Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: failhelm@*****.com (failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
I was wondering if anyone out there has used the magic
control method as mentioned in

"Down the Drain" @

http://members.aol.com/talonmail/altmagic.html

For those do not desire to click on some strange link
here is the basics;

Mages do not 1/2 the power to determine drain.

I am in the crowd that thinks that SR magic is too
powerful. This looks like an incredibly simple and
appealing way of keeping magical powerful without uber
mage part.
Message no. 2
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0400
At 10:05 PM 10/12/2004, failhelm wrote:
>I was wondering if anyone out there has used the magic
>control method as mentioned in
>
>"Down the Drain" @
>
>http://members.aol.com/talonmail/altmagic.html
>
>For those do not desire to click on some strange link
>here is the basics;
>
>Mages do not 1/2 the power to determine drain.
>
>I am in the crowd that thinks that SR magic is too
>powerful. This looks like an incredibly simple and
>appealing way of keeping magical powerful without uber
>mage part.

Simple, appealing, and listed in one sourcebook or another. Which one
escapes me at the moment.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 3
From: milliken@*********.on.net (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:20:26 +1000
failhelm writes:

> For those do not desire to click on some strange link
> here is the basics;
>
> Mages do not 1/2 the power to determine drain.
>
> I am in the crowd that thinks that SR magic is too
> powerful. This looks like an incredibly simple and
> appealing way of keeping magical powerful without uber
> mage part.

Yeah, it would be an appealing option. I've never used it, because most of my players
always remember the old SR adage "geek the mage first" (I can't recall where
that was first written, but it's a good one). If one side has magical support and one side
doesn't, then unless the mundane side manages to somehow neutralise the magical support
very quickly, the magical side will inevitably win. I find that this set of circumstances
tends to put most PC magicians off a little. The players realise that their character may
well be the first target in any confrontation. So they often opt for more subtle character
concepts involving magic. This is great in my mind, as it encourages more stealth and less
frontal assaults. :-)

However, one of the reasons that this is the case is because magic is actually quite
powerful in SR. Full drain codes might help alleviate that issue, especially if you're not
running a very magical campaign.

--
Damion Milliken E-Mail: DamionMilliken@*****.com.au
--------------+---------------------------------+----------------------
ICQ 177734389 | MSN DamionMilliken@*****.com.au | AIM/Y! DamionMilliken
--------------+---------------------------------+----------------------
Message no. 4
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:50:15 +0200
From: "failhelm" <failhelm@*****.com>
> I was wondering if anyone out there has used the magic
> control method as mentioned in
>
> "Down the Drain" @
>
> http://members.aol.com/talonmail/altmagic.html

We used this when we changed from SR1 to SR2, we simpley though œF was to
easy, and would result in people only getting spells at odd force ( 3 and 5,
instead of 2 and 4).

It worked fine, and actually meant that magicians once in a while would
suffer drain damage, which you won't using the official rules.

I have however never used it in a SR3 game, but once I start as GM again, I
will use that rule.

I do remember reading this rule in some SR book somewhere, but can't recall
where...

> For those do not desire to click on some strange link
> here is the basics;

The link is not that strange, it is after all the domain of Stephen Kenson,
author of Awakenings, MiTS, Super Tuesday and many other SR sourcebooks.

Lars
Message no. 5
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:41:52 -0400
At 02:50 PM 10/26/2004, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>From: "failhelm" <failhelm@*****.com>
> > I was wondering if anyone out there has used the magic
> > control method as mentioned in
> >
> > "Down the Drain" @
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/talonmail/altmagic.html
>
>We used this when we changed from SR1 to SR2, we simpley though ½F was to
>easy, and would result in people only getting spells at odd force ( 3 and 5,
>instead of 2 and 4).

I've got a slightly different fix for that, and I apply it to every game I
GM. We affectionately refer to my little rule as "Round Whichever Way
Screws You." If rounding up would be better for you, round down. If
rounding down would be better for you, round up.

Of course, as GM... I round whichever way screws you, too. :) It's the one
systematic bonus I allow myself... After all, I can't think of everything
that 4-6 other mind will think of. :)

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 6
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:42:40 +0100
From: "Timothy J. Lanza" <tjlanza@************.com>
>At 02:50 PM 10/26/2004, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>>
>>We used this when we changed from SR1 to SR2, we simpley though œF was to
>>easy, and would result in people only getting spells at odd force ( 3 and
5,
>>instead of 2 and 4).
>
>I've got a slightly different fix for that, and I apply it to every game I
>GM. We affectionately refer to my little rule as "Round Whichever Way
>Screws You." If rounding up would be better for you, round down. If
>rounding down would be better for you, round up.

That just results in everybody getting spells at even force (2, 4, 6)
instead of odd force (1, 3, 5).

You end up the same place.

Lars
Message no. 7
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:17:50 -0500
At 04:42 PM 10/31/2004, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>From: "Timothy J. Lanza" <tjlanza@************.com>
> >At 02:50 PM 10/26/2004, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >>We used this when we changed from SR1 to SR2, we simpley though ½F was
to
> >>easy, and would result in people only getting spells at odd force ( 3 and
>5,
> >>instead of 2 and 4).
> >
> >I've got a slightly different fix for that, and I apply it to every game I
> >GM. We affectionately refer to my little rule as "Round Whichever Way
> >Screws You." If rounding up would be better for you, round down. If
> >rounding down would be better for you, round up.
>
>That just results in everybody getting spells at even force (2, 4, 6)
>instead of odd force (1, 3, 5).
>
>You end up the same place.

In terms of the range of selections, yes. But the Spell Point/Karma Costs
are marginally higher; in the long run, it adds up.

For the record, that rule applies to /everything/. Works out pretty well...
In the long run. :)

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 8
From: bull@*********.com (Bull)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:38:40 -0500
>In terms of the range of selections, yes. But the Spell Point/Karma Costs
>are marginally higher; in the long run, it adds up.
>
>For the record, that rule applies to /everything/. Works out pretty
>well... In the long run. :)

Yup. Same rule I use. :) And it works out well in the wash.

Bull
Message no. 9
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 02:56:04 -0800 (PST)
--- Damion Milliken <milliken@*********.on.net> wrote:

> failhelm writes:
>
> > For those do not desire to click on some strange
> link
> > here is the basics;
> >
> > Mages do not 1/2 the power to determine drain.
> >
> > I am in the crowd that thinks that SR magic is too
> > powerful. This looks like an incredibly simple and
> > appealing way of keeping magical powerful without
> uber
> > mage part.

I am totally against it! The drain codes would be TOO
high and you would have magicians dropping left and
right from the drain. My players already have a hard
time with it (we are talking willpower 7 and foci in
their hands too) and if you get a couple of modifiers
in from injuries then the drain code gets of the
roof.Imaging trying to cast a spell with a force of 6!
We are talking severe brain damage here!
What I do find unbalancing is the control manipulation
spells, to the point that I have banned them from my
game. A good trick for them would be to raise the
threshold to willpower successes and still the
magician would have a lot of power in his hands.

====



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 10
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:13:39 +0100
According to Shiro BsquLadat, on Tuesday 02 November 2004 11:56 the word on
the street was...

> I am totally against it! The drain codes would be TOO
> high and you would have magicians dropping left and
> right from the drain. My players already have a hard
> time with it (we are talking willpower 7 and foci in
> their hands too)

That doesn't mesh very well with your comment in another thread:

> Both as a player and a GM,I have never seen an
> attribute raised over 6

;P

> and if you get a couple of modifiers
> in from injuries then the drain code gets of the
> roof.

Damage Resistance Tests are not subject to injury modifiers -- a 9M pistol
does not suddenly become 10M because you already have a light wound. As
Drain Resistance Tests are only a variation on this, the same applies to
them.

> Imaging trying to cast a spell with a force of 6!
> We are talking severe brain damage here!

No, we are talking about having a smaller chance of resisting all the Drain
here; there is a major difference between the two. Sure, you don't want to
cast a Force 6 Hellblast, but a Force 6 Analyze Truth spell would be
hard-pressed to give you brain damage...

> What I do find unbalancing is the control manipulation
> spells, to the point that I have banned them from my
> game. A good trick for them would be to raise the
> threshold to willpower successes and still the
> magician would have a lot of power in his hands.

Only if you cast them against average people, with Willpower 3 or so. My
experience is that spells with a threshold are typically too weak, because
it's usually fairly easy for the subject to roll enough successes to drop
the magician's successes below the threshold.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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. 11
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:36:47 -0800 (PST)
> I am totally against it! The drain codes would be TOO
> high and you would have magicians dropping left and
> right from the drain. My players already have a hard
> time with it (we are talking willpower 7 and foci in
> their hands too) and if you get a couple of modifiers
> in from injuries then the drain code gets of the
> roof.Imaging trying to cast a spell with a force of 6!
> We are talking severe brain damage here!
> What I do find unbalancing is the control manipulation
> spells, to the point that I have banned them from my
> game. A good trick for them would be to raise the
> threshold to willpower successes and still the
> magician would have a lot of power in his hands.

Errrrr... injury modifiers NEVER apply to drain codes, or to any
other form of damage resistance TN. Period.

The average single-target combat spell at Force 6 is going to have a
drain code of 4 or 5. If your PC mages are so worried about that,
allow them to research spells that are cast at Force 6, but learned
at Force 8, gaining a -1 or -2 to the drain code.

======Korishinzo
--evil GM





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:49:58 +0100
From: "Shiro BsquLadat" <shirogr@*****.com>
>
> > failhelm writes:
> >
> > > Mages do not 1/2 the power to determine drain.
>
> I am totally against it! The drain codes would be TOO
> high and you would have magicians dropping left and
> right from the drain. My players already have a hard
> time with it (we are talking willpower 7 and foci in
> their hands too) and if you get a couple of modifiers
> in from injuries then the drain code gets of the
> roof.Imaging trying to cast a spell with a force of 6!

As mentioned by others: Injury modifiers never add to damage resistance
tests, except if you still happen to play 1st Ed (where it was not mentioned
at all, and thus you would have to assume that all modifiers applied), in
which case drain is based on the full Force in nay case.

> We are talking severe brain damage here!

Then choose to cast the spell at a lower force.

You can choose to cast your force at any level from 1 up to the force you
know the spell at.

That is someting I newer see with the current rules. People tend to cast
their spells at full force, since the difference of going down one level
isn't there, and going down 2 levels seems to good to your opposition.

Using full force as drain makes it worthwile to lover your force one leve.

Lars
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:12:19 +0100
According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on Tuesday 02 November 2004 20:49 the word
on the street was...

> That is someting I newer see with the current rules. People tend to cast
> their spells at full force, since the difference of going down one level
> isn't there, and going down 2 levels seems to good to your opposition.

My group only has one magician (played by the person with the almost-least
experience with SR, too...) who does exactly the same thing: the character
knows all her spells at Force 5, and always casts them at that Force, too.
"You have a light wound? I'll cast Heal on you." "What Force?"
"Five, of
course."

The character definitely has a better Magic Background skill than the
player here, so I gave her Awakenings to read the other day. I'm just
hoping she does more than browse through it, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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. 14
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

>> Damage Resistance Tests are not subject to injury
> modifiers -- a 9M pistol
> does not suddenly become 10M because you already
> have a light wound. As
> Drain Resistance Tests are only a variation on this,
> the same applies to
> them.

My bad, I hadn't seen this before concerning drain. I
stand corrected.

> > Imaging trying to cast a spell with a force of 6!
> > We are talking severe brain damage here!
>
> No, we are talking about having a smaller chance of
> resisting all the Drain
> here; there is a major difference between the two.
> Sure, you don't want to
> cast a Force 6 Hellblast, but a Force 6 Analyze
> Truth spell would be
> hard-pressed to give you brain damage...

yes but combat or elemental spells draining at full
value would bring the mage down when the team needs
him most.Imagine trying to cast a force 6 manaball
(which usually brings 1 or 2 successes, something
reletively easy for someone to resist) in the midst of
battle and then having to resist a 6S or 6D.The
modifiers alone that will be applied to his next TNs
will crimple his ability to cast spells.

> > What I do find unbalancing is the control
> manipulation
> > spells, to the point that I have banned them from
> my
> > game. A good trick for them would be to raise the
> > threshold to willpower successes and still the
> > magician would have a lot of power in his hands.
>
> Only if you cast them against average people, with
> Willpower 3 or so. My
> experience is that spells with a threshold are
> typically too weak, because
> it's usually fairly easy for the subject to roll
> enough successes to drop
> the magician's successes below the threshold.

My experience on the other hand showes that when
players 9or GMs) cast control manipulation spells,
they roll at least 16 dice (usually more) with a
couple of rerolls and then they end up with a slave
for life, especialy if the cast a couple or lower
willpower next. The target has nochance of resisting
that with a 5 or 6 willpower. and if you cast it at
force 6 or higher then it is pointless to resist.

Anyway magic is just right the way it is and very
well-thought too. I don't see why everyone wants to
change it.I think that a lot of GMs just want to take
some toys away from their players.I hope this is not a
control issue.
And remember that whatever the players have, the
opposition also posesses.
Could someone please tell me if any players agree with
this notion?

====



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 15
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:56:41 -0800
>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:26:01 -0800 (PST), Shiro BsquLadat
<shirogr@*****.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
> Anyway magic is just right the way it is and very
> well-thought too. I don't see why everyone wants to
> change it.I think that a lot of GMs just want to take
> some toys away from their players.I hope this is not a
> control issue.
> And remember that whatever the players have, the
> opposition also posesses.
> Could someone please tell me if any players agree with
> this notion?

Since I started this string I thought I might pipe up again :-)

I have played around 10+ magic systems and most of the time I find
something that I do and do not like, as a GM/DM and as a player. In SR
I have played pretty much nothing but awakened for the last decade. I
have always been able to clean house pretty easily as a mage. Drain
was always a very minor issue, easily avoided and dealt with. Minor
power gaming is needed to skirt the draw backs of magic.

I don't know how strongly have posted this opinion in previous
replies, but I'm a strong believer in giving players ALL the big guns
they want. Any rules changes usually must be agreed upon by all
players and GMs and implemented by all GMs whom run Shadowrun in our
crew.

So in the end all my players did end up liking the rule, because even
though it weakens them they agree and understand how this helps the
system run more effectively. I'm lucky that my players can see beyond
their own characters sheet. However we are still play testing this
rule and will continue to for at least the rest of my campaign. We
like to play test extensively and then re-evaluate rules after they
have ran their gambit of testing. After all a house rule isn't very
good if only assists game play for only weak or only powerful PCs.

I'm just not comfortable with the fact that a starting mage can kill
several hundred people in one casting and be able to shake it off
easily. I'm not a fan of controlling such problems by making being
awakened cost more, or by keeping my players weaker. I want powerful
characters but I need to be able to keep them in their place and they
need to be able to survive until then.

Making magic harder to resist drain, keeps NPCs & PCs from easily
casting 5+ rating spells, which as the rules stands is pretty easy to
due with the standard 123 point character.

- Failhelm
Message no. 16
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:14:07 -0800 (PST)
--- Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:

> I have played around 10+ magic systems and most of
> the time I find
> something that I do and do not like, as a GM/DM and
> as a player. In SR
> I have played pretty much nothing but awakened for
> the last decade. I
> have always been able to clean house pretty easily
> as a mage. Drain
> was always a very minor issue, easily avoided and
> dealt with. Minor
> power gaming is needed to skirt the draw backs of
> magic.
>
> I don't know how strongly have posted this opinion
> in previous
> replies, but I'm a strong believer in giving players
> ALL the big guns
> they want. Any rules changes usually must be agreed
> upon by all
> players and GMs and implemented by all GMs whom run
> Shadowrun in our
> crew.
>
> So in the end all my players did end up liking the
> rule, because even
> though it weakens them they agree and understand how
> this helps the
> system run more effectively. I'm lucky that my
> players can see beyond
> their own characters sheet. However we are still
> play testing this
> rule and will continue to for at least the rest of
> my campaign. We
> like to play test extensively and then re-evaluate
> rules after they
> have ran their gambit of testing. After all a house
> rule isn't very
> good if only assists game play for only weak or only
> powerful PCs.
>
> I'm just not comfortable with the fact that a
> starting mage can kill
> several hundred people in one casting and be able to
> shake it off
> easily. I'm not a fan of controlling such problems
> by making being
> awakened cost more, or by keeping my players weaker.
> I want powerful
> characters but I need to be able to keep them in
> their place and they
> need to be able to survive until then.
>
> Making magic harder to resist drain, keeps NPCs &
> PCs from easily
> casting 5+ rating spells, which as the rules stands
> is pretty easy to
> due with the standard 123 point character.
>
> - Failhelm

So what? A starting street sam can throw 4 mini
grenades (white phosphorus type) per combat phase and
kill the some amount of people in a fight, easier and
with no drain. Should we disallow phosphorous grenades
because they are too powerfull? Give the opposition
these grenades too so that the players must think
other ways against them.
Magic should be powerfull, especially in the world of
shadowrun where it is THE most important thing
happening in it. A gun in the real world can easily
kill someone and that is the way it is.People just try
to think of better ways of beating or eluding
them.Balance (in general and in game terms) is in
trouble when one of the parties is lacking.If they
both have the same abilities then everything is ok and
the best one wins.
Besides the best and most thrilling stories stories
are the ones where the heros AND the villaines are of
the same level and the heroes win through clever use
of their abilities.Nobody cares about a fight between
2 weaklings.

====



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 17
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:35:56 -0800
>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:14:07 -0800 (PST), Shiro BsquLadat
<shirogr@*****.com> >wrote:

> So what? A starting street sam can throw 4 mini
> grenades (white phosphorus type) per combat phase and
> kill the some amount of people in a fight, easier and
> with no drain. Should we disallow phosphorous grenades
> because they are too powerfull? Give the opposition
> these grenades too so that the players must think
> other ways against them.

That's like saying that because because anyone can push "the button"
why restrict characters from low grade nuclear missiles?

Actually a mage can kill a lot more people than 4 phospherous grenades
(which I didn't know a starting character could have). The area of
affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,
meaning a starting mage could eliminate thoursands of poeple provided
the right circumstances.


> Magic should be powerfull, especially in the world of
> shadowrun where it is THE most important thing
> happening in it. A gun in the real world can easily
> kill someone and that is the way it is.People just try
> to think of better ways of beating or eluding
> them.Balance (in general and in game terms) is in
> trouble when one of the parties is lacking.If they
> both have the same abilities then everything is ok and
> the best one wins.

Magic isn't that powerful is SR, it is when it comes to killing stuff,
but that is about it. Magic item, permancy and even basic potions are
not only uncommon, they are non-existant depending on which source
book you allow.

Guns are dangerious, but not as dangerious as magic. A well armed
person could kill a lot of people, but a powerful mage could win wars.

Comparing the two as equal is like comparing martial arts to nuclear warfare.

> Besides the best and most thrilling stories stories
> are the ones where the heros AND the villaines are of
> the same level and the heroes win through clever use
> of their abilities.Nobody cares about a fight between
> 2 weaklings.

SR is non-hero based system, if it was, my characters wouldn't spend
40+ days laid up in the hospital from one bad combat decision.

Villians in my campaigns are always morre powerful than the players,
but they kick ass because their smart - NOT powerful.

A starting mage can still kill thousands of people, its just that now
its not easy.

- Failhelm
Message no. 18
From: ourteam@*******.net (Larry White)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:52:42 -0800
> From: "Failhelm" <failhelm@*****.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
>
> ...
> The area of
> affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,
> meaning a starting mage could eliminate thoursands of poeple provided
> the right circumstances.
> ...

I don't recall any 6 x 100 yard measurement.

Standard area-affect spells affect an area <Magic Rating> meters in radius.

I'm not denying that Sorcery can kill hundreds of people. So can Conjuring.
So can Demolitions. So can Chemistry.
Message no. 19
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:21 +0100
According to Failhelm, on Monday 29 November 2004 07:35 the word on the
street was...

> Actually a mage can kill a lot more people than 4 phospherous grenades
> (which I didn't know a starting character could have).

Availability is 6/5 days, so starting characters can even buy them as
mini-grenades (+2/as normal) without breaking the rules.

> The area of
> affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,

Huh? It's always been an area with a radius in meters equal to the caster's
Magic attribute (to be extended or reduced a meter at a time by
withholding dice). Even this is enough to kill LOTS of people, under the
right circumstances -- once, a PC magician cast Manaball inside a crowded
nightclub in order to take out some wiz-gangers they had gotten into a
fight with. I ruled the average club-visitor had Willpower 3, and with the
player rolling something like 10+ dice, the result was a bit of a massacre
of innocent bystanders ...

> SR is non-hero based system, if it was, my characters wouldn't spend
> 40+ days laid up in the hospital from one bad combat decision.

Absolutely. It'd be like in D&D where you have the cleric cast some spells
on you, gulp down a few potions, and start killing bad guys again.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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. 20
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:13:57 -0800
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:21 +0100, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Failhelm, on Monday 29 November 2004 07:35 the word on the
> street was...
>
> > Actually a mage can kill a lot more people than 4 phospherous grenades
> > (which I didn't know a starting character could have).

cooool

>
> Availability is 6/5 days, so starting characters can even buy them as
> mini-grenades (+2/as normal) without breaking the rules.
>
> > The area of
> > affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,
>
> Huh? It's always been an area with a radius in meters equal to the caster's
> Magic attribute (to be extended or reduced a meter at a time by
> withholding dice). Even this is enough to kill LOTS of people, under the
> right circumstances -- once, a PC magician cast Manaball inside a crowded
> nightclub in order to take out some wiz-gangers they had gotten into a
> fight with. I ruled the average club-visitor had Willpower 3, and with the
> player rolling something like 10+ dice, the result was a bit of a massacre
> of innocent bystanders ...

Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,
I know I have read in more than one location. I recall on numerious
occasions reading that the area of magic a spell caster could affect
was pretty big.

Magic Rating in meters radius is extremely small, and if I might add,
sucky for mages.

Or perhaps Gurth you could reference your figures for me?

>
> > SR is non-hero based system, if it was, my characters wouldn't spend
> > 40+ days laid up in the hospital from one bad combat decision.
>
> Absolutely. It'd be like in D&D where you have the cleric cast some spells
> on you, gulp down a few potions, and start killing bad guys again.

Assuming you survive your system shock test, and you don't go below 0
HP. In the 1st edition of AD&D ( the only one I play) if you hit 0 HP
you are Out of Action for 7 days unless healing can be immediatly
administered within the same round you went down.

Of course, the healing of ability of magic is actually powerful enough
to remove cancer, not just heal wounds a little bit. SR magic makes it
hard to do much more than a healing skill.

- Failhelm
Message no. 21
From: mikepaff@***.rr.com (Michael Paff)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:44:01 -0800
At 07:13 AM 11/29/2004, you wrote:
> > > The area of
> > > affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,
>
>Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,
>I know I have read in more than one location. I recall on numerious
>occasions reading that the area of magic a spell caster could affect
>was pretty big.

I don't have my books handy to check, but I seem to remember numbers like
that (MR x 100m) as being the range for detection spells.
Message no. 22
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:04:03 -0800
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:44:01 -0800, Michael Paff <mikepaff@***.rr.com> wrote:
> At 07:13 AM 11/29/2004, you wrote:
> > > > The area of
> > > > affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,
> >
> >Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,
> >I know I have read in more than one location. I recall on numerious
> >occasions reading that the area of magic a spell caster could affect
> >was pretty big.
>
> I don't have my books handy to check, but I seem to remember numbers like
> that (MR x 100m) as being the range for detection spells.

I thought that range was LOS? - Perhaps MRx100 is area of effect for
detection spells?

- Failhelm
Message no. 23
From: jharkes@*****.com (Jeroen Harkes)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:21:06 +0100
Pagenr is 181-SR3 (spellcasting - preparation)
- area of effect = Magic Attribute in meters

192-SR3
for Detection spells = Spell force * Magic Attribute

I don't know if there are different rules in Magic in the Shadows or
SR Companion
Message no. 24
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:07:03 -0800 (PST)
--- Jeroen Harkes <jharkes@*****.com> wrote:

> Pagenr is 181-SR3 (spellcasting - preparation)
> - area of effect = Magic Attribute in meters
>
> 192-SR3
> for Detection spells = Spell force * Magic Attribute
>
> I don't know if there are different rules in Magic in the Shadows
> or
> SR Companion

I could have sworn that ranges for detection spells were Force *
Magic * 10?

======Korishinzo
--what do I know, I'm a decker :)




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 25
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:05:26 +0000
On Nov 29, 2004, at 15:13, Failhelm wrote:

> Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,
> I know I have read in more than one location. I recall on numerious
> occasions reading that the area of magic a spell caster could affect
> was pretty big.
>
> Magic Rating in meters radius is extremely small, and if I might add,
> sucky for mages.

On the other hand, (Magic * 100) meters would be extremely
impractical. In most combat encounters, the enemy is at a distance of
(much) less than 600m, which would mean the mage can't use *ball spells
as he would always be affected by them. Let's not even talk about
area-effect elemental manipulations.

Note, however, that this is the radius of effect of the spell, i.e.
the area in which the effect is felt, not its range. IOW, a mage can
cast a *ball at any point within his line of sight (targeting
restrictions notwithstanding), and it will affect a sphere of (Magic)
meters centered on that point.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 26
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:28:29 -0800
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:07:03 -0800 (PST), Ice Heart
<korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Jeroen Harkes <jharkes@*****.com> wrote:
>
> > Pagenr is 181-SR3 (spellcasting - preparation)
> > - area of effect = Magic Attribute in meters
> >
> > 192-SR3
> > for Detection spells = Spell force * Magic Attribute
> >
> > I don't know if there are different rules in Magic in the Shadows
> > or
> > SR Companion
>
> I could have sworn that ranges for detection spells were Force *
> Magic * 10?

Perhaps I should lay down for a bit, it is obvious that I need to more
carefully evaluate the system.
Message no. 27
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:41:10 +0100
According to Failhelm, on Monday 29 November 2004 16:13 the word on the
street was...

> Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,

I'm not a telepath, so I have no clue where you got those numbers... ;)

> Magic Rating in meters radius is extremely small, and if I might add,
> sucky for mages.
>
> Or perhaps Gurth you could reference your figures for me?

Page 181 of SR3, to the right of the artwork.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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. 28
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:40:23 +0000
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:07:03AM -0800, Ice Heart wrote:
>
> --- Jeroen Harkes <jharkes@*****.com> wrote:
>
> > Pagenr is 181-SR3 (spellcasting - preparation)
> > - area of effect = Magic Attribute in meters
> >
> > 192-SR3
> > for Detection spells = Spell force * Magic Attribute
> >
> > I don't know if there are different rules in Magic in the Shadows
> > or
> > SR Companion
>
> I could have sworn that ranges for detection spells were Force *
> Magic * 10?
>

I believe that's for extended range detection spells. In MitS I believe they give rules
for getting extended range versions of any of your favorite detection spells (at an
increased drain cost, of course). I'd have to check the books to be sure (and I'm at work
now...), but I'm pretty sure it's force * magic for standard versions and force * magic *
10 for extended range versions.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 29
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:55:13 +1100
> Michael Paff <mikepaff@***.rr.com>
>
>> > > The area of
>> > > affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from targeted area,
>>
>> Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,
>> I know I have read in more than one location. I recall on numerious
>> occasions reading that the area of magic a spell caster could affect
>> was pretty big.
>
>
> I don't have my books handy to check, but I seem to remember numbers like
> that (MR x 100m) as being the range for detection spells.
>
If I recall, it's possible to increase the area of effect for both
detection AND manipulation spells to 10 times normal. For detection
spells, this is great, because it means they're up to magic x force x
10, and are really useful. For manipulation spells, it means you can do
a magic x 10m radius.

AFAIK magic x 100m is not possible. However, a 60m radius (ie magic x
10m) is still pretty big.

It's probably balanced by the fact that if you set off something that
big in a crowded place, chances are there will be multiple magicians
within the area who will all counter it, leaving you with a fizzle and a
big target sign painted on your forehead.
Message no. 30
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:04:09 -0800
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:55:13 +1100, James Niall Zealey
<james@****.uow.edu.au> wrote:
>[snip]
> It's probably balanced by the fact that if you set off something that
> big in a crowded place, chances are there will be multiple magicians
> within the area who will all counter it, leaving you with a fizzle and a
> big target sign painted on your forehead.
>

In my campaign awakened are less than 1% of the population with only
about 10% of them are actually trained.

So it is unlikely that you will encounter other mages in general.
Message no. 31
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:27 -0800 (PST)
--- Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:

> >On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:14:07 -0800 (PST), Shiro
> BsquLadat
> <shirogr@*****.com> >wrote:
>
> > So what? A starting street sam can throw 4 mini
> > grenades (white phosphorus type) per combat phase
> and
> > kill the some amount of people in a fight, easier
> and
> > with no drain. Should we disallow phosphorous
> grenades
> > because they are too powerfull? Give the
> opposition
> > these grenades too so that the players must think
> > other ways against them.
>
> That's like saying that because because anyone can
> push "the button"
> why restrict characters from low grade nuclear
> missiles?
>
> Actually a mage can kill a lot more people than 4
> phospherous grenades
> (which I didn't know a starting character could
> have). The area of
> affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from
> targeted area,
> meaning a starting mage could eliminate thoursands
> of poeple provided
> the right circumstances.
>
>
> > Magic should be powerfull, especially in the world
> of
> > shadowrun where it is THE most important thing
> > happening in it. A gun in the real world can
> easily
> > kill someone and that is the way it is.People just
> try
> > to think of better ways of beating or eluding
> > them.Balance (in general and in game terms) is in
> > trouble when one of the parties is lacking.If they
> > both have the same abilities then everything is ok
> and
> > the best one wins.
>
> Magic isn't that powerful is SR, it is when it comes
> to killing stuff,
> but that is about it. Magic item, permancy and even
> basic potions are
> not only uncommon, they are non-existant depending
> on which source
> book you allow.

Magic in shadowrun IS powerfull but also balanced. An
invisibility spell is just that and you can bring
enough successes to neutralize non-astral and
unltrasound detection, as can a ruthenium suit.The
killing stuff are great but also the aplication of
grenades can do the same.A control manipulation spell
can do miracles against anyone with a willpower of
8-,but so can a few drugs.You could remove ALL kinds
of deseases with magic, but to do it everywhere you
need medicine and so on.
So everyone has something to use be it mundane or
magical.And I didn't even touch the magic item or
conjuring chapter.

> Guns are dangerious, but not as dangerious as magic.
> A well armed
> person could kill a lot of people, but a powerful
> mage could win wars.

No he couldn't because the sniper round would be the
last thing going through his head (or pick your
favorite conventional weapon and a decent mundane
shadowrunner to aply it).Besides, there are only a few
that capable mages and they can't cover their asses
when the cast rituals (which can be
detected,neutralized and backtracked).
Read Fields of Fire for a great description of mages
in a battlefield and their role their.No matter the
spell, a tank or a plain can do more in terms of
damage.

> Comparing the two as equal is like comparing martial
> arts to nuclear warfare.

Magic is powerfull but in terms of damage, nothing
can beat grenade launchers,full-auto guns and AP
bullets. Besides, someone throwing grenades in rush
hour can still generate a rather decent body-count.

> > Besides the best and most thrilling stories
> stories
> > are the ones where the heros AND the villaines are
> of
> > the same level and the heroes win through clever
> use
> > of their abilities.Nobody cares about a fight
> between
> > 2 weaklings.
>
> SR is non-hero based system, if it was, my
> characters wouldn't spend
> 40+ days laid up in the hospital from one bad combat
> decision.

Healing times have nothing to do with a world being
heroic or not. Besides, there are a lot of kinds of
heros and the players are usually refered as such
because they are the ones fighting to achieve
something and not getting carried away by the
current.Someone working in the gutter to save people
is just as heroic as the warrior who defeates the
mighty demon, or the shadowrunner who is fighting for
his dream (be it a condo on an island or revenge or
justice).And of course there are the so called
anti-heros who in my opinion only differ in terms of
goals.I don't believe the being a hero is a case of
methods or motives but of fighting spirit and will.

> Villians in my campaigns are always morre powerful
> than the players,
> but they kick ass because their smart - NOT
> powerful.

That's my point, that power and clever aplication are
2 different things and one should not be sacrifized
for the other or related to it.
But try to imaging a campaign where the villaigns have
all the power and the players have only the assistance
of the GM.Doesn't it feel like charity?
The players wouldn't feel that the had won a victory
through their own but because they were let to.Where
is the fun it that?

> A starting mage can still kill thousands of people,
> its just that now
> its not easy.

No, because he will either fall down from the drain,
or have a +3 modifier from the serious stun,which will
effectively terminate his ability to do seriou9s magic
for at least an hour and will spring a MASSIVE manhunt
which by all means will leave him 6-feet
under.Realisticly speaking.

====



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 32
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:20:26 -0800 (PST)
> > A starting mage can still kill thousands of people,
> > its just that now its not easy.

> No, because he will either fall down from the drain,
> or have a +3 modifier from the serious stun,which will
> effectively terminate his ability to do seriou9s magic
> for at least an hour and will spring a MASSIVE manhunt
> which by all means will leave him 6-feet
> under.Realisticly speaking.

This is a valid point, and one that has been overlooked until now.
Magical crimes on that scale are actually easier to tackle
"forensically" that non-magical, provided you have a magician on your
task force. Someone who starts dropping area-effect combat spells
during rush hour is not going to have time for the clean up efforts
that will ensure they get away with the mass homocide. Someone with
a silenced sniper rifle and a decent vantage point can actually rack
up a much higher body count without getting caught. And there is no
drain associated with pulling a trigger on a well braced rifle.

Now, consider these numbers. Circa 2054, there were 545,000 people
in the Downtown district of Seattle. At any place where 'rush hour'
would happen, population density probably exceeds the average of
1,164 per square kilometer. If Awakened character comprise 1% of the
population, there are 5,450 magic-capable people in downtown Seattle,
and 11-12 per square kilometer. I imagine the odds of another mage
or two putting a stop to our mass-murdering rush-hour mana-baller
(and quickly) are better than 50%. No magician wants the common
populace to be any more prejudiced against spell slingers than they
already are.

======Korishinzo
--the best balance for magic is magic... and common sense



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 33
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:58:37 -0800
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:20:26 -0800 (PST), Ice Heart
<korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > A starting mage can still kill thousands of people,
> > > its just that now its not easy.
>
> > No, because he will either fall down from the drain,
> > or have a +3 modifier from the serious stun,which will
> > effectively terminate his ability to do seriou9s magic
> > for at least an hour and will spring a MASSIVE manhunt
> > which by all means will leave him 6-feet
> > under.Realisticly speaking.
>
> This is a valid point, and one that has been overlooked until now.
> Magical crimes on that scale are actually easier to tackle
> "forensically" that non-magical, provided you have a magician on your
> task force. Someone who starts dropping area-effect combat spells
> during rush hour is not going to have time for the clean up efforts
> that will ensure they get away with the mass homocide. Someone with
> a silenced sniper rifle and a decent vantage point can actually rack
> up a much higher body count without getting caught. And there is no
> drain associated with pulling a trigger on a well braced rifle.
>
> Now, consider these numbers. Circa 2054, there were 545,000 people
> in the Downtown district of Seattle. At any place where 'rush hour'
> would happen, population density probably exceeds the average of
> 1,164 per square kilometer. If Awakened character comprise 1% of the
> population, there are 5,450 magic-capable people in downtown Seattle,
> and 11-12 per square kilometer. I imagine the odds of another mage
> or two putting a stop to our mass-murdering rush-hour mana-baller
> (and quickly) are better than 50%. No magician wants the common
> populace to be any more prejudiced against spell slingers than they
> already are.

1% of the pop are awakened but only something like 10% of that 1% can
actually use magic, and how many of them are non-casting Adepts

50%+ no way

I disagree that a mass murderer mage would have a hard time getting away.

A few foci and even low grade meta magic and you'll be fine.

Who cares if some awakened has your aura they still have to find you.
Its like have DNA but no suspect - you still need good detective work.
Message no. 34
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:02:14 -0800
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:27 -0800 (PST), Shiro BsquLadat
<shirogr@*****.com> wrote:
> > Guns are dangerious, but not as dangerious as magic.
> > A well armed
> > person could kill a lot of people, but a powerful
> > mage could win wars.
>
> No he couldn't because the sniper round would be the
> last thing going through his head (or pick your
> favorite conventional weapon and a decent mundane
> shadowrunner to aply it).Besides, there are only a few
> that capable mages and they can't cover their asses
> when the cast rituals (which can be
> detected,neutralized and backtracked).
> Read Fields of Fire for a great description of mages
> in a battlefield and their role their.No matter the
> spell, a tank or a plain can do more in terms of
> damage.

My mages aren't afraid of guns a decent foci with Armor and your fine,
even a sniper rifle has major problems. Combine that with heightned
reflexes and combat reflexes and you good to go. I once made a mage -
special ops, he could take out any street sam and often took less
damage than your avg. razorboy.

Any experienced mage would not be afraid of something like a gun.

I don't claim in cabal knowledge in the role that mages play in SR,
I'm just saying in general. Naturally politics holds back potential
just ask the Yaks or the Mafia.
Message no. 35
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:08:17 -0800
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:27 -0800 (PST), Shiro BsquLadat
<shirogr@*****.com> wrote:
> > > Besides the best and most thrilling stories
> > stories
> > > are the ones where the heros AND the villaines are
> > of
> > > the same level and the heroes win through clever
> > use
> > > of their abilities.Nobody cares about a fight
> > between
> > > 2 weaklings.
> >
> > SR is non-hero based system, if it was, my
> > characters wouldn't spend
> > 40+ days laid up in the hospital from one bad combat
> > decision.
>
> Healing times have nothing to do with a world being
> heroic or not. Besides, there are a lot of kinds of
> heros and the players are usually refered as such
> because they are the ones fighting to achieve
> something and not getting carried away by the
> current.Someone working in the gutter to save people
> is just as heroic as the warrior who defeates the
> mighty demon, or the shadowrunner who is fighting for
> his dream (be it a condo on an island or revenge or
> justice).And of course there are the so called
> anti-heros who in my opinion only differ in terms of
> goals.I don't believe the being a hero is a case of
> methods or motives but of fighting spirit and will.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about the intention of
the player/character. I was talking about system focus.

i.e. fantasy systems encourage heoric characters - you know they dish
out and take more damage than is normal or often times realistic. In a
system like SR everytone pretty much can take about the same body
adjusting for tough guys of course.

This is why heoric systems tend to ignore penatlies for being wounded,
or extensive healing periods for severe or even life threatning
wounds.

A more realistic should and often do move away from heoric type
systems. Surely you recall the classic arguements i.e. fighters
falling 1,000 feet and not dying or killing a 10th level fighter whom
is tied up taking at least 10+ min.

I think that SR gamers like the fact that their character of 5+ years
can get capped by some punk kid down the street.
Message no. 36
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:12:28 -0700
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:02:14 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:27 -0800 (PST), Shiro BsquLadat
>
>
> <shirogr@*****.com> wrote:
> > > Guns are dangerious, but not as dangerious as magic.
> > > A well armed
> > > person could kill a lot of people, but a powerful
> > > mage could win wars.
> >
> > No he couldn't because the sniper round would be the
> > last thing going through his head (or pick your
> > favorite conventional weapon and a decent mundane
> > shadowrunner to aply it).Besides, there are only a few
> > that capable mages and they can't cover their asses
> > when the cast rituals (which can be
> > detected,neutralized and backtracked).
> > Read Fields of Fire for a great description of mages
> > in a battlefield and their role their.No matter the
> > spell, a tank or a plain can do more in terms of
> > damage.
>
> My mages aren't afraid of guns a decent foci with Armor and your fine,
> even a sniper rifle has major problems. Combine that with heightned
> reflexes and combat reflexes and you good to go. I once made a mage -
> special ops, he could take out any street sam and often took less
> damage than your avg. razorboy.
>
> Any experienced mage would not be afraid of something like a gun.

Hey, look, it's the Street Sam vs Mage thread!

<Admin>

This debate is about as useful and productive as the OS debate.
Please wrap it up and take it home with you, and bury it in your
backyard.

Thank you :)

</Admin>

Hmm... I wonder a Street Sam vs Mage story was never written...

http://www.dm-forum.org/spex66/smile/SR_Magus_Shamus/tlc.html

--
-Graht
Message no. 37
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:24:26 +0100
According to Failhelm, on Tuesday 30 November 2004 19:02 the word on the
street was...

> Any experienced mage would not be afraid of something like a gun.

That sounds like a soon-to-be dead mage to me...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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. 38
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:26:44 +0100
According to Failhelm, on Tuesday 30 November 2004 19:08 the word on the
street was...

> This is why heoric systems tend to ignore penatlies for being wounded,
> or extensive healing periods for severe or even life threatning
> wounds.

OTOH, game systems don't get much more un-heroic than Phoenix Command, and
that system does not have penalties for being wounded (you're either in
fighting condition, or unconscious).

> I think that SR gamers like the fact that their character of 5+ years
> can get capped by some punk kid down the street.

Or more likely the other way around: that their characters can hurt (just
about) everyone they come across :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ 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. 39
From: geoff@*************.co.uk (Euphonium)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:50:18 -0000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Noel" <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
>

> IOW, a mage can
> cast a *ball at any point within his line of sight (targeting
> restrictions notwithstanding), and it will affect a sphere of (Magic)
> meters centered on that point.
>

And even then PCs sometimes assume the area of effect is a circle, not a
sphere. Last time I ran, one PC magic user, a Raccoon shaman, got caught
in the open, surrounded feral ghouls. He used levitate to lift himself up
4 meters, high enough they couldn't jump and grab him, then when they all
congregated underneath him, he dropped a (6 meter radius) manaball on them,
and almost killed himself....
Message no. 40
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:07:03 -0500
At 08:04 AM 11/29/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:44:01 -0800, Michael Paff <mikepaff@***.rr.com> wrote:
>> At 07:13 AM 11/29/2004, you wrote:

>> > > > The area of affect for magic is 6 x 100 yards in radius from
targeted
>> > > > area,
>> >
>> >Perhaps I am on crack, can anyone tell me where I got my numbers from,
>> >I know I have read in more than one location. I recall on numerious
>> >occasions reading that the area of magic a spell caster could affect
>> >was pretty big.
>>
>> I don't have my books handy to check, but I seem to remember numbers like
>> that (MR x 100m) as being the range for detection spells.
>
>I thought that range was LOS? - Perhaps MRx100 is area of effect for
>detection spells?

I believe one has to make a Force test (target 4) and multiply by 10 (100
if it has an extended range).
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 41
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:52:18 -0500
At 10:33 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:

>Just curious if your uber adept got that way because of the 20:1
>karma:power point rule or the initiation rules?

I am considering introducing that to my 2nd edition game; Has it caused
problems for you 3rd edition-ers?
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 42
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:39:32 -0800
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:52:18 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
> At 10:33 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:
>
> >Just curious if your uber adept got that way because of the 20:1
> >karma:power point rule or the initiation rules?
>
> I am considering introducing that to my 2nd edition game; Has it caused
> problems for you 3rd edition-ers?

Actually I havn't had any Adepts yet, and I wasn't sure if I should
keep with the Initiation rules or the 20:1 rule.

20:1 keeps for a slightly more powerful campaign, but not by much.

I allow the Cash for Karma rule, with some restrictions so that helps,
but not by much.

I may need to go with the Initiation rules, just because I prefer to
keep magic consistant and I would prefer to keep power growth the same
for Adepts as I do mages.

Still not 100% sure.
Message no. 43
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:39:35 -0800 (PST)
10:33 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:
>
> >Just curious if your uber adept got that way because of the 20:1
> >karma:power point rule or the initiation rules?

> I am considering introducing that to my 2nd edition game; Has it
> caused
> problems for you 3rd edition-ers?

I allow both the 20:1 karma:power point rule and Initiation in my
games. I restrict an adept to one purchased power point per one
grade of initiation, basically allowing them to double the power
points for each grade for an extra 20 karma. I require an ordeal for
them to buy a power point, even if they are not initiating. My games
tend to be low karma, and I don't use any
karma-for-cash/cash-for-karma rules. Boosting power points is
therefore a very expensive move in my games, as is initiation. Both
come at the expense of a lot of skill advancement. My last SR table
top game ran 13 months and spanned three years of time in game. The
group's adept ended up as a Grade 2 initiate with one extra purchased
power point (9 total). He was good, but the group's street sam with
the same amount of karma invested in attributes and skills was far
better at both combat and b&e work. Stealth and Athletics were the
only places the adept was appreciably better.

======Korishinzo
--in other words, it does not seem to unbalance the game



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 44
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:18:59 +0100
From: "Ubiquitous" <weberm@*******.net>
> At 10:33 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious if your uber adept got that way because of the 20:1
>>karma:power point rule or the initiation rules?
>
> I am considering introducing that to my 2nd edition game; Has it caused
> problems for you 3rd edition-ers?

I allow both the karma:power rules and the initiation rule. In reality 20
karma can be used way better than to buy a single power point. And remember
that the adept will still only have a magic rating of 6, even if he buys
several power points.

Lars
Message no. 45
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:10:02 -0500
At 12:39 PM 12/17/2004 -0800, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> 10:33 AM 11/30/2004 -0800, Failhelm <failhelm@*****.com> wrote:

>> >Just curious if your uber adept got that way because of the 20:1
>> >karma:power point rule or the initiation rules?
>
>> I am considering introducing that to my 2nd edition game; Has it
>> caused problems for you 3rd edition-ers?
>
>I allow both the 20:1 karma:power point rule and Initiation in my
>games. I restrict an adept to one purchased power point per one
>grade of initiation, basically allowing them to double the power
>points for each grade for an extra 20 karma. I require an ordeal for
>them to buy a power point, even if they are not initiating. My games
>tend to be low karma, and I don't use any
>karma-for-cash/cash-for-karma rules. Boosting power points is
>therefore a very expensive move in my games, as is initiation. Both
>come at the expense of a lot of skill advancement. My last SR table
>top game ran 13 months and spanned three years of time in game. The
>group's adept ended up as a Grade 2 initiate with one extra purchased
>power point (9 total). He was good, but the group's street sam with
>the same amount of karma invested in attributes and skills was far
>better at both combat and b&e work. Stealth and Athletics were the
>only places the adept was appreciably better.

Very interesting!

Are Physads no longer allowed to initiate in 3rd edition?
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 46
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:16:57 +0000
On Jan 11, 2005, at 22:10, Ubiquitous wrote:

> Are Physads no longer allowed to initiate in 3rd edition?

They still are, but in order to do so you have to buy Magic in the
Shadows. If you don't have MitS, the SR3 core rulebook has a rule that
allows physads to buy extra power points at a cost of 20 Karma per
point.
Of course, MitS, when it introduces Initiation, tells you that this
rule is Bad(TM) and should not be used.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vote for Magic Control Prop. 6D, 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!