 Casting into Background Count |
  |
 Sep 27 2007, 08:08 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869  |
I'm sure the no-overlapping-background-counts rule applies even in this "double whammy" case. Otherwise we're back to the "if I'm standing in a background count and ritual casting into a background count, what is my effective force?" SAT question. Just say "No" to double whammies.
|
 |
 
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 08:12 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Makes sense to me as when they're overlapping, they're "battling" each other for dominance of that area. Sort of like you have extremely hot water in one glass and extremely cold water in the other glass; both are going to affect you fully if you go from one to the other. But if you pour a little of each into a third glass, that water's not going to be all that bad comparatively.
And if they are two identical types of background counts and they were overlapping, I'd certainly have the power amped up in my campaign. And yes, if it were in my game and there were two overlapping counts of different types, the more powerful one would actually be diminished by the weaker one. But them's my rules. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 08:13 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,755 Joined: 5-September 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 9,313 |
Ok so going back alittle. If I cast at force 8 and BC makes it force 4, whats cap on success's I can keep 8 or 4? I'm casting at 8 but only 4 haveing an effect . So can I keep success's from original test or does BC's effect final total.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 08:15 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
You honestly believe that you'd have an easy time casting a spell on a cyberzombie if you were in the middle of an area wracked with negative emotions and downtrodden spirits (say, a Background Count of 3)? And that it would be just as easy as if you were in a pristine meadow full of serenity and peace (no background count at all)? That really makes sense to you? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 27 2007, 08:29 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I'm not sure the question makes sense to me. Casting at a CZ is never easy under any circumstances. I get what Doc Funk is saying about hot and cold water cancelling each other out, but I'm not sure if it would apply unless you were talking about mana storms mixing with mana voids or backgrounds that are specifically opposing one another (shrine to Dog, right beside toxic shrine to rabid Dog). Overlapping a rating 3 and rating 4 BC isn't like hot and cold water, it's like mixing two deadly poisons together - it's unlikely to become less deadly because of the interaction. YMMV |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 27 2007, 08:48 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
The question was: Do you honestly think it's not easier to cast a spell on a cyberzombie 50' away when you're in a quiet, peaceful, and serene environment, or in one where the astral is so torn up from misery, pain, and anguish that it produces a Background Count of 3? Say you're at a shooting range and they have a moving target set up for you to practice with. Is it easier to shoot that difficult target when you're alone, focused, and calm, or when someone is standing next to you poking you repeatedly in the eye? Pretty much the same difference. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 27 2007, 09:28 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
...but I don't believe that's an equivalent analogy for the original question.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 10:31 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
No. If we continue with the analogy, and assuming that <i>most</i> of the modifiers are symmetrical, you get:
1. Same modifier for shooting a shaky target from a stable platform. 2. Same modifier for shooting a stable target from a shaky platform. 3. Double modifier for shooting a shaky target from a shaky platform. 4. No modifier for shooting a stable target from a stable platform. My house rules about different background counts merging is completely irrelevant. That's how I treat them. If you have have two or more merging, they're going to blend together (really hot water + mildly hot water = moderately hot water). And if they're polar opposites, they're going to be cancelling each other out (hot water + cold water = medium water). But that has nothing to do with the "double whammy" effect. But if you do want to incorporate that into the scenario, background counts = visual modifiers. Background count #1 = heavy fog. Background count #2 = twilight. If you're in a heavy fog and shooting someone in twilight conditions, you only use one of the modifiers? I don't. And if you don't think the scenario in my last post is an equivalent analogy for what was being discussed, I don't know how else to explain it. It's not even a metaphor, it's an accurate scenario. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:15 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I didn't realize that you're interpretation of overlapping background counts was a house rule, instead of what you thought was RAW. My bad. My interpretation of your analogy falls apart in a couple places. First, you say that casting at a target in a background count gives the same modifier whether you're in the background count or not...
...and then you seem to imply that it does matter whether you're inside the background count or not.
When you say
I pretty much think that's what the CZ domain feels like (or a little more, since it's BG 4). That was why I thought it would be harder to cast at him while standing within his zone than it would be while standing outside his zone. Might be wrong, but was the basis of my theory. The second bit was about overlapping versus non-overlapping domains. When you responded to Buster:
...it means that if I'm standing beside 2 CZs standing side by side, my magic only goes down by 4 when I target one (because only the worst modifier counts). But if the one I'm targeting walks 50m away, until I'm no longer standing in his domain (but still casting at him) than my modifier doubles (because suddenly both count). The only thing that changed is that I'm no longer standing beside both of them - I would think that the modifier either shouldn't change, or it should get better, not worse. It's just my opinion, but that's what made sense to me. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:27 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Actually I said some of the modifiers apply if you're inside or out, not all of them. That said, you're manipulating mana inside a background count whether you're in it or just affecting someone inside one. Spells don't travel. You're manipulating mana at your location and around the target. Any background count in either location is going to affect you.
That's the summation of what I was saying. As for the overlapping logic, you're basing it all upon the unofficial comment that you only use the highest rating of a background count. Nevermind how illogical or absurd that is, you're using it as your baseline. So of course the faulty conclusions you make upon that are going to be just as illogical and absurd, even if they are logical and sound within the context of that illogical and absurd base rule. If you really need another example of why it's absurd, pick up two colored lenses. Same color, different colors, it doesn't matter. Look through one. Now look through the other. Now put them together and look through that. Which one was the easiest to see through? And does it change things very much if you spread them apart by a foot (length wise)? Don't care for that example? Get two thin pieces of cloth that you can just barely see through. Do the same thing. Is it just as easy to see through two of them as it is one? Again, same logic. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:39 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
logic like that doesn't apply to magic. magic is magic. if it made sense, it would be technology.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:40 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
The only reason it doesn't apply is because of an off-hand, unofficial comment along the lines of "only the highest background count applies."
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:45 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that ruling is unofficial, sure. but "it doesn't make sense" is not, in this case, really a valid reason for rejecting the ruling, because it's easy to come up with rationalizations for why the ruling does make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 12:24 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...don't get me started again :grinbig: runs away really really fast |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 11:40 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
Why can't you ever have a civil argument? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 02:42 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Deep breaths all around, we're doing good work here.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 03:08 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 16-August 06 Member No.: 9,130 |
So, have we established or come to a consensus to what modifiers apply when casting into a background count as opposed to what modifiers apply while casting inside a background count? Is everything the same or do certain modifiers apply for the former scenario and not the latter scenario?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 03:41 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
If spells orginate at the target point, and are affected by the background count there, it doesn't even really make sense for them to be affected by the background point where the caster is standing, because as far as I can see that has absolutely nothing to do with it?
I mean maybe the mage is upset by the psychic disturbance or something, so I suppose you could bill it, but clearly the manipulation of mana is something that takes place at range, and the effort (and drain penalty) is caused by the difficulties of summoning up the mana in that area. And double billing for the same effect does kinda suck. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 03:41 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Everybody's being civil so far, right? Doc may not think much about my opinions, but he's not calling me names or threatening to beat me up on the playground after school... This is really as friendly as it gets around here. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 04:11 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Why? It's not like the effect is occurring all on its own, and the magician isn't suffering wounds just 'cause. The magician is channeling magic through his body in order to manipulate mana around his target.
It's not the same effect. Not sure where people are getting the idea that I'm saying you should get the same penalty twice by being in the same background count. The discussion is about being in one background count and casting a spell into another one, such as being in a Background Count of 3 and casting a spell at a Cyberzombie (complete with his own background count/domain) 50 feet away. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 28 2007, 04:20 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
In the case of elemental effects, the spell actually does manifest at the caster's location and travel to the target, right? And therefore crashes against/breaks through the windows/etc between you and the target?
In that case would the BC of the target still matter, or just the BC of the caster's loc? What if the elemental effect travels through the domain and back out of it to hit a target on the other side? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 04:32 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Indirect Combat spells definitely travel, and I'd only apply the background count that the mage was in at the time of casting (as far as Drain goes). The spell will still diminish in Force if it passes into one or more additional background counts, however.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 29 2007, 07:00 PM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
That is what it says. But I believe that it actually means that you calculate drain as if the spell wasn't reduced by the BC. So the ordering should be:
Since you make your spell effect roll before you roll drain resistance, you can even legitimately interpret the rules as written to say exactly this. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 1 2007, 03:14 PM
Post
#49
|
|||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Oooh, I think I see what you're saying. You try to cast at X, but it functions at (X-BC), but then you add the background count to the effective force for drain, so rather than X+BC (as I thought) it may actually intend to be (X-BC)+BC=X. That makes it a teensy bit less mean. Waaaaait a minute. I'm going to question something now. Okay, I'm reading SM pg 118 and trying to do so very carefully. I'm looking under the heading Background Count and Magic. First paragraph: Background count reduces magic attribute by it's absolute value. Check. Second paragraph: Ramifications of first paragraph. Affects on adepts and paracritters. This is where spells have BC added to their force for drain purposes. Third paragraph: Spirits and BC. Fourth paragraph: Force is reduced for the following: pre-existing wards, mana barriers, active foci, sustained spells, quickened/anchored spells. Fifth paragraph: Visibility modifiers. Where does it say the effective force of a spell cast within the background count goes down? The fourth paragraph talks about BC subtractive from force, but that's talking about things that were established outside the BC and then brought into it, i.e. you can't ignore all penalties by casting and sustaining your spell outside and then carrying it in. English needs more clear order of operations, but I think "pre-existing" is supposed to apply to that entire list. I've been asserting that spells cast in a background count have their effective force lowered, and now I'm failing to find the quote and page that backs me up on that. Does this double-jeopardy really exist? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st March 2025 - 09:40 PM |
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.