![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#26
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,248 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
Well, sort of as silly as using Reaction to dodge a fireball covering you and everything within 5 metres of you.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#27
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
You do get a -2 for the area effect. If silliness is concerned I love moving grenades by dodging.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#28
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 292 Joined: 20-April 09 From: Sydney 'plex Member No.: 17,094 ![]() |
hmm its not clear to me that you can sustain a spell without continuing to see the target. I was looking for the rule on this the other day. On p.185 SR4A it says you can only move area effect sustained spells while they are within LOS. Similarly, you can only maintain counterspelling on targets you can see p.185 SR4A. So my assumption is single target spells also cant ordinarily be sustained without LOS?
On a related topic - if you break line of sight for counterspelling - say your ally goes behind a pillar for a moment, then reappears on the other side. Is the counterspelling lost until the mage reapplies it with a free action? I actually quite like this idea, as keeping your mage in sight might become very important. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#29
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,288 Joined: 4-September 06 From: The Scandinavian Federation Member No.: 9,300 ![]() |
Well, sort of as silly as using Reaction to dodge a fireball covering you and everything within 5 metres of you. Reaction -2, to be fair. Also remember the rules are for all indirect spells, including bolts. Dodging them makes sense. Dodging area effects may sound unrealistic, but we are talking about people who can move at impossible speeds, and dodge huge explosions. Psikerlord: I think it is quote clear you can Sustain without LOS. As for the Counterspelling, sounds like alot of unnecessary micromanaging. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#30
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,925 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 948 ![]() |
hmm its not clear to me that you can sustain a spell without continuing to see the target. I was looking for the rule on this the other day. On p.185 SR4A it says you can only move area effect sustained spells while they are within LOS. Similarly, you can only maintain counterspelling on targets you can see p.185 SR4A. So my assumption is single target spells also cant ordinarily be sustained without LOS? The bolded argument unfortunately fails due to invisibility spells (after all, the target is invisible, you cant see it so the spell would immediately be dispelled). By RAW it seems that spells can be sustained ad infinitum and no matter on how far away they are. AFAIK you only need to see your target at moment of casting the spell - the rest is all about keeping up a connection. Wards would disrupt a spell and I imagine that if the mage is unconcious the spell would fizzle as well. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#31
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
So my assumption is single target spells also cant ordinarily be sustained without LOS? This is just an assumption, and a wrong one at that. Not only would it make sustaining an invisiblity spell impossible unless the caster resists his own spell, any spell would also fizzle as soon as the magician blinks.On a related topic - if you break line of sight for counterspelling - say your ally goes behind a pillar for a moment, then reappears on the other side. Is the counterspelling lost until the mage reapplies it with a free action? I actually quite like this idea, as keeping your mage in sight might become very important. That is absolutely correct. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#32
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#33
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 ![]() |
The bolded argument unfortunately fails due to invisibility spells (after all, the target is invisible, you cant see it so the spell would immediately be dispelled). By RAW it seems that spells can be sustained ad infinitum and no matter on how far away they are. AFAIK you only need to see your target at moment of casting the spell - the rest is all about keeping up a connection. Wards would disrupt a spell and I imagine that if the mage is unconcious the spell would fizzle as well. The way it has worked ever since SR1 was that at the time of casting, you had to meet all the requirements to cast the spell. Things like LOS/Touch, fetishes, foci, geasa, etc. Once cast, the spell could be sustained until the caster decided to not sustain it any more or the spell was dispelled / disrupted in some manner. As I recall, this was true of physical spells even when the target went astral. The caveat there is the spell became meaningless as the astral form did not have the spell on it. So a projecting mage would still have the spell active on him, just only affecting the meat body, not the astral form. Spirits simply lose the spell altogether as when they revert to Astral only, they do not have a physical body. The above also applies to Critter Powers. The activation requirements have to be met and then can sustained from another place/plane altogether. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#34
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
It is still the same way.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#35
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 292 Joined: 20-April 09 From: Sydney 'plex Member No.: 17,094 ![]() |
But it does not actually say that anywhere... and the two examples I quoted suggest you do need LOS.
The invisibility spell is easily fixed by saying the mage can use astral sight, and therefore still see his target (or alternately, that OK you can't use invisi on anyone but yourself? Why is that a bad thing, really? Chameleon suits are available). As for seeing himself, not required, as spells require LOS or touch, and the mage is always "touching himself" haha. So, I still think there's an argument to be made that to sustain the spell, you must have touch or LOS. Magic is very powerful in 4e. A lot could be done to reduce that power via a LOS requirement for sustaining. I forget exactly how ritual sorcery works, but perhaps that allows non-LOS magic. Which is fine as it has it's own limitations. It would have been nice if the rulebook had spelt this out. I'll check the FAQ. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#36
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
As for seeing himself, not required, as spells require LOS or touch, and the mage is always "touching himself" haha. AFAIK there is no rule saying you can substitute touch for LOS on a LOS spell. So the magician touching himself would be irrelevant on all LOS spells.So, I still think there's an argument to be made that to sustain the spell, you must have touch or LOS. No there isn't, at least not according to RAW. As a houserule you can do whatever you want. LOS is only required during the target acquisition step of spellcasting. The two other points you mentioned are pretty logical as well. Without LOS you could not designate where to move the area of the sustained spell just as you could not channel your magical energies somewhere to counter another spell if you do not see that location. Both have nothing to do with sustaining a spell. Better not check the FAQ. You will just be frustrated by the lack of rules knowledge of the people that wrote them or get crazy ideas that have nothing to do with the actual rules. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#37
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 352 Joined: 10-August 10 From: Madison, WI Member No.: 18,916 ![]() |
I might just be crazy, but I would feel much better if there were actually a rule in the core about sustaining multiple spells.
They are very clear about casting multiple immediate-effect spells...but not a word on anything else. I just hate to think that armoring or levitating a group of 3 would impose a -6 on everything I do. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#38
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
The rules are pretty clear in the core book:
QUOTE ('SR4A p.184') For each sustained spell the magician maintains, she suffers a –2 dice penalty on all other tests. So yes, sustaining three spells will give you -6. That's what sustaining foci are for.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#39
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 352 Joined: 10-August 10 From: Madison, WI Member No.: 18,916 ![]() |
Well sure, but should a caster need 3 sustaining foci to invis his group and chew gum at the same time?
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#40
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,700 Joined: 1-July 10 Member No.: 18,778 ![]() |
Yes.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#41
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,248 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
Well sure, but should a caster need 3 sustaining foci to invis his group and chew gum at the same time? Absolutely. This is a small part of the suit of restrictions I keep referring to to support my position that magicians are not overpowered. A sustained spell can be broken at the most inconvenient of times by a mere jostle. If the mage doesn't want to risk that, he better pay for the foci, in cash and karma. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#42
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#43
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 ![]() |
But it does not actually say that anywhere... and the two examples I quoted suggest you do need LOS. The invisibility spell is easily fixed by saying the mage can use astral sight, and therefore still see his target (or alternately, that OK you can't use invisi on anyone but yourself? Why is that a bad thing, really? Chameleon suits are available). As for seeing himself, not required, as spells require LOS or touch, and the mage is always "touching himself" haha. So, I still think there's an argument to be made that to sustain the spell, you must have touch or LOS. Magic is very powerful in 4e. A lot could be done to reduce that power via a LOS requirement for sustaining. I forget exactly how ritual sorcery works, but perhaps that allows non-LOS magic. Which is fine as it has it's own limitations. It would have been nice if the rulebook had spelt this out. I'll check the FAQ. In SR1 (or the magic sourcebook for SR1) I think there was some text that talked about Touch being a substitute for LOS because your Aura was able to connect with the target's aura and thus establish the necessary magical link to cast a spell. That's why a caster is always considered to have LOS / Touch with himself. They had a really nice explanation of how casting worked for what are now called direct & indirect spells. Made it very easy to understand. Too bad they didn't keep that verbiage in later editions. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#44
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 1,105 Joined: 23-August 10 Member No.: 18,961 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#45
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
QUOTE ('SR4A p. 184') If the gamemaster chooses, certain circumstances may threaten to break a magician’s concentration while she is sustaining a spell, such as taking damage, full defense, dropping prone, and so on. If a magician’s concentration is disrupted while sustaining a spell, she must make a Spellcasting + Willpower (2) Test to avoid dropping the sustained spell (note that the sustaining modifier does not apply to this test).
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#46
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 1,105 Joined: 23-August 10 Member No.: 18,961 ![]() |
So realistically, with a willpower of 5, and a spellcasting of 4, that's a 9 DP for 2 hits? Hardly seems fragile at all.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#47
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
Don't forget Murphy's Law.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#48
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 1,105 Joined: 23-August 10 Member No.: 18,961 ![]() |
Don't forget Murphy's Law. I use GM's law. Anything you design to be difficult, the party will skate through with ease. Anything you design to be easy, the party will be stumped over for days. As far as dice, the player most likely to sustain regularly gets 4-5 hits on 7-8 dice. I'd accuse him of cheating if I didn't see him do it regularly. I'm not gonna penalize him for being lucky, but.. jeepers. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#49
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,507 Joined: 11-November 08 Member No.: 16,582 ![]() |
Sure that guy isn't using loaded dice?
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#50
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,351 Joined: 19-September 09 From: Behind the shadows of the Resonance Member No.: 17,653 ![]() |
So realistically, with a willpower of 5, and a spellcasting of 4, that's a 9 DP for 2 hits? Hardly seems fragile at all. At a 9 DP it may be slim, but it's still possible. Just think of what could happen if you had the worst luck and rolled a critical glitch? |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th July 2025 - 07:06 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.