Street Magic Questions, Absorption Metamagic and the Enchanting Example Options

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

Right, so on page 59 of Street Magic we have my first question. In the Absorption advanced metamagic description, we read that the character can absorb up to (force of spell) points of mana charge for (initiate grade) turns. Anything absorbed that is higher than the character's magic attribute (more hits on the resistance test than the characters (magic) attribute, but less than the (force of spell)) is immediately dissipated at an automatic 1DV of physical damage, unresisted. Later it says that the character has any charge left at the end of (initiate grade) turns, they must make a Drain resistance test to resist what charge is left. It also says that any charge that is higher than the magic attribute turns the possible drain damage into physical damage. So here's the question, If mana charge that is higher than the magic attribute dissipates, how does one hold more than (magic) charge to even achieve a test that possibly results in physical damage? The only way I can figure it is something like the following example.

Example: Bill has magic (3) and is initiate grade (3). Mike casts stunbolt Force 6 at Bill. Bill gets 4 hits on his spell resistance test, but can only absorb 3 mana charge force points. He takes an automatic 1 DV (physical). Bill doesn't use his charge on this turn and Mike targets bill again with another Stunbold Force 6. Bill gets 2 hits and absorbs 2 force points of mana charge, but doesn't take any physical damage because 2 is below his magic of 3. Now he's got a charge of 5 force points to help resist drain. Too bad he doesn't do anything with it (he's a noob and doesn't know he needs to cast a spell and use what he's got) and now must resist drain for his stored charge. It's 5 which means it's higher than his Magic and he's risking possible physical damage.

Is this correct?

Now, another question about that is when a character absorbs mana from a spell, if the spell isn't resisted, is the force of the spell reduced by the mana force points the magician absorbs or does it just continue on hunky dory? See below:

Example: Mike casts at Bob again (poor Bob) and again it's a force 6 stunbolt. Mike gets 4 hits and Bob gets 3 hits. Bob is faced with a stunbolt that would normally do 7DV stun (force 6 + 1 net hit) if weren't for his absorption metamagic. Luckily, 3 force points are absorbed and the force of the spell that hits him is only force 3 now with a possible 4 DV (stun).

Correct?

Last question. Page 83 and 85. Researching and developing a Focus formula is by RAW Logic + Arcana ( force x force, 1 day) as listed on page 83. In the example on page 85, Laura (our example enchanter) is trying to create a Shielding focus at force 2. Shouldn't that threshold then be 4? In the example, She works for quite some time to hit a threshold of 16. Can somebody explain this? Also in the same long example, when she has finished her focus and is needing to bond to it, the bonding ritual takes 4 hours instead of the RAW 2 hours (1 hour per force point). 4 hours would imply it is a force 4, as would the researching threshold of 16, but we still bond at 12 Karma which is only for the listed force 2. Am I missing some math somewhere, or are these numbers just typos?

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

Grrr, no answers yet?

[Ancient History]

Solly.

Last question. Page 83 and 85. Researching and developing a Focus formula is by RAW Logic + Arcana ( force x force, 1 day) as listed on page 83. In the example on page 85, Laura (our example enchanter) is trying to create a Shielding focus at force 2. Shouldn't that threshold then be 4? In the example, She works for quite some time to hit a threshold of 16. Can somebody explain this? Also in the same long example, when she has finished her focus and is needing to bond to it, the bonding ritual takes 4 hours instead of the RAW 2 hours (1 hour per force point). 4 hours would imply it is a force 4, as would the researching threshold of 16, but we still bond at 12 Karma which is only for the listed force 2. Am I missing some math somewhere, or are these numbers just typos?

The example is screwy, the result of an editorial rules change that got past the last proofing run. I think that might have gotten fixed in the orange cover, but I havenae checked.

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

The example is screwy, the result of an editorial rules change that got past the last proofing run. I think that might have gotten fixed in the orange cover, but I havenae checked.

I went to my local game shop and checked the orange cover SM to see if it was changed, but it wasn't. It just sits as confusing to me.

[Ancient History]

The rules text is correct; the example is just a SNAFU.

Re: Absorption - I hesistate to asnwer only because there are different possible interpretations. A character could be subject to Energy Drain (Essence or Magic) in the interim, for example.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Side note in 4A its Magic+enchanting, as is formulas for an ally spirit. I'm not sure what logic does for enchanting in 4A yet, but supposedly it is linked to it.

[Muspellsheimr]

And the question was not about enchanting the focus, but creating the formulae. Enchanting has always been linked to Magic in SR4 - the question wasn't about Enchanting.

[Shinobi Killfist]

And the question was not about enchanting the focus, but creating the formulae. Enchanting has always been linked to Magic in SR4 - the question wasn't about Enchanting.

I apologize I meant to type magic+arcana. It is for a formula for enchanting, so I miss typed. It was previously logic+arcana now its magic + arcana.

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

Wait, so in SR4A we don't use Logic + Arcana to craft formulae anymore? It links to Magic?

-EDIT-

I looked, and it still looks like it is linked to Logic. That would make the most sense since Mundanes can create formulae but can't actually create foci/learn spells.

[pbangarth]

The usage in SM (p. 83) for researching a Focus formula was Arcana + Magic, and then fixed to Arcana + Logic in the Errata. It would appear that SR4A (p. 190) repeated the earlier mistake, not the fixed version.

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

You're right, I missed that page as I was looking at the linked attributes table and in the skills chapter.