IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
pbangarth
post Apr 22 2012, 10:22 PM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 22 2012, 10:46 PM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Psikerlord
post Apr 23 2012, 10:17 AM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FriendoftheDork
post Apr 23 2012, 12:12 PM
Post #29


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 4-September 06
From: The Scandinavian Federation
Member No.: 9,300



QUOTE (pbangarth @ Apr 23 2012, 12:22 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jopp
post Apr 23 2012, 12:37 PM
Post #30


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,925
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 948



QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 23 2012, 11:17 AM) *
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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 23 2012, 01:20 PM
Post #31


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 23 2012, 12:17 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 23 2012, 12:17 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tymeaus Jalynsfe...
post Apr 23 2012, 01:42 PM
Post #32


Prime Runner Ascendant
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 17,568
Joined: 26-March 09
From: Aurora, Colorado
Member No.: 17,022



QUOTE (Irion @ Apr 22 2012, 11:59 AM) *
Counterspelling is added to the reaction roll? Are you sure of that? This is really silly.


It is totally amazing to me that you argue something without actually knowing how the rule actually works. Yes, Counterspelling is added to the Reaction Roll.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
darthmord
post Apr 23 2012, 03:07 PM
Post #33


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,245
Joined: 27-April 07
From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia
Member No.: 11,548



QUOTE (The Jopp @ Apr 23 2012, 08:37 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 23 2012, 03:19 PM
Post #34


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



It is still the same way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Psikerlord
post Apr 23 2012, 09:38 PM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 23 2012, 09:58 PM
Post #36


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 23 2012, 11:38 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 23 2012, 11:38 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yesferatu
post Apr 23 2012, 10:29 PM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 23 2012, 10:40 PM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yesferatu
post Apr 24 2012, 12:02 AM
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UmaroVI
post Apr 24 2012, 12:12 AM
Post #40


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,700
Joined: 1-July 10
Member No.: 18,778



Yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbangarth
post Apr 24 2012, 03:39 AM
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



QUOTE (yesferatu @ Apr 23 2012, 07:02 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tymeaus Jalynsfe...
post Apr 24 2012, 07:07 PM
Post #42


Prime Runner Ascendant
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 17,568
Joined: 26-March 09
From: Aurora, Colorado
Member No.: 17,022



QUOTE (yesferatu @ Apr 23 2012, 06:02 PM) *
Well sure, but should a caster need 3 sustaining foci to invis his group and chew gum at the same time?


Absolutely... Why shouldn't he?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
darthmord
post Apr 24 2012, 08:58 PM
Post #43


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,245
Joined: 27-April 07
From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia
Member No.: 11,548



QUOTE (Psikerlord @ Apr 23 2012, 04:38 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Apr 24 2012, 09:12 PM
Post #44


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



QUOTE (pbangarth @ Apr 23 2012, 11:39 PM) *
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.


How?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 24 2012, 09:19 PM
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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Apr 24 2012, 09:22 PM
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 24 2012, 09:49 PM
Post #47


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



Don't forget Murphy's Law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Apr 24 2012, 09:52 PM
Post #48


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Apr 24 2012, 05:49 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Apr 24 2012, 09:54 PM
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpellBinder
post Apr 24 2012, 09:57 PM
Post #50


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,351
Joined: 19-September 09
From: Behind the shadows of the Resonance
Member No.: 17,653



QUOTE (almost normal @ Apr 24 2012, 02:22 PM) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS 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.