Sustaining spell penalty, Its not very clear Options

[Evilness45]

In the book, they say that when you sustain a spell, it's a large drain on the dude's magical abilities.
Now, right after, it translate as a -2 dice penalty on "all other tests".

Is this for ALL tests, or just tests that involves the magic attribute?
Clarifications are needed.

[rumanchu]

In the book, they say that when you sustain a spell, it's a large drain on the dude's magical abilities.
Now, right after, it translate as a -2 dice penalty on "all other tests".

Is this for ALL tests, or just tests that involves the magic attribute?
Clarifications are needed.

My understanding is that it is *all* tests that don't include the sustained spell.

[Evilness45]

Like firing a gun?

[svenftw]

Yes. The way I understand it, it's every test except Damage Resistance and Drain Resistance.

[DireRadiant]

Damage Resistance and Drain Resistance tests are the only exceptions as they specifically exclude modifiers. Otherwise modifiers apply to all tests.

[lemlo]

Has anyone tried houseruling that tests directly associated with the sustained spell (Agility-based spells for increased agility, for example) are not subject to the penalty for sustaining the spell if the magician is sustaining the spell on himself? This seems consistent with the SR4A rules for Threading CFs.

Would this be too powerful? Thoughts?

[svenftw]

It's sounds a little convoluted, but if it works in your game and you don't mind adjudicating all the gray areas it could work.

However, it's my opinion that the RAW in this case are clean, simple, and balanced. Why mess with them?

[Muspellsheimr]

I have considered altering the Sustaining rule to affect all tests linked to the Magic attribute, but have not actually done so yet. I will advise against such a change if it is the only thing being changed in your game; my rulings weaken magicians in other ways *cough*spirits*cough*, as well as adjustments to some other systems to streamline them with the rest of the game, such as Direct Combat spells.

As said, your suggestion is to convoluted to work; to complex with to little gain, & a bitch to word correctly.

What I have done is clarify that the Sustaining modifier applies to Active tests - aka tests that take an action to perform (including reactive such as Perception, not including passive such as Resistance tests of any kind). It is implied in various areas that this is the case, but does so poorly.

[cndblank]

If it was 1 spell? I could see that.

If you allow more than one spell it will get nasty fast.

Just to sustain one force 6 spell with no modifiers is 90K nuyen and 12 Karma to bond it. That adds up fast if you allow multiple spells to be sustained with no penalty.



Perhaps a Metamagic limited by the initiate grade?

That is after you learn the Metamagic, you can sustain one spell up to your initiate grade at no penalty even when you are asleep or unconscious.

Call it Weave Merge. The special effect is that the spell becomes a part of your aura and is there for easier to mask.


That would keep it fair. Maybe an advanced Metamagic called Thread Weave to allow you to sustain multiple spells with a combined force of up to your initiate grade.

It would help explain how some of these IE double grade initiates are able to do some of the the things they do.

[Fatum]

However, it's my opinion that the RAW in this case are clean, simple, and balanced. Why mess with them?

The problem here is deciding which tests are directly related to the spell in question.

[HeckfyEx]

The problem here is deciding which tests are directly related to the spell in question.

Maybe decide at a time of casting or hammer out before game?

[Fatum]

Maybe decide at a time of casting or hammer out before game?

See, in a game like ours, we two can easily decide what constitutes those actions, if just based on common sense.
On the other hand, it offers a perfect opportunity for rules lawyering, flamewars and such for the groups "playing to win".

[Muspellsheimr]

Which is why rule books should never be written under the assumption of "common sense", "reasonable interpretation", or "at the GM/Player/Group's discretion". In a published game, these will not be the same between various groups, creating significant imbalance & gameplay hindrance in some groups, while others could find the rule just fine or irrelevant.

When a question on the setting, story, etc. arises, the GM is referenced, as that is their role in the game.
When a question on the rules or mechanics arises, the rulebook is referenced, as that is its role in the game.

What good is a fucking rulebook when it doesn't actually provide rules?

[Fatum]

Uh, I'm a believer of "rules are guidelines" school of thought, and I like the book just fine - sure, a page of clarifications on how you use each of ambiguous rules is in order, but it's not like it's a big deal to write one.