/facepalm

Yep, Combat Sense. My bad.

Deflection sounds nice but the MA has Reaction 5, with +1/2 from Improved Reflexes plus +2/3/4 from Combat Sense. That's 8 dice at minimum on a standard defense roll, right? Combined with Improved Invisibility (at Force 3, enough to fool sensors that aren't on Drones) that should be decent protection enough. Also, I'll probably need that Manipulation Sustaining Focus for other spells.

I was also considering a Possession Tradition, Psionics actually, and have the swords be prepared vessels of some sort. Not having delved too deeply into such Traditions, would that work?

Thanks for all the suggestions! It's given me lots to think on.

IIRC Psionics cannot prepare vessels.

Before negative modifiers (wounds, previous attacks, visibility etc.), yes.

Why not go Force 5? It's only +1 drain and you have a chance of affecting drones as well. The drain isn't even physical with MAG 6.

A possessed sword is just a sword that is extremely hard to break. The spirit can only move the movable parts of a sword (which most of the time are none). It cannot fly around. As I said above, Energy Aura on the sword does next to nothing.

Darn on the Psionics.

Wait, I'm confused. This is a Mystic Adept with Magic 6, but 3 points have been converted for Adept Powers. Are you saying I can cast Force 6 spells without overcasting?

Darn, on the Energy Aura but I'll get my GM to do something, he's okay with a "Lightsaber" Manipulation spell. If I can cast a spell that creates a wall of fire, I can darn well cast one that's tied to a blade. Actually, he may want it to be a Combat Spell of sorts, something about the hits being the charges/number of combat turns.

Apart from that, would self-sustaining Improved Agility at Force 6 be worth it? I'm working on the assumption that I'm overcasting this at Force 3 with only Magic 3 left for spellcasting.

Wow, that's a big difference. Am I the only one who didn't see it that way?

Yes. There is a whole discussion about that on dumpshock (too lazy to search). The FAQ blatantly contradicts the RAW. By RAW you only use the partial magic for magic related skill tests, for everything else its the full magic. Designating a Force is not a skill test.

As I wrote above, just ask your GM, if he is fine with the Energy Aura just being concentrated on the blade. Whether the whole adept including all equipment bursts into flames and hits with a flaming sword or has just a flaming sword is just cosmetics IMHO.

Legal but not worth it IMHO. A Force 6 Sustaining Focus is very expensive and not available at CharGen, not even with Restricted Gear.

No you aren't, because it's not true (to my reading, at least). TJ and I are already battling this out in the 'Magic related questions topic' (sorry, I seem to be ignorant of how to make links in DS) so I won't get into it here, but my advice (nothing personal TJ) is not to take his word for it on this occasion.

No Offense Taken. We just seem to have two different opinions on this matter. No worries... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So an aura of energy radiating from the sword would not add an elemental attack to your sword combat? Logic says that if your sword is enveloped with magical fire it is going to burn people...

And I disagree about your interpretation of RAW. If the spirit possesses a statue and punches you with an aura on, it adds elemental DV. If a troll picked the statue up and threw it at someone, the spirit is causing the damage, the aura would damage the target. And if it possesses a sword and puts an aura on it, that burning aura is going to hit the target when you slash someone with it. So long as the object the spirit is possessing is coming in violent contact with the target, the elemental aura would modify the DV. A DM would have to create a houserule to disallow the aura, because it would add to damage by even

Logic also dictates that a burning sword would burn the wielder without protection. The power does not say anything about singeing the floor as the critter as the critter walks by either.

The spirit possessing a statue cannot move the statue unless it had moving parts which allowed such movement.

The other thing is a spirit possessing an inanimate object does not have physical attributes the object does not possess. So it would have no STR, AGI, REA to do anything.

Even though this makes sense, it is not RAW. An inanimate object isn't even a valid target for the Energy Aura and many possessed objects cannot perform an attack as explained above:

For a possession tradition the best way to do it is to possess the wielder. Materialization Traditions cannot make flaming swords with the Energy Aura Power.

A spirit sustaining the spell [Element] Aura on the fighter would work for both types of traditions but a possession Spirit of Man would have to possess something to be able to cast on the physical plane. The possessing spirit better just possesses the wielder and uses its Energy Aura (which is better in most cases)

The exact wording of the power says that attacks made by the critter, yes. But when the critter is possessing a sword and the sword has a flaming aura how exactly are you going to handwave away the fact that the sword is.. well.. on freaking fire? After all, the last paragraph says that if the critter gets attacked the attacker takes the damage, implying that it is a very intense always on aura, and not just one that flares up when the critter swings a fist/paw/claw/fang at its target.

I have no problem with houseruling it that way, I'm just saying the RAW say otherwise. Still I would not give the defensive bonus to the wielder if the weapon had the aura.
And while we're houseruling, there should be the word melee in the description of the defensive bonus, otherwise the sniper shooting at the spirit gets burned as well.

Dakka has made up his mind. Point out how the rules support it, he is just going to say, 'Nope, thats a houserule.' Either way, just use common sense, which the authors absolutely intended you to employ when playing shadowrun.

The aura is definitely for attacks the *spirit* makes, per RAW. Do what you want at your table. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I hear that if you make houserules, Jason M. Hardy will personally come to your gaming table and kick your ass. It's vital that you insist that they aren't houserules, and that you're just enforcing what the rules support - that's the only protection!

i have a couple of mages/mystic adeps in my group that have the elemental arua spell, for them i have the aura be visible on the astral plane and just change the dynamics around them to reflect this slightly. eg one has ice arua, so on the astral plane he has he from covered in ice that is raidiating coldness, in the real world the temp drops around him and water tends to freeze when he casts it high/has a lot of net hits.

but i do have a question:

if i have an ice aura, and then i jazz up a sword for a spirt and give it elemental aura, does this mean i have 2 aruas at the same time?

I would personally not stack the aura effect for melee DV, but that sounds like a GM call. The rules dont specify how these auras would act with each other. I would think that the stronger aura would override the weaker aura.

The [element] aura spell is always obvious on the astral plane as it is a spell, but giving away what spell it is surpasses what the can be found out with assensing. The best you can do by RAW is it's a manipulation spell cast by an awakened character with such a signature.

As i wrote above, by RAW casting the spell on the sword is not a good idea, but if you allow that to work as one would think it works, there is no rule against having both. You could even have two auras on the wielder of the sword. At least the elemental effects should stack. From a balance perspective I doubt +2*hits or +4+hits is a good idea but there is no rule forbidding it. Somone attacking the wielder would probably have to resiste Force DV twice and not a DV of 2*Force once.

I'd personally work it with the (semi-)precedent of the Elemental Indirect Combat spells like Firewater and whatnot - you get both elemental secondary effects, damage is not increased, and they resist with all applicable elemental protections.

As an example, a free spirit has Elemental Aura (Fire) and has cast (Cold) Aura with 5 successes. He gets a +5 DV aura that can set things on fire and is resisted with -1/2 AP + Fire Resistance + Insulation.

Oh, and I'd personally always use the Blast element.

Blast is quite good. I like Sound and Smoke too.

Sound is ridiculously good, but I avoid it because I feel it's too overpowered (*gasp!*). Smoke just makes them Nauseated right? I like getting pretty much guarenteed knockdown.

They're all pretty ridiculous. Splatcreep in magicrun?! :o

Well...



I like both for Non-Lethal Takedowns. That said, I only use them for very specific builds of characters as well. They are BOTH very, very obvious. Smoke is visible and Sound can be heard (Neither are subtle).

And nothing says "subtle" like Flamethrower, am I right?

True, but I have never actually used that spell in play either, so... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)