shadowbod
May 23 2006, 08:57 PM
When a mage is sustaining a spell, the GM has the option of making them roll to keep sustaining when their concentration is broken, e.g. when they take damage (see step 7, p174 of the rulebook).
Do you think that the mage's player should still have to roll if they have had the mage cast the sustained spell through a sustaining focus?
The reason I ask is that there is a mage in the group I run and he likes to cast invisibility through a sustaining focus. I know that there are lots of ways around invis and also that the spell could be dispelled by another mage (or whatever) etc. I liked the fact that if he was sustaining the spell himself and was unlucky enough to get seen and shot, the spell might fail, but this doesn't appear to be the case when casting through a sus-focus as it is doing the work for him.
My preferred option at the moment is to say that although the sus-focus takes away the need to concentrate on the spell to sustain it, it is still the mage that is actually responsible for keeping it going and if he gets shot, he will have to roll for concentration.
What do you all think?
-edited for clarity-
WyldKarde
May 23 2006, 09:01 PM
To my mind, the whole point of a sustaining focus is that it does all the work for the spellcaster once the spell is actually cast. No need to roll to sustain it, even when distracted by those irritating bullet wounds. The nuyen cost, karma bonding and astral vulnerability all nicely offset this tremendous advantage.
Of course, if you want to be teh evil, you could rule that it will sustain the spell if the mage in question is knocked unconscious through damage. Their chummers would have a hard time administering first aid if they can't even find the poor slot.
stevebugge
May 23 2006, 09:03 PM
That's a take that I hadn't considered before. I can see some potential benefits in balancing out magic a bit, and it's a believeable explanation. I guess it just comes down to how badly you think magic is being abused in your game whether or not you implement it. Of course there are some other options to keep mages from running around with tons of sustained spells up constantly, wards and astral patrols being the most common.
stevebugge
May 23 2006, 09:10 PM
QUOTE (WyldKarde) |
To my mind, the whole point of a sustaining focus is that it does all the work for the spellcaster once the spell is actually cast. No need to roll to sustain it, even when distracted by those irritating bullet wounds. The nuyen cost, karma bonding and astral vulnerability all nicely offset this tremendous advantage.
Of course, if you want to be teh evil, you could rule that it will sustain the spell if the mage in question is knocked unconscious through damage. Their chummers would have a hard time administering first aid if they can't even find the poor slot. |
That's a good point: Don't let players have it both ways, if the fcous is going to sustain the spell through injury it can sustain them through unconciousness too. Only death will break the bonding and end the focus's ability to draw energy. I may talk to my group about some of these ideas.
NightHaunter
May 24 2006, 01:12 PM
Hummm.
Moon-Hawk
May 24 2006, 03:28 PM
QUOTE (stevebugge) |
Only death will break the bonding and end the focus's ability to draw energy. |
I think I disagree slightly with you on this. Only death will break the bonding: agree. But removal from the subjet's person will deactivate the focus and end the spell. The focus will still be bonded to the owner, but it needs to be in contact with the subject to remain active.
Right? Or am I thinking of SR3 again. Wait, let me rephrase that: I am definitely thinking of SR3, but did that change?
stevebugge
May 24 2006, 03:31 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
QUOTE (stevebugge @ May 23 2006, 04:10 PM) | Only death will break the bonding and end the focus's ability to draw energy. |
I think I disagree slightly with you on this. Only death will break the bonding: agree. But removal from the subjet's person will deactivate the focus and end the spell. The focus will still be bonded to the owner, but it needs to be in contact with the subject to remain active. Right? Or am I thinking of SR3 again. Wait, let me rephrase that: I am definitely thinking of SR3, but did that change?
|
I don't know that it has, and I believe you are correct about removing the focus deactivating it. Situationally however removing a focus from an unconscious invisible mage is almost as difficult as performing first-aid on said mage.
NightHaunter
May 24 2006, 03:37 PM
Can anyone confirm that consciousness is not a requirement for having an active focus?
Butterblume
May 24 2006, 03:59 PM
The rules don't list any such requirement.
In fact, it doesn't even state that the focus deactivate on the magician's death ... but that should probably better be discussed after the release of the magic book
![biggrin.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
.
QUOTE |
Once activated, a focus continues to operate as long as it is on the owner’s person, be it worn, carried, handheld, or in a pocket or pouch. |
QUOTE |
If the focus is snatched away or dropped, it immediately deactivates and all benefits are lost until it is recovered and reactivated. |
Aaron
May 24 2006, 04:11 PM
QUOTE (NightHaunter) |
Can anyone confirm that consciousness is not a requirement for having an active focus? |
Nope. Even did multiple searches on the PDF. It says that a focus deactivates if separated from the bonded owner, but nothing about a magician being asleep.
I suppose you could say that the owner has to be awake, because in order to activate it he must be ... Awakened. =)
stevebugge
May 24 2006, 04:16 PM
So does that mean an alarmclock is required for activating a focus?
Moon-Hawk
May 24 2006, 04:17 PM
I would agree that consciousness is irrelevant. I would suggest, however, that death would end the spell. My argument is thus: A mage casts a spell on Jeff (who may or may not be the mage) Jeff is the subject of the spell, and deals with the spell as the subject should. Jeff dies. Jeff is now not Jeff, but rather a Jeff-shaped chunk of meat, magically speaking. This chunk of meat is not subject to spells in the way that a metahuman is, but rather is now in the realm of object resistance, since chunk of meat is an object. Since the nature of the subject has changed, fundamentally (again, as far as spell targeting is concerned) the spell is no longer valid.
Hmmm, I'm not sure about that, though. Might depend on the type of spell.
NightHaunter
May 24 2006, 04:17 PM
Thanks for confirmation.
shadowbod
May 24 2006, 05:21 PM
So, to get the thread back on track...
If the mage was sustaining invis himself and was unlucky enough to get seen and shot, he might, just might lose concentration and drop the spell - which means that a mundane had some way of getting rid of the spell (a good thing I think).
However, with the rules as written, if the mage casts the invis through a sustaining focus, even if he was spotted and shot he doesn't lose the spell - which means that the only way the spell ends is if another awakened being disrupts it and mundanes just have to put up with a permanently invisible mage
![frown.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/frown.gif)
.
My original question could still use some more replies...
Do you think that the mage should still have to roll for concentration if they get shot but have cast the sustained spell through a sustaining focus?
Aaron
May 24 2006, 05:22 PM
Waitaminute. Back up the monkey truck a second.
QUOTE (stevebugge) |
Only death will break the bonding and end the focus's ability to draw energy.
|
I assume you mean in the situation of an unconscious magician and acknowledging that removing the focus and re-bonding it would break said original bond, ne?
Moon-Hawk
May 24 2006, 05:31 PM
QUOTE (shadowbod) |
However, with the rules as written, if the mage casts the invis through a sustaining focus, even if he was spotted and shot he doesn't lose the spell - which means that the only way the spell ends is if another awakened being disrupts it and mundanes just have to put up with a permanently invisible mage . |
No, AFAIK, per the RAW, they could find his body *somehow*, search it, and remove the sustaining focus. The focus will immediately deactivate and the spell will end. It will still be bonded to the mage, however, so when he wakes up he can recast and be fine, he's not out any karma.
I get the impression that there's some confusion as to the difference between active/inactive and bonded/unbonded.
shadowbod
May 24 2006, 05:39 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
No, AFAIK, per the RAW, they could find his body *somehow*, search it, and remove the sustaining focus. The focus will immediately deactivate and the spell will end. It will still be bonded to the mage, however, so when he wakes up he can recast and be fine, he's not out any karma. I get the impression that there's some confusion as to the difference between active/inactive and bonded/unbonded. |
Perhaps I wasn't being too clear in my original post... The mage gets shot but NOT killed, just injured. There's no body to search for - just an invisible mage with a minor wound. I agree that a mundane could take a focus off a mage to disrupt a spell, but they would have to have some knowledge of magic to be aware of foci and some idea what/where the focus was - not much chance.
Moon-Hawk
May 24 2006, 05:43 PM
Oh, now I understand you. Yeah, that's pretty accurate, then.
The only thing I'd add is that I would assume that it doesn't take a knowledge skill in magic to know what a sustaining focus is. As long as someone wasn't "6th world unaware", I'd expect that their existance is common knowledge. Recognizing one could be tricky, though, as most people get their magical education from Karl Kombatmage.
stevebugge
May 24 2006, 06:14 PM
QUOTE (Aaron @ May 24 2006, 09:22 AM) |
Waitaminute. Back up the monkey truck a second.
QUOTE (stevebugge) | Only death will break the bonding and end the focus's ability to draw energy.
|
I assume you mean in the situation of an unconscious magician and acknowledging that removing the focus and re-bonding it would break said original bond, ne?
|
Actually Just removing the focus from the mages person would just end the spell, not unbond the focus. However, yes I was ignoring this chain of events for simplicity.
EDIT: Ok re-reading the above answer that actually made my answer more confusing not less. So to answer Aaron yes I was acknowledging that removing the focus from the mages person breaks deactivates the focus (not un-bonds) and ends the spell. However I simply did not mention this possibility to save time and effort based on the fact that removing an invisible focus from an unconcious invisible mage would be almost as difficult as bandaging an unconcious invisible mage.
Butterblume
May 24 2006, 06:25 PM
QUOTE (shadowbod) |
Do you think that the mage should still have to roll for concentration if they get shot but have cast the sustained spell through a sustaining focus? |
No.
As someone mentioned before
![wink.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
.
-X-
May 24 2006, 06:59 PM
Not really anything to do with the RAW one way or the other but I thought I'd throw this out there. Might have gone off topic to boot so apologies.
If invisibility is becoming a serious hassle and you end up having to always throw a mage into the mix to counter it, there are other solutions.
Drones with non-visual but pinpoint accurate ways of targeting someone. Cybernetic eyes with the same.
Or a mystic SOTA advance where some clever labcoat invents a semi-awakened spraypaint that can't be turned invisible. Maybe a modified version of that bacteria that lights up the air around an astrally active entity?
Moon-Hawk
May 24 2006, 07:03 PM
Didn't SOTA64 introduce some aura glassess or camera or something like that? I seem to remember something technological that could vaguely detect auras. Not really astral sight, but maybe enough to indicate where to open fire. The resolution was very crappy, and probably still subject to blind fire modifiers, but at least you'd know where to point the gun.
Wasn't there? Am I making stuff up again?
-X-
May 24 2006, 07:05 PM
Kirlean photography is supposed to be able to take pictures of auras. But I'm pretty sure that is only a chemical treatment during the developing stage, not something you could use to pinpoint a character's location right that second.
stevebugge
May 24 2006, 07:06 PM
Pheromone detectors, echo locattion, bio-electric sensors, pressure pads, very and ultra short wavelength radar, and ultra-sound are all options for detecting an invisible mage. In addition circumstances can make the mage stand out. For example set off the fire sprinklers and watch for incongruous drips or dry patches, or Invisibility becomes nearly useless in an active wind tunnel with the smoke streats going. Soft ground can give the mage away too.
Moon-Hawk
May 24 2006, 07:07 PM
What about FAB strain 1 gas grenades?
FrankTrollman
May 24 2006, 07:11 PM
Not only would a magician not have a chance of losing the spell from his sustaining focus, but if the mage gets knocked out he
can't turn it off.
Activating a focus is a Simple Action, deactivating the focus is a Free Action. But having the sustaing focus continue sustaing the spell is no action. (Page 191)
Unconcious characters can take no action.
![wink.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
---
A spell sustained by a sustaining focus can be ended four ways:
- Remove the focus from the magician (this includes removinng the magician from the focus by killing the mage).
- Disrupt the spell.
- Destroy the Focus itself.
- The magician can take a voluntary action to deactivate the focus.
Until Street Magic comes out, that's it. But you can bet good money that they'll add a fifth way for strong mana warps. Taking an active sustaining focus on a sub orbital trip is going to shut your focus down as well.
-Frank
Butterblume
May 24 2006, 07:18 PM
QUOTE |
Drones with non-visual but pinpoint accurate ways of targeting someone. Cybernetic eyes with the same. |
Ultrasound vision ?
![biggrin.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
Or even just triangulating with two directional microphones ... (hm, even one might be enough
![biggrin.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
)
Yeah, for proper equipped security forces there are many ways to get even invisible people.
QUOTE |
Or a mystic SOTA advance where some clever labcoat invents a semi-awakened spraypaint that can't be turned invisible. |
Try normal spraypaint on the invisible char
![wink.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
.
James McMurray
May 24 2006, 07:43 PM
I would say that death of the subject would end the spell, as spells are cast by syncing them up with the target's aura. When the target dies there is no longer an aura to sync up to.
shadowbod
May 24 2006, 09:03 PM
QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
- Destroy the Focus itself.
|
Could someone point me at the rules that deal with the destruction of foci (either from the astral or physical)?
Thanks.
-X-
May 24 2006, 09:03 PM
QUOTE (Butterblume) |
QUOTE | Or a mystic SOTA advance where some clever labcoat invents a semi-awakened spraypaint that can't be turned invisible. |
Try normal spraypaint on the invisible char ![wink.gif](http://forums.dumpshock.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif) . |
That probably wouldn't do the job since any small object you pick up becomes invisible. I think. I'll have to reread the invis. description soon as I get my books back.
Geekkake
May 24 2006, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (shadowbod) |
QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
- Destroy the Focus itself.
|
Could someone point me at the rules that deal with the destruction of foci (either from the astral or physical)?
Thanks.
|
I'd imagine the rules for destroying a focus are identical to destroying any other object. Mundanes can make foci, which means they're just a regular old object the magician bonds and integrates into their magical paradigm to perform their magic easier. It could be a plastic magnifying glass from a Crackjack box.
Butterblume
May 24 2006, 09:39 PM
QUOTE |
That probably wouldn't do the job since any small object you pick up becomes invisible. I think. I'll have to reread the invis. description soon as I get my books back. |
That would lead to another tedious thread about how invisibilty works, i'll just say this: we play it that everything you have on you when the spell is cast is invisible. If you drop something, it will become visible. if you take something, it is still visible.
(you could cast the spell again to make this item invisible too, of course).
I think this is the only way to make the invisibilty spell 'logical'.
James McMurray
May 24 2006, 09:43 PM
QUOTE (Butterblume) |
I think this is the only way to make the invisibilty spell 'logical'. |
That's pretty funny.
-X-
May 24 2006, 09:51 PM
QUOTE (Butterblume) |
QUOTE | That probably wouldn't do the job since any small object you pick up becomes invisible. I think. I'll have to reread the invis. description soon as I get my books back. |
That would lead to another tedious thread about how invisibilty works, i'll just say this: we play it that everything you have on you when the spell is cast is invisible. If you drop something, it will become visible. if you take something, it is still visible. (you could cast the spell again to make this item invisible too, of course).
I think this is the only way to make the invisibilty spell 'logical'.
|
Might make things interesting to have Improved Invisibility ruined by spray paint, but regular Invisibility (working as it does on the mind, not the senses) would be completely unaffected.
Looks like SR4 has no official answer yet about picking stuff up or dropping it. I'll probably stick to the old rule about new items acquired getting added to the invisibility and dropped items suddenly appearing myself, but then I tend to assume that decent security accounts for invisible people so it is rarely abused.
Shrike30
May 24 2006, 09:58 PM
It's really a pain in the ass to get a high enough rating focus to put Improved Invisibility into it, and have it work against cameras, RFID surveillance, and the like. Most of those things count as "Highly Processed Materials," setting the Threshold for managing to decieve them to at least 4. Getting a Rating 4+ sustaining focus isn't possible under the normal character creation rules, and isn't exactly cheap either.
FrankTrollman
May 24 2006, 11:39 PM
QUOTE (shadowbod) |
QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
- Destroy the Focus itself.
|
Could someone point me at the rules that deal with the destruction of foci (either from the astral or physical)?
Thanks.
|
Unfortunately, it's pretty tenuous:
- When active, a Focus has an Astral Form (p. 191)
- Objects with an Astral Form can be affected by physical damage in astral combat (p. 184)
So you
can use astral attacks to destroy the astral form of an active focus. Unfotunately... that's all it says. Most people assume that they have an astral barrier rating and body equal to their Force, but that's never explicitly stated.
The physical destruction certainly follows the normal rules, since objects don't get any special resistances just for being enchanted (or you'd see a lot more armored car foci, let me tell you!).
-Frank
Aaron
May 25 2006, 12:46 AM
QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
So you can use astral attacks to destroy the astral form of an active focus. Unfotunately... that's all it says. Most people assume that they have an astral barrier rating and body equal to their Force, but that's never explicitly stated. |
In addition to the above, we know that disrupted foci simply deactivate (p. 186). Otherwise, yeah, we're waiting for Street Magic.
NightHaunter
May 25 2006, 12:24 PM
QUOTE (Geekkake) |
QUOTE (shadowbod @ May 24 2006, 04:03 PM) | QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
- Destroy the Focus itself.
|
Could someone point me at the rules that deal with the destruction of foci (either from the astral or physical)?
Thanks.
|
I'd imagine the rules for destroying a focus are identical to destroying any other object. Mundanes can make foci, which means they're just a regular old object the magician bonds and integrates into their magical paradigm to perform their magic easier. It could be a plastic magnifying glass from a Crackjack box.
|
Actually I believe there is a metamagic technique that allows you to make foci.
It's name has slipped my mind. Might be enchanting and/or alchemy.
But i'm sure you need that to create a focus.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.