IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Absorbtion and AoE nit pick
WeaverMount
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Muspellsheimr
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ryu
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Muspellsheimr
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaid
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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



QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 07:39 PM) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apathy
post 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



QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 9 2008, 07:26 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post 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



QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Jun 10 2008, 11:42 AM) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post 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



QUOTE (Apathy @ Jun 10 2008, 11:58 AM) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apathy
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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



QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 09:01 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post 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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apathy
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeaverMount
post 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.

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 10:02 PM) *
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

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 10:02 PM) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Muspellsheimr
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS 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.