| From: | Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Mage bias |
| Date: | Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:34:39 +0200 |
> > others do]
Well that is one way of seeing it, I however prefere to think that its
impossible for mages to become that good. I guess its a matter of karma
the GM gives to the players and a matter of time the players get to keep
one character befor retiring him.
> Obviously. It is logical after all. The can, however, get pretty close
> within PC type karma and nuyen limitations. Not as good at what a sammy does
> as a true sammy is (for example), but they can get skill and attribute (and
> initiative) ratings only lacking by a small amount. And yes, this small
> amount can make all the difference, but only in really close situations.
> Normally they are so much ahead of most opposition that it doesn't matter
> all that much whether the sammy's a point in front of the magician. If it
> comes down to that one point though... But magic is a lot more useful than
> one or two points better on a skill/Attribute/etc IMHO.
I agree, given amounts of karma no player should have a magician can
achieve levels of performance comparable to those of true specialist.
Why do you think everybody fears Harlequin and how do you think Ehran
managed to "steal" Tir Tairngire from the SS-Council?
I do not mean to say that magic is not powerfull, but the point is
that no player should get the kind of karma that would allow him to
fully exploit that power to his advantage.
> > I honestly dont, and the reason is that the magician of the group actually
> > protects them from magicall threats instead of stamping off casting
> > fireballs.
>
> All the more better reason to knock him off first. Once he's gone, then all
> those fireballs he was stopping will decimate what's left of the team. (OK,
> probably not that badly, but in general terms, once you take out one sides
> magical support, your's can have a field day.)
Your question was whether my players go for the mage first and the answer is no.
I take it that you are asking whether my NPCs go for the magicain of the group,
the answer to that is that they would if they could. Trust is a two way street
and as the magician protects the mundanes so do the mundanes protect the magician.
In generall none of out magicians enters a combat zone visible/without cover.
They are generally the "vanguard" and stay out of the fight.
One thing I have learned from playing basketball is that a good defence is
much more important than a good offence. A good defence may take a bit longer
but it'll always win the game for ya.
> > My players usually go for the fodder first - because they are the ones
> > that go the most damage. One really good badguy can fire 4 times tops in a
> > complex action. But 10 cannon-fodder dudes can fire 40 times - so no matter
> > how bad they are they *will* hit you.
>
> Have you ever tried a battle like taking 24 gang member archetypes from the
> SRII book, and trying to take on a team of runners with them? They don't
> last long, nor do they so much as put a scratch on the runners (sure, like
> you said, some of them *will* actually hit, but none of them will actually
> do any damage. This is assuming the magician doesn't Sleep them all into
> unconsiousness first, or the sammy grenade them all to death or similar).
> Now take a few sammurai archetypes and try it. Odds are that they'll
> actually do something. Quality _is_ important. If you throw in a combat mage
> amongst all those ganger's, I'll bet I can tell you who would be the first
> target.
No combat gumby could possibly be quicker than a PC street samurai. If
you look at it logically it would take a madman to invest all that money
in combat cyberware. I mean (supposing that someone had resources A - one mil)
what mentally-healthy (meta)human would flush one mil down the drain when he
could gethimself a permanent high-lifestyle.
What I am trying to say is that the PC sammie will almost always (using
the rule of 6 helps a bit here) get the highest initiative - effectively
geting a free go at choosing what individuals are gona die first. Thats why
kick-ass bad guys are very uneffective (in my experience).
> > No No and the reason why that happens to others is because they apparently
> > have no (capable) magical support.
>
> Or they have good magical support who knows that to kill off all the
> opposition magicians means they can absolutely waste the mundane rabble
> that's left.
So you are suggesting that the oppositions magician should go after the
groups magician :) That was nice :) Do you have any idea how long such
a magical fight would last ? And besides If our sammies saw anyone going after
the magician they would sooner take a hit themselves than let the attacker
get by them. Its a tough world chummer and if you cant trust your friends
you are minced-bioware.
> > A magician's main advantage when it comes to combat is that mundanes have
> > no way to defend themselves against his attacks because his attacks are of
> > a totally different nature. He is not more powerfull he is different.
>
> Interesting way to look at it. Also true. But I'd say that someone who was
> able to crap on me because he uses an ability I cannot use nor defend
> against would fit quite nicely into the "more powerful than I" box. I'd
have
> great repect and regard for such an individual, and great fear should he be
> on the other side of a confontation with me.
The way I see it his being "different" only gives him an advantage
as long as the opposition doesnt have any means to defend itself. Magical
support automatically negates that advantage.
No to mention that being "different" is a two way street too, that means
that a dedicated mage is as vulnerable to mundane attacks as mundanes are
to magical attacks.
> > A mage is totally useless at decking no matter how much karma he has
> > devoted, magicians get a penalty equall to their magic rating when in the
> > matrix.
>
> I seem to remember this being optional (was it?), and fairly highly
> contested. But yes, the VR penalty for magicians in the matrix was something
> I'd forgotten. So there is something a magician cannot do as well as a
> mundane. Oh well. (I wonder if someone who's actually a magician, but
> doesn't believe so would get the modifier? You know, like the examples in
> the NAGA. I also wonder about PAs).
I could be an optioanl rule, anyway I use it cause it makes sence. And it
makes totally useless deckers out of magicians. OTOH its a pure "worldview"
thingy (VR explains it as the magicians inability to cope with the abstract
world of the Matrix as magicians are used to working with living things -
as in magic is life ).
--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
