Spell Sustaining, and LoS Options

[WalksWithWiFi]

So recently it was brought to my attention that i may be making an odd ruling on sustained spells
(thanks Squinky), and though i have dug through the book a couple times trying to find a place where it could
clear up the issue for me, i have yet to find a citing.
Pretty much i ruled that if a target you had sustained a spell on dropped out of the magicians LoS that the sustained
spell would drop, though i find details on sustained AoE spells in the 4a book, i am wondering if this ruling is a
left over from a previous edition.
Anyone out there have a place for reference on this matter?

[Karoline]

AFAIK sustaining doesn't require LoS, only the original casting does.

It would after all suck rather horridly if you cast a LoS invisibility spell on someone and it dropped right away because you couldn't see them any more. Or some kind of darkness spell that cut off your own LoS.

There is also the issue of it being exceedingly difficult to keep someone in your field of vision (Which is what LoS is) while fighting someone else. It would thus mean that as soon as you looked away from your friend to shoot an enemy, the armor spell you cast on them would drop.

Just some thoughts, I'll look for a page number for it stating specifically that you don't need LoS though.

[Karoline]

So, on page 174 of the SR4 book it says:

Many spells can be sustained for as long as the magician
is willing to concentrate on the spell, as noted in the spell’s
Duration. While sustained spells do off er the opportunity to
have an ongoing magical eff ect, they are also draining on the
magician’s magical abilities. For each sustained spell the magician
maintains, she suff ers a –2 dice penalty on all other tests.
If an area-eff ect spell is sustained, the aff ected area may be
moved with a Complex Action, as long as it remains within line of
sight. Characters who “drop out” of the aff ected area are no longer
aff ected by the spell; characters who are “enveloped” by the area
must defend against the eff ects of the spell as appropriate.
If the gamemaster chooses, certain circumstances may
threaten to break a magician’s concentration while she is sustaining
a spell, such as taking damage, full defense, dropping prone,
and so on. If a magician’s concentration is disrupted while sustaining
a spell, she must make a Willpower + Spellcasting (2)
Test to avoid dropping the sustained spell (note that the sustaining
modifi er does not apply to this test).

Nowhere does it mention that losing LoS breaks sustaining. The only thing it mentions in regards to LoS and sustaining is that an AoE spell can only be moved if it is in LoS. This seems to rather directly indicate that it is possible to have a sustained AoE spell that is not in LoS. And since single target and AoE spells are mostly similar, if AoE spells can be sustained outside of LoS, I don't see why single target's can't be.

[Dragnar]

Sustaining a spell doesn't require LoS, for all the reasons Karoline mentioned.
Otherwise, all mages would have cybereyes so as not to break all their spells all the time by blinking... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Rystefn]

The FAQ at shadowrun4.com says you do not have to maintain line of site to sustain spells normally. For permanent spells, you have to maintain it until the spell becomes permanent.

[WalksWithWiFi]

Thanks for the info the 3 of you,
it's helpful, and it will help wash away whatever remnant of something i was clinging to
that told me otherwise.
Though the concept of a mage blinking/looking the other way and the spell dropping was
never something i would have enforced..it was more of i thought the target had to be viewable
and not in another room.
In this case, i like being proven, "wrong"

[TBRMInsanity]

Is LOS defined in the book as "you must see the target" or is it "you must be able to see the target"? If it is the former then yes blinking or turning your head away will break LOS, if not, then simply having the ability to draw a direct line of sight from the target area to the mage would mean you have LOS. I tend to think (and run my game) that LOS is the ability to see the target and not you must see the target currently.

[Karoline]

Is LOS defined in the book as "you must see the target" or is it "you must be able to see the target"? If it is the former then yes blinking or turning your head away will break LOS, if not, then simply having the ability to draw a direct line of sight from the target area to the mage would mean you have LOS. I tend to think (and run my game) that LOS is the ability to see the target and not you must see the target currently.

The idea of LoS is based on drawing a line to determine if it is possible to see a person or not. The theory behind it though is that when making use of that LoS you actually do see that person at the time. It is after all possible to draw LoS to a person through a pitch black room, but that doesn't mean that you can actually make use of that LoS because you can't actually see the target.

So yes, LoS is the theoretical ability to potentially see a target, but it is generally assumed that LoS requires you to actually see the target. This basically represents the fact that you have a nearly 360 degree field of vision when you include turning your head and such so you don't have to worry about which way you're facing.

[Draco18s]

The FAQ at shadowrun4.com says you do not have to maintain line of site to sustain spells normally.

This. Otherwise Mind-Link would be useless. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)