More stuff from FASA for Shadowrun (and correction of a previous post)
Jennifer Schlickbernd
saw Tom Dowd say the rule of 6 applies to reaction, but now he's saying it
doesn't and Paul agrees with that. So, the rule of 6 does not apply to
reaction as previously reported. Quite frankly, I like the rule of 6
applying to reaction myself, I may keep using it.
The text IS correct on page 81 under Resistance Test where it says that
"The Target Number [for the resistance test] is the casting magician's
Sorcery Skill Rating, with no modifiers". The GM screen is wrong. This to
me is BS, BUT Paul Hume wants magic users to be very powerful against
Mundanes. I explained to him that that really doesn't make much sense in a
historical perspective (no society has ever not had a way to deal with
people who can hurt/kill/maim people because of a special talent or
attribute) but to him, there are so few magic users that society hasn't had
a chance to react yet. I fully intend to use the Force of the spell as the
test for the resistance roll, to give some balance to the magic users.
Paul is now leaning toward using starting spell points as karma for bonding
magic items. He admitted that the allowing of bonded magic items at the
start of the game was a kludge, and that it was not really thought out.
What actually happened is that you are supposed to use the Enchantment
skill at the beginning of the game to make the magic items, but the
Enchantment skill got taken out of the rules at the last second, and they
didn't have a chance to come up with other alternatives. I guess we will
see the Enchantment skill when the magic book comes out, but that won't be
until spring I think.
If you'd like to write for Shadowrun, contact Tom Dowd c/o FASA Corp., PO
Box 6930, Chicago, IL 60680 for info. There are writer's guidelines for
adventures.
I'll ask about how obvious spells are supposed to be, and also try to get
some astral combat questions answered. I'll post these things when I find
out.
--
Jennifer Schlickbernd (Lorini) Jet Propulsion Laboratory
jenn...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jenn...@csvax.caltech.edu
CIS: 72466,3413 Voice:(818) 354-8617
"Great leaders are rare, so I'm following myself."
Michael K. Ellis
>The text IS correct on page 81 under Resistance Test where it says that
>"The Target Number [for the resistance test] is the casting magician's
>Sorcery Skill Rating, with no modifiers". The GM screen is wrong. This to
>me is BS, BUT Paul Hume wants magic users to be very powerful against
>Mundanes. I explained to him that that really doesn't make much sense in a
>historical perspective (no society has ever not had a way to deal with
>people who can hurt/kill/maim people because of a special talent or
>attribute) but to him, there are so few magic users that society hasn't had
>a chance to react yet. I fully intend to use the Force of the spell as the
>test for the resistance roll, to give some balance to the magic users.
Hold it, does this mean that unless explicitly otherwise stated (for
instance, the invisibility spell, where detection has the target number of
double the successes made when casting) that ALL Resistance Tests use the
Sorcery Skill as the target number? This seems remarkably unbalancing,
especially if the Mage has a high Magic Pool (High Sorcery Skill again).
If this is true, then my Sorcery Skill 6 mage can run around casting
Mind Control Force 1 on people, juicing it with dice from the Magic Pool,
and having virtual certainty that he'll easily control anybody with a will-
power of 4 or less. If the target number is the Spell's Force, on the other
hand, it's pretty useless to cast the spell at anything less than a Force 4.
The Force 1 rating also makes resisting drain a whole lot easier for the
mage to boot. Now do this with something like Decrease (Attribute) or
Chaos World, and your magician is pretty much invincible, and at really
low levels of drain. I think I'll use the Spell Force ratings as the
Target numbers, and not the sorcery rating. The sorcery rating give to the
Pool enough as it is.
>
>Paul is now leaning toward using starting spell points as karma for bonding
>magic items. He admitted that the allowing of bonded magic items at the
>start of the game was a kludge, and that it was not really thought out.
This is even worse. I'm playing a mage right now that's 4 3 0 3 0 (yeah,
I know it's illegal) but even if I make her a 4 2 1 3 0 (M A S T R)
she's still running around with 50 spell points to blow. Now, I buy a
Force 5 Power Focus (50,000 ny) and blow 25 Spell Points (Karma) on bonding
it. Now I'm running around with a Mage who has Sorcery 6, Magic *11*,
and worst of all, 11d6 in the Magic Pool, making this charcter able to
cast damn near anything she wants, at any force she wants, and still
survive the drain. Wait 'till you see the elemental she conjures up with
her Conjuring 6, Willpower 5 skills... And remember, she's still got 25
points to spend on spells, more than a Tech 2 character. Now then, add
the fact that I can use really low force spells because my pool is so
big, and this mage is unstoppable. This could make the fifteen dice
incident look minor. How minor? Well, quick figuring out here...
Okay, I take Manaball Force 1, and roll. I add 6 dice from my pool, making
7 total. According to the rules changes, combat spells, at least physical
ones and apparently *all* combat spells, have no resistance by targets.
That means I just rolled 7 dice, and anybody with a willpower of < 4 is
gonna be hurting (I don't have Carl's charts on me, so I don't know how
much). I've still got 5 dice from willpower plus whatever I want from my
pool to resist drain, with a target of 1. Chances are, I'm not going to
take much, if any, fatigue. Next time I get a move, I do it again. Hmm,
If I do this with Hellblasts, or even fireballs, I could make a reputation
as a hitmage specializing in those nasty trolls you can't take out even
with bazookas.
Hey Ed (Allen, my GM) let's implement these rules right now. I'll have
the character ready by Sat, and you can line the trolls up and watch me
knock them down...
>What actually happened is that you are supposed to use the Enchantment
>skill at the beginning of the game to make the magic items, but the
>Enchantment skill got taken out of the rules at the last second, and they
>didn't have a chance to come up with other alternatives. I guess we will
>see the Enchantment skill when the magic book comes out, but that won't be
>until spring I think.
Has anybody suggested intrem rules for the enchantment skill? I kind of
like the following as strictly temporary:
It's kind of like summoning elementals, but also kind of different.
Costs: 1/2 to 3/4 the price listed for the rating. Orchalcum costs 3/4
and requires a specialization to use it, or you're at +2 to target numbers.
Time: Base time is the rating in days. Extra successes may be applied to
lower time, but time is never < 1 day. Extra successes may be applied to
rating: Staging is the rating of the object to be enchanted, but you can't
increase the rating more than one higher than originally intended.
Requirements: Circle or lodge equal to the rating of what you're going to
enchant.
I'd consider the enchantment Skill to be right in the middle of the skill
web. IE: you're at +4 if you don't have the skill.
|
O---Conjuring
|
|-O-Enchantment
|
O---Sorcery
Magic Pool: Substitute Enchantment Skill for Sorcery. Keep Power Focus
dice.
Getting down to it:
Mage or Shaman enters lodge or circle. Must stay in lodge or circle for
the duration of the Casting. (Bring food, water, chamberpots.) If
mage exits circle or lodge before enchantment is complete, the enchantment
automatically fails, all materials are lost, test for drain.
Casting: It's assumed that the mage more or less continually performs
whatever ceremony or rituals s/he prefers, but *something* must be done
at least once every hour or the enchantment fails completely. Needless
to say, if you're on your 7th day, fatigue might start to creep in...
Now roll to see if you succeed, apply extra successes, and stay in circle
or lodge for appropriate time.
Drain is applied considering the mage's Willpower rating, much like drain
is calculated in summoning elementals.
Rating <= Willpower Drain = M2 (Mental)
Willpower < Rating <= WillpowerX2 Drain = S2 (Physical)
WillpowerX2 < Rating Drain = D2 (Death)
Target number is, of course, the Rating of the Enchanted object.
Note: If you succeed in enchanting a high Rating object, but kill yourself
in the process, the thing is still enchanted, but you don't get to use
it, now do you.
Side effects: During the whole time this is going on, the Mage/Shaman is
visible in the Astral Plane, and people looking in will see that *something*
is going on, although the circle/lodge will obscure just what. Enchanting
a high power item might start to attract unwanted visitors. If the circle
or lodge is attacked, the mage can fight back on the astral plane with
no penalty (other than the +2 for maintaining a concurrent spell) but if
the magician is killed or knocked out, the enchantment fails.
What I haven't figured out yet:
Karma: is it necessary? I'm tempted to say that you need half the Karma to
enchant your own, and if you enchant something, you can bond with it
*at the end of the enchantment* for free. If you sell the item or store
it and bond with it later, it costs full Karma. However, this still leaves
Spell Locks. Those I'm willing to say cost 50% for materials, and cost no
Karma to produce. Full enchantment is achieved when the final bonding
occurs, it always costs the one point of Karma, target for enchantment is
3, and drain is L2 (Mental).
On the other hand, you could easily say that it costs no Karma to enchant
something, because it only becomes magically active when Karma is burned,
and apparently magic items can't be traced to the enchanter, and to me,
in magic, Karma means that the mage/shaman's "mark" is left on something,
whether it be a spell lock, a bonded item, or whatever. So it's up for
debate.
Last thing: I haven't figured out about using ritual magic to enchant,
so I'm leaving that up in the air. I also haven't figured out whether
or not a mage/shaman can always trace what s/he's enchanted. It's all
up in the air. This whole thing is just something I came up with off
the top of my head.
Michael K. Ellis
>"The Target Number [for the resistance test] is the casting magician's
>Sorcery Skill Rating, with no modifiers". The GM screen is wrong. This to
>me is BS, BUT Paul Hume wants magic users to be very powerful against
>Mundanes. I explained to him that that really doesn't make much sense in a
>historical perspective (no society has ever not had a way to deal with
>people who can hurt/kill/maim people because of a special talent or
>attribute) but to him, there are so few magic users that society hasn't had
>a chance to react yet. I fully intend to use the Force of the spell as the
>test for the resistance roll, to give some balance to the magic users.
Hold it, does this mean that unless explicitly otherwise stated (for
instance, the invisibility spell, where detection has the target number of
double the successes made when casting) that ALL Resistance Tests use the
Sorcery Skill as the target number? This seems remarkably unbalancing,
especially if the Mage has a high Magic Pool (High Sorcery Skill again).
If this is true, then my Sorcery Skill 6 mage can run around casting
Mind Control Force 1 on people, juicing it with dice from the Magic Pool,
and having virtual certainty that he'll easily control anybody with a will-
power of 4 or less. If the target number is the Spell's Force, on the other
hand, it's pretty useless to cast the spell at anything less than a Force 4.
The Force 1 rating also makes resisting drain a whole lot easier for the
mage to boot. Now do this with something like Decrease (Attribute) or
Chaos World, and your magician is pretty much invincible, and at really
low levels of drain. I think I'll use the Spell Force ratings as the
Target numbers, and not the sorcery rating. The sorcery rating give to the
Pool enough as it is.
>
>Paul is now leaning toward using starting spell points as karma for bonding
>magic items. He admitted that the allowing of bonded magic items at the
>start of the game was a kludge, and that it was not really thought out.
This is even worse. I'm playing a mage right now that's 4 3 0 3 0 (yeah,
>What actually happened is that you are supposed to use the Enchantment
>skill at the beginning of the game to make the magic items, but the
>Enchantment skill got taken out of the rules at the last second, and they
>didn't have a chance to come up with other alternatives. I guess we will
>see the Enchantment skill when the magic book comes out, but that won't be
>until spring I think.
Has anybody suggested intrem rules for the enchantment skill? I kind of
|
O---Conjuring
|
|-O-Enchantment
|
O---Sorcery
the top of my head. I'd appreciate any comments people might have on
it.
>--
>Jennifer Schlickbernd (Lorini) Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>jenn...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jenn...@csvax.caltech.edu
>CIS: 72466,3413 Voice:(818) 354-8617
>"Great leaders are rare, so I'm following myself."
Michael K. Ellis c60a...@WEB.berkeley.edu
el...@ocf.berkeley.edu
"Would you like to kick them, Miss, er...?"
"Mmm, no. No thank you. These are nice shoes."
-Sandman #11
Glenn Thain
>saw Tom Dowd say the rule of 6 applies to reaction, but now he's saying it
>doesn't and Paul agrees with that. So, the rule of 6 does not apply to
>reaction as previously reported. Quite frankly, I like the rule of 6
>applying to reaction myself, I may keep using it.
You didn't make a mistake, they did. Both Tom and Paul keep contridicting
themselves. It's getting tiresome. I wish before they jerked us around any
more that they sat down and decided how they wanted all this to work. A novel
idea would be for them to actually playtest some of this stuff before throwing
it out for general consumption.
>The text IS correct on page 81 under Resistance Test where it says that
>"The Target Number [for the resistance test] is the casting magician's
>Sorcery Skill Rating, with no modifiers". The GM screen is wrong. This to
>me is BS, BUT Paul Hume wants magic users to be very powerful against
>Mundanes. I explained to him that that really doesn't make much sense in a
>historical perspective (no society has ever not had a way to deal with
>people who can hurt/kill/maim people because of a special talent or
>attribute) but to him, there are so few magic users that society hasn't had
>a chance to react yet. I fully intend to use the Force of the spell as the
>test for the resistance roll, to give some balance to the magic users.
Magic is already powerful enough. I can toast a medium size party without
too much effort if they don't have a competent mage along and I have one, (as
a GM). Again, here we find that Paul hasn't really thought out the rational
behind this. In the history it is freely admitted that mages and mage teams
are a part of the corproate lifestyle. That Universities are running programs
dedicated to nothing but magic. All through the rules the impression is given
that magical talent is quite common and you are exposed to it often. Now he's
saying that magicians are rare?
This is part of the problem I'm having with the "offical" version
vs. the net.shadowrun version. One session of blind playtesting would have
solved this and other problems that both he and Tom are desperately trying to
repair now.
>Paul is now leaning toward using starting spell points as karma for bonding
>magic items. He admitted that the allowing of bonded magic items at the
>start of the game was a kludge, and that it was not really thought out.
This is only one amongst many things that were not well thought out.
>What actually happened is that you are supposed to use the Enchantment
>skill at the beginning of the game to make the magic items, but the
>Enchantment skill got taken out of the rules at the last second, and they
>didn't have a chance to come up with other alternatives. I guess we will
>see the Enchantment skill when the magic book comes out, but that won't be
>until spring I think.
What they need to do is go back and re-do the original set of the rules
and fix some of these problems, not continue to confuse the general public.
Both Tom and Paul should communicate, it's clear from what I've been reading
that this hasn't been happening. Then, when they've got Second edition ready,
they should blind playtest it with about three groups who don't know all the
little in-house rules that have become automatic and then re-write the parts
that don't work. They need to lay down some of the foundations of how things
work and why and be very clear about what can and cannot be changed. The
background needs to be etched in stone. I'm nervous because I get the feeling
there's no frame to this house of cards they're building and that means that
I can't really trust the rules. Hell, if they want a blind playtest group that
will report regularly I'm sure I can convince the two groups I'm in to
participate but I don't like the idea of playtesting for them this way.
Feel free to pass this on Jennifer, because frankly I'm getting tired of the
conflicting information I'm receiving. I intend to use my own house rules
until some clear guidelines are laid out because some of the fixes they've
proposed are quite frankly contridicting the system and not following the few
rules they've already laid down.
BTW - Thanks eversomuch, your efforts on behalf of the readership of
this group and dedication on reporting timely what was happening have been
really appreciated. Kudos to you. I really appreciate what you've done.
Best,
Glenn
Mary K. Kuhner;335 Mulford
>I can't really trust the rules. Hell, if they want a blind playtest group that
>will report regularly I'm sure I can convince the two groups I'm in to
>participate but I don't like the idea of playtesting for them this way.
>Feel free to pass this on Jennifer, because frankly I'm getting tired of the
>conflicting information I'm receiving. I intend to use my own house rules
>until some clear guidelines are laid out because some of the fixes they've
>proposed are quite frankly contridicting the system and not following the few
>rules they've already laid down.
You could add us to the list as well. Against my will I am really
starting to like some things about this game--the adventure my roommate
is running is terrific, and there's no way we could do it in any other
system we know--but I've gotten to the point where I cringe every time
I see a rules "clarification".
> BTW - Thanks eversomuch, your efforts on behalf of the readership of
>this group and dedication on reporting timely what was happening have been
>really appreciated. Kudos to you. I really appreciate what you've done.
Yes indeed! You've done a huge amount of work, and we really owe
you a vote of thanks. Without your postings to lean on, I doubt
my roommate and I would ever have stuck with the game.
Mary Kuhner
mkku...@enzyme.berkeley.edu
Jennifer Schlickbernd
=>In article <21...@bacchus.dec.com> gl...@decwrl.dec.com (Glenn Thain) writes:
=>
=>>I can't really trust the rules. Hell, if they want a blind playtest group that
=>>will report regularly I'm sure I can convince the two groups I'm in to
=>>participate but I don't like the idea of playtesting for them this way.
=>>Feel free to pass this on Jennifer, because frankly I'm getting tired of the
=>>conflicting information I'm receiving. I intend to use my own house rules
=>>until some clear guidelines are laid out because some of the fixes they've
=>>proposed are quite frankly contridicting the system and not following the few
=>>rules they've already laid down.
=>
=>You could add us to the list as well. Against my will I am really
=>starting to like some things about this game--the adventure my roommate
=>is running is terrific, and there's no way we could do it in any other
=>system we know--but I've gotten to the point where I cringe every time
=>I see a rules "clarification".
=>
=>> BTW - Thanks eversomuch, your efforts on behalf of the readership of
=>>this group and dedication on reporting timely what was happening have been
=>>really appreciated. Kudos to you. I really appreciate what you've done.
=>
=>Yes indeed! You've done a huge amount of work, and we really owe
=>you a vote of thanks. Without your postings to lean on, I doubt
=>my roommate and I would ever have stuck with the game.
=>
=>Mary Kuhner
=>mkku...@enzyme.berkeley.edu
No biggie, really, with my PC to Sun connection. Yes, I agree that there
are some problems. At the same time, we know that this was a rushed system
and that there are going to be problems and kludges. There are some good
things tho..as someone said, Shadowrun is a system that you can make changes
to without ruining the game system. You might not be doing what they intended,
but if you are a strong enough GM, it'll all work out. I LIKE that about
the system.
Also folks, keep in mind that at least FASA is *available* online. How
many other frp companies are online on a regular basis? SJG is on
CompuServe's RPGames, but they (both CIS and SJG) are so touchy about
copyright issues, it's difficult to take advantage of their presence there
if you are not already a CIS user. FASA has said I can repost anything
relating to Shadowrun as long as I give the proper credits. No other
frp companies that I know of (TSR, G. G's company, ICE/Hero) even realize
we are here, hardly.
Thirdly, don't take what I or anyone else says as set in stone. Nothing
in fact will be set in stone until the supplements come out, and that
won't be until next spring at the earliest (altho Street Samaurai might
make it out by January). I'm trying to pass on the comments as much as
possible to them, and in fact (as Glenn mentioned) they (Tom and Paul)
don't have each other's info. I e-mailed the spell rules and background
that Paul had done to Tom, and e-mailed the armor and magic changes to
Paul. All for the cause, I say, for the cause:)
I can't pass on everyone's questions so much anymore, cuz it just got
too difficult keeping track and also having an understanding of what
people meant. See, if CIS and/or GEnie feel like I'm taking advantage
of their systems by posting a bunch of messages for other people, I'll
get in trouble on that. Also, the CIS postings cost me money. Not a
lot, but a monthlong habit of posting other people's messages would
get expensive. Thirdly, we are doing a good job I think of answering
newbie's questions ourselves.
At any rate, the thanks are appreciated, and I hope that we all can
continue to benefit.
Ken Kofman
>In article <21...@bacchus.dec.com> gl...@decwrl.dec.com (Glenn Thain) writes:
>
>>I can't really trust the rules. Hell, if they want a blind playtest group that
>>will report regularly I'm sure I can convince the two groups I'm in to
>>participate but I don't like the idea of playtesting for them this way.
>>Feel free to pass this on Jennifer, because frankly I'm getting tired of the
>>conflicting information I'm receiving. I intend to use my own house rules
>
>starting to like some things about this game--the adventure my roommate
>is running is terrific, and there's no way we could do it in any other
>system we know--but I've gotten to the point where I cringe every time
>I see a rules "clarification".
Agreed. As much as I enjoy 'clarifying' the rules and smoothing out
internal inconsistencies, it would be ever so nice to have a consistent
and balanced system. Such does not exist right now. Methinks that some
critical playtesting was left out, in the rush to get to market. Ah, well.
>> BTW - Thanks eversomuch, your efforts on behalf of the readership of
>Yes indeed! You've done a huge amount of work, and we really owe
The errata and other FASA communications that you posted have been
nearly indispensable in the unraveling of the Inner Meaning of Shadowrun.
Why, without you Carl and I would even now be posting humongous rules
emendments, enhancements and number crunchments... As it is they are not
so humongous as all that.
Thanks for the fish,
ken
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclamer: Don't do it; it's against the Law...
Ken Kofman
k...@samaria.key.com ...![amdahl,pacbell]!key!ken
Glenn Thain
>to without ruining the game system. You might not be doing what they
>intended, but if you are a strong enough GM, it'll all work out. I LIKE that
>about the system.
As do I. The only problem that I have with it right now is that the
erratta, while nice to see, doesn't seem to be consistant nor thought about
given the current system constraints.
I'd have modified it anyway, there isn't a game that I run that I play
entirely as written. (Well.....I take that back. Marvel Heros is one).
>Also folks, keep in mind that at least FASA is *available* online. How
>many other frp companies are online on a regular basis? SJG is on
>CompuServe's RPGames, but they (both CIS and SJG) are so touchy about
>copyright issues, it's difficult to take advantage of their presence there
>if you are not already a CIS user. FASA has said I can repost anything
>relating to Shadowrun as long as I give the proper credits. No other
>frp companies that I know of (TSR, G. G's company, ICE/Hero) even realize
>we are here, hardly.
Sorry. Both HERO/ICE are very well aware that we're here, as does TSR and
R.Talsorian. There are various reasons why they are unable to connect to
USENET, (and in some cases we're trying to work that out), but they all know
about us and about our opinions.
Best,
Glenn
Carl Rigney
>I think I'll use the Spell Force ratings as the
>Target numbers, and not the sorcery rating.
I quite agree. I'm going to use Spell Force, not Sorcery.
>Now I'm running around with a Mage who has Sorcery 6, Magic *11*,
>and worst of all, 11d6 in the Magic Pool, making this charcter able to
>cast damn near anything she wants, at any force she wants, and still
>survive the drain. Wait 'till you see the elemental she conjures up with
>her Conjuring 6, Willpower 5 skills...
Great; I bet she'd get along great with my Coyote Shaman with the Charisma
10 (love those spell locks) - Force 20 spirits! Dirty Pair, anyone? :-)
>Okay, I take Manaball Force 1, and roll. I add 6 dice from my pool, making
>7 total. According to the rules changes, combat spells, at least physical
>ones and apparently *all* combat spells, have no resistance by targets.
>That means I just rolled 7 dice, and anybody with a willpower of < 4 is
>gonna be hurting (I don't have Carl's charts on me, so I don't know how
>much).
No, you've misinterpreted. The target still gets their willpower to
resist the damage. I agree that if you use sorcery as the resistance
target number, that makes mages TOO good. And you should keep my
charts with you all the time - would you like a wallet-sized postscript
version? :-)
7 dice with Force 2 Manaball vs. Willpower 3, using Force as target
number for resistance test, averages 3.7 boxes. Using Sorcery (assume
6) as a target number, it averages 6.3 boxes. Note that with Mana
*Bolt* those numbers become 2 and 8 respectively.
7 3 2L2 0 0 0 3 0 3.67 0.0005 0.0064 0.1546 0.5339 0.2856 0.0195
7 3 6L2 0 0 0 3 0 6.29 0.0005 0.0005 0.0187 0.1958 0.5411 0.2439
Your drain with 5 dice vs. target 2 (remember, that's the minimum
target number, so I also consider it the minimum force for spells) is a
3% chance of light, otherwise none. 6 dice means a 99% chance of no
drain vs. Force 2.
Enchantment is reputed to "eat karma like candy", but where do
Talismongers get all that Karma from? I'm sure this is a familiar
question to Fantasy Hero GMs.
Personally, I see little need to have PC Talismongers, so I'm not
worried about enchantment. Where fetishes come from is one of those
questions, like where babies come from, best handled offscreen.
--
Carl Rigney
c...@amdcad.AMD.COM {ames att decwrl pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdr
"Hey, Crys, where DO babies come from?" -- Jennifer "Steel Kitten" Crosswell
"Hell, kid." -- The Crystal Daemon
Ken Kofman
Definitely don't use the Sorcery skill as the target number; use the spell's
Force instead. You won't regret it. Honest.
ken
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclamer: of course it works