Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:48:31 -0400
Hey all:

We are playing SR as I type this message. I have a question: Does anyone see
any advantage to learning Increased Reflexes at a higher force than level 1?
As with many spells the force has restrictive effects on bonuses and such,
but this doesn't seem to.

Did we miss something?

;)

Smilin' Jack / Nightshade / Saven / Ghost / Picolo / Wolfgang
Message no. 2
From: Adam .. ruckus@********.rr.com
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:18:03 -0400
Nope, I don't think there is any reason to buy that spell at any higher
force than 1 or 2. Even in the SR2 book ( i know out of date but the spell
still works the same ) the Combat Mage had Increase Reflexes +2 at a force
of 2....

adam..

>We are playing SR as I type this message. I have a question: Does anyone see
>any advantage to learning Increased Reflexes at a higher force than level 1?
>As with many spells the force has restrictive effects on bonuses and such,
>but this doesn't seem to.
>
>Did we miss something?
>
>;)
>
>Smilin' Jack / Nightshade / Saven / Ghost / Picolo / Wolfgang
>
Message no. 3
From: Wolfchild nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:19:48 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Michael & Linda Frankl wrote:

> Hey all:
>
> We are playing SR as I type this message. I have a question: Does anyone see
> any advantage to learning Increased Reflexes at a higher force than level 1?
> As with many spells the force has restrictive effects on bonuses and such,
> but this doesn't seem to.
>
> Did we miss something?

If you are refering to SR3, then the only benefit to Increased Reflexes at
high force is that it is more difficult to dispel whereas a force 1 spell
can be dispelled by pretty much anyone.

In SR2, a higher force means you get to throw more dice.



Wolfchild - "Discinctaque in otia natus."
--
,-'~/ In October of 1994, three student filmmakers ____|____
/' | /(_ disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, \|/
/ / \,_/ .\ Maryland while shooting a documentary. X
| | /, ,-' A year later their footage was found. / \
| | ,-, \ \,?| "Quin tu istanc orationem hinc veterem atque / \
| ,|/ / ,_\,_/_ antiquam amoves?" -Plautus, Miles Gloriosus ___|___
|/ | __, _) There are nights when the wolves ___|___ \|/
| `;-~_.--~ are silent, and only the moon howls. \|/ X
`.`--,, Wolfchild <nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu> X / \
(`~`)___/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\___ / \ / \
Message no. 4
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:08:33 -0400
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:19:48 -0500 (CDT) Wolfchild
<nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu> writes:
>On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Michael & Linda Frankl wrote:
>
>> Hey all:
>>
>> We are playing SR as I type this message. I have a question: Does
>anyone see
>> any advantage to learning Increased Reflexes at a higher force than
>level 1?
>> As with many spells the force has restrictive effects on bonuses and
>such,
>> but this doesn't seem to.
>>
[snippity, snippity, snip]

I'm going to disagree here.
If you take a spell at force 1, it only requires that you roll a single
(SINGLE!!) 1 on your sorcery test to blow the spell. Ideally (IMO) you
would want to take this spell at about a force 3, given that the drain
should be identical to that of force 1.
The spell would then be that much harder to dispel, would be easier to
make work, and would in general be more effective.
All IMO, of course.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
"A Shadowrunner's Corp"

http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Message no. 5
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:20:42 -0400
Griffin Industries wrote:
> I'm going to disagree here.
> If you take a spell at force 1, it only requires that you roll a single
>(SINGLE!!) 1 on your sorcery test to blow the spell. Ideally (IMO) you
>would want to take this spell at about a force 3, given that the drain
>should be identical to that of force 1.
> The spell would then be that much harder to dispel, would be easier to
>make work, and would in general be more effective.
> All IMO, of course.


Actually in SR3 the force of this spell has no effect on what dice you roll.
You roll sorcery plus spell pool (up to your sorcery level). I don't recall
reading anywhere in the book that it was said that the force of the spell
dictated the maximum number of ones
that could be rolled. I agree about the dispelling aspect though.

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 6
From: Scott Wheelock iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:17:41 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Michael & Linda Frankl."
] Hey all:
]
] We are playing SR as I type this message. I have a question: Does anyone see
] any advantage to learning Increased Reflexes at a higher force than level 1?
] As with many spells the force has restrictive effects on bonuses and such,
] but this doesn't seem to.
]
] Did we miss something?

Yep. What if someone wants to dispell it? In the same vein, what if
you feel like Quickening it, and having it last?

-Murder of One
Message no. 7
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:16:37 +0200
> Hey all:
>
> We are playing SR as I type this message. I have a question: Does anyone
see
> any advantage to learning Increased Reflexes at a higher force than level
1?
> As with many spells the force has restrictive effects on bonuses and such,
> but this doesn't seem to.
>
> Did we miss something?
>
> ;)
>
> Smilin' Jack / Nightshade / Saven / Ghost / Picolo / Wolfgang

I asked this precise question a few weeks back. The only pro is that it
cannot be dispelled easily.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 8
From: Rori Steel cullyn@*****.com.au
Subject: A question: Increased Reflexes
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:43:01 +0000 (GMT)
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:20:42 -0400, Amiling Jack wrote:

>Actually in SR3 the force of this spell has no effect on what dice you roll.
>You roll sorcery plus spell pool (up to your sorcery level). I don't recall
>reading anywhere in the book that it was said that the force of the spell
>dictated the maximum number of ones
>that could be rolled. I agree about the dispelling aspect though.

The thing is if you roll a skill (i think it is for spells and general
dice rolls also... im sure someone will clear it up) you have the Oops
problem.... roll all the dice you want for a test... but if the
skill/attribute/spell force/stat is say 3, and you roll 3 ones.. you
get an Oops.. something bad happens... i know a lot of GM's use this
rule and i think it was what the poster was talking about...

It helps keep munchkins at bay (evil grin)

With the rolling of Sorcery and changes of the sort with SR3.. this
Oops becomes even more neccessary with players using bullsh!t amounts
of dice for a tiny skill... there are other ways of combating it...
but this way allows the 'problems' to show the player they really need
to work on their bike skill if he wants to do a wheelie with his
girlfriend on the back :>

If I am wrong about this.. (im almost certain its considered a rule..
but that may be our house rule) i am sorry in advance...

Have a good night people...

Cullyn
cullyn@*****.com.au
"What ever idiot put the T in paintball is gunna cop it.. i hurt
EVERYWHERE"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about A question: Increased Reflexes, 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!