the same damage condition, no matter what scenario played out.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-24-12/2359:51>
"... and then I'll pour acid on the ashes, and wash whatever's left down the Seine!!"
"Hey, now, that's just going too far..."
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: FuelDrop on <10-25-12/1812:27>
"... and then I'll pour acid on the ashes, and wash whatever's left down the Seine!!"
"Hey, now, that's just going too far..."
There is no overkill. There's only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <10-25-12/2330:29>
"... and then I'll pour acid on the ashes, and wash whatever's left down the Seine!!"
"Hey, now, that's just going too far..."
There is no overkill. There's only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'

Oh, sure, I get that.  But c'mon.  The Seine???
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <10-26-12/1258:41>
"... and then I'll pour acid on the ashes, and wash whatever's left down the Seine!!"
"Hey, now, that's just going too far..."
There is no overkill. There's only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'
Hey, that's MY line...
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: beowulf_of_wa on <10-26-12/1302:26>
you would prefer the congo? the columbia? the snake? the nile? that little stream flowing thru memphis?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-26-12/1319:31>
The septic tank, where I put all those other things I'd rather not have the authorities find.  :-X

Here's an anti magic tool that every wageslave could carry- Bear Mace. That bear shaman will have trouble doing anything other than summoning when his eyelids are swollen shut.
-Also good against bear shifters.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Twitchy D on <10-26-12/1734:39>
Here's an anti magic tool that every wageslave could carry- Bear Mace. That bear shaman will have trouble doing anything other than summoning when his eyelids are swollen shut.
-Also good against bear shifters.

Or actual bears. Or Awakened bears. Wolves, too. In fact, how about we add anything with eyes, a mouth, and a nose?
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: CanRay on <10-26-12/1920:01>
The septic tank, where I put all those other things I'd rather not have the authorities find.  :-X

Here's an anti magic tool that every wageslave could carry- Bear Mace. That bear shaman will have trouble doing anything other than summoning when his eyelids are swollen shut.
-Also good against bear shifters.
Funny thing about that, regular mace is illegal in Canada, but bear mace is legal.  :P

Anyhow, there's an issue using it against a Bear Shaman, you have an enraged Bear Shaman who can't see now.  ;D
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: JustADude on <10-26-12/1925:45>
Here's an anti magic tool that every wageslave could carry- Bear Mace. That bear shaman will have trouble doing anything other than summoning when his eyelids are swollen shut.
-Also good against bear shifters.

Or actual bears. Or Awakened bears. Wolves, too. In fact, how about we add anything with eyes, a mouth, and a nose?

Except Great Dragons.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Twitchy D on <10-26-12/2112:32>
Here's an anti magic tool that every wageslave could carry- Bear Mace. That bear shaman will have trouble doing anything other than summoning when his eyelids are swollen shut.
-Also good against bear shifters.

Or actual bears. Or Awakened bears. Wolves, too. In fact, how about we add anything with eyes, a mouth, and a nose?

Except Great Dragons.

You need Dragon Mace for that. You know, the stuff that Dog 3.0, The CyberBounty NeoHunter uses on criminals? ;D
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: Redmercury on <10-27-12/1341:11>
The septic tank, where I put all those other things I'd rather not have the authorities find.  :-X

Here's an anti magic tool that every wageslave could carry- Bear Mace. That bear shaman will have trouble doing anything other than summoning when his eyelids are swollen shut.
-Also good against bear shifters.
Funny thing about that, regular mace is illegal in Canada, but bear mace is legal.  :P

Anyhow, there's an issue using it against a Bear Shaman, you have an enraged Bear Shaman who can't see now.  ;D
Bear Shaman Mace- A honey blueberry scented inhalation vector narcotic/muscle relaxant. I kinda want to stat that up.
Title: Re: Technological defeat of magic?
Post by: beowulf_of_wa on <10-28-12/0005:08>
also available in paintball form, aim for the chest everybody, a swift hit to the chest almost guarantees a sudden inhale.


such a sleepy bear shammy.