Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Absorbtion and AoE nit pick
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
WeaverMount
Ok, here is the situation. Mage hits party with acid ball (Elemental, indirect, AoE). Party's mage has absorption, which lowers the force of the spell. Force limits both the AoE and the hit cap of the spell.

Questions:
1) Does the reduction in force happen for all targets or just the absorbing mage
2) Can absorb reduce the AoE?
3) What happens if the absorbing mage isn't in the reduced AoE
4) If as a spell effect is expanding from the origin (regardless of your take on RAW this is how we roll) and hit hits the mage first, do the other take full force? If not are total hits reduced to the lower value?
Muspellsheimr
Absorption does not reduce the Force of the spell being absorbed.
WeaverMount
QUOTE
each hit on the character’s Spell Resistance Test allows her to absorb one Forcepoint as one point of temporary “mana charge?


I assume that means you don't think absorb in this case is synonymous to take?
Jaid
you also can't absorb indirect combat spells.

and no, it doesn't say the spell's force is reduced, so the spell's force is not reduced. just like how normal spell resistance checks don't reduce the force of the spell, the simply reduce the number of hits.
WeaverMount
>you also can't absorb indirect combat spells.
Where are you coming from with that?

QUOTE
Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are
treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic
+ Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. If the
spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor
(+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the
Damage Value. If the modifi ed 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).


QUOTE
To use this metamagic(absorbing) , the character performs the usual Spell
Resistance Test (pp. 173-174, SR4) using Counterspelling


seem pretty straight forward.

But about the force issue I'm I really the only one who thinks that if you absorb something to take it way from where it was before?
Jaid
it's that second quote you gave that's the problem. there *is* no spell resistance test for indirect combat spells. the usual spell resistance test is nothing. if you don't make a test, you can't get any hits. if you don't get any hits, you don't absorb anything.

[edit] to clarify, that is not a spell resistance test, it's a damage resistance test. [/edit]
WeaverMount
> to clarify, that is not a spell resistance test, it's a damage resistance test
I'm really not arguing here but the resistance tests in both the indirect spell description and the elemental spell entries themselves are untyped. Why would you assume the resistance test for get for a spell isn't a spell resistance test?
Ryu
Because the spell class description says so. Treat as a ranged combat attack.
Muspellsheimr
Any resistance against a spell's effects is a Spell Resistance test. This can be more easily identified in any test that allows Counterspelling spell defense. So yes, Absorption does work against Indirect Spells.

Absorb is not automatically synonymous with Reduce. The Absorption description does not state it reduces the Force, so it does not.

Edit
Absorb is actually synonymous with Transfer, and is opposite of Reduce. The metamagic technique allows you to transfer the spell energy you would normally reduce by your resistance test, to be used for your own spellcasting.
/Edit

Although it is not directly related to the topic, I would also like to point out you cannot use Absorption on spells against someone else, even if you are actively Counterspelling on them.
Jaid
it's not a spell resistance test. it uses your *armor*. your armor does absolutely nothing for resisting spells, but *is* useful for resisting damage.

the fact that there is counterspelling involved means it is a counterspelling test. it does not make it a spell resistance test.
WeaverMount
@Jade. I just searched my PDF. "spell resistance" is only mentioned in the adept power of that name, Mana Barrier, and the quality Magic Resistance where it referances a page that doesn't contain that phrasing. It seems to me that "spell resistance" isn't a clearly defined term in the BBB. SM uses that phrasing often, but never defines it and just keeps referring you to 173-174 of the BBB that still doesn't use that phrasing. So what is a spell resistance test if not the resistance test used vs a spell? Can point me to an errata, chat log, BBB quote? Can you make an arguement for why nearly identical languade works differently in two places. I think we have to disagree on what is "obvious".


@Muspellsheimr, by that logic would you then transfer money from your bank account to mine?
Jaid
weavermount, it has armor in that roll. armor. not some kind of magical armor that gives bonus spell resistance dice, not living armor like in earthdawn that could (maybe, if you follow ED reasoning) give you bonus spell resistance dice, but just regular armor. if you can explain to me how wearing armor makes people more resistant to the mystical forces that power a spell, i might buy that. of course, then you'd have to explain to me why it doesn't affect any other kind of spell.

you're cooking up some insane garbage about how armor makes you better at resisting magic but only for indirect spells. if anyone needs to explain what the heck is going on with their explanation, it is *you*, not me.
Fortune
So Weavermount, are you saying that you get to Absorb successes generated by your Armor when using this Metamagic against Indirect Spells? If not, then how (other than different colored dice) do you separate out which successes apply to the Absorption, and which merely shrug off the damage?
WeaverMount
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 07:39 PM) *
So Weavermount, are you saying that you get to Absorb successes generated by your Armor when using this Metamagic against Indirect Spells? If not, then how (other than different colored dice) do you separate out which successes apply to the Absorption, and which merely shrug off the damage?


@Fortune, My understanding of RAW would say yes, armor does help you absorb. Obviously my interpretation leads to a dumb result. That's a large part of why I posted a question. To see if I could get a better understanding. What I actually ruled in the moment was was Body + Counterspelling + Grade for absorption purposes. Then gave them 1/2 armor on anything that remained, then staged down vs. armor value

@Jade, seriously chill out. The reason are views are so different is that we are talking about a loosely defined term, and took it to mean very different things. You took Spell resistance in the D&D sense to mean shaking off a spell's effects and/or generally having a mystical defense the spell could not defeat. I take it to mean any resistance to a spell. ID and D spell work differently so spell resistance means a radically different thing versus a radically different attack. Not that complected not, not that insane. My question to you is how did you come to your understanding? Not saying it's wrong, I'm actually asking because I suspect it's right. Any other question then would you say someone with the Magic Resistance quality would get no protection vs. Ball lightening?
Apathy
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 9 2008, 07:26 PM) *
weavermount, it has armor in that roll. armor. not some kind of magical armor that gives bonus spell resistance dice, not living armor like in earthdawn that could (maybe, if you follow ED reasoning) give you bonus spell resistance dice, but just regular armor. if you can explain to me how wearing armor makes people more resistant to the mystical forces that power a spell, i might buy that. of course, then you'd have to explain to me why it doesn't affect any other kind of spell.

you're cooking up some insane garbage about how armor makes you better at resisting magic but only for indirect spells. if anyone needs to explain what the heck is going on with their explanation, it is *you*, not me.

You're trying to apply real world logic to how a game mechanic is put together to simulate the ability to shrug off magical effects. This seems to me like it doesn't make for a good argument. It could easily be that the designers decided that it made more sense to combine spell defense's ability to reduce the damaging effects of spell energy before it manifests with armor's ability to absorb/mitigate some of the damage from the spell after it manifests, into a single roll. They're not both reducing the damage in the same way, but they both end up having similar final effects in practical terms, so why not put them together? In Direct spells, you're resisting with Will (or Body) plus Spell Defense, and those are conceptually two different mechanics also. Spell Defense doesn't give you more willpower, it's a separate but contributing factor that helps mitigate the effects of the attack, just like Armor+Spell Defense are two separate but contributing factors that help you mitigate the effects of an indirect spell attack.

Spell defense dice are solely for the purposes of spell resistance. There's nothing in the book anywhere that says that against indirects spells they're actually doing something else that has similar effects as spells resistance but should be called something else and shouldn't be usable in the absorption test.
Fortune
QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Jun 10 2008, 11:42 AM) *
Any other question then would you say someone with the Magic Resistance quality would get no protection vs. Ball lightening?

Why? Counterspelling applies in the Damage Resistance portion of defense in the case of Indirect Combat Spells. Why wouldn't Magic Resistance apply in the same circumstance?
Fortune
QUOTE (Apathy @ Jun 10 2008, 11:58 AM) *
Spell defense dice are solely for the purposes of spell resistance. There's nothing in the book anywhere that says that against indirects spells they're actually doing something else that has similar effects as spells resistance but should be called something else and shouldn't be usable in the absorption test.

So, are you saying that Armor should apply to the Absorption test then?
Apathy
no, just that Spell Defense dice should be usable for Absorption of Indirect spells. I have no opinion on what canon says about the use of Armor in the Absorption test.

But if it did work that way, it would be counter-intuitive to me.
WeaverMount
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 09:01 PM) *
Why? Counterspelling applies in the Damage Resistance portion of defense in the case of Indirect Combat Spells. Why wouldn't Magic Resistance apply in the same circumstance?

If I understand Jade correctly he is saying that "Spell Resistance Tests" are a bonifided game term, and does not refer merely to any resistance test used to mitigate the effects of a spell (as I do). If it is the case that "Spell Resistance Tests" are specific type of resistance test , and that we can not assume that the ordinary resistance test you get again ID spells are "Spell Resistance Tests" then the quality Magic Resistance would not protect someone from ID spells, because it's one of about 3 occurrence of the phrasing "Spell Resistance" in the BBB. As you point out you can counter spell ID spells. I use this as evidance that "Spell Resistance Tests" aren't really a unique rules entity.

QUOTE
Magic Resistance
Cost: 5 BP per rating (max rating 4)
For every 5 BP spent on Magic Resistance, a character receives
1 additional die for Spell Resistance Tests (see p. 173). Th e
Magical Resistance quality, however, works even against benefi cial
spells such as Heal.
Characters with the Adept, Magician, or Mystic Adept qualities
cannot take this quality. A magically resistant character cannot
choose to lower his magical resistance; it aff ects all spells and magical
eff ects, good or bad. A character with Magic Resistance is never
a willing subject for spells that require a voluntary subject; such
spells automatically fail when used on magic resistant characters.


I could be flat out wrong. As I've said before my current understanding of RAW forces me to use a house rule to avoid an absurdity. But "Spell Resistance" isn't defined anywhere and everywhere that mentions it refers to you rules that govern ID and D spells equally.
Fortune
QUOTE (Apathy)
no, just that Spell Defense dice should be usable for Absorption of Indirect spells.

Which 'Spell Defense' dice? The Damage Resistance Pool vs. Indirect Combat Spells consists of Body + Armor (maybe halved) + Counterspelling (if available).
WeaverMount
Not sure what you mean. Let me back up a bit. I think that you can use absorb on ID spells. Jade does not.
Jade reads the text under absorb:
QUOTE
Regardless of whether the spell is fully resisted or not, each hit on the
character’s Spell Resistance Test allows her to absorb one Force
point as one point of temporary “mana charge?


Jade say takes this to mean that for absorb to trigger you need to make a "Spell Resistance Test". More specifically the amount of mana you absorb is the hits from a test you don't make so you get/do nothing. I say that because no where in the BBB is "Spell Resistance Test" specially defined, and that all but 1 or instances of the phrase refer you to rules to govern both types of spells that, a "Spell Resistance Test" is just a resistance test to mitigate a spell, which would allow you use absorb, with full knowledge that it includes armor and that is silly. As evidance I point out that if you use Jades reasoning for not allowing people to absorb ID spells then you should also not allow them to benifit from magic resistance versus ID spells.
Fortune
I have been following the conversation and playing along at home. wink.gif

I think you are mixing up two different things. But if I had to pick one interpretation based solely on your stated logic in the above post, I would choose to have neither Absorption or Magic Resistance apply to Indirect Combat Spells. I don't think that is the case though. I believe that Magic Resistance is used wherever Counterspelling would and could be used, but I don't think that is necessarily the case for Absorption.
Apathy
Sorry, I was inexact. Counterspelling dice should IMO be usable for Absorption regardless of whether the spell was Direct or Indirect. I don't know if Armor should be usable for Absorption, but it seems counter-intuitive to do so.

If it were my game, and I had to make an 'on the spot' call, I'd probably say that only the Counterspelling dice counted toward Absorption and that he should use different colored dice to distinguish Counterspelling hits (which interfered with the spells ability to manifest at it's full power) from Armor hits (which merely kept the manifested acid wave from reaching his tender skin. To my way of thinking, this also might make sense for direct spells - why should having dense bones (high body) make a mage more capable of siphoning off the energies of a powerbolt spell?

Of course, the drawback of this would be the added complexity of having to keep track of the two separate die roll results instead of just a single result. YMMV.
WeaverMount
@apathy, that is actually exactly what I did.

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 10:02 PM) *
I have been following the conversation and playing along at home. wink.gif

You usually are wink.gif I figured I'd recap because getting the same page is my knee jerk response to misunderstandings

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 9 2008, 10:02 PM) *
I believe that Magic Resistance is used wherever Counterspelling would and could be used, but I don't think that is necessarily the case for Absorption.

So why do you think this when they use identical language? Is it just how you handle the armor issue?

>I think you are mixing up two different things
which to are those?
Muspellsheimr
Logically, only Counterspelling + Shielding dice would apply for the Absorption metamagic. For game simplicity, all dice on the Spell Resistance test apply. This usually includes an attribute, but in the case of Indirect spells, includes armor as well.

As Spell Resistance is not clearly defined, I classify it as what makes the most sense - anything that allows a Spell Defense use of Countersplling, including the Damage Resistance portion of Indirect spells.
Fortune
QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Jun 10 2008, 01:17 PM) *
which to are those?

Magic Resistance and Absorption.
stormcrow
"This advanced Shielding technique allows an initiate to
siphon some of the mana away from a spell used against her.
. . .
Regardless of whether the spell is fully resisted or not, each hit on the
character’s Spell Resistance Test allows her to absorb one Force
point as one point of temporary “mana charge"

If this doesn't transfer the mana from Force to temporary "mana charge" (which has enough energy to Physically wound the Absorber, even if the original spell was Stun) then this spell becomes a lovely way to generate zero point mana energy. Hey, Bob, cast that Increase Reflexes spell on me, while i Absorb it, without reducing its Force, then use that energy to overcast Mana Static on that Possessed gimp blimp over there.

It's an Advanced Metamagic, on par with Reflection, Infusion (giving your adept Grade/2 Power Points for Magic Minutes) and Filtering.

If my battery absorbs electricity from the socket, the power company charges me for the electricity i transferred. If a mage Absorbs a Lightning Bolt, "reality" charges you for the mana transferred. The Force goes down, the Absorbing mage's "temporary mana charge (with its self-damaging potential) goes up, and the casting mage resists the full drain, 'cuz that mana was channeled and went somewhere--into the Absorber's aura, per the description, for Grade turns, by which, if it hasn't been used, it fries the fuck out of the owner of said aura.

Description says "siphons some of the mana away" and "absorb one Force point." Force has some pretty common meanings, and one refers to the strength of a spell very directly.

On the armor tip, though, i totally agree that the half armor (or whatever) should be a separately counted roll applying to the same event. My armored thong is no better or worse than my Military Grade Full Battle Armor (not that i have any) at siphoning an incoming spell's energy and converting it into mana for my use. Unless it was mithril armor crafted by the ancient high immortal elves and locked inside a statue of a dragon with this really cool sword and ......
then it would be a relatively unique Counterspelling (Absorption) Focus, and would have a bonding cost of Force x Ridiculous.

Maybe a magic straw or enchanted nine volt battery would be more appropriate.
Malicant
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 10 2008, 04:39 AM) *
Which 'Spell Defense' dice? The Damage Resistance Pool vs. Indirect Combat Spells consists of Body + Armor (maybe halved) + Counterspelling (if available).

Really? I always thought Counterspelling vs. Indirect Combat Spells was used as Reaction + Counterspelling, because you counterspell the magic that controls a Fireball, not the fire of said ball. Once it hits you, you resist with Armor + Body and that's it. The Body + Armor + Counterspelling combo sounds kinda weird to me.
Ryu
It is RAW since the beginning, and one of the greatest reasons to use indirect spells despite the higher drain. Counterspelling applies against indirect spells only when the spell is already working, when resisting damage instead of the whole spell. While houseruling Absorption to work in such situations is rather easy, there is no spell resistance test against indirect damage spells.
Fortune
QUOTE (Malicant @ Jun 10 2008, 07:16 PM) *
Really? I always thought Counterspelling vs. Indirect Combat Spells was used as Reaction + Counterspelling, because you counterspell the magic that controls a Fireball, not the fire of said ball. Once it hits you, you resist with Armor + Body and that's it. The Body + Armor + Counterspelling combo sounds kinda weird to me.

Really. smile.gif

QUOTE (SR4 pg. 196)
Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target's Reaction. If the spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor (+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the Damage Value.
WeaverMount
can someone tell me what they think a spell resistance test is, most people do not think it is any test to resist a spell?
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Jun 10 2008, 11:04 AM) *
can someone tell me what they think a spell resistance test is, most people do not think it is any test to resist a spell?

QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jun 9 2008, 08:22 PM) *
As Spell Resistance is not clearly defined, I classify it as what makes the most sense - anything that allows a Spell Defense use of Countersplling, including the Damage Resistance portion of Indirect spells.
Ryu
QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Jun 10 2008, 08:04 PM) *
can someone tell me what they think a spell resistance test is, most people do not think it is any test to resist a spell?


The counterpart of your opposed spellcasting test.
BishopMcQ
Let me explain the way I run it, and we'll see how that jives with everyone else.

Direct Damage Spells:
Resist test -- Body or Will opposed test vs Spellcasting + Magic

OR

Resist test + Counterspelling -- Body or Will + Counterspelling vs Spellcasting + Magic

OR

Resist test + Counterspelling + Shielding -- Body or Will + Counterspelling + Initiate Grade vs Spellcasting + Magic

Indirect Damage Spells:
Defense Test -- Reaction vs Spellcasting + Magic (SR4, p 196)

presuming there are net hits, the reaction test is followed by:

Soak Test -- Body + (1/2 Armor + Mods) vs Force + Net Hits

OR

Soak Test + Counterspelling -- Body + Counterspelling + (1/2 Armor + Mods) vs Force + Net Hits

OR

Soak Test + Counterspelling + Shielding -- Body + Counterspelling + Initiate Grade + (1/2 Armor + Mods) vs Force + Net Hits

A good way to think about it is that Direct Combat spells require net hits to have any effect, while Indirect Combat spells work as long as the mage has 1 hit. (The Indirect Combat spell may not effect anything, but it will manifest--perhaps leaving scorch marks or be heard based on the element.)

For the OP--If the mage with absorption rolls well enough on her Reaction test to avoid the spell, it is impossible to absorb any part of the spell as she is effectively not in the area. If she does not have enough hits on the Reaction test to get out of the way, I would allow hits from the counterspelling dice (use a different color) to function as Absorption. The use of counterspelling is allowed to mitigate damage in the second test, so I do not see a compelling reason to bar Absorption. On the same token, there is no reason that my Armored jacket with Fire Resist 4 should make it easier to Absorb a spell.

I don't believe that having multiple colored dice adds an complexity to the game, but I used to play SR3 with my main dice (black), combat pool (red), control pool (white), spell pool (green), and karma pool (clear).
BishopMcQ
Given what I posted above, in the situation described in the first post, here is how I would run it:

Enemy mage rolls Spellcasting + Magic

Each person of the team rolls Reaction, this determines how much they are able to mitigate and get out of the way.

Soak test happens:
Team Mage rolls counterspelling--anyone protected by his counterspelling gains an automatic number of hits on their soak test equal to the counterspelling hits.

Each person rolls Body + 1/2 Armor. Their hits + Counterspelling hits are compared to the DV to determine end damage.

Indirect Combat spells are like grenades--some people will take it full in the face, other will walk away unscathed.

Team Mage is able to absorb some of the spell energy (effectively hits or boxes of damage). This doesn't reduce the total force of the spell as much as it diverts some of the destructive energy into him.
stormcrow
"absorb one Force point" really does seem to indicate that it reduces the Force.
BishopMcQ
Reading through the actual text, it seems to me that the Absorption is absorbing the power of the spell rather than letting it damage the character. She is diverting the energy into something she can use rather than having it burn her skin etc. The term also allows a cap for the maximum amount of energy that can be pulled away from the spell.

A character with Absorption is not siphoning off the direct flow from the enemy mage, instead she is absorbing part of the energy that impacted her. It is reducing the effectiveness of the spell by removing "Hits" from the Spellcasting test, and because it is a counterspelling test, those hits help everyone that she is protecting. She is the only one absorbing a piece of the spell into herself and the number of hits that she can get counterspelling are limited to the Force of the spell just like the enemy mage.

WeaverMount
IMO the lines "siphons some of the mana away" and "absorb one Force point." Is pretty cut and dry. If this spell wasn't supposed to effect the force of the spell I see no reason they would have used and capitalized that game term. If you don't get that out of the spell description that's cool. There have been several good points made for Absorption not lowering the force of the spell, but even after reading this thread people at my table think it does reduce the force.

So if you please, I would anyone care to give me input on what would happen when absorb lowers the force of a spell either however much of a house ruling this is. Specifically

1) Would this reduce the AoE?
2) What happens if the absorbing mage isn't in the reduced AoE
3) If as a spell effect is expanding from the origin (regardless of your take on RAW this is how we roll) and hits the mage first, do the other take full force?
4) Are totally hits limited by the lowered force cap? On the absorbing mage? On the team if they are hit after the absorb test?
Apathy
QUOTE (WeaverMount @ Jun 11 2008, 02:58 PM) *
1) Would this reduce the AoE?
2) What happens if the absorbing mage isn't in the reduced AoE
3) If as a spell effect is expanding from the origin (regardless of your take on RAW this is how we roll) and hits the mage first, do the other take full force?
4) Are totally hits limited by the lowered force cap? On the absorbing mage? On the team if they are hit after the absorb test?

(all answers reflect only my own opinion. YMMV. I don't pretend to be a master of rules-fu.)
1) Yes
2) Shouldn't matter. Absorption metamagic can be used any time spell defense dice are used. Mage does not have to be a target of the spell, as long as one of the people he is covering is a target. This does create the situation though, where the enemy mage centers his F4 fireball on a spot 3 meters from one of your guys and your Absorption takes away 2 points of force, meaning it doesn't actually hit anybody.
3) Absorption protects all designated defenders equally. If you're asking whether the other benifit from the mage's absorbtion (or sheilding, or spell defense, etc.) if the mage is killed by the spell, my instinct is to say 'yes'. The mage's spell defense kicked in while he was trying to defend himself, and that effectively lowered the impact of the spell for all co-defenders.
4) Yes, everyone that was protected.

I think one of the questions that you're asking is whether absorption effects the force of the spell for people who weren't covered by the defending mage's spell defense. Seems like a tricky question to me. If I think of absorption being a new, improved version of spell defense, then the defensive enhancement offered by absorption would only protect those that had been designated for protection (limited in the same way spell defense is.) On the other hand, if the force of the spell is really reduced (instead of just a virtual reduction for those protected) then it should help everybody. For consistency's sake, I would go with option 1 (only those designated for protection), but I could see reasons for the other interpretation.
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (Apathy @ Jun 11 2008, 02:34 PM) *
2) Shouldn't matter. Absorption metamagic can be used any time spell defense dice are used. Mage does not have to be a target of the spell, as long as one of the people he is covering is a target.

QUOTE (Street Magic p.59)
This advanced Shielding technique allows an initiate to siphon some of the mana away from a spell used against her.
Malicant
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 10 2008, 12:12 PM) *
Really. smile.gif

Ah, well. Fine by me. Need to get my old SR fluff out of my head, where the fire itself was not magic. Times change. wink.gif
Ryu
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jun 10 2008, 05:22 AM) *
Logically, only Counterspelling + Shielding dice would apply for the Absorption metamagic. For game simplicity, all dice on the Spell Resistance test apply. This usually includes an attribute, but in the case of Indirect spells, includes armor as well.

As Spell Resistance is not clearly defined, I classify it as what makes the most sense - anything that allows a Spell Defense use of Countersplling, including the Damage Resistance portion of Indirect spells.


Absorption of indirect combat spells (which I still consider a houserule) leads to indirect combat spells being useless. Reason: The rather sizeable DR pool.

Lets assume your campaign has reached the point where force 7 indirect combat spells can be cast on a somewhat regular level. Thats drain codes of 6 single / 8 area. Lets also be very nice and assume Absorption was your second metamagic, right after shielding. Anyone going for that kind of antimagic would have 6-8 dice from Counterspelling. Thats Counterspelling 6 + Body 3 (being generous again) + half armor 4 + initiate degree 2 = 15 dice, on average 5 hits. Not much damage remaining from that spell, and you now are "loaded" to the max with free drain points.

Your opponents are now even better off if they cast high-force direct spells. More base damage, less defensive dice on your part, and the chance that your absorption overloads on a good roll, almost forbidding the use of edge. The premier use of indirect spells was "in the face of strong antimagic", now they don´t have a place.
Apathy
I thought that the primary purposes of indirect spells were:
  • to be able to hit things outside of your LOS
  • for the elemental effects, which [subject to GM discretion] occur even if the raw damage is staged down to nothing

The idea that someone can make a magic user focused on defensive magic and spend his first two metamagics on additional magical abilities to become very difficult to effect magically doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

And the number of opposing mages that have both of those two metamagics would be fairly limited. Which means that Indirect spells aren't useless - just that they're less usefull when going against that specific person.
Ryu
With this houserule, things outside your LOS are only affected if your AoE spell came with a very high force in the first place. Elemental effects can be interesting, but are (in our opionion, IOO?) linked to the force of the spell.

And I´m not at all complaining about those metamagics - shielding is on my personal top list. I´m saying that casting an extremly high-drain spell for potentially nothing is ineffective, and that further reasons to use direct spells instead are not exactly desireable. Shielding dice are already useable for protection of the whole team, no need to reduce the AoE to nothing.

IMO Absorption has served it´s purpose if it makes the opposition cast indirect instead of direct spells, or distracting illusions.
Muspellsheimr
In your example, it does not matter if you have Absorption or not - the resulting damage will be the same. All having Absorption does in that example is make your retaliation more effective, which is exactly what it is designed for.

And a Direct spell would not be more useful in that circumstance because although you are loosing armor, the mage likely has a much higher Willpower than Body, resulting in more or less the same dice pool, which is likely to fully resist said Direct spell.

EDIT: I would like to, once again, point out that by RAW, Absorption does not reduce the Force of a spell. It 'transfer's' the energy you would normally resist as a temporary mana charge, up to the Force of the spell.
BishopMcQ
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jun 12 2008, 11:23 AM) *
And a Direct spell would not be more useful in that circumstance because although you are loosing armor, the mage likely has a much higher Willpower than Body, resulting in more or less the same dice pool, which is likely to fully resist said Direct spell.
Powerball for the win.
Muspellsheimr
True. Still, the loss of half armor will most often not make a significant difference.
Apathy
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jun 12 2008, 02:23 PM) *
EDIT: I would like to, once again, point out that by RAW, Absorption does not reduce the Force of a spell. It 'transfer's' the energy you would normally resist as a temporary mana charge, up to the Force of the spell.

Say I hear that you're about to pay a hit man to kill me. I hack into your bank account and 'transfer' half the money in your account to my account. This gives me additional resources to buy my own hitman. The transfer also serves to reduce what was originally in your account. So I'd disagree that a transfer is not a reduction. A transfer is both a reduction for you and an incremental increase for me.
Ryu
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jun 12 2008, 08:23 PM) *
In your example, it does not matter if you have Absorption or not - the resulting damage will be the same. All having Absorption does in that example is make your retaliation more effective, which is exactly what it is designed for.

And a Direct spell would not be more useful in that circumstance because although you are loosing armor, the mage likely has a much higher Willpower than Body, resulting in more or less the same dice pool, which is likely to fully resist said Direct spell.

EDIT: I would like to, once again, point out that by RAW, Absorption does not reduce the Force of a spell. It 'transfer's' the energy you would normally resist as a temporary mana charge, up to the Force of the spell.


Without the force reduction there is no problem. Thanks.
WeaverMount
I already asked Muspellsheimr if I could transfer or absorb some money from his bank account. He still hasn't agreed to let me grinbig.gif

If the spell said "... can absorb mana as mana charge" I wouldn't touch the force. But it says it absorbs the Force, capitolized as a game term.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012