Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: "Flash, Shaman, Fixer" <STEFFENR@*******.BITNET>
Subject: SRII Magic
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 12:24:00 CST
On Mon, 19 Oct 92 16:39:51 MDT, The Reverend wrote:

>Another can of worms: In SR2, does it take one success to actually "Hit"
>the target? In SR1, I believe that it took one success to hit the
>target, and then 2 (staging) to stage up. From what I've read in SR2,
>1 success hits, 2 successes stage up, and then 4, 6, 8 etc. Is this
>right? Or does it take 1 to hit, and then every 2 stage up?

>And does anyone have a copy of the 'net errata sheetfor SR2?

In a word, No. In SRII, all damage is now an opposed success test.

Old SR1 Example:
Rags, a Raccoon shaman, casts ManaBolt 5 at a mildly cybered Macross
Security(TM) footsoldier. Rags rolls 5 dice from the the force of the
spell + 3 dice from his magic pool against a target of 5 ( soldier's
Willpower) and gets 3 successes. The first success hits and the other
two stage the damage to S. (Assume stageing == 1). Now, the soldier rolls
his five willpower dice against a target of 6 (Rags sorcery skill), and
gets 2 successes, staging the spell to L Damage.

SRII Example not the differences
Rags rolls same 8 dice and gets 5 successes. Now, the soldier rolls
his dice against the force of the spell and gets 4 successes.
5 - 4 == 1 Success for Rags, so the soldier takes S Damage. Now,
here's the nasty part: If the soldier made one more success, he'd still
take S Damage, because all ties go to the attacker.


P.S. I have a copy of the SRII errata sheet. I'll re-submit it later.

--Flash
<< Madness in great ones must not unwatched go -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
>>

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.