Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ can I do counterspelling on my car?

Posted by: fool May 12 2006, 10:13 PM

Can counterspelling be used on inanimate objects to protect them from spells. I.E. can I put my counterspelling on the car I'm riding in to protect it from the fragging powerbolt someone casts at it?

Posted by: Jaid May 12 2006, 10:15 PM

yes.

Posted by: Thanee May 12 2006, 10:15 PM

It doesn't really say so, but as long as it is a valid target for a spell, it should also be a valid target for Counterspelling, I think.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: Butterblume May 12 2006, 10:16 PM

From the description of counterspelling, i'd rule it can be used that way.

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll May 12 2006, 10:30 PM

I thought inanimate objects didn't get resistance tests?

Posted by: Ophis May 12 2006, 11:45 PM

They don't the get auto successes from object resistance, counterspelling successes would add to these. If you read carefully you note counterspelling is a seperate roll, it notes you roll once for area effect spells, not give each target extra successes.

Posted by: ixombie May 13 2006, 02:40 AM

You can't protect inanimate objects with counterspelling. Page 175 says under spell defense, "the magician must spend a free action and declare who she is protecting" (emphasis mine). Last I checked, cars are not people.

Furthermore, counterspelling adds your counterspelling dice to the target's resistance test, and inanimate objects make no resistance test. They use the object resistance table to determine what threshold the spell needs to affect them.

This is actually good news for your car though, since spells need a threshold of 4 just to affect it. Only a powerful caster is going to get 4 hits on spellcasting, so you won't run into mages who can wreck you very often.

Also note that indirect combat spells are resisted by vehicles like normal damage, the same as if they weren't magical, so that test doesn't qualify them for spell defense either.

Posted by: Ork4life May 13 2006, 02:44 AM

QUOTE (ixombie)

What about night rider?

Posted by: Big D May 13 2006, 03:30 AM

Or Prime?

Posted by: Edward May 13 2006, 04:22 AM

I rutenly get 4 successes on spell casting tests.

I would allow a object to benefit from spell defense,

The question becomes how many people / things can you defend.

Edward

Posted by: Jaid May 13 2006, 06:00 AM

QUOTE (ixombie)

don't nitpick the SR rules. they weren't built to be used that way.

now, i agree if we were talking D20 (or at least, D&D 3.x) then yes, you could make a rules call based on that. but this is a completely different system, not built to handle rules-lawyering at all.

that being said, who's to say inanimate objects don't get to make resistance tests but have 0 dice as a base amount? in past editions, it has been possible to protect vehicles. i don't see why that should suddenly come to a grinding halt now (though i suppose it wouldn't be the first time the rules suddenly changed from edition to edition... grounding rules, i'm looking at you)

Posted by: James McMurray May 13 2006, 06:45 AM

QUOTE (Jaid)

who's to say inanimate objects don't get to make resistance tests but have 0 dice as a base amount?

Nobody but the rules.

Posted by: Thanee May 13 2006, 07:15 AM

QUOTE (Edward)

The question becomes how many people / things can you defend.

All within LoS.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: fool May 13 2006, 08:26 PM

bot the mage takes drain.

Posted by: Protagonist May 13 2006, 08:31 PM

QUOTE (ixombie @ May 12 2006, 09:40 PM)

I disagree with this, and say that you could protect an inanimate object with counter spelling.

If I remember correctly, counter spelling is described something like "jamming the mana around you," or something to that extent. I see no reason why you couldn't do this around an object. As to them not normally getting a resistance test, I'd say that you'd just get the counter spelling dice.

Posted by: Monnock May 14 2006, 02:50 AM

QUOTE

If I remember correctly, counter spelling is described something like "jamming the mana around you," or something to that extent. I see no reason why you couldn't do this around an object. As to them not normally getting a resistance test, I'd say that you'd just get the counter spelling dice.

Seems like going for the exact wording of the rule vs what counterspelling is supposed to be according to the flavor text. I would side with being able to effect inanimate objects with counterspelling, afterall, it is a valid target for a spell. The target itself has nothing at all to do with how counterspelling works as far as I can tell, and to not allow counterspelling to objects just seems kinda odd.

Though you would have to specify that you are protecting each and every object you wanted to, such as saying "that person and all their gear."

QUOTE

now, i agree if we were talking D20 (or at least, D&D 3.x) then yes, you could make a rules call based on that. but this is a completely different system, not built to handle rules-lawyering at all.

Bwahahaha, agreed.

Posted by: Jaid May 14 2006, 02:51 AM

QUOTE (fool)

bot the mage takes drain.

for counterspelling?

you sure about that?

Posted by: Monnock May 14 2006, 03:01 AM

Counterspelling causes no drain; using counterspelling to dispel an effect does. Though I can't figure out if that was the context that 'fool' was posting in (no pun intended, bwahahaha).

Edit:
Though it is interesting, you would have to be able to see the outside of the car in order to provide counterspelling for it (perhaps the hood would be enough). You could not provide counterspelling for the internal components of it that you could not see.

Posted by: Jaid May 14 2006, 08:43 AM

you don't need to see the whole thing, you just have to see it.

for example, just because you can only see one side of a person at a time, that does not mean you cannot counterspell their entire body.

thus, just because you cannot see the entire car at once, that does not mean you can only counterspell the entire car, whether that side be inside, front, back, top, bottom, etc.

Posted by: Monnock May 14 2006, 07:32 PM

Oh, what I mean by that is that an individual object has a particular 'frequency' in the astral plane that you have to attune your counterspelling to, so I suppose that a car has its own frequency of its own (as a whole rather than each component - such as the chassie, engine, ect.).

You have to be able to see it to attune to it, thus being able to see a person (even if it is just their nose) is enough to counterspell their entire body. I would think that it is debatable as to whether or not a car counts as an entity, as sense it is normally outside the realm of astral matters I would think that you would only be able to counterspell a particular segment of it at a time (such as the chassie) - which would protect the internals of it as well by virtue of the fact that there is a field around the vehicle, however if you were somehow a mage inside the chassie (like in the trunk), you could blow up the car from the inside (if you were wierd and wanted to die).

Then again, you could theoretically apply this to a human, but because a living creature has essense, I would say that the entire body has that frequency and thus is protected from the inside out.

Posted by: Edward May 14 2006, 07:49 PM

I would say that you determine weather something is one object or several buy how many damage tracks are involved.

A metahuman has 1 set of damage tracks, weather hit on arm or leg the same damage track is used thus it is one object.

A car whether hit on bonnet or boot applies the damage to its single damage track, thus it can be counter spelled as a single object.

A road train has separate damage tracks for the prime mover and each trailer, thus each of these objects must be counter spelled separately.

Any other definition will lead to continual regression until you can’t protect the other side of the wall you’re hiding behind because you can’t see past the paint.

Posted by: Monnock May 15 2006, 04:42 AM

QUOTE

I would say that you determine weather something is one object or several buy how many damage tracks are involved.

I would agree with that, a simple solution.

Interestingly I suppose you could apply a sort of 'manifest destiny' to objects in-game in order to determin what a mage would say an 'object' is. For example, a car was created to be a car. That is its destiny. The components of the car are how it forfills its destiny. These combined parts form the ressonance that consitutes the target of a spell. Only if you remove a part from the car does it become vulnerable, because it is sepparated from its purpose which was to serve car in being a car. Thus, an entire car could be protected with counterspelling, however a suitcase in the trunk that is not seen could not, because the suitcase is not part of 'car' but has its own manifest destiny as a suitcase.

(This is just 'flavor' by the way)^

Posted by: James McMurray May 15 2006, 05:25 PM

That's pretty much how I've always handled it, but without the flowery phrases.

Posted by: fool May 15 2006, 05:48 PM

yeah my mistake on the counter spelling/drain comment.
So if I can protect a car, can I protect larger objects? How about a skyraker? Or a door someone want sto powerbolt so they can come in and kill me?

Posted by: James McMurray May 15 2006, 06:17 PM

Defniitely a door. If you meant skyscraper then I'd say it was too big and too easily broken down into smaller parts like offices, floors, doors, etc.

Posted by: Edward May 16 2006, 04:24 AM

I agree with James,

a door is one object with one damage track.

A building is a collection of walls and doors each with there own damage track you can defend only those walls you can see (thus inside a large open warehouse you could defend the hole thing but from the outside you could only defend the side you could see.

Edward