Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Sustaining Innate Spell
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 12:29 AM
When a spirit of Man uses his Innate Spell optional power it counts as a critter power, correct? That means that it does not incur a sustaining penalty and the continual use of a power does cosr multiple tasks. Does that mean that your spirit of Man can sustain powerful spells on you for as long as he's around or do the Spell Sutaining rules for Bound spirits apply here too?
Speaking of spell sustaining, if a Bound spirit incurs a -2 mod to a mage while active then what would be the point of using tasks to sustaining spells? I know that this is an optional rule only mentioned in a sidebar, but does anyone actually use it?
Posted by: Lilt Jun 21 2006, 12:47 AM
It's never come up whilst I've been DMing, but I've considered the issue and would peobably say there was no penalty. It's 'innate' after-all.
If it does suffer no penalty, then one interesting spell to give your spirit of man is Increase Reflexes. Get it to use it on yourself, that guy who bought no initiative boosts in the party, and itself (which logically it would do anyway if it was told that combat was possible). Spirits are usually fast, but this one's a speed demon with a possible 5 physical initiative passes or 6 on the astral. The great thing is that it has no threat of drain so you can just repeat casting until you get that threshold of 4.
Edit: The rules for getting bound spirits to do spell sustaining for you don't come into play here. That's only for when you pass control of one of your spells over to the spirit. After you command the spirit to use its power on you, it'll keep using it as it would any sustained power like guard, concealment, or movement.
Posted by: Cold-Dragon Jun 21 2006, 01:13 AM
Isn't the limit of initiative passes 4 - regardless of anything that might go beyond that?
As to spirits apply penalties to their summoner, I think that was an option fluke that GM's could inflict on their players, depending on situation or desire to control potential breakage.
I could definitely see multiple spirits making it harder to summon more if you are trying to maintain several in some way (a sort of psychic parking lot - harder to navigate the more spirits you got parked). I never saw it quite as much a penalty for anything else, such as perception. You're not neccessarily full focused on the spirit unless you're giving orders, whereas a spell requies some sort of mental 'repeat' option, thus why spells incur a penalty to all things.
But that's just me
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 02:43 AM
Eh. "Innate Spells cast by a critter are the same as those cast by magicians." The critter uses the Spellcasting skill to cast it, and has to make a test. I see no reason why the other rules for spellcasting (including the penalty for sustaining a spell) shouldn't apply.
If order the spirit to cast the spell for you, that's a task. On the other hand, if you give it a combat spell and then order it to kill your enemies, it'll use the spell to do so if that's the most effective tactic...and the separate castings aren't individual tasks.
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 02:45 AM
What Nim said.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 12:19 PM
Situation that prompted this question was during a recent run. My Hermetic Hacker summoned a spirit of Man and gave it the Armor spell as a power. with a task I told it to cast a high force Armor spell on the team's combat Adept. With a little Edge (actually this spirit had a lot...) it was able to accieve a force 10 Armor on the Adept who already had FBA and high Body. The ridiculous Dam Resist rolls that he achieved we funny to begin with but since the spirit was sustaining the spell we just kept it around for the rest of the run. Bullets just bounced off him and there didn't seem to be any penalty or balance to that awesome benefit.
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 12:41 PM
For starters you shouldn't have spirits using their edge on spellcasting without some serious roleplaying coupled with the spirit affinity merit.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 12:58 PM
Edge doesn't imply any extra effort. I'm pretty sure no one but Dragons decide to have anything to do with using and manipulating luck anyway.
I do see your point though.... i had no affinity....
Regardless whether I used Edge when it shouldn't have been used I still think that spirits sustaining stuff for you (and usually casting the spell more efficiently than you would anyway) might not be properly balanced. It incurs no real penalty for the mage/summoner. It relieves him from having to resist the drain for the spell and suffer from the negative modifiers for sustaining it. I am wrong in thinking so?
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 01:08 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure I would (as a GM) allow an unbound spirit to be ordered to cast an innate spell at a Force higher than its own. A bound one, though, yes...after all, you can order a bound spirit to destroy itself via Spell Binding.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:14 PM
Good point but here's the small detail I seem to have left out. That was a force 10 spirit. Sure I had to summon the beast but I wasn't that afraid of getting fragged during the summoning. After all a force 10 gives an average 6 drain countered by my (8 Log + 6 Will + 5 Edge) 19 dice w/rerolls. not that big of a deal.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:17 PM
I would like to note that this situation occured BEFORE so many people here reminded me to have high level spirits be far more reluctant then we had them acting before. That might have changed things a bit but still that Armor spell and sustaining it afterwards weren't too hard for it to do at all. Why would it hesitate if it had already allowed itself to be summoned? It's not like he's going to hurt himself, he had 20 dice + Edge to resist 8 Stun Drain.
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 01:18 PM
I didn't know if it was a force 10 spirit or force 5 overcasting, but I agree that unbound spirits wouldn't normally overcast.
Spirits sustaining spells is indeed pretty beefy. Security forces (at least well trained and competnet ones) should have multiple intrusion counters at their disposal. Contact chemicals don't care about armor. Areas designed to trap or cut off intruders until backup arrives don't care about armor.
If the players are upping the ante it falls on the GM to increase the threat level when he wants to challenge them. Body 6 + regular armor 8 + armor spell 10 is 24 dice. If you get hit for more than 8 base damage you'll probably still get a little hurt. That's fairly easy to do with semi automatics. A short burst of stick-n-shock deals a base 8 damage and halves the armor, leaving only 15 dice (5 average successes). Armor is nice to have, but even at extreme levels it's still usually best to not get hit in the first place.
There's also runs where the Johnson insists on no detectable presence. If they get in a firfight they fail the run and forfeit the pay.
Posted by: Lilt Jun 21 2006, 01:25 PM
| QUOTE (Nim) |
| Eh. "Innate Spells cast by a critter are the same as those cast by magicians." The critter uses the Spellcasting skill to cast it, and has to make a test. I see no reason why the other rules for spellcasting (including the penalty for sustaining a spell) shouldn't apply. If order the spirit to cast the spell for you, that's a task. On the other hand, if you give it a combat spell and then order it to kill your enemies, it'll use the spell to do so if that's the most effective tactic...and the separate castings aren't individual tasks. |
| QUOTE (SR4) |
| Sustained powers may be maintained over time at no effort or cost. Because these powers are innate, the critter is not subject to any strain or modifiers for keeping the effect going. Even taking damage will not disrupt these powers ability to sustain. Also, line of sight does not have to be maintained after the power takes hold of its target. Critters may sustain a number of powers equal to their Magic at one time. |
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 01:29 PM
This would be a case of the specific overriding the general. Spirit powers in general do not cause modifiers when sustained. Innate Spell specifically states that it functions as spellcasting.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:31 PM
Ooh, just thought of something. Say an ork has what I listed above (10/8 FBA, 6 Body, 10/10 Armor spell) for 20/18 armor.
The Armor spell specifically says:
| QUOTE |
| This spell creates a glowing field of magical energy around the subject that protects against Physical damage.... |
And since any Modified Damage that a character recieves that does not exceed his Armor value is then turned into Stun Damage.
If I do 19 damage to said ork (turning it to Stun) then would he:
1) get the Armor spell to the subsequent Damage Resistance roll
OR
2) only roll his FBA plus body since the Damage is no longer Physical (the only damage that the spell protects against)
????
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 01:34 PM
| QUOTE (Lilt) |
| An innate spell of a sustained spell becomes a sustained power, however, and this is what spirit powers have to say about being sustained, emphasis mine: |
Hmm. I still feel like it should be resolved as a spell rather than a power. If it didn't require the critter to have the Spellcasting skill, I think I'd be agreeing with you.
On a related but slightly different topic...how long will a bound spirit sustain a power while still counting it as one 'task'? And short of killing the sustaining spirit, is there any way to REMOVE a spirit power from a target?
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:36 PM
I do remember that rule about powers, thank you Lilt. We ruled it like that, like a Power.
That begs the question though, does the description of Innate Spell refer to magicians only in reference to Counterspelling or with all Spellcasting mechanics in mind?
Posted by: Nim Jun 21 2006, 01:37 PM
| QUOTE (Samaels Ghost) | ||
| Ooh, just thought of something. Say an ork has what I listed above (10/8 FBA, 6 Body, 10/10 Armor spell) for 20/18 armor. The Armor spell specifically says:
. |
Until you asked this, I'd assumed that the spell description was intended to mean 'Physical effects (not Mana effects)', rather than 'Physical damage (not Stun damage)'.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:39 PM
As for removing powers from someone you can force them through a ward or mana barrier. That's all I can think of though.
The bound spirit task length came up in our runs too. Four tasks and the whole party would have Movement for as long as they wanted, possibly forever or until mine or the spirit's death. Unfortunately i think that it falls into the "roleplay the spirit as a dick" ambigous area of summoning....
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:42 PM
@Nim:
Me too at first, but it isn't very specific. It does say Damage and not Effects/Spell Type. Bummer. That may be what they had intended and I may end up ruling it that way.
Thanks for mentioning that
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 01:42 PM
| QUOTE (Samaels Ghost) |
| That begs the question though, does the description of Innate Spell refer to magicians only in reference to Counterspelling or with all Spellcasting mechanics in mind? |
My interpretation is that it functions in all ways like a spell. There is no "except in such and such" clause on the sentence. I don't have the book with me though, so I can't look it up and make sure there isn't something else in there that would make them work differently.
If it's entirely a judgement call the safest call IMO is to rule that it functions in all ways like a spell. High force spirits overcasting spells is an incredibly powerful tool. Unless playing in a high powered game, limits on it are IMO a good thing.
Posted by: Samaels Ghost Jun 21 2006, 01:47 PM
I think I'll keep the "Innate Spell works EXACTLY like Spellcasting" in mind. It sounds like a decent way to try and balance things. However, if you're just using the Spirit to buffer you or your party those sustaining mods aren't that big a deal. Your "hands" are left free. I thought that was what the Sustaing Task was for...
As for the spirit Overcasting, he didn't but it scares me to think about spirits who do. 
Posted by: Lilt Jun 21 2006, 02:03 PM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| This would be a case of the specific overriding the general. Spirit powers in general do not cause modifiers when sustained. Innate Spell specifically states that it functions as spellcasting. |
You see, I see it the other way round. Innate spells are the specific type of spells that don't suffer penalties for sustaining (overriding the general which says that they do). The sustained duration spirit power description goes as far as saying that because these powers are innate, they suffer no sustaining penalties. And you don't get much more explicitly innate than a power called Innate XYZ.
If the 'duration' heading had read something other than 'per spell' (like, 'special') then I would agree that it was perhaps not a sustained power and so would not use the sustained power rules. If it is a sustained power then it explicitly suffers no penalties due to the rules for sustained powers even though it otherwise follows the rules for spellcasting.
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 02:13 PM
Obviously you're free to make that interpretation. I disagree, but since it isn't spelled out, both interpretations are equally valid.
Posted by: Lilt Jun 21 2006, 03:08 PM
Agreed. Is there any way we could get an official line on this? I've heard of people emaining the shadowrun team before. I've disagreed with their rulings vehemently myself in the past, specifically on wether or not a mage can target spells through an invisible door, but it'd still be nice to know the official line.
Posted by: mdynna Jun 21 2006, 03:13 PM
@Lilt: that section you quoted is the "general" rule for critter powers. Look at the entry under the Innate Spell power:
| QUOTE (SR4 pg. 289) |
| Innate Spell A creature with the Innate Spell power has the instinctive ability to cast one spell. The critter must possess the Spellcasting skill in order to use the power eff ectively. Innate Spells cast by a critter are the same as those cast by magicians, and magicians can use Counterspelling against them as normal. |
So I'm with James on this one. A spirit with Innate Spell (which is a bad legacy name and causes confusion like this) and the Spellcasting skill has rules exactly like a magician when casting that spell.
Posted by: Lilt Jun 21 2006, 03:32 PM
| QUOTE (mdynna) | ||
@Lilt: that section you quoted is the "general" rule for critter powers. Look at the entry under the Innate Spell power:
So I'm with James on this one. A spirit with Innate Spell (which is a bad legacy name and causes confusion like this) and the Spellcasting skill has rules exactly like a magician when casting that spell. |
Spells become entities, with auras visible on the astral. That emboldened quote means that a spell by a critter is exactly the same in those respects as a spell by a mage, but it does not mean that the rules for spellcasting overturn the normal rules for spirit powers in this case.
Posted by: mdynna Jun 21 2006, 05:00 PM
Ok, let me back up and give you a little more context then. The section you quote is this:
| QUOTE (SR4 pg. 286 @ "Powers") |
| Sustained powers may be maintained over time at no effort or cost. Because these powers are innate, the critter is not subject to any strain or modifiers for keeping the effect going. Even taking damage will not disrupt these powers ability to sustain. Also, line of sight does not have to be maintained aft er the power takes hold of its target. Critters may sustain a number of powers equal to their Magic at one time. |
Take careful note of the heading. That is the detailed description for a Critter power that has a Duration entry of Sustained.
Now, look at the header for "Innate Spell":
| QUOTE (SR4 pg. 289 @ "Innate Spell") |
| Innate Spell Type: A Action: Complex Range: per spell Duration: per spell |
As opposed to say, "Movement":
| QUOTE |
| Movement Type: P Action: Complex Range: LOS Duration: Sustained |
Or "Compulsion":
| QUOTE |
| Compulsion Type: M Action: Complex Range: LOS Duration: Sustained |
Or "Engulf":
| QUOTE |
| Engulf Type: P Action: Complex Range: Touch Duration: Sustained |
The use of the word innate, I think is intended to be descriptive rather than a direct reference to a power named "innate." Powers like Engluf, Movement, Compulsion, Confusion, Guard, Pyschokinesis, and Weather Control; those are what they are referring to when they say "innate" powers.
It's really unfortunate that they used the word "Innate" in "Innate Spell" as I can see how it leads to confusion. They should really have called it "Known Spell" or "Learned Spell." Bottom line: a Spirit of Man or any other critter using an "Innate Spell" follows all of the same rules that a metahuman magician does.
Posted by: Lilt Jun 21 2006, 05:17 PM
Yes, it says Duration: per spell. When the spell has a duration of sustained, that becomes Duration: Sustained. It couldn't explicitly say Duration: Sustained there in the first place as there are a lot of spells which don't have a sustained duration.
As the innate spell assumes the duration of the spell it mimics, an innate spell of a sustained duration spell becomes a power with a sustained duration. It thus suffers no penatlties for sustaining it even if it does follow all the other rules for spellcasting, as per the rules for sustained powers.
If the power really did just mean the being knew the spell, as you're claiming it does, it'd have a duration of Always rather than Per Spell.
Neither you nor I can say what the actual intent was, so there's no point in arguing that.
And you're claiming that it's a spell not a power, might I differently-emphasise one of your earlier quotes of the innate spell power? See:
| QUOTE |
| A creature with the Innate Spell power has the instinctive ability to cast one spell. The critter must possess the Spellcasting skill in order to use the power effectively. Innate Spells cast by a critter are the same as those cast by magicians, and magicians can use Counterspelling against them as normal. |
Posted by: Ankle Biter Jun 21 2006, 05:33 PM
| QUOTE (Lilt) |
| ...Spirits are usually fast, but this one's a speed demon with a possible 5 physical initiative passes or 6 on the astral. The great thing is that it has no threat of drain so you can just repeat casting until you get that threshold of 4... |
2 points, Increase reflexes is a Physical spell, it does not work on the astral at all, neither does armour.
The armour spell generates a shimmering shield around the "wearer" as it is a physical spell physical sensors can "see" this effect. As it is force 10, it's going to be fragging bright. I would suggest some stealth penalties, and that anybody seeing that coming would call up a mage to counterspell it.
Posted by: Dr. Dodge Jun 21 2006, 08:26 PM
| QUOTE (Ankle Biter) | ||
2 points, Increase reflexes is a Physical spell, it does not work on the astral at all, neither does armour. |
plus we got
(p.61) "The maximum number of Initiative Passes a character can have is 4"
(p.132) "No character can act in more than 4 Initiative Passes in a Combat Turn."
it also mentions this at least one more time on p.134.
The only argument here is they say "character" instead of something slightly more general, but it definitely seems that they mean anything rolling initiative (seeing as they use the word character exclusively throughout the combat section).
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 08:34 PM
Nope, only characters can intersct in combat. Everything else turns into ineffectual ghosts. 
Posted by: Dr. Dodge Jun 21 2006, 09:35 PM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Nope, only characters can intersct in combat. Everything else turns into ineffectual ghosts. |
well yeah that's how i play it in my game of course
Posted by: Lilt Jun 22 2006, 01:34 PM
| QUOTE (Ankle Biter) | ||
2 points, Increase reflexes is a Physical spell, it does not work on the astral at all, neither does armour. The armour spell generates a shimmering shield around the "wearer" as it is a physical spell physical sensors can "see" this effect. As it is force 10, it's going to be fragging bright. I would suggest some stealth penalties, and that anybody seeing that coming would call up a mage to counterspell it. |
Fair enough, I'm just guilty of holding-over from 3rd edition there. Increase Reflexes used to be a Manna spell, but I suppose it makes a bit more sense as a physical one.
I suppose you could make an Astral Increase Reflexes spell, but given the hard cap of 4 (which I was previously unaware of), and fact that any astral being has at-least 3, I doubt there'd be too much of a point. Still, I suppose the increase to 4 initiative passes on the astral may eventually become worth it, and the potential +3 initiative could make the difference between life and death too.
As for adding effects to the armor spell, I personally think that's a bit silly. Nowhere does it say that the glowing is proportional to the force of the spell, or even particularly bright. The largest penalty I'd consider giving would be removing bonuses for being camofluaged.
Calling-up a mage to counterspell it? Lol. Have you even looked at the counterspelling rules? The mage rolls their dice against the spirit's magic plus spell force, then the mage has to resist drain as-if they cast the spell themself. We'll say that the corp mage is extremely competent at this sort of thing, so he's rolling about 17 dice versus the force 10 spirit's 20 dice (it's not looking like the mage is going to make any headway) then the force 10 armor spell has a drain value of 8, which is physical unless the mage has a magic of 10 or more.
Posted by: Abbandon Jun 23 2006, 12:40 PM
Looks like you guys have things pretty much sorted out but i would like to toss some thought out there.
innate powers would mean something the spirit can do. To me this means beneficial spells cast on its itself are innate and free from modifiers and penalties and crap. Or casting war magic like a fire elemental using flamethrower.
However a spirit casting spell on an another target is spellcasting. Enchanting everything around him isnt an innate power. Its something he was asked to do. Meaning it will cause modifiers and penalties.
In essense if it is a service it is spellcasting. If it is just part of the spirit it is innate. A spirit doesnt cast armor on itself it just has it.
As for length of sustained spells from a spirit i would probably go with force = turns. Probably the force of the spell used and not the force of the spirit. Which might end up being the same if the player chooses.
edit* err i was just reading through the rest of the reply's and one of them talking about critter powers being spells that the critter knows and how you can counterspell them.... well i will still stick with saying that if your asking a spirit to do a service then its not a freebie, you get the mods and penalties.
Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 12:55 PM
| QUOTE |
| Or casting war magic like a fire elemental using flamethrower |
Fire spirits don't have innate spell (flamethrower) in 4th like they did in 3rd. They have elemental attack instead.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)