From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] Combat Spells
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:35:25 -0700

TopCat wrote:

> Here's the problem, not every Shadowrun campaign has every player and every
> opponent with maximum Willpower and maximum Body. Whereas your characters
> may always face such opposition, mine do not. My characters and the
> characters of those I game with don't have maxxed Willpower or Body as a
> matter of course. I appreciate that aspect of them a great deal as it is
> realistic and allows for flexibility in the game.

I understand that, and I never said that they all did, but not all of
our magic users have sorcery of six and willpowers or six to resist
drain.

> For the benefit of those realistic non-powergamer, non-munchkin types like
> myself, Steve, please do not include the staggering increase to damage that
> this rule change would bring.

Puhlease...spare us the martyred "i'm the only non-power gamer/munchkin"
rant. We all know that this list by and large is composed of
non-munchkin players.

> >I would
> >limit elemental effects to only the DM's and so there will still be a
> >need/want for them. Spells like clout will always be great because of the
> >high yield for low force.
>
> Why care about an elemental effect when you can melt a guy without breaking
> a sweat? Besides with Force Drain, DM's will cause more drain than combat
> spells just like they do now.

Alot of us non-power gamers look at spells for more than just their
damage potential TC, some people like elemental effects because of the
flavor.

> Also, any Stun Spell is better than Clout: no impact armor to mess with, no
> range modifiers, less drain...

Clout is great because you can get decent damage for a force 1 spell.
Cheap spell point cost.

> >Yes the target number will be the same, but the caster won't be able to
> >afford to cast those high damage spells nearly as much. Even manabolt
> >would do as much damage to you as your target, and you would have to split
> >up your pool. I don't even want to get into spells like hellblast.
>
> But here's the part you've missed... they won't have to cast the spell more
> than once. It'll kill first-time, all-the-time. So what if you take a
> miniscule stun wound? You can sleep it off while the opposition goes into
> rigormortis. A killing Manabolt *might* cause a light Stun wound to a
> below-average caster. Hellblast will hopefully be gone from the combat
> spell section in 3rd edition...

It's not going to kill first time every time, not anymore than it would
now, the number of success to not take a deadly wound would be
identical, and the minimum drain for a spell like hellblast is 7D, far
more then the damage resistance for the target would ever be.

> >| Shielding always helps, but it wouldn't help near enough. It does plenty
> >| normally, why shouldn't it do so in this situation?
>
> >I don't think shielding should get any better, maybe i'm thinking
> >incorrectly here, but for combat spells the shielding adds to the target
> >number and the targets resistance dice...when a DM is cast the shielding
> >doesn't add to the TN, but the target does get the extra dice to resist.
> >At least that's how we use it in our game.
>
> Never said that it should be better. I said that it acts as it's always
> acted, it's just that it becomes absolutely necessary if combat spells are
> modified as suggested whereas it isn't a necessity as the rules are now.

Not any more necessary than before unless your spellcaster's are all
still running around with force 6 spells.

>
> See above... not everyone plays a god-level "Monty Haul" campaign. Also,
as
> mentioned before, you wouldn't need to cast the spell more than once...

heheheh...whatever. See below.

> >| >DM's will have lower target numbers, but the opponent gets some
> >| >or all of there impact armor.
>
> >| And a full damage resistance test as opposed to a handful of dice from
> >| Willpower or Body. Remember that a force 4 (mediocre) spell was cast
> >| against a *max* human willpower target and still caused damage without
> >| trouble. Drain was handled easily. The target got no damage resistance
> >| test just a spell resistance test. Imagine what this would do to anyone
> >| without a 6 willpower (90% or more of SR)?

Okay so where do we draw the line between "god-like" and average. You
say in one breath that having a willpower over three is munchkin, yet a
force four spell is "mediocre." Are you just deciding as you go along,
or is there sound reasoning behind it?

> And the mage took no drain and the mana missile was cast at a mediocre force
> by a mediocre mage at a *max* Willpower target. I'd like to hope that the
> best human Willpower out there could withstand a mediocre magical assault...

Again unless you are in a "god-like" campaign then force four shouldn't
be mediocre.

> >| >The drain would be high enough that it would even out.
>
> >| Nowhere near. As it was clearly presented in Steve's example, the drain
> >| was handled easily and the target (with max human Willpower) of a mediocre
> >| spell was injured.

> >We are talking about the drain on a manamissile so yes it was handled
> >easily...if the spell had been a manabolt the drain would have been
> >light...do you think that the casting magician should take a wound equal to
> >the one he deals out? I think that a light drain to deliver a moderate
> >wound is not overbalanced.
>
> And the damage would've been Moderate instead of Light to the target. I do
> think that the casting magician should indeed take a wound equal to what he
> deals out if the target possesses the pinnacle of the target stat.
> Truthfully, he should probably take more damage. It should be very
> difficult to harm a max Willpower target.

That's not sound as far as game mechanics are concerned. Basically you
are saying that someone who has a willpower of six should knock a few
mages unconscious from drain before he takes serious wounds from spells.
That's absured. Magic is feared because it's deathly powerful, but I
don't see that someone should be able to cast spells with absolutely no
drain. Why should it be necessary for the mage to learn spells at
insane levels to be effective, when any punk with a gun and a firearms
skill of three has a chance to kill you. Why should it be different for
mages.

> >| >The higher target numbers on combat spells would limit there
> >| >effectiveness in comparison to DM's.
>
> >| Higher TN's? The average Willpower in SR is three (maybe 2, but I'll
> >| give it the benefit of the doubt). This is less than the 4 TN of a damaging
> >| manipulation. Average Body? Same. Still lower, nice and easy to cast
> >| on. There is no downside to the enhanced power that this would give Combat
> >| Spells. The drain increase is inconsequential, the target numbers better
> >| on average than DMs, and the damage unavoidable in almost every case.
>
> >Again we as shadowrunners are not fighting average people and you can't
> >argue that. It would be just as easy to just shoot them if you are
> >fighting pedestrians. How many runner have body and willpower attributes
> >lower than four?
>
> Quite a few and all of them would be killed easily by a mediocre spell cast
> by a mediocre mage under the proposed combat spell rules. Remember, not all
> of us play "Monty Haul". Some of us like at least a little realism in our
> games. If I wanted to play my own little Harlequin, I could, but I hate
> that type of gaming and don't respect it or those that would advance it.

Again force four spell=mediocre yet four willpower="god-like?"

> > Not many...and if they do then they usually have another
> >way of defending themselves or have the lower attributes as a role-playing
> >device and should expect combat to be extremely dangerous to them
> >regardless.
>
> An average stat is a roleplaying device? If so then anything not average is
> a powergaming device. Neither statement is correct for reasons I won't go
> into now. An average spell cast by an average mage should have an average
> result on the average person. That sounds balanced to me and I'm sure to
> many others as well. As the system is now, it emulates this nearly to
> perfection. If it were changed, magic would run rampant through any and all
> opposition.

I disagree. An average spell should be the same rating as an average
stat. THe average spell should do it's average damage to the average
person. A force 3 powerbolt should on average do a serious wound to the
average person, and it does that uunder both systems, but under one of
them the caster takes drain and on the other the caster gets away scott
free.

> >From a powergamer perspective, I'd love this. I could kill anything easily.
> Yay! From any other perspective, it's munchkin crap (going beyond the rules
> to achieve a self-beneficial result at minimal cost).

You keep contradicting yourself TC...where is this mythical munchy line
that we have all crossed?

> >| A force 3 manabolt cast at an average person would kill every time
> >| (barring some UGLY die rolling) and drain would be resisted easily. I
> call >| that unbalancing.
>
> >A force three manbolt cast at a normal person would do kill everytime as it
> >is now, and drain would be resisted easily. I fail to see the difference.
>
> The guy would at least have a chance at resisting it under current methods.
> He'd have no chance under the proposed system, none at all.

By resisting it I assume you mean taking absolutely zero damage. Is
this correct? I will assume so because otherwise your above statement
is completely false. Based on that would you expect the average person
to take no damage from a shotgun blast? How is that different from a
spell?

I understand that you seem to think that you are stopping powergaming,
but we are all aware what munchkinism is and how to control it. Drain
is something that can help to curb that under the correct
circumstances.

Caric