Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Force-independent spells

Posted by: Phasma Felis Oct 29 2003, 09:45 PM

After the discussion about the Improve Reflexes spells, I decided to look and see which spells functioned the same regardless their of Force. (Except for things like ease of dispelling and so forth that affect all spells.) From the main book, the only Force-independent spells I could identify were:

Improve Reflexes +(X)
Oxygenate
Entertainment
Trid Entertainment

Am I correct on these? Are there any others (from the BBB) that I may have missed?

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 29 2003, 09:52 PM

Most of the illusion spells, like Invis/Mask. I believe the Eratta made Oxygenate Force dependant, maximum bonus body dice = to Force. Might be mistaken though. For the most part, it's Illusions, and Reflexes.

Sphynx

Posted by: Phasma Felis Oct 29 2003, 10:03 PM

QUOTE
Most of the illusion spells, like Invis/Mask. I believe the Eratta made Oxygenate Force dependant, maximum bonus body dice = to Force. Might be mistaken though. For the most part, it's Illusions, and Reflexes.

I had thought that the indirect illusion spells were Force-independent, but on further reading I think that observers roll Intelligence versus the spell's Force to resist them. (BBB pg. 183, under Spell Resistance Test, "The target number of the test is the Force of the spell"; BBB pg. 195, under Indirect Illusion Spells, "All indirect illusions are resisted by Intelligence.") Is this correct?

Posted by: Rev Oct 29 2003, 10:07 PM

That is correct.

Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 29 2003, 10:36 PM

So really, it's just Improve Reflexes, and Entertainment - and Entertainment is probably not Force-based because it has no real "point".

Personally, I think there should be a single Improve Reflexes spell, that adds +1D6 per 2 successes, up to a maximum of half the spell's Force.

Posted by: Wish Oct 29 2003, 11:27 PM

Near as I can tell, Ice Sheet is also force independent. And while Catalogue is technically force dependent, the extended range isn't really very useful - you just get so much stuff that you can't sort it all out.

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 29 2003, 11:31 PM

QUOTE (ialdabaoth @ Oct 29 2003, 05:36 PM)
Personally, I think there should be a single Improve Reflexes spell, that adds +1D6 per 2 successes, up to a maximum of half the spell's Force.

We've had that argument before. I'm still of the opinion that that makes it much too expensive, in cash and Spell Points/Karma, for the benefits it provides. 90,000Y cash and 12 Spell Points is just too much for a probable +2d6. That's starting to get into the range where it's reasonable to just get cyber reflexes and accept a couple geasa to make up the hit in Magic.

QUOTE (Wish)
Near as I can tell, Ice Sheet is also force independent.

No, the Quickness test to avoid slipping on it is TN Force, plus successes/2, also capped at Force.

Posted by: Rev Oct 29 2003, 11:43 PM

So entertainment does not have the max sucesses = force thing?

Somehow I recently convinced myself to give it to a charachter at force 5. Maybe that was just a shining moment of stupidity.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 29 2003, 11:45 PM

Isn't Entertainment an Area Affect spell?

Posted by: Andvare Oct 30 2003, 01:28 AM

The illusion spell Camo is a "force-indi"

Posted by: mfb Oct 30 2003, 02:14 AM

no, it's not. as was mentioned above, all illusion spells are resisted by the observer, using force vs. Int. if you cast camo at force 1, i'm resisting at TN 2; your spell will, at the very least, have a massively reduced effect, if it doesn't fail to affect me completely.

Posted by: Glyph Oct 30 2003, 03:05 AM

Increase Reflexes, Oxygenate, Entertainment/Trid Entertainment, and Makeover are force-independent. Increase Reflexes is easier to dispel at low Force, though, which is a relevant factor for a sustained spell whose effects are relatively easy to see. Oxygenate is otherwise so similar to Prophylaxis that I wonder if it is just an unintentional omission of the part of the writers. Entertainment and Makeover are both non-combat "fluff" spells (don't get me wrong, I like them and find them very useful), so I can see them being useful at low Force.

Posted by: ialdabaoth Oct 30 2003, 04:40 AM

QUOTE (John Campbell)
QUOTE (ialdabaoth @ Oct 29 2003, 05:36 PM)
Personally, I think there should be a single Improve Reflexes spell, that adds +1D6 per 2 successes, up to a maximum of half the spell's Force.

We've had that argument before. I'm still of the opinion that that makes it much too expensive, in cash and Spell Points/Karma, for the benefits it provides. 90,000Y cash and 12 Spell Points is just too much for a probable +2d6.

2D6? How many dice do YOU usually throw into such spells? Especially when anchored into a Sustaining Focus?

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 30 2003, 04:52 AM

QUOTE (ialdabaoth)
2D6?

Sounds about right for a starting character. Of course, if you merge the spell into one, the drain code goes down, so you're more likely to get more successes. A reaction of 5 seems fairly common for mages, and a skill and pool of 6 as well. Meaning your average character (no totem modifiers, etc) could throw 12 dice at it and end up with a +2d6 most of the time. And even then, he'd have to suck up 2S or 3S drain with ~6 dice. Not much fun, really.

Twinked out mages are more likely to get bigger bonuses, as do high karma mages.

Posted by: John Campbell Oct 30 2003, 05:09 AM

QUOTE (ialdabaoth)
2D6? How many dice do YOU usually throw into such spells? Especially when anchored into a Sustaining Focus?

I'm basing my estimates on my current sorcerer PC's starting stats. Int 6, Qui 5, Wil 7, Magic 6, Reaction 5, Sorcery 6, Spell Pool 6. Using all Sorcery and Spell Pool for the casting, I'd be throwing 12 dice at a TN of 5, and averaging about 4 successes. And then I'd get to resist... what was it, 4S Drain? with just Willpower dice, averaging about 3.5 successes. So, yeah, +2d6, and I'd be taking L-M Drain doing it. And odds are higher that I'd miss that fourth success and get a mere +1d6 than that I'd get lucky and make +3d6.

Posted by: Sphynx Oct 30 2003, 08:38 AM

QUOTE (mfb)
no, it's not. as was mentioned above, all illusion spells are resisted by the observer, using force vs. Int. if you cast camo at force 1, i'm resisting at TN 2; your spell will, at the very least, have a massively reduced effect, if it doesn't fail to affect me completely.

Just a quick FYI, Illusion spells are all or nothing, they don't use Net Successes.

Sphynx

Posted by: mfb Oct 30 2003, 10:03 AM

oops, right. i was getting the effects of Camo and Shadow confused.

Posted by: Spookymonster Oct 30 2003, 02:40 PM

I think the argument could still be made that illusion spells (such as Trid Phantasm) are Force-independent simply because the number of successes isn't limited by the Force of the spell. If I roll 12 dice for a Force-1 TP, I could potentially have 12 successes, whereas a Force-dependent spell would be limited to 1 success max.

Yes, a Force-1 is significantly easier to resist than a Force-6, but if I can throw more dice at my success test than you can at your resistance test, the odds are I'll win most of the time.

Posted by: Spookymonster Oct 30 2003, 02:45 PM

Oh, and a few more Force-independent spells:

Fashion (actually, semi-dependent, because Force indicates the max # of armor points that can be modified. However, this limit can be raised by the number of successes rolled.)

Makeover

Healthy Glow

Mindlink (range is limited, but not affect. Does that count?)

Mindprobe (again, range is limited, but not effect.)

Posted by: Rev Oct 30 2003, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
Isn't Entertainment an Area Affect spell?

Yea, so this is another semi-independant one.

The force only changes the area of effect. If you want to entertain a whole stadium full of people force 1 won't do, but for more reasonably sized areas it will work fine.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Oct 30 2003, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (Spookymonster)
Fashion (actually, semi-dependent, because Force indicates the max # of armor points that can be modified. However, this limit can be raised by the number of successes rolled.)

Healthy Glow

Fashion is fairly force dependant, actually. It's armor rating <= force + 1 per 2 successes. And it's a TN 6 spell. So you generally don't get the boost, and when you do, it's only a point or two.

Healthy Glow had a duration of force x 24 hours, as well, making it force dependant in that sense, at least.

Posted by: Slacker Oct 30 2003, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Phasma Felis)
I had thought that the indirect illusion spells were Force-independent, but on further reading I think that observers roll Intelligence versus the spell's Force to resist them. (BBB pg. 183, under Spell Resistance Test, "The target number of the test is the Force of the spell"; BBB pg. 195, under Indirect Illusion Spells, "All indirect illusions are resisted by Intelligence.") Is this correct?

You see to be forgetting the first line of the paragraph on Spell Resistance Test which is: Living Targets always make a Spell Resistance Test against spellls, unless the target of the spell is willing. The target of an indirect illusion spell such as invisibility is in fact a person, most likely a teammate. Unless your teammate is an idiot he is going to be willing to become invisible, therefore there is no resistance test. As far as the line on pg 195 about indirect illusion spells be resisted by intelligence goes, every category of spell has a line like that. It just says what attribute is associated with resisting the spell, but as i said indirect spells are typically targetted on a willing subject it doesn't come into effect. At least that is my interpretation of the rules.

Posted by: Spookymonster Oct 30 2003, 07:54 PM

The resistance test is to determine whether or not a person can 'see through' the indirect illusion, and has no bearing on the actual success of casting. Therefore, the willingness of anyone affected by an Invisibility spell is irrelevant; as long as the caster gets a success, they are invisible, willing or not. Now, if the unwilling subject wants to see themselves, they must make a resistance check, just like anyone else trying to 'peer through the veil'.

[edit for clarity]
Invisibility does not affect the target, but rather other people's perception of the target. Just like a Trid Phantasm illusion of a dragon in a courtyard doesn't affect the courtyard, but does affect the perception (sight, sound, smell, etc.) of those viewing the courtyard.

Posted by: The Frumious Bandersnatch Oct 30 2003, 10:14 PM

QUOTE
I'm basing my estimates on my current sorcerer PC's starting stats. Int 6, Qui 5, Wil 7, Magic 6, Reaction 5, Sorcery 6, Spell Pool 6. Using all Sorcery and Spell Pool for the casting, I'd be throwing 12 dice at a TN of 5, and averaging about 4 successes. And then I'd get to resist... what was it, 4S Drain? with just Willpower dice, averaging about 3.5 successes. So, yeah, +2d6, and I'd be taking L-M Drain doing it. And odds are higher that I'd miss that fourth success and get a mere +1d6 than that I'd get lucky and make +3d6.

So where are you coming up with the 12 Spell Points and 90,000 nuyen if you're only going to assume getting +2D6? Why get it at Force 6 at all? Just get it at Force 4. Or even Force 3 if you're the type of GM who rounds up (as I do). And worrying about anything less than Deadly drain on a sustaining focused spell? Please.

And whining about such a "massive" cost is silly compared to what every other character has to go through to get a measly +2D6 to their Initiative, too. Let's see, Boosted Reflexes 3 sets you back 2.80 Essence and 90,000 nuyen and a Synaptic Accelerator 2 sets you back 1.0 Bio and 200,000 nuyen. Adepts have to blow half of their Power Points for the priviledge, too (and sure, they get +4 Reaction out of the deal, but still; even just 2 Power Points is a huge cost relatively speaking).

So you have to spend 6-8 Spell Points (out of your 25-35 free ones) and 45-60,000 nuyen for a focus (which you can always rebond for another spell whenever you like; a cheap luxury the other cyber-dependant characters don't have). Boo hoo -- let me go find a tear to shed for such a character...

Buying such a spell and focus at Force 6 when you're only going to average the equivalence of Force 4 is about as wise as buying an SMG instead of a Machine Pistol even though you only have the Pistols skill just because the SMG has the possibility to do more damage.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 31 2003, 03:43 AM

MitS makes it clear that those "observing" an indirect illusion spell are the "targets", and thus resist the effects of the spell.

Posted by: mfb Oct 31 2003, 04:26 AM

hmm. the subject of an invis spell can still see himself, right? i assume so, since there's no penalty for being invisible (not being able to see your hands, your gunsights, etc). so, i wonder how feasible it'd be to kill someone by casting invis on them in a situation where not being seen would be a bad thing--crossing the street is the only example that springs to mind. it'd have to be improved inivs, in that case, or a vehicle's sensors might cause the autopilot to swerve around the subject.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 31 2003, 04:30 AM

IIRC, The rules for Invisibility (or Indirect Illusions in general) require a voluntary "Subject" meaning one can't do this by the rules.

However, I rule that one is aware that they are invisible (the world seems different, phased in color, no shadow, ect) and do not require voluntary subjects. Manipulation spells can duplicate them anyway.

Posted by: tisoz Oct 31 2003, 07:12 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
IIRC, The rules for Invisibility (or Indirect Illusions in general) require a voluntary "Subject" meaning one can't do this by the rules.

I don't see this in the BBB, only any target within LOS.

Posted by: Vanguard Oct 31 2003, 09:18 AM

QUOTE (mfb)
so, i wonder how feasible it'd be to kill someone by casting invis on them in a situation where not being seen would be a bad thing--crossing the street is the only example that springs to mind.

Yup, my group has done this.

The guy was already unconsious (or dead, can't remember), then they cast invis on him and put him in the street. Right before a car hits him, they dropped the spell, the idea being that it now looks like the guy was killed by the car.

"I don't know what happened, officer! One minute the street is clear, and then all the sudden there was a guy in the road! I couldn't stop in time."

(Officer rolls his eyes and gets out his Blood Alcohol analyzer)

My group is scary like that.

Posted by: Spookymonster Oct 31 2003, 12:40 PM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Oct 30 2003, 11:43 PM)
MitS makes it clear that those "observing" an indirect illusion spell are the "targets", and thus resist the effects of the spell.

Exactly. Directed Illusions are mental illusions - it's all in the heads of the target. There is no physical manifestation. No one sees anything but the target(s). Indirect Illusions, however, do have physical manifestations; they cast/reflect light, make noise, smell funny, taste salty, and feel slimy (whatever). Anyone who can see/hear/smell/etc. the target (or, more accurately, locus) of the spell may be affected. The resistance test is for them, not the locus, whether it is an Invisibility spell cast on a troll, or a Silence spell cast on 10kg of C-4.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)