Dread Polack
Jul 11 2006, 01:47 AM
It states in the rules that permanent spells must be sustained for a certain amount of time before they become permanent (twice the drain value in combat turns, to be precise). Can you use a sustaining focus to sustain a permanent spell until it becomes permanent? I believe you can. In the case of a touch spell (like heal), however, do you still need to maintain contact until the spell becomes permanent.
I can still see this being useful. Even while holding onto the target of a heal spell, you can still use your full dice pool to fire your pistol at your enemies, keeping them at bay, etc. A GM might still inflict a dice pool penalty to reflect the concentration of the touch, but I'd think a sustaining focus would help.
What do you think?
Dread Polack
Jaid
Jul 11 2006, 02:56 AM
i don't think you'd even have to be touching them still. you don't need LOS to sustain spells, only to cast... why would you have to maintain touch?
Edward
Jul 11 2006, 03:04 AM
I would allow a sustainer to sustain a permanent spell for the needed duration.
Further I would not require you to maintain a touch after the initial casting. Weather you where sustaining it yourself or not.
I do this after considering some of the touch ranged spells with a sustained duration. For example combat sense and the various detect spells. These do not require touch to be maintained for the spell to be sustained
Edward
Samaels Ghost
Jul 11 2006, 04:15 AM
Then again those spell aren't permanent in nature, heal is. That's relevant.
Shrike30
Jul 11 2006, 09:10 PM
I'd allow it. The low force of most people's sustaining foci might keep 'em away from this, though. Limiting the max successes on your healing isn't usually a good idea.
Cochise
Jul 11 2006, 10:09 PM
QUOTE (Dread Polack) |
What do you think? |
Going mainly by how it was handled in SR3 (and due to the lack of rulings in SR4 that prohibit the continuation) I'd say:
Using as sustaining focus for sustaining a permanent spell until it actually becomes permanent is possible.
Despite SR4 (so far) not demanding that sustaining foci remain in contact with the target of the spell (not necessarily its owner) in order to remain active, I'd require the sustaining focus to be put on the target while the spell is cast.
CradleWorm
Jul 11 2006, 10:12 PM
I believe the sustaining foci must be in contact with the target of the spell. If the spell is being sustained before it becomes permanent that is okay, the spell basically ends once it becomes permanent.
The caster does not need to continue to maintain contact with the target of the spell in any case, the range is only applied at the time the spell is cast. Once that is over the caster is free to move away from the target.
Shrike30
Jul 11 2006, 11:16 PM
Foci don't work unless their owner is touching them. The spell doesn't work unless the caster is touching the target. It's pretty obvious to me you'd have to maintain contact for the duration... you just manage to avoid the -2 to everything else (like the autofire you're pouring down the hallway).
Edward
Jul 11 2006, 11:22 PM
What indicates that you need to maintain contact?
As for the sustainer needing to be in contact that contradicts the rule that the focus must remain with the caster.
Edward
hyzmarca
Jul 11 2006, 11:32 PM
In SR3 Sustaining foci specifically work when in contact with the subject of the spell being sustained. The magician gives the sustaining focus to the subject of the spell and then casts the spell through the focus. So long as the subject maintains contact with the focus the spell is sustained. The magician is not required to maintain physical contact with the sustaining focus.
Likewise, an anchoring focus, which can act as a sustaining focus, only requires physical contact with the subjct or the ability to detect the subject using a detection spell in order to work.
SR4 glosses over this but I'm going to assume that it remains the same.
Jaid
Jul 12 2006, 04:30 AM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
In SR3 Sustaining foci specifically work when in contact with the subject of the spell being sustained. The magician gives the sustaining focus to the subject of the spell and then casts the spell through the focus. So long as the subject maintains contact with the focus the spell is sustained. The magician is not required to maintain physical contact with the sustaining focus.
Likewise, an anchoring focus, which can act as a sustaining focus, only requires physical contact with the subjct or the ability to detect the subject using a detection spell in order to work.
SR4 glosses over this but I'm going to assume that it remains the same. |
yeah, i remember that... i also know that SR4 says you must keep the focus touching you at all times, and it never says anything about the target.
it is open to debate whether this was intentional or not... much has changed since SR3...
ornot
Jul 12 2006, 08:45 AM
I'd be inclined to think that the focus still has to be in contact with the subject of the spell. In many cases this is the magician themselves, but if you were to use it to sustain a spell on a group member, you'd better trust them!
Lilt
Jul 12 2006, 04:44 PM
I would allow a permenant spell to be sustained by a sustaining focus, and would not require the caster to remain in contact whilst the spell was made permenant (nor would they need to keep contact normally whilst a healing spell was taking effect).
I would not require the sustaining focus to be put into contact with the subject of the spell, or kept in contact. There is nothing in the SR4 rules to support such a need, and sustaining foci already explicitly work differently from how they worked in SR3 (they used to be linked to a single spell, not a spell category) so evidently there is some intentional reworking going on.
Shrike30
Jul 12 2006, 08:50 PM
The reason I was saying they'd have to stay in touch with the target for the purposes of a HEAL spell is because the spell has Touch range.
Dread Polack
Jul 12 2006, 08:53 PM
Hmmm... well there seems to be some disagreement. Is there a way to ask Fanpro directly?
I think, personally, I would run it that the target of the spell would have to be in contact with the focus, or the caster would have to be in contact with both until the spell becomes permanent. That would mean possibly leaving the focus while he or she moved around. This could be risky.
As for regular sustained spells, I'd run it like SR3, and allow the target to carry the focus.
Dread Polack
Lilt
Jul 13 2006, 03:05 PM
QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Jul 12 2006, 08:50 PM) |
The reason I was saying they'd have to stay in touch with the target for the purposes of a HEAL spell is because the spell has Touch range. |
I realise that, but that's still not part of the rules. The rules for range state that they are for the range at which the spell can be cast. The rules for sustained spells state that the spell lasts as long as it's concentrated on, with no mention of the spell's casting range.
A character can thus sustain an LOS range spell on a target even if they move out of LOS, so why would a caster of a heal spell need to keep contact afterwards?
If you require the caster of a touch range spell to maintain touch after casting then that makes the decrease attribute spells either nigh useless (because you let go of the target after you cast the spell, meaning that you can't sustain them) or opens-up a whole new can of worms as far as what you can do on the touch attack granted by a spell.
You'd need to grab hold of them, which is essentially like subduing combat (grappleing). IIRC combining the touch attempt granted by a touch spell with a normal attack is not allowed, otherwise unarmed-master-casters would be doing massive amounts of damage by combining a knockout spell with free unarmed combat at no penalty, so to allow a subduing attempt to combine with casting a spell is a bit off.
If subduing is allowed wih the free attack then what's to stop someone from using subduing combat and backing it up with a massive knockout spell? Even a force 7 knockout spell has a drain value of 0.
Cochise
Jul 13 2006, 04:10 PM
QUOTE (Lilt) |
A character can thus sustain an LOS range spell on a target even if they move out of LOS,
|
Provided that they don't walk through a mana barrier ...
QUOTE |
so why would a caster of a heal spell need to keep contact afterwards? |
Possibly because the focus could require something like that (just as it did in SR3) ...
Appearantly sustaining foci currently only require touch range to their owner and not the target of the spell.
That makes them superior to their SR3 counterparts. However SR4 also lacks the mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain permanent spells until after the timeframe of the spell's effect becoming permanent has expired. So when going by RAW, sustaining foci cannot sustain spells in that manner (SR3 sustaining foci explicitly could do so) and thus healing someone with a sustaining focus wouldn't work.
Now that's the part where house rulings come into play and where I'd stick with the SR3 solution where sustaining foci had to be kept in touch range to the spell's target instead of the owner of the focus. And I'd even extend that house rule from permanent spells to sustained spells in general.
Shadowmeet
Jul 13 2006, 04:20 PM
QUOTE (Cochise @ Jul 13 2006, 10:10 AM) |
That makes them superior to their SR3 counterparts. However SR4 also lacks the mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain permanent spells until after the timeframe of the spell's effect becoming permanent has expired. So when going by RAW, sustaining foci cannot sustain spells in that manner (SR3 sustaining foci explicitly could do so) and thus healing someone with a sustaining focus wouldn't work. |
It neither confirms, nor denies it at this time. So, per RAW, it can be interpreted either way, and does not need to be houseruled. Merely decided on one way or the other. When the magic book comes out, it should be cleared up.
Personally, I have no problem with a focus being used like that. It makes things a lot nicer if a Mage can touch and sustain, then hand the guy off to someone else while he throws up some barriers or some such, so that more healing may not need take place.
Edit: My point being that just because it does not spell out what can be done, does not mean that it cannot be done.
Just because an axe does not say you can wedge it under a door handle, does not mean it cannot be used to keep the door closed.
Jrayjoker
Jul 13 2006, 04:24 PM
On a slightly different note, does using the appropriate spirit to sustain the spell differ in any way from a focus being used?
Lilt
Jul 13 2006, 04:42 PM
QUOTE (Cochise) |
QUOTE (Lilt) | A character can thus sustain an LOS range spell on a target even if they move out of LOS, |
Provided that they don't walk through a mana barrier ... |
I'm not overly bothered on the contesting of this, but where does it say that? All I can see is that a physical manna barrier stops spells, manifesting entities, spirits, and active foci. A mage concentrating to sustain a spell is none of the above.
QUOTE (Cochise) |
However SR4 also lacks the mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain permanent spells until after the timeframe of the spell's effect becoming permanent has expired. So when going by RAW, sustaining foci cannot sustain spells in that manner (SR3 sustaining foci explicitly could do so) and thus healing someone with a sustaining focus wouldn't work. |
SR4 lacks any specific mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain sustained-duration spells. That means, by your logic, that sustained-duration spells cannot be sustained by a sustaining focus. This is, of course, wrong. The rules for sustaining foci are as follows, emphasis mine:
QUOTE |
Spell foci empower a magician’s Sorcery skills. There are three types of spell foci: Spellcasting foci, Counterspelling foci, and Sustaining foci. Each spell focus must be attuned to a specific category of spells (Combat, Detection, Health, etc.) when it is created, and this cannot be changed.
Sustaining foci are unusual in that they do not add any dice to a test. Instead, a magician may cast a spell through a sustaining foci and the focus will sustain the spell for him. A spell sustained by such a focus does not inflict a dice pool modifier for sustaining the spell. A spell sustained by a sustaining focus cannot have a Force greater than that of the focus. If a spell sustained by a focus is disrupted, it ends; the focus is still bound to its master and she may use it to sustain another spell |
See, absolutely no mention that the spell cast through the focus must have a duration of sustained. Thus, as long as the sustaining focus is attuned to the right category of spells (health) the RAW has nothing to say against letting a sustaining focus sustain a spell with the permanent duration (such as the Heal spell).
Lilt
Jul 13 2006, 04:47 PM
QUOTE (Jrayjoker) |
On a slightly different note, does using the appropriate spirit to sustain the spell differ in any way from a focus being used? |
No. Both spirits and sustaining foci can sustain 'a spell', which is enough to permit them to sustain permanent duration spells. If it said 'a spell with the Sustained duration' then it'd be another matter, but it doesn't.
Cochise
Jul 13 2006, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (Shadowmeet) |
It neither confirms, nor denies it at this time. So, per RAW, it can be interpreted either way, and does not need to be houseruled. Merely decided on one way or the other. |
~smile~ That's one can of worms there
"
Since the RAW also lack an explicit confirmation or denial whether or not metahumans are capable of flying (without mechanical help) there's no need for house ruling that ... It's also merely a decission in either way I hope you see where that kind of argument will lead ...
QUOTE |
When the magic book comes out, it should be cleared up. |
Going by RAW you'd only need a rule concerning sustaining permanent spells when you want sustaining foci to be able to do so.
QUOTE |
Personally, I have no problem with a focus being used like that. It makes things a lot nicer if a Mage can touch and sustain, then hand the guy off to someone else while he throws up some barriers or some such, so that more healing may not need take place. |
I have no problems with sustaining foci sustaining permanent spells either, since they could do so in SR3 ...
I do however have my problems with sustaining foci staying with the owner / caster, instead of the subject of the spell ... Traditional thinking I guess.
QUOTE |
Edit: My point being that just because it does not spell out what can be done, does not mean that it cannot be done. |
My point being that such an argumentation will lead to flying metahumans that no longer need to visit the toilet. => Things that aren't explicitly allowed or come with a reasonable implication (like real human beings not being able to fly and having biological functions that force them to visit the toilet once in a while) just aren't allowed ...
So your axe-analogy comes along the lines of a solid implication. With sustaining foci as magic item that lack any solid implication (it really "just" is "magic") that can't be said => You need an explicit ruling (or house ruling) ..
James McMurray
Jul 13 2006, 05:20 PM
QUOTE (Cochise) |
QUOTE (Shadowmeet) | It neither confirms, nor denies it at this time. So, per RAW, it can be interpreted either way, and does not need to be houseruled. Merely decided on one way or the other. |
~smile~ That's one can of worms there " Since the RAW also lack an explicit confirmation or denial whether or not metahumans are capable of flying (without mechanical help) there's no need for house ruling that ... It's also merely a decission in either way I hope you see where that kind of argument will lead ... |
This is not a valid comparison. The rules state that sustaining foci sustain spells. They state that permanent spells must be sustained. the decision whether one influences the other is a matter of choice. A more appropriate ananlogy would be if the rules stated that metahumans could move travel through the air and you then had to decide whether it was flight or gliding.
Combining fallacious slippery slopes with straw men rarely enhances your position.
Cochise
Jul 13 2006, 05:21 PM
QUOTE (Lilt) |
I'm not overly bothered on the contesting of this, but where does it say that? All I can see is that a physical manna barrier stops spells, manifesting entities, spirits, and active foci. A mage concentrating to sustain a spell is none of the above. |
~erm~
a) I was under the impression that "we" were talking about sustaining foci that sustain spells taht by RAW currently do not need to stay with the spell's target but the caster.
b) There's this little part on p. 186:
QUOTE (p.186 @ SR4) |
If the character scores more net hits, she forces her way through the barrier to the other side. The character may also bring a number of friends, spirits,active foci,sustained spells, or other astral forms with him through the barrier equal to the net hits scored. If the barrier scores more hits, the character fails to break through. |
The latter being the basis for a rather heavy debate whether or not a sustained spell that is "brought through" has actually be on the magician ...
QUOTE |
SR4 lacks any specific mentioning of sustaining foci being able to sustain sustained-duration spells. That means, by your logic, that sustained-duration spells cannot be sustained by a sustaining focus. |
Not by my logic, but by your interpretation of it
QUOTE |
This is, of course, wrong. The rules for sustaining foci are as follows, emphasis mine:
QUOTE | Spell foci empower a magician’s Sorcery skills. There are three types of spell foci: Spellcasting foci, Counterspelling foci, and Sustaining foci. Each spell focus must be attuned to a specific category of spells (Combat, Detection, Health, etc.) when it is created, and this cannot be changed. |
|
And what's this emphasis for? Nobody doubted that sustaining foci could sustain Health Spells
The debate concerns sustaining "Permanent Spells"
QUOTE |
QUOTE | Sustaining foci are unusual in that they do not add any dice to a test. Instead, a magician may cast a spell through a sustaining foci and the focus will sustain the spell for him. A spell sustained by such a focus does not inflict a dice pool modifier for sustaining the spell. A spell sustained by a sustaining focus cannot have a Force greater than that of the focus. If a spell sustained by a focus is disrupted, it ends; the focus is still bound to its master and she may use it to sustain another spell |
See, absolutely no mention that the spell cast through the focus must have a duration of sustained. |
But no mentioning of permanent spell's either
QUOTE |
Thus, as long as the sustaining focus is attuned to the right category of spells (health) the RAW has nothing to say against letting a sustaining focus sustain a spell with the permanent duration (such as the Heal spell). |
Thus RAW has nothing to say in either way and you're already forced to use implications on "Sustained Spells" (which already by name give that implication) and then you can continue to look for implications with "Permanent Spells" where the much weaker implication is the requirement to sustain them for a specific time.
Cochise
Jul 13 2006, 05:26 PM
QUOTE (James McMurray) |
This is not a valid comparison. |
~Huh?~
QUOTE |
The rules state that sustaining foci sustain spells. |
Si ...
QUOTE |
They state that permanent spells must be sustained. the decision whether one influences the other is a matter of choice. |
A choice based on implications, not explicit rulings ...
QUOTE |
A more appropriate ananlogy would be if the rules stated that metahumans could move travel through the air and you then had to decide whether it was flight or gliding. |
Only a different level of abstraction ... That doesn't make the comparison invalid.
QUOTE |
Combining fallacious slippery slopes with straw men rarely enhances your position. |
Claiming that comparisons aren't valid either
James McMurray
Jul 13 2006, 05:40 PM
You are comparing an argument (metahumans can fly) that has absolutely no basis in the rules to an argument (sustaining spells can sustain permanent spells), which has plenty of basis in the rules. It's a pretty common fallacy. Basically what you're saying is:
1) you argue that sustaining foci as described in the rules means that permanent spells can be sustained, even though it isn't explicitly declared
2) therefor someone will argue that metahumans can fly (slippery slope)
3) arguing that metahumans can fly is wrong
4) therefore point 1 is wrong (straw man)
Slippery slopes can be either fallacies or valid arguments, depending upon the correlation between 1 and 2. In this case there is no correllation between arguments for or against foci and arguments for or against slying metahumans, meaning in this instance the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
Lilt
Jul 13 2006, 06:19 PM
Comparisson of my argument to the metahumans can fly argument is incorrect, as they are different kinds of arguments. 'Metahumans can fly' is an "it doesn't say I can't", or double negative, argumnet. My argument is not a double negative argument, as the rules do positively allow it. IE: it's an "It does say I can" argumnent, which I also added the fact that "It doesn't say I can't" for good measure. The "It does say I can" argument is enough on its own, frankly, and if you wish to disprove it then you really need to find something that says in the rules that it cant.
See, emphasis mine:
QUOTE |
Sustaining foci are unusual in that they do not add any dice to a test. Instead, a magician may cast a spell through a sustaining foci and the focus will sustain the spell for him. A spell sustained by such a focus does not inflict a dice pool modifier for sustaining the spell. A spell sustained by a sustaining focus cannot have a Force greater than that of the focus. If a spell sustained by a focus is disrupted, it ends; the focus is still bound to its master and she may use it to sustain another spell |
Is Heal a spell? Yes. It is therefore valid to be cast through a sustaining focus, and the focus will sustain the spell for him. Technically the sustaining focus can even have instant spells cast through it (if there are any in the category), they are spells, but as instant spells end as soon as they're cast the focus can't sustain them any more than a mage could.
If there were any statement in the book which said that sustaining foci could not be used to sustain permenant spells, or that sustaining foci could only be used to sustain sustained-duration spells, then the above would not be the case. Any claims that sustaining foci are unable to sustain permanent spells have so-far, however, been completely un-supported in the RAW.
@Cochise: Whilst it's true that the mage carrying a sustaining focus would be stopped, the factor that I was querying was wether or not a mage sustaining a spell (and not the sustained spell itself, which is on the target of the spell) woudl be stopped by a barrier.
The emphasis on the choosing a category bit was simply because it was relevant to the later point I made about the spell being in the right category. Consider it un-emphasised as it wasn't really part of the argument.
As for the rest of the point, see what I said above about it being positively allowed. Heal is a spell, therefore it can be cast through a sustaining focus. The focus will sustain the spell for him, as per the sustaining focus rules.
ornot
Jul 13 2006, 08:02 PM
I don't see that casting heal through a sustaining focus is actually all that open to abuse. It simply frees the mage up from having to sustain the heal spell until it becomes permanent, which is normally only a handful of rounds anyway. I would suggest that once a spell has become permanent its effect is ended, much as an instant duration spell is over in the same round that it is cast.
Moon-Hawk
Jul 13 2006, 08:08 PM
Plus, as was mentioned earlier, the force of the focus is limiting the force of the spell which limits the boxes healed, and there's no second chance on magical healing, so that helps to keep it non-abusive.
I think the more useful version of this trick is using stabilize, rather than heal. Being able to stabilize and having it only take one action in the middle of combat is nice.
And to chime in on the other issue, by my understanding of SR magic (which I admit is heavily influenced by prior editions) the sustaining focus would need to remain touching the subject of the spell, and the mage wouldn't have to touch either of them past the initial casting, but hopefully that sort of thing will be cleared up in Street Magic.
Lilt
Jul 13 2006, 09:03 PM
Agreed with ornot and Moon-Hawk, although I personally think that each edition should be read on its own.
In past editions it was possible to target people with offensive spells through the foci they were carrying (grounding?), and that was removed in third edition which made using continually-active foci more plausable.
In third edition you needed to give someone an extremely valuable item, or leave one lying around (in your home if it was sustaining a defensive spell, for example), in-order to sustain a spell on them without effort. The item could be used to track you, and through that perform ritual sorcery on you, or simply re-bound by the thief costing you a lot of karma and money. This has (seemingly) be removed in 4th edition, there is absolutely no mention of it, and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Changes from one edition to another should not need to be explicitly stated. I'm all for looking at previous editions when there's ambiguity in the current rules, but there is not in this case. In this case there is merely a conflict with previous edition rules, and if you're playing 4th edition then the 4th edition rules take precident. They don't need to explain that with a foot note or anything, the SR4 book should be a stand-alone game without you needing to reference a shelf-full or two previous-edition books.
Moon-Hawk
Jul 13 2006, 09:06 PM
I agree with you, but it's really hard to keep separate the things that I know are true about the SR world from one edition vs another.
Lilt
Jul 13 2006, 09:39 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
I agree with you, but it's really hard to keep separate the things that I know are true about the SR world from one edition vs another. |
Absolutely. I'm guilty of doing that quite often myself, knowledge of previous editions can be quite insidious, but at the end of the day 4th edition is 4th edition and I should stick to it rather than some hybrid.
Consider that some people haven't played previous editions, and that you may some day play SR4 with them. When a rules dispute comes-up between what you know of previous editions and what they know purely from 4th edition, they're technically the ones who are right if you're playing 4th edition.
Cochise
Jul 14 2006, 05:09 PM
QUOTE (Lilt) |
Comparisson of my argument to the metahumans can fly argument is incorrect, as they are different kinds of arguments. |
As I said before: They only have different levels of abstraction.
QUOTE |
'Metahumans can fly' is an "it doesn't say I can't", or double negative, argumnet. |
No it's an "it doesn't say either way" argument ... which leads to a decision based on implications.
QUOTE |
My argument is not a double negative argument, as the rules do positively allow it. IE: it's an "It does say I can" argumnent, which I also added the fact that "It doesn't say I can't" for good measure. The "It does say I can" argument is enough on its own, frankly, and if you wish to disprove it then you really need to find something that says in the rules that it cant. |
We'll find out in the next paragraph ...
QUOTE |
See, emphasis mine:QUOTE | Sustaining foci are unusual in that they do not add any dice to a test. Instead, a magician may cast a spell through a sustaining foci and the focus will sustain the spell for him. A spell sustained by such a focus does not inflict a dice pool modifier for sustaining the spell. A spell sustained by a sustaining focus cannot have a Force greater than that of the focus. If a spell sustained by a focus is disrupted, it ends; thefocus is still bound to its master and she may use it to sustain another spell |
Is Heal a spell? Yes. It is therefore valid to be cast through a sustaining focus, and the focus will sustain the spell for him. Technically the sustaining focus can even have instant spells cast through it (if there are any in the category), they are spells, but as instant spells end as soon as they're cast the focus can't sustain them any more than a mage could.
|
And this is the point where the argument sort of crumbles into pieces, since by that argument an instant spell actually could be sustained despite being unsustainable (by its nature)... That's a contradiction that leads to a similar "decision" you and others have attributed towards the sustaining permanent spells. It's not the rules themselves that decide, it's the player / GM, thus making it a house rule (since someone else could rule otherwise).
QUOTE |
If there were any statement in the book which said that sustaining foci could not be used to sustain permenant spells, or that sustaining foci could only be used to sustain sustained-duration spells, then the above would not be the case. Any claims that sustaining foci are unable to sustain permanent spells have so-far, however, been completely un-supported in the RAW. |
And what you consider as supporting it, actually doesn't support it either, since you still have to decide on it in either way. A decision is still a decission. You have to decide on (non-) flying metahumans as well as you have to decide on sustaining foci sustaining instant and permanent spells ... and due to wording even concerning sustained spells.
Any decision made will ultimatly qualify as house ruling, since anyone is free to decide differently (at least two choices in this case)
QUOTE |
@Cochise: Whilst it's true that the mage carrying a sustaining focus would be stopped, the factor that I was querying was wether or not a mage sustaining a spell (and not the sustained spell itself, which is on the target of the spell) woudl be stopped by a barrier. |
I think I adressed that, didn't I?
Since successful forcing oneself through barriers also includes free passage of sustained spells without distinction of them being on the person that forces herself through or those spells being on someone who possibly stays behind, I very inclined to say, that a barrier will stop a sustained spell, unless the mage successfully forces himself through said barrier.
QUOTE |
As for the rest of the point, see what I said above about it being positively allowed. Heal is a spell, therefore it can be cast through a sustaining focus. The focus will sustain the spell for him, as per the sustaining focus rules. |
Which is also true for instant spells, thus still requireing a decision for those cases where the name of the focus doesn't directly refer to a spell category.
What's even "worse": One direction will also require further decisions (like what happens with the activation state of the focus, since rules on that are missing as well) ...
So all in all it's still a process of house ruling. Not so much one that is based on actual dislike of a specific rule, but one that is based on incomplete rules ...
James McMurray
Jul 14 2006, 05:16 PM
Cochise, a few questions:
1) What do the rules for a sustaining focus say that they do for spells?
2) Are there any limitations in the rules regarding which spells a sustaining focus will work for?
3) Is Heal a spell?
Try to set aside any preconceived notions about what a sustaining focus should and shouldn't be allowed to do and look only at the rules we've been given in 4th edition.
Cochise
Jul 14 2006, 05:53 PM
QUOTE (James McMurray) |
Cochise, a few questions:
1) What do the rules for a sustaining focus say that they do for spells?
2) Are there any limitations in the rules regarding which spells a sustaining focus will work for?
3) Is Heal a spell?
|
~sigh~ This isn't going to lead anywhere ..
1) ... They say, that they sustain spells
2) ... Explicit ones? No. Implicit ones? Yes
3) ... Yes ...
QUOTE |
Try to set aside any preconceived notions about what a sustaining focus should and shouldn't be allowed to do and look only at the rules we've been given in 4th edition. |
I was doing so even while mentioning previous rulsets, but thanks for suggesting otherwise (again) ...
I still have to make decisions on how to handle it for the given spell types, thus still pushing any decision made in the realm of "house rulings" unless you find a rule section (apart from rule "No. 1") that would disallow the opposite decisions.
To return some questions
1.) Do the rules on sustaining foci explicitly allow to sustain instant, sustained and permanent spells.
2.) If so, does that create possible contradictions within the SR4 rules concerning spell categories and how they work according to rules and by the semantics of their defining descriptions?
3.) Do you consequently have to make a decision depending on how you interpret / weigh these descriptions?
4.) Are such descisions official rules or house rules?
James McMurray
Jul 14 2006, 06:12 PM
QUOTE |
2) ... Explicit ones? No. Implicit ones? Yes |
Where? I see nothing in the rules that implies that it only means sustaining spells. I certainly haven't dug through the whole book looking for it though. In fact, all I've really read are the posts on this thread, as I'm never near a book when I'm reading this. Perhaps I've missed a passage?
QUOTE |
1.) Do the rules on sustaining foci explicitly allow to sustain instant, sustained and permanent spells. |
Per a literal ruling the answer is yes, as there are no qualifiers on what type of spell, hence the standard grammatical interpretation is that it refers to all spells. It's like if I were to say "dogs are canines." There would be no question whether I was referring to only Yorkshire Terriers, as the statement makes it plain that I mean all dogs. Your stance is similar to saying "ok, I can see where it says that dogs are canines, but I don't think it's meant to refer to German Shepherds."
QUOTE |
2.) If so, does that create possible contradictions within the SR4 rules concerning spell categories and how they work according to rules and by the semantics of their defining descriptions? |
I'm assuming you're referring to the issue of instantaneous spells being sustained. If so then yes, it opens up an odd possibility. That one aspect of a rule is odd does not mean that the rule doesn't exist or should be interpretted without following the rules or the language the rule is written in.
QUOTE |
3.) Do you consequently have to make a decision depending on how you interpret / weigh these descriptions? |
3) If you're referring to how sustaining foci interract with spells that cannot be sustained (instantaneous ones) then yes. If you're referring to how sustaining foci react when the permanent spell they're sustaining becomes permanent, then yes. If you're referring to whether the foci can sustain a permanent duration spell, then no. English language grammar is very clear on what the phrase "A's can B" means.
Having to make decisions about one aspect of a rule doesn't necessarily affect the other aspects of the rule at all. It's like saying "dogs are canines," and "dog walkers can walk dogs." You end up with a situation where all types of dogs can be walked by dog walkers, even ones that can't walk. That you have to make a decision in regards to legless dogs in no way changes that both Yorkshire Terriers and German Shephards can be walked by dog walkers.
Similarly, the effects of sustaining foci on instantaneous spells must be interpretted by the GM, but that has no bearing on the effects of sustaining foci on permanent spells, as they are different subgroups fo the larger group "spells."
QUOTE |
4.) Are such descisions official rules or house rules? |
4) House rules. But making one aspect (what do you do with legless dogs) a house rule does not invalidate the base rule in other aspects (dog walkers can walk dogs).
I understand your position, but it isn't logically sound.
Is it possible that the designers meant for permanent spells to not be usable through sustaining foci? It definitely is. If so then unfortunately their wording is clear, and if they want to change it they'll need erratta. As it stands though, we can only go by what is written and what the language it is written in says about how to interpret it.
Lilt
Jul 14 2006, 07:00 PM
@Cochise: It doesn't say either way wether or not metahumans can fly, that's true, but it can be simplified into two arguments. Only one of them causes any problems. There's the assumption that metahumans
can fly, which uses the logic "It doesn't say I can't" (and thus is a double negative argument) unless they're invoking rules which do allow it (flying in a helicopter, using a levitate spell, ETC). And the assumption that metahumans
can't fly, which uses the argument "It doesn't say I can".
I thus labeled the 'metahumans can fly' argument a double negative argument as the statement 'metahumans can fly' is not always true unless the "it doesn't say I can't" argument is used.
When deciding between things that aren't made explicit either way, we must assume that the "it doesn't say I can, so I can't" argument is the correct one as otherwise we have the slippery slope. In-order to be playable, the book would need to read something like "You cannot fire fireballs, lightning bolts, acidic waves (or streams, gushes, or -filled water baloons) from your ass or any other part of your anatomy. Nor can you fire them from buildings or have them spontaneously fall from the sky onto targets (defined as people, vehicles, animals, plants, buildings, spirits, or generally anywhere in the world), or hit them from the side, or burst out of the ground and hit them, or materialise just infront of them while they're walking..."
The rules explicitly do allow the casting of any spell into a sustaining focus. That is as much as I could ever need to support my argument, you cannot argue with an explicit statement in the RAW, yet you have still not supported yours.
And now Cochise's 4 questions:
- Yes.
- No contradictions are created. I don't think there's anything in the RAW to say that instant spells can't be sustained. There are areas which aren't explicitly covered by the rules, but these grey-areas are actually already present with all spell types. An example is that sustained spells end if dispelled, just like the instant-cast spell ends as soon as it's cast. Exactly what happens when a spell that is being sustained by a sustaining focus ends is not explicit, but the fact that it can happen is not a contradiction either.
- No decision must be made. There is a potential decision that could be made (what happens when a spell in a sustaining focus ends) but that can't affect any of what has happened before it which is RAW.
- I've been going on nothing but the RAW
Cochise
Jul 14 2006, 07:13 PM
QUOTE (James McMurray) |
Where? I see nothing in the rules that implies that it only means sustaining spells. |
Do the semantics of the words "permanent" vs. "instant" vs. "sustained" / "sustaining" tell you anything?
QUOTE |
I certainly haven't dug through the whole book looking for it though. In fact, all I've really read are the posts on this thread, as I'm never near a book when I'm reading this. Perhaps I've missed a passage? |
More like missing something else ...
QUOTE |
QUOTE | 1.) Do the rules on sustaining foci explicitly allow to sustain instant, sustained and permanent spells. |
Per a literal ruling the answer is yes, as there are no qualifiers on what type of spell, hence the standard grammatical interpretation is that it refers to all spells.
|
Hence leading to a contradiction in semantics ... the nature of more or less all implicit contradictions that come along in ordinary written and spoken language ... which happens not to be as precise as propositional logic.
QUOTE |
It's like if I were to say "dogs are canines." There would be no question whether I was referring to only Yorkshire Terriers, as the statement makes it plain that I mean all dogs. Your stance is similar to saying "ok, I can see where it says that dogs are canines, but I don't think it's meant to refer to German Shepherds." |
Because being a German Shepard doesn't give any semantic contradiction with dog or canine ... Unlinke "sustaining" with "instant" and potentially "permanent"
And you called my comparision faulty
QUOTE |
QUOTE | 2.) If so, does that create possible contradictions within the SR4 rules concerning spell categories and how they work according to rules and by the semantics of their defining descriptions? |
I'm assuming you're referring to the issue of instantaneous spells being sustained. If so then yes, it opens up an odd possibility.
|
That's what I call a logical "contradiction" in "common semantics", not an "odd possibility".
And that smentical contradiction can also be seen between sustaining (on foci side) and permanent (on spell category side), because you'd have to go down one level of abstraction for permanent spells in order to find another reference to "sustaining" ... Thus the contradiction is weaker than with instant spells, but it's still there ...
QUOTE |
That one aspect of a rule is odd does not mean that the rule doesn't exist or should be interpretted without following the rules or the language the rule is written in. |
Funny, since I'm following the language pretty hard: instant vs. sustained vs. permanent ... as well as I'm pretty hard with the level of abstraction: sustaining spells of categories and types on foci side vs. spell category and type on spell side.
QUOTE |
QUOTE | 3.) Do you consequently have to make a decision depending on how you interpret / weigh these descriptions? |
3) If you're referring to how sustaining foci interract with spells that cannot be sustained (instantaneous ones) then yes. If you're referring to how sustaining foci react when the permanent spell they're sustaining becomes permanent, then yes.
|
O.k.
QUOTE |
If you're referring to whether the foci can sustain a permanent duration spell, then no. |
And that's the point where I disagree ...
QUOTE |
English language grammar is very clear on what the phrase "A's can B" means. |
Unfortunately grammar isn't all when it comes to semantics. And English language is also very clear on the difference between "sustained", "instant" and "permanent" ...
QUOTE |
Having to make decisions about one aspect of a rule doesn't necessarily affect the other aspects of the rule at all. |
But it can ... although this isn't the issue here ...
QUOTE |
It's like saying "dogs are canines," and "dog walkers can walk dogs." You end up with a situation where all types of dogs can be walked by dog walkers, even ones that can't walk. |
Your comparison doesn't actually get better
QUOTE |
That you have to make a decision in regards to legless dogs in no way changes that both Yorkshire Terriers and German Shephards can be walked by dog walkers. |
And still both actual incarnations of dogs don't create a contradiction with the word dog in the first place ...
QUOTE |
Similarly, the effects of sustaining foci on instantaneous spells must be interpretted by the GM, but that has no bearing on the effects of sustaining foci on permanent spells, as they are different subgroups fo the larger group "spells." |
"Lucky me" that I'm looking at a slightly different thing ...
QUOTE |
QUOTE | 4.) Are such descisions official rules or house rules? |
4) House rules.
|
Fine ...
QUOTE |
But making one aspect (what do you do with legless dogs) a house rule does not invalidate the base rule in other aspects (dog walkers can walk dogs). |
Find a better comparision and we'll talk about that one again.
QUOTE |
I understand your position, but it isn't logically sound. |
Unfortunately I do have to say the same about yours ...
QUOTE |
Is it possible that the designers meant for permanent spells to not be usable through sustaining foci? It definitely is. |
The funny part being that I'm not even advocating that they meant it that way
QUOTE |
If so then unfortunately their wording is clear, and if they want to change it they'll need erratta. |
I'm more like: Unfortunately their wording isn't clear enough, they should do an Errata ...
QUOTE |
As it stands though, we can only go by what is written and what the language it is written in says about how to interpret it. |
And by going that route I still end up with several possible interpretations, simply because written and spoken language doesn't tend to follow the rules of propositional logic and even if you start applying propositional logic to the wording, you're sort of restricted by the individual level of abstraction that any item has that you start looking at under the laws of propositional logic ...
James McMurray
Jul 14 2006, 07:31 PM
QUOTE |
Do the semantics of the words "permanent" vs. "instant" vs. "sustained" / "sustaining" tell you anything? |
Yes. They tell me that sustaining permanent and sustained spells makes sense, but sustaining instant spells does not. As such, an interpretation or house rule will be required if someone attempts to put an instant spell into a sustaining focus. They definitely do not imply that only sustained duration spells can go into a sustaining focus. The implication is instead that only sustainable spells can go in.
QUOTE |
More like missing something else ...
|
Ah yes, the veiled insult. I know thee well.
QUOTE |
Hence leading to a contradiction in semantics ... the nature of more or less all implicit contradictions that come along in ordinary written and spoken language ... which happens not to be as precise as propositional logic. |
True, and again, this has no bearing on permanent vs. sustained. The only oddity occurs with instantaneous.
QUOTE |
Unlinke "sustaining" with "instant" and potentially "permanent" |
It's the "potentially" I disagree with. There is no doubt that permanent duration spells can be sustained. They have to be sustained.
QUOTE |
And that smentical contradiction can also be seen between sustaining (on foci side) and permanent (on spell category side), because you'd have to go down one level of abstraction for permanent spells in order to find another reference to "sustaining" ... Thus the contradiction is weaker than with instant spells, but it's still there ... |
Incorrect. It doesn't matter how many levels you have to go down, if the reference is there, it exists.
QUOTE |
instant vs. sustained vs. permanent |
You're following the language, but adding terms that are not there. You are taking "sustained spells" to mean "spells with a duration of Sustained." That is not the way the English language works. Adding extra qualifiers means stepping away from the rules as written.
QUOTE |
Unfortunately grammar isn't all when it comes to semantics. And English language is also very clear on the difference between "sustained", "instant" and "permanent" ...
|
Yes it is. In terms of SR, "sustained" and "permanent" are both "sustainable."
I tried the dog comparison because I figured it would be obvious that replacing the terms would result in the same argument. I'll try again.
Group A contains b, c, and d
E can perform action F on A
That is what the rules say, possible contradictions occurring with d have absolutely no effect on b and c. E can, by definition, perform action F on all members of A.
Your only disagreement, if I'm understanding this correctly, is your problem with the semantics of "permanent" vs. "sustained." The problem is that you're taking "sustained" to mean "a spell with a duration of Sustained." I can see why you might draw that conclusion, but it is an incorrect one.
Ah well, I've banged my head against your wall enough for today. If you can lay out a logical argument as to why you're right, I'd love to see it. Unfortunately, I don't believe it to be possible.
QUOTE |
And by going that route I still end up with several possible interpretations, simply because written and spoken language doesn't tend to follow the rules of propositional logic and even if you start applying propositional logic to the wording, you're sort of restricted by the individual level of abstraction that any item has that you start looking at under the laws of propositional logic ... |
As a general statement that is very true. In this case however the statements fit very snugly into a logical box, unless you introduce terms that are not there. A clarification would be nice, but is ultimately unnecessary.
Lilt
Jul 14 2006, 08:45 PM
Actually, I'll change my answer to #3 above. Yes. There is a contradiction in the semantics of instant spells being sustained, rather than in the defined terms where there is not exactly. That is outside the topic of discussion, however. What is explicitly the RAW takes precident unless there is a contradiction, but the contradiction is only present in the case of Instant spells. Permanant spells do not contradict the semantics of sustaining, and in-deed they must be sustained in game-terms, thus there is no contradiction in that case and no house-rule must be made.
To claim that premanant contradicts sustained is to deny the very definition of permanent in this area of the SR rules. James McMurray was right to point this out.