I understand that the sustaining penalty is there in order to balance Mages out so that they don't run around with 15 spells sustained (without, as you mentioned, using spirits for foci to sustain some of them), but I find that the extremely narrow reading of "all other tests" is flawed...if only because 10 of the spells in the main book end up having thresholds or penalties not spelled out in their text as written. (Not to mention the fact that it's doesn't make sense to even CONTEMPLATE the prospect of the sustaining penalty for a spell factoring into the initial casting roll; it should be rather self-evident that an uncast spell cannot be sustained, after all).

That being said, in looking at Third Edition, sustaining spells assigned a penalty to *all* tests (well, technically, it added to the TN, but potato/potato), so it's not impossible that the 4E rules were designed to use the more narrow (IMHO) interpretation of "all other tests", though it seems silly to me.

I agree that you would not suffer the sustaining penalty to actually cast the spell (Assuming that you are not actually sustaining a spell already)... But, If you are already sustaining a spell, you will then suffer the penalty on any other spells you cast...

And "All Tests" is exactly that... if you have a sustaining penalty, it will apply to ALL tests...

Keep the Faith

It doesn't say "all tests", though; it says "all other tests". My point of contention is that the premise that it applies to every test save the initial Spellcasting test brings the interpretation that someone who gets two successes on an Increase Initiative test is going to suffer a net PENALTY to their Initiative tests if they are sustaining it on themselves. (For the point of this particular point, I am assuming that Increase Initiative is the only spell being sustained by the caster). Maybe I'm just being a stickler for no good reason, but it seems inane to use the term"all other tests" if there are practically no tests involving a particular sustained spell that are free from being penalized for solely sustaining it. If the sustaining rules actually *said* that the penalty applied to all tests there wouldn't be a question about it.

It doesn't say "all tests", though; it says "all other tests". My point of contention is that the premise that it applies to every test save the initial Spellcasting test brings the interpretation that someone who gets two successes on an Increase Initiative test is going to suffer a net PENALTY to their Initiative tests if they are sustaining it on themselves. (For the point of this particular point, I am assuming that Increase Initiative is the only spell being sustained by the caster). Maybe I'm just being a stickler for no good reason, but it seems inane to use the term"all other tests" if there are practically no tests involving a particular sustained spell that are free from being penalized for solely sustaining it. If the sustaining rules actually *said* that the penalty applied to all tests there wouldn't be a question about it.

Look at magic fingers as probably a better example you are not at -4 to all tests with your magic fingers just the -2 mentioned in the spell and not -2 + an additional -2 for sustaining. These spells are supposed to be functional without having to be magical gods and without needing a focus or spirit to sustain it.

Also I believe there is a general rule that unless specified penalties do not effect damage resistance tests, though they do effect your reaction tests to avoid the injury.

I think you misunderstand the rules there. The spell's description has to mention the extra penalty, because otherwise you could just as well cast the spell on someone else or sustain it with a focus. If it didn't the beneficiary of the spell would have no penalty at all even though there are" problems of fine control". So yes if the mage uses the fingers himself without a focus he is at -4.

That doesn't quite hang together. In the spirit of spell sustaining not inhibiting the spell itself, it makes perfect sense that the sustaining penalty doesn't apply to the use of magic fingers.

I think you misunderstand the rules there. The spell's description has to mention the extra penalty, because otherwise you could just as well cast the spell on someone else or sustain it with a focus. If it didn't the beneficiary of the spell would have no penalty at all even though there are" problems of fine control". So yes if the mage uses the fingers himself without a focus he is at -4.

Correct but the former is an exception not general rule. That modifers apply to defense tests is just the application of the general rule.

As far as I know magic fingers does not have a beneficiary other than the caster. And I think I understand the rules fine, I just disagree with you on what they mean when they say other tests. The improve agility example is a stretch I'll admit because it is a more indirect additional test. But magic fingers is a perfect example of what they mean by other test. Tests with the magic fingers spell are not penalized by a sustaining penalty because that is the actual use of the spell all other tests are penalized just not ones through magic fingers.

Hmm, I was sure that the spell could grant the magic fingers to anyone. Great they introduced the Personal Range, to use a term from The Other Game, for one spell. Why can I give magic eyes i.e. Clairvoyance to my chummers but not magic fingers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

I always thought of it as kind of like the green lantern but not visible. You are creating telekinetic hands kind of.