question about spell resistance Options

[tagz]

hey, just wondering about something. The positive quality Magic Resistance & the adept power Spell Resistance, do they add their ratings to both direct AND indirect spells? Also, would they stack with one another? Would they also stack with counterspelling?

I ask because I'm making a prime runner against a team that looks as though it may be a little over-reliant on magic to get the job done.

[Kurious]

Edit: Glyph below is right. Magic resistance cannot be taken by an adept so the two do not stack.

Another fun one to use against a magic heavy party is the Surge PQ: arcane arrester. (Which should stack with one of the other...).

[Kerenshara]

But that's a problem I have:

The rules state (clearly) that you may not have more Hits (not Net Hits) than Force when casting the spell.

Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.

Just wondering. I know MY opinion, but has this been clarified (preferably by a DEV) somewhere else?

[Heath Robinson]

Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.

It states that the halving only applies for certain effects.

When affected by a spell (including a critter’s Innate Spells), the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength. Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced.

For Mental Manipulations, you're still screwed - but at least you get a new chance to resist twice as often.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It states that the halving only applies for certain effects.



For Mental Manipulations, you're still screwed - but at least you get a new chance to resist twice as often.

Note the next sentence however... "a character with Arcane Arrester would resist it as if it were a Force 2 Spell, thoguh the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect"

Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...

It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...

But your Mileage may vary, and you may not agree... but that is okay too...

Keep the Faith...

[Kerenshara]

Note the next sentence however... "a character with Arcane Arrester would resist it as if it were a Force 2 Spell, thoguh the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect"

Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...

It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...

But your Mileage may vary, and you may not agree... but that is okay too...

Keep the Faith...

See, it's that second part that I keep getting hung up on, too, which is why I mentioned it. Glad I'm not the only one.

[Glyph]

Magic resistance and the adept power of spell resistance don't stack, because only a mundane can have magic resistance (and only an adept or mystic adept can have spell resistance). Both mundanes and awakened characters can take arcane arrester, but you cannot have both magic resistance and arcane arrester.

The wording for the arcane arrester quality is too ambiguous for me to say whether it limits the net hits when it limits the effective force. Definitely something to ask your GM.

Another quality that is effective against Magic is astral hazing, although that one comes with some serious downsides, and is usually not a good idea for any awakened character.

[Kerenshara]

Glyph,

Where does it say that a Fomori or a Gnome (with the Arcane Arester ability) can't have Magic Resistance? They don't have an inate MAGic score, after all.

Just wondering.

[Heath Robinson]

Note the next sentence however... "a character with Arcane Arrester would resist it as if it were a Force 2 Spell, thoguh the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect"

Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...

It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...

I disagree, since that sentence is clearly an example of the previous, indicated by the use of "For instance" at the beginning. This relegates it to the level of non-rule. This distinction is necessary as it is not merely possible that books have described examples that do not follow the rules. An example may serve to highlight facets of the rules that are subtle, or to compose all the rules relevent to a particular situation to demonstrate interlocking implications, but they do not govern play in any way. Where an example conflicts with a rule, the rule must win.

Mind Manipulation is an effect, Damage is an effect, Paralysis is an effect. An Opposed Spellcasting test is not an effect.

[tagz]

Thanks Glyph

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I disagree, since that sentence is clearly an example of the previous, indicated by the use of "For instance" at the beginning. This relegates it to the level of non-rule. This distinction is necessary as it is not merely possible that books have described examples that do not follow the rules. An example may serve to highlight facets of the rules that are subtle, or to compose all the rules relevent to a particular situation to demonstrate interlocking implications, but they do not govern play in any way. Where an example conflicts with a rule, the rule must win.

Mind Manipulation is an effect, Damage is an effect, Paralysis is an effect. An Opposed Spellcasting test is not an effect.

Not talking about an opposed spellcasting test... I am talking about the effect of the spell itself... the Effect is Force 2 with no more than 2 net hits... that is it... counterspelling or resisting is not a spellcasting opposed test, it is a resistance test which would work against the reduced effect of the spell in this case...

Like I said, it seems pretty cut and dried for me... the Effect is Halved, the net hits are capped at Force (which in this case has been halved), my RESISTANCE goes against the effect of the spell (not the casting itself)... If I can reduce the net hits to 0, then no effect...

Keep the Faith

[Ol' Scratch]

Where does it say that a Fomori or a Gnome (with the Arcane Arester ability) can't have Magic Resistance? They don't have an inate MAGic score, after all.

Read the description of Arcane Arrester. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

But that's a problem I have:

The rules state (clearly) that you may not have more Hits (not Net Hits) than Force when casting the spell.

Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.

Just wondering. I know MY opinion, but has this been clarified (preferably by a DEV) somewhere else?

Yes. It was poorly written, but the augmented Force is used for determining the maximum number of Hits.

My ruling on this is that it the adjusted Force should limit hits as normal, however, the ambiguity of the writeup allows gamemasters to rule the other way if they want Arcane Arrester to be less powerful.

Please note that ruling it "the other way" makes Arcane Arrester nigh-useless, and any GM that does so should be shot (allow it as intended - best option, or disallow it entirely; do not treat a 25BP quality as a [at most] 10BP ability).

[Heath Robinson]

Not talking about an opposed spellcasting test... I am talking about the effect of the spell itself... the Effect is Force 2 with no more than 2 net hits... that is it... counterspelling or resisting is not a spellcasting opposed test, it is a resistance test which would work against the reduced effect of the spell in this case...

Like I said, it seems pretty cut and dried for me... the Effect is Halved, the net hits are capped at Force (which in this case has been halved), my RESISTANCE goes against the effect of the spell (not the casting itself)... If I can reduce the net hits to 0, then no effect...

A spell’s Force limits the number of hits (not net hits) that can be achieved on the Spellcasting Test. So if you cast a Force 3 spell and get 5 hits, only 3 of those hits count. In other words, Force has a limiting effect on spells—the more oomph you put into the spell, the better you can succeed with it. This limitation does not apply to Edge dice that are used to boost a spell.

There is, at no point, any rule stating that you have a limit on the number of Net Hits that may be used to enhance damage.

The base Damage Value for Combat spells is based on Force, which is chosen by the magician at the time of casting. Any net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increase the DV by 1 per net hit.

Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.

The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.

[Kerenshara]

There is, at no point, any rule stating that you have a limit on the number of Net Hits that may be used to enhance damage.



Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.

The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.

Hold on... if you limit TOTAL hits, you're limiting NET hits inherently to no more than that number, because the opposing Hits (Net Hits only comes up in opposed tests of some kind) subtract from the total... unless I have totally misunderstood the point you're actually trying to make.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There is, at no point, any rule stating that you have a limit on the number of Net Hits that may be used to enhance damage.



Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.

The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.

You are right of course, I am not sure why I said NET hits, my intention was Total Hits Allowed... Good Catch, I was getting tired... in this case however, the argument still stands in my opinion... a reduced magic rating should ONLY ever allow a maximum number of hits equal to its Force (in this case a reduced Force because of Arcane Arrester)

For Example... A force 5 Spell cast at the Character with Arcane Arrester... Spell is reduced to Force 2 for Effect, and therefore only 2 hits may be applied to the success test, at which point, If I have either counterspelling or a good resistance roll, I only need 2 hits to negate the spell... works for me...

Keep the Faith

[Heath Robinson]

You are right of course, I am not sure why I said NET hits, my intention was Total Hits Allowed... Good Catch, I was getting tired... in this case however, the argument still stands in my opinion... a reduced magic rating should ONLY ever allow a maximum number of hits equal to its Force (in this case a reduced Force because of Arcane Arrester)

For Example... A force 5 Spell cast at the Character with Arcane Arrester... Spell is reduced to Force 2 for Effect, and therefore only 2 hits may be applied to the success test, at which point, If I have either counterspelling or a good resistance roll, I only need 2 hits to negate the spell... works for me...

Except that the Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell.

When affected by a spell (including a critter’s Innate Spells), the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength.

Even better. It halves the strength of Force-based effects. That renders your entire argument null and void. It never halves Force itself at all. The total Damage from a Combat spell is halved, then, immediately prior to it being applied. You roll that test as per normal, calculate the final DamV as for a normal target, then you halve the DamV and the DamV alone.

[Axl]

This is another example of a badly written rule. I agree with Tymeaus' interpretation.

[Ol' Scratch]

Actually, at least for me, the rules for Arcane Arrester are pretty clear. It's all spelled out in the very first sentence: Any effect of the spell that is based purely on its Force is halved for the changeling. The caster is in no way affected by this metagenic quality. Any rolls he makes are handled and resolved as if he cast at it the desired Force. However, any rolls the changeling makes are treated as if the Force was lower, which has no bearing on the number of hits the caster had on his tests. The quality affects everything on the changeling's side, not the caster's. Net hits and the success of the actual spell are completely unaffected, only the actual effect of the spell's Force is diminished.

So if the caster scored five hits with his Force 5 spells, the changeling would be resisting a Force 2 spell boosted by five hits. Those hits aren't affecting the Force (which is what the metagenic quality affects), only the 'accuracy' of the spellcasting. Likewise, if the changeling had a Body of 4, normally he'd be paralyzed by a Force 5 Petrify spell. But if he had this quality, he wouldn't since it would only be a Force 2 spell for him regardless of the hits scored by the caster. etc.

[Muspellsheimr]

Even better. It halves the strength of Force-based effects. That renders your entire argument null and void. It never halves Force itself at all. The total Damage from a Combat spell is halved, then, immediately prior to it being applied. You roll that test as per normal, calculate the final DamV as for a normal target, then you halve the DamV and the DamV alone.

Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.

Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.

[Kerenshara]

Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.

Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.

OK, this is interesting. The quote you provide is not at all what's written in the rules. Maybe we'll see a decent re-write in Runners Companion, Revised. What's stated there is just a simple halving of total calculated DAMAGE.

I can see how that simplifies things, but it's essentially useless outside of Combat spells and I don't believe it's worth the BP cost at all. It has precisely NO effect on non-damaging spells, and it's listed as being a resistance to spells generally, not a resistance to magical damage.

Now, if you reduce Hits as discussed above, it makes it dramatically easier to resist a spell ENTIRELY on the opposed test. A F6 spell becomes F3, and the caster can't bring more than 3 Hits to the table, which is much more doable than trying to resist 6 Hits with WILlpower alone.

[Muspellsheimr]

The maximum Spellcasting Hit allotment, being equal to the spells Force, is an effect of the spells Force.

It is just as easy, if not easier, to argue this over the alternative. So yes, I can easily justify Synners ruling as Rules as Written.


As I said before, the quality is incredibly shitty writing, & has been clarified by developer input. To run 'the other way' is at best retarded without a significant reduction to the qualities cost.

Yes, it is a powerful quality, but it does have drawbacks; while granting you protection from hostile spells, it also grants 'protection' from friendly spells, & costs a significant amount of resources to acquire.

[Ol' Scratch]

Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.

You assume I care one iota what a developer has to say, as if it has any special weight compared to anyone else. They talk out of their ass constantly and are wrong just as much as anyone else. Until it hits errata or an actual book, it's just their opinion like anyone else's. Especially in a case where the wording of the quality isn't completely unclear.

[Kerenshara]

Muspellheimr,

I think maybe I'm confused now, because you're saying the way I am reading it should be LESS expensive than the restricted version you quoted?

Can you restate it in a single coherent post so I understand what you are saying the clarification actually IS?

[Glyph]

It has precisely NO effect on non-damaging spells, and it's listed as being a resistance to spells generally, not a resistance to magical damage.

Actually, as Dr. Funkenstein's example of the petrify spell shows, it does affect some non-combat spells. I agree that it wouldn't affect, say, mental manipulations, which is why I lean slightly towards the "limits spellcasting hits" interpretation. Not because it is necessarily the correct interpretation, but because it is the interpretation that lets the quality uniformly reduce the effectiveness of all spells.

I don't put any particular weight on Synner's post, though - he didn't say he was clarifying the rule. He only said it was his ruling, and he then added that the ambiguity of the rules lets gamemasters interpret it either way.