"Involuntary Target" spell design option, reasonable addition or not? Options

[Jason Farlander]

Pretty simple question, really: Would it be reasonable to allow that a spell be designed such that it would only affect *unwilling* targets?

[shadd4d]

Yes, it's possible, but I'd hope you can convince someone that you healing them is really a bad thing.

You still have to check if the modifier is pertinent to the spell category (it's already assumed in the combat and most of the manipulation spells).

Don

[BitBasher]

[RedmondLarry]

I would not allow such a spell.

Consider a fireball/manaball in a narrow cooridor into a wild melee. With "unwilling targets only", and everyone on your team says "I'm a willing target!" Only the opposition would get geeked.

No way.

[Jason Farlander]

If a potential target agrees to accept the spell or, for whatever reason, decides to not resist the effects of the spell, a spell with the "involuntary target" modification could then not affect that target.

refusing to resist the spell would negate the effects of the spell.

Example: mage designs an "involuntary only" stunball. levitating invisibly above a battle involving some goons and his teammates, mage informs his teammates (via radio or whatever) that he will be casting this spell, and to not resist it. They do not make their resistance checks, and so it does not affect them, only affecting the goons who *do* resist the spell.

edit: my example, and ourteam's objection, represent what is, perhaps, the most ridiculous use of the modifier. however, note that a possible answer is that the involuntary target modifer can not be used on spells that cause damage. I'm not looking for an all or nothing sort of answer, necessarily; just a general assessment of the reasonablenss of the modifier

[Moirdryd]

Perhaps the mage could craft some talismans that denote the wearer as a `willing ` target for the spell and there by it would ignore them? Instead of people just accepting the Stun Ball. A mystical IFF trabnsponder in effect. Incidently can you actually be a willing target for a spell that does physical damage to you? or would your body automatically attempt to resist it, like taking a bullet?...

[tisoz]

Just expect the enemy mage to come up with a voluntary version and kill everyone on the team as they get no resistance check..

[Herald of Verjig...]

Hmm.... IFF foci.

An IFF focus can classify a subject as a non-target for combatative spells cast by the person who bonded the focus. It can only nullify the effects of spells at or below the force of the focus. They are considered "active" for any turn that they prevent,or attempt to prevent, a spell but do not count any worse for attempting to prevent multiple spells.

As for the numbers, lets set costs to be the same as specific spell foci. 1 karma per force for non-initial bonding and all that.

It'll really help when you choose to manaball the melee around the group's troll, but you really risk magic loss if you have too many friends in the area of effect.

[BitBasher]

lol, and every time a spell is cast they get asked "do you resist"? without metagaming they would absolutely get massacred if an enemy mage cast in the same pass.

[Zazen]

Let me get this straight. If you want the spell, you can't have it affect you. Ok, so far so good.

Now, what if you know about the particular limitations on the spell? Then if you really wanted the spell, you'd purposely try not to want it. Thus if you know about its limitations and you still want the spell, then you really don't want the spell. If you don't want the spell, you really want it. :|


I don't think this is really playable.

[Kagetenshi]

Zazen, the way you describe it it's entirely playable :)

Who'd you think of, Ray?" "I couldn't help it! He just popped in there!" "Who is it, Ray?!"

~J

[Zazen]

[Person 404]

Man, shades of Unknown Armies, where doublethink actually is a skill.

[Kagetenshi]

Paranoia/Shadowrun crossover, anyone?

~J

[Zazen]

[Garland]