I have a question regarding using Foci.

Say you have spellcasting of 5 and Magic of 5 and Force 4 Sustaining Foci.

Say i want to sustain, Armor the spell, it says i get a value of B/I armor + per hit on the check. So I roll my 10 dice and say i get however many hits.

How does this work with the sustaining foci? since its force 4 does that limit my hits to say 4 max? or is it whatever i roll? so in theory i could have a force 1 Foci sustaining armor that i scored 6 hits on giving me a +6/+6 armor value or again is it limited to the level of my foci?

Yeah. It's limited to the force of the spell. If you want your focus to sustain it, the force has to be four or less. So, then you'd be able to get four, at most.

Ok thats what i thought, just wanted to make sure is all, thanks for the quick reply.

Ciao

No problem.

Now for the question I've never seen answered adequately. What happens if you spend Edge on the test? Your force hasn't changed, but the success cap just went out the window.

I consider it to be another one of those blind spots in the rules, and would house rule that a sustaining focus can only sustain spellcasting hits equal to its Force. I reason that this is a magical device with a hardwired limit to the energy it can handle, and a spell that has been jacked up beyond its normal limits would be the same as a higher Force spell as far as the focus is concerned.

This is a house rule, though. Currently, there is nothing stopping a mage from buying a Force: 1 sustaining focus, casting a Force: 1 increase reflexes spell on it while spending Edge, and winding up with +3 initiative and +3 IP.

On the other hand, maybe someone spending Edge should be able to get an extra boost from a sustaining focus. After all, they are expending points from a dice pool that refreshes very slowly, to get a boost that can be lost any time they need to deactivate the focus (going through wards, etc.). My proposed house rule is more due to how I see the logic of the game world working, than due to any perceived power imbalance.

I'd run it like Glyph. Focus Rating limits hits.

Aint it that way that a force one spell limits your net hits up to one?! Fe: To cast a successful increase reflexes spell that gains you +3 initiative and +3 IP you would have to get 4 net hits, considering that a force one increase reflexes spell limits ur net hits up to one, you couldnt even get the +1 INI +1 IP boni.

basically yes, though it actually limits hits (not net hits) to 1.

so for example, with a force 1 combat spell if the defender gets a single hit on their spell resistance test, your combat spell will fizzle because you can only have 1 hit total, regardless of how many net hits that might work out to be (in this case 0)

What Cain brought up, though, was adding Edge to the spellcasting test. And that limitation does not apply to Edge dice that are used to boost a spell.

lucky for me i wasn't responding to cain's comment then, but rather i101's comment.

So was Glyph.

@Jaid: Ahh i ment limit hits, and not net hits. My mistake.
@Cain: Spending edge on a force one spell is senseless. The reroll doesnt change nothing, cause the spended edge doenst overrule the max possible limit hits. Therefore it is nothing more then wasting his "luck" for nothing during gametime.

That's exactly what spending Edge in this fashion is meant to do ... overrule the maximum allowable hits when casting a Spell.

We are not talking about re-rolls, but spending Edge before making the Spellcasting test.

I am aware that spending edge before doing any tests is much powerfuller then afterwards ... but i didnt know that it overrules the maximum allowable hits.

Thats the thing with you immortal elfs ...

I'd missed that little tidbit, myself. I need to comb over my books some more. I don't get to play enough to have nearly as much memorized as I'd like.

It's buried here ...

while we're on the topic of magic foci... which ones can an adept use? I know they can use weapon foci, and most of the others specifically go to spells or spirits, but what about power foci?

Nope. Just weapon foci.

Edit: That is, of the main ones. I think they can use some of the ones in Street Magic.

I wasn't referring to rerolls, although I think that's been established.

Here's more of that I was talking about. Our ridiculously Lucky mage has a 5 in spellcasting (manipulation), and a Magic of 5. However, he could only afford a rating 1 sustaining focus. In the middle of a fight, he decides to cast Armor, but doesn't want to risk Drain. So, he casts a Force 1 Armor spell (either on himself or the team troll, it doesn't matter), spends Edge, and rolls 20 exploding dice. With that amount of exploding dice, let's hypothesize that he gets 10 successes. The success cap has been removed, so he now is sustaining an Armor spell that provides 10 bonus points of Ballistic/Impact. The spell is then transferred into the sustaining focus, so he loses the sustaining penalty.

See the problem here? The weak spot with what Glyph is suggesting is that assuming the same spell should nerf itself once transferred to the focus. That's not exactly balanced, smacks of GM protectionism, and would only serve to piss the player off (since he could accomplish the same thing if he ate the sustaining penalty.

Yes, according to the latest from Synner, Adepts can indeed bond Power Foci. They are only useful in tests that actually include the Magic Attribute though, so are of somewhat limited use to most Adepts.

No.


I don't agree with this at all. It could simply be that Foci are specifically designed to hold or otherwise manipulate a finite level of 'power', and that spells with effects that exceed that 'power' are reduced accordingly.

My proposed house rule is due to the fact that I don't see how a magical device with a hardwired limit would have trouble with a Force: 2 spell, but be fine with a Force: 1 spell that is chanelling enough energy to be a Force: 10 spell. It would be pretty botched as "GM protectionism", since the mage can still use Edge in conjunction with things like quickening, or spell sustaining by an ally spirit.

First of all, no other focus limits the number of successes you can get. If I spend Edge with a spellcasting focus, even though it's handling a finite amount of power, it doesn't alter the success cap. I can cast a force 5 or force 10 spell with the same focus, and the focus has zero effect on the result.

Second, it's rather poor form to resort to in-game technobabble to restrict a game-breaking effect. House rules, or a discussion with the player after it's proved to be an issue, tend to be more effective.

I fail to see the game-breaking effect. I am also of the opinion that Glyph's (and of course my own) view on this matter is in fact canon. If it turns out that it isn't canon, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to make a house rule (using whatever rationale I choose) to remedy any perceived problem.

This is because no other focus has limitations based on the Force of a spell. The Sustaining Foci, however, explicity states in it's text that it's Force limits the Force of spells cast through it, and as such, the hits those spells can attain.

As for RAW, yes, you could get an obscenely powered spell sustained in a Force 1 Foci through Edge. As for a good house rule, no, you cannot.

I'd love to see a single quote that says a focus limits total successes. If you want to apply a house rule, because you perceive it to be game-breaking-- I suggest that you warn your players beforehand, so it doesn't become a problem. You can use in-game technobabble if you wish, but I personally think that honest and open communication with my players is better for everyone. I hate domineering GM's, don't you?


Again, show me where it says the force cap is also a success cap.

Honest question. Do you think a sustained 10-success armor spell is more broken than a similar Stunball spell?

A Force 1, 10 success Armor spell is certainly more powerful than a Force 1, 10 success Stunball. The Stunball's base power is limited by Force. The Armor spell has no base power to be limited by Force. The Stunball can only be used against a single group of enemies per casting - the Armor spell can be used against many.

And once you take into account that you can keep up the Armor with no penalty through a Force 1 Foci, without a doubt potentially game-breaking.

This isn't the first time you have made this kind of negative inference about my GMing style ... a subject you know nothing about. Why do you feel the need to attribute this kind of behavior to me? I never once claimed, or to my knowledge even implied that I would act in such a manner. If you have a personal problem with me, then I suggest you either take it up with a Moderator or use a more appropriate and private medium such as the PM system.

Ahem:


I prefer to use a rationale that my player will accept, instead of one I arbitrarily choose.

All I know about your GMing style is what you post here. All I know is that whenever I make a post based around fairness and open communication with players, someone like you is certain to object. I honestly do not understand why. Based on the statements and implications you make, I'm more than happy to share what few GMing pointers I have. I'm far from the best GM in the world-- I started off bad, and I have a long way to go-- but I thought the whole point of a place like this is to share what we know, so we can all become better GMs.

'Someone like me'?

Nice try, but not once have I objected to open communication between players and GMs. I have made numerous posts throughout Dumpshock's history (and even before) promoting intense, one-on-one chargen sessions, communication outside of the game when dealing with problem players, and a host of other communication-related topics. Please provide a quote (and link to the thread) where I have done anything like what you are accusing me of doing, because I am quite insulted. As I said earlier, this is not for the first time you have done this type of thing.

As for the quote you posted, I didn't feel any pressing need to write a dissertation detailing the entire decision-making process in my games. I merely mentioned that house ruling (something you advocate whenever it suits your purpose) would not bother me, and as a GM it is ultimately up to me to make that final decision. You added the part about non-communication, assuming that my decisions would be made in a vacuum and then proclaimed from on high.

A literal reading of the book seems to imply that your normal spellcasting dice are limited to force, while the successes added by rolling the edge dice count on top of that. The number of exploding dice would such be very limited (8 at most). While not an efficient use of edge for force 1 foci, this could be done for spells cast at max. "safe" drain. Seven hits instead of five for a point of edge? Be my guest.

But how do you tell which dice exploded and which didn't? Do you use different colored dice?

I also don't derail threads because I'm paranoid. Please take it to PMs.


Actually, I seldom advocate for house rules. As far as final decisions go, I personally go out of my way to make sure that my rationales are ones that everyone can accept and hopefully enjoy, as opposed to ones I arbitrarily choose. Arbitrary GM decisions are usually the result of a (voluntary?) lack of communication.

To bring it back on topic, I don't see much difference between sustaining the Armor spell and using a focus, regardless of the number of successes it has. If it's game breaking to use a focus-- which apparently, you perceive it to be, because you're masking a house rule as canon to cover it-- then why isn't it equally game breaking to merely sustain the same spell, or get a bound spirit to do it for you?

You certainly could use different colored dice, or roll them on the side, or something.



I stand corrected.

While some of us do indeed have different dice for edge (a justification to have more cool kinds of dice on the table), you can always roll the edge dice separately. This is -to my knowledge- the only rule where it matters anyway.

Okay, if that's what you do, then that's cool.

But I still think it's confusing and difficult. If you spend Edge, all your dice explode. So, if I read you correctly, you'd first roll the regular dice and let them explode, but then cap that total number of successes based on force. Then you roll the Edge dice, which also explode, but now ignore the cap. So, let's say that I'm casting a force 5 spell with Edge. I roll my normal dice pool, which explodes, and I score 6 successes. I then roll 8 exploding dice, and score 4 successes. You'd say that I have an effective total of nine?

Just as I thought. When called on it, you can provide no quote or link to back up your publicly-made false accusations, so you revert once again to insults.

Excuse me, but did I actually refer to you? All I said was that I, personally, am not paranoid; and I asked you to take this to PM. I don't think the mods here would appreciate us derailing this thread with pages and pages of citations attacking my character. All I'll point out now is that in just about every thread I've made for the last week, you've been right there with ready insults about me, but very little about my arguments. Anyone who wants to look up our posting history can see it for myself.

I asked you for a truce, in PM. So, anything public will go to the mods. Shall we drop this and get back on topic?

Just a note: The accusation I am to which I was specifically referring was the one where you accuse me (or someone like me) of objecting to open communication. I stand by my public posts (feel free to report any of them to the Moderators if you feel the need), and do not appreciate the false inferences you have been making about me. I don't think it is that hard to back up any accusations made with actual evidence when requested.

As for a truce, I didn't even read your PM till well after my last response in this thread (and sent a reply as soon as I did read it). As such, I am perfectly willing to abide by any truce discussed there.