Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Dust <rogan@*******.BERGEN.ORG>
Subject: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:56:41 -0500
I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
that it's not plausible for that to happen?
Dust

P.S. Can someone tell me about immortal elves? (history, stats, where they
are talked about, etc.)
Message no. 2
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:19:43 -0500
Dust wrote:

> I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
> into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
> drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
> sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
> that it's not plausible for that to happen?
> Dust

<Snip>

Simple solution: When the spell drops, so does their ablility to gain
any advantages from the spell. At the time the spell is dropped, have
them reroll their initiative without any bonuses from the spell. That's
their new initiative...and they've already used a simple action.

If they complain, tell them they are being munchkins and if they value
their character's lives, they need to think a bit about why there are
rules for +2 TN's.

Justin. :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 3
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:16:00 MST
>I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
>into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
>drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
>sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
>that it's not plausible for that to happen?
> Dust

It sounds plausible because when you cut the spell, it will last for the
rest of that turn. Next turn, they only roll one die (or whatever is
normal) for initiative. It sounds okay to me. And keep in mind that that
spell has Deadly drain, and a fairly high target #, so they will probably be
walking into the fight stunned. If they wait for a couple of hours for the
stun to go down, then they face the pros and cons of walking around with a
sustained spell.


Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Message no. 4
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:30:01 -0700
Dust wrote:
|
| I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
| into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
| drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
| sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
| that it's not plausible for that to happen?

I would say "No." When the players start abusing the
game, then the GM should start abusing the players'
characters.

Try running an adventure that doesn't have *any* fights
sometime <evil GM grin>.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 5
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:28:36 -0500
Dust wrote,
>I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
>into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
>drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
>sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
>that it's not plausible for that to happen?
I do.
If you feel like being cute (or cruel), let him role the dice from
the spell with different color dice without telling why. Once he drops
the spell remove the value he rolled from those dice from the spell.
That should put him in his place real fast about the whole trick.




Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 6
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: +3 initiative dice spell -Reply
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:50:08 -0500
>I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going into a
>fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to drop it before they
>do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for sustaining a spell but they
>will keep the initiative. Does anyone think that it's not plausible for that to
>happen?
> Dust

I don't remember where I saw this rule, but I seem to recall that when your
initiative score changes, good changes don't happen until the start of the next
turn, but bad changes cause you to be ineligible for actions until when your next
action would be under the lower score. It might have been in one of the sections
about astral magicians, or maybe it was about deckers in VR2.0 Anyone else
remember this rule?

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 7
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell -Reply
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:11:09 -0700
Mike Elkins wrote:
|
| I don't remember where I saw this rule, but I seem to recall that
when your | initiative score changes, good changes don't happen until
the start of the next | turn, but bad changes cause you to be
ineligible for actions until when your next | action would be under the
lower score. It might have been in one of the sections | about astral
magicians, or maybe it was about deckers in VR2.0 Anyone else |
remember this rule? | | Double-Domed Mike |

Maybe it's in the section on taking damage, cuz wound
modifiers are applied to initiative immediately.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 8
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell -Reply
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:15:26 -0500
Mike Elkins wrote,
>I don't remember where I saw this rule, but I seem to recall that when your
>initiative score changes, good changes don't happen until the start of the
>next
>turn, but bad changes cause you to be ineligible for actions until when
>your next
>action would be under the lower score. It might have been in one of the
>sections
>about astral magicians, or maybe it was about deckers in VR2.0 Anyone else
>remember this rule?

Sounds more like an astral reference to me. I still would have to be
altered with my previous solution since the satral bonuses are +10 (I
think it ignores astral reaction ratings for speed of game play). Anyone
out there feel like finding that rule? I'm backed up over here.




Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 9
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:41:28 -0500
At 11:56 AM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
>into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
>drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
>sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
>that it's not plausible for that to happen?
> Dust
>
Yuck... Now that's a bit abusive...

I would say that they only get the bonuses as long as they sustain the
spell... Make them roll the 3 extra dice seperately next time (give them
no warning), and then once they drop the spell, subtract those three dice
from there initiative... If tehy complain, who cares... You're the GM.

As an alternative, runa game with little or no combat, or make all the
enemies even nastier... Make 'em fight some cybergoons from Aztechnology
who all are equipped with Move-By-Wire level 4.

PC1: Cool, I got an initiative of 31...
GM: Ok, the bad guys all go first... twice... <evil GM Grin>
PC's: WHAT??

>P.S. Can someone tell me about immortal elves? (history, stats, where they
>are talked about, etc.)
>
Well, there isn't much about the IE... they were, until fairly recently,
kept a serious mystery. There's only a few known, and tehre aren't any
stats on them. You'll find a LITTLE info in Harlequin and Harlequin's
Back, as well as the novel Worlds Without End. Other than that, good
luck... There's just little referneces here and there...

As for History... None really.
Stats: Harlequins Back puts it best... The are no stats on harlequin,
cause if we give 'em stats, teh PC's will find a way to kill them.

Well, taht's it for now...

Bull-the-check-out-the-new-.sig-from-Dvixen-Ork-Decker
--
Bull-the-I'm-now-cuddley-because-Dvixen-said-so-ork-decker-turned-GM

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****,com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"I dare you to use that .sig file for a week!"
-Dvixen, after seeing my new .sig
Message no. 10
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:24:27 -0800
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> Dust wrote:
>
> > I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
> > into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
> > drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
> > sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
> > that it's not plausible for that to happen?
> > Dust
>
> <Snip>
>
> Simple solution: When the spell drops, so does their ablility to gain
> any advantages from the spell. At the time the spell is dropped, have
> them reroll their initiative without any bonuses from the spell. That's
> their new initiative...and they've already used a simple action.

Or simply use separate dice to roll the bonus and keep track of it...then
subtract that from their current initiative when they drop the spell.

>
> If they complain, tell them they are being munchkins and if they value
> their character's lives, they need to think a bit about why there are
> rules for +2 TN's.
>
> Justin. :)

Yeah! what he said..

~Tim (pointing vigorously at Justin)
Message no. 11
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:45:00 MST
> I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
> into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
> drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
> sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
> that it's not plausible for that to happen?
> Dust

<Snip>

>Simple solution: When the spell drops, so does their ablility to gain
>any advantages from the spell. At the time the spell is dropped, have
>them reroll their initiative without any bonuses from the spell. That's
>their new initiative...and they've already used a simple action.
>
>If they complain, tell them they are being munchkins and if they value
>their character's lives, they need to think a bit about why there are
>rules for +2 TN's.

So what happens if they cast the spell with the full intention of using it
for the whole fight, but somehow the spell gets killed in astral space, or
dropped for a "valid" reason? Would you change your ruling because the
player wasn't trying to take advantage of the rules? That sounds unfair and
unrealistic.

If the rules only go your way when you are playing in the spirit of the
game, and twist against you when you try to abuse it, then the rules are
arbitrary. IMO, the rules should work the same no matter what. Shadowrun's
rules are harder to take advantage of than other games (like D&D or
Champions) because they are better constructed. Keep the rules the same,
but there are other, more realistic ways for the DM to even it out. Like
suddenly decided the security mage also has an elemental whose job it is to
attack any sustained spells, or something like that.

Abusing the rules as a DM or player is still abusing the rules.

Besides, I don't think the above example is really that extreme. Like I
already mentioned, the spell is difficult to cast and has Deadly drain.
Casting it before every combat is going to cost. You will be looking for
target #s of 6 or higher, and will need to have 8 successes on the drain
test to avoid any stun. This balances out IMO.

There is sometimes a fine line between a munchkin action and the player
doing the smart thing. If I was a character in Shadowrun, I would figure
out the way to be the most effective. Buy the biggest gun or use my spells
in the smartest manner in order to survive. I might even do just what
Dust's player did because it makes sense.

What I do as a DM is set up the rules so there are no loop-holes that
exploit them. If I find a hole during play, we patch it. Then, if I am a
player, I switch hats and do the best I can, keeping my character's
character in mind, to be the best I can. I don't think this is being
munchkin, I think it is being smart.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Message no. 12
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:39:57 EST
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:56:41 -0500 Dust <rogan@*******.BERGEN.ORG>
writes:
>I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before
>going
>into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action
>to
>drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier
>for
>sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone
>think
>that it's not plausible for that to happen?

Yeah, I'd call foul on that one, I think. Cost them the next action, and
12 initiative:)

>P.S. Can someone tell me about immortal elves? (history, stats, where
>they
>are talked about, etc.)
>
I don't know which books they're in and most of what I know can be found
out on the Internet. IOW, do your own research:)

Canthros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 13
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:24:20 +1100
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Dust wrote:

> I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
> into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
> drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
> sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
> that it's not plausible for that to happen?
> Dust

Running with a bunch of munchkins are you - well, thwap them!

Personally, I would not allows them to keep their initiatives. Let's
think on what the spell is doing in reality. It speeds the mage up
(reflex wise etc etc). Hence, as soon as the spell is no longer
sustained, they will slow back to reality.

So, an example. Let's say the mage rolled as init. with his extra dice as
24. Then, on that Combat Phase, he gets to drop the spell with his free
action, plus 2 simple or 1 complex actions at +2TN. His next action would
not be 14, but reaction + one of the init. dice that *you* pick.

If you really want to be mean, you could say that they feel disorientated
for a base time of 10 rounds divided by willpower. In that time, they get
a +4 or whatever to all their rolls!

Shaman


_________________________________________________________
In Real Life: Calvin Hsieh
In Neo-Arch Real Life: Shaman

Neurological problems 101:
Kluver-Bucy Syndrome.
Occurs with the bilateral removal of the temporal lobe,
including amygdala.
Symptoms: Overattentiveness, hyperorality, psychic
blindness, hypersexuality, absense of emotional response.
_________________________________________________________
Message no. 14
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:58:36 -0800
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Denzil Kruse wrote:

>
> >Simple solution: When the spell drops, so does their ablility to gain
> >any advantages from the spell. At the time the spell is dropped, have
> >them reroll their initiative without any bonuses from the spell. That's
> >their new initiative...and they've already used a simple action.
> >
> >If they complain, tell them they are being munchkins and if they value
> >their character's lives, they need to think a bit about why there are
> >rules for +2 TN's.
>
> So what happens if they cast the spell with the full intention of using it
> for the whole fight, but somehow the spell gets killed in astral space, or
> dropped for a "valid" reason? Would you change your ruling because the
> player wasn't trying to take advantage of the rules? That sounds unfair and
> unrealistic.
>

Well, if it was me, I'd just do the same thing either way. The spell is
no longer in effect, thus it's effects disappear - no matter what the
reason (intentional dropping or astral killing)

> If the rules only go your way when you are playing in the spirit of the
> game, and twist against you when you try to abuse it, then the rules are
> arbitrary. IMO, the rules should work the same no matter what. Shadowrun's
> rules are harder to take advantage of than other games (like D&D or
> Champions) because they are better constructed. Keep the rules the same,
> but there are other, more realistic ways for the DM to even it out. Like
> suddenly decided the security mage also has an elemental whose job it is to
> attack any sustained spells, or something like that.
>
> Abusing the rules as a DM or player is still abusing the rules.
>
> Besides, I don't think the above example is really that extreme. Like I
> already mentioned, the spell is difficult to cast and has Deadly drain.
> Casting it before every combat is going to cost. You will be looking for
> target #s of 6 or higher, and will need to have 8 successes on the drain
> test to avoid any stun. This balances out IMO.
>
> There is sometimes a fine line between a munchkin action and the player
> doing the smart thing. If I was a character in Shadowrun, I would figure
> out the way to be the most effective. Buy the biggest gun or use my spells
> in the smartest manner in order to survive. I might even do just what
> Dust's player did because it makes sense.

Whoops! Re-check your first sentence in that last paragraph ("..the
player doing the smart thing.."). Don't take this personally, but that's
the wrong mind set. If a character does something completely in-line with
his personality, something that the PLAYER knows full-well is incorrect,
false or even deadly, it's called good role-playing. Put what YOU know is
smart to the side and do what your CHARACTER would feel is smart - even if
you (the player) know full well it's not.

Doing something for the sole sake of it garnering the best advantage out
of the rules, regardless of the character, is 'munchkin'. (O.K. there are
technical exceptions, like places where the action makes sence from both a
RP and rules standpoint - aiming, using an elemental for spell aid, etc..)

>
> What I do as a DM is set up the rules so there are no loop-holes that
> exploit them. If I find a hole during play, we patch it. Then, if I am a
> player, I switch hats and do the best I can, keeping my character's
> character in mind, to be the best I can. I don't think this is being
> munchkin, I think it is being smart.
>
> Denzil Kruse
> d.kruse@****.com
>


Well, I don't know if it's exactly a 'fine' line, but it certainly isn't
a discreet one.

~Tim
(like always take what I say with a grain of NaCl)
Message no. 15
From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:09:54 +0800
>| I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
>| into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
>| drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
>| sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
>| that it's not plausible for that to happen?
>
>I would say "No." When the players start abusing the
>game, then the GM should start abusing the players'
>characters.

I say let them do it. On average they will roll a "19" (4d6 + 5), subtract 2
from the roll (modifier for sustaining a spell **grin**), giving them an
average of "17", they get an action on 17 (say manabolt), their next action
is on "7". They either have to re cast the spell or go without 4d6
initiative in the next round. (The cybered troll might be a bit annoyed with
the mage that tried to fry his brain). Either way the mage only gets one
action per turn (if he uses his second action to re cast his spell).

>Try running an adventure that doesn't have *any* fights
>sometime <evil GM grin>.

OR try having your NPC's "surprise" your PC's. That way they cant cast the
spell in time! ;)



"In crises the most daring email: lewis@**.edu.au
course is often the safest" tel: +61 9 239 5525
fax: +61 9 239 5544
Henry A. Kissinger Gavin Lewis
The University of Notre Dame - Aust.
Message no. 16
From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:17:34 +0800
>Doing something for the sole sake of it garnering the best advantage out
>of the rules, regardless of the character, is 'munchkin'. (O.K. there are
>technical exceptions, like places where the action makes sence from both a
>RP and rules standpoint - aiming, using an elemental for spell aid, etc..)

Perhaps ..... "making yourself quicker before a fight and dropping the
sustained spell shaft during combat" might also be viewed as 'smart
roleplaying', opposed to 'munchkinism'!???
Message no. 17
From: Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:44:37 EST
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:17:34 +0800 Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU> writes:

>Perhaps ..... "making yourself quicker before a fight and dropping the
>sustained spell shaft during combat" might also be viewed as 'smart
>roleplaying', opposed to 'munchkinism'!???
>

It just looks to me like an exercise in loop-hole exploiting.

(Remembering when someone once told me that, because in the RIFTS
conversion book under Elves it said that they were proficient in archery
and thus gained an extra attack per melee, that you didn't need to
actually have a bow in hand to gain this bonus..."It doesn't SAY they
must use a bow to get the extra attack...")

~Tim
Message no. 18
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:52:48 +0100
Dust said on 11:56/14 Jan 97...

> I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
> into a fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to
> drop it before they do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for
> sustaining a spell but they will keep the initiative. Does anyone think
> that it's not plausible for that to happen?

This is a tough one, because there is no indication in the spell
description about what should happen here. It sounds a bit munchkin to me,
because the PCs are trying to get the bonus of the spell without also
taking its drawback (the +2 modifier). If someone did this in my game, I'd
probably let them lose all actions between the moment they drop the spell,
and the first action they could have rolled up without using the spell.

For example, a character with initiative 4+1D6 casts Increase Reflexes +3,
and then rolls 19 on the 4D6, for an initiative of 23. Then, in his Free
Action at 23, he drops the spell before doing anything else. At this
point, I'd reduce his initiative to 3 -- he loses the actions at 23 and
13, because he couldn't have rolled those up with his normal 4+1D6
initiative.

Incidentally, I'd also do this when the character's spell gets killed in
astral combat by someone -- one of the risks of walking around with an
active spell.

Alternatively, let the player roll two colors of dice: one for his normal
initiative die, another for the +3D6 from the spell. When the spell gets
canceled for some reason, take away the result of the 3 dice, leaving him
with only his base initiative.

> P.S. Can someone tell me about immortal elves? (history, stats, where they
> are talked about, etc.)

One of the best sources here is the Tir Tairngire sourcebook, that answers
a lot of questions (and raises more, as always). Basically, they're elves
who were born before the Sixth World (many of them come from the Fourth
World, i.e. the Earthdawn universe, while some were born in the Fifth
World). All of them are powerful magicians who've magically extended
their lives to an almost limitless time (how this is done is unknown,
though at least one of them struck a deal with a Horror, judging by a
picture in the Earthdawn rulebook).

None of them are given stats, because they should be used as motivators
rather than direct adversaries -- they can do anything except the things
the player characters have to do. Also, as Harlequin's Back puts it, "give
it stats and someone will kill it." (I like that line :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Maybe if I get a really cool suit, that'll help...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 19
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:58:00 MST
>> There is sometimes a fine line between a munchkin action and the player
>> doing the smart thing. If I was a character in Shadowrun, I would figure
>> out the way to be the most effective. Buy the biggest gun or use my
spells
>> in the smartest manner in order to survive. I might even do just what
>> Dust's player did because it makes sense.
>
>Whoops! Re-check your first sentence in that last paragraph ("..the
>player doing the smart thing..").

You caught me there. I often get me and my character confused. I meant to
say character.

>Don't take this personally, but that's
>the wrong mind set. If a character does something completely in-line with
>his personality, something that the PLAYER knows full-well is incorrect,
>false or even deadly, it's called good role-playing. Put what YOU know is
>smart to the side and do what your CHARACTER would feel is smart - even if
>you (the player) know full well it's not.

And what if both you and the characater agree that it is smart? That is
munchkinism? I understand what you are saying, but sometimes the character
has a pretty good grasp of how the world works (read: how the rules work)
and does the best he can. Take a military commander. He has studied
tactics, knows the strengths and weaknesses of his men, and knows most of
the rules of the game. He has been around the block and witnessed and
performed many tricks. He may have some personality hangups or style that
may sometimes get in the way of cold, pure tactics, but maybe not.

>Doing something for the sole sake of it garnering the best advantage out
>of the rules, regardless of the character, is 'munchkin'. (O.K. there are
>technical exceptions, like places where the action makes sence from both a
>RP and rules standpoint - aiming, using an elemental for spell aid, etc..)

I agree with your definition of munchkin, but what I'm saying is that not
all characters are tactical buffoons. They can be just as creative as
anyone else coming up with little tricks and advantages, especially in such
a survival-oriented game. Some don't have much sense, and in that case I
play them that way.

>>Perhaps ..... "making yourself quicker before a fight and dropping the
>>sustained spell shaft during combat" might also be viewed as 'smart
>>roleplaying', opposed to 'munchkinism'!???
>>
>
>It just looks to me like an exercise in loop-hole exploiting.

So instead of patching the hole, your solution is to become the DM
equivalent of a munchkin: you alter the events and rules not because it is
good for the story or makes sense in the world, but because you want to
punish the characters for exploiting a loop-hole you left open.

I have never been accussed of being munchkin whenever I am a player. In
fact, in our current D&D game (we cycle between game systems) I always seem
to be the weakest character statwise, but I equal it out with clever and
creative use of my skills, abilities, or spells. I don't put the
manipulation of the rules before my character's actions. I decide how my
character will react, or what he wants to do. Then I figure out the best
way to do it, based on my character's knowledge of the rules. I do not
start flipping through books or recite the rules as a mantra, I just know
them and react.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Message no. 20
From: Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:33:30 -0600
At 09:58 AM 1/15/97 MST, Denzil Kruse wrote:
>>Doing something for the sole sake of it garnering the best advantage out
>>of the rules, regardless of the character, is 'munchkin'.

No, that's power gaming, not munchkinism. Munchkins cheat and break the
rules, they don't make the rules bend to their will. I can power game a
character, and my GM can't stop me without a good reason (for example, no
background, just a set of stats) but I can't be a munchkin without help
from above. Anyone who's seen the Gun Bunny Deluxe, Troll Tank or Speed
Elf would probably agree that the characters are gross, but they aren't
munchkins, but cause they fall completely within the rules and don't change
them. A munchkin, on the other hand, would make a spell that had no
penalties, has killed dragons single handedly, and owns Excalibur, but
doesn't need it because they have killing hands (D) with distance strike,
but they didn't have to pay the extra magic, because that's a stupid rule
anyway.

Never confuse powergaming with munchkinism. Anyone can be a munchkin. You
have to think about what's going on to be a powergamer.

Of course, the reason this is so confusing is that the standard Sr rules
are incredibly easy to abuse.

Mike Broadwater
Message no. 21
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:58:21 -0500
Denzil Kruse wrote,
>So instead of patching the hole, your solution is to become the DM
>equivalent of a munchkin: you alter the events and rules not because it is
>good for the story or makes sense in the world, but because you want to
>punish the characters for exploiting a loop-hole you left open.

I don't think there is a whole there rules wise. If they spell is
dropped all effects are dropped. Thr trick is how to apply that effect.
The character by his attempt with dropping the spell is to try to take
advantage of game mechanics by trying to hold onto his initiate roll
(which would no longer influence by the spell). The effects of a sustain
spell drops when the spell is dropped. Don't forget that a combat turn
is typical 3 seconds give or take your mood at the time. That is enough
time for the spell to wear off during the turn for the spell not to have
"carry-over effect".
If you don't veiw that is the case (on a game mechanic level) then
you do have this loophole. I don't see how fixing it could make you a
munchkin GM. You are a GM striving to maintain a balance in your game.
That is not munkinism. I close loopholes and if the players are punished
by it it that's just the way it goes. Dropping the spell and keeping the
results just doesn't happen. If I throw up a barrier spell, I do net
expect to keep the results during the full combat turn which I dropped it
on a earlier action. The principles haven't changed with that example.
If there was another point to your take on all this, I'm sorry I
missed it. My consern in my responce is use and effect of Increased
Initiative.
While I'm on it, I would further rule that if the spell was dropped
during a turn. The character would also lose a number of later actions
after his new modified iniative equal to the actions already spent for
that turn only. Those lost turns would not carry over to the next
initiative roll only for the turn it was dropped. I would do this to
prevent the character of using actions from the spell and then dropping
the spell once normal initiative would cover his remaining actions.
There should also be at least a difference of 10 between the initiative
action from the first roll and when he can take an action with the new
modified initiative. Loss of actions should cover for this spread.

- MC23 -
Message no. 22
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:03:23 -0500
Michael Broadwater wrote,
>Never confuse powergaming with munchkinism. Anyone can be a munchkin. You
>have to think about what's going on to be a powergamer.

And don't forget as GM you have the right to deny those powergaming
characters in your game as well if you feel it would be unbalancing. Just
be prepared to help out in character creation so the power level is what
you want for your game. I never had the problem with disapproving
characters but I'm always willing to help balance those same characters
so they will fit in my game.

- MC23 -
Message no. 23
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:23:00 MST
At 09:58 AM 1/15/97 MST, Denzil Kruse wrote:
>>Doing something for the sole sake of it garnering the best advantage out
>>of the rules, regardless of the character, is 'munchkin'.

Just for the record, I was quoting someone else. (double >>'s)

>No, that's power gaming, not munchkinism. Munchkins cheat and break the
>rules, they don't make the rules bend to their will. I can power game a
>character, and my GM can't stop me without a good reason (for example, no
>background, just a set of stats) but I can't be a munchkin without help
>from above. [snip]

>Never confuse powergaming with munchkinism. Anyone can be a munchkin. You
>have to think about what's going on to be a powergamer.

That's a good distinction, I guess I just threw them into the same category.
I think the point behind both of them though is putting the power of the
character above the role-playing aspect. They think of the game in terms of
stats and power, not being a character in a story. My point is you can be
both a good role-player and a clever, creative tactician when a fight breaks
out. Without being a powergamer or munchikin.

Getting back to the dropping of the Increased Reflexes spell once combat
starts: I don't know what was going through the players head when he did
that, but I don't think that it is an inherently munchkin/powergamer act. I
think the spell is well constructed with high target #s and Deadly drain, so
it is balanced in that situation. If I was a mage with that spell, and
didn't have any personality or style conflict with dropping it in the first
round, I might do that. The same way I would jump for cover as soon as a
gunfight breaks out, or jump on top of a car during melee or put my back to
a wall to minimize the number of attackers when outnumbered.

>Of course, the reason this is so confusing is that the standard Sr rules
>are incredibly easy to abuse.

I guess any game system can be abused, but I think Shadowrun is harder to
abuse than any other game I have come across. Maybe because the world is
more focused in a certain style. D&D and Champions(Hero) have the advantage
of being more versatile, but in doing so make it more vulnerable to
munchikins/powergamers. I have found I like game systems, like Shadowrun,
that aren't meant to be applied in different genres or worlds, but are
tailored specificly to a narrower scope. If I want to play a superhero
game, I want a system made for the genre. Same for cyberpunk and fantasy.

~Tim brought up this point:
> If a character does something completely in-line with
>his personality, something that the PLAYER knows full-well is incorrect,
>false or even deadly, it's called good role-playing.

Right, playing your character is good role-playing. If the player makes the
character do something stupid because it is in good character, that is good
role-playing. If the player makes the character do something stupid to
demonstrate what a good role-player he is, he is being...something bad:)
I've seen some people have their characters make "big sacrifices" to show
what kind of role-players they are or to use as a defense against other
outrageous abilities.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Message no. 24
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:44:00 MST
Denzil Kruse wrote,
>So instead of patching the hole, your solution is to become the DM
>equivalent of a munchkin: you alter the events and rules not because it is
>good for the story or makes sense in the world, but because you want to
>punish the characters for exploiting a loop-hole you left open.

> I don't think there is a whole there rules wise.

I don't either, but the other person (and others) did, and I was talking
about fixing a hole if you think there is one, not working around it with
some on-the-fly-ruling that might be different next time.

> If you don't veiw that is the case (on a game mechanic level) then
>you do have this loophole. I don't see how fixing it could make you a
>munchkin GM.

Right, but the GM wasn't fixing it, he was finding another rule or just
plain thumping the players on the head to compensate for it.

>You are a GM striving to maintain a balance in your game.
>That is not munkinism. I close loopholes and if the players are punished
>by it it that's just the way it goes.

Right, closing loopholes is the right thing to do. Maintaing balance by
finding your own loopholes is not. Close the loopholes by making a good
judgement and fair rule. If it punishes the characters then fine, it
probably means they were doing something that doesn't make sense or being
munchikin. But however you close the loophole, it affects everybody equally
(both PCs and NPCs).

>Dropping the spell and keeping the
>results just doesn't happen. If I throw up a barrier spell, I do net
>expect to keep the results during the full combat turn which I dropped it
>on a earlier action. The principles haven't changed with that example.

I hadn't really decided if I agree with the ruling or not. I was reacting
to the way people suggested handling it. I would probably rule it as the
example. They still have a "boost" from the spell, still riding its
momentum. Like you said, this is only a 3 second time span. But I could
see it go either way. Maybe I would have the mage only act once on 23 (for
example) but not 13 or 3.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Message no. 25
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:26:23 -0500
Denzil Kruse wrote,
>I don't either, but the other person (and others) did, and I was talking
>about fixing a hole if you think there is one, not working around it with
>some on-the-fly-ruling that might be different next time.

That was the clarification I wanted. Thanks.
<snip>
>But however you close the loophole, it affects everybody equally
>(both PCs and NPCs).

We are in agreement then.

>I hadn't really decided if I agree with the ruling or not. I was reacting
>to the way people suggested handling it. I would probably rule it as the
>example. They still have a "boost" from the spell, still riding its
>momentum. Like you said, this is only a 3 second time span. But I could
>see it go either way. Maybe I would have the mage only act once on 23 (for
>example) but not 13 or 3.
>
Without an example that was what I was more or less getting at.
What the hey, I'll so ane example anyway.

Our Wiz chummer here has a reaction of 5 and casts Increase Iniative
3 on his last action of the last turn. New iniative is 5 plus 3 (natural)
and 4,5,6 (from spell) for a total of 23. This gives him 3 actions
23,13,3. For his free action on 23 he drops the spell. At this time he
still has the rest of his action on 23 and uses it. After 23 his iniative
drops to 8 (the original 5 reaction and 3 die roll). He would not be
eligible another action until 8. Now comes the real debate. Would the Wiz
get his action on 8 since he would only normally get one action with that
roll? That would depend on how generous you are on this. I would rule
against it solely for the reason the wiz did not suffer the +2 penalty
for the action to warrent an additional action. In this case the wiz
played smart if he wanted to go earlier but did not care for the multiple
actions. Sometimes going first is all that matters.
Now if the wiz dropped the spell on 13 he would get no further
actions afterwards because 8 (his new reaction) is not a 10 or more
difference for an available action.

I hope this illustrates how I would handle such a situation.

- MC23 -
"Would rolling a 23 give me any bonus?"
B>]#
Message no. 26
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:48:00 MST
> Our Wiz chummer here has a reaction of 5 and casts Increase Iniative
>3 on his last action of the last turn. New iniative is 5 plus 3 (natural)
>and 4,5,6 (from spell) for a total of 23. This gives him 3 actions
>23,13,3. For his free action on 23 he drops the spell. At this time he
>still has the rest of his action on 23 and uses it. After 23 his iniative
>drops to 8 (the original 5 reaction and 3 die roll). He would not be
>eligible another action until 8. Now comes the real debate. Would the Wiz
>get his action on 8 since he would only normally get one action with that
>roll? That would depend on how generous you are on this. I would rule
>against it solely for the reason the wiz did not suffer the +2 penalty
>for the action to warrent an additional action. In this case the wiz
>played smart if he wanted to go earlier but did not care for the multiple
>actions. Sometimes going first is all that matters.
> Now if the wiz dropped the spell on 13 he would get no further
>actions afterwards because 8 (his new reaction) is not a 10 or more
>difference for an available action.
>
> I hope this illustrates how I would handle such a situation.
>
> - MC23 -
>"Would rolling a 23 give me any bonus?"
> B>]#

That sounds good to me. Don't forget to subtract any condition modifiers
from the Deadly drain! With target#'s of 6 (twice Reaction)? he couldn't
spare too many for the drain test. And if he doesn't get any successes, the
poor slot will still have to resist drain (adding injury to insult).

I better get back to work. The extraction team is due soon, so I should
look busy.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Message no. 27
From: "Kevin P. Feathers" <Shd0wW0lf@***.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:28:31 -0500
OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator? The SRII says that
the spell cannot be used with cyberware init. boosters:i.e. boosted, wired
and move-by-wire. But isn't bioware supposed to be somewhat magic
friendly..(and yes I know I lose magic rating when I implant bioware!)....

Shd0wW0lf

" Pick a window, you're leaving!"
Message no. 28
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:41:36 -0500
Kevin P. Feathers wrote,
> OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
>usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator? The SRII says that
>the spell cannot be used with cyberware init. boosters:i.e. boosted, wired
>and move-by-wire. But isn't bioware supposed to be somewhat magic
>friendly..(and yes I know I lose magic rating when I implant bioware!)....

<MC23 goes for the safety>
Tough ruling there to base that one one. Playing it safe and away
from abuse I wouldn't allow it. The higher of the two ratings would be in
effect but not both. I have nothing to base it on besides the balance I
keep in my games. A spell lock +3 with synaptic 2, for +5 dice? <shiver>
No way at all! Sorry I can't give a better reason than that.
And Bioware's not really that magic freindly unless you're comparing
spell healing modifiers of cyberware and Bioware. Bioware does effcet
those target modifiers (Snuck past me for a while).





Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 29
From: "Kevin P. Feathers" <Shd0wW0lf@***.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:03:18 -0500
In a message dated 97-01-16 00:44:49 EST, MC23 wrote:

<<
<MC23 goes for the safety>
Tough ruling there to base that one one. Playing it safe and away
from abuse I wouldn't allow it. The higher of the two ratings would be in
effect but not both. I have nothing to base it on besides the balance I
keep in my games. A spell lock +3 with synaptic 2, for +5 dice? <shiver>
No way at all! Sorry I can't give a better reason than that.
And Bioware's not really that magic freindly unless you're comparing
spell healing modifiers of cyberware and Bioware. Bioware does effcet
those target modifiers (Snuck past me for a while).
>>
OK....see its my char....::LOL::....See I don't see a prob with that,
when a SAMMIE gets a 13+3d init....when I will only get a 4+5d
init....averages are 24 and 22 respectively....and also when move-by-wire and
Synaptic accelerator are comp..

Shd0wW0lf
Message no. 30
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:16:26 -0500
Kevin P. Feathers wrote,
> OK....see its my char....::LOL::....See I don't see a prob with that,
>when a SAMMIE gets a 13+3d init....when I will only get a 4+5d
>init....averages are 24 and 22 respectively....and also when move-by-wire and
>Synaptic accelerator are comp..

And the sammie maxes at 31 and you at 34, no I wouldn't allow it.
Sammies got the market covered on speed IMHO. There isn't a description
of how Increased Reflexes actually works. If it worked on the same basis
as Synaptic Accelerators then there would be no compatability. I wouldn't
allow it. There's other ways to get the speed though, but not without
drawbacks. Starting from a group that was speed freaks, we found ways to
discourage the grabs for total speed. All in the sacred name of balance.
Sammies have their drawbacks too, if the GM enforces them.
As far as move by wire goes <shiver again> I have never let that bit
of scariness in my characters. Black shakes man, the black shakes.





Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 31
From: "Kevin P. Feathers" <Shd0wW0lf@***.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:34:12 -0500
thx....sorry for scarin ya

Shd0wW0lf
Message no. 32
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:38:24 -0500
Kevin P. Feathers wrote,
>thx....sorry for scarin ya

Oh yeah, sure. I'm the one who can't sleep now. B>]#





Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 33
From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:50:35 +0800
> I don't think there is a whole there rules wise. If they spell is
>dropped all effects are dropped. Thr trick is how to apply that effect.

I think the mechanics behind the spell is the issue at hand. And every GM
will view this differently. I for one believe that the spell has had its
effect ie. it has increased the reflexes of the PC for that TURN. If he
chooses to drop the spell on a free action fair enough. His reflexes have
still been increased for that turn!

>The character by his attempt with dropping the spell is to try to take
>advantage of game mechanics by trying to hold onto his initiate roll
>(which would no longer influence by the spell). The effects of a sustain
>spell drops when the spell is dropped. Don't forget that a combat turn
>is typical 3 seconds give or take your mood at the time. That is enough
>time for the spell to wear off during the turn for the spell not to have
>"carry-over effect".

The "carry over effect" should only last until the start of the next round.
The negating factor of the spell is that it should always have some sort of
drain (D drain is hard to resist) affecting the caster.

> If you don't veiw that is the case (on a game mechanic level) then
>you do have this loophole. I don't see how fixing it could make you a
>munchkin GM. You are a GM striving to maintain a balance in your game.
>That is not munkinism. I close loopholes and if the players are punished
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have to agree with you there. The issue is not a munchkin issue but rather a
"what would the individual GM allow" issue. Both cases are valid and if the
players want to play that way let them, after all what PC's can do so can
NPC's! ;)

Gav
Message no. 34
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 03:54:32 -0500
At 12:28 AM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
> OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
>usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator? The SRII says that
>the spell cannot be used with cyberware init. boosters:i.e. boosted, wired
>and move-by-wire. But isn't bioware supposed to be somewhat magic
>friendly..(and yes I know I lose magic rating when I implant bioware!)....
>
>Shd0wW0lf
>
There's an unofficial rule floating around that Tom Dowd made years ago
that initiative cannot be raised above 4d6... Of course, tat was before
Move-By-Wire 4...

Anyways, I would say NO WAY... even with the magic rating loss from
Bio-Ware, it's abusive... and if a Mage quickens or spell locks it on
someone else with a Syn. App., that can get abusive as well...

I would let them use the two together, but only if the total equals no more
than 4d6 total...

That's just me, though...

Bull
--
Bull-the-I'm-now-cuddley-because-Dvixen-said-so-ork-decker-turned-GM

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****,com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"I dare you to use that .sig file for a week!"
-Dvixen, after seeing my new .sig
Message no. 35
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:46:09 +0100
Kevin P. Feathers said on 0:28/16 Jan 97...

> OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
> usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator? The SRII says that
> the spell cannot be used with cyberware init. boosters:i.e. boosted, wired
> and move-by-wire. But isn't bioware supposed to be somewhat magic
> friendly..(and yes I know I lose magic rating when I implant bioware!)....

General consensus (after something Tom Dowd said once -- I don't plan on
going into another discussion/flame war about this, _Brian_Allison_ :) is
that only the highest boost applies. For example, stacking a +3D6
initiative spell with synaptic accelerator-2 only gives you +3D6, not
+5D6. This also goes for magical boosts, so a physad with 2 extra dice and
a +3D6 spell still only has the +3D6, because that's the highest one.

An exception noted specifically in Cybertechnology is that move-by-wire
can be combined with a level 1 synaptic accelerator, but that's the
_only_ official extra dice combo I can think of ATM.

In the end it's mostly a GM's call as to what can and cannot be combined.
IMHO and in my game, Reaction-enhancers are cumulative, but extra dice
are not. That means that if you take wired reflexes-3, a reaction
enhancer-6, and enhanced articulation, you get +13+3D6 initiative.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I feel better, having screamed on you.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 36
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:15:40 -0500
Kevin P. Feathers wrote:

> OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
> usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator? The SRII says that
> the spell cannot be used with cyberware init. boosters:i.e. boosted, wired
> and move-by-wire. But isn't bioware supposed to be somewhat magic
> friendly..(and yes I know I lose magic rating when I implant bioware!)....

Without digging, I would think that yes, you could combine these. I
really don't see why not.

> Shd0wW0lf

<Snip>

--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 37
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:25:49 GMT
Gurth writes
>
> > OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
> > usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator?
the book never says no. However take note of Gurths comment, this has
been hashed out several time before, and unless you want to start a
'i think this war' use what you think is most balanced for your game.
If you don't mind folks rolling up to 11 dice initative allow things
to stack, if you do follow the ruling from Tom Dowd.

As a warning the record for a 'fairly well tooled character' stacking
dice boost is initiative 55, the first of 6 PC's to act in the fist
round surrendered, as did the second, the rest were not concious long
enough.

> General consensus (after something Tom Dowd said once -- I don't plan on
> going into another discussion/flame war about this, _Brian_Allison_ :) is
> that only the highest boost applies. For example, stacking a +3D6
> initiative spell with synaptic accelerator-2 only gives you +3D6, not
> +5D6. This also goes for magical boosts, so a physad with 2 extra dice and
> a +3D6 spell still only has the +3D6, because that's the highest one.
>
> An exception noted specifically in Cybertechnology is that move-by-wire
> can be combined with a level 1 synaptic accelerator, but that's the
> _only_ official extra dice combo I can think of ATM.
>
> In the end it's mostly a GM's call as to what can and cannot be combined.
> IMHO and in my game, Reaction-enhancers are cumulative, but extra dice
> are not. That means that if you take wired reflexes-3, a reaction
> enhancer-6, and enhanced articulation, you get +13+3D6 initiative.
>
Yes its only dice that are questionable, there are inc cybered
attribute spells.
The best 'Sammie type' to date is going in 24+4D6, fully legal with no
magic! (ok 6+ million yen and a delta grade clinic are not standard
but they got lucky and were clever enough to take advantage of it)

Mark
Message no. 38
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:39:26 -0500
Bull wrote:

<Snip>

> There's an unofficial rule floating around that Tom Dowd made years ago
> that initiative cannot be raised above 4d6... Of course, tat was before
> Move-By-Wire 4...

> Anyways, I would say NO WAY... even with the magic rating loss from
> Bio-Ware, it's abusive... and if a Mage quickens or spell locks it on
> someone else with a Syn. App., that can get abusive as well...

> I would let them use the two together, but only if the total equals no more
> than 4d6 total...

> That's just me, though...

Actually, I find it odd that the number of dice are "unofficially"
limited to 4, but the reaction portion of the initiative has never
really been an issue (unless it was associated with too many dice). For
every 3-4 points of reaction a character has, he has the equivalent of
an average d6 roll. Thus, if people are concerned about abusing speed,
they should probably cap reaction enhancements as well.

Just a thought.

> Bull

<Snip>

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 39
From: Hannes Lundholm <mt28185@******.SWIPNET.SE>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:56:59 +0100
In an example somewhere in the rulebook (I think) there were an example o=
f
a guy (or something) getting an initiative of 40. Before the MBW there we=
re
no way to get up to that sum without spending, say, six million ¥ or
something like that, and when the rulebook was written there were
*absolutely* no way to get up to that kind of initiative.
Any comments on that?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sent By That Guy Called Hannes
at mt28185@******.swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------
WARNING:
The Chance Of Forgetting What
To Write In This Letter Is Directly
Proportional To... To... Uhh....
-----------------------------------------------------
Message no. 40
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:36:15 -0800
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Hannes Lundholm wrote:

> In an example somewhere in the rulebook (I think) there were an example o=
f
> a guy (or something) getting an initiative of 40. Before the MBW there we=
re
> no way to get up to that sum without spending, say, six million ¥ or
^^^

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but...

WOW...that's the first time ever on my mailer that ANYBODY's nuyen symbol
has come out looking like an actaul nuyen symbol!!! ..it's not a '+' or
some other conventional symbol, it isn't even some '=20c' chunk of
code..it's an actaul, honest to goodnes..NUYEN symbol!


> Any comments on that?

Yeah, how'd you do that nuyen symbol? :)

>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Sent By That Guy Called Hannes

~Tim (who is easily amused some times..)
Message no. 41
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:19:48 -0500
Gavin Lewis wrote,
<snip>
I'll disagree on Increased Reflexes lasting the whole turn and just
leave it at that.

>Have to agree with you there. The issue is not a munchkin issue but rather a
>"what would the individual GM allow" issue. Both cases are valid and if the
>players want to play that way let them, after all what PC's can do so can
>NPC's! ;)

The one problem I've had with this is the escalation problem.
Shortly after we started playing Shadowrun everyone had to have their
charcter built for speed. When it started getting to the point everyone
we fought was wired the same way we realized something had gotten out of
had somewhere. Whenever this escalation starts to happen in your game
you've got a problem that should be addressed. Not everyone in the
published modules or novels or archtypes are based this way. Once you
have your own reasons for why then you should take them into effect to
discourage this over use of speed.
Yes, PC's and NPC's can both take advantage of things but they both
can be denied them as well. Shadowrun is so inheritly balanced IMHO that
it's easy to forget that as GM you still need to keep as balance in your
game on what is allowed.




Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 42
From: Hannes Lundholm <mt28185@******.SWIPNET.SE>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:58:46 +0100
>Yeah, how'd you do that nuyen symbol? :)

Alt + 1 - 5 - 7

¥, you know...

-----------------------------------------------------
Sent By That Guy Called Hannes
at mt28185@******.swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------
WARNING:
The Chance Of Forgetting What
To Write In This Letter Is Directly
Proportional To... To... Uhh....
-----------------------------------------------------
Message no. 43
From: Christopher Reilley <sirartist@******.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:28:22 -0000
>>Yeah, how'd you do that nuyen symbol? :)
>
>Alt + 1 - 5 - 7
>
>¥, you know...

Option + Y on the Mac

Yours digitally,
Christopher

Everyone is kneaded out of the same dough but not baked in the same =
oven.
-Yiddish proverb
----------------------------------------------------

---------- __o Christopher Reilley
-------- _`\<,_ sirartist@******.com
-------- (*)/ (*) Computer Graphics Coordinator
--------------- Davis Design Associates
Message no. 44
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@******.GWEEP.NET>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:53:30 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "S" == Shd0wW0lf <Shd0wW0lf@***.com> writes:

S> OK, since were on the +3 dice init. spell......Can a mage/shaman
S> usethis spell in conjunction with a synaptic accelerator?

The rule of thumb is, if an initiative adjustment's description does not
explicitly state that it does combine with other enhancements, then it
does not combine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: cp850

iQCVAwUBMt6HSp6VRH7BJMxHAQFP0AQAx1mmj8eLJSwlBBiYlcMW3YJTl/G6FNLm
+j0Rq9wcsMdscLD538/whoO5XLWXs67maseopsbv2DPcsUBAJu2zKvZuPKbVIClT
kE1exDzQHe8xMdsiTBdxb7i7TduUX2hlxQLkih4sPHHUSVRYaaF3LaG3aZ/TelOp
/mHdRe1SMcw=
=X9Pl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@******.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Message no. 45
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:02:43 +0000
|> no way to get up to that sum without spending, say, six million ¥ or
| ^^^
|
|This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but...
|
|WOW...that's the first time ever on my mailer that ANYBODY's nuyen symbol
|has come out looking like an actaul nuyen symbol!!! ..it's not a '+' or
|some other conventional symbol, it isn't even some '=20c' chunk of
|code..it's an actaul, honest to goodnes..NUYEN symbol!

Makes a double take.... Yep... When the mailer was just viewing it, it
actually looked like a yen symbol.....

The moment I opened my editor.... BANG, it's back to ¥.....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 46
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:13:38 +0000
|
|>Yeah, how'd you do that nuyen symbol? :)
|
|Alt + 1 - 5 - 7
|
|¥, you know...

Of course, this is NOT ASCII, so it is NOT a standard character....
It Might be ANSI, but that's not much use in e-mail....

Please stick to nuyen, instead of the symbol...

I might be able to see it in the mail on this terminal, but others won't,
and whenever I reply, it's going to get screwed up like it is there....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 47
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:17:50 -0800
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Spike wrote:

> |
> |>Yeah, how'd you do that nuyen symbol? :)
> |
> |Alt + 1 - 5 - 7
> |
> |¥, you know...
>
> Of course, this is NOT ASCII, so it is NOT a standard character....
> It Might be ANSI, but that's not much use in e-mail....
>
> Please stick to nuyen, instead of the symbol...
>
> I might be able to see it in the mail on this terminal, but others won't,
> and whenever I reply, it's going to get screwed up like it is there....
> --
>

Yeah...my UNIX workstation just keeps putting '157'...:(((

~Tim (suffering from '¥' envy)
Message no. 48
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:41:47 +0100
Hannes Lundholm said on 15:56/16 Jan 97...

> In an example somewhere in the rulebook (I think) there were an example of
> a guy (or something) getting an initiative of 40. Before the MBW there were
> no way to get up to that sum without spending, say, six million + or
> something like that, and when the rulebook was written there were
> *absolutely* no way to get up to that kind of initiative.
> Any comments on that?

It looks good for the example, doesn't it? That's probably the reason why
it was put in there...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
There was a dead wild cat and a bottle of.. of beer, that had
never been opened.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 49
From: "Mike Mulvihill (FASA)" <FASAMike@***.COM>
Subject: Re: +3 initiative dice spell -Reply
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:25:31 -0500
In a message dated 1/14/97 05:51:20 PM, Dust wrote:

>>I've got some PCs who cast +3 intitiative dice on themselves before going
into
>a
>>fight, making the initiative roll, and then using a free action to drop it
before
>they
>>do something so they don't have the +2 modifier for sustaining a spell but
they
>>will keep the initiative. Does anyone think that it's not plausible for
that
>to
>>Happen


Since in Shadowrun magic is either "on" or "off", the ruling I have
been
giving people is that by doing so you get no actions at all in that turn if
you shut your magic "off" before acting. The spell must be sustained
throughout the turn to reap it's benefits. Once "off" the magic ends. Since
magic was used to generate the speed neccessary to act so many times within a
3 second span of time, shutting it off should negate any bonus it may have
given the character. I tend to be a hard-ass on magic and include the no
action rule because the the intiative is "void" and therefore the character
has no actions because it has no intiative.

Have Fun!
Play Games!
Magic Hurts!

Mike Mulvihill
Shadowrun Line Developer
FASA
www.fasa.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about +3 initiative dice spell, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!