| From: | Malcolm Shaw malhms@*********.com.au |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re MitS - Mages get shafted? |
| Date: | Sat, 15 May 1999 22:43:43 +1000 |
eager and looking forward to obtaining a copy especially as the group I
belong to take the attitude of incorporating each new release from FASA
into our games rules immediately. Then I got hold of MitS (yesterday)
and while I have not studied it the overall impression is that the mage
(and shaman) have been shafted and the phys ad is benefited. To explain
my impressions firstly let me describe my current character:
Female dwarf mage - level 1 initiate combat mage type with spell casting
specialization making magic attribute 6+1 (for initiate level) and 5
sorcery, 7 spell casting and conjuring at 3. She has a small number of
other skills such as stealth 3 (urban 5) and a fair number of knowledge
skills. This was taken as our GM indicated that players should have a
reasonable knowledge area and skills such as etiquette etc. or no info
available even if role playing is good. A point that I whole heartedly
agree with. If your character has no knowledge or etiquette or skill
then the character has severe problems running the shadows unless you
want to play a gang type game. We decided to run a high level game in
regards to knowledge etc.
Now to make my character able to have an advantage in melee I set out to
design an anchoring spell - a deal which netted me a combat axe that
does 11D damage. This may sound excessive until you start to look at
SR3 and new rules in regards to spirits and having to face up to trolls
with high body and heavy armour. A mage cannot compete in these areas
unlike the phys ad who can get mystic armour etc. Also the point was
that I did not get to use this axe that often as being a mage I tried to
avoid direct confrontations specially melee but surprise etc. and
general game pay makes it impossible to always avoid these situations.
I thought that anchoring was a great way for the mage to gain a little
edge without having to spend a huge amount of money to get a focus which
were all very high to exorbitant cost and enabled me to use Karma for
spells and skills etc. I think foci are great when you read Shadowrun
novels and not practical when role-playing due to costs in both money
and karma.
Then I read MitS and lo and behold I have a reusable anchoring focus
that costs, depending on the way you look at it 120,000 nuyen on the
street as an unbonded focus or 303,000 nuyen on the street as a bonded
focus and for unbonded would cost me 10 karma to apply first bonding
then 9 karma for bonding - MitS is confusing here as it says the cost
for first bonding is 5 x force and then 3 x force for bonding but does
not explain the two bonding costs. On top of this there are no examples
as per the Grimoire of how the spell acts and from inference I do not
think that the new anchoring would allow me to get a damage code of 11D.
So at the moment if we transfer our game to the MitS rules my mage
looses her axe because a) she cannot afford the cost and b) it does not
match the new rules.
Ok I can grudgingly accept that and try to look at the advantages
offered???
New Foci - bull all these do is increase costs to the mage both in Karma
and in very high nuyen costs that even with the best of games is very
difficult if not impossible to gain. For example the highest Karma paid
run we have had was Harlequins Back but our normal runs looking at how
FASA suggests in SR3 and in the Adventure modules gains one 5 Karma and
about 10,000 to 30,000 per run (by the way we play this as per run not
per night as I seem to recall some people indicated on ShadowRN and we
may take several nights of enjoyable playing to finish a run). Also
going by time lines I believe that any group taking note of time would
get no more than 4 good runs in per year (taking into account such
things as healing time for injuries etc.and if you earn as we do then
for a mage to gain sufficient funds and karma it would take about one to
three years of role playing time not counting the costs for living and
expenses etc. so expand that by a factor of at least 2. I know it is
not the intention of having too many foci per mage and there is foci
addiction but god! 300,000 nuyen for a force 2 reusable anchoring focus
is excessive, plus centering foci at 75,000 x force plus bonding costs
of 3 x force, Shielding foci at 95,000 x force plus bonding costs of 4 x
force, all to gain the magnificent reward of 1 die per force?
I have previously expressed my thoughts that the cost of expendable foci
at 1,500 x force to gain 1 die per force was one hell of a jump, and
unwarranted, compared to SR2 + Grimoire expendable fetishes of 50 or 60
nuyen for one die.
If I now add the new rules in regards to anchored spells I have to roll
drain each time I use and anchored spell - not too heavy if the spell
force is low and probably a better way than the old where there were no
tests. But why did the people who design these changes add that the mage
must also re - link each time the spell/anchor is used? Also can anyone
tell me how a mage could put the dice aside as indicated for bonding
etc. to be able to succeed in creating or using the Executive Protection
Anchor as page 71 in MitS? I know they say that these are found in the
possession or corporate execs etc. who can afford serious magical
protection but I had a brief look at the rules for creating and bonding
with dice being put aside for each action out of the total dice plus
spell pool available and my character with magic rating of 7 and spell
pool of 6 and a willpower of 7, which I don't think is too meagre would
have great difficulty in completing.
Then the changes to centering. Now one must have two skills at relevant
Karma costs. One to be a centering skill (which no where in the book can
I find the cost for this skill) and a related active skill. As I
understand this my mage would have say Latin at 6 and then a centering
skill at 6 or less and when centering would roll the dice in my
centering skill. Karma cost for my character would be 31.5 Karma for my
latin language and 31.5 for my centering skill if it costs the same as
languages and for one success applied ot the relevant test for every two
centering successes is it worth it? Also the use of an active skill
leads to some weird (in my opinion) choices for active skills e.g. one
of group who got his MitS a few days ago plays a phys and now is using
centering with spell casting as his creative skill - this should mean he
spends the same amount of Karma as I but to me I think using spell
casting as a skill seems ridiculous, however the rules leave this open.
Also as my mage had used masking, shielding, quickening and anchoring
before MitS then to fit the new rules she has to initiate to level 4 to
keep in accordance with the rules, or take three quests to learn the
extra metamagic techniques she has used. This I don't mind too much as
I agree with the new rules in this regards - it does give more incentive
for the mage to advance in initiation than the old rules. (I also have
64 Karma to use, most of which I wanted to use to get a few spells and
increase or gain new skill but now ill have to apply most of it to
initiation) (by the way before people start commenting on the Karma I
repeat we have just finished Harlequin's Back very successfully and I
had 4 Karma not spent before completing Harlequin's back - good for
Karma very poor for money)
I know that many on the list seem to have characters that are extremely
powerful and every time I read of people complaining of munchkiness I
quietly chuckle. All the same people seem to be running hugely powerful
characters and their advice always seems to be get a power focus, get a
weapon focus - look how much damage etc. you can do, or mages should not
get into fire fights - the sams should protect them while the mage stays
out of it and casts spells to help them. Well I don't know how these
attitudes correlate with game playing but I do know that our group tries
to avoid muchkiness and play by standard rules and our mages try like
hell to avoid damage but do not succeed all the time and with weapons
being as powerful as they are the mage needs help in surviving. The
anchored spell and quickening were to my way of looking at things a way
for the money poor mage who is trying to gain spells and skills both to
survive and help in fights are now beyond their grasp and is a poor
addition to the rules.
I know some say that mages were too powerful and in games like AD&D, if
they survived long enough to gain higher level they could unbalance a
game, and I agree, but in Shadowrun I did not and do not think this is
so. Up until now I have really enjoyed Shadowrun but it seems to me that
the mage is getting further and further behind the eight ball with cost
and rule changes and I find this sad and detracts from the game.
My opinion for what its worth, I may change my mind or may find more to
grouse about as I take more time to read MitS and study it.
Malcolm.
PS page 24 MitS Aborigine Magic a should it not be Aboriginal Magic?
and as for Traditions the totems should not include the badger it is a
european mammal and possibly North American - perhaps one could use the
wombat but he is not aggressive - perhaps the Tasmanian Devil? or seeing
how some awakened animals have returned could we have a resurrection of
the Tasmanian Tiger?
