Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Sleep spells of death
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 19:40:00 PDT
Hi there!

Another little thing I've been thinking about is this:

Let me tell you a short story about _the_ shaman. (Belonged one of my
players) Bloody worst killer bastard coyote shaman the shadows ever saw,
dammit. He's retired now (thank god!) as a healthy grade 6 initiate with a
credbalance about 7 meganuyen. (How he got so rich? That's a story in
itself: He was the groups only magic-using character, so guess who got _all_
the foci when they looted the bad guys? Now check your average
powerfocus(6)'s pricetag at your local talismonger. Right, looootsa nuyen.
Since the sonofabitch managed to stay alive adventure after adventure, he
had a nice collection after, say, 60 percent of all the adventures FASA ever
published? Even at 30% of the off-shelf value it is some heavy cred.) Now
I'm not a nice gamemaster, but if I'm bad, those players are _always_ a
little worse! Somehow... Now, the first spell he ever researched was
'Improved sleep'. You got it, it's just like 'sleep' but does S damage
instead and has a little heftier drain code. Not that he cared... So they
walk into a room... It's a dangerous encounter...When the cyberdudes have
had their share of heavy-weapons fire, some of the antagonists are still
standing (we are talking about a single combat round here)... The shaman is
lucky, he's on initiative 11, which means he casts two spells this round. On
11 he casts Imp. sleep on everyone he can see in the room (xcept the team
ofcourse). It does, since the bad guys all have the same willpower, some 6D
Stun plus three extra successes. Without magical support, some of the
antagonists (especially the wounded ones) take a deadly stun wound and fall
over. Now some of the runner cybermonsters fire and kill some antagonists.
Everybody's happy. But a couple of them are still standing (how incredible
is this not! Most combat action lasts for _less_ than three seconds) so on
initiative count 1, the shaman casts another Imp. sleep on the remaining
antagonists. Of course they go down (what did you expect?) But what happens
to mister security-guard lying nearby, clearly within the shaman's
arc-of-vision and the spell's area of effect (being damn big 'coz he's a
grade 3 initiate)? The poor fellow has taken a Deadly stun wound from the
last ImpSleep spell, plus a seriuos wound from a nasty Ingram valiant. Now
he faces another 10D stun damage. And being unconscious he can (probably)
not add his threat rating? Does this mean that a (any) stun-weapon, be it
spell or fist, (almost) automaticly kills
poor-mr-sec-guard-just-doing-his-job? He (with a body of 3 and a plus 6 TN
modifier) dosn't stand a chance against mr killer shaman's naughty spell
which is meant to put peiople to TEMPORARY! sleep...

Anyway, the team had nobody to interrogate afterwards in my campaign, and
the combat action only lasted for 3 seconds as usual, and mr shaman had a
really nifty killing spell with a lower drain than a _real_ hurting-spell of
the same damage-level. How sad is this not.

Am I right, or am I wrong?

Comments welcome.
MxM (fredrik.lindblom@*******.telia.se)
Message no. 2
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 14:53:23 -0400
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:

> Another little thing I've been thinking about is this:
>
> Let me tell you a short story about _the_ shaman. (Belonged one of my
> players) Bloody worst killer bastard coyote shaman the shadows ever saw,
> dammit.

Well, I dunno. I've seen some ruthless killer bastards in my
time. The Shark shamans are probably the worst. Especially when they
sideline as mob enforcers...

> Now, the first spell he ever researched was
> 'Improved sleep'. You got it, it's just like 'sleep' but does S damage
> instead and has a little heftier drain code. Not that he cared.

Okay. This part sounds fairly normal. I'm still with ya.

> ... So they
> walk into a room... It's a dangerous encounter...When the cyberdudes have
> had their share of heavy-weapons fire, some of the antagonists are still
> standing (we are talking about a single combat round here)... The shaman is
> lucky, he's on initiative 11, which means he casts two spells this round. On
> 11 he casts Imp. sleep on everyone he can see in the room (xcept the team
> ofcourse).

Here's where I start to have a problem. Area of effect spells
target *everyone* thatis visible and within the spell's area. So if your
teammembers are too close, they get hit too. "Sorry, tough luck,
chummers..."

> It does, since the bad guys all have the same willpower, some 6D
> Stun plus three extra successes. Without magical support, some of the
> antagonists (especially the wounded ones) take a deadly stun wound and fall
> over.

Were they being attacked with stun weapons previously? Were some
of the goons already partially stunned?

> On initiative count 1, the shaman casts another Imp. sleep on the remaining
> antagonists. Of course they go down (what did you expect?) But what happens
> to mister security-guard lying nearby, clearly within the shaman's
> arc-of-vision and the spell's area of effect (being damn big 'coz he's a
> grade 3 initiate)? The poor fellow has taken a Deadly stun wound from the
> last ImpSleep spell, plus a seriuos wound from a nasty Ingram valiant. Now
> he faces another 10D stun damage. And being unconscious he can (probably)
> not add his threat rating?

Good call. I would indeed say that he could not use the Threat
Rating if he was unconscious.

> He (with a body of 3 and a plus 6 TN modifier)

Whoa! I think I am beginning to see the problem here. Wound
modifiers are *not* added to damage resistance rolls. No wonder they
were all droppin' like flies.

> Anyway, the team had nobody to interrogate afterwards in my campaign, and
> the combat action only lasted for 3 seconds as usual,

Try running your combats more realistically. I can gurantee that
if you use movement, cover, visibility, and all the other appropriate
modifiers, that combat with thirty guys will *not* be over in 3 seconds.
Combat with six guys will *not* be over in 3 seconds unless you get
surprise or are truly a crack shot. Even then, it's iffy.

> and mr shaman had a
> really nifty killing spell with a lower drain than a _real_ hurting-spell of
> the same damage-level. How sad is this not.
>
> Am I right, or am I wrong?

You are wrong. Do not add the wound modifiers to the damage
resistance test. Even with this little correction, you will see things
like sleep doing far less damage than you (and your players) are used to.

Marc
Message no. 3
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death (+)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 09:51:00 PDT
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:

>> ... So they
>> walk into a room... It's a dangerous encounter...When the cyberdudes have
>> had their share of heavy-weapons fire, some of the antagonists are still
>> standing (we are talking about a single combat round here)... The shaman
is
>> lucky, he's on initiative 11, which means he casts two spells this round.
On
>> 11 he casts Imp. sleep on everyone he can see in the room (xcept the team
>> ofcourse).

> Here's where I start to have a problem. Area of effect spells
>target *everyone* thatis visible and within the spell's area. So if your
>teammembers are too close, they get hit too. "Sorry, tough luck,
>chummers..."

They were all careful to stay out of the area of effect (Even though it was
large)...they are not _that_ stupid...

> Try running your combats more realistically. I can gurantee that
>if you use movement, cover, visibility, and all the other appropriate
>modifiers, that combat with thirty guys will *not* be over in 3 seconds.
>Combat with six guys will *not* be over in 3 seconds unless you get
>surprise or are truly a crack shot. Even then, it's iffy.

Look, I try. I promise I try every time. Right, a moderately tough encounter
lasts longer, but the routine ones with less than 6 standard-level enemies
unable to use the terrain (or lacking good positions) ? They're dogmeat,
pal.

>> and mr shaman had a
>> really nifty killing spell with a lower drain than a _real_ hurting-spell
of
>> the same damage-level. How sad is this not.
>>
>> Am I right, or am I wrong?

> You are wrong. Do not add the wound modifiers to the damage
>resistance test. Even with this little correction, you will see things
>like sleep doing far less damage than you (and your players) are used to.

Thanks. This has been a long-lasting misconception of ours. (Heck, we've
played SR for YEARS!!!)

Not that it:
a) is very unrealistic (if you're hurt bad, you'll have trouble making
proper evasive maneuvers etc.)
b) is possible to find in the rulebook (i cannot remember reading it, but of
course, us GM's forget lotsa important things, don't we? :-)
c) does upset game balance - since the players have the same problem. But
then again, the players' body attributes are usually a lot higher than th
NPC's...and they have their karma pool...


Guess I felt I just had to answer this one :-)

MxM (fredrik.lindblom@*******.telia.se)
Message no. 4
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:41:30 +0200
> last ImpSleep spell, plus a seriuos wound from a nasty Ingram valiant. Now
> he faces another 10D stun damage. And being unconscious he can (probably)
> not add his threat rating? Does this mean that a (any) stun-weapon, be it
> spell or fist, (almost) automaticly kills
> poor-mr-sec-guard-just-doing-his-job? He (with a body of 3 and a plus 6 TN
> modifier) dosn't stand a chance against mr killer shaman's naughty spell
> which is meant to put peiople to TEMPORARY! sleep...
>
> Anyway, the team had nobody to interrogate afterwards in my campaign, and
> the combat action only lasted for 3 seconds as usual, and mr shaman had a
> really nifty killing spell with a lower drain than a _real_ hurting-spell of
> the same damage-level. How sad is this not.
>
> Am I right, or am I wrong?

I can sympathise, but with all due respect our coyote shaman (and my co-GM)
was loads worse than your shaman. He used the regular sleep to keep the drain as
low as possible and then guess what !!! went around giving the stuned opponents
the good'ol shot in the head! As for the foci, well my players are a bit cleverer
they each demand a full share, so its not that bad :)

So you just realised how powerfull mana spells are, thats what I've been
telling all along. Why on earth should someone use a totally useless spell
like fireball when he can use sleep or manaball ? Mana spells give you
more efficiency for your drain :) especially against bug spirits.

--
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 5
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death (+)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 13:42:46 +0100
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:

> > You are wrong. Do not add the wound modifiers to the damage
> >resistance test. Even with this little correction, you will see things
> >like sleep doing far less damage than you (and your players) are used to.
>
> Thanks. This has been a long-lasting misconception of ours. (Heck, we've
> played SR for YEARS!!!)
>
> Not that it:
> a) is very unrealistic (if you're hurt bad, you'll have trouble making
> proper evasive maneuvers etc.)
> b) is possible to find in the rulebook (i cannot remember reading it, but of
> course, us GM's forget lotsa important things, don't we? :-)
> c) does upset game balance - since the players have the same problem. But
> then again, the players' body attributes are usually a lot higher than th
> NPC's...and they have their karma pool...

But then this was a Spell resisted by Willpower so I believe that Injury
Mods would add to TNs to resist damage, but then if they get more
successes than the mage they don't stage damage down, but instead take NO
DAMAGE whatsoever.

Now damage resistance tests from punches, guns etc, I do say are NOT
effected by injury mods, but then to receive no damage the PC has to
STAGE damage down to nil (requiring a lot more successes), thats why
against an uninjured opponents damaging manipulations may be more
effective than a combat spell (unless the target is wearing armour).

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun Web Site under construction at
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 6
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death (+)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 12:32:02 -0400
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:

> Thanks. This has been a long-lasting misconception of ours. (Heck, we've
> played SR for YEARS!!!)
>
> Not that it:
> a) is very unrealistic (if you're hurt bad, you'll have trouble making
> proper evasive maneuvers etc.)

Well, look at it this way. Your Willpower is not going to decrease just
from taking a wound. You have an attribute that is constant and very
rarely changes. Why should it get harder to resist the same attack once
you've already been wounded. Alternately, if someone shoots you in one
kneecap, why would you take anymore damage if they shot you in the other
kneecap? Realistically, you wouldn't You may not be able to dodge, but
that's another matter entirely (don't even get me started on SRII dodge
rules...) For what it's worth, we still include target # modifiers to
the dodge roll. When seriously wounded, it gets tough to get outta the way.

> b) is possible to find in the rulebook (i cannot remember reading it, but of
> course, us GM's forget lotsa important things, don't we? :-)

Too true. It's in there somewhere. I don't have my book on me right
now, but a good place to sart is under the damage reduction section of the
combat chapter.

> c) does upset game balance - since the players have the same problem. But
> then again, the players' body attributes are usually a lot higher than th
> NPC's...and they have their karma pool...

Well, you win some, you lose some. I'm not sure who the actual
statistics of the shift favors more, but it seems to work all right.

Marc
Message no. 7
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death (+)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:50:00 PDT
>> Not that it:
>> a) is very unrealistic (if you're hurt bad, you'll have trouble making
>> proper evasive maneuvers etc.)
>
> Well, look at it this way. Your Willpower is not going to decrease
>just
>from taking a wound. You have an attribute that is constant and very
>rarely changes. Why should it get harder to resist the same attack once
>you've already been wounded. Alternately, if someone shoots you in one
>kneecap, why would you take anymore damage if they shot you in the other
>kneecap? Realistically, you wouldn't You may not be able to dodge, but
>that's another matter entirely (don't even get me started on SRII dodge
>rules...) For what it's worth, we still include target # modifiers to
>the dodge roll. When seriously wounded, it gets tough to get outta the
way.

Maybe I SHOULD 'get you started on SRII dodge rules'... I had a (rather)
good look at the SRII rules yesterday evening (in fact it was this morning,
at about 01:05, but what the...) and, of course, found no such thing as a
separate 'dodge roll' to apply TN modifiers to. If it gets harder to dodge,
the damage resistance test is the only place to add to the TN, since it is
the defender's only die-roll. Perhaps you could apply the modifier to the
Combat pool dice ONLY, but that would complicate matters quite a lot.

Look, I _know_ I'm pushing it, and I _know_ I was the one who did this wrong
in the first place. All I'm trying to prove is that it wasn't too
unrealistic.

Matter settled?

MxM(fredrik.lindblom@*******.telia.se)

>>>[" I know there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but I can't see it
through all the gunsmoke and my mirrored shades. "]<<<
Message no. 8
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sleep spells of death (+)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:06:15 -0400
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:

> Maybe I SHOULD 'get you started on SRII dodge rules'... I had a (rather)
> good look at the SRII rules yesterday evening (in fact it was this morning,
> at about 01:05, but what the...) and, of course, found no such thing as a
> separate 'dodge roll' to apply TN modifiers to. If it gets harder to dodge,
> the damage resistance test is the only place to add to the TN, since it is
> the defender's only die-roll. Perhaps you could apply the modifier to the
> Combat pool dice ONLY, but that would complicate matters quite a lot.

Well, OK, you asled for it...

Dodge:
Since the current method for dodging in SRII is ludicrous at
best, we have reverted to the age-old SRI method. Namely, dice can be
allocated to "dodging" incoming shots. Dodge dice are allocated from the
Combat Pool and rolled *before* a Body resistance test. The base target
# is a 4, which can be modified by wounds, sustaining spells, and a horde
of other appropriate situational modifiers (including visibility in some
cases)
If the number of dodge successes is greater than the successes
generated by the shooter, the shot is a clean miss. Note that multiple
bursts or shots from different opponents must be dodged separately (and
your combat pool will eventually run out). If the number of dodge
successes is equal to or less than the number of successes generated by
the shooter, reduce damage as per normal rules, with the weapons overall
damage determined by the *net* number of successes remaining after
dodge. For example, if both the firer and the target got 4 successes,
the target would be hit and would have to resist the base damage code of
the weapon (say 9M). If the firer got 4 successes and the target got 2, the
target would have to resist the net-staged damage code of the weapon (in
this case, the shooter's two extra successes would stage the damage code
once, resulting in the target having to resist 9S).

Pretty simple, especially if you've ever played First Edition
Shadowrun.

> Look, I _know_ I'm pushing it, and I _know_ I was the one who did this wrong
> in the first place. All I'm trying to prove is that it wasn't too
> unrealistic.

No, but it just seemed overly punitive and there were a few cases
where it rationale broke down (but that's true of any game system...)

> Matter settled?

Definitely. Try the above method. I think it will easily
simulate what you are trying to get across without overly penalizingh
either your players or your NPC's. Let me know how it works for you.

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Sleep spells of death (+), 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!