I understand that the ward bonus for resistance tests is if the mage casts the spell through the ward. The question, is that is sympathetic magic still casting "through" the ward, or is it merely affecting the target via the association between the target and the material/sympathetic/symbol.

Does that count for domed wards too? (A valid shape for a ward.) If the caster is casting through a door thats on the side of the ward? If the caster is casting from a trapdoor underneath it? Since you seem to be a proponent of the wards are a volume viewpoint. Does a "dome" shape have a sealed bottom? Or does it mostly rely on the earth barrier for protection.

What about if the spotter/leader gets through the ward before the spell casts. And, lastly, how about if the spotter/leader fools the ward via assensing the creator and using metamagic to match his aura?

This will be my last post in this thread, as I tire of repeating myself. I will only be quoting partial posts herein to avoid such repetition. In retrospect, it seems I should have never gotten involved with to begin with, as the core issue is apparently not ritual sorcery vs wards but some one-upsmanship thing from the "kill a dragon" thread that I never read. It seems to me that argument is continuing simply for the sake of argument.

If I have offended anyone with my statements or any statements made in this post, please accept my apologies. They were largely born of frustration at what I perceive as the inexplicable argumentation over what I perceive as a very simple issue.

All I know is that if this silly take on how wards work becomes "canon," it's going to just be a nightmare. The same rational will be applying to spirits and conjuring as well (whether it be summoning, calling one you've already summoned, using the true name of a Free Spirit or whatever) -- if not, any and all of the arguments presented in this thread are instantly rendered null due to the "making shit up as you go along" clause.

I don't know. I think that just the physical damage track would work, and then they can be saved if you stabilize them. In reality, decapitation isn't instant death; the decapitated person remains conscious and aware until passing out due to oxygen deprivation and blood loss. Reattaching a severed head is certainly possible, though difficult, and severed heads can survive in jars according to canon.

Nightmare, one of toturi's points was if the spotter was inside the ward via masking. I believe the most important part of this method is the sentence "If the intruding magician succeeds, the ward no longer inhibits them." SM, 124.

If the ward no longer inhibits the magician who successfully fooled it, and they're the spotter, why would it inhibit their ritual spell?

As far as the table issue. The tables are supposed to be for easy reference of the rules yes? Why then, wouldn't all the important modifiers to sympathetic magic (since it was introduced in SM) be included on its table in SM?

Frank: I think you are mixing 'stops LOS' with 'Stops Spell'. I could be wrong, lord knows I don't write Shadowrun, and magic isn't my strongest topic regardless.

I do know that I wouldn't enjoy a Shadowrun world where your take on Wards and magic reigned supreme, for whatever that's worth.

The Steel Plate stops spells, as I understand it, because you can't see the target to, well, target him... right? The Ward, obviously, doesn't really block LOS at all; well except for from astral.

Now, again magic isn't my strong suit here, but a physical spell could be cast through a window with no problems, right? The window doesn't stop the spell at all. Just like you used to be able to use an optical, but not electric, targeting device, and apparently you can use fiber optics as 'mage goggles' if I read the Kill a Dragon thread correctly.

Now: Ritual Magic doesn't require LOS at all, targeting is done via link (and for the record, symbolic links are a crappy idea given the previous cannon... but thats just me. At best I would expect them to have a reduced capacity, not just a difficulty in forging the link. For that matter, I would suggest that creating a symbolic link should also be more difficult if the target is warded at the time the link is created... but what do I know, I just shoot stuff....). The mana generated by the ritual team still has to go from ritual team to target, even you seem to agree on that aspect, though you brought in this 'variable topography' whigajamig. What's to say that wards don't possess this same variably topography, we describe them as dual natured ('cause they are...) and barriers, because they perform that function... but nothing says that they can't extend this all the way into your 'variable topographic space'.

I don't have street magic handy, indeed I don't but in SR4 I saw not one word in Ritual SpellCasting that said that Ritual Spells 'ignore barriers' or even anything that so much as suggested it. Of course, that includes no information on links, symbolic or otherwise, so I'm somewhat hampered.

Guys, I don't have enough time in the day to answer a thousand and one questions about wards. At some point, when it comes to all these various hypothetical situations you're citing, the GM should make the call based on the information he has and what he personally feels is right. We attempt to provide you with the tools to make these decisions, but authors and devs don't post here to make the decisions for you.

I'll answer a few questions quickly below before I need to get back to work.

Are you the person who wrote the SR4 core rules on wards and ritual magic? No, I am not. I wasn't involved in the writing of the core SR4 book at all, only in the playtesting. I'm unsure who wrote those rules and they may not read/post on this forum.

Why aren't ward effects on the sympathetic links modifier table? Probably because they don't only come into play with sympathetic links. Material links are also affected by wards and there isn't a material links modifier table. Also probably because the ward affects the test by modifying the target's resistance roll, not the caster's roll.

What if the spotter masks his way through the ward? I'd rule that the ward no longer interferes. The ward has been negated for the purposes of the spotter's astral link, just as well as if the spotter had attacked and brought down the ward.

What if a person is using shatter on a ward? Shatter is being cast on the ward, not on a target on the other side of the ward. The ward isn't there to protect itself, so it doesn't add bonuses to itself for the shatter spell.

I see that there is quite a bit that is not really ruled on in the MRB, and badly. Logically, and consistence-ally(neologism for the lose?), a Ward should bounce/slow any spell, though perhaps not a 'physical object moved by magic'...

Logically, because wards resist astral movement, and while the new rules don't make spells as astral objects explicitely anymore (or at all), this still follows logically that Astral Space is deeply connected to Mana/spells and vice versa. But I'm getting into vague mutterings.

We could, for the sake of arguement, point out what wards are meant to represent from various sources that presumably influenced shadowrun's magic rules: Wards/magic circles are imperious to spells unless overpowered; this makes sense as something used to 'sheild' a mage's work space from a technical standpoint (preventing stray mana fluctuations from tweaking that sensitive work) and a privacy/comfort aspect... you wouldn't want to leave yourself open to casual peeping, spying and such like, right? Of course, pulling 'inspiration sources' is weak, so I mention it merely in passing.

Consistancy accross editions is expected to be supported, and to my knowledge was whereever possible. While emphasis may have moved (astral objects... spells that is... are no longer a viable topic fer ex), that doesn't mean that fundamental shifts in things are now allowed to alter history (what wards can and can not stop...)


The problem here, aside from the fact that I don't have Street magic handy to compare, is that the MRB is not very explicit in the magic chapter. No rules for how things interact beyond a certain, surface level. I break it down:

1: Wards are dual natured barriers.

2: They stop astral intruders, rules follow.

3: Combat spells can be direct or indirect (and counter to standard logic, indirect spells must travel directly to the target, allowing for armor, say)

4: Not one mention is made of barriers under combat spells.

5: Dual natured barriers are not discussed seperately from normal barriers. Obviously there is a distinction, however. For all that a steel plate has an 'Astral Shadow' it is not, in fact, dual natured.


Obviously, 5 is the answer to your question of exception, but that is not in itself a complete arguement.

Presumably a direct combat spell, cast from the physical plane, does not worry itself about barriers (the armored window), but still requires LOS, yes?

A direct Combat Spell DOES worry about barriers, and still requires LOS.

These are not explicit, but implied from reading.

A ritual requires LOS (in the form of a spotter and presumably a material link of some sort counts), does not travel directly to the target (even if an indirect spell) thus bypasses barriers.


None of this, however, discusses the Astral barrier. An armored window or a steel plate do nothing to astral targeting except block LOS, you can stick your head right through them just fine and fire away. If magic were more like a gun, and you fired off spells strictly in astral space presumably they would push through the astral shadows just fine.

Now: The key point is that Astral Barriers ARE discussed. Wards are Dual Natured, which means that they are, in fact, astral barriers (this leads to further discussion).. and astral barriers, explicitly, stop spells. There isn't an exception listed, so a straight reading of that might suggest that even direct combat spells (the ones unaffected by barriers, inexplicitely) are still stopped by a Ward.

The interesting thing is that Wards, beind Dual Natured, instead of astral only, suggests, foolishly I know, that they should act as barriers to purely physical attacks as well.

Instead, we should interpret it that Wards are Dual Natured insamuch as they stop spells regardless if they are physcial or astral in nature. Thus Wards, like a steel plate, stop spells in the purely physcial sense (as I suggested they should earlier) and, in a superior display of protection, also stop spells in the Astral Sense, that would include direct spells and, yes, Ritual spells. I know I wandered quite a bit, but I am at work and checking references and typing around the job makes for unclear organization.

Now: You suggest two points that would arguably invalidate this.

1) variable topography: meaningless and unsupported by the rules. Wether or not characters interact with the spell enroute (even by detecting it) the spell still has to get to the target somehow. In the Rules the only routes are the physical plane and the Astral plane, and Wards are present in both equally (unlike Steel plates).

2) Holism: the symbol/link is also the target. Casting at a toe is the same as casting at the body, regardless if the toe is attached. Since no other rule in Shadowrun suggests that I can affect your damage track (or character) by attacking a severed part of him... even in magic (a fireball that torches the arm I left behind after that sword wielding maniac cut me up...) does nothing, why should ritual magic be different? I posit, accurately I assume: that links are used for TARGETING. That is the thing that lets you negate the need to see the target, allows you also to bypass ranges. This is why there are no rules (at least listed in the examples here) of a symbolic link (the weakest of all) that reduces the actual effective power of the spell: Its targeting. Note that a reduction in dice pools (if extant) is not the same as a reduction in power.

Of the two, holism is naturally harder to argue one way or the other. Made up travel space with no support from text or rules is a pretty silly arguement to make.

Holism requires that we get into discussion of links. Essentially, the real arguement here is that links replace, by their existance, the idea of a holistic aura that can be affected regardless of physical seperation. Links exist, in rules and setting alike, and are 'followed' from point A to B,though yes there is no clearly defined 'in between', which was part of your argument for Variable Topography. A lack of inbetween space, that is, the ability to stumble across the middle, does not an arguement make. I can't stumble across the middle of my route north following a compass either, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yet I follow a compass to a defined end. So too with links. And so too with links, I must surmount any obstacles or barriers that exist in my path. In the case of a spell, that is an Astral Barrier.

A ward, for example.

It does in fact discuss wards. We agree that something can be a barrier to an effect without affecting LOS in the form of, for example, Armored glass.


Therefore barriers are not necessarily preventing TARGETING. This is not an inherent property in the barrier rules. Ritual spellcasting is just an alternate method of targeting.

However, Astral barriers do stop spells. Its right there on page 185.

So yes, a Ward does stop a fire bolt. Again, its on 185, a physical barrier stops spells on the physical plane, and a dual natured barrier counts as a physical barrier. Bing!

An Astral Barrier stops astral spells, and once again a Ward, being dual natured, counts as an astral barrier.

this leaves us with ritual magic, which you suggest is neither physical nor astral. However, nothing really supports this theory of yours except, apparently, your own belief that wards shouldn't stop them.

If a ward was ONLY an astral barrier it wouldn't stop the fire bolt, by the logic that the it is only a physical spell with no astral form (this is supported, yes). If it was only a physical barrier it wouldn't stop a 'Direct' spell... though the evidence is that an Astral barrier would (again, pg 185 on Astral Barriers).

But, unless I am profoundly out of touch, Shadowrun doesn't have a third plane of existance for magic. Even the metaplanes are explicitly astral. Thus a spell MUST exist on either the physical or astral plane, thus must cross either a physical or astral barrier to reach the target, presuming one exists.

EDIT::: To clarify, Frank, the quoted part was commenting about barriers to LOS. Poorly phrased, admittedly.

wards don't act as physical barriers to spells, ever.

they give the target increased resistance dice, that is all.

as such, a dual natured ward does not stop a firebolt in any way, shape, or form. at most, you might be able to argue for it giving increased damage resistance dice (and i probably would include that; i personally favor wards affecting ritually cast spells, but i can't say that i've studied this out, and that certainly shouldn't be taken to mean that's what the rules do or don't say).

but one thing is for sure, there's no way i'm treating wards as physical barriers with respect to casting spells through them when there are already explicit rules that tell us how wards interact with spells being cast through them.

FWIW, my understanding of indirect spells is that (for example) firebolt doesn't blast your target with fire, so much as it makes a jet of fire in your hand, which you aim at your target and blast him. The important bit is that all the magic is happening in your hand and none of the magic is happening at the target or in between, that's all just fire.
But then why does counterspelling give extra dice for damage resistance? I don't know, because the fire is magic flavored? *handwave* astral signatures?

So that would be consistent with the "wards don't block indirect spells" camp.
All in all, I'm totally confused and can't wait for the official FAQ on this.

Redjack: That's cool, man. Its nice to know I'm not some lone nutter off his rocker when reading this stuff.


Moon-hawk: Really, the firebolt is a side show to the real debate: Does ritual magic somehow had wave away any need to consider the ward? Obviously, my stance is clear, as is FrankTrollman's.

Well, KZT, since my original answer to your question was 'sloppy writing', it still holds.

Yes, the specific examples are not, per se, spells being cast. Indisputable. On the other hand the text just before the examples does say: Spells.

There are a couple of options given the way its written: One, you can assume the writers meant for it to apply to all test, thus you would add the force to the threshold, just as you do for tracking tests, or you could roll the dice for the barrier as a resistance test in addition to the threshold of an object that doesn't get a test.

You could go with my interpretation just now, which means the spell has to force its way through the barrier (despite, admittedly, being different than how a barrier works against spells cast on a person...)

Or you could just hand wave and rule that for some wacky reason a ward only protects people/critters, and do nothing for objects.

Now, my example may be somewhat weird and contradictory, but yours sounds just silly. The first one sounds best...

So you are choosing to ignore the main rule and choose just the little tiny bit part of the rules you want and claim that this in the general case. Well, have fun.

I'm quite surprised that there has not been a single comment (let alone response) to Demonseed Elite's most recent post on the matter.

I'd post more on the subjects DE raised, but I don't find his input to be controversial. That is to say, he and I think alike in this matter.

That said, I'm also kinda burned out on this discussion. I posted my input, and if people don't wanna play it that way or think I'm crazy for my opinions, they're welcome to do so.

Wait a minute, does this means that wards are absolutely useless against indirect combat spells, and all other spells that don't belong to the direct combat spell category?

Oh boy, that's really a radical change in SR 4th edition...

I do like the interpretation Spike, and the creativity of it, but it is wrong.

The problem is that the spell isn't being "unintentionally forced into a situation where either they or the barrier must give." SR4, 186. Its being cast through the barrier, which is covered by the rules, "Should a magician try to cast a spell through a barrier, the target of the spell adds the Force of the barrier to its resistance dice pool." SR4, 185.

Thusly, the forcing through barriers rules don't apply, as it isn't unintentional.

Yes particle, unless there is a resistance test, wards do diddly.

Wards don't have an area of effect. They affect things crossing the area they occupy. Which surrounds an area. A ward cares if a spell is being cast through it, and thats it.

Sympathetic ritual casting doesn't use the link to obtain LOS. It uses the link to cast LOS. Yes, the resolution is the same, but if we were using a indirect combat spell, it would be the same as to argue the spell would pass through at the very least, the building the ritual team is located in, and the building the target is in. Since, according to you, it will pass through barriers. This means indirect combat spells are utterly useless when cast ritually (and goes back into the "what path they take" arguement). Alternately, you can say that they don't have to go through the buildings the caster and target are in, which also means they don't have to go through the astral barriers either. Why? Because if you exempt them from one barrier, you have to exempt them from all barriers. Because the rules don't state how to differentiate them.

You just said that if the spotter gets inside, it doesn't work, because the whole team is casting the spell, and then said that if someone masks to avoid the ward, the whole team casting the spell gets to ignore it. Which way? Only one? Or all of them? Or did you mean the entire team has to succeed in their masking attempts to avoid the ward? What happens if one fails? Or half? All but one?

But then again, there is the sentence which follows the prior one, stating: "Should a magician try to cast a spell through a barrier, the target of the spell adds the Force of the barrier to its resistance dice pool." That's the sentence that causes so much problems, as it somehow invalidates the absoluteness of the former clause.

Yes, that is the sentence that needs to be addressed in some 'official' manner.

I dunno... Don't you all think that it would be the easiest to simply erase that sentence, and replace it with a new one in the next errata?

what needs to be addressed in the sentence after that? that sentence has game rules defining what happens when you cast a spell through the ward.

presumably the previous sentence is referring to bringing spells through the ward.

but when you are casting spells through a ward, you aren't moving the spell through the ward. you either cast it on the other side, or you cast it on this side, it's a totally natural effect, and the effect passes through (the spell would have been blocked, but that's irrelevant because the spell is already gone, having created and directed it's effect).

now certainly, if you tried to pass a spell through the ward, the astral barrier rules for pressing through come into play. but when you cast a spell on a target that is behind a ward relative to you, you aren't moving the spell through the ward at all, unless you are sustaining a spell on something which passes through the ward.

Been kind of busy to visit this thread, and I actually still don't have the time right now to address the issue of mana barriers and wards in detail... but I want to start off by apologizing for the blunder in my previous post (page 3 of the thread) - most of it is correct, but please disregard the third paragraph (I was thinking of something else entirely) that is definitely not how spells work in SR4).

As soon as my workload clears up some I'll be back to walk through the issue of mana barriers in general and wards in particular.