Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Malcolm Shaw malhms@*********.com.au
Subject: Re SR3 Magic Rules
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:47:51 +1100
When casting a combat spell under the SR3 rules the mage say rolls 3
success and the opposition roles 4. THen according to my understanding
the spell fails totally and the opponent takes no damage - surely this
can't be correct? If magic is now treated like a skill then the spell
resistance should follow rules similar to any other skill - e.g. if
someone is shot then they stage the damage down. Under SR3 magic, combat
spells seem to work or not according to the body or willpower roles of
the target and if the target gets more successes then the spell fails
totally???? Any thoughts or explanations please.


Malcolm

Ps just started reading New Seattle 1st sentence " New Seattle describes
one of the most important characters in the Shadowrun universe - the
city of Seattle. Really! now cities are characters?
Message no. 2
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Re SR3 Magic Rules
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:44:02 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Malcolm Shaw wrote:

> When casting a combat spell under the SR3 rules the mage say rolls 3
> success and the opposition roles 4. THen according to my understanding
> the spell fails totally and the opponent takes no damage - surely this
> can't be correct?

It is correct. Mainly it's because you can't dodge a manabolt,
and if a mage can see you, he can affect you with more or less equal ease
regardless of distance, unlike firearms.
Magic is already potent. There's no need to make it moreso.

Marc
Message no. 3
From: Chris Maxfield cmaxfiel@****.org.au
Subject: Re SR3 Magic Rules
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 02:01:58 +1100
At 09:44 12/03/99 -0500, Marc Renouf wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Malcolm Shaw wrote:
>> When casting a combat spell under the SR3 rules the mage say rolls 3
>> success and the opposition roles 4. THen according to my understanding
>> the spell fails totally and the opponent takes no damage - surely this
>> can't be correct?
>
> It is correct. Mainly it's because you can't dodge a manabolt,
>and if a mage can see you, he can affect you with more or less equal ease
>regardless of distance, unlike firearms.
> Magic is already potent. There's no need to make it moreso.
>
And the damaging spells that are most like standard range attacks: combat pool
counts for resistance, they can be dodged and armour usually counts to some
degree - the elemental manipulations - do stage up and down like standard range
attacks.





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. 4
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Re SR3 Magic Rules
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:58:10 -0600
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Chamber/5072/srmnvbr.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Shaw <malhms@*********.com.au>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 7:49 AM
Subject: Re SR3 Magic Rules


:When casting a combat spell under the SR3 rules the mage say rolls 3
:success and the opposition roles 4. THen according to my understanding
:the spell fails totally and the opponent takes no damage - surely this
:can't be correct? If magic is now treated like a skill then the spell
:resistance should follow rules similar to any other skill - e.g. if
:someone is shot then they stage the damage down. Under SR3 magic, combat
:spells seem to work or not according to the body or willpower roles of
:the target and if the target gets more successes then the spell fails
:totally???? Any thoughts or explanations please.

Ranged combat skills are only one kind of skill- why should the
emulate those? In fact, MOST skills have an opposing roll that can cause
them to fail:
-Computer: system operations are opposed by security rating. If they
system rolls more succeses, the opperation fails
-Melee combat: if the target rolls more melee succeses, they don't get
hit (in fact, they can hit back)

Many tests are opposed tests- arm wrestling for example, or most
electronics device uses. Spellcasting happens to be one of them. Heck,
even a ranged attack can be fully dodged using combat pool. Spellcasting
is NOT a surefire proposition, and it should not be, especially in cases
where the target is capable of resitance.

This does not by any means imply that skill uses are cosistant any of
thier specifics- thats why melee and ranged combat have diffrent
procedures, not to mention there being whole sepeerate sections for
decking and rigging- and magic.

Note also that this effect varies from spell to spell. Damaging
manipulations will always have a chance of doing damage, if the mage rolls
any succeses- because they actually create a ranged attack. Some spells
have a threshold- they can fail even if the mage DOES roll net succeses.

Also, requiring targetes to stage down combat spells would really tip
the magical balance in favor of offense. Spell defense would be much less
useful, because a single success on a D dmage spell would require many
defense dice to stop the damage. Certainly it makes sense that if active
magical spell defense results in more successes than spell offense, the
spell fails. Think of spell resitance as the natural defense that any
spell must overcome.
In point of fact. mages offensive spells are plenty powerful already,
and DO work more or less like other skill uses.

Mongoose



:Malcolm
:
:Ps just started reading New Seattle 1st sentence " New Seattle describes
:one of the most important characters in the Shadowrun universe - the
:city of Seattle. Really! now cities are characters?


It is called a "metaphor". Good writers use them to make you think
creatively. Maybe it didn't work.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Re SR3 Magic Rules, 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!