Abusing Sustaining Foci Options

[Abbandon]

Ok the Force of a spell caps the hits you can roll unless you spend edge on exploding 6's which lets you break the cap. Sustaining Foci are limited to only allowing Rating Force spells or lower to be cast through them. So heres my question.

If you cast a force 1 spell but also throw in 5+ edge dice and you get 4 hits for an Armor spell. (+4/+4). Should an R1 Sustain Foci be able to sustain that spell?? Doesnt it seem like the spell would have to drop down to +1/+1 (or 1 hit) regardless of whether or not you used edge? Your essentially forcing a F4 armor spell through an R1 sustain foci.

What do you guys think? Another example would be an F1 increased reflex spell with 5-6 dice edge pool and getting 4 hits and using an R1 sustain foci to have +3 IP +3 Reaction.

[FrankTrollman]

If you're OK with dumping an Edge for every spell you want to carry around for every time you go through a Ward, then sure. Go nuts.

-Frank

[mfb]

not to mention every time some enemy mage notes your collection of f1 foci and sends some spirits to attack them on the astral.

[Abbandon]

Otherwise, no problem??

[Slymoon]

I don't know that I recall reading that in SR4. SR3 I fairly clearly recall that a Sustaining Focus must be at least the force of the spell held.

Now the rub is that SR4 allows for Edge to increase the effective Force of the spell (in regards to this spell).
As a GM I would rule it to be restricted to the focus rating.

ie: Force 1 Focus can hold 1 net hit.

Disclaimer: Of course that is my initial feeling but could change my mind after further review.

[nathanross]

Otherwise, no problem??

Nope, no problem.

[Jhaiisiin]

I'd actually agree with Slymoon's (current) interpretation. A spell focus of any kind is of a certain force because it can hold X amount of juice. Unlike the (meta)human body, that's not maleable or adjustable on the fly. So if a person casts a force 1 spell, boosts it (temporarily) to 4 via edge, then locks it into a Force 1 sustaining focus, I'd rule they only get the benefit of 1 hit, because that's all the focus is capable of holding. Otherwise, what's the point of the higher level foci?

[Magus]

There are no Foci Levels I thought, Only specific spell type Foci. manipulation, health etc etc. I thought that buying force levels of Foci went out with 3rd ed.

[Jhaiisiin]

My memory must be off (at work, so don't have books). I thought bonding costs for different foci were based off their force...?

[suppenhuhn]

Using edge during spellcasting does not raise the force of the spell, it simply removes the success capp implied by the spells force, thus making it possible to have 3 hits on a force 1 spell.

BBB p 172:
Force serves as a limiter effect on spells—the more oomph you put into the spell, the better you can succeed with it. This limitation does not apply to Edge dice that are used to boost a spell.


/ edit
bounding cost for sustaining foci is 3xforce, so yes there are levels of foci and also they are of a sepcific discipline.

[Drogos]

There are no Foci Levels I thought, Only specific spell type Foci. manipulation, health etc etc. I thought that buying force levels of Foci went out with 3rd ed.

All foci have force levels, which determine they're effect (ie how many dice you add to the appropriate dice pool, what force lvl of spell cann be cast into them, etc.).

Pg 190-192 & 340

[Larme]

While a lucky mana fluctuation or something could make a spell's force effectively increase, a sustaining focus of a lower rating shouldn't be able to hold the extra power. Frank's probably right from a pure RAW perspective, but I think this looks like a loophole or exploit to me. If a rating 1 spell is 4x more powerful than the most powerful rating 1 spell, shouldn't it require a container 4x more powerful to hold it? It's just common sense. And I'd really hate to see a PC taking a bunch of R1 focuses for that express purpose. There are some uses of the RAW that just don't pass the giggle test.

[Magus]

Using edge during spellcasting does not raise the force of the spell, it simply removes the success capp implied by the spells force, thus making it possible to have 3 hits on a force 1 spell.

BBB p 172:
Force serves as a limiter effect on spells⦣8364;�the more oomph you put into the spell, the better you can succeed with it. This limitation does not apply to Edge dice that are used to boost a spell.


/ edit
bounding cost for sustaining foci is 3xforce, so yes there are levels of foci and also they are of a sepcific discipline.

Thanks Drogos.

[WeaverMount]

Ok, so does this mean that if you get extended masking that you can pull this cheese off by RAW? Extended Masked would off-set a ton of the issues.

As for a fix. IMO edge is an instantaneous thing, no where does it give you an on going bonus. I would only let the total hits exceed the force on the action phase that the edge was spent.

Question to DS, but especially Frank. What exactly do you see being warded? Can you get around a middle class neighborhood and get your food shopping done? Say you are hitting a facility what exactly is warded? You can only ward about 2 jail cells per point of magic. That means you are going to have to prioritize a bit. In SM they talk about fooling wards by effectively spoofing a trusted aura with masking. No where I can find does it talk about a create of a ward being able to pass though there wards or being about to establish a list of friendlies. Even if you can, no public space could be warded with anything stronger than an alarm ward. Anyone Care to sketch out out there vision?

[crizh]

While a lucky mana fluctuation or something could make a spell's force effectively increase, a sustaining focus of a lower rating shouldn't be able to hold the extra power. Frank's probably right from a pure RAW perspective, but I think this looks like a loophole or exploit to me. If a rating 1 spell is 4x more powerful than the most powerful rating 1 spell, shouldn't it require a container 4x more powerful to hold it? It's just common sense. And I'd really hate to see a PC taking a bunch of R1 focuses for that express purpose. There are some uses of the RAW that just don't pass the giggle test.

From a fluff perspective you are assuming that the increased effect of an edge enhanced spell comes from increases in raw power used.

That's not really borne out by the rules, Edge use doesn't increase Drain, for example. It seems just as easy to describe extra hits from Edge as finesse and on the fly bespoke tailoring of the formula, flair, etc.

When you use edge to fire a gun do you use higher caliber bullets and suffer more recoil?

To make such a tactic work you really need to invest an extra 20/30BP on Edge. How many Sustaining Foci does that buy?

From a game balance perspective I agree it's probably pushing the envelope. I think however as a long term strategy it's a loser, it has too many exploitable flaws. Quickening FTW....

Disclaimer: It is of course me that Abbandon is talking about.

[pbangarth]

I don't think it is a problem with the definition of foci to allow the use of Edge to circumvent the limitations of a focus.

Yes it may seem to overpower a focus, but as several people have argued, the cost is huge. Edge is a very limited resource and there are many ways a spell can be negated. The example above of getting an extra initiative pass is striking, but that benefit is outweighed by saving the Edge for when your ass is on the line, whatever the circumstance may be.

[crizh]

Ok, so does this mean that if you get extended masking that you can pull this cheese off by RAW? Extended Masked would off-set a ton of the issues.

As for a fix. IMO edge is an instantaneous thing, no where does it give you an on going bonus. I would only let the total hits exceed the force on the action phase that the edge was spent.

Question to DS, but especially Frank. What exactly do you see being warded? Can you get around a middle class neighborhood and get your food shopping done? Say you are hitting a facility what exactly is warded? You can only ward about 2 jail cells per point of magic. That means you are going to have to prioritize a bit. In SM they talk about fooling wards by effectively spoofing a trusted aura with masking. No where I can find does it talk about a create of a ward being able to pass though there wards or being about to establish a list of friendlies. Even if you can, no public space could be warded with anything stronger than an alarm ward. Anyone Care to sketch out out there vision?

Would you really need extended masking?

If I was creating a ward I can't imagine I would want it to block my active foci.

'Mana barriers do not affect their creators, who can see through them or pass through them at will and allow others to do so as well'
SR4 p185

So presumably if you convince a barrier that you are it's creator with basic Masking you can force it to allow any astral forms you specify to pass through it also.

[WeaverMount]

Wow double flub. It's been a while. Thanks I totally missed the rules that wards inherited as mana barriers. AND I was mixing my rules on forcing and fooling wards.

>Quickening FTW
Edge is crazy good but, how is it more valuable than karma ... to a mage?

Anyone care to post where they actually put wards in there games?

[crizh]

>Quickening FTW
Edge is crazy good but, how is it more valuable than karma ... to a mage?

Force 9 spirit flukes 8 hits on a binding test would you rather have edge or karma?

[Fortune]

You might try and incorporate some kind of Resistance test for the Focus anytime it is used this way, with failure indicating that the overpowered spell has burned out the Focus.

[Larme]

Would you really need extended masking?

If I was creating a ward I can't imagine I would want it to block my active foci.

'Mana barriers do not affect their creators, who can see through them or pass through them at will and allow others to do so as well'
SR4 p185

So presumably if you convince a barrier that you are it's creator with basic Masking you can force it to allow any astral forms you specify to pass through it also.

I'm not really arguing that the RAW supports me. This is just something that if a player tried to pull it on me, I'd say "how about not?" Is it totally broken? No. Having to spend Edge really limits it, and if those spells get dispelled the person with only R1 foci is screwed. And they can be dispelled very easily, what with being F1 and all... It just looks like a weasely kind of loophole that I wouldn't tolerate in my game. Would I throw a tantrum about it? No. But would I use the GM discretion hammer? You bet.

[crizh]

weasely kind of loophole

Why thank you, you're too kind. I do appreciate when people make an effort to avoid ad hominem attacks and keep a discussion reasonable...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

[Jhaiisiin]

Even if you masked yourself to convince the ward that you're not you, you could run into an issue that your foci that are bonded with you suddenly don't recognize you as you, and thusly stop working.

[Larme]

Why thank you, you're too kind. I do appreciate when people make an effort to avoid ad hominem attacks and keep a discussion reasonable...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

Chip on your shoulder much? How you play is absolutely irrelevant to me. I have no idea whether you're a weasel, and I don't care. I'm not trying to defeat the argument by attacking the character of those who support it. I agree that the RAW allows it. I'm just throwing in my 2 yen and saying that, if it were up to me, it wouldn't be allowed because it smells like a loophole in the rules.

[WeaverMount]

Force 9 spirit flukes 8 hits on a binding test would you rather have edge or karma?

That's like saying would you rather have some krillcakes or an Ares Alpha when your starving. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. If you think Edge is more valuable then karma can I play a magician at your table and buy spells and skills with Edge