Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR4 Armor spell question
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Chunky_Salsa
OK, this spell by the description given seems a bit odd to me. Maybe someone can offer advice on how it should be handled.

According to SR4 (with no errata posted for it), you gain armor points through hits. OK, that seems alright. However, the drain is pretty brutal at (F/2)+3. If the gain is only from hits and not Force + hits, why would any caster in their right mind cast it above force 1?

In the old version it was Force that determined the armor bonus with only 1 hit needed to get the spell off. This new working just doesn't seem right.

Anyone have any insight into this?

Cold-Dragon
It's very hard to make a finely designed barrier with magic (not impossible, but it's expensive in power and finesse). Unlike a regular phys barrier, an armor spell will last even if penetrated, and protects you more by cushioning blows than outright stopping them (hence the armor effect rather than barrier rating).

Or so I would say, heh. It's hard because it's shaped like your body, moves with your body, and stays constantly even if penetrated.
JonathanC
You cast it higher than force 1 because in SR4, Force limits the number of hits (not even net hits, hits PERIOD) that you can get on a spellcasting test. So if you only want one point of armor, force 1 is fine. Otherwise, you'll want to cast it higher.

As to why the drain is so harsh? Hell, it probably should be harder. Any decent mage will cast that at about force 3 or so without taking any real drain. And since it stacks just nicely with worn armor, it gives mages a nice durability advantage. While the spell text doesn't suggest this, it seems logical that magical armor would give you full protection (instead of the usual half impact) from indirect combat spells with elemental effects like lightning bolt. So it all kind of evens out.
lorechaser
Edit:Too slow.

There's also a dodge spell in SM. Mages can be happy, with prep....
emo samurai
QUOTE (lorechaser)
Mages can be happy, with prep....

Which is what their entire play strategy hinges on.
Chunky_Salsa
John, your response clarifies it perfectly! I forgot about the force and hits ceiling.

Thanks all for the fast response, I'll have to visit these forums more often =)

JonathanC
QUOTE (emo samurai)
QUOTE (lorechaser @ Sep 22 2006, 10:36 PM)
Mages can be happy, with prep....

Which is what their entire play strategy hinges on.

...not if you've got sustaining foci or quickening. smile.gif
fistandantilus4.0
A wise old DM once said to me "when you're playing a mage, always do defensive spells first. Otherwise you're dead." Now to be fair, he was talking about D&D. But honestly, when one of the rules of the game is "geek the mage first" I think the old adage is pretty apt.

Plan on people shooting at you. If that planning means wearing armor, having an armor spell and a defelct spell and an increase attribute:reflex spell in effect, spirits to guard you, along with a healthy dose of paranoia up to and including "is that adept on my team really a bug?", then I'd say you're doing it about right.

Hopefully you've had the foresight to get a sustaining focus or three so that you can actually fight back after you've defended your self. And sometimes the best defense is a good offense. But if you don't have your spell shit together when you're expecting a fight, hell you deserve to die. A mundane can't throw an armor spell on top of their armored jacket. But you can be damn sure the street sam would if he could. So yeah, be prepared, and don't whine about drain. It's better than being perforated.
kzt
QUOTE (JonathanC @ Sep 22 2006, 10:36 PM)
You cast it higher than force 1 because in SR4, Force limits the number of hits (not even net hits, hits PERIOD) that you can get on a spellcasting test. So if you only want one point of armor, force 1 is fine. Otherwise, you'll want to cast it higher.

Doesn't force also control how hard it is to dispel? It sort of sucks having someone turn off your armor right before the frag grenade goes off.
fistandantilus4.0
yes. Not so much 'control' as make it harder. Don't have the exact rules in front of me, but IIRC, they have to negate your net successes, and they resist drain equal to the force of the spell I believe.
emo samurai
You can also make it self-only for DV/2-1. THAT is economical; normally, you can cast it on anyone in LOS.
fistandantilus4.0
I've found it's pretty swell to armor up the street sam and just stand around the corner and wait thank you very much. Now that's eco... no.... wait... lazy!
emo samurai
Make it touch for force/2 + 1. That's a fine spell right there.
Slithery D
Deflection is better if you don't expect someone to walk up and punch/cut you.
knasser
QUOTE (Slithery D)
Deflection is better if you don't expect someone to walk up and punch/cut you.


It also doesn't glow. An annoying bit of fluff that can make the armour spell almost useless if you stick to it.
Slithery D
Hey, all real armor has a bullseye painted on it. Shows you're not afraid.
emo samurai
It's only useful in a firefight that's already started, really.
Wanderer
Well, it should be far from impossible to create a variant Armor spell that doesn't glow at all, with spell design rules.
deek
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Sep 23 2006, 01:05 PM)
yes. Not so much 'control' as make it harder. Don't have the exact rules in front of me, but IIRC, they have to negate your net successes, and they resist drain equal to the force of the spell I believe.

The opposed test for dispelling a sustained spell is Force + caster's magic, so yes, casting a higher force makes it tougher to dispel.

Also, emo or anyone else, where are you referencing the DV's by making it touch or self-only...I don't see anywhere that talks about doing that?
Lantzer
QUOTE (Wanderer)
Well, it should be far from impossible to create a variant Armor spell that doesn't glow at all, with spell design rules.

What is the drain modifier for

"No longer bloody obvious"?
Slithery D
QUOTE (Wanderer)
Well, it should be far from impossible to create a variant Armor spell that doesn't glow at all, with spell design rules.

It should? Where is "invisible effect" in the manipulation drain modifiers? Armor is just Physical Barrier writ small and with adjusted mechanics. An invisible Physical Barrier would be a very bad for road safety, if nothing else. I think mandating visibility of force effects, including Armor, is a good idea. Cover it up with a masking illusion if it really bugs you. Or use Deflection!
lorechaser
QUOTE (Slithery D)
Deflection is better if you don't expect someone to walk up and punch/cut you.

Is there really a Shadowrunner that description applies to, though?
deek
QUOTE (emo samurai)
Make it touch for force/2 + 1. That's a fine spell right there.

Where is this game mechanic coming from? Just re-designing the same spell, or can you take the current spells and put these limitations on them for less drain???
emo samurai
You can; I don't have the book in front of me, but touch is 2 less drain than LOS, and as it is, Armor is LOS.
Slithery D
Well, you have to assume someone has researched and published or otherwise made available to you an Armor spell that is self only. Whether that's a reasonable assumption or only "standard" spell versions are readily available is up to your GM. He may make you research your own version to get that drain reduction, or find and roleplay/shadowrun the aquisition of an unusual form of Armor (or whatever).

Personally, I think this is an obvious enough drain savings on a useful and important enough spell that someone has already done it, and it's out there on the market.
deek
Ok, so you guys are just comparing the relative difference in the spell design section of Street Magic, correct? When I read emo's comments, I thought there was something saying that one could just change an existing spell from LOS to Touch and receive a DV savings...

I would agree, that with the savings in DV, it would make sense someone would have already created a touch version of the Armor spell...
Slithery D
Right, he's redesigning the spell with a new formula for lower drain; the only way you can limit a normal spell for drain is through fetishes.
deek
QUOTE (Slithery D)
Right, he's redesigning the spell with a new formula for lower drain; the only way you can limit a normal spell for drain is through fetishes.

That's what I thought, which is why I was confused. Thanks!
Dranem
Emo rarely follows the rules as they are written, he locates any possible varaint, misunderstanding or hole and abuses - sometimes beyond credibility. So it's always good to check up with your GM whether they'll allow custom spells or whether they'll follow what's in the published grimoire.
Jaid
of course, in this particular case, emo is using the rules exactly as written in street magic, as far as i can tell, and i wouldn't personally consider this especially broken; it's not like self-only or even touch is not a limitation to it's effectiveness (especially with how noticeable the armor is, it's gonna come up where you'd like to put armor on someone far away... maybe you're extracting someone, maybe your sneaky samurai get's noticed across the courtyard, who knows. but ultimately, you will probably want a ranged version at some point (though not necessarily enough to pay karma for each variant of the spell).

as someone else has phrased it, "taste the indecision? that's balance, right there."
James McMurray
Don't worry, that's just Dranem lashing out at anything emo does. It's been a while, and I think he might have been suffering withdrawal pains, or even DTs.
lorechaser
I would think that Touch would quickly become the default version of Armor.

I think the majority of the time, you're putting armor on yourself, or on a teammate nearby. Sometimes you will want a ranged version, but I see that as the exception, more than anything....
laughingowl
QUOTE (lorechaser)
I would think that Touch would quickly become the default version of Armor.

I think the majority of the time, you're putting armor on yourself, or on a teammate nearby. Sometimes you will want a ranged version, but I see that as the exception, more than anything....

Unless...

The reason it is designed as a LOS spell.... is SUSTAINING it has the same range requirements as casting....

No place in the rules does it says they range changes.... (though then again it never sayss the range doesnt change).

But if 'cast' range and 'sustain' range are the same, then a 'touch' armor becomes fairly worthless.

Self is good (for you), or LOS is good (for friends) but touch armor would be very near worthless.
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