IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> can I do counterspelling on my car?
fool
post May 12 2006, 10:13 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 588
Joined: 27-February 06
Member No.: 8,316



Can counterspelling be used on inanimate objects to protect them from spells. I.E. can I put my counterspelling on the car I'm riding in to protect it from the fragging powerbolt someone casts at it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post May 12 2006, 10:15 PM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post May 12 2006, 10:15 PM
Post #3


jacked in
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 8,529
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



It doesn't really say so, but as long as it is a valid target for a spell, it should also be a valid target for Counterspelling, I think.

Bye
Thanee
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post May 12 2006, 10:16 PM
Post #4


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081



From the description of counterspelling, i'd rule it can be used that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post May 12 2006, 10:30 PM
Post #5


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



I thought inanimate objects didn't get resistance tests?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ophis
post May 12 2006, 11:45 PM
Post #6


Mystery Archaeologist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,906
Joined: 19-September 05
From: The apple tree
Member No.: 7,760



They don't the get auto successes from object resistance, counterspelling successes would add to these. If you read carefully you note counterspelling is a seperate roll, it notes you roll once for area effect spells, not give each target extra successes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ixombie
post May 13 2006, 02:40 AM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 18-April 06
Member No.: 8,481



You can't protect inanimate objects with counterspelling. Page 175 says under spell defense, "the magician must spend a free action and declare who she is protecting" (emphasis mine). Last I checked, cars are not people.

Furthermore, counterspelling adds your counterspelling dice to the target's resistance test, and inanimate objects make no resistance test. They use the object resistance table to determine what threshold the spell needs to affect them.

This is actually good news for your car though, since spells need a threshold of 4 just to affect it. Only a powerful caster is going to get 4 hits on spellcasting, so you won't run into mages who can wreck you very often.

Also note that indirect combat spells are resisted by vehicles like normal damage, the same as if they weren't magical, so that test doesn't qualify them for spell defense either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ork4life
post May 13 2006, 02:44 AM
Post #8


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12-May 06
Member No.: 8,552



QUOTE (ixombie)
You can't protect inanimate objects with counterspelling. Page 175 says under spell defense, "the magician must spend a free action and declare who she is protecting" (emphasis mine).  Last I checked, cars are not people.

[snip]

What about night rider? :eek:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Big D
post May 13 2006, 03:30 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 524
Joined: 12-April 06
Member No.: 8,455



Or Prime?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post May 13 2006, 04:22 AM
Post #10


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



I rutenly get 4 successes on spell casting tests.

I would allow a object to benefit from spell defense,

The question becomes how many people / things can you defend.

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post May 13 2006, 06:00 AM
Post #11


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



QUOTE (ixombie)
You can't protect inanimate objects with counterspelling. Page 175 says under spell defense, "the magician must spend a free action and declare who she is protecting" (emphasis mine). Last I checked, cars are not people.

don't nitpick the SR rules. they weren't built to be used that way.

now, i agree if we were talking D20 (or at least, D&D 3.x) then yes, you could make a rules call based on that. but this is a completely different system, not built to handle rules-lawyering at all.

that being said, who's to say inanimate objects don't get to make resistance tests but have 0 dice as a base amount? in past editions, it has been possible to protect vehicles. i don't see why that should suddenly come to a grinding halt now (though i suppose it wouldn't be the first time the rules suddenly changed from edition to edition... grounding rules, i'm looking at you)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post May 13 2006, 06:45 AM
Post #12


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



QUOTE (Jaid)
who's to say inanimate objects don't get to make resistance tests but have 0 dice as a base amount?

Nobody but the rules. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post May 13 2006, 07:15 AM
Post #13


jacked in
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 8,529
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



QUOTE (Edward)
The question becomes how many people / things can you defend.

All within LoS.

Bye
Thanee
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fool
post May 13 2006, 08:26 PM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 588
Joined: 27-February 06
Member No.: 8,316



bot the mage takes drain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Protagonist
post May 13 2006, 08:31 PM
Post #15


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-April 06
Member No.: 8,459



QUOTE (ixombie @ May 12 2006, 09:40 PM)
You can't protect inanimate objects with counterspelling. Page 175 says under spell defense, "the magician must spend a free action and declare who she is protecting" (emphasis mine).  Last I checked, cars are not people.

I disagree with this, and say that you could protect an inanimate object with counter spelling.

If I remember correctly, counter spelling is described something like "jamming the mana around you," or something to that extent. I see no reason why you couldn't do this around an object. As to them not normally getting a resistance test, I'd say that you'd just get the counter spelling dice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monnock
post May 14 2006, 02:50 AM
Post #16


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 26-April 06
Member No.: 8,500



QUOTE
If I remember correctly, counter spelling is described something like "jamming the mana around you," or something to that extent. I see no reason why you couldn't do this around an object. As to them not normally getting a resistance test, I'd say that you'd just get the counter spelling dice.


Seems like going for the exact wording of the rule vs what counterspelling is supposed to be according to the flavor text. I would side with being able to effect inanimate objects with counterspelling, afterall, it is a valid target for a spell. The target itself has nothing at all to do with how counterspelling works as far as I can tell, and to not allow counterspelling to objects just seems kinda odd.

Though you would have to specify that you are protecting each and every object you wanted to, such as saying "that person and all their gear."

QUOTE
now, i agree if we were talking D20 (or at least, D&D 3.x) then yes, you could make a rules call based on that. but this is a completely different system, not built to handle rules-lawyering at all.


Bwahahaha, agreed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post May 14 2006, 02:51 AM
Post #17


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



QUOTE (fool)
bot the mage takes drain.

for counterspelling?

you sure about that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monnock
post May 14 2006, 03:01 AM
Post #18


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 26-April 06
Member No.: 8,500



Counterspelling causes no drain; using counterspelling to dispel an effect does. Though I can't figure out if that was the context that 'fool' was posting in (no pun intended, bwahahaha).

Edit:
Though it is interesting, you would have to be able to see the outside of the car in order to provide counterspelling for it (perhaps the hood would be enough). You could not provide counterspelling for the internal components of it that you could not see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post May 14 2006, 08:43 AM
Post #19


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,089
Joined: 4-October 05
Member No.: 7,813



you don't need to see the whole thing, you just have to see it.

for example, just because you can only see one side of a person at a time, that does not mean you cannot counterspell their entire body.

thus, just because you cannot see the entire car at once, that does not mean you can only counterspell the entire car, whether that side be inside, front, back, top, bottom, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monnock
post May 14 2006, 07:32 PM
Post #20


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 26-April 06
Member No.: 8,500



Oh, what I mean by that is that an individual object has a particular 'frequency' in the astral plane that you have to attune your counterspelling to, so I suppose that a car has its own frequency of its own (as a whole rather than each component - such as the chassie, engine, ect.).

You have to be able to see it to attune to it, thus being able to see a person (even if it is just their nose) is enough to counterspell their entire body. I would think that it is debatable as to whether or not a car counts as an entity, as sense it is normally outside the realm of astral matters I would think that you would only be able to counterspell a particular segment of it at a time (such as the chassie) - which would protect the internals of it as well by virtue of the fact that there is a field around the vehicle, however if you were somehow a mage inside the chassie (like in the trunk), you could blow up the car from the inside (if you were wierd and wanted to die).

Then again, you could theoretically apply this to a human, but because a living creature has essense, I would say that the entire body has that frequency and thus is protected from the inside out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post May 14 2006, 07:49 PM
Post #21


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



I would say that you determine weather something is one object or several buy how many damage tracks are involved.

A metahuman has 1 set of damage tracks, weather hit on arm or leg the same damage track is used thus it is one object.

A car whether hit on bonnet or boot applies the damage to its single damage track, thus it can be counter spelled as a single object.

A road train has separate damage tracks for the prime mover and each trailer, thus each of these objects must be counter spelled separately.

Any other definition will lead to continual regression until you canít protect the other side of the wall youíre hiding behind because you canít see past the paint.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monnock
post May 15 2006, 04:42 AM
Post #22


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 56
Joined: 26-April 06
Member No.: 8,500



QUOTE
I would say that you determine weather something is one object or several buy how many damage tracks are involved.


I would agree with that, a simple solution.

Interestingly I suppose you could apply a sort of 'manifest destiny' to objects in-game in order to determin what a mage would say an 'object' is. For example, a car was created to be a car. That is its destiny. The components of the car are how it forfills its destiny. These combined parts form the ressonance that consitutes the target of a spell. Only if you remove a part from the car does it become vulnerable, because it is sepparated from its purpose which was to serve car in being a car. Thus, an entire car could be protected with counterspelling, however a suitcase in the trunk that is not seen could not, because the suitcase is not part of 'car' but has its own manifest destiny as a suitcase.

(This is just 'flavor' by the way)^
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post May 15 2006, 05:25 PM
Post #23


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



That's pretty much how I've always handled it, but without the flowery phrases. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fool
post May 15 2006, 05:48 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 588
Joined: 27-February 06
Member No.: 8,316



yeah my mistake on the counter spelling/drain comment.
So if I can protect a car, can I protect larger objects? How about a skyraker? Or a door someone want sto powerbolt so they can come in and kill me?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post May 15 2006, 06:17 PM
Post #25


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



Defniitely a door. If you meant skyscraper then I'd say it was too big and too easily broken down into smaller parts like offices, floors, doors, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th June 2023 - 04:55 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.