Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Matthew Schocke schocke@**********.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:34:13 -0400
This is another issue that has come up.. there was a lot of argument when
Shadowtech came out, because of the ambiguity/lacko'clarity in the rules on
body index vs. essence for magically active types.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I originally counted both cyber and bio
added together to determine magic loss.. then R:AS came out. the "latest
and greatest" module.. and I saw some combat mages with cyber _and_ bio..
Guess what? When I reverse engineered them, the only way it worked was to
go back to what my players originally thought... Count the HIGHER of the
two (body index or essence loss) to determine Magic Loss.

Thus, a combat mage with 2.95 points of Cyberware and 3.8 body index would
have an effective adjusted magic rating of 2 (barring geasa and such).

Given the greater use of the Magic attribute itself in SR3, this doesn't
seem too awful broken.. What do the rest of y'all think and/or use?

-Matthew




Matthew Schocke
Atlanta QMT "...but I always wanted to be a LUMBERJACK!"
404 815 0770 ext. 66998
1-800-719-4664 ext. 66998
Message no. 2
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:43:25 -0700
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:34:13 Matthew Schocke wrote:

>This is another issue that has come up.. there was a lot of argument when
>Shadowtech came out, because of the ambiguity/lacko'clarity in the rules on
>body index vs. essence for magically active types.

Yep, we've discussed this many times on this list in the past. :)

>Anyway, to make a long story short, I originally counted both cyber and bio
>added together to determine magic loss.. then R:AS came out. the "latest
>and greatest" module.. and I saw some combat mages with cyber _and_ bio..
>Guess what? When I reverse engineered them, the only way it worked was to
>go back to what my players originally thought... Count the HIGHER of the
>two (body index or essence loss) to determine Magic Loss.

Well, that wouldn't be the first time the characters in a supplement/book have been
created improperly. ;) The widely-used house rule I've seen (and use) is that you add
the 2 ratings together (body index and essence cost) together and subtract from the
Essence attribute. Then round down for determining the Magic attribute. Don't subtract
body index from Essence also as it says to do in Shadowtech. That's the common house rule
that's been tossed around the list before. I think it works.

>Given the greater use of the Magic attribute itself in SR3, this doesn't
>seem too awful broken.. What do the rest of y'all think and/or use?

I dunno. I'm not too familiar with SR3 yet, but I'm not big on letting any magician get
lots of cyber/bio and still be able to do much of anything magical. With the new geasa
rules, I would probably stick with the house rule mentioned above. Because now even if
you have a Magic attribute of 2 you can still cast buff spells if you use your geasas.
That is a pretty potent change from SR2 (not that I disagree with it).

>-Matthew

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 3
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
Matthew Schocke <schocke@**********.com> writes:
> Anyway, to make a long story short, I originally counted both cyber and bio
> added together to determine magic loss.. then R:AS came out. the "latest
> and greatest" module.. and I saw some combat mages with cyber _and_ bio..
> Guess what? When I reverse engineered them, the only way it worked was to
> go back to what my players originally thought... Count the HIGHER of the
> two (body index or essence loss) to determine Magic Loss.
>
> Thus, a combat mage with 2.95 points of Cyberware and 3.8 body index would
> have an effective adjusted magic rating of 2 (barring geasa and such).
>
> Given the greater use of the Magic attribute itself in SR3, this doesn't
> seem too awful broken.. What do the rest of y'all think and/or use?

IIRC, R:AS banded are initiates, for the most part. Thus, a
combat mage with 2.95 points of ccyberware and 3.8 body index and an
initiate grade of 3 would have an effective adjusted magic rating of
2. If this is the case, look up the rules for initiate grades in MitS
(SR3) or Grimoire (SR2).

Mark
Message no. 4
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
<Snippage(TM)>
> IIRC, R:AS banded are initiates, for the most part. Thus, a combat
mage with 2.95 points of ccyberware and 3.8 body index and an initiate
grade of 3 would have an effective adjusted magic rating of 2. If this
is the case, look up the rules for initiate grades in MitS (SR3) or
Grimoire (SR2).
>
> Mark

Actually, Mark, he'd be dead.

Don't forget, people. Bioware doesn't just reduce the magic rating for
a magically active character. It also reduces ESSENCE. Your example
mage, Mark, has a combined essence loss of 6.75. He die-ed!!

*Doc' grins goofily. "Ayuck, hyuck!"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 5
From: AndMat3@***.com AndMat3@***.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:20:16 EDT
In a message dated 6/30/99 8:33:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

> Don't forget, people. Bioware doesn't just reduce the magic rating for
> a magically active character. It also reduces ESSENCE. Your example
> mage, Mark, has a combined essence loss of 6.75. He die-ed!!

can you quote me "chapter and verse" for this? i have never seen the rule.
but i'd like to.

andy
Message no. 6
From: Scott Wheelock iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:38:37 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Rand Ratinac."
] Don't forget, people. Bioware doesn't just reduce the magic rating for
] a magically active character. It also reduces ESSENCE. Your example
] mage, Mark, has a combined essence loss of 6.75. He die-ed!!

I was gonna call you on that one, but then I got motivated, and
looked it up. You're right (dammit). This is a rule I've long
ignored, as has my gaming group...losing Magic due to Body Index is bad
enough, losing further essense is idiotic. I hope this gets changed in
Man & Machine, but I won't cry too much if it ain't. I'll just ignore
it :)

-Murder of One
Message no. 7
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:39:40 -0500
:Anyway, to make a long story short, I originally counted both cyber and bio
:added together to determine magic loss.. then R:AS came out. the "latest
:and greatest" module.. and I saw some combat mages with cyber _and_ bio..
:Guess what? When I reverse engineered them, the only way it worked was to
:go back to what my players originally thought... Count the HIGHER of the
:two (body index or essence loss) to determine Magic Loss.

The actual "engineering" was done under basic SR3 / Shadowtech /
Grimoire rules. Under those rules, the bioware directly reduces thier
essence of mages (by its BI rating), which in turn impacts magic rating.
Its amazing what you can cram into 1.38 points worth of essence / BI with
deltaware (and maybe good surgery). Trust me, the guy who did those NPC
characters is AT LEAST as anal about the numbers as most of us...

:Thus, a combat mage with 2.95 points of Cyberware and 3.8 body index would
:have an effective adjusted magic rating of 2 (barring geasa and such).

No, he'd have a mgaic rating of zero, barring intiation.

:Given the greater use of the Magic attribute itself in SR3, this doesn't
:seem too awful broken.. What do the rest of y'all think and/or use?

The common house rule is to reduce magic rating as if B.I. DID reduce
tha mages essence, but to NOT have it actually reduce the essence. That may
even be similar to whats going in MaM, since so many people play by that
rule. But don't count on it, unless your willing to risk a rude
"awakening". I certainly DON'T recomend using the "whichever is
higher"
rule- any character with 4+ points of bio and cyber (each) is nasty, let
alone a MAGE with that much implant wares.

Mongoose
Message no. 8
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:13:09 +0200
According to Rand Ratinac, at 17:36 on 30 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> Actually, Mark, he'd be dead.
>
> Don't forget, people. Bioware doesn't just reduce the magic rating for
> a magically active character. It also reduces ESSENCE. Your example
> mage, Mark, has a combined essence loss of 6.75. He die-ed!!

You should have read Mark's post better. He was saying that some recently-
published NPCs don't add up, and drew the conclusion that bioware doesn't
cost Essence anymore.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
E-mails uit het verleden bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:54:47 +0200
Matthew Schocke wrote:
>
> seem too awful broken.. What do the rest of y'all think and/or use?
>
Cyber costs essence and there fore a direct lose 1:1 of magic, bio costs
body index, but no essence, and magic in hight of the body index.

--
Barbie

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 10
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*********.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:26:57 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Barbie LeVile <barbie@********.de>

>> What do the rest of y'all think and/or use?

> Cyber costs essence and there fore a direct lose 1:1 of magic, bio
costs
> body index, but no essence, and magic in hight of the body index.

I've never had a Magical person in my gaming group _get_ bioware
(luckily.)

However, if it did happen, I would NOT use the bioware takes away a
mage's essence (that is stupid.) I might have it take away Magic Body Index... it depends
on how low-magic I want my campaign. Bioware,
in my normal campaigns, is a godsend and would only impact a mage's
magic rating the same way it affects the TN for X - Essence spells.
(I'd figure magic as: Essence - (1/2 Body Index) [modified by
initiations.])

Da Twink Daddy
bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ# 514984
Message no. 11
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
> > Actually, Mark, he'd be dead.
> >
> > Don't forget, people. Bioware doesn't just reduce the magic rating
for a magically active character. It also reduces ESSENCE. Your example
mage, Mark, has a combined essence loss of 6.75. He die-ed!!
>
> You should have read Mark's post better. He was saying that some
recently- published NPCs don't add up, and drew the conclusion that
bioware doesn't cost Essence anymore.
> Gurth@******.nl

Actually, Gurth, you should have read my reply better. :) Mark didn't
POST the question, he was responding to someone else and in his post he
mentioned this yere mage I talked about.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point is, until M&M comes out, bioware
DOES cost essence (and thus magic) for magically active characters.
According to FASA. That's likely to change in some way or another, but
until then...watch it...

*Doc' turns up the collar of his coat and lurks away into the shadows...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: Elindor Quinn rjakins@****.murdoch.edu.au
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:57:57 +0800
Rand Ratinac indicated Re: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages

> Actually, Gurth, you should have read my reply better. :) Mark didn't POST
> the question, he was responding to someone else and in his post he
> mentioned this yere mage I talked about.
>
> Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point is, until M&M comes out, bioware DOES
> cost essence (and thus magic) for magically active characters. According
> to FASA. That's likely to change in some way or another, but until
> then...watch it...

Looking at the Blue Banded Mage (5 bands) on p 84 of RA:S,
essence loss due to cyberware is 1.32 essence. Leaving 4.68
essence left, tallying with the character sheet. That's cyberware
only - the magician also has synaptic 1 and trauma damper, which
as everyone knows are both automatically cultured bioware (and I
didn't include in my original cyberware calculations). These two
combine for a BI of 0.7, which should give the magician an essence
of 3.98

Trust me, I have the four books it covers right next to me.

Elindor Quinn
So what? I mean, it was officially ruled an accident...
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 13:05:49 +1000
Elindor writes:
> Looking at the Blue Banded Mage (5 bands) on p 84 of RA:S,
> essence loss due to cyberware is 1.32 essence. Leaving 4.68
> essence left, tallying with the character sheet. That's cyberware
> only - the magician also has synaptic 1 and trauma damper, which
> as everyone knows are both automatically cultured bioware (and I
> didn't include in my original cyberware calculations). These two
> combine for a BI of 0.7, which should give the magician an essence
> of 3.98

There are two possibilities.

1) It's a mistake. God knows that's happened before.

2) The optional surgery rules were used to reduce the Essence cost by up to
40%.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Bio-ware, cyber-ware and mages, 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!