can I do counterspelling on my car? |
can I do counterspelling on my car? |
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?
|
|
|
May 12 2006, 10:15 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
yes.
|
|
|
May 12 2006, 10:15 PM
Post
#3
|
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,362 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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
May 13 2006, 02:44 AM
Post
#8
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 12-May 06 Member No.: 8,552 |
What about night rider? :eek: |
||
|
|||
May 13 2006, 03:30 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Or Prime?
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
May 13 2006, 06:00 AM
Post
#11
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
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) |
||
|
|||
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 |
Nobody but the rules. :) |
||
|
|||
May 13 2006, 07:15 AM
Post
#13
|
|||
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,362 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
All within LoS. Bye Thanee |
||
|
|||
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.
|
|
|
May 13 2006, 08:31 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 13-April 06 Member No.: 8,459 |
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. |
||
|
|||
May 14 2006, 02:50 AM
Post
#16
|
|||||
Target Group: Members Posts: 56 Joined: 26-April 06 Member No.: 8,500 |
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."
Bwahahaha, agreed. |
||||
|
|||||
May 14 2006, 02:51 AM
Post
#17
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
for counterspelling? you sure about that? |
||
|
|||
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 can’t protect the other side of the wall you’re hiding behind because you can’t see past the paint. |
|
|
May 15 2006, 04:42 AM
Post
#22
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 56 Joined: 26-April 06 Member No.: 8,500 |
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)^ |
||
|
|||
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. :)
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th January 2025 - 09:31 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.