Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: ldillon@*******.com (lsd)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:04:26 -0600
So, getting interested in SR again, although with a new baby, and nobody
else that plays, I don't play much anymore..

I'm just curious how the magic system compares to sr3? The magic system
was one of the things I liked about sr the best. I don't like the
"spell slots" based games like AD&D, and a lot of them seem to be like
that.

Anyway...
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:17:30 +0100
According to lsd, on 29-11-05 20:04 the word on the street was...

> I'm just curious how the magic system compares to sr3? The magic system
> was one of the things I liked about sr the best. I don't like the
> "spell slots" based games like AD&D, and a lot of them seem to be like
> that.

The basics of the magic system in SR didn't change: magicians can still
only cast the spells that they learned, and must cast them at a specific
Force, after which they suffer Drain. The details are different (for
example, spells aren't learned at a specific Force anymore -- the
magician just learns the spell and can cast it any any Force desired)
but SR4 is not a D&D3-like system where characters have to re-learn
their spells every so often, nor an Ars Magica-like system where you can
do anything you want with magic.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: ldillon@*******.com (lsd)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:26:52 -0600
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 20:17 +0100, Gurth wrote:

> The basics of the magic system in SR didn't change: magicians can still
> only cast the spells that they learned, and must cast them at a specific
> Force, after which they suffer Drain. The details are different (for
> example, spells aren't learned at a specific Force anymore -- the
> magician just learns the spell and can cast it any any Force desired)
> but SR4 is not a D&D3-like system where characters have to re-learn
> their spells every so often, nor an Ars Magica-like system where you can
> do anything you want with magic.
>

I see. I do like that better, that you don't have to have several
versions of the same spell at different forces.

I like how, theoretically, you can keep casting the same spell many
times, as long as you get "lucky" (you keep getting good dice rolls),
but that there is still some risk, in that you can just get bad dice
rolls sometimes, and a supposedly simple spell can "backfire"...

It meant that you could cast more than 5 "1st level" spells per day,
depending on how well you were able to resist the drain...


Unless that has changed....
Message no. 4
From: weberm@*******.net (Michael Weber)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:37:56 -0500
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:


>The basics of the magic system in SR didn't change: magicians can still
>only cast the spells that they learned, and must cast them at a specific
>Force, after which they suffer Drain. The details are different (for
>example, spells aren't learned at a specific Force anymore -- the
>magician just learns the spell and can cast it any any Force desired)

GAHH!!! My heart!
*clutches chest*
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:41:30 +0100
According to lsd, on 29-11-05 20:26 the word on the street was...

> I see. I do like that better, that you don't have to have several
> versions of the same spell at different forces.

You could always (since SR1) cast the spell at a lower Force than the
one you learned it at -- just not higher. The only reason to learn the
same spell at two or more Force ratings was if you wanted to upgrade it,
and IMHO the rules for that never made much sense (and it was also not
borne out by FASA's NPCs -- where were the characters with three
different Mana Bolt spells? :)

> I like how, theoretically, you can keep casting the same spell many
> times, as long as you get "lucky" (you keep getting good dice rolls),
> but that there is still some risk, in that you can just get bad dice
> rolls sometimes, and a supposedly simple spell can "backfire"...

I agree completely. Systems in which you get only a certain number of
spells per day always seem limited to me :) I much prefer magic as it
works in SR, for exactly the same reason -- nothing stopped my character
in my group's current Deadlands campaign from casting Safecracker as
long as it took to get a lock on a chest open, for example, except my
own unwillingness to go on after losing a skill level from drawing a
black joker ... (So I went for an ax instead :)

> It meant that you could cast more than 5 "1st level" spells per day,
> depending on how well you were able to resist the drain...
>
> Unless that has changed....

The details, yes; the basics, no. You still have to resist the Drain of
the spell, and that's based on the Force at which you cast it as well as
on the specifics of the spell (physical or mana, single-target or
area-effect, etc.) much as in the previous editions. If you can roll
enough hits to bring the Drain down to nothing, you can keep casting as
long as you feel like it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:50:51 +0100
According to Michael Weber, on 29-11-05 20:37 the word on the street was...

> GAHH!!! My heart!
> *clutches chest*

I don't see the problem. From what I've seen, most characters in SR3
learned spells at Force 5 or 6 anyway (5 to get a break with the Drain,
6 for spells with which that didn't matter), because that was the
maximum you could safely cast them at without suffering Physical damage.

In SR4 you still get physical Drain instead of Stun if you cast the
spell above your Magic Rating, so there's a decent incentive not to go
over that -- and since Magic doesn't start at 6 anymore, I have a
feeling we may actually see a lot more low-Force spells being cast in
SR4 than was ever the case in SR1/II/3. Few players I've seen did that:

Mage player: "I'll cast Heal on him, Force 5."
GM: "He only has a Light wound!"
Mage player: "What are you trying to say?"
GM (thinking): "That I hope to live to see the day that any of
you read the rulebook ..."

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: ldillon@*******.com (lsd)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:56:27 -0600
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 20:50 +0100, Gurth wrote:
> According to Michael Weber, on 29-11-05 20:37 the word on the street was...
>
> > GAHH!!! My heart!
> > *clutches chest*
>
> I don't see the problem. From what I've seen, most characters in SR3
> learned spells at Force 5 or 6 anyway (5 to get a break with the Drain,
> 6 for spells with which that didn't matter), because that was the
> maximum you could safely cast them at without suffering Physical damage.
>
> In SR4 you still get physical Drain instead of Stun if you cast the
> spell above your Magic Rating, so there's a decent incentive not to go
> over that -- and since Magic doesn't start at 6 anymore, I have a
> feeling we may actually see a lot more low-Force spells being cast in
> SR4 than was ever the case in SR1/II/3. Few players I've seen did that:


So, I've heard (and you said above) that magic doesn't start at 6
anymore. Can you explain that, and perhaps a reason why, if you happen
to know?
Message no. 8
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:04:14 -0500
On 11/29/05, lsd <ldillon@*******.com> wrote:
>
> So, I've heard (and you said above) that magic doesn't start at 6
> anymore. Can you explain that, and perhaps a reason why, if you happen
> to know?

For the same reason Body doesn't start at 6 for everyone. It's an
attribute, and if it's important to you you'll put points into it. It
actually made *less* sense, IMO, to assume that everyone with magical
ability was equally powerful.

The new magic rules in SR4 are mostly refinements that make sense.
I'm good with the crunchy bits. The only part that annoys me is that
they "flattened out" all the differences between hermetic and shamanic
systems, so now everyone gets *exactly the same* abilities and
spirits, with only the flavor text changing a bit. They supposedly
did this to make it easier for players to invent their own magic
systems. Piffle, say I.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
http://www.escapepod.info
Message no. 9
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:08:43 +0100
According to lsd, on 29-11-05 20:56 the word on the street was...

> So, I've heard (and you said above) that magic doesn't start at 6
> anymore. Can you explain that,

In SR4, you make a magician by taking an Edge that says you can use
magic. You then get Magic at rating 1 and have to buy the rest just like
your other attributes, using the same points you spend to make the whole
character. This means that a magician has fewer points left to spend on
other things -- but that's no different from older editions, really.

> perhaps a reason why, if you happen to know?

Basically it's to bring Magic more in line with the other attributes, I
think. Admit it, Magic always was a strange case: it started at 6 but
you didn't (couldn't, in fact) spend any points on it. That made all
magicians equally capable of handling raw magic, only their actual skill
differed; this, really, was like giving all characters the same
Strength, and basing their weightlifting capabilities on Athletics skill ...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Please do not read the lyrics whilst listening to the recordings.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: ldillon@*******.com (lsd)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:15:23 -0600
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 21:08 +0100, Gurth wrote:

>
> Basically it's to bring Magic more in line with the other attributes, I
> think. Admit it, Magic always was a strange case: it started at 6 but
> you didn't (couldn't, in fact) spend any points on it. That made all
> magicians equally capable of handling raw magic, only their actual skill
> differed; this, really, was like giving all characters the same
> Strength, and basing their weightlifting capabilities on Athletics skill ...
>

I see, that does make a lot more sense...
Message no. 11
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:41:20 -0200
On 11/29/05, lsd <ldillon@*******.com> wrote:
>
> So, I've heard (and you said above) that magic doesn't start at 6
> anymore. Can you explain that, and perhaps a reason why, if you happen
> to know?

Character creation is now point-based by default. The base cost for
being magically active is relatively low, and it gives you a Magic
attribute of 1. Extra levels must be bought at the same cost as the
other attributes.

Starting Magic is variable because Magic is the attribute you use to
do anything, well, magical. Spellcasting is Magic + a sorcery skill.
Dealing with spirits is Magic + a conjuring skill. Spells, which are
somewhat cheaper than in other editions, have their Force based on
your Magic attribute. It now works more like the other attributes,
which also have a number of skills under them, so it's priced the same
way.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 12
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:56:44 -0200
On 11/29/05, Stephen Eley <sfeley@*****.com> wrote:

<...>
>The only part that annoys me is that
> they "flattened out" all the differences between hermetic and shamanic
> systems, so now everyone gets *exactly the same* abilities and
> spirits, with only the flavor text changing a bit. They supposedly
> did this to make it easier for players to invent their own magic
> systems. Piffle, say I.

I actually liked that bit... The "exotic" traditions had some cool
rules bits (I especially liked 2nd Edition voudon, presented in
Awakenings), but it got a bit cumbersome having to remember them all
when you had a bunch of different magicians together in the same
scene. Say, an adept and a houngan facing off against a Celtic Druid
and a Cornish Bard.

And what usually happened with the new traditions, is that they were
similar to the two basic ones, but had some sort of advantage over
them. It ended up bringing up a kind of "feature creep" into the magic
system.

I'm not saying this won't happen again in SR4, mind you... But I
really liked that hermetic mages can have their own spirit guides now
:).

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 13
From: rkedgar@*****.com (Robert Edgar)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:57:14 -0500
On 11/29/05, Stephen Eley <sfeley@*****.com> wrote:
> >The only part that annoys me is that
> > they "flattened out" all the differences between hermetic and shamanic
> > systems, so now everyone gets *exactly the same* abilities and
> > spirits, with only the flavor text changing a bit. They supposedly
> > did this to make it easier for players to invent their own magic
> > systems. Piffle, say I.

This is my biggest complaint about SR4. I really hate it. It makes
so little sense that that I just don't understand why they did it.

Bira wrote:
> And what usually happened with the new traditions, is that they were
> similar to the two basic ones, but had some sort of advantage over
> them. It ended up bringing up a kind of "feature creep" into the magic
> system.

True. Unfortunately though, this "flattening" of the two traditions
will only increase that "feature creep" as people look to make unique
characters with their own unique traditions. They'll want to their
characters to stand out. And neither of the two basic traditions do
that anymore. I guess that is why they made sure to include tradition
creation rules in the BBB this time.
Message no. 14
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:08:33 -0700
On 11/30/05, Robert Edgar <rkedgar@*****.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Stephen Eley <sfeley@*****.com> wrote:
> > >The only part that annoys me is that
> > > they "flattened out" all the differences between hermetic and
shamanic
> > > systems, so now everyone gets *exactly the same* abilities and
> > > spirits, with only the flavor text changing a bit. They supposedly
> > > did this to make it easier for players to invent their own magic
> > > systems. Piffle, say I.
>
> This is my biggest complaint about SR4. I really hate it. It makes
> so little sense that that I just don't understand why they did it.
>
> Bira wrote:
> > And what usually happened with the new traditions, is that they were
> > similar to the two basic ones, but had some sort of advantage over
> > them. It ended up bringing up a kind of "feature creep" into the magic
> > system.
>
> True. Unfortunately though, this "flattening" of the two traditions
> will only increase that "feature creep" as people look to make unique
> characters with their own unique traditions. They'll want to their
> characters to stand out. And neither of the two basic traditions do
> that anymore. I guess that is why they made sure to include tradition
> creation rules in the BBB this time.

On the other hand, by starting in a flat place, they now have room to
actually build on it with source books. I could easily see a source
book coming out that further defines the Hermetic and Shamanic aspects
of magic.

To any of the powers that be, if you like this idea or are already
working on it, please make them seperate books. One of my issues with
every magic sourcebook to date is that they tried to cover the hermtic
and shamanic in one book and they were information overloads. In the
past this has been the case with riggers, street sams, and the matrix.
To me it makes sense to do the same with shamanic and hermetic.

Also, players have a *ton* of room to add their own house rules to
define hermetic and shamanic magic how they see fit.

--
-Graht
Message no. 15
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:52:04 -0500
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 08:50:51PM +0100, Gurth wrote:
> feeling we may actually see a lot more low-Force spells being cast in
> SR4 than was ever the case in SR1/II/3. Few players I've seen did that:

This agrees with my observations. Invisibility, for example, appears to
be cast at Force 4 a lot in SR 4, as 4 hits means almost no non-mages
will pierce the illusion. Combat spells are sometimes overcast. Armor
is cast high, healing across the board (depending on how I interpret the
DV in SR4), levitate low.

Same general patterns as with SR1-3, but a bit more variation. There
was no point to a low force combat spell before, now there is (some)
point.

Magic ratings have varied between 4 and 6 in the characters I've seen so
far.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 16
From: zebulingod@*****.com (Zebulin M)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:00:46 -0800
On 11/30/05, Robert Edgar <rkedgar@*****.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/29/05, Stephen Eley <sfeley@*****.com> wrote:
> > >The only part that annoys me is that
> > > they "flattened out" all the differences between hermetic and
shamanic
> > > systems, so now everyone gets *exactly the same* abilities and
> > > spirits, with only the flavor text changing a bit. They supposedly
> > > did this to make it easier for players to invent their own magic
> > > systems. Piffle, say I.
>
> This is my biggest complaint about SR4. I really hate it. It makes
> so little sense that that I just don't understand why they did it.


Mine, too. I do not like it, sam I am. It doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit
with how I perceive magic, and it sure as hell doesn't jibe with the
timeline. What, for the past twenty years, Shamans and Hermetics have been
different. Where'd the elementals go? Why are hermetics suddenly facing
different constraints on what they can do? Etc, etc, etc...

Zebulin
Message no. 17
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:06:48 -0500
> On 11/30/05, Robert Edgar <rkedgar@*****.com> wrote:
>> It makes
>> so little sense that that I just don't understand why they did it.

It seems to me that the changes make spirits _significantly_ more
useful to both traditions. It may have started with the desire to do
so, followed by the realization that changing how spirits worked
would radically unbalance shaman vs. mages unless the system was
unified for both of them.

Apart from that, the only other difference is that mages can now get
"totems", which you do not have to do if you're a mage that doesn't
want one. I don't really see what's got people's panties in a bunch.
Role-playing wise, it's still the same.
Message no. 18
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: 4th ed
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:59:09 -0500
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:06:48AM -0500, Wordman wrote:
> Role-playing wise, it's still the same.

Pretty much. I think the main books could have spent an extra paragraph
or two talking about how each tradition treats the different skills.
Previous editions did a great job on giving the spirits a different
feel, but dropped the ball when it came to spells. Now that ball is
being dropped across the board. I'm hoping Street Magic fills it out.

In my games the hermetics summon air elementals, and the shamans summon
storm spirits. The powers are a little different than in the past, but
the feel is the same.

The only real change is that the hermetic that sees a shaman calling his
air elemental a "storm spirit" thinks it cute and quaint, while the
shaman sees the hermetic call his spirit of the breezes an air
elemental, which is obviously coldly logical and de-humanizing.
(as opposed to them ACTUALLY having a DIFFERENT spirit type)

Frankly, this IMPROVES the roleplay. Each tradition thinks they are
completely right with no evidence saying that other traditions obviously
know something they don't.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 4th ed, 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.