Ally Spirit's and Damage Options

[Paul]

So last night we played a 650 point SR4A game, with pregenerated characters provided by me as the GM. One of the characters was a Mage who had initiated, and ended up summoning an Ally Spirit prior to the start of the game. During the game the Mage cast a Stun Ball spell, and the Ally Spirit was in the LOS(A) range of the spell. So our questions were as follows:

• Can the Mage ignore a target in the Area of Effect? I assume not, but can he with hold successes or anything liek that?
• What happens when an Ally spirit maxes out it's condition track?

Thanks in advance for any useful guidance.

[Makki]

Can the Mage ignore a target in the Area of Effect? I assume not, but can he with hold successes or anything liek that?

No, but yes he can withhold successes. I guess he can provide counterspelling for his ally.

What happens when an Ally spirit maxes out it's condition track?

I'm 99% sure he'll be disrupted back to his very own special metaplane, where he'll be very lonely, or not. He'll be back in 28-Force days.

[BishopMcQ]

The mage can also undergo an astral quest to retrieve him after being disrupted, to avoid waiting the (28-Force) days.

Also, if it was intentional and repeated, the Ally may attempt to break free. Not the first time that it happened, but by the third or fourth time his boss disrupted him rather than shave a few points off the force, the spirit will get tired of it.

[Paul]

It was totally unintentional. The player simply forgot he had an Ally spirit that was manifested in the area.

[Tanegar]

Manifested or materialized? In order to be a legal target for a spell cast on the physical plane, the spirit would have had to materialize.

[Paul]

Sorry, I do that every time. Materialized. Good English to Paul catch!

[Mordinvan]

Its possible to use smart glasses to avoid friendlies in the AOE if they have a distinct form software can recognize by covering their appearance with opaque circles so you can't see them, and produce the needed connection to hit them with the spell. Its borderline cheating, but by the rules of how magic works, would totally be doable.

Edited for spelling... I hope.

[Raiki]

Its possible to use smart glasses to avoid friendlies in the AOE if they have a distinct form software can recognize by covering their appearance with opaque circles so you can't see them, and produce the needed connection to hit them with the spell. Its borderline cheating, but by the rules of how magic works, would totally be doable.

Edited for spelling... I hope.

I'm...not even sure I want to call that borderline. I mean, yeah, it's RAW, but it's about the bloodiest RAW I've ever seen short of a Neraph post.

Not to mention the host of other problems that could arise from the mage not being able to see his allies-Lack of Counterspelling being chief among them.

[Dakka Dakka]

Not to mention the host of other problems that could arise from the mage not being able to see his allies-Lack of Counterspelling being chief among them.

That is the flip side of smart glasses or interposing a hand between your eyes and your allies. That's why I don't find that unbalancing.

[Yerameyahu]

I dunno why people react so negatively to Negator-casting. It's practically the point, and it makes total sense for a magi-tech world like SR. How often could this even come up? And you're only saving a couple turns, over blasting them individually, telling your friend to move, whatever. Of all the crazy broken rules and exploits, this doesn't even register.

[Neraph]

1) No, but yes he can withhold successes. I guess he can provide counterspelling for his ally.

2) I'm 99% sure he'll be disrupted back to his very own special metaplane, where he'll be very lonely, or not. He'll be back in 28-Force days.

(modified slightly)
Quoted for truth.

Its possible to use smart glasses to avoid friendlies in the AOE if they have a distinct form software can recognize by covering their appearance with opaque circles so you can't see them, and produce the needed connection to hit them with the spell. Its borderline cheating, but by the rules of how magic works, would totally be doable.

Edited for spelling... I hope.

I'm...not even sure I want to call that borderline. I mean, yeah, it's RAW, but it's about the bloodiest RAW I've ever seen short of a Neraph post.

Not to mention the host of other problems that could arise from the mage not being able to see his allies-Lack of Counterspelling being chief among them.

(emphasis mine)
I feel honored, sir.

[Dakka Dakka]

An invoked spirit of man is much worse. With sufficient hits the spirit will be able to cast for example stun bolt as a LOS(A) spell and exclude any targets it wants to.

[Irion]

You can't cast through any kind of electronic vision enhancement... So unless you use cybereyes it is (as far as I am concerned) a NO-GO.

And even using cybereyes it (as a matter of fact) would not work, if you are very strict.
You would need to manipulate the RAW data and analyse it first. This would mean you would cast at a picture of the past. If this is at all possible and to what extend is all highly questionable... So it the ball is in the GMs playground...

@Dakka Dakka
Questionable too...
And if you really go down this road... There are much worse things.
A force 9 spirit of men sustaining 3 different buff-spells on himself and the mage without suffering any kind of sustaining penalty..

[Yerameyahu]

Everything's a picture of the past, ugh. The fact is that you can hold your thumb in front of your face to do this. Negators are nothing different, blocking the actual photons with physical pixels (in glasses/contacts), or blocking your natural vision directly (with cybereyes). It is not electronic vision enhancement, and again, it can't really come up that often. If it does, tell the player who wanted to do melee to knock it off. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Dakka Dakka]

You can't cast through any kind of electronic vision enhancement... So unless you use cybereyes it is (as far as I am concerned) a NO-GO.

Wrong. You cannot use electronic imaging for targeting spells unless it is paid for with essence.The elcetronics are only used to block some of your vision. This is exactly the same as casting at a target in cover. If you can't see it, you can't target it and it won't be affected.

And even using cybereyes it (as a matter of fact) would not work, if you are very strict.
You would need to manipulate the RAW data and analyse it first. This would mean you would cast at a picture of the past. If this is at all possible and to what extend is all highly questionable... So it the ball is in the GMs playground...

I see no rule against that.

Questionable too...

Why? Innate Spell is a Power. The Power's range depends on the particular Spell that is innate. There are several Spells with Range LOS. Provided the summoner gets sufficient hits Great Form Spirits get to change LOS powers to LOS(A). They get to exclude any target within the power's area if they wish. Simple application of RAW.

And if you really go down this road... There are much worse things.
A force 9 spirit of men sustaining 3 different buff-spells on himself and the mage without suffering any kind of sustaining penalty..

Of course there are other ways to create powerful effects.

[Irion]

@Dakka Dakka

Wrong. You cannot use electronic imaging for targeting spells unless it is paid for with essence.The elcetronics are only used to block some of your vision. This is exactly the same as casting at a target in cover. If you can't see it, you can't target it and it won't be affected.

Either it is an electronic devise or it is not. If it is, you can't cast through it.

Why? Innate Spell is a Power. The Power's range depends on the particular Spell that is innate. There are several Spells with Range LOS. Provided the summoner gets sufficient hits Great Form Spirits get to change LOS powers to LOS(A). They get to exclude any target within the power's area if they wish. Simple application of RAW.

Only if you see it as a power in every aspect. This would even mean, that you can't resist it with counterspelling. Because the resistance roll is dexcribed as a general rule for the spells. (Not for every spell)

[Mordinvan]

@Dakka Dakka
Either it is an electronic devise or it is not. If it is, you can't cast through it.

All it has to be is the standard sunglasses in the game capable of AR. So long as the glass can create opaque pixels you can totally have those pixels block parts of your vision. Since the actual photons from the intended targets are reaching your eyes through the clear parts of the glass you can continue to target those you wish to hit.

[Dakka Dakka]

@Dakka Dakka

Either it is an electronic devise or it is not. If it is, you can't cast through it.

Casting through is irrelevant. Target acquisition may not be done by means of an electronic device, unless paid for with essence. As long as light travels through the electronic device there is no problem as you do noat acquire a target by means of an electronic device but with your own eyes. If this were an issue, you could not cast through power windows, which would be silly.

Only if you see it as a power in every aspect. This would even mean, that you can't resist it with counterspelling. Because the resistance roll is dexcribed as a general rule for the spells. (Not for every spell)

You may want to read the description of innate spell.

Innate Spells cast by a critter are the same as those cast by magicians, and magicians can use Counterspelling against them as normal.

Though Innate spell is a power in every respect, the effects created by this power however behave just like those of normal spells.

[Irion]

@Dakka Dakka

Casting through is irrelevant. Target acquisition may not be done by means of an electronic device, unless paid for with essence. As long as light travels through the electronic device there is no problem as you do noat acquire a target by means of an electronic device but with your own eyes. If this were an issue, you could not cast through power windows, which would be silly.

Questionable. The window is not a question, since it is an purly optical device.

@Mordinvan
So tell me, how do your glasses "know" which to block.
And still, it actually does not really matter. Because, well it is magic.

[Yerameyahu]

The glasses use a camera feed. The mage doesn't, though.

[Angelone]

It doesn't really matter. If you can't see someone, for whatever reason, and they are in the area of your spell it's still going to hit them.

[Dakka Dakka]

It doesn't really matter. If you can't see someone, for whatever reason, and they are in the area of your spell it's still going to hit them.

Read up on how magic works. This is only true for indirect combat spells, for all other spells the rule is, what you do not see is not affected by the spell regardless of area of effect.

[BishopMcQ]

Synner (Peter Taylor) wrote a large post about this back in the day. The main thrust was that intentionally obfuscating your view would lead to the spell simply fizzling. I haven't seen anything from Jason to contradict that, so standing orders remain in effect.

[Angelone]

Read up on how magic works. This is only true for indirect combat spells, for all other spells the rule is, what you do not see is not affected by the spell regardless of area of effect.

I was talking about indirect spells, I should have been more clear. It is odd to me though that if you had a dwarf behind something, say a bear or a troll, and you drop an AoE that unless it was an indirect spell you wouldn't hit the dwarf who is in range.

[Yerameyahu]

Sounds like pure balance-GM-fiat, Bishop. Which is fine as long as the group makes a choice and sticks to it, but it should work as you've stated: *any* intentional blocking should behave the same as Negators (holding up your hand, strategically moving behind a pillar, etc.). It also means that un-intentional examples (Negators that you don't want?) should also *not* fizzle? It'd have to, or you could easily make mages constantly fizzle just by messing with their vision in almost any way… which presumably happens 100% of the day.

When faced with that kind of fuzzy problem, I'd rather just allow it. Again, how often are you people even wanting to fire AOE spells into a mixed melee?