Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Buster Aug 5 2007, 10:08 PM

Tarantula has been blowing my mind with the symbolic link plugin for the Sympathetic Linking metamagic power (Street Magic p. 29). The symbolic link table on p29 lists thresholds for having 1) assensed the target, 2) met the target, and 3) "personally unfamiliar with the target".

I expected the power to have a limitation of having to assense the target, maybe at least a requirement to have seen the target with your own eyes, but you can make the link with people you know nothing about! As a player this scares the crap out of me, and as a GM this pisses me off.

A mage could just make up a name at random, "Jefferson P. Haysworth", create the symbolic link and bam, if there's anyone in the whole world named Jefferson P. Haysworth, he drops dead with a manabolt to the head. The mage doesn't even need to know if such a person exists and he doesn't even need to have a vague description of the target. The symbolic link with people you don't know is threshold 16, but that turned out to be no problem.

Also it seems that the symbolic link threshold only pertains to the creation of the symbolic link, not to the actual ritual spellcasting test. As Frank Trollman pointed out in other threads, even Wards don't seem to offer any protection to ritual magic. So a mage with Magic 9 can drop an force 18 spell from anywhere on the planet and the target gets only his Counterspelling dice to defend himself (he can also use Edge, but so can the caster and Edge runs out eventually).

Is the president pissing you off? Have a pet peeve against a celebrity? No problem, they're just an easily-buildable symbolic link away from a guaranteed kill.

Am I missing something?

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 5 2007, 10:18 PM

You have to have some form of representation of the subject, but if you didn't have some sort of representation of the subject there'd usually be minimal reason for you to go to all the trouble of killing someone with ritual sorcery.

---

That being said, yes. Ritual Sorcery through symbolic links is a reasonably fool proff way for extremely powerful magicians to cause part of the world to catch fire. It's the magical equivalent of a Thor Shot. And like most high-end magic, it's substantially less impressive than the non-magical equivalent but a lot more available to Shadowrunners.

As for defense? Throw an Edge point for Hand of God to save you from the initial volley. A second shot won't be coming for at least an hour - you now have one hour to track them down and counter attack.

-Frank

Posted by: Ddays Aug 5 2007, 10:31 PM

I don't know, if this worked at all, I don't see why all the greater dragons of the world don't suddenly drop dead from making too many enemies.

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 5 2007, 10:32 PM

Well, for one thing Frank is wrong about wards.

For another, even if you are personally unfamiliar with a target, you still need to have an idea of what the specific target that you're going after looks like - making up a name at random doesn't work. You could be trying to target Harvey the rabbit by that logic. You can't create a symbolic likeness if you have no idea what the subject looks like - you need a photographic, a holopic, something to begin with.

Now, no matter what type of ritual sorcery is being used against you, you have a chance to detect it, which gives you the opportunity to locate yourself inside a warded area and/or hire a magician to track the casting back to its source. Provided you know what's going on.

Finally, if the targer is a magician character with the Flux metamagic, he or she can terminally disrupt the ritual link.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 5 2007, 10:39 PM

First, this was with a specialy crafted ritual assassination group. Its an extended (16, 1 day) test to make the symbol. Then, the ritual needs to be cast. Unless the leader has a magic of 11, then the target will likely have some forwarning about the incomming attack. Also, all members doing the ritual must be of the same tradition. This makes it very useful for "build a team to kill something" but otherwise, is very hard to accomplish.

Posted by: Ddays Aug 5 2007, 10:40 PM

But Flux only works for magic hours a day, and only puts off the targetting. Not to mention even if you maintain it for too long to stop the link, you may suffer penalties for having a disrupted aura.

Also, ritual kill teams seem to be able to hurry tests to make spells take place in an hour, not enough time for a target to even sense it.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 5 2007, 10:40 PM

Ancient, with a magic of 11, the ritual resolves after 1 hour. The test to know you are being targetted with ritual magic occurs at 1 hour. Therefore, you won't get to know you're being targetted until you're dead.

Posted by: Ddays Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM

This just doesn't make sense to me. Magic 11, while incredibly high, is not exactly unheard of in the SR world. Harle is afterall, initiated into high double digits. Any one of those are unstoppable ritual killing machines.

Aztechnology should be unhindered with its plans if it has all its resources at its disposal towards creating 3 of these teams.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 5 2007, 10:49 PM

Other ways to survive, burn edge for critical success on resistance. Burn edge for survival if it would kill you. High counterspelling/shielding/reflecting can also be useful to survive it. Not to mention having medical assistance around.

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 5 2007, 10:55 PM

Let's keep a few things in mind.

First, your ritual group is either operating under a -6 die penalty or burning up a lot of Karma making symbolic link foci.

Second, you have to hope you're killing the subject in one go, otherwise they're now warned. Even if you do kill the target on the first try, you still have to deal with the astral signature.

Third, Spell Defense works as normal, including variations like Shielding, Absorption, and Reflecting. Important mundane targets undoubtedly have teams of magicians sitting around them with no other purpose that providing spell defense. Great Dragons can probably handle that themselves.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 5 2007, 10:57 PM

Wow. If you have 3 teams that can probably kill anyone on the planet with about a day's work, you'll be unbeatable? Since when?

Those teams could each kill someone every day. Every single day, and it wouldn't even slow a major corporation down. The board of Ares Macrotechnology has twenty guys on it. You kill 3 of their top men and they'll move up three more guys from management and move on with their lives. And they'll do it tomorrow. And the next day. And the day after that.

And while they're doing it, they'll drop a tungsten rod from space on Tenochtitlan. And they'll do the same to Veracruz, and Copan, and your face.

---

Assassination, no matter how likely to succeed, is really no substitute at all for weapons of mass destruction. Aztechnology does have the death of Ghostwalker on speed dial. But actually using that button would piss off the other power players to the point where they'd use their big guns. And Ghost Walker just isn't important enough to risk people jumping you with the Wild Hunt, detonating nuclear weapons on your territory, and spraying your fields with gamma anthrax. It's just not.

-Frank

Posted by: Buster Aug 5 2007, 11:45 PM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 5 2007, 11:49 PM

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 5 2007, 11:55 PM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 12:02 AM

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 6 2007, 12:05 AM

The principal argument to the contrary being that all spells go through the barrier if you're in a warded volume.

Posted by: odinson Aug 6 2007, 12:06 AM

do the symbolic links get used up like the material links do?

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 12:08 AM

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 6 2007, 12:10 AM

Frank's argument essentially being that a ritual-cast spell does not have a path to the target per se, which is the crux of our disagreement-as I say it must have a path.

Posted by: Jaid Aug 6 2007, 12:24 AM

Posted by: Buster Aug 6 2007, 12:34 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 6 2007, 12:36 AM

Because nowhere is it said that ritual magic is through the metaplanes. Also, spells can't reach the metaplanes at all, and there are no spells from the metaplanes entering astral or normal space.

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 6 2007, 12:38 AM

Who says you can't see it on the astral? All spells have an aura.

Posted by: Buster Aug 6 2007, 12:40 AM

So you can be walking down the street with astral perception and see a glowing trail leading from a ritualist in New York all the way to his target in Japan?

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 6 2007, 12:44 AM

No, but you could see it zip past as it's cast.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 12:44 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 6 2007, 12:45 AM

I find this whole thing counter-intuitive. In my opinion, a Ward should act, you know, like a Ward. It should somehow magically protect you from Arcane Bad Things™ of all varieties.

If this is indeed the case, then I believe that this should be made clear in the rules. If it is not the case, then there needs to be clearly defined guidelines as to when a Ward is not a Ward.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 12:54 AM

Wards don't protect you from arcane bad things if:

• They are cast from inside your ward.
• They are Indirect Combat Spells cast through your ward (although in that case whatever wall your ward is attached to will generally help even if the ward does not).
• They are passive adept abilities.
• They are cast onto you using a variant topology in which they don't actually get LOS drawn through anything.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 6 2007, 01:00 AM

I had a long and intricate post, but what it boils down to is this: I agree with Fortune.

Game balance, in-world logic and history, and any sense of ever needing hit men in the world who AREN'T ritual magicians indicate that wards should affect ritual casting.

And, as a hasty edit, the wording for wards interacting with spells is as follows:
"In some cases, a spell, focus, spirit, or even a character may unintentionally be forces into a situation where either they or the barrier must give." It doesn't mention LOS at all.

Posted by: mfb Aug 6 2007, 01:07 AM

i don't like the idea that wards don't protect you from ritual casting, but Frank has a point: if the spell has to pass through a ward, why doesn't it have to pass through all the structures between the caster and the target? hell, if the target is a significant enough distance away, why doesn't the curvature of the earth come into play?

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 6 2007, 01:16 AM

My explanation for it working is this:

If I target Joe's big toe with my manabolt. Joe takes damage. Not just his big toe. Why? Because Joe's big toe is linked to joe (physically and magically). If I cut off some of joe's hair (material link) and manabolt it ritually, it affects joe. Why? Because its linked to joe (magically). If I take Joe's lucky boxer shorts, and manabolt them ritually via metamagic (symbolic) Joe takes damage. Because they are linked to joe (meta-magically). If I make a statue of joe (hard enough as it is), and manabolt that, joe takes damage. Because its linked to joe (meta-magically).

Posted by: Adarael Aug 6 2007, 01:18 AM

The question assumes direct spells travel. They don't. They simply erupt at the target without an intervening travel time. It's the link between caster and target that is impeded by the ward. It's unfortunate that the wording of wards implies direct spells 'travel', because they don't and never have. As the FAQ states:

Do spells cast in the astral have an astral form? What about spells cast in the physical plane?

"Spells never have an astral form. They have auras, as all living and magical things do, but spells never have an actual astral form. That's why you can't attack a spell in astral combat, for example (as you could in SR2)."

Consequently, the spell's form isn't what the ward blocks - it has no form - and it's their echoes are what you're seeing. Spells don't move. They simply are. That's why you see auras of spellcasting where the caster of a mana bolt was and an aura on the target's body - not in a path between the two.

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 6 2007, 01:20 AM

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 6 2007, 02:01 AM

Posted by: Buster Aug 6 2007, 02:05 AM

Posted by: Aku Aug 6 2007, 02:16 AM

Posted by: Buster Aug 6 2007, 02:21 AM

It's the link between caster and target that is impeded by the ward. Therefore it affects the ritual spell too. It also means it doesnt block a spirit's metaplanar shortcut trick.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 6 2007, 02:37 AM

The whole point of ritual magic and a symbolic link is that it bypasses the normal LOS link you're referring to.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 6 2007, 03:29 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 6 2007, 03:36 AM

Another note, is that it seems that ritual magic might be exempted from the errata that teamwork tests can only add dice equal to the skill of the lead character. This means ritual magic can get much more dice, and easily beat most wards/lodges/barriers hands down anyway. (See the dragon thread).

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 03:43 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 6 2007, 03:55 AM

I agree with Frank on this one. Otherwise ritual magic is worthless, as anyone can contract a few dozen wards/barriers and be invulnerable to all rituals.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 6 2007, 04:02 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 6 2007, 04:02 AM

Posted by: Aku Aug 6 2007, 04:25 AM

no, i think that the spell does its best to get from team to target, but if it cant (as in the target is INSIDE the ward, then it's got no choice.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Aug 6 2007, 04:27 AM

My understanding was that the spell simply comes in to being at ground zero. No zipping around the world blasting through stuff , because the spell is purely astral until it hits.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 04:28 AM

Posted by: Aku Aug 6 2007, 04:30 AM

esxcept, im very sure that building likely has a window, or a gap, that wouldnt block our spell... i dont think many ward creators would do the same.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 04:32 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 6 2007, 04:35 AM

Posted by: Aku Aug 6 2007, 04:36 AM

not entirely, no, but then, i dont think that ritual spellcasting is really needed, as a PC option either.

i also dont think the sole use of ritual spellcasting should make wards null and void

Posted by: toturi Aug 6 2007, 06:34 AM

Posted by: Ravor Aug 6 2007, 07:06 AM

And if the Ward surounding the target affects the spell why doesn't the various background counts and wards scattered across the world also affect the spell?

In fact, as has been asked, forget fireball, how does firebolt work via Ritual Magic IF you assume spell travel?

Posted by: knasser Aug 6 2007, 07:33 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 6 2007, 08:41 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 6 2007, 10:46 AM

Ok, frankly I'm seeing alot of nonsensical rules-lawyering garbage in this thread, time to put it straight. In this response I'll referance previous editions (yes, the fluff logic of such in regards to magic should still hold between editions as nothing happened between '64 and '70 to change it) and common sense. Why? Because the SR4 rules on ritual sorcery in relation to wards are apparently as clear as mud.

Posted by: Synner Aug 6 2007, 11:25 AM

The closest you'll get to an official answer outside the FAQ is that Wards are "aspected disruption fields" affecting any external magic trying to affect anything within their boundries - once a ward is raised everything within the volume established by its boundries is "warded" (especifically on the physical and astral planes since wards are dual mana barriers).

I used "aspected" on purpose and I mean that wards are astral barriers specifically designed to interfere with magic being cast (and astral forms trying to break) into their area of effect (unlike, say, background counts/domains/mana static spells which affect all magic cast into and cast within their limits via the physical and astral planes) and not to interfere with magic cast within their limits (once inside those boundries all bets are off).

Spells do not "travel" at all - directly or indirectly. Magic users focus mana into a spell effect - channelling it on the physical or astral planes and suffering Drain for it, "syncing" it with a target - and the effect simply manifests/comes into being at the point/aura/whatever chosen as a target.

Furthermore, spells do not "go metaplanar" at any point when cast via ritual sorcery - in fact, spells cast on the physical plane do not even go astral.

Whether its remotely formed at the target as NightmareX suggests or the targeting link forms an instant "wormhole" to the target doesn't really matter. Wards are designed to interfere with any mana effects from without affecting things within (regardless of whether this means disrupting the remote manipulation or disrupting the instant wormhole effect )

Astral spotting and/or sympathetic/symbolic linking simply replace the need for LOS during the targeting of a casting. Otherwise, the spell works as normal (ie. mana is instantly channeled to the intended target through the link established by LOS/astral spotting/sympathetic or symbolic linking).

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 6 2007, 11:39 AM

I'd avoided bringing SR2 into it, since that was the edition where you could physically fight the travelling spell construct on the astral. That was explicitly removed in SR3.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=18346

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 6 2007, 01:57 PM

Insofar as writer's intention counts for anything, my intention with wards matches what Adarael and NightmareX said. The spell may be constructed at the ritual link inside the ward, but the link itself exists between the ritual object in the ritual team's possession and the sympathetic object within the ward. The ward still affects this linkage and consequently affects the ritual spellcasting.

Posted by: toturi Aug 6 2007, 02:14 PM

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 6 2007, 02:27 PM

Posted by: toturi Aug 6 2007, 02:34 PM

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 6 2007, 03:00 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 6 2007, 03:16 PM

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 6 2007, 03:25 PM

Posted by: Synner Aug 6 2007, 03:31 PM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 03:37 PM

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 6 2007, 03:59 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 6 2007, 04:04 PM

Wait. If you get your spotter inside the ward, then the target doesn't get the bonus from the ward? You just lost any kind of credibility. Either, he should get the bonus always on spells incoming to him that weren't cast from inside the ward. Or he shouldn't get it on ritual spells.

Not, he gets it on ritual spells unless they get the spotter inside the ward. Why? Because, whats connecting the spotter to the ritual? A link! A link that someone can astrally follow. So, why wouldn't the ward impact that link the same as the sympathetic link. It would. Which, by your logic here, is that it does nothing to a spotter's link, and the sympathetic magic is a spotting link, thusly, it does nothing to sympathetic magic links either. Huzzah!

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 6 2007, 04:12 PM

The mistake is here:

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 6 2007, 04:12 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 6 2007, 04:14 PM

I'll quote myself from the thread Talia made on the subject...

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 6 2007, 04:15 PM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 6 2007, 11:56 PM

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 7 2007, 12:41 AM

Posted by: Aku Aug 7 2007, 12:52 AM

which i'll agree with, but think of the ward as a body of water, and then stick something in said body of water, and notice how it bends and shifts a bit. THAT is the effect i imagine the ward having on the ritual.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 7 2007, 12:55 AM

...best way to defend against Symbolic Links...?

Get a life offworld.

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 12:59 AM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 01:08 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 01:10 AM

You can always try to get through the ward. So the spotter who is also the leader can get through the ward and fires off the spell. The point of my previous questions was this: If a spotter-leader gets through the ward(fooling wards et al), does he get a penalty to cast the spell?

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 01:11 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 01:24 AM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 7 2007, 01:29 AM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 01:37 AM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 7 2007, 01:57 AM

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 02:20 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 02:20 AM

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 02:31 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 03:00 AM

Hmm, in my Street Magic copy on page 123, the shapes of a Wards may be all sorts of basic geometric figures, but I don't read that they're areas anywhere. They can be ovoid, domes, cubes, trapezoid and such, but that's it.

Posted by: Ranneko Aug 7 2007, 03:13 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 03:21 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 7 2007, 03:56 AM

Is the wind intelligent because it blows around a wall instead of through it?

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 04:12 AM

But the wind stays stuck if it blows into a deadend. The spell is smart enough to come out of that deadend.

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 04:29 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 04:37 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 04:42 AM

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 04:50 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 04:59 AM

I see. We didn't have any conflicting views at all, it's just that you wanted to point out that wards aren't just single rectangular astral structures, but cubes and other geometric forms.

Phew, and here I nearly thought you really were believing the entire volume inside would give protection dices, and not the surface.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 7 2007, 05:00 AM

Yes od, but, if the sammy could ignore that he has to shoot the bullet through the wall (ritual sorcery) and instead could shoot the bullet at a picture of you, and have you be effected by it, the wall would be completely ineffectual.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 05:04 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 7 2007, 05:16 AM

Wards don't affect links. They affect spells cast through them. The spell goes from ritual to link. The link makes it affect the target. No spell through ward, no ward bonus.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 05:21 AM

Well, wards do affect links in terms of astral tracking.

As for the question concerning ritually cast spells going through wards or not, that's another issue.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 7 2007, 05:42 AM

Well, if you want to get technical, LOS is just another type of link. By that logic, one could say that using line of sight to cast a spell on a target on the other side of a ward provides no bonuses to the defender.

Posted by: Ranneko Aug 7 2007, 06:00 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 06:54 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 07:04 AM

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 07:12 AM

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 07:12 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 07:43 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 08:13 AM

Let's look at it this way.

You're standing near a ward. Your target is a mundane standing on both sides of the ward. Does the ward protect him if you decide to fry him with a Mana Bolt?

It's exactly the same situation here. The ritual/symbolic/sympathic link is effectively part of the target. Part of the target that's not on the other side of countless wards between the ritual team and the target's main body. Part of the target that's not being dwindled down to worthlessness by the numerous background counts between the ritual team and the target.

It's as if the target were right there in front of them. Because for all intents and purposes -- the target is.

The spell doesn't travel anywhere. That's why Line of Sight isn't an issue unless using a spotter (and all the same things about being between numerous wards and backgrounds apply with the spotter so it's a moot point). They cast it, the target is affected (or with a spotter; they cast it, the spell manifests within the spotter, and LoS from the spotter to the target is applied). They don't cast it and wait for it to travel to the target, who upon getting hit by the spell has 10,000+ bonus dice to resist it due to all the wards and background counts that had to be passed to get there.

I'm sorry, but thinking otherwise is simply stupid. Doubly so if you arbitrarily -- and it would be incredibly arbitrary, just like the GM getting to pick a random number to determine how many other wards and background counts had to be blasted through -- decide that only one ward "magically" blocks the spell.

Posted by: Ranneko Aug 7 2007, 08:17 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 08:18 AM

*rolls eyes and realizes he is talking to a brick wall*

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 08:20 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 08:22 AM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 7 2007, 08:32 AM

Astral links are not lines of force that go from point A to point B. You can astrally track point A to point B through a link, and you can track point B to point A through a link, but you cannot track from a point in between those two to either end.

And while I acknowledge Nightmare that in previous editions ritual spells went into the Astral plane and then walked from point A to point B (in first and second edition they could be fought in kung fu battle while doing so); in SR4 they don't do that. That's legacy rules thinking.

The rules in question were removed, and the reasoning that went with them should be cast aside.

-Frank

Posted by: Blade Aug 7 2007, 08:35 AM

If I might intrude, I'm not well versed in the magic rules, but I'd just like to point out that magic following the path of least resistance doesn't give it any intelligence.
Electricity and water (for example) do it without being intelligent.

(That being said, I'm not supporting the fact that magic travels... but I'm not supporting the opposite either. I just don't care, it's magic: it has things it can and things it can't do and you just have to accept these.)

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 08:37 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 08:50 AM

I know this thread is about Sympathetic/Symbolic links but no one has answered my question: does a ritual team with a spotter-leader inside the ward suffer from casting through the barrier?

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 08:50 AM

Well, I'm pretty satisfied with Synner's earlier ruling, and I hope he gets it into the FAQ (or even better some form of Errata) very soon.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 08:57 AM

Posted by: Blade Aug 7 2007, 08:59 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 09:08 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 09:09 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 09:12 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 09:12 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 09:15 AM

You're basing your "canon" arguments on multiple errors, piss poor logic, and mistakes made by a developer in his post.

Wards don't protect things inside them. They're barriers that stop things from going through them. From Synner's post -- which is wrong on so many levels -- you could be inside the barrier with the guy and he's still protected by it since wards apparently protect everything inside them. And that was the basis of everything he had to say on the subject.

Again: It's just Wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 09:27 AM

I'm not sure why you are debating this so vehemently, considering Synner (I assume the author) has explained how he intended Wards to interact with Ritual Spellcasting (although he didn't do a great job of explaining the 'mechanics'), and has already indicated his intention to have this topic addressed and/or amended to reflect his viewpoint.

He's pretty much come out and stated that, by canon, Wards affect Ritual Spellcasting (the rest is fluff explanation). I don't see how you can argue that it works any other way according to canon. Now, if we are talking house rules, or magical theory, or whatever, I could understand it, but we are talking canon, and the dude that decides (I assume) has said just how it is.

I usually agree with your takes, both on strict (and not-so-strict) canon and on the Sixth World as a whole, but in this case I am just puzzled by your motivations.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 09:37 AM

A mistake is a mistake no matter who says it, whether its a mistake in the rules, the intent, or an opinion.

The things that make Ritual Spellcasting "broken" have nothing to do with ignoring line of sight or bypassing wards and background counts. That's a perk of it and one of the main reasons it's worth wasting a bare minimum of 13 hours creating a symbolic link and using Ritual Spellcasting. The target still gets a Spell Resistance Test. They're still protected by other measures, such as Counterspelling or Magical Guard. That part of Ritual Spellcasting is A-Okay. Logically and philosophically, that's spot on with the entire point of Ritual Spellcasting.

What needs to be addressed is the ability to have the ritual team getting 100+ dice pools (as seen in the various threads on the subject that lead to this thread) and completely obliterating the target. A target that even if the ward did affect it, it wouldn't matter one iota due to the absolutely ridiculous size of the dice pool involved. That's the problem. Limits need to be placed on that aspect of Ritual Spellcasting; limits that allow Ritual Spellcasting to still be powerful, but not to the point where there's no way to defend against it all.

That kind of craziness is the domain of blood magic and sacrificial rituals like the Great Ghost Dance. Not a group of six guys in their parent's basement just barely getting a bloody nose due to Drain when it's over and done with.

If something needs to be changed about Ritual Spellcasting, it's that. That's the aspect that's broken. Not effectively having a piece of the target in your hand and spending 13+ hours casting a spell on him as if he were there with you -- which is precisely what Ritual Spellcasting is effectively supposed to be doing.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 7 2007, 09:43 AM

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 7 2007, 10:02 AM

... it's ritual spellcasting. 100+ dice pools are supposed to happen. It's fricking ritual magic.

And as far as "that craziness is the domain of blood magic and sacrificial rituals like the Great Ghost Dance"... are you really, seriously comparing the dropping a few hundred dice on someone to the Great Ghost Dance? Really?

One of the rituals lets you kill a person, or a few people if you use an AOE effect. The other one defeats the entire US military, causes volcanos to erupt, tornados to touch down and earthquakes to devastate entire cities, causes mana spikes that let horrors enter the world, accelerates the mana cycle in the vicinity by thousands of years, and basically changes the face of the world. They're not even close to being on the same order of magnitude.

And really, from a game balance point of view, it's not that bad. You drop a spell like that, and somebody's going to come looking for you. Maybe several of them. And they're going to be an order of magnitude more bad ass than you too. For any PC, it's the equivalent of signing one's own death warrant.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 10:09 AM

What's the issue with the wards again then? They're meaningless against that sort of thing. It comes down to a philosophical problem, one where the issue that needs addressing is being completely and utterly clouded by a non-issue that will do nothing to thwart the actual problem but instead will open up countless real problems. Especially with the philosophy stated in Synner's original post on the subject!

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 7 2007, 10:13 AM

No.

Symbolic Linking imposes a penalty to the Ritual Spellcasting Test. If you got 100 dice, this penalty is meaningless.
But your Spell is still limited by Force, thus, your hit's will be Force only at best, no matter how many dice you have.

The Ward adds to the targets Spell Defense, so it always offers a higher chance of survival, as the Target has to resist Force Hits at best.

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 7 2007, 10:16 AM

I don't have a problem with ritual magic blowing through wards by force. I just don't think that ritual magic gets to bypass them altogether.

Ritual magic already has a huge advantage -- they can reach out and touch you anywhere from a totally secured location, on their terms. There's no need for them to have additional advantages.

That's the balance philosophy, from my point of view.

As for the rules themselves, I just don't see any support for the idea that they bypass wards. The idea that you cast a spell here and instantly the effect occurs there with nothing travelling inbetween is teleportation in my opinion. And as far as the spell travelling on the metaplanes or some crazy fourth dimension, that theory has no support in the literature; in fact, if you'll read the SR4 literature, it suggests (although it does not explicitly say) that magic (sorcery) must stay on the same plane it's cast on.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 7 2007, 10:29 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 10:44 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 10:45 AM

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 7 2007, 11:51 AM

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 7 2007, 11:53 AM

Either it's cast 'remotly', or 'inside'. Pick one.

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 7 2007, 12:00 PM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 7 2007, 12:05 PM

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 7 2007, 12:28 PM

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 7 2007, 12:46 PM

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 7 2007, 01:01 PM

In order for me to agree with you, some of the premises that you believe need to be proven or clarified.

Premise 1: The "point of origin" is at the ritual caster.
This then means the spell is actually forming at the ritual caster. The problem is, is that the spell has no way to travel to the links location. Ritual spells are not some sort of heat-seeking missile.

Premise 2: The ritual-link goes through the ward.
The problem with this, is that it would then mean there is some sort of physical path to the link. This would then mean if I was in the middle I would be able to track to point A or point B. But the only places there is anything in the astral is point A and point B. There is no inbetween. There is nothing linking point A and point B. The only way to know about point A is to observe point B and know it's signature. You then go to point A based upon this knowledge. Point A and point B are two separate dots on a grid, and there is no line drawn connecting them. If this was the case, I could go to any point on this line and find my way to point A or point B.

Premise 3: Ritual casting is not done remotely
The spell then has no way of arriving at point B. If it is not being done remotely, that means it is being done locally. So the spell is then forming at the location of the ritual. There is only two ways for it to get to point B. By teleportation or by physical travel. Teleportation is ruled outright. Physical travel would allow the middle man scenario. In fact, it would allow other mages to interrupt the spell as it traveled to point B. Astral security could be made so the "path of least resistance" would be between mages on 24/7 watch that dispel ritual spells that come through. Believing in this premise requires us to make assumptions and create fluff that is nonexistent in the SR4 rulebook.

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 7 2007, 01:47 PM

Jeez guys, slow down.

I'm the writer of the Wards section of Street Magic. Synner (aka Peter Taylor) was the lead developer for Street Magic. I can certainly tell you what I intended when working on the wards section, but I can't tell you what the final official ruling is. Rob and Peter decide on that stuff and make it official and can overrule me.

Intended: Wards protect against ritual magic, including ritual magic using material, sympathetic, and symbolic links.

When speaking of ritual magic, it is really the link that the ward is interfering with, not the formation of the spell itself (though these are technical details more than anything).

If you are using ritual magic with a spotter, and the spotter is outside the ward, the link is not being interfered with (it connects spotter to ritual team), but the spotter is going to have a rough time assessing the target through an opaque barrier. Note that it is not necessarily impossible: magical barriers impose a visibility penalty to astral perception equal to their Force (p. 185, SR4) assuming there are no other astral shadows in the way. If the ward is built along a room, the ward may not be totally opaque, but the walls of the room are anyway. Note that is also possible for a spotter to physically move through the ward, since spotters can physically travel to their target (p. 175, SR4). So a spotter could walk through a ward and then assense his target. However, at that point the ward will be impeding on the active link between the spotter and the ritual team (Ritual Targeting, p. 175, SR4) and will offer protection to the target.

If you are using ritual magic with a link instead of a spotter, the ward is impeding on that link, which is very active during ritual magic. Since the link is being impeded, the ward offers protection to the target. There is precedent for these links being impeded by wards, since wards add a penalty to Astral Tracking attempts (p. 184, SR4).

So you might ask, doesn't that mean spotters are doubly-screwed by a ward? In a word, yes. Of course, this is why links are sometimes used instead of spotters. Even Street Magic says so:

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 7 2007, 02:02 PM

Okay guys, you're starting to get personal. I'm loving the debate because it is valuable, but there's a few of you who are starting to call each other names. Take a deep breath and let's continue working constructively.

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 7 2007, 02:12 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 02:17 PM

Posted by: eidolon Aug 7 2007, 04:02 PM

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 04:04 PM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 04:11 PM

The spotter never is the team leader. He will always be at his ritual place performing ritual spellcasting, not wandering around.

Posted by: toturi Aug 7 2007, 04:14 PM

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 7 2007, 04:28 PM

Hmm, I don't think I see why you couldn't as long as you could resolve the following hangups:

1. If the caster is the spotter, the target has to be in view of the lodge used to conduct the ritual. (being that the caster has to be in the lodge to complete the ritual)
2. If the caster is going to astrally project, I think he'd have to do it before starting the ritual... and since rituals last for hours, aren't there nasty side effects of projecting for hours on end?

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 7 2007, 04:32 PM

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 7 2007, 04:37 PM

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 7 2007, 04:49 PM

@Frank:

Even if a ward is a dual-natured barrier which bars spells and you maintain that this was done to avoid plane interactivity (to coin a term, I suppose), I don't see why that precludes such a thing from "blocking" ritual spellcasting.

With spellcasting, there's two types of spells: physical and mana. I don't post this to be patronizing, I know that you know this, I'm just trying to be thorough. Physical spells always remain on the Physical plane, and mana spells only on the Astral plane to avoid the same plane interactivity that wards avoid by being dual natured.

But, if such a ward is dual natured, regardless of the plane a spell exists within, such a dual natured barrier would exist in both planes and still be able to effect a spell regardless of its type and without plane interactivity.

Maybe I'm not understanding your argument above.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 7 2007, 05:03 PM

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 7 2007, 05:11 PM

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 7 2007, 05:15 PM

Posted by: Redjack Aug 7 2007, 05:28 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 05:32 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 05:35 PM

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 7 2007, 05:39 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 05:43 PM

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 7 2007, 05:45 PM

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 7 2007, 05:46 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 05:46 PM

I'm still rolling my eyes at that "polarized aspected background count of a ward" business. It's a ridiculous thing to say and implies one thing and one thing only -- just being in a ward is the super defense mechanism. If someone's in a ward, they're protected 100% even if you're right on top of them inside the ward, slapping their face and jumping on their foot. Wards are mana barriers not zones of anti-magic.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 7 2007, 05:59 PM

Posted by: neko128 Aug 7 2007, 06:34 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 7 2007, 06:43 PM

The problem is that that doesn't explain why you can't put a ward inside a warded area. The only way to reconsile this is to assume that the ward fills the space, rather than simply encloses it.

Posted by: odinson Aug 7 2007, 06:49 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 06:57 PM

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 7 2007, 07:20 PM

Odinson is correct. Ritual sorcery always has an astral component. You can't cast a ritual spell without assensing the target, even if the spotter walks right up to the target's physical form. Unless you have an object that utilizes an astral link on its own due to the Law of Sympathy.

Also, Doctor Funkenstein, I'm unsure what you were saying by quoting part of my post. A material link does assist a ritual team in getting around otherwise insurmountable security concerns. It doesn't mean it is a "get out of jail free" card. If the target is guarded by spirits instead of a ward, a material link is a far better idea than a spotter. In many cases, it's going to be a far better idea even if the target is in a ward, but it doesn't mean it doesn't come without costs.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 7 2007, 07:34 PM

You mean like the costs of acquiring a ritual link (either on your own or paying someone else to secure one)? Of spending a bare minimum of 12 hours to rush the creation of symbolic link and a lower chance of success (not that means much considering that the real flaws with ritual spellcasting is found there rather than it ignoring passive protections)? Or does none of that count as a cost?

Posted by: kzt Aug 7 2007, 07:41 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 07:46 PM

I can answer that: because the target needs to move. Magical Guarding/Counterspelling is a mobile defense, wards aren't.

Posted by: kzt Aug 7 2007, 08:01 PM

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 7 2007, 08:09 PM

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 7 2007, 08:37 PM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 09:02 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 09:12 PM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 09:31 PM

Well, no, because the really really really, quite absolutely powerful mage (who needs at least a magic attribute of 13, which probably shouldn't exist at all, because not even Greater Dragons have a higher attribute than 12 in Magic) still could fry you...

Or Blood-Zilla, who would first kill all life on earth, then have a Force Rating of 30 Trillion at minimum (let's assume for simplicity only higher organisms, and only give them 1 essence point to compensate for all the Essence<6 humans).

Then, he'll fly to space... and eat the humans who fled earth... and then he'll fly to other solar systems and search for any inhabitated planets and eat all life there... Becoming even stronger... And repeating this process...

Hmm, perhaps it's better to call him Blood-lactus then...

Yeah, I know, the rules are considered broken and will be errated, but it's always fun to think about the possibility.

Posted by: Buster Aug 7 2007, 09:39 PM

Blood spirits can only double their force with Essence Drain.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 7 2007, 09:46 PM

Blood Spirits have Energy Drain (Essence), Buster, not the inferior Essence Drain power.

And the rules are known to be broken and will be errated in the near future. But for now, beware of Blood-Zilla (or Blood-Lactus).

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 7 2007, 11:59 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 8 2007, 12:05 AM

And for bonus points, answer without using the words "game balance"

Posted by: Fortune Aug 8 2007, 12:14 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 12:25 AM

Here's another reason to why sympathetic magic can bypass wards. Its not listed on the sympathetic link modifiers table. Therefore, wards don't affect sympathetic links.

Posted by: laughingowl Aug 8 2007, 12:34 AM

Jumping to the end of this..

What about mana voids?

Can ritual sorcery, reach somebody on a shuttle between earth and the moon?



My take on it is:

Indirect: Spell creates a force at target. non-magical force radiates out (if area), or impacts target and does damage.

Direct: Spell imparts magical energies into target (and other targets in LOS in area if area effect).


Now the caster(s) raise the energy. While the spell may manifest at the target, the mana/raised energies have to get from the caster(s) to the target.

Non-astral barries do not effect this. A wall doesn't stop the spell.

Solid astral barries however, would affect this energy getting to its target, though there is not intermidary space between.

So things that would effect ritual spell casting (in my games):

Background count at caster AND taret location.
Any ward / barrier / etc that complete encloses the target (or caster unless caster not effected by the barrier (his own lodge).

My rational.

The energy has to go from the caster(s) to the target.

Since spells have to be cast on the same plane as the target, I dont buy that spells can take a meta-planar short-cut to bypass wards. (and spirits only can if: a) they have a link to their summoner inside the ward, or b) they have been inside the warded area before).

The energies raised by spells at best seem to be some kind of 'astral' energies. Since we do know 'physical' barriers do not stop them (save perhaps LOS issuses); however, wards say that they function as barriers to astral things (spirits, spells, foci, etc...) while it appears as if 'spells' dont travel, the assumption would be that spells should be 'raised magical energies to inact a spell'.

Posted by: laughingowl Aug 8 2007, 12:36 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 12:41 AM

That goes back to the problem of a spotter pressing through the ward, and then having the spell originate from him. Since wards don't affect links, it doesn't affect his link to the ritual group.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 8 2007, 01:05 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 01:13 AM

Again, according to the symbolic link table, the ward doesn't have any affect on the link at all. So, you can argue it affects spellcasting, but then your spotter can come through and have no penalty because it doesn't affect his link.

Posted by: toturi Aug 8 2007, 01:43 AM

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 8 2007, 01:50 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 8 2007, 02:13 AM

Basically, you are still affected by spells as long as the magicians are strong enough to negate the disrupting effects of a mana void. Of course, we are talking about hypothetical Magic 13+ magicians, which shouldn't exist in Shadowrun in the normal setting. Great Dragons only go to Magic 12. So, no, being in the void of space doesn't grant you immunity to spells, but still the best protection possible, unless we go with FrankTrollmann's rule interpretation... Then, not even being in space helps...

Posted by: Dender Aug 8 2007, 02:52 AM

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 8 2007, 02:54 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 03:55 AM

No, but wound modifiers specifically state that they affect all tests except for resistance tests.

Astrally perceiving states that the -2 applies to any physical non-magical task.

Mana barriers state that if a magician tries to cast a spell through the barrier, the target gets the force of the barrier to their resistance dice pool. A couple interesting things: If the spell is on an inanimate object, its a success test. So wards don't help whatsoever if you're powerbolting the door, or lightning bolting a drone (Unless they're being counterspelled).
Now, the arguement is that if ritual spellcasting is casting the spell "through" the ward.

Posted by: Vaevictis Aug 8 2007, 04:04 AM

The point is that absence of a modifier from a table is not the same as the rules saying a modifier doesn't apply.

Your assumption, and hence your claim, is flawed.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 04:27 AM

And what constitutes casting a spell through a barrier? What if the magician is casting a shatter spell. The target places his hand up against where the ward boundry is, and the mage touches his hand to the targets. Does the ward give its bonus or not?

Also, as long as we're on the discussions of wards, can't the ritual team track the wards creator down via astral tracking following the link from the ward to the creator, assense the creator, and then use masking to fool the ward. Then cast the spell with absolutely no question of having no penalty at all? Also, one could use the astral window spell to see through a barrier the creator might be behind in order to assense him, since the mage merely needs to know the creators aura, not be able to cast on him. Then, beat the ward in the maskng test, and bada-boom, fried target.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 04:28 AM

I understand that the ward bonus for resistance tests is if the mage casts the spell through the ward. The question, is that is sympathetic magic still casting "through" the ward, or is it merely affecting the target via the association between the target and the material/sympathetic/symbol.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 8 2007, 04:34 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 8 2007, 04:36 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 04:37 AM

Does that count for domed wards too? (A valid shape for a ward.) If the caster is casting through a door thats on the side of the ward? If the caster is casting from a trapdoor underneath it? Since you seem to be a proponent of the wards are a volume viewpoint. Does a "dome" shape have a sealed bottom? Or does it mostly rely on the earth barrier for protection.

What about if the spotter/leader gets through the ward before the spell casts. And, lastly, how about if the spotter/leader fools the ward via assensing the creator and using metamagic to match his aura?

Posted by: Fortune Aug 8 2007, 04:41 AM

Posted by: kzt Aug 8 2007, 04:56 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 8 2007, 05:17 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 8 2007, 07:11 AM

This will be my last post in this thread, as I tire of repeating myself. I will only be quoting partial posts herein to avoid such repetition. In retrospect, it seems I should have never gotten involved with to begin with, as the core issue is apparently not ritual sorcery vs wards but some one-upsmanship thing from the "kill a dragon" thread that I never read. It seems to me that argument is continuing simply for the sake of argument.

If I have offended anyone with my statements or any statements made in this post, please accept my apologies. They were largely born of frustration at what I perceive as the inexplicable argumentation over what I perceive as a very simple issue.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 8 2007, 07:43 AM

All I know is that if this silly take on how wards work becomes "canon," it's going to just be a nightmare. The same rational will be applying to spirits and conjuring as well (whether it be summoning, calling one you've already summoned, using the true name of a Free Spirit or whatever) -- if not, any and all of the arguments presented in this thread are instantly rendered null due to the "making shit up as you go along" clause.

Posted by: toturi Aug 8 2007, 07:47 AM

Posted by: toturi Aug 8 2007, 07:53 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 8 2007, 09:51 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 8 2007, 03:38 PM

I don't know. I think that just the physical damage track would work, and then they can be saved if you stabilize them. In reality, decapitation isn't instant death; the decapitated person remains conscious and aware until passing out due to oxygen deprivation and blood loss. Reattaching a severed head is certainly possible, though difficult, and severed heads can survive in jars according to canon.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 8 2007, 03:40 PM

Nightmare, one of toturi's points was if the spotter was inside the ward via masking. I believe the most important part of this method is the sentence "If the intruding magician succeeds, the ward no longer inhibits them." SM, 124.

If the ward no longer inhibits the magician who successfully fooled it, and they're the spotter, why would it inhibit their ritual spell?

As far as the table issue. The tables are supposed to be for easy reference of the rules yes? Why then, wouldn't all the important modifiers to sympathetic magic (since it was introduced in SM) be included on its table in SM?

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 8 2007, 04:09 PM

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 04:29 PM

Frank: I think you are mixing 'stops LOS' with 'Stops Spell'. I could be wrong, lord knows I don't write Shadowrun, and magic isn't my strongest topic regardless.

I do know that I wouldn't enjoy a Shadowrun world where your take on Wards and magic reigned supreme, for whatever that's worth.

The Steel Plate stops spells, as I understand it, because you can't see the target to, well, target him... right? The Ward, obviously, doesn't really block LOS at all; well except for from astral.

Now, again magic isn't my strong suit here, but a physical spell could be cast through a window with no problems, right? The window doesn't stop the spell at all. Just like you used to be able to use an optical, but not electric, targeting device, and apparently you can use fiber optics as 'mage goggles' if I read the Kill a Dragon thread correctly.

Now: Ritual Magic doesn't require LOS at all, targeting is done via link (and for the record, symbolic links are a crappy idea given the previous cannon... but thats just me. At best I would expect them to have a reduced capacity, not just a difficulty in forging the link. For that matter, I would suggest that creating a symbolic link should also be more difficult if the target is warded at the time the link is created... but what do I know, I just shoot stuff....). The mana generated by the ritual team still has to go from ritual team to target, even you seem to agree on that aspect, though you brought in this 'variable topography' whigajamig. What's to say that wards don't possess this same variably topography, we describe them as dual natured ('cause they are...) and barriers, because they perform that function... but nothing says that they can't extend this all the way into your 'variable topographic space'.

I don't have street magic handy, indeed I don't but in SR4 I saw not one word in Ritual SpellCasting that said that Ritual Spells 'ignore barriers' or even anything that so much as suggested it. Of course, that includes no information on links, symbolic or otherwise, so I'm somewhat hampered.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 8 2007, 04:47 PM

Posted by: odinson Aug 8 2007, 05:34 PM

Posted by: Demonseed Elite Aug 8 2007, 05:36 PM

Guys, I don't have enough time in the day to answer a thousand and one questions about wards. At some point, when it comes to all these various hypothetical situations you're citing, the GM should make the call based on the information he has and what he personally feels is right. We attempt to provide you with the tools to make these decisions, but authors and devs don't post here to make the decisions for you.

I'll answer a few questions quickly below before I need to get back to work.

Are you the person who wrote the SR4 core rules on wards and ritual magic? No, I am not. I wasn't involved in the writing of the core SR4 book at all, only in the playtesting. I'm unsure who wrote those rules and they may not read/post on this forum.

Why aren't ward effects on the sympathetic links modifier table? Probably because they don't only come into play with sympathetic links. Material links are also affected by wards and there isn't a material links modifier table. Also probably because the ward affects the test by modifying the target's resistance roll, not the caster's roll.

What if the spotter masks his way through the ward? I'd rule that the ward no longer interferes. The ward has been negated for the purposes of the spotter's astral link, just as well as if the spotter had attacked and brought down the ward.

What if a person is using shatter on a ward? Shatter is being cast on the ward, not on a target on the other side of the ward. The ward isn't there to protect itself, so it doesn't add bonuses to itself for the shatter spell.

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 05:59 PM

I see that there is quite a bit that is not really ruled on in the MRB, and badly. Logically, and consistence-ally(neologism for the lose?), a Ward should bounce/slow any spell, though perhaps not a 'physical object moved by magic'...

Logically, because wards resist astral movement, and while the new rules don't make spells as astral objects explicitely anymore (or at all), this still follows logically that Astral Space is deeply connected to Mana/spells and vice versa. But I'm getting into vague mutterings.

We could, for the sake of arguement, point out what wards are meant to represent from various sources that presumably influenced shadowrun's magic rules: Wards/magic circles are imperious to spells unless overpowered; this makes sense as something used to 'sheild' a mage's work space from a technical standpoint (preventing stray mana fluctuations from tweaking that sensitive work) and a privacy/comfort aspect... you wouldn't want to leave yourself open to casual peeping, spying and such like, right? Of course, pulling 'inspiration sources' is weak, so I mention it merely in passing.

Consistancy accross editions is expected to be supported, and to my knowledge was whereever possible. While emphasis may have moved (astral objects... spells that is... are no longer a viable topic fer ex), that doesn't mean that fundamental shifts in things are now allowed to alter history (what wards can and can not stop...)


The problem here, aside from the fact that I don't have Street magic handy to compare, is that the MRB is not very explicit in the magic chapter. No rules for how things interact beyond a certain, surface level. I break it down:

1: Wards are dual natured barriers.

2: They stop astral intruders, rules follow.

3: Combat spells can be direct or indirect (and counter to standard logic, indirect spells must travel directly to the target, allowing for armor, say)

4: Not one mention is made of barriers under combat spells.

5: Dual natured barriers are not discussed seperately from normal barriers. Obviously there is a distinction, however. For all that a steel plate has an 'Astral Shadow' it is not, in fact, dual natured.


Obviously, 5 is the answer to your question of exception, but that is not in itself a complete arguement.

Presumably a direct combat spell, cast from the physical plane, does not worry itself about barriers (the armored window), but still requires LOS, yes?

A direct Combat Spell DOES worry about barriers, and still requires LOS.

These are not explicit, but implied from reading.

A ritual requires LOS (in the form of a spotter and presumably a material link of some sort counts), does not travel directly to the target (even if an indirect spell) thus bypasses barriers.


None of this, however, discusses the Astral barrier. An armored window or a steel plate do nothing to astral targeting except block LOS, you can stick your head right through them just fine and fire away. If magic were more like a gun, and you fired off spells strictly in astral space presumably they would push through the astral shadows just fine.

Now: The key point is that Astral Barriers ARE discussed. Wards are Dual Natured, which means that they are, in fact, astral barriers (this leads to further discussion).. and astral barriers, explicitly, stop spells. There isn't an exception listed, so a straight reading of that might suggest that even direct combat spells (the ones unaffected by barriers, inexplicitely) are still stopped by a Ward.

The interesting thing is that Wards, beind Dual Natured, instead of astral only, suggests, foolishly I know, that they should act as barriers to purely physical attacks as well.

Instead, we should interpret it that Wards are Dual Natured insamuch as they stop spells regardless if they are physcial or astral in nature. Thus Wards, like a steel plate, stop spells in the purely physcial sense (as I suggested they should earlier) and, in a superior display of protection, also stop spells in the Astral Sense, that would include direct spells and, yes, Ritual spells. I know I wandered quite a bit, but I am at work and checking references and typing around the job makes for unclear organization.

Now: You suggest two points that would arguably invalidate this.

1) variable topography: meaningless and unsupported by the rules. Wether or not characters interact with the spell enroute (even by detecting it) the spell still has to get to the target somehow. In the Rules the only routes are the physical plane and the Astral plane, and Wards are present in both equally (unlike Steel plates).

2) Holism: the symbol/link is also the target. Casting at a toe is the same as casting at the body, regardless if the toe is attached. Since no other rule in Shadowrun suggests that I can affect your damage track (or character) by attacking a severed part of him... even in magic (a fireball that torches the arm I left behind after that sword wielding maniac cut me up...) does nothing, why should ritual magic be different? I posit, accurately I assume: that links are used for TARGETING. That is the thing that lets you negate the need to see the target, allows you also to bypass ranges. This is why there are no rules (at least listed in the examples here) of a symbolic link (the weakest of all) that reduces the actual effective power of the spell: Its targeting. Note that a reduction in dice pools (if extant) is not the same as a reduction in power.

Of the two, holism is naturally harder to argue one way or the other. Made up travel space with no support from text or rules is a pretty silly arguement to make.

Holism requires that we get into discussion of links. Essentially, the real arguement here is that links replace, by their existance, the idea of a holistic aura that can be affected regardless of physical seperation. Links exist, in rules and setting alike, and are 'followed' from point A to B,though yes there is no clearly defined 'in between', which was part of your argument for Variable Topography. A lack of inbetween space, that is, the ability to stumble across the middle, does not an arguement make. I can't stumble across the middle of my route north following a compass either, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yet I follow a compass to a defined end. So too with links. And so too with links, I must surmount any obstacles or barriers that exist in my path. In the case of a spell, that is an Astral Barrier.

A ward, for example.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 8 2007, 07:21 PM

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 07:36 PM

It does in fact discuss wards. We agree that something can be a barrier to an effect without affecting LOS in the form of, for example, Armored glass.


Therefore barriers are not necessarily preventing TARGETING. This is not an inherent property in the barrier rules. Ritual spellcasting is just an alternate method of targeting.

However, Astral barriers do stop spells. Its right there on page 185.

So yes, a Ward does stop a fire bolt. Again, its on 185, a physical barrier stops spells on the physical plane, and a dual natured barrier counts as a physical barrier. Bing!

An Astral Barrier stops astral spells, and once again a Ward, being dual natured, counts as an astral barrier.

this leaves us with ritual magic, which you suggest is neither physical nor astral. However, nothing really supports this theory of yours except, apparently, your own belief that wards shouldn't stop them.

If a ward was ONLY an astral barrier it wouldn't stop the fire bolt, by the logic that the it is only a physical spell with no astral form (this is supported, yes). If it was only a physical barrier it wouldn't stop a 'Direct' spell... though the evidence is that an Astral barrier would (again, pg 185 on Astral Barriers).

But, unless I am profoundly out of touch, Shadowrun doesn't have a third plane of existance for magic. Even the metaplanes are explicitly astral. Thus a spell MUST exist on either the physical or astral plane, thus must cross either a physical or astral barrier to reach the target, presuming one exists.

EDIT::: To clarify, Frank, the quoted part was commenting about barriers to LOS. Poorly phrased, admittedly.

Posted by: Jaid Aug 8 2007, 07:57 PM

wards don't act as physical barriers to spells, ever.

they give the target increased resistance dice, that is all.

as such, a dual natured ward does not stop a firebolt in any way, shape, or form. at most, you might be able to argue for it giving increased damage resistance dice (and i probably would include that; i personally favor wards affecting ritually cast spells, but i can't say that i've studied this out, and that certainly shouldn't be taken to mean that's what the rules do or don't say).

but one thing is for sure, there's no way i'm treating wards as physical barriers with respect to casting spells through them when there are already explicit rules that tell us how wards interact with spells being cast through them.

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 08:05 PM

Posted by: Redjack Aug 8 2007, 08:34 PM

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 8 2007, 08:38 PM

FWIW, my understanding of indirect spells is that (for example) firebolt doesn't blast your target with fire, so much as it makes a jet of fire in your hand, which you aim at your target and blast him. The important bit is that all the magic is happening in your hand and none of the magic is happening at the target or in between, that's all just fire.
But then why does counterspelling give extra dice for damage resistance? I don't know, because the fire is magic flavored? *handwave* astral signatures?

So that would be consistent with the "wards don't block indirect spells" camp.
All in all, I'm totally confused and can't wait for the official FAQ on this.

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 08:47 PM

Redjack: That's cool, man. Its nice to know I'm not some lone nutter off his rocker when reading this stuff.


Moon-hawk: Really, the firebolt is a side show to the real debate: Does ritual magic somehow had wave away any need to consider the ward? Obviously, my stance is clear, as is FrankTrollman's.

Posted by: kzt Aug 8 2007, 09:10 PM

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 09:36 PM

Posted by: kzt Aug 8 2007, 09:57 PM

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 10:05 PM

Well, KZT, since my original answer to your question was 'sloppy writing', it still holds.

Yes, the specific examples are not, per se, spells being cast. Indisputable. On the other hand the text just before the examples does say: Spells.

There are a couple of options given the way its written: One, you can assume the writers meant for it to apply to all test, thus you would add the force to the threshold, just as you do for tracking tests, or you could roll the dice for the barrier as a resistance test in addition to the threshold of an object that doesn't get a test.

You could go with my interpretation just now, which means the spell has to force its way through the barrier (despite, admittedly, being different than how a barrier works against spells cast on a person...)

Or you could just hand wave and rule that for some wacky reason a ward only protects people/critters, and do nothing for objects.

Now, my example may be somewhat weird and contradictory, but yours sounds just silly. The first one sounds best...

Posted by: kzt Aug 8 2007, 10:46 PM

So you are choosing to ignore the main rule and choose just the little tiny bit part of the rules you want and claim that this in the general case. Well, have fun.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 8 2007, 11:02 PM

I'm quite surprised that there has not been a single comment (let alone response) to Demonseed Elite's most recent post on the matter.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 8 2007, 11:08 PM

I'd post more on the subjects DE raised, but I don't find his input to be controversial. That is to say, he and I think alike in this matter.

That said, I'm also kinda burned out on this discussion. I posted my input, and if people don't wanna play it that way or think I'm crazy for my opinions, they're welcome to do so.

Posted by: Jaid Aug 8 2007, 11:33 PM

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 11:51 PM

Posted by: Spike Aug 8 2007, 11:56 PM

Posted by: Redjack Aug 9 2007, 12:36 AM

Posted by: kzt Aug 9 2007, 01:16 AM

Posted by: Jaid Aug 9 2007, 02:22 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 9 2007, 02:59 AM

Wait a minute, does this means that wards are absolutely useless against indirect combat spells, and all other spells that don't belong to the direct combat spell category?

Oh boy, that's really a radical change in SR 4th edition...

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 9 2007, 03:09 AM

I do like the interpretation Spike, and the creativity of it, but it is wrong.

The problem is that the spell isn't being "unintentionally forced into a situation where either they or the barrier must give." SR4, 186. Its being cast through the barrier, which is covered by the rules, "Should a magician try to cast a spell through a barrier, the target of the spell adds the Force of the barrier to its resistance dice pool." SR4, 185.

Thusly, the forcing through barriers rules don't apply, as it isn't unintentional.

Yes particle, unless there is a resistance test, wards do diddly.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 9 2007, 03:20 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 9 2007, 03:50 AM

Wards don't have an area of effect. They affect things crossing the area they occupy. Which surrounds an area. A ward cares if a spell is being cast through it, and thats it.

Sympathetic ritual casting doesn't use the link to obtain LOS. It uses the link to cast LOS. Yes, the resolution is the same, but if we were using a indirect combat spell, it would be the same as to argue the spell would pass through at the very least, the building the ritual team is located in, and the building the target is in. Since, according to you, it will pass through barriers. This means indirect combat spells are utterly useless when cast ritually (and goes back into the "what path they take" arguement). Alternately, you can say that they don't have to go through the buildings the caster and target are in, which also means they don't have to go through the astral barriers either. Why? Because if you exempt them from one barrier, you have to exempt them from all barriers. Because the rules don't state how to differentiate them.

You just said that if the spotter gets inside, it doesn't work, because the whole team is casting the spell, and then said that if someone masks to avoid the ward, the whole team casting the spell gets to ignore it. Which way? Only one? Or all of them? Or did you mean the entire team has to succeed in their masking attempts to avoid the ward? What happens if one fails? Or half? All but one?

Posted by: Redjack Aug 9 2007, 03:50 AM

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 9 2007, 04:03 AM

But then again, there is the sentence which follows the prior one, stating: "Should a magician try to cast a spell through a barrier, the target of the spell adds the Force of the barrier to its resistance dice pool." That's the sentence that causes so much problems, as it somehow invalidates the absoluteness of the former clause.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 9 2007, 04:05 AM

Yes, that is the sentence that needs to be addressed in some 'official' manner.

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 9 2007, 05:34 AM

I dunno... Don't you all think that it would be the easiest to simply erase that sentence, and replace it with a new one in the next errata?

Posted by: Jaid Aug 9 2007, 05:44 AM

what needs to be addressed in the sentence after that? that sentence has game rules defining what happens when you cast a spell through the ward.

presumably the previous sentence is referring to bringing spells through the ward.

but when you are casting spells through a ward, you aren't moving the spell through the ward. you either cast it on the other side, or you cast it on this side, it's a totally natural effect, and the effect passes through (the spell would have been blocked, but that's irrelevant because the spell is already gone, having created and directed it's effect).

now certainly, if you tried to pass a spell through the ward, the astral barrier rules for pressing through come into play. but when you cast a spell on a target that is behind a ward relative to you, you aren't moving the spell through the ward at all, unless you are sustaining a spell on something which passes through the ward.

Posted by: Synner Aug 9 2007, 10:45 AM

Been kind of busy to visit this thread, and I actually still don't have the time right now to address the issue of mana barriers and wards in detail... but I want to start off by apologizing for the blunder in my previous post (page 3 of the thread) - most of it is correct, but please disregard the third paragraph (I was thinking of something else entirely) that is definitely not how spells work in SR4).

As soon as my workload clears up some I'll be back to walk through the issue of mana barriers in general and wards in particular.

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 9 2007, 11:38 AM

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 9 2007, 03:55 PM

Posted by: darthmord Aug 9 2007, 05:13 PM

Yep. That we do.

Until Synner gets the chance to update us all, I think I'll stick with something simple for this issue.

Mark all parties down on a piece of paper in their respective relative positions. Note the location of the ward. If a line drawn from the caster to the target intersects the ward, the ward provides protection (unless the ward is removed from the picture via combat or masking).

Simple, clear and concise. My players like simple. So do I.

Posted by: kzt Aug 9 2007, 06:18 PM

Action 1: "I use powerball to destroy all the nonliving items in the ward, including the anchor."

Posted by: Adarael Aug 9 2007, 06:49 PM

Kzt, you win the hilarity prize.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 9 2007, 06:58 PM

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 9 2007, 07:01 PM

My house-rule: Non-living things get a spell-resistance test from wards, counterspelling, etc. They simply contribute 0 dice to this test by themselves. Net hits are then compared to threshold normally.

Posted by: Demerzel Aug 9 2007, 08:10 PM

Posted by: Demerzel Aug 9 2007, 08:14 PM

Posted by: Redjack Aug 9 2007, 08:20 PM

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 9 2007, 10:56 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 10 2007, 01:38 AM

Better instead, powerball on the ward anchor, and hope that the target is caught in the affect, since the anchor will be destroyed, they won't get the wards benefits.

Posted by: kzt Aug 10 2007, 03:36 AM

It's area affect. They all take damage at the same time. Action 2 is when you stunball the naked, unarmed people inside what was a ward a few seconds ago.

Is this a silly effect or what

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 10 2007, 03:39 AM

Better yet, to minimize drain usage, use powerbolt on the ward anchor, and then mana/stun ball on the people. Just use multiple casting.

Posted by: Jaid Aug 10 2007, 03:59 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 10 2007, 04:30 AM

Problem is, there doesn't exist such a spell, and custom spells are always at GM discretion. The ritual team was relying on the (F/2)-2 drain of slay dragon to guaranteeably suvive the casting (with 8P dmg at most). With say, acid stream, they'd be taking a base of 13P, and therefore having to rely on their drain test to survive. That, or they Could cast it at force 12 instead, with drain being base 9P. The problem with the dragon is that it has 16 body, so its much more effective at resisting a physical spell than a mana spell.

As far as magoo, yes, force 6 flamethrower ftw.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 10 2007, 05:09 AM

Posted by: Demerzel Aug 10 2007, 03:08 PM