| From: | TopCat <topcat@***.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [SR3] Combat Spells |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:25:27 -0500 |
>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.
Funny, but I seem to remember you saying just exactly that, Caric... lemme
get the quote to remind you...
"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? 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."
How many of your group's magicians lack sorcery 6 and willpower 6, Caric?
If "not all" refers to a troll mage who can't have a Willpower of 6, then
I'm still on the plus side here as his base stat is doubtlessly a 6 before
racial mods. If "not all" refers to someone who took Willpower 3 as (as you
say) a "roleplaying device", then maybe you should rethink the power-levels
of your campaign.
There's an earlier message of yours that I've thrown away and therein lies
more evidence. If necessary I'll dredge it up from the archives... is it
necessary?
>> 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.
Yes, it is, and you're supporting the munchkin side. I'm not being a martyr
here, I have no plans to die for this cause. I'm merely being logical.
>> 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.
Some people like elemental effects because they (at least fire) can blow up
ammo. They're power-gamers. Some people like elemental effects because
they allow Elementalists to cast spells they might not normally be able to
use. Some people like elemental effects just because they like elemental
effects. This last group is rare but does exist. It's the same group that
likes Hellblast just because it's a cool spell to cast. Stupid, but cool.
>> >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.
Hellblast has always been a stupid spell to cast, if it remains a combat
spell in 3rd edition, it'll remain a stupid spell to cast. Yes, the number
of successes to not take a deadly wound will be the same, but the number of
successes to avoid all damage becomes impossible to achieve for anyone.
ANYONE. Now, I find this to be more than a little to the silly powergamed
side of things, don't you?
>> >| 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.
Sure it's more necessary, I die or take damage no matter how mentally tough
I am under this proposed rule change. I *need* shielding dice to have even
a tiny chance of getting away from a spell with no damage regardless of the
spell's force and my Willpower. I call that more necessary since under the
current system I'd have a shot at reducing it to nothing.
>> >| >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?
I've never said in any breath that a Willpower over 3 is munchkin. I can
quote any and all of my messages on this subject to prove this, should you
wish. Nor have I used "god-like" to refer to maximum Willpower. Maximum
willpower is not munchkin or "god-like" nor have I ever stated it to be so,
it is simply maximum Willpower. It should be able to resist spells and be
damnably hard to cast against. An average spell by an average caster should
have an average result on an average target. Simple, unmunched, accurate,
and easy to achieve. All we have to do is keep the magic system as is.
I've explained this point thoroughly and with sound reasoning throughout,
but you obviously haven't read my replies. Perhaps choose to do so in the
future so you don't look this bad again. I know that I wouldn't want to
look as bad as you did here...
>> 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.
Force four is mediocre. It is average (3.5 is average, actually) which is
mediocre by definition. You do understand definitions, correct?
>> >| >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.
No, what I've been saying (in small words this time) is that a mage should
have problems hurting in any way the pinnacle of human Willpower. They
shouldn't have to fall unconscious in the process. So, basically, you're
wrong again in the way you've chosen to state my views. They've been
explained pretty clearly throughout this so please explain to me why you're
having problems dealing with them?
>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.
Magic isn't feared because "it's deathly powerful". It's feared because
it's alien and only a small precentage of society has access to it in any
form. I have no problems with raising drain (nor have I ever stated that I
did have a problem with it). My problem comes from the effectively
unresistable combat spell modification. Raising drain as a downside to this
enhanced power still leaves combat spells severely overpowered. Leave the
system as it is and there are no problems. So the system doesn't need to be
changed in regards to drain or combat spell power.
>> >| >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?"
Four Willpower is slightly above average. I've never said it was
"god-like". As I mentioned before, I'll gladly quote any of my previous
mailings on the subject if you wish to look absolutely wrong before your
peers. Do you?
>>> 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.
And under one of them the target can resist it to nothing whereas in the
other the target has no prayer of doing so.
>> 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?
The munchkin line got crossed when combat spells received a proposal which
would effectively make them unavoidable. I explained that right there in
that quote or didn't you read it again? Maybe you just couldn't logically
link the words to the idea I've been printing here for a while now. No
matter, I've not contradicted myself here. You'd know that if you'd read.
Everyone else knows it.
>> >| 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?
A shotgun blast allows for several things. One, the target gets a full
damage resistance test which includes armor modifications and combat pool.
Two, the shooter could have the choke set at a variety of levels. At low
levels the shot might not even make it to the target, at high levels the
shot won't have as great a damage potential. Three, partial cover can help
save one from a shotgun blast. Four, shotguns can jam or misfire. Five,
shotguns aren't very concealable. Six, shotguns run out of ammunition.
Seven, shotguns and ammunition cost money. Eight, vision and range play a
factor with shotguns. Nine, the act of firing a shotgun is rather loud and
attracts a great deal of attention. Ten, shotguns can have a great deal of
problems with the environment (try swinging one around in a hallway or
shooting one after it's been dragged through a swamp).
Combat spells on the other hand: never run out of ammo, don't cost a dime,
don't have to mess with range or visibility, won't jam or misfire, don't
care if the target has some cover or not, are as concealable as anything can
be, are silent, don't have to worry about armor, will work even if wet,
can't be taken away from you and then used against you, don't have to mess
with the target's combat pool, and can target a *low* stat on any given target.
Before you say "well, spells could have to go through shielding", shotguns
could have to go through hardened armor (null effect). Or they could have
to go through a barrier. Or they could miss. Oh yeah, and it doesn't
require an initiate to be able to wear armor or have a barrier cast or to be
missed.
>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.
Drain, even at Force, doesn't come anywhere near balancing out the
unavoidable damage clause for combat spells. Leave the rules as they are.
They aren't broke now, they don't need to be fixed.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net
