Ok the Force of a spell caps the hits you can roll unless you spend edge on exploding 6's which lets you break the cap. Sustaining Foci are limited to only allowing Rating Force spells or lower to be cast through them. So heres my question.

If you cast a force 1 spell but also throw in 5+ edge dice and you get 4 hits for an Armor spell. (+4/+4). Should an R1 Sustain Foci be able to sustain that spell?? Doesnt it seem like the spell would have to drop down to +1/+1 (or 1 hit) regardless of whether or not you used edge? Your essentially forcing a F4 armor spell through an R1 sustain foci.

What do you guys think? Another example would be an F1 increased reflex spell with 5-6 dice edge pool and getting 4 hits and using an R1 sustain foci to have +3 IP +3 Reaction.

If you're OK with dumping an Edge for every spell you want to carry around for every time you go through a Ward, then sure. Go nuts.

-Frank

not to mention every time some enemy mage notes your collection of f1 foci and sends some spirits to attack them on the astral.

Otherwise, no problem??

I don't know that I recall reading that in SR4. SR3 I fairly clearly recall that a Sustaining Focus must be at least the force of the spell held.

Now the rub is that SR4 allows for Edge to increase the effective Force of the spell (in regards to this spell).
As a GM I would rule it to be restricted to the focus rating.

ie: Force 1 Focus can hold 1 net hit.

Disclaimer: Of course that is my initial feeling but could change my mind after further review.

Nope, no problem.

I'd actually agree with Slymoon's (current) interpretation. A spell focus of any kind is of a certain force because it can hold X amount of juice. Unlike the (meta)human body, that's not maleable or adjustable on the fly. So if a person casts a force 1 spell, boosts it (temporarily) to 4 via edge, then locks it into a Force 1 sustaining focus, I'd rule they only get the benefit of 1 hit, because that's all the focus is capable of holding. Otherwise, what's the point of the higher level foci?

There are no Foci Levels I thought, Only specific spell type Foci. manipulation, health etc etc. I thought that buying force levels of Foci went out with 3rd ed.

My memory must be off (at work, so don't have books). I thought bonding costs for different foci were based off their force...?

Using edge during spellcasting does not raise the force of the spell, it simply removes the success capp implied by the spells force, thus making it possible to have 3 hits on a force 1 spell.

BBB p 172:
Force serves as a limiter effect on spells—the more oomph you put into the spell, the better you can succeed with it. This limitation does not apply to Edge dice that are used to boost a spell.


/ edit
bounding cost for sustaining foci is 3xforce, so yes there are levels of foci and also they are of a sepcific discipline.

All foci have force levels, which determine they're effect (ie how many dice you add to the appropriate dice pool, what force lvl of spell cann be cast into them, etc.).

Pg 190-192 & 340

While a lucky mana fluctuation or something could make a spell's force effectively increase, a sustaining focus of a lower rating shouldn't be able to hold the extra power. Frank's probably right from a pure RAW perspective, but I think this looks like a loophole or exploit to me. If a rating 1 spell is 4x more powerful than the most powerful rating 1 spell, shouldn't it require a container 4x more powerful to hold it? It's just common sense. And I'd really hate to see a PC taking a bunch of R1 focuses for that express purpose. There are some uses of the RAW that just don't pass the giggle test.

Thanks Drogos.

Ok, so does this mean that if you get extended masking that you can pull this cheese off by RAW? Extended Masked would off-set a ton of the issues.

As for a fix. IMO edge is an instantaneous thing, no where does it give you an on going bonus. I would only let the total hits exceed the force on the action phase that the edge was spent.

Question to DS, but especially Frank. What exactly do you see being warded? Can you get around a middle class neighborhood and get your food shopping done? Say you are hitting a facility what exactly is warded? You can only ward about 2 jail cells per point of magic. That means you are going to have to prioritize a bit. In SM they talk about fooling wards by effectively spoofing a trusted aura with masking. No where I can find does it talk about a create of a ward being able to pass though there wards or being about to establish a list of friendlies. Even if you can, no public space could be warded with anything stronger than an alarm ward. Anyone Care to sketch out out there vision?

From a fluff perspective you are assuming that the increased effect of an edge enhanced spell comes from increases in raw power used.

That's not really borne out by the rules, Edge use doesn't increase Drain, for example. It seems just as easy to describe extra hits from Edge as finesse and on the fly bespoke tailoring of the formula, flair, etc.

When you use edge to fire a gun do you use higher caliber bullets and suffer more recoil?

To make such a tactic work you really need to invest an extra 20/30BP on Edge. How many Sustaining Foci does that buy?

From a game balance perspective I agree it's probably pushing the envelope. I think however as a long term strategy it's a loser, it has too many exploitable flaws. Quickening FTW....

Disclaimer: It is of course me that Abbandon is talking about.

I don't think it is a problem with the definition of foci to allow the use of Edge to circumvent the limitations of a focus.

Yes it may seem to overpower a focus, but as several people have argued, the cost is huge. Edge is a very limited resource and there are many ways a spell can be negated. The example above of getting an extra initiative pass is striking, but that benefit is outweighed by saving the Edge for when your ass is on the line, whatever the circumstance may be.

Would you really need extended masking?

If I was creating a ward I can't imagine I would want it to block my active foci.

'Mana barriers do not affect their creators, who can see through them or pass through them at will and allow others to do so as well'
SR4 p185

So presumably if you convince a barrier that you are it's creator with basic Masking you can force it to allow any astral forms you specify to pass through it also.

Wow double flub. It's been a while. Thanks I totally missed the rules that wards inherited as mana barriers. AND I was mixing my rules on forcing and fooling wards.

>Quickening FTW
Edge is crazy good but, how is it more valuable than karma ... to a mage?

Anyone care to post where they actually put wards in there games?

Force 9 spirit flukes 8 hits on a binding test would you rather have edge or karma?

You might try and incorporate some kind of Resistance test for the Focus anytime it is used this way, with failure indicating that the overpowered spell has burned out the Focus.

I'm not really arguing that the RAW supports me. This is just something that if a player tried to pull it on me, I'd say "how about not?" Is it totally broken? No. Having to spend Edge really limits it, and if those spells get dispelled the person with only R1 foci is screwed. And they can be dispelled very easily, what with being F1 and all... It just looks like a weasely kind of loophole that I wouldn't tolerate in my game. Would I throw a tantrum about it? No. But would I use the GM discretion hammer? You bet.

Why thank you, you're too kind. I do appreciate when people make an effort to avoid ad hominem attacks and keep a discussion reasonable...

Even if you masked yourself to convince the ward that you're not you, you could run into an issue that your foci that are bonded with you suddenly don't recognize you as you, and thusly stop working.

Chip on your shoulder much? How you play is absolutely irrelevant to me. I have no idea whether you're a weasel, and I don't care. I'm not trying to defeat the argument by attacking the character of those who support it. I agree that the RAW allows it. I'm just throwing in my 2 yen and saying that, if it were up to me, it wouldn't be allowed because it smells like a loophole in the rules.

That's like saying would you rather have some krillcakes or an Ares Alpha when your starving. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. If you think Edge is more valuable then karma can I play a magician at your table and buy spells and skills with Edge

However that is precisely what you do when you choose to use words like 'weaselly' and 'loophole.'

By portraying the opinions of others as somehow substandard, inferior or immoral you avoid having to justify your own opinion on its merits by the simple expedient of slandering the character of supporters of the opposing position

Yes I do have a 'chip' although not the one you imagine in this case.

This sort of rhetoric is precisely what's wrong with vast portions of the world today and it makes me very angry to see perfectly reasonable intelligent people, like role-players, reflexively rely on such tactics like a bunch of cheap two-bit politicians.

[/endrant]

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you.

I assumed you meant:

Why would you expend karma in an effort to avoid continuing to expend edge constantly recasting vital spells?

The answer to which is that Edge has a hard-cap that is usually quite low and it can do things that karma just cannot.

I'd rather burn 30 karma on Quickening a spell and save using 3 points of Edge every run recasting it.

Better to have Edge and not need it etc....

Loopholes in SR? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

There are tons of loopholes that you can use to your advantage in this game. The difference between a good gamer and a bad one in my opinion are those that can see them and decide not to hard cheese their character and the ones who do. Anyway who cares it's a game guys... a game. You roll dice you have fun, and going off on who said what and who did what and who is bla bla bla..... ugh enough.

In the end for a game like this it is really all up to the GM on what he or she will or will not allow. It seems like the obvious answer to this whole deal is 'use your own discretion.'

It is a loophole, and he thinks it is weasely...
He never said you were, he also never said it wasn't RAW...
You are the one who took it personally...
By portraying someone else's opinion as a personal attack on you to refute them, you make yourself seem very small...

EDIT: Oh, and it would be [/rant], but you should have started with [rant]...

The first part of that sentence is a statement of fact, unsupported by evidence, that the behaviour in question is a 'loophole' in the rules, implying that it may be part of the rules but that it factually should not and that using said rule as written is inappropriate.

The second part of the sentence states that 'he' believes anybody using this rule in this manner is behaving in a 'weaselly' fashion.



Who then did he say was weaselly? The designer, the Dalai Lama, my pet hamster?

As I had already clearly stated that my character is the subject of debate in this thread, I did not take it personally. As a matter of demonstrable fact his opinion is personal.

I do not however take offense at the ad hominem nature of the statement, water of a ducks back by now, but at any use of such rhetoric in any discussion of this nature.

Fallacious logic cannot be allowed to stand.

If one believes an old woman to be a bad influence on one's community one should say so and give clear logical arguments to support your position which your old woman is permitted to rebut in turn.

One does not strap a carrot to her face and scream Witch!!!



Interesting structure that, given the subject matter.

Fallacious statement, ad hominem attack.

By pointing out that the original posters opinion was stated in such a way as to not support itself but to cast aspersions of inferiority on my play style instead, I was not refuting those opinions I was refuting the rhetorical syle of debate they were couched in.

I fail to see how insisting on proper debate instead of the liberal use of the Con skill makes me appear small.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

[/nonsensetag ]

You should have never mentioned your situation Crizh, you are the one who decided to tell everyone this was about you and your character. You should have just given your opinion like everyone else was doing.

The fallacy is yours. I wasn't making an argument, or trying to convince everyone, just contributing my unqualified opinion to the discussion. You can't use logical fallacies to take something apart when it isn't an argument. You can tell me that, in reality, I was arguing, and I was directly targeting you, but that won't make it true. Just settle down, ok? Not every post has to turn into a flame war. Spend your energy arguing with people who are interested in argument. I have already conceded that your position is valid, and stated that, even so, it would not fly in my games. What is there to argue with? I used mean language and hurt your feelings? Give me a break

The term was "a weasly kind of loophole." That means the poster called the loophole weasly (in their opinion). They didn't attack you and yet you brought up the ad hominum fallacy, indicating that you *did* take it as an attack. You can't pull the ad hominum card and then claim you didn't see it as an attack. The two don't mix.

That said, please stop falling back on logical fallacies to debunk stuff. It doesn't do any good at all, and tends to make others think you have no logical rebuttal. We've had more than enough of that from one poster here.

Ignoring the fact that the term 'loophole' is itself pejorative, how can a loophole be 'weaselly'?

Wriggle all you like, the fact is the term 'weaselly' was intended to apply to me, or anyone like me with the temerity to use such 'loopholes.'

I didn't 'take' it as an attack or 'see' it as an attack, it is an attack.

Why should I not point out that someone's argument is based on logical fallacy to debunk it?

I don't have a logical rebuttal?

'Your argument doesn't hold water, it is dependent upon logical fallacy.'

How is that rebuttal not logical?

So if he said it was a sweet little loophole, would you start telling people he called you sweet? And little?

I can't decide if the classic Special Olympics image or the good ol' Waaaaambulance! is the most appropriate .jpeg for this thread.

Regardless of who said what, I think it's time to develop some thicker skins, people.

This is precisely my point, it was rhetoric, not argument.

It was a, presumably unintentional, attempt to undercut the validity of my opinions by portraying them as 'weaselly.'

I believe that using this rule in this manner is perfectly acceptable, like called shots to increase DV.

Your opinion is that such an interpretation of the rules is abusive, unfair and 'weaselly.'

Can you honestly claim I shouldn't see that opinion as personal in any way?

If your opinion were that such an interpretation of the rules was possibly unbalanced and out of line with other system mechanics I would be more than happy to debate that opinion on it's merits.

That was not, however, how you stated your opinion.

No hurt feelings here.

But I will not allow rhetoric to stand unchallenged.

To quote an awesome man

"Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror." - Humungus

Ah Mad Max where would I be without you.

I'm thinking Waaaambulance. This has got to be the biggest overreaction to a non-insult I've seen on Dumpshock in a long time.

An interesting point.

'Weaselly' implies conscious intent whereas 'sweet' is a property of inanimate objects.

Interesting how 'sweet' therefore is a property that can be ascribed to concepts whereas 'Weaselly' is not.

Quantum Theory is sweet, makes sense, however, the Theory of Relativity is weaselly, does not.

Focusing on a single irrelevant point whilst ignoring the rest of somebody else's argument is another rhetorical technique btw.

I've not over-reacted to a perceived insult.

I've reacted appropriately to the use of rhetorical technique in a debate.

Others have failed to recognise that such techniques are not valid and have insisted on trying to get the last word in by continuing to use rhetoric to support their position.

Sweet also implies conscious intent, unless you try your best to misinterpret, which is also a rhetorical technique...

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
[/theDude]

How does sugar consciously intend to be sweet?

I rest my case...
Now you can say what you will, your words have no value anymore...

Villain! You take that back. No value!? Entertainment value, at the very least! I, for one, find this to be the most amusing thread of the day.

People assign inappropriate adjectives and descriptors to innanimate, imagined, or non-sentient things all the time. How is this any different.


I can't speak for his intent as I can't read his mind. Unless I'm very much mistaken, neither can you. His words on the other hand, attacked the loophole, not the people interpreting the rules. You're choosing to see it the other way around.


That's a matter of opinion, and one no one else seems to agree with you on. You're choosing to perceive it as an attack against you, nothing more.


Because recently when people have been using that method, they ignore the entire argument due to a simple fallacy in one part of of it, even when the argument itself stands fine without the fallacy. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and I've seen many others are as well. We have no desire to fight another person who uses this as their only defense. You may not be intending to do it, but some of us are touchy on it now, thanks to a certain poster's antics.


That's just it, people's opinions (not arguments) were valid with or without the fallacy. The argument (if you could call it that) stood even if you took out the word "weaselly." Instead, you focused on that part and debunked the whole thing because of it, considering the whole post an attack. That's wrong, in my opinion. You may disagree, but that's also your opinion. Neither of us could be any more or less correct because of that.

Well Jhaiisiin your post had a spelling error in it so therefor I'm right and your wrong. Neener neener I win you lose! Yeah Jhaiisiin what do you have to say to that? Nothing thats what! Nothing! Victory for ZIM!

Oh yeah and don't even get me started on that one grammatical you made in your previous post. Hah! Put you in your place!