Under Cyberzombie entry it says the personal "domain" of the CZ affects spells cast on,at and by the CZ.
Not really seeing rules for casting into Background count, just in it. So if caster is 10 meters beyond the effect of Background count and casts a force 6 spell. When it enters the Background Count of 4 does the force of the spell drop to 2 with cap of two success's?
Full Version: Casting into Background Count
In SR4, spells don't "travel": spells are targeted from outside an area, but the spell "erupts" in the target location. Therefore, even if cast from outside a background count area (or from a million miles away via ritual), the spell's effective force will be reduced by the target location's background count.
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| In SR4, spells don't "travel": spells are targeted from outside an area, but the spell "erupts" in the target location. Therefore, even if cast from outside a background count area (or from a million miles away via ritual), the spell's effective force will be reduced by the target location's background count. |
That was my take on it too, so force of spell is lowered and guessing success's capped lower as well. What about the drain modifier, cast outside of counts effect is drain still increased due to fact the results were in area of effect???
The background count never affects drain (whether you're inside or outside the background count area), it only affects the effective force of the spell.
Hope this helps!
Hope this helps!
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| The background count never affects drain (whether you're inside or outside the background count area), it only affects the effective force of the spell. Hope this helps! |
Well, if you're in a BC and your magic drops it could cause the drain to be physical rather than stun. That's sort of an affect.
| QUOTE (Buster @ Sep 27 2007, 10:48 AM) |
| The background count never affects drain (whether you're inside or outside the background count area), it only affects the effective force of the spell. Hope this helps! |
Not according to Street Magic. "Additionally,the process of gathering and shaping mana is more difficult in areas with backgroung count, so absolute value of background count is added to force whenever a character resists magical Drain."
So question still stands does that affect a spell cast into the count from beyond its effects?
Question of intent I understand, but just written assuming caster is inside the count.
| QUOTE ("Street Magic @ p. 118") |
| Pre-existing wards, mana barriers, active foci, sustained spells, and quickened/anchored spells are similarly affected. Reduce their Force by the absolute value of the background count. If the Force is reduced to zero or less, wards and mana barriers will collapse, foci will deactivate, and spells will fizzle. The enchantment on a quickened/anchored spell or ward/mana barrier will repair itself once removed from the background count, returning to its regular Force. |
That's the only thing that seemed to speak to your question, Prime Mover, that I could find in the section on Background Counts in Street Magic. I perused the other following information about aspects, domains, etc., but also didn't see anything.
Since that paragraph doesn't say anything about the background count at the target effecting the force of spells cast at that target, I would rule that a CZ's "personal domain" is an exception.
| QUOTE (Dashifen) | ||
That's the only thing that seemed to speak to your question, Prime Mover, that I could find in the section on Background Counts in Street Magic. I perused the other following information about aspects, domains, etc., but also didn't see anything. Since that paragraph doesn't say anything about the background count at the target effecting the force of spells cast at that target, I would rule that a CZ's "personal domain" is an exception. |
Thats what I was thinking, CZ's ability an exception but if thats the case there needs to be some guidlines, like the drain and force cap issue.
Quickly looking at Aug., I can't find the information about casting at a CZ that you reference in the original post. Can you post a page number?
Pg. 157 Second paragraph under Astral Hazing. "This astral haze affects all attempts to cast magic on,at,or in the vicinity of the cyberzombie."
So my question is simply doest this mean if cast "at" do you apply the affects of the domain as if the caster were in it? Didnt seem like if cast from outside range of domain that the force cap and drain would be effected? But maybe Im mising somthing.
So my question is simply doest this mean if cast "at" do you apply the affects of the domain as if the caster were in it? Didnt seem like if cast from outside range of domain that the force cap and drain would be effected? But maybe Im mising somthing.
I would rule that the force of the spell is effected, but the casting of the spell is not (as the mage is not in the background count ... unless, of course, the mage is in the background count, but then she's got bigger problems as she might be within arm's reach of a cyberzombie 
).
In other words, you cast a force 8 stunbolt at a CZ and you cast and resist as appropriate to the background count in which you're currently residing. Then, when the spell actually hits the CZ, the force is reduced by 4 like the paragraph I quoted from Street Magic above indicated you do with foci, etc. Thus, the CZ would get hit with a force 4 stunbolt.
). In other words, you cast a force 8 stunbolt at a CZ and you cast and resist as appropriate to the background count in which you're currently residing. Then, when the spell actually hits the CZ, the force is reduced by 4 like the paragraph I quoted from Street Magic above indicated you do with foci, etc. Thus, the CZ would get hit with a force 4 stunbolt.
I agree.
Background count is incredibly mean.
Casting a spell within a background count:
1) The caster's magic rating is reduced by the rating of the BC, and thus their max force for spells goes down.
2) Then when they do cast a spell as force X, they resist the drain as though it were force X+BC.
3) Finally, the spell functions, but spells have their force reduced by the rating of the background count so it only functions as force X-BC.
That's just too mean, I must be reading something wrong.
Casting a spell within a background count:
1) The caster's magic rating is reduced by the rating of the BC, and thus their max force for spells goes down.
2) Then when they do cast a spell as force X, they resist the drain as though it were force X+BC.
3) Finally, the spell functions, but spells have their force reduced by the rating of the background count so it only functions as force X-BC.
That's just too mean, I must be reading something wrong.
Let me re-state, and please tell me if I've got it right.
Scenario: I'm a mage with Magic 8 casting Manabolt at max possible force (usually force 16).
If I'm inside a CZ's domain casting at the CZ:
Right?
Scenario: I'm a mage with Magic 8 casting Manabolt at max possible force (usually force 16).
If I'm inside a CZ's domain casting at the CZ:
- My magic is temporarily reduced by 4 (to 4).
- Therefore my max force spell is force 8, and anything above force 4 is physical drain.
- My drain from casting the force 8 Manabolt is calculated as though it were a force 12 manabolt.
- Upon hitting the CZ, the force 8 Manabolt actually has the effect of a force 4 Manabolt.
- My magic is not reduced.
- Therefore my max force spell is force 16, and anything above force 8 is physical drain.
- My drain from casting the force 16 Manabolt is not effected.
- Upon hitting the CZ, the force 16 Manabolt actually has the effect of a force 12 Manabolt.
- My magic is temporarily reduced by 4 (to 4).
- Therefore my max force spell is force 8, and anything above force 4 is physical drain.
- My drain from casting the force 8 Manabolt is calculated as though it were a force 12 manabolt.
- Upon hitting the targe, the force 8 Manabolt has the normal effect of a force 8 manabolt.
Right?
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| Let me re-state, and please tell me if I've got it right. Scenario: I'm a mage with Magic 8 casting Manabolt at max possible force (usually force 16). If I'm inside a CZ's domain casting at the CZ:
|
That's my understanding.
No. Spells (excluding Indirect Combat spells) don't travel to a target.
If you're outside the domain and casting a spell on the cyberzombie, you're affected by his domain just as if you were standing inside. At least as far as the effective Force is concerned (both for the end effect and drain), as you're attempting to manipulate the mana inside a contaminated area.
If you're outside the domain and casting a spell on the cyberzombie, you're affected by his domain just as if you were standing inside. At least as far as the effective Force is concerned (both for the end effect and drain), as you're attempting to manipulate the mana inside a contaminated area.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| No. Spells (excluding Indirect Combat spells) don't travel to a target. If you're outside the domain and casting a spell on the cyberzombie, you're affected by his domain just as if you were standing inside. At least as far as the effective Force is concerned (both for the end effect and drain), as you're attempting to manipulate the mana inside a contaminated area. |
So then, if a Mage was inside a background count, but casting a spell targeted outside that BC's area, then his Magic would be unaffected?
Nope, it's affected in exactly the same way since you're attempting to use magic in a contaminated area. You're just also attempting to manipulate mana outside the area as well.
If there were two cyberzombies with different types of domains (just to skip that whole argument) and you were standing next to one and trying to cast a spell on the other, you'd be hit with a double whammy.
If there were two cyberzombies with different types of domains (just to skip that whole argument) and you were standing next to one and trying to cast a spell on the other, you'd be hit with a double whammy.
So basically what you are saying is that BC will affect Magic if either the caster or the target are inside that Background Count. Right?
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| If there were two cyberzombies with different types of domains (just to skip that whole argument) and you were standing next to one and trying to cast a spell on the other, you'd be hit with a double whammy. |
I'm pretty sure the FAQ (or maybe just a Synner post) said that you only count the highest background count (or in the case of aspected, the worst one for you), so no double whammy.
Yup. But only as far as aspects like that go. If you're outside of a background count and, say, use Astral Perception you're just fine and dandy. If you summon a spirit and then send him into the background count, your drain is unaffected (though the spirit's abilities will be diminished). etc.
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| I'm pretty sure the FAQ (or maybe just a Synner post) said that you only count the highest background count (or in the case of aspected, the worst one for you), so no double whammy. |
That was in reference to overlapping background counts.
So you're saying that if I'm standing in a rating 4 background count and casting into a different rating 3 background count, I'll have my force reduced by 7 and my drain code raised by 7?
that seems... really weird. only one of the bg counts affects you of they're physically overlapping, but they both affect you if they don't overlap? i think it makes more sense to treat them as overlapping any time you're dealing with multiple background counts.
| QUOTE (Buster @ Sep 27 2007, 02:57 PM) |
| So you're saying that if I'm standing in a rating 4 background count and casting into a different rating 3 background count, I'll have my force reduced by 7 and my drain code raised by 7? |
That doesn't really make sense, since if you were standing within both, and casting to a target within both, only the highest rating would count. Having exposure to only one of them on either end (instead of both on both ends) shouldn't make it harder.
[Edit] Doh! Beaten to the punch!
I'm sure the no-overlapping-background-counts rule applies even in this "double whammy" case. Otherwise we're back to the "if I'm standing in a background count and ritual casting into a background count, what is my effective force?" SAT question. Just say "No" to double whammies.
Makes sense to me as when they're overlapping, they're "battling" each other for dominance of that area. Sort of like you have extremely hot water in one glass and extremely cold water in the other glass; both are going to affect you fully if you go from one to the other. But if you pour a little of each into a third glass, that water's not going to be all that bad comparatively.
And if they are two identical types of background counts and they were overlapping, I'd certainly have the power amped up in my campaign. And yes, if it were in my game and there were two overlapping counts of different types, the more powerful one would actually be diminished by the weaker one. But them's my rules.
And if they are two identical types of background counts and they were overlapping, I'd certainly have the power amped up in my campaign. And yes, if it were in my game and there were two overlapping counts of different types, the more powerful one would actually be diminished by the weaker one. But them's my rules.
Ok so going back alittle. If I cast at force 8 and BC makes it force 4, whats cap on success's I can keep 8 or 4? I'm casting at 8 but only 4 haveing an effect . So can I keep success's from original test or does BC's effect final total.
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| I'm sure the no-overlapping-background-counts rule applies even in this "double whammy" case. Otherwise we're back to the "if I'm standing in a background count and ritual casting into a background count, what is my effective force?" SAT question. Just say "No" to double whammies. |
You honestly believe that you'd have an easy time casting a spell on a cyberzombie if you were in the middle of an area wracked with negative emotions and downtrodden spirits (say, a Background Count of 3)? And that it would be just as easy as if you were in a pristine meadow full of serenity and peace (no background count at all)?
That really makes sense to you?
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Sep 27 2007, 03:15 PM) | ||
You honestly believe that you'd have an easy time casting a spell on a cyberzombie if you were in the middle of an area wracked with negative emotions and downtrodden spirits (say, a Background Count of 3)? And that it would be just as easy as if you were in a pristine meadow full of serenity and peace (no background count at all)? That really makes sense to you? |
I'm not sure the question makes sense to me. Casting at a CZ is never easy under any circumstances.
I get what Doc Funk is saying about hot and cold water cancelling each other out, but I'm not sure if it would apply unless you were talking about mana storms mixing with mana voids or backgrounds that are specifically opposing one another (shrine to Dog, right beside toxic shrine to rabid Dog). Overlapping a rating 3 and rating 4 BC isn't like hot and cold water, it's like mixing two deadly poisons together - it's unlikely to become less deadly because of the interaction.
YMMV
| QUOTE (Apathy @ Sep 27 2007, 02:29 PM) |
| I'm not sure the question makes sense to me. Casting at a CZ is never easy under any circumstances. |
The question was: Do you honestly think it's not easier to cast a spell on a cyberzombie 50' away when you're in a quiet, peaceful, and serene environment, or in one where the astral is so torn up from misery, pain, and anguish that it produces a Background Count of 3?
Say you're at a shooting range and they have a moving target set up for you to practice with. Is it easier to shoot that difficult target when you're alone, focused, and calm, or when someone is standing next to you poking you repeatedly in the eye? Pretty much the same difference.
...but I don't believe that's an equivalent analogy for the original question.
- We were discussing whether there was a difference in mechanics depending on whether you were in the BG area casting out, outside the area casting in, or inside the area casting to something else inside the area. You replied that all three were equivalent, since you are in tune with both your location and the location of the target.
- We also discussed whether casting from one BG domain to another was better or worse than having both domains overlapping in both places.
- Applying this situation to your shooting analogy would suggest that it would be the same modifier whether I was:
- shooting from a stable platform at a shaking target,
- shooting from a shaking platform at a stationary target,
- or shooting from a shaking platform at a shaking target (provided that they're both shaking in the same way).
- But that if the target is shaking in a different way (different domain), that the penalties for the two sets of shaking would stack.
- And that because of some weird idiosyncracies in the rules, having a little shaking on my platform, and an earthquake at the target, is worse than having a little shaking plus the earthquake in both places.
No. If we continue with the analogy, and assuming that <i>most</i> of the modifiers are symmetrical, you get:
1. Same modifier for shooting a shaky target from a stable platform.
2. Same modifier for shooting a stable target from a shaky platform.
3. Double modifier for shooting a shaky target from a shaky platform.
4. No modifier for shooting a stable target from a stable platform.
My house rules about different background counts merging is completely irrelevant. That's how I treat them. If you have have two or more merging, they're going to blend together (really hot water + mildly hot water = moderately hot water). And if they're polar opposites, they're going to be cancelling each other out (hot water + cold water = medium water). But that has nothing to do with the "double whammy" effect.
But if you do want to incorporate that into the scenario, background counts = visual modifiers. Background count #1 = heavy fog. Background count #2 = twilight. If you're in a heavy fog and shooting someone in twilight conditions, you only use one of the modifiers? I don't.
And if you don't think the scenario in my last post is an equivalent analogy for what was being discussed, I don't know how else to explain it. It's not even a metaphor, it's an accurate scenario.
1. Same modifier for shooting a shaky target from a stable platform.
2. Same modifier for shooting a stable target from a shaky platform.
3. Double modifier for shooting a shaky target from a shaky platform.
4. No modifier for shooting a stable target from a stable platform.
My house rules about different background counts merging is completely irrelevant. That's how I treat them. If you have have two or more merging, they're going to blend together (really hot water + mildly hot water = moderately hot water). And if they're polar opposites, they're going to be cancelling each other out (hot water + cold water = medium water). But that has nothing to do with the "double whammy" effect.
But if you do want to incorporate that into the scenario, background counts = visual modifiers. Background count #1 = heavy fog. Background count #2 = twilight. If you're in a heavy fog and shooting someone in twilight conditions, you only use one of the modifiers? I don't.
And if you don't think the scenario in my last post is an equivalent analogy for what was being discussed, I don't know how else to explain it. It's not even a metaphor, it's an accurate scenario.
I didn't realize that you're interpretation of overlapping background counts was a house rule, instead of what you thought was RAW. My bad.
My interpretation of your analogy falls apart in a couple places.
First, you say that casting at a target in a background count gives the same modifier whether you're in the background count or not...
My interpretation of your analogy falls apart in a couple places.
First, you say that casting at a target in a background count gives the same modifier whether you're in the background count or not...
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| If you're outside the domain and casting a spell on the cyberzombie, you're affected by his domain just as if you were standing inside. At least as far as the effective Force is concerned (both for the end effect and drain), as you're attempting to manipulate the mana inside a contaminated area. |
...and then you seem to imply that it does matter whether you're inside the background count or not.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Is it easier to shoot that difficult target when you're alone, focused, and calm, or when someone is standing next to you poking you repeatedly in the eye? Pretty much the same difference. |
When you say
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Do you honestly think it's not easier to cast a spell on a cyberzombie 50' away when you're in a quiet, peaceful, and serene environment, or in one where the astral is so torn up from misery, pain, and anguish that it produces a Background Count of 3? |
I pretty much think that's what the CZ domain feels like (or a little more, since it's BG 4). That was why I thought it would be harder to cast at him while standing within his zone than it would be while standing outside his zone. Might be wrong, but was the basis of my theory.
The second bit was about overlapping versus non-overlapping domains. When you responded to Buster:
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) | ||
That was in reference to overlapping background counts. |
...it means that if I'm standing beside 2 CZs standing side by side, my magic only goes down by 4 when I target one (because only the worst modifier counts). But if the one I'm targeting walks 50m away, until I'm no longer standing in his domain (but still casting at him) than my modifier doubles (because suddenly both count). The only thing that changed is that I'm no longer standing beside both of them - I would think that the modifier either shouldn't change, or it should get better, not worse.
It's just my opinion, but that's what made sense to me.
Actually I said some of the modifiers apply if you're inside or out, not all of them. That said, you're manipulating mana inside a background count whether you're in it or just affecting someone inside one. Spells don't travel. You're manipulating mana at your location and around the target. Any background count in either location is going to affect you.
That's the summation of what I was saying.
As for the overlapping logic, you're basing it all upon the unofficial comment that you only use the highest rating of a background count. Nevermind how illogical or absurd that is, you're using it as your baseline. So of course the faulty conclusions you make upon that are going to be just as illogical and absurd, even if they are logical and sound within the context of that illogical and absurd base rule.
If you really need another example of why it's absurd, pick up two colored lenses. Same color, different colors, it doesn't matter. Look through one. Now look through the other. Now put them together and look through that. Which one was the easiest to see through? And does it change things very much if you spread them apart by a foot (length wise)?
Don't care for that example? Get two thin pieces of cloth that you can just barely see through. Do the same thing. Is it just as easy to see through two of them as it is one? Again, same logic.
That's the summation of what I was saying.
As for the overlapping logic, you're basing it all upon the unofficial comment that you only use the highest rating of a background count. Nevermind how illogical or absurd that is, you're using it as your baseline. So of course the faulty conclusions you make upon that are going to be just as illogical and absurd, even if they are logical and sound within the context of that illogical and absurd base rule.
If you really need another example of why it's absurd, pick up two colored lenses. Same color, different colors, it doesn't matter. Look through one. Now look through the other. Now put them together and look through that. Which one was the easiest to see through? And does it change things very much if you spread them apart by a foot (length wise)?
Don't care for that example? Get two thin pieces of cloth that you can just barely see through. Do the same thing. Is it just as easy to see through two of them as it is one? Again, same logic.
logic like that doesn't apply to magic. magic is magic. if it made sense, it would be technology.
The only reason it doesn't apply is because of an off-hand, unofficial comment along the lines of "only the highest background count applies."
that ruling is unofficial, sure. but "it doesn't make sense" is not, in this case, really a valid reason for rejecting the ruling, because it's easy to come up with rationalizations for why the ruling does make sense.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| logic like that doesn't apply to magic. magic is magic. if it made sense, it would be technology. |
...don't get me started again
runs away really really fast
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Sep 27 2007, 06:27 PM) |
| Nevermind how illogical or absurd that is, you're using it as your baseline. So of course the faulty conclusions you make upon that are going to be just as illogical and absurd, even if they are logical and sound within the context of that illogical and absurd base rule. If you really need another example of why it's absurd, pick up two colored lenses. Same color, different colors, it doesn't matter. Look through one. Now look through the other. Now put them together and look through that. Which one was the easiest to see through? And does it change things very much if you spread them apart by a foot (length wise)? Don't care for that example? Get two thin pieces of cloth that you can just barely see through. Do the same thing. Is it just as easy to see through two of them as it is one? Again, same logic. |
Why can't you ever have a civil argument?
Deep breaths all around, we're doing good work here.
So, have we established or come to a consensus to what modifiers apply when casting into a background count as opposed to what modifiers apply while casting inside a background count? Is everything the same or do certain modifiers apply for the former scenario and not the latter scenario?
If spells orginate at the target point, and are affected by the background count there, it doesn't even really make sense for them to be affected by the background point where the caster is standing, because as far as I can see that has absolutely nothing to do with it?
I mean maybe the mage is upset by the psychic disturbance or something, so I suppose you could bill it, but clearly the manipulation of mana is something that takes place at range, and the effort (and drain penalty) is caused by the difficulties of summoning up the mana in that area.
And double billing for the same effect does kinda suck.
I mean maybe the mage is upset by the psychic disturbance or something, so I suppose you could bill it, but clearly the manipulation of mana is something that takes place at range, and the effort (and drain penalty) is caused by the difficulties of summoning up the mana in that area.
And double billing for the same effect does kinda suck.
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| Why can't you ever have a civil argument? |
Everybody's being civil so far, right? Doc may not think much about my opinions, but he's not calling me names or threatening to beat me up on the playground after school...
This is really as friendly as it gets around here.
| QUOTE (Cthulhudreams) |
| If spells orginate at the target point, and are affected by the background count there, it doesn't even really make sense for them to be affected by the background point where the caster is standing, because as far as I can see that has absolutely nothing to do with it? I mean maybe the mage is upset by the psychic disturbance or something, so I suppose you could bill it, but clearly the manipulation of mana is something that takes place at range, and the effort (and drain penalty) is caused by the difficulties of summoning up the mana in that area. |
Why? It's not like the effect is occurring all on its own, and the magician isn't suffering wounds just 'cause. The magician is channeling magic through his body in order to manipulate mana around his target.
| QUOTE |
| And double billing for the same effect does kinda suck. |
It's not the same effect. Not sure where people are getting the idea that I'm saying you should get the same penalty twice by being in the same background count. The discussion is about being in one background count and casting a spell into another one, such as being in a Background Count of 3 and casting a spell at a Cyberzombie (complete with his own background count/domain) 50 feet away.
In the case of elemental effects, the spell actually does manifest at the caster's location and travel to the target, right? And therefore crashes against/breaks through the windows/etc between you and the target?
In that case would the BC of the target still matter, or just the BC of the caster's loc?
What if the elemental effect travels through the domain and back out of it to hit a target on the other side?
In that case would the BC of the target still matter, or just the BC of the caster's loc?
What if the elemental effect travels through the domain and back out of it to hit a target on the other side?
Indirect Combat spells definitely travel, and I'd only apply the background count that the mage was in at the time of casting (as far as Drain goes). The spell will still diminish in Force if it passes into one or more additional background counts, however.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| Background count is incredibly mean. Casting a spell within a background count: 1) The caster's magic rating is reduced by the rating of the BC, and thus their max force for spells goes down. 2) Then when they do cast a spell as force X, they resist the drain as though it were force X+BC. 3) Finally, the spell functions, but spells have their force reduced by the rating of the background count so it only functions as force X-BC. That's just too mean, I must be reading something wrong. |
That is what it says. But I believe that it actually means that you calculate drain as if the spell wasn't reduced by the BC.
So the ordering should be:
- The caster's magic rating is reduced by the rating of the BC, and thus their max force for spells goes down.
- The spell functions, but spells have their force reduced by the rating of the background count so it only functions as force X-BC.
- Then when they do cast a spell as (modified) force X, they resist the drain as though it were (modified) force X+BC (which would be the original Force).
Since you make your spell effect roll before you roll drain resistance, you can even legitimately interpret the rules as written to say exactly this.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) | ||
That is what it says. But I believe that it actually means that you calculate drain as if the spell wasn't reduced by the BC. So the ordering should be:
-Frank |
Oooh, I think I see what you're saying.
You try to cast at X, but it functions at (X-BC), but then you add the background count to the effective force for drain, so rather than X+BC (as I thought) it may actually intend to be (X-BC)+BC=X.
That makes it a teensy bit less mean.
Waaaaait a minute. I'm going to question something now. Okay, I'm reading SM pg 118 and trying to do so very carefully. I'm looking under the heading Background Count and Magic.
First paragraph: Background count reduces magic attribute by it's absolute value. Check.
Second paragraph: Ramifications of first paragraph. Affects on adepts and paracritters. This is where spells have BC added to their force for drain purposes.
Third paragraph: Spirits and BC.
Fourth paragraph: Force is reduced for the following: pre-existing wards, mana barriers, active foci, sustained spells, quickened/anchored spells.
Fifth paragraph: Visibility modifiers.
Where does it say the effective force of a spell cast within the background count goes down? The fourth paragraph talks about BC subtractive from force, but that's talking about things that were established outside the BC and then brought into it, i.e. you can't ignore all penalties by casting and sustaining your spell outside and then carrying it in. English needs more clear order of operations, but I think "pre-existing" is supposed to apply to that entire list.
I've been asserting that spells cast in a background count have their effective force lowered, and now I'm failing to find the quote and page that backs me up on that. Does this double-jeopardy really exist?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.