[X] My Assistant

[Fortune]

which to are those?

Magic Resistance and Absorption.

[stormcrow]

"This advanced Shielding technique allows an initiate to
siphon some of the mana away from a spell used against her.
. . .
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"

If this doesn't transfer the mana from Force to temporary "mana charge" (which has enough energy to Physically wound the Absorber, even if the original spell was Stun) then this spell becomes a lovely way to generate zero point mana energy. Hey, Bob, cast that Increase Reflexes spell on me, while i Absorb it, without reducing its Force, then use that energy to overcast Mana Static on that Possessed gimp blimp over there.

It's an Advanced Metamagic, on par with Reflection, Infusion (giving your adept Grade/2 Power Points for Magic Minutes) and Filtering.

If my battery absorbs electricity from the socket, the power company charges me for the electricity i transferred. If a mage Absorbs a Lightning Bolt, "reality" charges you for the mana transferred. The Force goes down, the Absorbing mage's "temporary mana charge (with its self-damaging potential) goes up, and the casting mage resists the full drain, 'cuz that mana was channeled and went somewhere--into the Absorber's aura, per the description, for Grade turns, by which, if it hasn't been used, it fries the fuck out of the owner of said aura.

Description says "siphons some of the mana away" and "absorb one Force point." Force has some pretty common meanings, and one refers to the strength of a spell very directly.

On the armor tip, though, i totally agree that the half armor (or whatever) should be a separately counted roll applying to the same event. My armored thong is no better or worse than my Military Grade Full Battle Armor (not that i have any) at siphoning an incoming spell's energy and converting it into mana for my use. Unless it was mithril armor crafted by the ancient high immortal elves and locked inside a statue of a dragon with this really cool sword and ......
then it would be a relatively unique Counterspelling (Absorption) Focus, and would have a bonding cost of Force x Ridiculous.

Maybe a magic straw or enchanted nine volt battery would be more appropriate.

[Malicant]

Which 'Spell Defense' dice? The Damage Resistance Pool vs. Indirect Combat Spells consists of Body + Armor (maybe halved) + Counterspelling (if available).

Really? I always thought Counterspelling vs. Indirect Combat Spells was used as Reaction + Counterspelling, because you counterspell the magic that controls a Fireball, not the fire of said ball. Once it hits you, you resist with Armor + Body and that's it. The Body + Armor + Counterspelling combo sounds kinda weird to me.

[Ryu]

It is RAW since the beginning, and one of the greatest reasons to use indirect spells despite the higher drain. Counterspelling applies against indirect spells only when the spell is already working, when resisting damage instead of the whole spell. While houseruling Absorption to work in such situations is rather easy, there is no spell resistance test against indirect damage spells.

[Fortune]

Really? I always thought Counterspelling vs. Indirect Combat Spells was used as Reaction + Counterspelling, because you counterspell the magic that controls a Fireball, not the fire of said ball. Once it hits you, you resist with Armor + Body and that's it. The Body + Armor + Counterspelling combo sounds kinda weird to me.

Really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

[WeaverMount]

can someone tell me what they think a spell resistance test is, most people do not think it is any test to resist a spell?

[Muspellsheimr]

can someone tell me what they think a spell resistance test is, most people do not think it is any test to resist a spell?

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.

[Ryu]

can someone tell me what they think a spell resistance test is, most people do not think it is any test to resist a spell?

The counterpart of your opposed spellcasting test.

[BishopMcQ]

Let me explain the way I run it, and we'll see how that jives with everyone else.

Direct Damage Spells:
Resist test -- Body or Will opposed test vs Spellcasting + Magic

OR

Resist test + Counterspelling -- Body or Will + Counterspelling vs Spellcasting + Magic

OR

Resist test + Counterspelling + Shielding -- Body or Will + Counterspelling + Initiate Grade vs Spellcasting + Magic

Indirect Damage Spells:
Defense Test -- Reaction vs Spellcasting + Magic (SR4, p 196)

presuming there are net hits, the reaction test is followed by:

Soak Test -- Body + (1/2 Armor + Mods) vs Force + Net Hits

OR

Soak Test + Counterspelling -- Body + Counterspelling + (1/2 Armor + Mods) vs Force + Net Hits

OR

Soak Test + Counterspelling + Shielding -- Body + Counterspelling + Initiate Grade + (1/2 Armor + Mods) vs Force + Net Hits

A good way to think about it is that Direct Combat spells require net hits to have any effect, while Indirect Combat spells work as long as the mage has 1 hit. (The Indirect Combat spell may not effect anything, but it will manifest--perhaps leaving scorch marks or be heard based on the element.)

For the OP--If the mage with absorption rolls well enough on her Reaction test to avoid the spell, it is impossible to absorb any part of the spell as she is effectively not in the area. If she does not have enough hits on the Reaction test to get out of the way, I would allow hits from the counterspelling dice (use a different color) to function as Absorption. The use of counterspelling is allowed to mitigate damage in the second test, so I do not see a compelling reason to bar Absorption. On the same token, there is no reason that my Armored jacket with Fire Resist 4 should make it easier to Absorb a spell.

I don't believe that having multiple colored dice adds an complexity to the game, but I used to play SR3 with my main dice (black), combat pool (red), control pool (white), spell pool (green), and karma pool (clear).

[BishopMcQ]

Given what I posted above, in the situation described in the first post, here is how I would run it:

Enemy mage rolls Spellcasting + Magic

Each person of the team rolls Reaction, this determines how much they are able to mitigate and get out of the way.

Soak test happens:
Team Mage rolls counterspelling--anyone protected by his counterspelling gains an automatic number of hits on their soak test equal to the counterspelling hits.

Each person rolls Body + 1/2 Armor. Their hits + Counterspelling hits are compared to the DV to determine end damage.

Indirect Combat spells are like grenades--some people will take it full in the face, other will walk away unscathed.

Team Mage is able to absorb some of the spell energy (effectively hits or boxes of damage). This doesn't reduce the total force of the spell as much as it diverts some of the destructive energy into him.

[stormcrow]

"absorb one Force point" really does seem to indicate that it reduces the Force.

[BishopMcQ]

Reading through the actual text, it seems to me that the Absorption is absorbing the power of the spell rather than letting it damage the character. She is diverting the energy into something she can use rather than having it burn her skin etc. The term also allows a cap for the maximum amount of energy that can be pulled away from the spell.

A character with Absorption is not siphoning off the direct flow from the enemy mage, instead she is absorbing part of the energy that impacted her. It is reducing the effectiveness of the spell by removing "Hits" from the Spellcasting test, and because it is a counterspelling test, those hits help everyone that she is protecting. She is the only one absorbing a piece of the spell into herself and the number of hits that she can get counterspelling are limited to the Force of the spell just like the enemy mage.

[WeaverMount]

IMO the lines "siphons some of the mana away" and "absorb one Force point." Is pretty cut and dry. If this spell wasn't supposed to effect the force of the spell I see no reason they would have used and capitalized that game term. If you don't get that out of the spell description that's cool. There have been several good points made for Absorption not lowering the force of the spell, but even after reading this thread people at my table think it does reduce the force.

So if you please, I would anyone care to give me input on what would happen when absorb lowers the force of a spell either however much of a house ruling this is. Specifically

1) Would this reduce the AoE?
2) What happens if the absorbing mage isn't in the reduced AoE
3) If as a spell effect is expanding from the origin (regardless of your take on RAW this is how we roll) and hits the mage first, do the other take full force?
4) Are totally hits limited by the lowered force cap? On the absorbing mage? On the team if they are hit after the absorb test?

[Apathy]

1) Would this reduce the AoE?
2) What happens if the absorbing mage isn't in the reduced AoE
3) If as a spell effect is expanding from the origin (regardless of your take on RAW this is how we roll) and hits the mage first, do the other take full force?
4) Are totally hits limited by the lowered force cap? On the absorbing mage? On the team if they are hit after the absorb test?

(all answers reflect only my own opinion. YMMV. I don't pretend to be a master of rules-fu.)
1) Yes
2) Shouldn't matter. Absorption metamagic can be used any time spell defense dice are used. Mage does not have to be a target of the spell, as long as one of the people he is covering is a target. This does create the situation though, where the enemy mage centers his F4 fireball on a spot 3 meters from one of your guys and your Absorption takes away 2 points of force, meaning it doesn't actually hit anybody.
3) Absorption protects all designated defenders equally. If you're asking whether the other benifit from the mage's absorbtion (or sheilding, or spell defense, etc.) if the mage is killed by the spell, my instinct is to say 'yes'. The mage's spell defense kicked in while he was trying to defend himself, and that effectively lowered the impact of the spell for all co-defenders.
4) Yes, everyone that was protected.

I think one of the questions that you're asking is whether absorption effects the force of the spell for people who weren't covered by the defending mage's spell defense. Seems like a tricky question to me. If I think of absorption being a new, improved version of spell defense, then the defensive enhancement offered by absorption would only protect those that had been designated for protection (limited in the same way spell defense is.) On the other hand, if the force of the spell is really reduced (instead of just a virtual reduction for those protected) then it should help everybody. For consistency's sake, I would go with option 1 (only those designated for protection), but I could see reasons for the other interpretation.

[Muspellsheimr]

2) Shouldn't matter. Absorption metamagic can be used any time spell defense dice are used. Mage does not have to be a target of the spell, as long as one of the people he is covering is a target.

This advanced Shielding technique allows an initiate to siphon some of the mana away from a spell used against her.

[Malicant]

Really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ah, well. Fine by me. Need to get my old SR fluff out of my head, where the fire itself was not magic. Times change. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Ryu]

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.

Absorption of indirect combat spells (which I still consider a houserule) leads to indirect combat spells being useless. Reason: The rather sizeable DR pool.

Lets assume your campaign has reached the point where force 7 indirect combat spells can be cast on a somewhat regular level. Thats drain codes of 6 single / 8 area. Lets also be very nice and assume Absorption was your second metamagic, right after shielding. Anyone going for that kind of antimagic would have 6-8 dice from Counterspelling. Thats Counterspelling 6 + Body 3 (being generous again) + half armor 4 + initiate degree 2 = 15 dice, on average 5 hits. Not much damage remaining from that spell, and you now are "loaded" to the max with free drain points.

Your opponents are now even better off if they cast high-force direct spells. More base damage, less defensive dice on your part, and the chance that your absorption overloads on a good roll, almost forbidding the use of edge. The premier use of indirect spells was "in the face of strong antimagic", now they don´t have a place.

[Apathy]

I thought that the primary purposes of indirect spells were:

• to be able to hit things outside of your LOS
• for the elemental effects, which [subject to GM discretion] occur even if the raw damage is staged down to nothing

The idea that someone can make a magic user focused on defensive magic and spend his first two metamagics on additional magical abilities to become very difficult to effect magically doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

And the number of opposing mages that have both of those two metamagics would be fairly limited. Which means that Indirect spells aren't useless - just that they're less usefull when going against that specific person.

[Ryu]

With this houserule, things outside your LOS are only affected if your AoE spell came with a very high force in the first place. Elemental effects can be interesting, but are (in our opionion, IOO?) linked to the force of the spell.

And I´m not at all complaining about those metamagics - shielding is on my personal top list. I´m saying that casting an extremly high-drain spell for potentially nothing is ineffective, and that further reasons to use direct spells instead are not exactly desireable. Shielding dice are already useable for protection of the whole team, no need to reduce the AoE to nothing.

IMO Absorption has served it´s purpose if it makes the opposition cast indirect instead of direct spells, or distracting illusions.

[Muspellsheimr]

In your example, it does not matter if you have Absorption or not - the resulting damage will be the same. All having Absorption does in that example is make your retaliation more effective, which is exactly what it is designed for.

And a Direct spell would not be more useful in that circumstance because although you are loosing armor, the mage likely has a much higher Willpower than Body, resulting in more or less the same dice pool, which is likely to fully resist said Direct spell.

EDIT: I would like to, once again, point out that by RAW, Absorption does not reduce the Force of a spell. It 'transfer's' the energy you would normally resist as a temporary mana charge, up to the Force of the spell.

[BishopMcQ]

And a Direct spell would not be more useful in that circumstance because although you are loosing armor, the mage likely has a much higher Willpower than Body, resulting in more or less the same dice pool, which is likely to fully resist said Direct spell.

Powerball for the win.

[Muspellsheimr]

True. Still, the loss of half armor will most often not make a significant difference.

[Apathy]

EDIT: I would like to, once again, point out that by RAW, Absorption does not reduce the Force of a spell. It 'transfer's' the energy you would normally resist as a temporary mana charge, up to the Force of the spell.

Say I hear that you're about to pay a hit man to kill me. I hack into your bank account and 'transfer' half the money in your account to my account. This gives me additional resources to buy my own hitman. The transfer also serves to reduce what was originally in your account. So I'd disagree that a transfer is not a reduction. A transfer is both a reduction for you and an incremental increase for me.

[Ryu]

In your example, it does not matter if you have Absorption or not - the resulting damage will be the same. All having Absorption does in that example is make your retaliation more effective, which is exactly what it is designed for.

And a Direct spell would not be more useful in that circumstance because although you are loosing armor, the mage likely has a much higher Willpower than Body, resulting in more or less the same dice pool, which is likely to fully resist said Direct spell.

EDIT: I would like to, once again, point out that by RAW, Absorption does not reduce the Force of a spell. It 'transfer's' the energy you would normally resist as a temporary mana charge, up to the Force of the spell.

Without the force reduction there is no problem. Thanks.

[WeaverMount]

I already asked Muspellsheimr if I could transfer or absorb some money from his bank account. He still hasn't agreed to let me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

If the spell said "... can absorb mana as mana charge" I wouldn't touch the force. But it says it absorbs the Force, capitolized as a game term.