"Powers are special abilities that critters possess..." p.286 SR4

Question: do POWERS (say, Accident) need to make a Success test using Object resistance as a threshold(p.174 SR4) when used on a non-living object (say, a car)?

I would say no, b/c the rules say only SPELLS need to do so, and Powers are not spells, nor does it say anywhere in the rules that powers are treated as spells.

However, others in my gaming group disagree, so I would like to know what other groups think!

I'd say spells and powers are magic and magic need to beat the object resistance threshold to affect a non living target.
If it was only spells that need to do so, it would mean that spells have trouble with non living stuff, meaning, sooner or later someone makes a spell that has no trouble with object resistance and this rule is just another farce.

The object resistance thingy is also a good thing, since non living object don't resist spells. They just take them as they are thrown at them. So, if a power would not need to beat the threshold, you would need to make a roll to determine the effect for balance reasons, leading to the same outcome just wasting more time.

Yeah, Malicant is on the right track. If you choose to have critter powers bypass OR, since objects don't resist, you get some wacky situations. Like a simple concealment power will work equally well against any sensor or camera, regardless of how good the sensor is. Or it's easier to accident a suborbital than a small child.

Sorry, but Accident against vehicles is a special case (Crashtest with a DP mod of -(force)). Most other powers seem to be rather straight-forward and no problem at all, Conceal for example does also cause a DP mod for the observer, regardless of type, no test = no threshold.

The only issues are the elemental damaging powers, and indirect spells don´t use OR.

So where is object resistance ever applicable? All mana powers are out from the get-go, can´t affect tech.

I've seen that interpretation before, but where does it actually say that indirect powers don't use OR?

Because they are handled like ranged attacks, I guess.

It is not an interpretation. You get two mechanisms for combat spells (direct + indirect). Only one mentions OR.

Accident you can think of as indirect (shifting the terrain, etc.) rather than direct. Conceal could be the same way (clouds obscuring the moon at just the right time reducing lighting, leaves rustling at just the right time to cover up footsteps, etc.) That is why they don't need to make an OR test.

Why doesn't improved invisibility work as an "indirect" illusion spell? Beats me. That's hardly the only problem with the description of invisibility as written however (blindess, laser immunity, etc.) I think it's safe to say the descriptive text on that spell is flawed.




Because the two types of spells work in very different ways. Direct spells attempt to have magic affect the item or person in question directly. Indirect spells use magic to create some other affect (e.g. fire) that then affects the other target. Since the fire in this case is real, it doesn't need to make an OR test to affect technological targets. (Of course, that implies such spells can pass wards and that counterspelling would be useless, neither of which is the case. So... what do I know anyway.)

Thats the way I see it. I can´t find a power that rolls a test against an object. Invisibility is... special, always was.

Ok what is says is this under spellcasting P174:
"Highly processed and artificial items are more difficult to affect than natural, organic objects. Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold based on the type of object affected (see the Object Resistance Table,). Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells do get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack, use only their Armor rating x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage caused (see Barriers, p. 157)."

This doesn't say or even suggest that indirect spells don't get OR.

P196
"Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are treated as Success Tests; the caster much achieve enough hits to beat the item’s Object Resistance (see p. 174). Net hits increase damage as normal (the object does not get a resistance test)."

P196
"If the spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor (+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the Damage Value. If the modified spell DV does not exceed the modifi ed Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun. Note that nonliving objects resist damage from an Indirect Combat spell with their Armor rating x 2 (see Barriers, p. 157)."

As a literal reading of this means that wards have NO effect on powerball attacks on inanimate objects (as they explicitly just don't get to attempt the test that wards provide bonus to) I tend to assume that whoever wrote the magic section is either (charitably) not a native english speaker or (uncharitably) an idiot. So I guess you you can do whatever you want with these rules to make them work in your game. My assumption is that you ALWAYS have to overcome OR.

When you accident on a person, don't they make a "save"?

Wards provide an advantage because any spell has to break through the ward first. How does that change with the target of the spell?

The ward doesn't stop spells, what is does is:
"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."

Inanimate objects explicitly don't get a resistance roll. So they get a bonus to a roll they do not get to make. Hence they provide no protection.

You would need to assign the inanimate object a barrier rating, use double armor+ward rating for resistance against powerball.

I found it easier to just assume that wards eat successes equal to their force. Plus OR always applies. Did I mention that I though mages were overpowered in SR?

That is a valid POV and a good houserule.