Absorbtion and AoE nit pick |
Absorbtion and AoE nit pick |
Jun 9 2008, 08:02 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
Ok, here is the situation. Mage hits party with acid ball (Elemental, indirect, AoE). Party's mage has absorption, which lowers the force of the spell. Force limits both the AoE and the hit cap of the spell.
Questions: 1) Does the reduction in force happen for all targets or just the absorbing mage 2) Can absorb reduce the AoE? 3) What happens if the absorbing mage isn't in the reduced AoE 4) If as a spell effect is expanding from the origin (regardless of your take on RAW this is how we roll) and hit hits the mage first, do the other take full force? If not are total hits reduced to the lower value? |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 08:41 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,336 Joined: 24-February 08 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico Member No.: 15,706 |
Absorption does not reduce the Force of the spell being absorbed.
|
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 08:44 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
QUOTE each hit on the character’s Spell Resistance Test allows her to absorb one Forcepoint as one point of temporary “mana charge� I assume that means you don't think absorb in this case is synonymous to take? |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 08:48 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
you also can't absorb indirect combat spells.
and no, it doesn't say the spell's force is reduced, so the spell's force is not reduced. just like how normal spell resistance checks don't reduce the force of the spell, the simply reduce the number of hits. |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 09:01 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
>you also can't absorb indirect combat spells.
Where are you coming from with that? QUOTE Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. If the spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor (+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the Damage Value. If the modifi ed spell DV does not exceed the modifi ed Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun. Note that nonliving objects resist damage from an Indirect Combat spell with their Armor rating x 2 (see Barriers, p. 157). QUOTE To use this metamagic(absorbing) , the character performs the usual Spell Resistance Test (pp. 173-174, SR4) using Counterspelling seem pretty straight forward. But about the force issue I'm I really the only one who thinks that if you absorb something to take it way from where it was before? |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 09:11 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
it's that second quote you gave that's the problem. there *is* no spell resistance test for indirect combat spells. the usual spell resistance test is nothing. if you don't make a test, you can't get any hits. if you don't get any hits, you don't absorb anything.
[edit] to clarify, that is not a spell resistance test, it's a damage resistance test. [/edit] This post has been edited by Jaid: Jun 9 2008, 09:14 PM |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 09:40 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
> to clarify, that is not a spell resistance test, it's a damage resistance test
I'm really not arguing here but the resistance tests in both the indirect spell description and the elemental spell entries themselves are untyped. Why would you assume the resistance test for get for a spell isn't a spell resistance test? |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 09:56 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Because the spell class description says so. Treat as a ranged combat attack.
|
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 09:59 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,336 Joined: 24-February 08 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico Member No.: 15,706 |
Any resistance against a spell's effects is a Spell Resistance test. This can be more easily identified in any test that allows Counterspelling spell defense. So yes, Absorption does work against Indirect Spells.
Absorb is not automatically synonymous with Reduce. The Absorption description does not state it reduces the Force, so it does not. Edit Absorb is actually synonymous with Transfer, and is opposite of Reduce. The metamagic technique allows you to transfer the spell energy you would normally reduce by your resistance test, to be used for your own spellcasting. /Edit Although it is not directly related to the topic, I would also like to point out you cannot use Absorption on spells against someone else, even if you are actively Counterspelling on them. |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 10:34 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
it's not a spell resistance test. it uses your *armor*. your armor does absolutely nothing for resisting spells, but *is* useful for resisting damage.
the fact that there is counterspelling involved means it is a counterspelling test. it does not make it a spell resistance test. |
|
|
Jun 9 2008, 11:25 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
@Jade. I just searched my PDF. "spell resistance" is only mentioned in the adept power of that name, Mana Barrier, and the quality Magic Resistance where it referances a page that doesn't contain that phrasing. It seems to me that "spell resistance" isn't a clearly defined term in the BBB. SM uses that phrasing often, but never defines it and just keeps referring you to 173-174 of the BBB that still doesn't use that phrasing. So what is a spell resistance test if not the resistance test used vs a spell? Can point me to an errata, chat log, BBB quote? Can you make an arguement for why nearly identical languade works differently in two places. I think we have to disagree on what is "obvious".
@Muspellsheimr, by that logic would you then transfer money from your bank account to mine? |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 12:26 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
weavermount, it has armor in that roll. armor. not some kind of magical armor that gives bonus spell resistance dice, not living armor like in earthdawn that could (maybe, if you follow ED reasoning) give you bonus spell resistance dice, but just regular armor. if you can explain to me how wearing armor makes people more resistant to the mystical forces that power a spell, i might buy that. of course, then you'd have to explain to me why it doesn't affect any other kind of spell.
you're cooking up some insane garbage about how armor makes you better at resisting magic but only for indirect spells. if anyone needs to explain what the heck is going on with their explanation, it is *you*, not me. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 12:39 AM
Post
#13
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
So Weavermount, are you saying that you get to Absorb successes generated by your Armor when using this Metamagic against Indirect Spells? If not, then how (other than different colored dice) do you separate out which successes apply to the Absorption, and which merely shrug off the damage?
|
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 01:42 AM
Post
#14
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
So Weavermount, are you saying that you get to Absorb successes generated by your Armor when using this Metamagic against Indirect Spells? If not, then how (other than different colored dice) do you separate out which successes apply to the Absorption, and which merely shrug off the damage? @Fortune, My understanding of RAW would say yes, armor does help you absorb. Obviously my interpretation leads to a dumb result. That's a large part of why I posted a question. To see if I could get a better understanding. What I actually ruled in the moment was was Body + Counterspelling + Grade for absorption purposes. Then gave them 1/2 armor on anything that remained, then staged down vs. armor value @Jade, seriously chill out. The reason are views are so different is that we are talking about a loosely defined term, and took it to mean very different things. You took Spell resistance in the D&D sense to mean shaking off a spell's effects and/or generally having a mystical defense the spell could not defeat. I take it to mean any resistance to a spell. ID and D spell work differently so spell resistance means a radically different thing versus a radically different attack. Not that complected not, not that insane. My question to you is how did you come to your understanding? Not saying it's wrong, I'm actually asking because I suspect it's right. Any other question then would you say someone with the Magic Resistance quality would get no protection vs. Ball lightening? |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 01:58 AM
Post
#15
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
weavermount, it has armor in that roll. armor. not some kind of magical armor that gives bonus spell resistance dice, not living armor like in earthdawn that could (maybe, if you follow ED reasoning) give you bonus spell resistance dice, but just regular armor. if you can explain to me how wearing armor makes people more resistant to the mystical forces that power a spell, i might buy that. of course, then you'd have to explain to me why it doesn't affect any other kind of spell. you're cooking up some insane garbage about how armor makes you better at resisting magic but only for indirect spells. if anyone needs to explain what the heck is going on with their explanation, it is *you*, not me. You're trying to apply real world logic to how a game mechanic is put together to simulate the ability to shrug off magical effects. This seems to me like it doesn't make for a good argument. It could easily be that the designers decided that it made more sense to combine spell defense's ability to reduce the damaging effects of spell energy before it manifests with armor's ability to absorb/mitigate some of the damage from the spell after it manifests, into a single roll. They're not both reducing the damage in the same way, but they both end up having similar final effects in practical terms, so why not put them together? In Direct spells, you're resisting with Will (or Body) plus Spell Defense, and those are conceptually two different mechanics also. Spell Defense doesn't give you more willpower, it's a separate but contributing factor that helps mitigate the effects of the attack, just like Armor+Spell Defense are two separate but contributing factors that help you mitigate the effects of an indirect spell attack. Spell defense dice are solely for the purposes of spell resistance. There's nothing in the book anywhere that says that against indirects spells they're actually doing something else that has similar effects as spells resistance but should be called something else and shouldn't be usable in the absorption test. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 02:01 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Any other question then would you say someone with the Magic Resistance quality would get no protection vs. Ball lightening? Why? Counterspelling applies in the Damage Resistance portion of defense in the case of Indirect Combat Spells. Why wouldn't Magic Resistance apply in the same circumstance? |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 02:04 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Spell defense dice are solely for the purposes of spell resistance. There's nothing in the book anywhere that says that against indirects spells they're actually doing something else that has similar effects as spells resistance but should be called something else and shouldn't be usable in the absorption test. So, are you saying that Armor should apply to the Absorption test then? |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 02:32 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
no, just that Spell Defense dice should be usable for Absorption of Indirect spells. I have no opinion on what canon says about the use of Armor in the Absorption test.
But if it did work that way, it would be counter-intuitive to me. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 02:38 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
Why? Counterspelling applies in the Damage Resistance portion of defense in the case of Indirect Combat Spells. Why wouldn't Magic Resistance apply in the same circumstance? If I understand Jade correctly he is saying that "Spell Resistance Tests" are a bonifided game term, and does not refer merely to any resistance test used to mitigate the effects of a spell (as I do). If it is the case that "Spell Resistance Tests" are specific type of resistance test , and that we can not assume that the ordinary resistance test you get again ID spells are "Spell Resistance Tests" then the quality Magic Resistance would not protect someone from ID spells, because it's one of about 3 occurrence of the phrasing "Spell Resistance" in the BBB. As you point out you can counter spell ID spells. I use this as evidance that "Spell Resistance Tests" aren't really a unique rules entity. QUOTE Magic Resistance Cost: 5 BP per rating (max rating 4) For every 5 BP spent on Magic Resistance, a character receives 1 additional die for Spell Resistance Tests (see p. 173). Th e Magical Resistance quality, however, works even against benefi cial spells such as Heal. Characters with the Adept, Magician, or Mystic Adept qualities cannot take this quality. A magically resistant character cannot choose to lower his magical resistance; it aff ects all spells and magical eff ects, good or bad. A character with Magic Resistance is never a willing subject for spells that require a voluntary subject; such spells automatically fail when used on magic resistant characters. I could be flat out wrong. As I've said before my current understanding of RAW forces me to use a house rule to avoid an absurdity. But "Spell Resistance" isn't defined anywhere and everywhere that mentions it refers to you rules that govern ID and D spells equally. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 02:39 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
QUOTE (Apathy) no, just that Spell Defense dice should be usable for Absorption of Indirect spells. Which 'Spell Defense' dice? The Damage Resistance Pool vs. Indirect Combat Spells consists of Body + Armor (maybe halved) + Counterspelling (if available). |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 02:53 AM
Post
#21
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
Not sure what you mean. Let me back up a bit. I think that you can use absorb on ID spells. Jade does not.
Jade reads the text under absorb: QUOTE Regardless of whether the spell is fully resisted or not, each hit on the character’s Spell Resistance Test allows her to absorb one Force point as one point of temporary “mana charge� Jade say takes this to mean that for absorb to trigger you need to make a "Spell Resistance Test". More specifically the amount of mana you absorb is the hits from a test you don't make so you get/do nothing. I say that because no where in the BBB is "Spell Resistance Test" specially defined, and that all but 1 or instances of the phrase refer you to rules to govern both types of spells that, a "Spell Resistance Test" is just a resistance test to mitigate a spell, which would allow you use absorb, with full knowledge that it includes armor and that is silly. As evidance I point out that if you use Jades reasoning for not allowing people to absorb ID spells then you should also not allow them to benifit from magic resistance versus ID spells. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 03:02 AM
Post
#22
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I have been following the conversation and playing along at home. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
I think you are mixing up two different things. But if I had to pick one interpretation based solely on your stated logic in the above post, I would choose to have neither Absorption or Magic Resistance apply to Indirect Combat Spells. I don't think that is the case though. I believe that Magic Resistance is used wherever Counterspelling would and could be used, but I don't think that is necessarily the case for Absorption. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 03:11 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Sorry, I was inexact. Counterspelling dice should IMO be usable for Absorption regardless of whether the spell was Direct or Indirect. I don't know if Armor should be usable for Absorption, but it seems counter-intuitive to do so.
If it were my game, and I had to make an 'on the spot' call, I'd probably say that only the Counterspelling dice counted toward Absorption and that he should use different colored dice to distinguish Counterspelling hits (which interfered with the spells ability to manifest at it's full power) from Armor hits (which merely kept the manifested acid wave from reaching his tender skin. To my way of thinking, this also might make sense for direct spells - why should having dense bones (high body) make a mage more capable of siphoning off the energies of a powerbolt spell? Of course, the drawback of this would be the added complexity of having to keep track of the two separate die roll results instead of just a single result. YMMV. |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 03:17 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,069 Joined: 19-July 07 From: Oakland CA Member No.: 12,309 |
@apathy, that is actually exactly what I did.
I have been following the conversation and playing along at home. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) You usually are (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I figured I'd recap because getting the same page is my knee jerk response to misunderstandings I believe that Magic Resistance is used wherever Counterspelling would and could be used, but I don't think that is necessarily the case for Absorption. So why do you think this when they use identical language? Is it just how you handle the armor issue? >I think you are mixing up two different things which to are those? |
|
|
Jun 10 2008, 03:22 AM
Post
#25
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,336 Joined: 24-February 08 From: Albuquerque, New Mexico Member No.: 15,706 |
Logically, only Counterspelling + Shielding dice would apply for the Absorption metamagic. For game simplicity, all dice on the Spell Resistance test apply. This usually includes an attribute, but in the case of Indirect spells, includes armor as well.
As Spell Resistance is not clearly defined, I classify it as what makes the most sense - anything that allows a Spell Defense use of Countersplling, including the Damage Resistance portion of Indirect spells. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 02:32 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.