![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 932 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando, Florida Member No.: 1,042 ![]() |
Can an astrally projecting character defend characters on the physical plane and within his line of sight with counterspelling?
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 ![]() |
Can an astrally projecting character defend characters on the physical plane and within his line of sight with counterspelling? If the characters are solely on the physical plane, he does not have line of sight to them; he has line of sight to their auras, which are merely shadows on the astral. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 ![]() |
Can an astrally projecting character defend characters on the physical plane and within his line of sight with counterspelling? Yes. Counterspelling is basically the jamming of mana around the target. It transcends the physical/astral barrier which is a limitation of spellcasting, not counterspelling. Hell, counterspelling is so omnipresent and fire-and-forget that you don't even know when it's being used half the time (such as is the case with Detection and Illusion spells). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
Deus Absconditus ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 ![]() |
I'm with Dr. Funkenstein on this one: my own mental explanation for LOS in spellcasting is that you need optical LOS to sync with the target's aura, which is why indrect combat spells don't travel but merely manifest upon the target via their aura. Therefore I'd let it fly.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 16-June 09 Member No.: 17,282 ![]() |
If the characters are solely on the physical plane, he does not have line of sight to them; he has line of sight to their auras, which are merely shadows on the astral. Is that really so different from saying "If the characters are solely on the physical plane, a non-projecting magician who's physically in the room does not have line of sight to them; he has line of sight to their bodies, which are merely vessels on the phyiscal?" |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,946 Joined: 1-June 09 From: Omaha Member No.: 17,234 ![]() |
A astrally projecting magician would be able to percieve and sense the mana manipulation which is mostly what counterspelling is trying to block. Additionally there have been examples in the fiction of astrally overwathcing mages counterspelling.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
Shadow Cartographer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 ![]() |
I would (and do) say no. I rule that the magician must be on the same plane.
I couldn't find a conclusive answer in the book (though I found a suggestive one which I will get to), which means that all the answers so far are based on people's reading of the fluff. And a lot of what people are writing sounds like hold overs from previous editions where it did work like this. If a magician solely on the physical plane cannot manipulate mana on the astral plane (which is how I interpret not being able to cross the Astral - Physical barrier with Sorcery to mean), then I see no reason to allow counterspelling across that barrier either. Note that there are two types of counterspelling (Counterspelling in 4th does not equaly "counterspelling" in previous editions, it's a now category containing types of counterspelling): Spell Defence and Dispelling. Spell Defence merely states that it requires "line of sight" to the protectee. If we interpret it in the usual sense of Line of Sight for sorcery, that means same plane, but it's not conclusive. Dispelling is stated to explicitly require the counterspelling magician to be on the same plane as the target. To me that implies the same would be true of spell defence. Though others who prefer that it is possible counterspell from the Astral might argue that because it isn't explicitly stated for Spell Defence as well, that this implies that type of counterspelling is handled differently. However, it creates a clear precedent of a magician being required to be on the same plane as the spell they are acting against, which severely undermines the fluff arguments for cross-plane counterspelling that some are putting forward. K. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#8
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 932 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando, Florida Member No.: 1,042 ![]() |
I couldn't find any canon on the subject, either.
On the one hand, the energy of the spell the counterspeller is trying to interfere with exists on the astral. But, the character the counterspeller is trying to defend doesn't really exist on the astral. But if an astrally projecting magician can provide spell defense for material world targets, that would be a *very* significant tactical element. A magician in Montana could rent himself out all over the world for astral overwatch. Any chance we can get a developer to weigh in here? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#9
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 16-June 09 Member No.: 17,282 ![]() |
I would (and do) say no. I rule that the magician must be on the same plane. I couldn't find a conclusive answer in the book (though I found a suggestive one which I will get to), which means that all the answers so far are based on people's reading of the fluff. And a lot of what people are writing sounds like hold overs from previous editions where it did work like this. If a magician solely on the physical plane cannot manipulate mana on the astral plane (which is how I interpret not being able to cross the Astral - Physical barrier with Sorcery to mean), then I see no reason to allow counterspelling across that barrier either. Note that there are two types of counterspelling (Counterspelling in 4th does not equaly "counterspelling" in previous editions, it's a now category containing types of counterspelling): Spell Defence and Dispelling. Spell Defence merely states that it requires "line of sight" to the protectee. If we interpret it in the usual sense of Line of Sight for sorcery, that means same plane, but it's not conclusive. Dispelling is stated to explicitly require the counterspelling magician to be on the same plane as the target. To me that implies the same would be true of spell defence. Though others who prefer that it is possible counterspell from the Astral might argue that because it isn't explicitly stated for Spell Defence as well, that this implies that type of counterspelling is handled differently. However, it creates a clear precedent of a magician being required to be on the same plane as the spell they are acting against, which severely undermines the fluff arguments for cross-plane counterspelling that some are putting forward. K. I'd say that Spell Defense requires LOS to the target, and, for Mana spells (and Physical Direct Combat spells...right?), the target is the victim's aura, which the overwatch mage can see. So, you can use Spell Defense against Mana spells, but not Physical spells. Reasonable? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#10
|
|
Shadow Cartographer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 ![]() |
I'd say that Spell Defense requires LOS to the target, and, for Mana spells (and Physical Direct Combat spells...right?), the target is the victim's aura, which the overwatch mage can see. So, you can use Spell Defense against Mana spells, but not Physical spells. Reasonable? Well going by the following: QUOTE ("SR4A @ pg.203) Type Spell Type is either mana (M) or physical (P). Mana spells affect their targets through the mana that permeates the astral and physical planes—affecting the target in a magical and spiritual manner that is only effectively resisted by the Willpower of a living or magical being. Physical spells directly target the body; resistance relies on the target’s Body attribute. Only mana spells can affect astral forms. Either type of spell may be used in the physical world, but mana spells cannot affect non-living targets. It states that Mana spells affect targets through the mana (fine so far), that permeates the astral and physical planes. There's nothing in that which implies a Mana spell must work via the Astral. It actually suggests to my mind that such an act can be accomplished purely on the physical. That Physical spells can't work on the Astral seems merely sensible as they target a victim's body which simply isn't present no the Astral. The closing line stating that either type of spell may be used "in the Physical world" isn't conclusive, but is again suggestive that mana spells can be handled in one world rather than the other. There's nothing I can see that forbids it beyond all doubt, but it seems to follow from several other things. The fluff justifications people have given for doing so all seem to be from previous editions that aren't backed up by 4th, anywhere I can see. Even mana barriers (wards or otherwise) are explicitly stated to be able to exist on the Physical or Astral planes exclusively, as well as sometimes be dual-natured. QUOTE ("SR4A @ pg. 194") Mana barriers on the astral plane are solid, hazily opaque walls. Such barriers stop astral movement and impose a visual penalty to astral perception equal to the barrier’s Force. Astral mana barriers are resistant to astral spells as well as other astral forms, in the same manner as physical mana barriers noted above. That makes a pretty clear case for spells on the Physical being unaffected by activity on the Astral so I don't see why one type of Counterspelling should be distinct. If you can't dispel a spell from a different plane, I don't see why you can offer spell defence. If you can't negatively affect someone's aura from a different plane (e.g. a direct combat spell), then I don't see why you can positively affect it (spell defence). If spells can't affect something on a different plane, I don't see why they can be affected by something on a different plane. And as ZenShooter01 points out, if you can do this, then it makes a significant tactical difference. Not just to magicians, but to Guardian spirits (or whatever) that might be assigned to protect someone. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#11
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 332 Joined: 19-September 05 From: Nashville, Tn Member No.: 7,761 ![]() |
4thed RAW-crunch
it dose not say; you can not target cross plainer targets with spell-defense. spell-defense is not a a spell. -spell defense has no obligation to follow spell rules spell-defense requires LOS -this parameter is not further defined spell-defense is a magical effect -magical effects may in influence both the magical and astral planes a things astral and physical manifestations are linked; effects on one affect the other spell-defense my be applied to any target within LOS. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16th May 2025 - 06:22 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.