 Maximum Force, Questioin about spells |
  |
 Sep 20 2007, 11:55 PM
Post
#51
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf  Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486  |
That's because the Spellcasting Foci have their own little subsection, which you are conveniently running together with the main section. Taken by itself though, that subsection was not as specific as some people seemed to require, and changes were made to reflect the category limitation. Unfortunately in doing so, the wording of the Errata has inadvertently altered one of the Focus' prime functions. All of this, as I have said numerous times previously, is just my own opinion on the matter. It is also how I will continue to run things in my games, and how things have been run in every single SR4 game in which I have ever played. I wouldn't mind someone like Synner dropping in here to give us his opinion. In the meantime, I have sent an email to the powers-that-be inquiring about an official ruling on the matter. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Sep 21 2007, 12:02 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
It doesn't even have a heading, just bolding on the words Spellcasting Foci. It also follows immediately after the sentence, "Each spell focus must be attuned to a specific category of spells (Combat, Detection, Health, etc) when it is created, and this cannot be changed."
I agree that spellcasting foci should be able to be used for drain, however, the redundancy in the errata and the prior text implies that they aren't. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2007, 12:11 AM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Guys, you're not going to convince Fortune. He prefers his interpretation and is willing to believe that, rather than knowing what they were doing and choosing to remove the drain tests, they screwed up while making a redundant clarification of somethey'd said mere sentences before.
I'd be interested to hear the official FAQ person's explanation, but I'm not sure even that would make Fortune not want to apply spellcasting foci to drain. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2007, 12:19 AM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Be assured that I will post any such reply (in full, unedited, and with my original question, as has always been my habit), when and if it arrives, no matter what the contents. I do resent the implication that I am in some way 'more biased than the norm', or the like. I feel it is quite uncalled for. Everyone has house rules, and yes, that will definitely be one of mine if word does come back that your interpretation is correct. But the fact is that I honestly believe that the wording of the errata is an oversight, and that it was not the intent to remove the Drain application of Spellcasting Foci. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 21 2007, 01:39 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Are you saying that you are going to be convinced in this thread, or that you don't prefer your interpretation?
I definitely think you're incorrect and biased, but I wouldn't say your "more biased than the norm." |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2007, 01:53 AM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Not so much more than others that have expressed the same opinion that I needed to be singled out and named twice in your post when that post was specifically not addressed to me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 21 2007, 02:42 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
I agree with Fortune's opinion, myself, since it makes no sense to have spellcasting foci lose an ability that summoning and binding foci retain. I think it was carelessness on the part of the errata writer(s) - not dissing them, though, since mistakes happen.
The errata are a work in progress - for example, they raised the price of the Mitsubishi Nightsky to 120,000, but the Face, with a grand total of 45,000 in resources, still has one. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 02:16 AM
Post
#58
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ok, consider it to apply to anyone that is going out of their way to put back a rule that the erratta was taken out. I mentioned you because you were the one arguing over and over about it without actually supplying any evidence beyond "I think they screwed up." |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 23 2007, 02:38 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That's because there's really no evidence to be had, mainly because well ... I think they screwed up. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th January 2025 - 12:08 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.