My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Sustaining Foci and Permanent spells |
 Jul 11 2006, 01:47 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 14-November 03 From: MSP Metroplex Member No.: 5,822  |
It states in the rules that permanent spells must be sustained for a certain amount of time before they become permanent (twice the drain value in combat turns, to be precise). Can you use a sustaining focus to sustain a permanent spell until it becomes permanent? I believe you can. In the case of a touch spell (like heal), however, do you still need to maintain contact until the spell becomes permanent.
I can still see this being useful. Even while holding onto the target of a heal spell, you can still use your full dice pool to fire your pistol at your enemies, keeping them at bay, etc. A GM might still inflict a dice pool penalty to reflect the concentration of the touch, but I'd think a sustaining focus would help. What do you think? Dread Polack |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 02:56 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
i don't think you'd even have to be touching them still. you don't need LOS to sustain spells, only to cast... why would you have to maintain touch?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 03:04 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
I would allow a sustainer to sustain a permanent spell for the needed duration.
Further I would not require you to maintain a touch after the initial casting. Weather you where sustaining it yourself or not. I do this after considering some of the touch ranged spells with a sustained duration. For example combat sense and the various detect spells. These do not require touch to be maintained for the spell to be sustained Edward |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 04:15 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 984 Joined: 15-June 06 Member No.: 8,717 |
Then again those spell aren't permanent in nature, heal is. That's relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
I'd allow it. The low force of most people's sustaining foci might keep 'em away from this, though. Limiting the max successes on your healing isn't usually a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 10:09 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
Going mainly by how it was handled in SR3 (and due to the lack of rulings in SR4 that prohibit the continuation) I'd say: Using as sustaining focus for sustaining a permanent spell until it actually becomes permanent is possible. Despite SR4 (so far) not demanding that sustaining foci remain in contact with the target of the spell (not necessarily its owner) in order to remain active, I'd require the sustaining focus to be put on the target while the spell is cast. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 11 2006, 10:12 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 22-March 05 From: Milwaukee Member No.: 7,210 |
I believe the sustaining foci must be in contact with the target of the spell. If the spell is being sustained before it becomes permanent that is okay, the spell basically ends once it becomes permanent.
The caster does not need to continue to maintain contact with the target of the spell in any case, the range is only applied at the time the spell is cast. Once that is over the caster is free to move away from the target. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 11:16 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Foci don't work unless their owner is touching them. The spell doesn't work unless the caster is touching the target. It's pretty obvious to me you'd have to maintain contact for the duration... you just manage to avoid the -2 to everything else (like the autofire you're pouring down the hallway).
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 11:22 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
What indicates that you need to maintain contact?
As for the sustainer needing to be in contact that contradicts the rule that the focus must remain with the caster. Edward |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 11:32 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
In SR3 Sustaining foci specifically work when in contact with the subject of the spell being sustained. The magician gives the sustaining focus to the subject of the spell and then casts the spell through the focus. So long as the subject maintains contact with the focus the spell is sustained. The magician is not required to maintain physical contact with the sustaining focus.
Likewise, an anchoring focus, which can act as a sustaining focus, only requires physical contact with the subjct or the ability to detect the subject using a detection spell in order to work. SR4 glosses over this but I'm going to assume that it remains the same. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 04:30 AM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
yeah, i remember that... i also know that SR4 says you must keep the focus touching you at all times, and it never says anything about the target. it is open to debate whether this was intentional or not... much has changed since SR3... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 12 2006, 08:45 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,266 Joined: 3-June 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,638 |
I'd be inclined to think that the focus still has to be in contact with the subject of the spell. In many cases this is the magician themselves, but if you were to use it to sustain a spell on a group member, you'd better trust them!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 04:44 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
I would allow a permenant spell to be sustained by a sustaining focus, and would not require the caster to remain in contact whilst the spell was made permenant (nor would they need to keep contact normally whilst a healing spell was taking effect).
I would not require the sustaining focus to be put into contact with the subject of the spell, or kept in contact. There is nothing in the SR4 rules to support such a need, and sustaining foci already explicitly work differently from how they worked in SR3 (they used to be linked to a single spell, not a spell category) so evidently there is some intentional reworking going on. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 08:50 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
The reason I was saying they'd have to stay in touch with the target for the purposes of a HEAL spell is because the spell has Touch range.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 08:53 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 14-November 03 From: MSP Metroplex Member No.: 5,822 |
Hmmm... well there seems to be some disagreement. Is there a way to ask Fanpro directly?
I think, personally, I would run it that the target of the spell would have to be in contact with the focus, or the caster would have to be in contact with both until the spell becomes permanent. That would mean possibly leaving the focus while he or she moved around. This could be risky. As for regular sustained spells, I'd run it like SR3, and allow the target to carry the focus. Dread Polack |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2006, 03:05 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
I realise that, but that's still not part of the rules. The rules for range state that they are for the range at which the spell can be cast. The rules for sustained spells state that the spell lasts as long as it's concentrated on, with no mention of the spell's casting range. A character can thus sustain an LOS range spell on a target even if they move out of LOS, so why would a caster of a heal spell need to keep contact afterwards? If you require the caster of a touch range spell to maintain touch after casting then that makes the decrease attribute spells either nigh useless (because you let go of the target after you cast the spell, meaning that you can't sustain them) or opens-up a whole new can of worms as far as what you can do on the touch attack granted by a spell. You'd need to grab hold of them, which is essentially like subduing combat (grappleing). IIRC combining the touch attempt granted by a touch spell with a normal attack is not allowed, otherwise unarmed-master-casters would be doing massive amounts of damage by combining a knockout spell with free unarmed combat at no penalty, so to allow a subduing attempt to combine with casting a spell is a bit off. If subduing is allowed wih the free attack then what's to stop someone from using subduing combat and backing it up with a massive knockout spell? Even a force 7 knockout spell has a drain value of 0. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 13 2006, 04:10 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
Provided that they don't walk through a mana barrier ...
Possibly because the focus could require something like that (just as it did in SR3) ... Appearantly sustaining foci currently only require touch range to their owner and not the target of the spell. That makes them superior to their SR3 counterparts. However SR4 also lacks the mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain permanent spells until after the timeframe of the spell's effect becoming permanent has expired. So when going by RAW, sustaining foci cannot sustain spells in that manner (SR3 sustaining foci explicitly could do so) and thus healing someone with a sustaining focus wouldn't work. Now that's the part where house rulings come into play and where I'd stick with the SR3 solution where sustaining foci had to be kept in touch range to the spell's target instead of the owner of the focus. And I'd even extend that house rule from permanent spells to sustained spells in general. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 13 2006, 04:20 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 142 Joined: 29-October 05 From: Arlington, TX Member No.: 7,909 |
It neither confirms, nor denies it at this time. So, per RAW, it can be interpreted either way, and does not need to be houseruled. Merely decided on one way or the other. When the magic book comes out, it should be cleared up. Personally, I have no problem with a focus being used like that. It makes things a lot nicer if a Mage can touch and sustain, then hand the guy off to someone else while he throws up some barriers or some such, so that more healing may not need take place. Edit: My point being that just because it does not spell out what can be done, does not mean that it cannot be done. Just because an axe does not say you can wedge it under a door handle, does not mean it cannot be used to keep the door closed. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 13 2006, 04:24 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
On a slightly different note, does using the appropriate spirit to sustain the spell differ in any way from a focus being used?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2006, 04:42 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
I'm not overly bothered on the contesting of this, but where does it say that? All I can see is that a physical manna barrier stops spells, manifesting entities, spirits, and active foci. A mage concentrating to sustain a spell is none of the above.
SR4 lacks any specific mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain sustained-duration spells. That means, by your logic, that sustained-duration spells cannot be sustained by a sustaining focus. This is, of course, wrong. The rules for sustaining foci are as follows, emphasis mine:
See, absolutely no mention that the spell cast through the focus must have a duration of sustained. Thus, as long as the sustaining focus is attuned to the right category of spells (health) the RAW has nothing to say against letting a sustaining focus sustain a spell with the permanent duration (such as the Heal spell).
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jul 13 2006, 04:47 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
No. Both spirits and sustaining foci can sustain 'a spell', which is enough to permit them to sustain permanent duration spells. If it said 'a spell with the Sustained duration' then it'd be another matter, but it doesn't. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 13 2006, 05:06 PM
Post
#22
|
|||||||||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
~smile~ That's one can of worms there ;) "Since the RAW also lack an explicit confirmation or denial whether or not metahumans are capable of flying (without mechanical help) there's no need for house ruling that ... It's also merely a decission in either way ;) I hope you see where that kind of argument will lead ...
Going by RAW you'd only need a rule concerning sustaining permanent spells when you want sustaining foci to be able to do so.
I have no problems with sustaining foci sustaining permanent spells either, since they could do so in SR3 ... I do however have my problems with sustaining foci staying with the owner / caster, instead of the subject of the spell ... Traditional thinking I guess.
My point being that such an argumentation will lead to flying metahumans that no longer need to visit the toilet. => Things that aren't explicitly allowed or come with a reasonable implication (like real human beings not being able to fly and having biological functions that force them to visit the toilet once in a while) just aren't allowed ... So your axe-analogy comes along the lines of a solid implication. With sustaining foci as magic item that lack any solid implication (it really "just" is "magic") that can't be said => You need an explicit ruling (or house ruling) .. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jul 13 2006, 05:20 PM
Post
#23
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
This is not a valid comparison. The rules state that sustaining foci sustain spells. They state that permanent spells must be sustained. the decision whether one influences the other is a matter of choice. A more appropriate ananlogy would be if the rules stated that metahumans could move travel through the air and you then had to decide whether it was flight or gliding. Combining fallacious slippery slopes with straw men rarely enhances your position. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 13 2006, 05:21 PM
Post
#24
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
~erm~ a) I was under the impression that "we" were talking about sustaining foci that sustain spells taht by RAW currently do not need to stay with the spell's target but the caster. b) There's this little part on p. 186:
The latter being the basis for a rather heavy debate whether or not a sustained spell that is "brought through" has actually be on the magician ...
Not by my logic, but by your interpretation of it ;)
And what's this emphasis for? Nobody doubted that sustaining foci could sustain Health Spells ;) The debate concerns sustaining "Permanent Spells"
But no mentioning of permanent spell's either ;)
Thus RAW has nothing to say in either way and you're already forced to use implications on "Sustained Spells" (which already by name give that implication) and then you can continue to look for implications with "Permanent Spells" where the much weaker implication is the requirement to sustain them for a specific time. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jul 13 2006, 05:26 PM
Post
#25
|
|||||||||||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
~Huh?~
Si ...
A choice based on implications, not explicit rulings ...
Only a different level of abstraction ... That doesn't make the comparison invalid.
Claiming that comparisons aren't valid either ;) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th April 2022 - 04:57 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.