Spell defense on the go., I new ghouls were good for something! Options

[Brazila]

The wording in SR3 says that spell defense dice that succeed subtract directly from the successes that the caster of the spell gets. So if a mage astrally projects and another PC is astrally perceiving or dual natured for some reason, then if a area of effect spell hits the dual natured PC and other team members would the mage effectively be helping the whole team?

[Kanada Ten]

Why would there have to be another Astrally active character? Isn't the rule protect those "within sight"? I've always thought the mage could protect anyone while projecting (if they assigned spell defense).

[Brazila]

I believe they have to be on the same plane, so they would have to be astral if he was projecting.

[Kanada Ten]

I think we need a rule's quote (I'm just going to break down and buy the PDFs at some point). However, if so, then the answer is no: the mage could only provide spell defense to the astrally active character. The exception would be Absorbsion and Area Elemental Manipulations

Ah, I see your delimma now. But I suppose it's a matter of interpretations. I don't think spell defense affects the spell against non protected individuals.

This post has been edited by Kanada Ten: Feb 18 2005, 03:17 AM

[The White Dwarf]

K10 is correct, when an area spell is cast the mages results are compared to each individuals resistance test. Spell defense affects said individuals test only, not the base results of the person who cast the spell. So someone with spell defense may go totally protected and the undefended person right next to them could spontaneously combust.

The part about the different planes I didnt get from that wording, but a mage can only provide spell defense for someone on the same plane, and likewise you can only cast on someone on the same plane. So a mage on the physical could provide spell defense for a dual natured character who is targeted from the astral and I *think* the dice would still be applicable, books arnt handy to check the wording on that. I think only the location of the defender and defendee matter, not the location of the attacking spells origin, but dont quote me on that.

[Ed Simons]

[James McMurray]

Unless there's an erratta, spell defense specifically states that if the defense gets more successes than the spell, the spell fails. It doesn't say "fails for that person".

[Brazila]

yeah James that is how I took it. I emailed FAQ (stop that mumbling) and they said that while the 2 do go against each other, they recomend that you limit it via the same plane thing, so you could help the dual natured person but not spounge up the spell thrue them. Damn if that is the case their goes the use for ghoul PCs after all LOL.

[Kanada Ten]

Makes Spell Defense far too powerful against Indirect Illusions. I certainly will continue to add "for those covered by the spell defense."

[Fortune]

[James McMurray]

It could be, but that isn't what the book says.

[Jebu]

The spell defense example on p. 183, SR3 makes the mage roll the spell defense dice against the spell, and the protected subjects resist against whatever successes were left. This indeed seems to indicate that the whole spell would have failed if the defending mage got more successes than the attacking spellcaster. BUT the example doesn't have anyone in the manaball's area of effect that is not protected by spell defense, so the example leaves that part unanswered.

You could say that if rolling spell defense results in attacker's spell failure, spell defense acted like lightning conductor and channeled the mana safely away. However, this ignores the Sorcery skill limit for possible subjects, making spell defense more powerful than it was meant to be.

I believe limiting spell defense to a certain maximum number of subjects is more important, so I interpret the rules for spell failure applying only to single target spells. For area spells, including indirect illusions, spell defense only works for those under protection. If the shielding caster rolls more successes than the attacking caster, the protected subjects are automatically immune to the spell, requiring no spell resistance roll, otherwise they roll against whatever successes remain. Everyone not protected have to resist normally against the original number of successes.

[James McMurray]

[Jebu]

No, I don't know what the developers were thinking, they had spell defense activated when I was trying to mind probe them. I wrote my interpretation of the rules, and since the maximum number of protected subjetcs was stated to be equal to Sorcery skill, I used that information to solve the confusing part of the rules.

I may be wrong, but to me it was the logical conclusion. I'd like to see errata on it some day, until that I'll use my interpretation of spell defense rules. Naturally others should use whatever rules they think are logical / fit their game.