Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
Subject: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:14:03 -0400
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Mongoose wrote:

> Funny you should ask, because I was chatting with the author of the
> official SR3 errata yesterday, and brought up the same topic. Some of those
> spells are slated for errata. Ignite can be resisted, so it seems OK as
> written (resitable spells don't get a success limit), although I do see that
> it would be damn effective on inanimate objects, regardless of force. I'll
> forward your question to said author, since you may have noticed some spells
> FASA did not.

I've got a potential one for you, but I don't know if it was an accident
or not.

Under firearms combat, it says that once damage is staged up to deadly,
that's it. Under melee combat, once damage is staged up to deadly, the
power rises by 1 for every 2 additional successes.

I believe spells allow the power of the damage to rise as well but I can't
find it (haven't looked all that hard mind you).

Is this errata or on purpose?

Drew Curtis, President, Digital Crescent, Incorporated
http://www.dcr.net (502) 226 3376 Internet and Software Design services.
Offering dial-up Access from Frankfort to Louisville and all points between.
Message no. 2
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:43:28 -0700
>Under firearms combat, it says that once damage is staged up to deadly,
>that's it. Under melee combat, once damage is staged up to deadly, the
>power rises by 1 for every 2 additional successes.
>
>I believe spells allow the power of the damage to rise as well but I can't
>find it (haven't looked all that hard mind you).
>
>Is this errata or on purpose?


I'm pretty sure that is on purpose.
Ranged combat. melee, and magic have always had different resolution
procedures; read the three procedures in SR2 carefully, they are not at all
alike.
In Ranged combat (and magic), successes are compared, the damage is staged
up (or down, or negated if something happens like a combat spell doesn't have
any net successes, or a bullet is dodged).
In melee, damage is staged up, then resistance is rolled. That means the
max "staging" is deadly. Of course, at that point, you are already hit, so
deadly is bad enough, often. But often, its pretty easy to resist; physads
using unarmed combat, for example, were often just to weak to do much damage
to big folks wearing armor, so SR3 added the bit about melee successes beyond
those needed to stage to deadly increasing power. That lets really skilled
attackers (or just anybody with a good melee advantage) bypass armor /
increase power by placing their hit well.
Since "extra" successes in ranged and magic tests already have an effect
(require more resistance successes), this effect is not needed in those
situations. Indeed, its not even possible- you don't know if damage has been
staged to deadly until AFTER the resistance test, at which point modifying the
power would be pointless.

Mongoose
Message no. 3
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:09:06 -0400
On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Drew Curtis wrote:

->On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Mongoose wrote:
->
->> Funny you should ask, because I was chatting with the author of the
->> official SR3 errata yesterday, and brought up the same topic. Some of those
->> spells are slated for errata. Ignite can be resisted, so it seems OK as
->> written (resitable spells don't get a success limit), although I do see that
->> it would be damn effective on inanimate objects, regardless of force. I'll
->> forward your question to said author, since you may have noticed some spells
->> FASA did not.
->
->I've got a potential one for you, but I don't know if it was an accident
->or not.
->
->Under firearms combat, it says that once damage is staged up to deadly,
->that's it. Under melee combat, once damage is staged up to deadly, the
->power rises by 1 for every 2 additional successes.

You mean there's no more overdamage? Uh oh, time to drag out my
old troll then..... ]:-)
And with regard to power, is the power incresed before or after
the defender makes their damage resistance test?

<snip to end>

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 4
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:42:59 +0000
David Foster wrote:

> ->> Funny you should ask, because I was chatting with the author of the
> ->> official SR3 errata yesterday, and brought up the same topic. Some of
those
> ->> spells are slated for errata. Ignite can be resisted, so it seems OK as
> ->> written (resitable spells don't get a success limit), although I do see
that
> ->> it would be damn effective on inanimate objects, regardless of force. I'll
> ->> forward your question to said author, since you may have noticed some
spells
> ->> FASA did not.
> ->
> ->I've got a potential one for you, but I don't know if it was an accident
> ->or not.
> ->
> ->Under firearms combat, it says that once damage is staged up to deadly,
> ->that's it. Under melee combat, once damage is staged up to deadly, the
> ->power rises by 1 for every 2 additional successes.

It wasn't an accident, I think you just misunderstood what you read. The defending
character makes there dodge test with only combat pool. Assuming that they did not
get enough successes to dodge they make a damage resistance test. The attackers
and defenders successes are compared (including any successes made in the
unsuccessful dodge) and AFTER that is finished whoever has the most successes
stages damage up or down. If the attacker has a ton of successes hitting with his
Predator II the defender has to get a ton +4 :) to resist damage completely. (or a
ton +1 in his dodge test) You were right on the money with Melee combat however,
but the new rules are actually more deadly than SR2 because of the +1 to power for
additional successes.

> You mean there's no more overdamage? Uh oh, time to drag out my
> old troll then..... ]:-)

Depends on what you mean by overdamage. If you mean that all the attackers
successes must be "bought off" to stage down damage then yes it still exists.
If
you are talking about extra boxes of damage being taken past deadly for REALLY
nasty attacks, well that is in there too, but a few paragraphs later IIRC. :)

> And with regard to power, is the power incresed before or after
> the defender makes their damage resistance test?

Huh? Are you thinking of damage category? It wouldn't make much sense to raise
the power of an attack after damage resistance has already been made.

Caric
Message no. 5
From: David Blank <XRacer8654@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:26:23 EDT
Has the the SR3 errata been released and if so where is it?

Thanks
Message no. 6
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:51:22 EDT
In a message dated 8/21/1998 11:17:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dcurtis@***.NET writes:

> I've got a potential one for you, but I don't know if it was an accident
> or not.
>
> Under firearms combat, it says that once damage is staged up to deadly,
> that's it. Under melee combat, once damage is staged up to deadly, the
> power rises by 1 for every 2 additional successes.
>
> I believe spells allow the power of the damage to rise as well but I can't
> find it (haven't looked all that hard mind you).
>
> Is this errata or on purpose?

HEY!!! This is what I was talking about in the seminar's at Gencon and
everyone got confused with me on. I was personally wanting to treat firearms
and spellcastings the same way, with successes increasing the power of the
attack in question once you have exceeded "Deadly" in effect.

I'm very interested to see how this comes out.

-K
Message no. 7
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:03:43 EDT
In a message dated 8/21/1998 2:01:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US writes:

> You mean there's no more overdamage? Uh oh, time to drag out my
> old troll then..... ]:-)
> And with regard to power, is the power incresed before or after
> the defender makes their damage resistance test?
>
I believe -BEFORE- the damage resistance test, as that would be the only time
this would make any sense.

-K
Message no. 8
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:06:00 -0700
>Has the the SR3 errata been released and if so where is it?


No, they are still being written. In fact, its a great idea to post any
problems you notice to the list, since I'm filtering them off to the author of
said errata.

Mongoose
Message no. 9
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:53:02 -0700
>HEY!!! This is what I was talking about in the seminar's at Gencon and
>everyone got confused with me on. I was personally wanting to treat firearms
>and spellcastings the same way, with successes increasing the power of the
>attack in question once you have exceeded "Deadly" in effect.
>
>I'm very interested to see how this comes out.
>
>-K
>

I personally understood you just fine, but wasn't the one answering
questions.
I don't see the point of treating spells and firearms this way, since
extra successes have plenty of effect. If you are using a HP, and have 8
successes, and the person only has 4 resistance dice, he's down, even if the
power is reduced to 2 by his armor.
In fact, I really pissed of my GM once by (technically) killing 4 people
in heavy armor using a way choked shotgun; the net power was pathetic, but I
had oodles of successes, way more than their resistance dice. I hadn't
planned it that way, I was using the choke mostly to get by all the cover they
had.
I'd rather see an official ruling that went the other way; if resisted
power is less than 0, you get (2?) extra dice for each point under 0. That
way, really heavy armor would do some good. The bit for melee is purely
because you stage melee *before* the damage resistance test is made, for some
arcane reason. Thus, a power bonus is needed to make extra successes past
deadly have any effect.

Mongoose
Message no. 10
From: Andrew Gwilliam <andrew@********.NET.UK>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:04:12 +0100
Mongoose wrote:

> >HEY!!! This is what I was talking about in the seminar's at Gencon and
> >everyone got confused with me on. I was personally wanting to treat firearms
> >and spellcastings the same way, with successes increasing the power of the
> >attack in question once you have exceeded "Deadly" in effect.
> >
> >I'm very interested to see how this comes out.
> >
> >-K
> >
>
> I personally understood you just fine, but wasn't the one answering
> questions.
> I don't see the point of treating spells and firearms this way, since
> extra successes have plenty of effect. If you are using a HP, and have 8
> successes, and the person only has 4 resistance dice, he's down, even if the
> power is reduced to 2 by his armor.
> In fact, I really pissed of my GM once by (technically) killing 4 people
> in heavy armor using a way choked shotgun; the net power was pathetic, but I
> had oodles of successes, way more than their resistance dice. I hadn't
> planned it that way, I was using the choke mostly to get by all the cover they
> had.
> I'd rather see an official ruling that went the other way; if resisted
> power is less than 0, you get (2?) extra dice for each point under 0. That
> way, really heavy armor would do some good. The bit for melee is purely
> because you stage melee *before* the damage resistance test is made, for some
> arcane reason. Thus, a power bonus is needed to make extra successes past
> deadly have any effect.
>
> Mongoose

Hi,
I am new on this list and have missed the beginning of this discussion can
someone fill me in on the start of it.

KO
Message no. 11
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 05:52:06 -0700
> Hi,
> I am new on this list and have missed the beginning of this discussion can
>someone fill me in on the start of it.
>
>KO
>

Its pretty pointless if you don't have SR3 (as the header should
indicate), but heck, its a nice rule and easy to drop into SR2 (as is most of
SR3, with notable exceptions).
Basically, If you read the SR2 melee procedure carefully, you will notice
that, unlike ranged combat and spells, damage is staged up, THEN resisted.
Since damage can stage only to deadly, beyond a point, successes cease to
matter. IN SR3, once melee damage (and melee damage only) is staged to
deadly, extra successes make it harder to shrug off by increasing the power;
each 2 "extra" successes increase power by one. So now, weak adepts CAN land
a punch on orcs in heavy armor, and have it do something.

Mongoose
(Of course, those bug spirits can rip through several inches of dicoated
titanium, too... ;-1 )
Message no. 12
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 02:59:23 -0400
Mongoose--
Well then, ask them if they *really* meant that full magicians ge=
t
*less* spell points than aspected magicians. Also, point out that the rul=
es
contradict themselves on spell points and foci.
In one place, it says that a number of spell points equal to the
force of the focus is sufficient to bond it, for starting characters.
In another place, they *really* screw over magicians and the
magically adept, by saying that the spell points translate one-for-one in=
to
karma points, which are then used to bond the focus. I have the feeling
that this is wrong.
I've actually never had a character who started with anything mor=
e
complex than a spell lock, but I would *really* want this point clarified=

before starting a new character.

Shadowmage
Message no. 13
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:21:03 -0700
Mongoose--
Well then, ask them if they *really* meant that full magicians get
*less* spell points than aspected magicians. Also, point out that the rules
contradict themselves on spell points and foci.
In one place, it says that a number of spell points equal to the
force of the focus is sufficient to bond it, for starting characters.
In another place, they *really* screw over magicians and the
magically adept, by saying that the spell points translate one-for-one into
karma points, which are then used to bond the focus. I have the feeling
that this is wrong.
I've actually never had a character who started with anything more
complex than a spell lock, but I would *really* want this point clarified
before starting a new character.

Shadowmage

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm certain that aspected mages ARE intended to have more spell points
than full mages- that was one of several alternatives for aspected types
discussed during playtesting. Even though aspected magicians cost a lower
priority, full mage characters are still MUCH more powerful, especially in the
long run. Hence the extra points; they get a chance to be really good at what
they do, at least.

For errata submissions I make (or anybody sends to Mike), they need a PAGE
NUMBER.
If you can tell me where that "one place' is, I'd appreciate it- I've only
seen the one reference on p. 50 where it says you can spend spell points like
karma to bond foci. AFAIK, that IS the correct interpretation, and is how
things were in SR2. I don't see how that so seriously screws starting mages-
it makes FOCI a hefty investment for them, sure, but isn't that appropriate?
Otherwise, you'd bond those rating 6 power foci at character creation,
then spend 6 karma to learn the ONE force spell you couldn't get (boo hoo, my
cybered heart leaks oil for the poor mage), and puny sustaining foci would
cost as many spell points to start with as massive power foci. That would be
very wrong.
AFAIK, If you can find the reference to spending just plain force in spell
points to bond a focus, it would certainly be errata worthy, because its
WRONG. You must pay the bonding karma cost in spell points.

Mongoose
Message no. 14
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 22:37:46 -0400
Mongoose--

> Otherwise, you'd bond those rating 6 power foci at character
>creation, then spend 6 karma to learn the ONE force spell you couldn't
>get (boo hoo, my cybered heart leaks oil for the poor mage), and puny
>sustaining foci would cost as many spell points to start with as massive=

>power foci. That would be very wrong.


Full Magicians, Page 54, last sentence, second column
"As a benefit to starting characters, full magicians can bond foc=
i
by using their spell points instead of Karma during character creation
(again, at a rate of 1 Spell Point per point of Force)." =



This is then contradicted twice on page 60, which now makes me
believe that the reference on page 54 is a typo.
A magician cannot BUY a rating 6 power focus at character
generation. There just isn't enough money. <g> Except for the aspected
magician, I suppose. Though considering how much of a pain it is to raise=

attributes and skills through Karma, I'd want to spend my A priority on
Attributes.
This is what happens when you read SR3 at 2 am...

Shadowmage
Message no. 15
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 22:06:30 -0700
|Mongoose--

|> Otherwise, you'd bond those rating 6 power foci at character
|>creation, then spend 6 karma to learn the ONE force spell you couldn't
|>get (boo hoo, my cybered heart leaks oil for the poor mage), and puny
|>sustaining foci would cost as many spell points to start with as massive
|>power foci. That would be very wrong.


|Full Magicians, Page 54, last sentence, second column
| "As a benefit to starting characters, full magicians can bond foci
|by using their spell points instead of Karma during character creation
|(again, at a rate of 1 Spell Point per point of Force)."


| This is then contradicted twice on page 60, which now makes me
|believe that the reference on page 54 is a typo.
| A magician cannot BUY a rating 6 power focus at character
|generation. There just isn't enough money. <g> Except for the aspected
|magician, I suppose. Though considering how much of a pain it is to raise
|attributes and skills through Karma, I'd want to spend my A priority on
|Attributes.
| This is what happens when you read SR3 at 2 am...
|
|Shadowmage

Thanks for the page reference. The costs on spirits also seems to be
mutually contradictory. I obviously agree that the cost should be BONDING
cost (and yeah, employed some hyperbole with the force 6 power focus. Force
2, ok, and its still 10 points VS 2!)

Congratulations, Shadowmage, you are the proud owner of a first printing
SR3! With it come a lifetimes supply of typos, errors, and misprints!

Mongoose
Message no. 16
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 23:12:36 -0400
Mongoose--

> Congratulations, Shadowmage, you are the proud owner of a first
>printing
>SR3! With it come a lifetimes supply of typos, errors, and misprints!

I'm the proud owner of *three* limited edition hardcover SR3 book=
s,
and *two* regular first printing SR3 books. <g>
I really like going to GenCon. There's so much neat stuff you can=

get before other people can have it. <g>

Shadowmage
Message no. 17
From: "Mark C. Farrington" <alareth@*****.DWEBS.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 23:35:06 -0400
> I'm the proud owner of *three* limited edition hardcover SR3 books,


Having three BABY's is not somthing I would brag about too loudly as
there are most likely many people now plotting violent methods for you
demise. I will not go into the details of what I have gone through to try
to get a hardback and the gloating isn't appreciated.

Alareth - Acolyte of the First Church of the Squooshy Ball
The Shiny Happy Gaming Group - http://www.dwebs.net/~alareth
ICQ UIN - 11468823
Message no. 18
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:08:16 EDT
In a message dated 8/23/98 7:40:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Tarek_Okail@**********.COM writes:

>
> Full Magicians, Page 54, last sentence, second column
> "As a benefit to starting characters, full magicians can bond foci
> by using their spell points instead of Karma during character creation
> (again, at a rate of 1 Spell Point per point of Force)."
>
>
> This is then contradicted twice on page 60, which now makes me
> believe that the reference on page 54 is a typo.
The typo in the first part would be the reference to Spell point, since they
have nothing to do with foci. It says that you use Spellpoints/Force as karma,
which is the same as pg 60. No reference was actually made to paying hte
rating of the focus in force points, true?
Message no. 19
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:11:15 EDT
In a message dated 8/23/98 8:02:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> Congratulations, Shadowmage, you are the proud owner of a first printing
> SR3! With it come a lifetimes supply of typos, errors, and misprints!
Makes you wonder if you should have waited for BBB3.3 (the $30 one) instead,
yeah right :-)
Message no. 20
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:13:41 -0400
Alareth--

> I will not go into the details of what I have gone through to try=

>to get a hardback and the gloating isn't appreciated.

Did you actually get a hardcover SR3?

Shadowmage
Message no. 21
From: "Mark C. Farrington" <alareth@*****.DWEBS.NET>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:17:46 -0400
> Did you actually get a hardcover SR3?


As of yet one hasn't arrived and FASA hasn't responed to any of the
e-mail I have sent.

Alareth - Acolyte of the First Church of the Squooshy Ball
The Shiny Happy Gaming Group - http://www.dwebs.net/~alareth
ICQ UIN - 11468823
Message no. 22
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:35:07 -0400
Alareth--

> As of yet one hasn't arrived and FASA hasn't responed to any of the=

>e-mail I have sent.

Do you have a confirmation number from FASA? If not, you could
always call them up. This may be a bit expensive, depending on where you
live, but it may be the best way of confirming whether or not your BABY
will be delivered.
If you find that you don't have a BABY on the way, then I might p=
ut
one of my BABYs up for adoption... <g>

Shadowmage

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Errata (was Re: [SR3] Forceless spells), 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!