Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sustained Spell and Line of Sight
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
shadowbod
I'd like to hear people's views on whether they think a mage/shaman needs to have line of sight (Los) to sustain a spell?

Since someone is bound to bring up the fact that if a mage was trying to sustain invisibilty on someone, they wouldn't be able to see them, I'd like to pre-counter that argument with the fact that the mage can always see through their own illusions as they know them for what they are.

My general feeling is that a mage does need LoS to sustain, but I'd like to hear how others deal with it or if they believe there is a clear ruling on it in the SR4 rulebook.

I did a very thorough but unsuccessful search of the forum before posting this question, so if I missed a previous discussion on this, please could you include a link to it in the post telling me to use the search function? smile.gif
Edward
I think that they do not need to maintain LOS, mostly because it would make a lot of spell casting of little value. Just walking around a corner would take a lot of care.

Edward
Butterblume
It would be very hard for the mage not to blink his eyes (resulting in loosing the line of sight).

Also, the rules indicate LOS is required for casting a spell. LOS is not mentioned for sustaining a spell (apart from moving a sustained area effect, which is completely different wink.gif)
shadowbod
QUOTE (Butterblume)

It would be very hard for the mage not to blink his eyes (resulting in loosing the line of sight).


The mage might also blink whilst casting or moving the area of the spell, but this isn't taken into account anywhere so we can probably assume that blinking doesn't matter - thanks for the input though smile.gif
Butterblume
QUOTE (shadowbod)
The mage might also blink whilst casting or moving the area of the spell, but this isn't taken into account anywhere so we can probably assume that blinking doesn't matter - thanks for the input though smile.gif

A complex action needs, in the worst case I can think of, max 3 seconds. I assume everyone can go that long without blinking wink.gif.
So, blinking probably would matter (good explanation for a glitch on the casting test nyahnyah.gif).
Geekkake
The mages in my group are permitted to maintain sustain beyond LOS, provided they cast in LOS, on the premise that once the astral connection is established, one can maintain it non-LOS, under reasonable circumstances.

Your mileage may vary.
emo samurai
Can you maintain a physical spell, go astral, and still maintain it?
Butterblume
I cannot think of a reason why not.
Geekkake
QUOTE (emo samurai)
Can you maintain a physical spell, go astral, and still maintain it?

That's an interesting question. My first reaction, as a GM, would be to say no. But I can't really think of a reason, on the spot, that they can't.
-X-
Sustained combat spell. Jump out of a building just long enough to cast one spell then duck back in and lock the door. Ouch.

But barring something like that sustaining beyond LOS doesn't seem too inherently abusive, maybe put a range limit based on Magic.
Kanada Ten
A sustained combat spell does not continue to deal damage. Effects, such as Acid or Fire, remain "alive" while the spell is sustained, but that is all.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (shadowbod)
Since someone is bound to bring up the fact that if a mage was trying to sustain invisibilty on someone, they wouldn't be able to see them, I'd like to pre-counter that argument with the fact that the mage can always see through their own illusions as they know them for what they are.

Your fact is incorrect. A magician has to resist the illusion just like anyone else. A GM might decide to provide bonuses for resisting but the magician can choose not to resist.
There is actually an old trick that takes advantage of this. A magician can cast Improved Invisibility on an obstruction to get LOS to a target.
Shrike30
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
A sustained combat spell does not continue to deal damage. Effects, such as Acid or Fire, remain "alive" while the spell is sustained, but that is all.

Did I miss something in the book where they explained sustained combat spells? I didn't see any.
hyzmarca
There are no sustained combat spells in SR4 at all, period. I don't believe that it is possible to make a sustained combat spell using SR3 spell design rules either. The only known Sustained combat spell is Slow Death, an Austrailian variation of manabolt fund in Target:Awakened lands. Slow Death was staged and resisted once at casting. Whatever it was staged to was the maximum amount of damage it could cause and it would cause 1 box of damage every day untill its maximum was met or it was dispelled.

So, a sustained combat spell probably wouldn't dause its full damage multiple times. It would just spread out its maximum potential damage equally over a predetermined period of time.
-X-
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was such a thing as a sustained combat spell already, just that even an incredibly weak spell that did damage over time would be game breakingly powerful.

However the system hyzmarca mentions sounds like a very sensible way to do a sustained damaging spell.
Crusher Bob
Well, astral projection used to be an exclusive action, so you couldn't sustain spells while making the 'jump'. Of course, they ttok exclusive actions out of SR4...
eidolon
QUOTE (shadowbod)
I'd like to hear people's views on whether they think a mage/shaman needs to have line of sight (Los) to sustain a spell?


Mages do not have to maintain LOS to sustain a spell, nor have they ever, as far as I can remember. They merely need LOS to cast it.

QUOTE (SR4 @ pg. 174)
Many spells can be sustained for as long as the magician is willing to concentrate on the spell, as noted in the spellís Duration.


Nothing is mentioned about maintaining LOS in this section. That, combined with the fact that you didn't have to maintain LOS in any previous edition, makes for a pretty solid "no".
Edward
Well there where elemental manipulations in SR3 that did continues damage in an aria of effect for a duration of sustained. In SR4 these would be combat spells.

Edward

NightHaunter
LOS does not have to be maintained to sustain a spell, only to cast i. Also I would not allow casting through an invisable wall etc...
As for spell design sustained combat spells seem, excessive, but permenant seems to be the Ultimate in broken.
NightHaunter
EDIT: (Explitive deleted) Double Post. Stupid 'puter!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012