My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Sustaining Innate Spell, more Power questions |
 Jun 21 2006, 03:13 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145  |
@Lilt: that section you quoted is the "general" rule for critter powers. Look at the entry under the Innate Spell power:
So I'm with James on this one. A spirit with Innate Spell (which is a bad legacy name and causes confusion like this) and the Spellcasting skill has rules exactly like a magician when casting that spell. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jun 21 2006, 03:32 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
No. It says that the spell is the same, not that the spirit needs to excerpt the same effort as a mage would to sustain it.
Spells become entities, with auras visible on the astral. That emboldened quote means that a spell by a critter is exactly the same in those respects as a spell by a mage, but it does not mean that the rules for spellcasting overturn the normal rules for spirit powers in this case. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 21 2006, 05:00 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Ok, let me back up and give you a little more context then. The section you quote is this:
Take careful note of the heading. That is the detailed description for a Critter power that has a Duration entry of Sustained. Now, look at the header for "Innate Spell":
As opposed to say, "Movement":
Or "Compulsion":
Or "Engulf":
The use of the word innate, I think is intended to be descriptive rather than a direct reference to a power named "innate." Powers like Engluf, Movement, Compulsion, Confusion, Guard, Pyschokinesis, and Weather Control; those are what they are referring to when they say "innate" powers. It's really unfortunate that they used the word "Innate" in "Innate Spell" as I can see how it leads to confusion. They should really have called it "Known Spell" or "Learned Spell." Bottom line: a Spirit of Man or any other critter using an "Innate Spell" follows all of the same rules that a metahuman magician does. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jun 21 2006, 05:17 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
Yes, it says Duration: per spell. When the spell has a duration of sustained, that becomes Duration: Sustained. It couldn't explicitly say Duration: Sustained there in the first place as there are a lot of spells which don't have a sustained duration. As the innate spell assumes the duration of the spell it mimics, an innate spell of a sustained duration spell becomes a power with a sustained duration. It thus suffers no penatlties for sustaining it even if it does follow all the other rules for spellcasting, as per the rules for sustained powers. If the power really did just mean the being knew the spell, as you're claiming it does, it'd have a duration of Always rather than Per Spell. Neither you nor I can say what the actual intent was, so there's no point in arguing that. And you're claiming that it's a spell not a power, might I differently-emphasise one of your earlier quotes of the innate spell power? See:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 21 2006, 05:33 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 671 Joined: 9-March 06 Member No.: 8,353 |
2 points, Increase reflexes is a Physical spell, it does not work on the astral at all, neither does armour. The armour spell generates a shimmering shield around the "wearer" as it is a physical spell physical sensors can "see" this effect. As it is force 10, it's going to be fragging bright. I would suggest some stealth penalties, and that anybody seeing that coming would call up a mage to counterspell it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 21 2006, 08:26 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 8-June 06 From: Present day, Detroit Member No.: 8,683 |
plus we got (p.61) "The maximum number of Initiative Passes a character can have is 4" (p.132) "No character can act in more than 4 Initiative Passes in a Combat Turn." it also mentions this at least one more time on p.134. The only argument here is they say "character" instead of something slightly more general, but it definitely seems that they mean anything rolling initiative (seeing as they use the word character exclusively throughout the combat section). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 21 2006, 08:34 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Nope, only characters can intersct in combat. Everything else turns into ineffectual ghosts. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 21 2006, 09:35 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 8-June 06 From: Present day, Detroit Member No.: 8,683 |
well yeah that's how i play it in my game of course :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 22 2006, 01:34 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
Fair enough, I'm just guilty of holding-over from 3rd edition there. Increase Reflexes used to be a Manna spell, but I suppose it makes a bit more sense as a physical one. I suppose you could make an Astral Increase Reflexes spell, but given the hard cap of 4 (which I was previously unaware of), and fact that any astral being has at-least 3, I doubt there'd be too much of a point. Still, I suppose the increase to 4 initiative passes on the astral may eventually become worth it, and the potential +3 initiative could make the difference between life and death too. As for adding effects to the armor spell, I personally think that's a bit silly. Nowhere does it say that the glowing is proportional to the force of the spell, or even particularly bright. The largest penalty I'd consider giving would be removing bonuses for being camofluaged. Calling-up a mage to counterspell it? Lol. Have you even looked at the counterspelling rules? The mage rolls their dice against the spirit's magic plus spell force, then the mage has to resist drain as-if they cast the spell themself. We'll say that the corp mage is extremely competent at this sort of thing, so he's rolling about 17 dice versus the force 10 spirit's 20 dice (it's not looking like the mage is going to make any headway) then the force 10 armor spell has a drain value of 8, which is physical unless the mage has a magic of 10 or more. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 23 2006, 12:40 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,711 Joined: 15-June 06 Member No.: 8,716 |
Looks like you guys have things pretty much sorted out but i would like to toss some thought out there.
innate powers would mean something the spirit can do. To me this means beneficial spells cast on its itself are innate and free from modifiers and penalties and crap. Or casting war magic like a fire elemental using flamethrower. However a spirit casting spell on an another target is spellcasting. Enchanting everything around him isnt an innate power. Its something he was asked to do. Meaning it will cause modifiers and penalties. In essense if it is a service it is spellcasting. If it is just part of the spirit it is innate. A spirit doesnt cast armor on itself it just has it. As for length of sustained spells from a spirit i would probably go with force = turns. Probably the force of the spell used and not the force of the spirit. Which might end up being the same if the player chooses. edit* err i was just reading through the rest of the reply's and one of them talking about critter powers being spells that the critter knows and how you can counterspell them.... well i will still stick with saying that if your asking a spirit to do a service then its not a freebie, you get the mods and penalties. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 23 2006, 12:55 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Fire spirits don't have innate spell (flamethrower) in 4th like they did in 3rd. They have elemental attack instead. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 06:40 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.