Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:30:07 -0600
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:52:06 -0500 Bull <chaos@*****.COM> writes:
>At 11:38 PM 1/10/99 -0800, David Post wrote these timeless words:
>>(sarcasm)
>>Ah, no, why wait? I can just convert him over when MitS comes out.
After
>>all, how hard could it be; I mean, it was so simple to convert 2nd Ed
>>chars to 3rd, it shouldn't be hard to convert a phys mage...
>>(/sarcasm)

><chuckle>
>
>Agreed... Depending on the character and the focus, it can be VERY
>difficult, or very simple...
>
>But hey, it's better than 1st to 2nd edition :]

I didn't have any problems converting my characters ... What type of
characters did you have the most trouble converting (2nd to 3rd, not 1rst
to 2nd ;)? Mine were still new characters (I think my main character had
a grand total of 9 good karma points ...). Could that be the reason? Or
possibly that I just recreated the characters from scratch instead of
trying to fiddle with the conversions?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:46:15 +0100
According to D. Ghost, at 1:30 on 12 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> I didn't have any problems converting my characters ... What type of
> characters did you have the most trouble converting (2nd to 3rd, not 1rst
> to 2nd ;)? Mine were still new characters (I think my main character had
> a grand total of 9 good karma points ...). Could that be the reason? Or
> possibly that I just recreated the characters from scratch instead of
> trying to fiddle with the conversions?

Magicians can be difficult to convert, most other characters are okay in
my experience. With magicians, though, you get he problem that first of
all they need to change over all those expendable fetishes to expendable
spell foci which work slightly differently. A bigger problem is that any
magician with low-Force spells will probably be screwed over somewhat
because the spells aren't as useful anymore. For example, our group's
houngan had a lot of spells at or around Force 3 -- which worked fine in
SRII, but made them nearly useless in SR3 because suddenly he had an upper
limit to his successes for many of them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kleiduivenmelker
-> NERPS Project Leader * 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. 3
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:35:02 -0600
> I didn't have any problems converting my characters ... What type of
> characters did you have the most trouble converting (2nd to 3rd, not
1rst
> to 2nd ;)? Mine were still new characters (I think my main character
had
> a grand total of 9 good karma points ...). Could that be the reason?
Or
> possibly that I just recreated the characters from scratch instead of
> trying to fiddle with the conversions?

I found characters with high skills in "Firearms" and "Armed
Combat"
to be hard to convert. They just didn't seem very "intimidating" when,
lacking their one cool kind of weapon, they were forced to act like a mage
who broke his Geas (IE, at least +2 for defaulting in most combat).
In our game, earning a 7 or 8 skill took some work, and in re-creating
such characters (generally from scratch, then adding karma), I usually got
several 5's (for combat skills- no need to split those magic skills
down...) instead, which still didn't cover every weapon the character had
used (or, in some cases, owned, or even currently carried). I'm not
saying that is, per se, bad, but it does make such a character's
conversion much harder. In some cases, I got closer by making
"attributes" a lower priority in SR3 (then raising them with karma),
because you really need GOBS of skill points (or karma) to represent some
character's "historic" combat abilities.
When doing mages from scratch, I found that you could usually buy all
their spells at useful levels with karma, as they had more starting skill
points (which I used to cover skills raised with karma while playing SR2).
The increased bonding cost of "sustaining foci", especially when added to
previously low force spells, was a bit of a kick in the pants.
I think OLDER characters are easier to re-create- you can diddle
around with how you spend karma to get something closer to the SR2
version. Plus, those characters often have more knowledge skills.

Maybe the question should be, what kinds of characters are EASY to
covert from SR2 to SR3? I haven't tried any adepts...

Mongoose
Message no. 4
From: Lehlan Decker <DeckerL@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:25:13 -0500
<SNIP Converting characters>
I've had reasonable look with adepts, in fact they seem to gain a
bit in power in going from SR2-3. Seems like the consensus to
convert characters is build them from scratch and try to make
them match their SR2 version. That is what I've done as well, with
fairly decent results. High skills do throw this system off, since
they are now limited by attributes. But if it were easy, would it be
any fun?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker, Unix Admin (704)331-1149
deckerl@******.com Fax 378-1939
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC Pager 1-888-608-9633
Message no. 5
From: C E Thul <eriochrome@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:59:33 -0600
Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>Magicians can be difficult to convert, most other characters are okay
>in my experience. With magicians, though, you get he problem that first
>of all they need to change over all those expendable fetishes to
>expendable spell foci which work slightly differently. A bigger problem
is that
>any magician with low-Force spells will probably be screwed over
somewhat
>because the spells aren't as useful anymore. For example, our group's
>houngan had a lot of spells at or around Force 3 -- which worked fine
>in SRII, but made them nearly useless in SR3 because suddenly he had an
>upper limit to his successes for many of them.

**Rant mode on**
That is the biggest piece of drek rule I've ever heard of!!!!!!! Can't
generate any more successes than the Force of the spell. No other
character type has that restriction!!!! A fraggin' Samauri with a weapon
skill of 6 can roll 21 dice on a success test (skill 6, add 6 combat
pool, add 6 Karma, add 1 for customized weapon, add 1 for enhanced
articulation, and add 1 for a reflex recorder) and is he limited to only
6 successes?? Frag NO!!! Is that fair? A physical adept is even worse.
They could roll 24 dice for an unarmed attack (skill 6, add 6 combat pool
dice, add 6 Karma dice, add 6 Improved Ability dice)!!!! Yes I know these
examples are munchy, but I feel the reason for the max successes rule was
to limit abuses like these by Mages. There are much better ways to limit
the number of dice a mage can use. You can: reduce the spell pool,
increase the drain code of spells, decrease the amount of dice that can
be added by foci, or spell limitations (fetishes, exclusive), or dice
added by elementals, or totem bonuses, restate the Magical Mishap rule
from the Companion, there are lots of ways to limit the number of dice a
mage can roll. Making the "can't generate more successes than the force"
rule is a dumb fix to the problem. You shouldn't limit one character type
like that without limiting the others in similar ways. Wasn't the magic
rules playtested? Does anyone else feel the same, or am I completely off
the wall here? I know FASA monitors this group, why did you do that? Why
didn't you come up with a fairer way to limit mages? Drek like that
really annoys me.

Ok, rant mode off. Sorry about that folks, that's one of the biggest
problems I have with SR3.

Just my opinion
ErioChrome

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 6
From: Bob Tockley <zzdeden@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:52:07 +1000
>**Rant mode on**
>That is the biggest piece of drek rule I've ever heard of!!!!!!! Can't
>generate any more successes than the Force of the spell. No other
>character type has that restriction!!!! A fraggin' Samauri with a weapon
>skill of 6 can roll 21 dice on a success test (skill 6, add 6 combat
>pool, add 6 Karma, add 1 for customized weapon, add 1 for enhanced
>articulation, and add 1 for a reflex recorder) and is he limited to only
>6 successes?? Frag NO!!! Is that fair? A physical adept is even worse.
>They could roll 24 dice for an unarmed attack (skill 6, add 6 combat pool
>dice, add 6 Karma dice, add 6 Improved Ability dice)!!!! Yes I know these
>examples are munchy, but I feel the reason for the max successes rule was
>to limit abuses like these by Mages. There are much better ways to limit
>the number of dice a mage can use. You can: reduce the spell pool,
>increase the drain code of spells, decrease the amount of dice that can
>be added by foci, or spell limitations (fetishes, exclusive), or dice
>added by elementals, or totem bonuses, restate the Magical Mishap rule
>from the Companion, there are lots of ways to limit the number of dice a
>mage can roll. Making the "can't generate more successes than the force"
>rule is a dumb fix to the problem. You shouldn't limit one character type
>like that without limiting the others in similar ways. Wasn't the magic
>rules playtested? Does anyone else feel the same, or am I completely off
>the wall here? I know FASA monitors this group, why did you do that? Why
>didn't you come up with a fairer way to limit mages? Drek like that
>really annoys me.
>
>Ok, rant mode off. Sorry about that folks, that's one of the biggest
>problems I have with SR3.


Well, they had to fit the Force of the spell into the picture somewhere. I
mean, otherwise the difference between a Force 1 and a Force 6 spell is
nothing - at least as far as unresisted spells go. I agree though, it does
seem like a rather lame way to patch a rather badly developed magic system.
Not that I don't love the idea of using Sorcery as the base number of dice
you're rolling and the rest of it - I just hate that they chucked one of
those 'orrible AD&D-like maximums on it and that your Magic Attribute is
now only really used for determining the maximum Force you can safely
channel. It begs the question though, do the developers of these rules
favour lightly cybered magicians or what?

(>)ARKHAM
"Pop-quiz hotshot: Five hundred Storm Troopers on jetpacks fly down from
the hole in the ceiling. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?!?!"
Message no. 7
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:37:05 -0500
At 06:59 PM 1/12/99 -0600, C E Thul wrote:
>
>**Rant mode on**
>Can't
>generate any more successes than the Force of the spell.

<snip>

>Why
>didn't you come up with a fairer way to limit mages? Drek like that
>really annoys me.

It's not about limiting the dice a mage can use. It's about making the
force rating of a spell meaningful, especially the volunteer-only,
unresisted spells. I mean, c'mon, show of hands here. How many folks put
more than 1 or 2 points into a spell like Fashion or Makeover or Healthy
Glow before now? There was never a need to, if you simply pumped enough
magic pool dice into them. Now, if you want major mojo results, not only
do you have to have significant skill and ability, you also have to put
yourself on the line by using a major-league spell.

Might as well complain about the fact that a Tiffani Defender hold-out
doesn't punch holes as big as a Panther Assault Cannon. Or that a Radio
Shack stock deck doesn't stand up to a customized Fairlight. In this
sense, a spell is like those other pieces of gear; top-notch results
require top-of-the-line investment. So in that sense, yes, other character
types do suffer the same limitations as mages.

I remember when SR2 came out. My mage-playing friend was incensed that
resistance rolls were now based on spell force rather than sorcery skill
rating, as in SR1. Because, of course, she'd only learned her spells at
force 2, relying on large dice pools and high resistance TNs to make the
spells effective. SR2 fixed that; SR3 fixed it more.

Is it the best of all possible systems? No, probably not. However, it
does have the virtue that it finally makes ALL of the factors of a
magician's spellcasting meaningful: skill, ability, and force of spells.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 8
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:01:45 -0500
At 01:30 AM 1/12/99 -0600, D. Ghost wrote these timeless words:
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:52:06 -0500 Bull <chaos@*****.COM> writes:
>>At 11:38 PM 1/10/99 -0800, David Post wrote these timeless words:
>>>(sarcasm)
>>>Ah, no, why wait? I can just convert him over when MitS comes out.
>After
>>>all, how hard could it be; I mean, it was so simple to convert 2nd Ed
>>>chars to 3rd, it shouldn't be hard to convert a phys mage...
>>>(/sarcasm)
>
>><chuckle>
>>
>>Agreed... Depending on the character and the focus, it can be VERY
>>difficult, or very simple...
>>
>>But hey, it's better than 1st to 2nd edition :]
>
>I didn't have any problems converting my characters ... What type of
>characters did you have the most trouble converting (2nd to 3rd, not 1rst
>to 2nd ;)? Mine were still new characters (I think my main character had
>a grand total of 9 good karma points ...). Could that be the reason? Or
>possibly that I just recreated the characters from scratch instead of
>trying to fiddle with the conversions?
>
I was specifically thinking of a certain Ork Decker with 500+ karma :]
Lots of points, and lots of points in things that later became freebie
knowledge skills. In the end we left things pretty much the same and just
converted a couple skills.

Johnny 99 (Which I didn't convert) was a tad more difficult because as a
mage his powers and spells changed a bit.

Bull
--
Bull -- The Best Ork Decker You Never Met
chaos@*****.com ===== bull22@***********.com
http://shadowrun.html.com/users/bull

=======================================================
= =
= Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any Fours? =
= =
=======================================================

"I may be crazy enough to take on Batman, but the IRS? No way!"
-Joker, "Batman, The Animated Series"
Message no. 9
From: greg basa <demipop@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:55:41 -0500
>I was specifically thinking of a certain Ork Decker with 500+ karma :]
>Lots of points, and lots of points in things that later became freebie
>knowledge skills. In the end we left things pretty much the same and just
>converted a couple skills.


Speaking of freebie knowledge skills, one of my characters recently earned
her Ph.D in Tir sociology (yes, she spent karma on this) and is about to be
converted to SR3. How would one measure things like degrees in knowledge
skills? Say, a bachelor's degree in psychology or a Ph.D? What about when
various disciplines start overlapping (like society, culture, history,
language, and etiquette...skills Artemis is exceptionally learned in)?
Would, say, a knowledge skill in a culture (like Japanese) back up an active
skill like etiquette or language? Also, what is the exact nature of a
background skill?

Also, anybody know the term for physics as it applies to circular (as
opposed to linear) motion? I found physics (ballistics) to be a nifty skill
for a physad gunfighter who likes making trick shots like rebounding a
bullet off the wall ("No use hiding...I know the bullets, you see: I make
them go where I want."), and wanted to try the same for a character who
specializes in whips.

-----

Stand tall and shake the heavens.

http://www.mindspring.com/~demipop/

ICQ: 2157053
Message no. 10
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:16:22 -0600
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:01:45 -0500 Bull <chaos@*****.COM> writes:
<SNIP>
>I was specifically thinking of a certain Ork Decker with 500+ karma :]
>Lots of points, and lots of points in things that later became freebie
>knowledge skills. In the end we left things pretty much the same and
just
>converted a couple skills.
>
>Johnny 99 (Which I didn't convert) was a tad more difficult because as a
>mage his powers and spells changed a bit.

That's interesting. Are you waiting for MitS to convert Johnny, or not
going to convert him?

I think for me it was possibly reversed ... I have four characters: A
Rigger, an Otaku, a PhysMage (my main character), and a Hermetic Mage. I
think the mage gained the most in the conversion. The PhysMage gained
alot too but was rather difficult because she's a bit unfocused. The
rigger was also rough because she's spread rather thin as well (I'm bad
at guesstimations but I think she has somewhere around 15 active skills).
I haven't actually got a chance to play any of the characters aside from
the PhysMage unfortunately ... I'm dying to play the Otaku and the
Disco-loving Rigger. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 11
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:52:29 -0600
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:55:41 -0500 greg basa <demipop@**********.COM>
writes:
<SNIP>
>Speaking of freebie knowledge skills, one of my characters recently
earned
>her Ph.D in Tir sociology (yes, she spent karma on this) and is about to
be
>converted to SR3. How would one measure things like degrees in
knowledge
>skills? Say, a bachelor's degree in psychology or a Ph.D?

You don't really. You take guess at the characters level of competence
and compare it to the table on pages 98-99 of the BBB3/BABY. To
represent the knowledge a degree entails, a character would need ratings
of 1-3 in several skills. If you want a simplistic method to represent
degrees, get your hand on the course the requirements for that degree.
Not group each course into what SR skill (or skills) it would fall under.
Here in Texas, course numbers reflect the level of knowledge/difficulty
of the course and range from 0xxx (remedial level, I think) to 8xxx (Ph.D
level). So look at the courses that fall under each skill and assign it
a rating equal to the first digit of the highest course number.

Sanity Check:
If this is a good system then, someone with a Bachelors in Computer
Science would have a computer skill rating of 4+ (the system is intended
to represent the minimum inorder to get the degree.) and someone with a
Ph.D would have a skill of 8. Sound good?

>What about when
>various disciplines start overlapping (like society, culture, history,
>language, and etiquette...skills Artemis is exceptionally learned in)?

I'm not sure what you're asking here... Do you mean when a degree
requires knowledge in multiple areas? Perhaps the answer to the next
question will answer this one ... :)

>Would, say, a knowledge skill in a culture (like Japanese) back up an
active
>skill like etiquette or language?

Do you mean, Japanese Culture be complimentary to Japanese Language? I'd
say yes to degree. It wouldn't really help you understand the language,
but it would help you understand the conotations, significance, etc...
It would be most definately be complimentary to etiquette (when dealing
with Japanese)! :)

>Also, what is the exact nature of a
>background skill?

It gives you background knowledge ... basicly general information
surrounding the skill itself. For example, Computer background would
probably include some knowledge of computer law, computer history,
computer trivia, etc... Consider <skill> background knowledge as
miscilaneous information on <skill>. That is at least how I interpret
it.

>Also, anybody know the term for physics as it applies to circular (as
>opposed to linear) motion?

Rotational Motion. Linear Motion is a special case and subset of
Rotional Motion (you can use rotational motion equations to solve linear
motion problems but not necessarily vice-versa.).

>I found physics (ballistics) to be a nifty skill
>for a physad gunfighter who likes making trick shots like rebounding a
>bullet off the wall ("No use hiding...I know the bullets, you see: I
make
>them go where I want."), and wanted to try the same for a character who
>specializes in whips.

Whips:
The effect would be negligiable. I think you'd be better off making up a
whip trickery skill to handle that (the only whip trick I know of is
grappling but am more than a little uncertain of its authenticity :)

Guns:
Again, the benefit would be negligable and again I'd recommend some sort
of trickshot skill instead. In order to ricochet bullets off walls and
around corners and what not, you'd need to have materials that won't give
in and imbed rather than deflect the bullet, and the need to be where you
want them and at the proper angles. IOW, nearly all the time the feat
will be impossible. (Even brick will imbed the bullet rather than
deflect, I think ...)

Now, a legitimate use of Physics: Ballistics (the ONLY one I can think of
...) is to aide in sniping (primarily in picking your spot and analyzing
weather conditions and such minute details.).

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 12
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:45:55 +0100
According to Lehlan Decker, at 17:25 on 12 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> I've had reasonable look with adepts, in fact they seem to gain a
> bit in power in going from SR2-3.

That's what I found too. A physad in our group got to spend .5 Magic
Points extra for powers, when her existing abilities were converted to SR3
costs.

> Seems like the consensus to convert characters is build them from
> scratch and try to make them match their SR2 version. That is what I've
> done as well, with fairly decent results.

I think either method works well -- either rebuilding them from scratch
(as some players in my group did), or using the guidelines in SR3 (which
other players in my group used). The magician that was "converted" by
making the same character with the SR3 chargen system was seriously under-
powered compared to the SRII version, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kleiduivenmelker
-> NERPS Project Leader * 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. 13
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:55:41 -0500
At 02:55 AM 1/13/99 -0500, greg basa wrote:
>
>Also, anybody know the term for physics as it applies to circular (as
>opposed to linear) motion? I found physics (ballistics) to be a nifty skill
>for a physad gunfighter who likes making trick shots like rebounding a
>bullet off the wall ("No use hiding...I know the bullets, you see: I make
>them go where I want."), and wanted to try the same for a character who
>specializes in whips.

It depends on the specific kind of motion you're describing. Curving
motion is a relatively complicated thing in physics, and each individual
case is covered by its own specific term.

However, bouncing bullets off walls for precision shots isn't something
even a physad is going to be able to manage in anything other than a very
cinematic game. While you can do the calculation using ideal conditions,
in the RW (that is, the world outside a physics classroom) there're all
sorts of minor variations that'll invariably throw off any calculation;
imperfections in the structure and material of the bullet, ditto for your
reflector(s), windage, temperature, humidity, the exact charge of
gunpowder/propellant in the round, microscopic deviations in the gun barrel
due to ambient conditions and so forth. Things you can never measure or
calculate for. Welcome to chaos theory.

OTOH, there's a whole host of other trick shots that a physad gunfighter
could achieve. I'd recommend going the Enhanced Centering route and using
Centering vs. penalties in addition to extra dice and enhanced senses.
Vision magnification is always a plus for those would-be masters of the gun.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 14
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:33:31 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:52 AM 1/13/99 -0600, D.Ghost wrote:
> Here in Texas, course numbers reflect the level of
knowledge/difficulty
>of the course and range from 0xxx (remedial level, I think) to 8xxx
(Ph.D
>level). So look at the courses that fall under each skill and assign
it
>a rating equal to the first digit of the highest course number.
>
>Sanity Check:
>If this is a good system then, someone with a Bachelors in Computer
>Science would have a computer skill rating of 4+ (the system is
intended
>to represent the minimum inorder to get the degree.) and someone with
a
>Ph.D would have a skill of 8. Sound good?

Try checking this against the Skill Ratings Table on p. 98-99 of BBB3.
Your system seems to work ok for the Bachelors' level, but Skill of 8
for a Ph.D, seems a bit much considering what FASA says a Skill Level
of 8 is supposed to represent. In both Active and Knowledge skills,
Level 8+ is supposed to be the very best, a "perfect" grasp of the
skill in question, "unsurpassed" and "unparalleled" among others who
share that skill. In short, a skill level 8 in Physics, for example,
shouldn't just be anyone with a Physics Ph.D, it should be a Stephen
Hawking or a Roger Penrose.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNpzK0aPbvUVI86rNAQHyZgQAqBdjKh0K0FmuR+PRJVVmUpMVs6eO/2ae
Nb0mJ0ALA+T4+2ncTT/DBpIjigQ8vqkzhbDCr0g9E6FNhMKwkpif94XtgqKpJjHw
0/9eXqd777HA20kkMg5jiLFMfP9MD2TaMgRXxkowB9UdpqbYPvgWwsxtZ1XQgNts
xj3QeJ7MCgo=
=rP0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 15
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:21:22 -0500
C E Thul wrote:
> >because the spells aren't as useful anymore. For example, our group's
> >houngan had a lot of spells at or around Force 3 -- which worked fine
> >in SRII, but made them nearly useless in SR3 because suddenly he had an
> >upper limit to his successes for many of them.
>
> **Rant mode on**
> That is the biggest piece of drek rule I've ever heard of!!!!!!! Can't
> generate any more successes than the Force of the spell. No other
> character type has that restriction!!!! A fraggin' Samauri with a weapon
>
No? Then why does L3 Wired Reflexes cost more money and essence than
L1?

> skill of 6 can roll 21 dice on a success test (skill 6, add 6 combat
> pool, add 6 Karma, add 1 for customized weapon, add 1 for enhanced
> articulation, and add 1 for a reflex recorder) and is he limited to only
> 6 successes?? Frag NO!!! Is that fair? A physical adept is even worse.
>
It's fair enough. Although why he'd blow 6 KP on extra dice baffles
me...

> They could roll 24 dice for an unarmed attack (skill 6, add 6 combat pool
> dice, add 6 Karma dice, add 6 Improved Ability dice)!!!! Yes I know these
>
Again, scratch the 6 KP dice, add 6 from the reach 2 weapon focus. :-)

> examples are munchy, but I feel the reason for the max successes rule was
> to limit abuses like these by Mages. There are much better ways to limit
>
Not quite... First off, FASA decided to smooth the system somewhat.
It used to be that the magic skills didn't work like any other skills -
the skill became a pool, the force of the spell became the skill, it
was a mess. So they cleaned it up - they made the skill act like any
other skill and had a real pool with normal limitations. There now had
to be a reason to take spells at higher forces.

The opposed spells were easy - resist vs the force. The others were
harder... One solution was to limit successes, which makes sense in
my eyes ("How come my homemade holdout doesn't work as well as your
milspec AK-97?"). Take note - not *all* spells are limited by
successes, just those where the force is otherwise unimportant.

> the number of dice a mage can use. You can: reduce the spell pool,
> increase the drain code of spells, decrease the amount of dice that can
> be added by foci, or spell limitations (fetishes, exclusive), or dice
> added by elementals, or totem bonuses, restate the Magical Mishap rule
> from the Companion, there are lots of ways to limit the number of dice a
> mage can roll. Making the "can't generate more successes than the force"
>
The force of the spell has to be factored in somewhere. In most spells,
it's factored into the resist TN, or in the effect somehow (Ice Sheet,
Armour, Stunbolt, etc). In some spells (Heal, for example), the force
of the spell didn't come into the equation anyhow - meaning that
every mage on the earth would take that spell at force 1 (less karma,
lower drain, what's the downside?). Also note that Heal doesn't limit
*successes*, it limits how many boxes you can heal (you can put extra
successes towards speed).

> rule is a dumb fix to the problem. You shouldn't limit one character type
> like that without limiting the others in similar ways. Wasn't the magic
> rules playtested? Does anyone else feel the same, or am I completely off
> the wall here? I know FASA monitors this group, why did you do that? Why
> didn't you come up with a fairer way to limit mages? Drek like that
> really annoys me.
>
I think it's fair - powerful mojo requires high force. In fact, I think
magic's a lot more balanced than in SR2.

James Ojaste
Message no. 16
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:24:07 -0600
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:33:31 -0500 Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>At 02:52 AM 1/13/99 -0600, D.Ghost wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Sanity Check:
>>If this is a good system then, someone with a Bachelors in Computer
>>Science would have a computer skill rating of 4+ (the system is
intended
>>to represent the minimum inorder to get the degree.) and someone with a
>>Ph.D would have a skill of 8. Sound good?

>Try checking this against the Skill Ratings Table on p. 98-99 of BBB3.

Just a note: I did since I made a reference to that table in the original
post. :)

>Your system seems to work ok for the Bachelors' level, but Skill of 8
>for a Ph.D, seems a bit much considering what FASA says a Skill Level
>of 8 is supposed to represent. In both Active and Knowledge skills,
>Level 8+ is supposed to be the very best, a "perfect" grasp of the
>skill in question, "unsurpassed" and "unparalleled" among others
who
>share that skill. In short, a skill level 8 in Physics, for example,
>shouldn't just be anyone with a Physics Ph.D, it should be a Stephen
>Hawking or a Roger Penrose.

Yeah, I noticed but I think FASA exagerated on the tail end of that
table. Also, the table curves rather gently at first and then spikes
suddenly. According to the table it quite probable ... even likely that
characters with Ph.D level knowledge are running around Shadows. I mean
how many mage characters do you know have a 5-6 in Sorcery? By my system
above, that'd be Masters level but according to FASA that'd possibly be
Ph.D level. I'm sorry but I don't think Ph.D level skill is going to be
THAT common in the Shadows ...

I would personally put 7-9 as Ph.D level while 10+ is genius (IMO).
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 17
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:00:10 EST
In a message dated 1/12/1999 8:46:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
eriochrome@****.COM writes:

>
> **Rant mode on**
> That is the biggest piece of drek rule I've ever heard of!!!!!!! Can't

<fire extinguisher engaged...>

<snipped the rest of the rant>

I would suggest that you look carefully at the SR2 rules for success tests
concerning combat. karma or not. Your example fell apart within the first
half-paragraph...

-K
Message no. 18
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:01:33 EST
In a message dated 1/12/1999 8:57:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
zzdeden@*******.COM.AU writes:

>
> Well, they had to fit the Force of the spell into the picture somewhere. I
> mean, otherwise the difference between a Force 1 and a Force 6 spell is
> nothing - at least as far as unresisted spells go. I agree though, it does
> seem like a rather lame way to patch a rather badly developed magic system.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^

> Not that I don't love the idea of using Sorcery as the base number of dice
> you're rolling and the rest of it - I just hate that they chucked one of
> those 'orrible AD&D-like maximums on it and that your Magic Attribute is
> now only really used for determining the maximum Force you can safely
> channel. It begs the question though, do the developers of these rules
> favour lightly cybered magicians or what?

Ark...I had such high hopes for you guy.

-K
Message no. 19
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:11:31 EST
In a message dated 1/13/1999 2:12:17 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
chaos@*****.COM writes:

>
> I was specifically thinking of a certain Ork Decker with 500+ karma :]
> Lots of points, and lots of points in things that later became freebie
> knowledge skills. In the end we left things pretty much the same and just
> converted a couple skills.
>
> Johnny 99 (Which I didn't convert) was a tad more difficult because as a
> mage his powers and spells changed a bit.

I'll just toss this in...

500+ Karma eh?

*WUSS*

-K ;-P
Message no. 20
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:13:59 EST
In a message dated 1/13/1999 3:01:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
demipop@**********.COM writes:

>
> Speaking of freebie knowledge skills, one of my characters recently earned
> her Ph.D in Tir sociology (yes, she spent karma on this) and is about to be
> converted to SR3. How would one measure things like degrees in knowledge
> skills?

I snipped the rest, sorry. In SR3, there is a functional table for Active
Skill and Knowledge skills, what their ratings are the equivalent of. IMO,
"Ph.D" would be something like an 8-10.

-K
Message no. 21
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:58:30 -0500
At 02:16 AM 1/13/99 -0600, D. Ghost wrote these timeless words:
>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:01:45 -0500 Bull <chaos@*****.COM> writes:
><SNIP>
>>I was specifically thinking of a certain Ork Decker with 500+ karma :]
>>Lots of points, and lots of points in things that later became freebie
>>knowledge skills. In the end we left things pretty much the same and
>just
>>converted a couple skills.
>>
>>Johnny 99 (Which I didn't convert) was a tad more difficult because as a
>>mage his powers and spells changed a bit.
>
>That's interesting. Are you waiting for MitS to convert Johnny, or not
>going to convert him?
>
Well... Johnny was fully converted using our playtest notes for MITS,
so... Whether he ends up needing tweaked when MITS comes out or not, who
knows. Not sure what the final results of our tearing poor Steve's book
all to shreds were. <grin>.

Actually, at this point, it's sort of moot. We've mostly ended that
campaign, though both characters were left in a position for future play.
(Johnny is assumed dead, but is more likely just lost in the metaplanes.
Bull is a little beat up emotionally, since he didn't go with Johnny (Long
story there), and is on the Island with his family.)

Bull
--
Bull -- The Best Ork Decker You Never Met
chaos@*****.com ===== bull22@***********.com
http://shadowrun.html.com/users/bull

=======================================================
= =
= Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any Fours? =
= =
=======================================================

"I may be crazy enough to take on Batman, but the IRS? No way!"
-Joker, "Batman, The Animated Series"
Message no. 22
From: Erio Chrome <eriochrome@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:43:38 -0600
K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM> writes:
>I would suggest that you look carefully at the SR2 rules for success
>tests concerning combat. karma or not. Your example fell apart within
the
>first half-paragraph...

I'm looking at the rules, the character makes the test using their combat
skill (rating 6), adds Combat pool dice (up to a max of skill rating of
6), then add in bonus dice from the other various sources, enhanced
articulation (+1 die to all active skills <ST>), reflex recorder (+1 die
to the skill purchased<ST>), customized weapon (+1 die to skill
test<FOF>), and adding 6 dice from the Karma pool. All of those are
valid, so what do you mean by my example falling apart?

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 23
From: Erio Chrome <eriochrome@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:59:37 -0600
<James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA> writes:
>No? Then why does L3 Wired Reflexes cost more money and essence than
>L1?

What?!?!?


>It's fair enough. Although why he'd blow 6 KP on extra dice baffles
>me...

Sometimes you really need to succeed. It's always better to add dice for
tests requiring a high T# and then do rerolls (provided you have the
Karma for it).

>Again, scratch the 6 KP dice, add 6 from the reach 2 weapon focus.
>:-)

Weapon focus! I forgot about the weapon focus, now the total is 30 dice,
but are they limited to 6 successes? Or a number of successes equal to
the Power of the attack?

>Not quite... First off, FASA decided to smooth the system somewhat.
>It used to be that the magic skills didn't work like any other skills
>the skill became a pool, the force of the spell became the skill, it
>was a mess. So they cleaned it up - they made the skill act like any
>other skill and had a real pool with normal limitations. There now
>had to be a reason to take spells at higher forces.

I agree with making the Sorcery skill a vital part of spell casting. But
if you limit the number of dice which can be added to a spell success
test to a maximum of the Force you achieve the same effect, and you don't
have this exception-to-the-norm restriction.

>The opposed spells were easy - resist vs the force. The others were
>harder... One solution was to limit successes, which makes sense in
>my eyes ("How come my homemade holdout doesn't work as well as your
>milspec AK-97?"). Take note - not *all* spells are limited by
>successes, just those where the force is otherwise unimportant.

For spells like invisibility or armor (ones I belive are subjected to
this limitation) make every 2 or 4 successes generate a benefit. Besides
shouldn't a mage with a skill of 12 be better than a mage with a skill of
4 at casting a spell? But if the spells are the same Force, they are
limited to the same number of successes.

> the number of dice a mage can use. You can: reduce the spell pool,
>> increase the drain code of spells, decrease the amount of dice that
>can
>> be added by foci, or spell limitations (fetishes, exclusive), or
>dice
>> added by elementals, or totem bonuses, restate the Magical Mishap
>rule
>> from the Companion, there are lots of ways to limit the number of
>dice a
>> mage can roll. Making the "can't generate more successes than the
>force"
>>
>The force of the spell has to be factored in somewhere. In most
>spells,
>it's factored into the resist TN, or in the effect somehow (Ice Sheet,
>Armour, Stunbolt, etc). In some spells (Heal, for example), the force
>of the spell didn't come into the equation anyhow - meaning that
>every mage on the earth would take that spell at force 1 (less karma,
>lower drain, what's the downside?). Also note that Heal doesn't limit
>*successes*, it limits how many boxes you can heal (you can put extra
>successes towards speed).

Look above. Limit the number of dice rolled by the Force and that
provides motivation to get a higher Force spell. Take Treat, make every 2
successes heal one box of damage, limit the number of bonus dice added to
the test to the Force. Would a mage be more effictive casting the spell
at a higher Force in this instance? Definitely. Do you need to limit the
number of successes? No.

>I think it's fair - powerful mojo requires high force. In fact, I
>think magic's a lot more balanced than in SR2.

Again, a mage with a skill of 12 casting a spell at Force 2 can only
generate the same number of success as a mage with a skill of 2 casting
the same Force 2 spell. Or can't achieve as many successes as a mage with
a skill of 2 casting a Force 4 spell. If success is dictated by skill
(the number of dice you can roll for a test) why should you penalize the
mage with the high skill rating? Forcing a mage to waste more Karma on a
higher force spell just so that he can achieve enough successes to make
the spell worthwhile is dumb. Mages have more than enough things to spend
Karma on, they don't need more.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 24
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:26:06 EST
In a message dated 1/13/1999 9:03:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
eriochrome@****.COM writes:

>
> I'm looking at the rules, the character makes the test using their combat
> skill (rating 6), adds Combat pool dice (up to a max of skill rating of
> 6), then add in bonus dice from the other various sources, enhanced
> articulation (+1 die to all active skills <ST>), reflex recorder (+1 die
> to the skill purchased<ST>), customized weapon (+1 die to skill
> test<FOF>), and adding 6 dice from the Karma pool. All of those are
> valid, so what do you mean by my example falling apart?

Because the maximum number of successes is still limited by the skill (+ equal
number of combat pool not to exceed skill). Hell, the only part I am not too
certain about is that the maximum number of dice (outside of burning 1 karma
point per die) is equal to the twice the skill (skill + additional dice, in
this case 6).

-K (who is *REALLY* trying to look up every rule he can just so he can be
ready for this upcoming weekends' free-for-all)
Message no. 25
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:27:46 EST
In a message dated 1/13/1999 9:29:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
eriochrome@****.COM writes:

>
> Weapon focus! I forgot about the weapon focus, now the total is 30 dice,
> but are they limited to 6 successes? Or a number of successes equal to
> the Power of the attack?
>
skill plus an additional number not to exceed the skill again.

-K
Message no. 26
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:27:17 +1100
At 18:59 13/01/99 -0600, Erio Chrome wrote:
>For spells like invisibility or armor (ones I belive are subjected to
>this limitation) make every 2 or 4 successes generate a benefit. Besides

Bo. Neither of these spells are limited by the spell's force.

>Again, a mage with a skill of 12 casting a spell at Force 2 can only
>generate the same number of success as a mage with a skill of 2 casting

Which specific, force-limited spells are you actually objecting to? Your
original post seemed to indicate Combat spells but these are not force limited.

>the same Force 2 spell. Or can't achieve as many successes as a mage with
>a skill of 2 casting a Force 4 spell. If success is dictated by skill
>(the number of dice you can roll for a test) why should you penalize the
>mage with the high skill rating? Forcing a mage to waste more Karma on a
>higher force spell just so that he can achieve enough successes to make
>the spell worthwhile is dumb. Mages have more than enough things to spend
>Karma on, they don't need more.

I see an analogy with Barrier Ratings. No matter how high your Pistol skill
is, your bullets are bouncing off that concrete wall. Sometimes a high
skill is worthless without appropriate tools.








Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
Message no. 27
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:05:43 -0600
:> I'm looking at the rules, the character makes the test using their
combat
:> skill (rating 6), adds Combat pool dice (up to a max of skill rating
of
:> 6), then add in bonus dice from the other various sources, enhanced
:> articulation (+1 die to all active skills <ST>), reflex recorder (+1
die
:> to the skill purchased<ST>), customized weapon (+1 die to skill
:> test<FOF>), and adding 6 dice from the Karma pool. All of those are
:> valid, so what do you mean by my example falling apart?
:
:Because the maximum number of successes is still limited by the skill (+
equal
:number of combat pool not to exceed skill). Hell, the only part I am not
too
:certain about is that the maximum number of dice (outside of burning 1
karma
:point per die) is equal to the twice the skill (skill + additional dice,
in
:this case 6).

? Successes are limited in a normal skill test? Not AFAIK. But I can
see one possible mistake- I think the limit is pool dice = skill, not just
"combat pool" = skill. So total of 6 karma and combat pool is the limit
for above (like you'd have 6 karma pool to blow this way and only a six
skill anyhow...). You could also have improved ability (and still keep
the bioware) or a weapon focus. The Focus actually adds to skill, upping
potential pool; improved ability does not.

Mongoose
Message no. 28
From: Ulrich Haupt <sandman@****.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:13:55 +0100
K in the Shadows wrote:

> In SR3, there is a functional table for Active
> Skill and Knowledge skills, what their ratings are the equivalent of. IMO,
> "Ph.D" would be something like an 8-10.
>
> -K

I don't think a "Ph.D." needs to be as high as 8. For sure
most people getting
the Nobel-Prize are doctors but there are thousands who are
doctors and IMNSHO
aren't very too smart. As I am studdying physics I have met
a lot of Ph.D. and
I'd say that the hardest part of becoming a Ph.D. is to keep
on working on a
project for three years or so and not being very smart.
A lot of children playing with a PLAYSTATION or
Nintendo for several years have IMO a degree of of a doctor
in computer games
(playing - not programming of course) but noone honors them
( :-) [I wouldn't
neither].


Sandman
Message no. 29
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:23:56 -0600
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:26:06 EST K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
<SNIP>
>Because the maximum number of successes is still limited by the skill (+
equal
>number of combat pool not to exceed skill). Hell, the only part I am
not too
>certain about is that the maximum number of dice (outside of burning 1
karma
>point per die) is equal to the twice the skill (skill + additional dice,
in
>this case 6).

K, can you give a page reference? I don't remember this at all ...

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 30
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:31:50 -0600
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:05:43 -0600 Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
writes:
<SNIP>
>The Focus actually adds to skill, upping
>potential pool; improved ability does not.

The wording seems to go that way but I don't think that's the intention.
I think weapon foci are just supposed to add extra dice, same as improved
ability ... I'll ask Mike (M. :).

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 31
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:58:43 EST
In a message dated 1/14/1999 4:34:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

>
>
> K, can you give a page reference? I don't remember this at all ...
>
> --
I am simply going to ask "Help?" AS I know this exists, but I am going to
work shortly.

-K
Message no. 32
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:35:29 -0500
Erio Chrome wrote:
> >No? Then why does L3 Wired Reflexes cost more money and essence than
> >L1?
> What?!?!?
>
Higher advantage should equal higher disadvantage. You shouldn't get
something for nothing.

> >It's fair enough. Although why he'd blow 6 KP on extra dice baffles
> >me...
>
> Sometimes you really need to succeed. It's always better to add dice for
> tests requiring a high T# and then do rerolls (provided you have the
> Karma for it).
>
If you have *lots* of KP, I could see it, but that's some pretty big
numbers... If you only have 6 KP to spend and a base of 18 dice, TN4:
Rerolls Rolled Successes
0 24 12
1 23 11.5 + 5.75 = 17.25
2 21 10.5 + 5.25 + 2.675 = 18.425
3 18 9 + 4.5 + 2.25 + 1.125 = 16.875

> >Again, scratch the 6 KP dice, add 6 from the reach 2 weapon focus.
> >:-)
>
> Weapon focus! I forgot about the weapon focus, now the total is 30 dice,
> but are they limited to 6 successes? Or a number of successes equal to
> the Power of the attack?
>
They aren't limited to *successes*, they add dice equal to their force.

> >was a mess. So they cleaned it up - they made the skill act like any
> >other skill and had a real pool with normal limitations. There now
> >had to be a reason to take spells at higher forces.
> I agree with making the Sorcery skill a vital part of spell casting. But
> if you limit the number of dice which can be added to a spell success
> test to a maximum of the Force you achieve the same effect, and you don't
> have this exception-to-the-norm restriction.
>
Some spells (like combat spells, for example) would then include force
twice - once for dice rolled and once in the resistance test. Others
would only roll more dice. You still have an exception to the norm...

> >milspec AK-97?"). Take note - not *all* spells are limited by
> >successes, just those where the force is otherwise unimportant.
> For spells like invisibility or armor (ones I belive are subjected to
> this limitation) make every 2 or 4 successes generate a benefit. Besides
> shouldn't a mage with a skill of 12 be better than a mage with a skill of
> 4 at casting a spell? But if the spells are the same Force, they are
> limited to the same number of successes.
>
The only spells with this limitation currently are the Health spells.
Invisibility and Armour have *no* limits. If you roll 24 successes,
good for you! Invisibility is an illusion and thus resisted (int vs
force), armour gives a base of (force) armour, increased by 1 for every
two successes.

> >The force of the spell has to be factored in somewhere. In most
> >spells,
> Look above. Limit the number of dice rolled by the Force and that
> provides motivation to get a higher Force spell. Take Treat, make every 2
> successes heal one box of damage, limit the number of bonus dice added to
> the test to the Force. Would a mage be more effictive casting the spell
> at a higher Force in this instance? Definitely. Do you need to limit the
> number of successes? No.
>
I disagree. I think that in most cases the skill of the caster is the
dominant factor in how successful a spell is (note - not how *powerful*
the spell is, but how successful). In some cases, like Heal, "success"
*and* "power" are defined by how much healing gets done. "Success"
can
also be improved by doing it faster. "Power" can be improved by
getting a higher force spell.

> >I think it's fair - powerful mojo requires high force. In fact, I
> >think magic's a lot more balanced than in SR2.
>
> Again, a mage with a skill of 12 casting a spell at Force 2 can only
> generate the same number of success as a mage with a skill of 2 casting
> the same Force 2 spell. Or can't achieve as many successes as a mage with
>
Wrong. Take Heal/Treat, for example - they can only heal up to force
boxes of damage, but they can use leftover successes for increased
speed. The skill 12 mage will heal people *much* more quickly (not
to mention reliably) than the skill 2 mage.

> a skill of 2 casting a Force 4 spell. If success is dictated by skill
> (the number of dice you can roll for a test) why should you penalize the
> mage with the high skill rating? Forcing a mage to waste more Karma on a
> higher force spell just so that he can achieve enough successes to make
> the spell worthwhile is dumb. Mages have more than enough things to spend
> Karma on, they don't need more.
>
Again, currently only Health spells are affected - most worthy of note
being Heal and Treat. No longer can a starting character heal people
up from Deadly at a whim, just Serious. All combat spells are resisted
vs force, illusions as well (well, direct ones at least - indirect just
add to the TN, I think). Manipulations use force in various ways
(starting power = force boosted by successes, TN force to avoid slipping
on the ice, yadda yadda yadda).

James Ojaste
Message no. 33
From: Erio Chrome <eriochrome@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:39:19 -0600
"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA> writes:
<snip, snip, snip, snip>
>> Weapon focus! I forgot about the weapon focus, now the total is 30
>>dice, but are they limited to 6 successes? Or a number of successes
equal
>>to the Power of the attack?
>>
>They aren't limited to *successes*, they add dice equal to their
>force.

Sorry, a little sarcasm there. I meant that the total number of dice they
can roll is now 30, but they aren't limited to a maximum number of
successes equal to their skill or the Power of their weapon....


>> I agree with making the Sorcery skill a vital part of spell casting.
>>But if you limit the number of dice which can be added to a spell
>>success test to a maximum of the Force you achieve the same effect, and
you
>>don't have this exception-to-the-norm restriction.

>Some spells (like combat spells, for example) would then include force
>twice - once for dice rolled and once in the resistance test. Others
>would only roll more dice. You still have an exception to the norm...

But you still have created this exception where on some spells the
maximum number of successes you can get is equal to the Force, and other
spells don't have this limitation. They should be consistant with how
they use Force. Some Detection spells aren't resisted (i.e., the Force is
not important) but they don't have this restriction, Analyze Device and
Combat Sense are good examples.

>> For spells like invisibility or armor (ones I belive are subjected
>>to this limitation) make every 2 or 4 successes generate a benefit.
>>Besides shouldn't a mage with a skill of 12 be better than a mage with
a
>>skill of 4 at casting a spell? But if the spells are the same Force,
they
>>are limited to the same number of successes.

>The only spells with this limitation currently are the Health spells.
>Invisibility and Armour have *no* limits. If you roll 24 successes,
>good for you! Invisibility is an illusion and thus resisted (int vs
>force), armour gives a base of (force) armour, increased by 1 for
>every two successes.

Wrong, Telekinetic Manipulations have these restrictions as well
(Levitate, Magic Fingers to some extent, Light, and Shadow all have Force
related restrictions). My bad, I pulled those examples out of thin air
because I really didn't want to have to try and dig up my 3rd ed. book.

>> Look above. Limit the number of dice rolled by the Force and that
>> provides motivation to get a higher Force spell. Take Treat, make
>>every 2 successes heal one box of damage, limit the number of bonus
dice
>>added to the test to the Force. Would a mage be more effictive casting
the
>>spell at a higher Force in this instance? Definitely. Do you need to
limit
>>the number of successes? No.

>I disagree. I think that in most cases the skill of the caster is the
>dominant factor in how successful a spell is (note - not how
>*powerful* the spell is, but how successful). In some cases, like Heal,

>"success"*and* "power" are defined by how much healing gets done.
"Success"
>can also be improved by doing it faster. "Power" can be improved by
>getting a higher force spell.

Right. Except for those spells where the skill of the Caster don't mean
drek, the Force dictates the maximum number of successes, not the
Caster's ability. "A single success indicates that the character has
accomplished the task, but the more successes rolled, the better." (SR3
p. 39). Except for a few spells? I just feel that restricting the maximum
number of successes should be an all or nothing deal. Either every spell
has that limitation (which would really, really suck) or no spells do.
Come on, let's try and be a little consistant with the rules.

>> Again, a mage with a skill of 12 casting a spell at Force 2 can only
>> generate the same number of success as a mage with a skill of 2
>>casting the same Force 2 spell. Or can't achieve as many successes as a
mage
>>with
>Wrong. Take Heal/Treat, for example - they can only heal up to force
>boxes of damage, but they can use leftover successes for increased
>speed. The skill 12 mage will heal people *much* more quickly (not
>to mention reliably) than the skill 2 mage.

Well, let's take the same example with Levitate. Skill 12 mage can only
achieve a maximum movement rate of 2*MA (Force * Magic Attribute),
whereas a mage with a skill of 2 and a Force 3 spell can achieve a
maximum movement rate of 3*MA. A difference of 6 meters if they both have
a MA = 6. Again, they should try for some consistancy.

>> a skill of 2 casting a Force 4 spell. If success is dictated by
>>skill (the number of dice you can roll for a test) why should you
penalize
>>the mage with the high skill rating? Forcing a mage to waste more Karma

>>on a higher force spell just so that he can achieve enough successes to

>>make the spell worthwhile is dumb. Mages have more than enough things
to
>>spend Karma on, they don't need more.

>Again, currently only Health spells are affected - most worthy of note
>being Heal and Treat. No longer can a starting character heal people
>up from Deadly at a whim, just Serious. All combat spells are
>resisted vs force, illusions as well (well, direct ones at least -
indirect
>just add to the TN, I think). Manipulations use force in various ways
>(starting power = force boosted by successes, TN force to avoid
>slipping on the ice, yadda yadda yadda).

I really think that limiting some spells and not limiting others is dumb.
That's tailoring a rule system to only fix things that players tend to
abuse, rather than working on a system which is consistant and allows for
only a minimum of abuse. Why should a mage's 24 successes on his Force 2
Combat Sense spell add 12 dice to his pool, when 24 successes on a Force
2 Levitate spell are meaningless, since the maximum movement rate (for a
starting mage) would be 12 meters?

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 34
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:49:01 +1000
> >The only spells with this limitation currently are the Health spells.
> Invisibility and Armour have *no* limits. If you roll 24 successes,
> good for you! Invisibility is an illusion and thus resisted (int vs
> force), armour gives a base of (force) armour, increased by 1 for
> every two successes.
> <BigSnip(TM)>
> (Sorry, don't know who wrote this one...)
>
> Just thought I'd throw this in to stir things up a bit more.
>
> Armour IS restricted by Force. Printings 1 and 2 are mistakes - check
> the errata, or the 'corrected 3rd printing'. The armour spell gives
> you armour equal to the Force of the spell. One success makes the
> spell work, 24 successes makes the spell work. You do NOT get any
> bonus to your armour relating to the amount of successes you get. The
> spell either works or it doesn't and it always has the same effect.
>
> *Doc' stirs things up a bit...just for fun.*
>
> Doc'
>
> .sig Sauer
Message no. 35
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Converting Editions (Was: Physical Mages)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:34:48 -0500
Erio Chrome wrote:
> But you still have created this exception where on some spells the
> maximum number of successes you can get is equal to the Force, and other
> spells don't have this limitation. They should be consistant with how
> they use Force. Some Detection spells aren't resisted (i.e., the Force is
> not important) but they don't have this restriction, Analyze Device and
> Combat Sense are good examples.
>
Detection spells tend to use the Force in the range of the spell.
I don't think that the Force should limit successes in *all* spells -
it just doesn't make sense for some things. However, Force should
define the *strength* of the spell. The natural extension of having
a strong detection spell is a larger effective radius, isn't it?

> >The only spells with this limitation currently are the Health spells.
> Wrong, Telekinetic Manipulations have these restrictions as well
> (Levitate, Magic Fingers to some extent, Light, and Shadow all have Force
> related restrictions). My bad, I pulled those examples out of thin air
> because I really didn't want to have to try and dig up my 3rd ed. book.
>
*ALL* spells have Force related restrictions. Most of them, however,
don't limit the successes, but translate the Force into Strength Of
Effect.

> >I disagree. I think that in most cases the skill of the caster is the
> >dominant factor in how successful a spell is (note - not how
> >*powerful* the spell is, but how successful). In some cases, like Heal,
> >"success"*and* "power" are defined by how much healing gets
done.
> "Success"
> >can also be improved by doing it faster. "Power" can be improved by
> >getting a higher force spell.
>
> Right. Except for those spells where the skill of the Caster don't mean
> drek, the Force dictates the maximum number of successes, not the
>
Right. Skill provides finesse, Strength provides power. Where the
finesse and power overlap, have the power limit the effect. Where
they *don't* overlap, each does something different.

> >speed. The skill 12 mage will heal people *much* more quickly (not
> >to mention reliably) than the skill 2 mage.
>
> Well, let's take the same example with Levitate. Skill 12 mage can only
> achieve a maximum movement rate of 2*MA (Force * Magic Attribute),
> whereas a mage with a skill of 2 and a Force 3 spell can achieve a
> maximum movement rate of 3*MA. A difference of 6 meters if they both have
> a MA = 6. Again, they should try for some consistancy.
>
There is consistency. What about a skill 12 race car driver driving
a Jackrabbit vs the skill 2 driver driving the Eurocar Westwind 2000?
The Westwind will go faster, period. The better driver will handle
corners better and will be able to maneuver more delicately, but he
just can't make that Jackrabbit go faster than it was made to go.

> I really think that limiting some spells and not limiting others is dumb.
>
They're all limited.

> That's tailoring a rule system to only fix things that players tend to
> abuse, rather than working on a system which is consistant and allows for
> only a minimum of abuse. Why should a mage's 24 successes on his Force 2
>
It provides for variety in spells and it has a sound basis in my mind.

> Combat Sense spell add 12 dice to his pool, when 24 successes on a Force
> 2 Levitate spell are meaningless, since the maximum movement rate (for a
> starting mage) would be 12 meters?
>
As long as every spell includes force in a way that makes sense (ie,
limiting the power of the effect), I'm happy.

James Ojaste

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Converting Editions (Was: Physical 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!