IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sustained Spell and Line of Sight
shadowbod
post May 29 2006, 01:32 PM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 13-March 06
Member No.: 8,371



I'd like to hear people's views on whether they think a mage/shaman needs to have line of sight (Los) to sustain a spell?

Since someone is bound to bring up the fact that if a mage was trying to sustain invisibilty on someone, they wouldn't be able to see them, I'd like to pre-counter that argument with the fact that the mage can always see through their own illusions as they know them for what they are.

My general feeling is that a mage does need LoS to sustain, but I'd like to hear how others deal with it or if they believe there is a clear ruling on it in the SR4 rulebook.

I did a very thorough but unsuccessful search of the forum before posting this question, so if I missed a previous discussion on this, please could you include a link to it in the post telling me to use the search function? :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post May 29 2006, 02:12 PM
Post #2


Neophyte Runner
*****

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



I think that they do not need to maintain LOS, mostly because it would make a lot of spell casting of little value. Just walking around a corner would take a lot of care.

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post May 29 2006, 03:31 PM
Post #3


Running Target
***

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



It would be very hard for the mage not to blink his eyes (resulting in loosing the line of sight).

Also, the rules indicate LOS is required for casting a spell. LOS is not mentioned for sustaining a spell (apart from moving a sustained area effect, which is completely different ;))
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadowbod
post May 29 2006, 04:11 PM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 13-March 06
Member No.: 8,371



QUOTE (Butterblume)

It would be very hard for the mage not to blink his eyes (resulting in loosing the line of sight).


The mage might also blink whilst casting or moving the area of the spell, but this isn't taken into account anywhere so we can probably assume that blinking doesn't matter - thanks for the input though :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post May 29 2006, 04:34 PM
Post #5


Running Target
***

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



QUOTE (shadowbod)
The mage might also blink whilst casting or moving the area of the spell, but this isn't taken into account anywhere so we can probably assume that blinking doesn't matter - thanks for the input though :)

A complex action needs, in the worst case I can think of, max 3 seconds. I assume everyone can go that long without blinking ;).
So, blinking probably would matter (good explanation for a glitch on the casting test :P).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Geekkake
post May 29 2006, 09:47 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Joined: 13-March 06
From: dusty Mexican borderlands
Member No.: 8,372



The mages in my group are permitted to maintain sustain beyond LOS, provided they cast in LOS, on the premise that once the astral connection is established, one can maintain it non-LOS, under reasonable circumstances.

Your mileage may vary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emo samurai
post May 29 2006, 09:49 PM
Post #7


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,589
Joined: 28-November 05
Member No.: 8,019



Can you maintain a physical spell, go astral, and still maintain it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post May 29 2006, 09:51 PM
Post #8


Running Target
***

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



I cannot think of a reason why not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Geekkake
post May 29 2006, 09:54 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Joined: 13-March 06
From: dusty Mexican borderlands
Member No.: 8,372



QUOTE (emo samurai)
Can you maintain a physical spell, go astral, and still maintain it?

That's an interesting question. My first reaction, as a GM, would be to say no. But I can't really think of a reason, on the spot, that they can't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
-X-
post May 29 2006, 10:10 PM
Post #10


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 19-May 06
Member No.: 8,576



Sustained combat spell. Jump out of a building just long enough to cast one spell then duck back in and lock the door. Ouch.

But barring something like that sustaining beyond LOS doesn't seem too inherently abusive, maybe put a range limit based on Magic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post May 29 2006, 11:05 PM
Post #11


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



A sustained combat spell does not continue to deal damage. Effects, such as Acid or Fire, remain "alive" while the spell is sustained, but that is all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post May 30 2006, 04:36 AM
Post #12


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



QUOTE (shadowbod)
Since someone is bound to bring up the fact that if a mage was trying to sustain invisibilty on someone, they wouldn't be able to see them, I'd like to pre-counter that argument with the fact that the mage can always see through their own illusions as they know them for what they are.

Your fact is incorrect. A magician has to resist the illusion just like anyone else. A GM might decide to provide bonuses for resisting but the magician can choose not to resist.
There is actually an old trick that takes advantage of this. A magician can cast Improved Invisibility on an obstruction to get LOS to a target.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post May 30 2006, 04:50 AM
Post #13


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
A sustained combat spell does not continue to deal damage. Effects, such as Acid or Fire, remain "alive" while the spell is sustained, but that is all.

Did I miss something in the book where they explained sustained combat spells? I didn't see any.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post May 30 2006, 05:27 AM
Post #14


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



There are no sustained combat spells in SR4 at all, period. I don't believe that it is possible to make a sustained combat spell using SR3 spell design rules either. The only known Sustained combat spell is Slow Death, an Austrailian variation of manabolt fund in Target:Awakened lands. Slow Death was staged and resisted once at casting. Whatever it was staged to was the maximum amount of damage it could cause and it would cause 1 box of damage every day untill its maximum was met or it was dispelled.

So, a sustained combat spell probably wouldn't dause its full damage multiple times. It would just spread out its maximum potential damage equally over a predetermined period of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
-X-
post May 30 2006, 05:35 AM
Post #15


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 19-May 06
Member No.: 8,576



Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was such a thing as a sustained combat spell already, just that even an incredibly weak spell that did damage over time would be game breakingly powerful.

However the system hyzmarca mentions sounds like a very sensible way to do a sustained damaging spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusher Bob
post May 30 2006, 05:37 AM
Post #16


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,598
Joined: 15-March 03
From: Hong Kong
Member No.: 4,253



Well, astral projection used to be an exclusive action, so you couldn't sustain spells while making the 'jump'. Of course, they ttok exclusive actions out of SR4...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eidolon
post May 30 2006, 05:55 AM
Post #17


ghostrider
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333



QUOTE (shadowbod)
I'd like to hear people's views on whether they think a mage/shaman needs to have line of sight (Los) to sustain a spell?


Mages do not have to maintain LOS to sustain a spell, nor have they ever, as far as I can remember. They merely need LOS to cast it.

QUOTE (SR4 @ pg. 174)
Many spells can be sustained for as long as the magician is willing to concentrate on the spell, as noted in the spellís Duration.


Nothing is mentioned about maintaining LOS in this section. That, combined with the fact that you didn't have to maintain LOS in any previous edition, makes for a pretty solid "no".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post May 30 2006, 08:33 AM
Post #18


Neophyte Runner
*****

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



Well there where elemental manipulations in SR3 that did continues damage in an aria of effect for a duration of sustained. In SR4 these would be combat spells.

Edward

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NightHaunter
post May 30 2006, 03:56 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 360
Joined: 18-March 02
From: Plymouth UK.
Member No.: 2,408



LOS does not have to be maintained to sustain a spell, only to cast i. Also I would not allow casting through an invisable wall etc...
As for spell design sustained combat spells seem, excessive, but permenant seems to be the Ultimate in broken.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NightHaunter
post May 30 2006, 03:59 PM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 360
Joined: 18-March 02
From: Plymouth UK.
Member No.: 2,408



EDIT: (Explitive deleted) Double Post. Stupid 'puter!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th October 2020 - 01:00 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.