Tarantula,

I felt the rules regarding permanent spells were rather clear... as long as you didn't apply 'munchinism' and 'creative interpretation'. But then, I can come to my own logical conclusions when the rules don't spell out every little detail for me.

But really, that is kind of moot now isn't it? The FAQ cleared it up quite nicely. You will just have to accept that, in this instance, you were wrong. It happens to the best of us, and is no reason to be snotty.

Now if only there was a clarification on the whole 'resisting/accepting your own spells' interpretation debate...

I think the FAQ should be looked at again, and if the FAQ interpretation is correct, then maybe errata should be thrown in, as permanent spells are a fairly big part of most mages spell list (Heal) and not having it said in the rules anywhere would lead most people to believe that you cast it as normal, sustain it per a sustained spell for X turns, adn then its permanent. Not cast it and keep looking/touching them for the whole time.

As far as resisting/accepting your own spells, nothing says you can't, and it implies you can. So, by RAW, you can't, but it seems that you might be able to.

I think you should be able to, after all, you are the one casting it.

I'm going to have to agree with Tarantula on his interpretation of the Heal spell. It's the same way my group plays. (SR3, by the way...)

You cast Heal, and the target of the spell is instantly healed by however many successes you achieve. The real problem lies in sustaining the spell for 10-15 turns. If you drop the spell for any reason, the damage reappears, on top of any damage sustained in the interim.

The way I've always imagined it is that the wounds close up and disappear the instant the spell is cast, but if the spell is dropped before it becomes permanent, the wounds instantly reappear.

This serves two purposes in my mind... It adds a nice cinematic touch to the game, allowing people to jump right back into action immediately after being magically healed. It also forces the healed character to take a vested interest in the health of the sustaining mage, lest he suddenly explode or have limbs fall off from all of the extra damage he received...

I could have sworn that this was all covered by examples in the SR3 rulebooks, but don't have any good references to quote at the moment. I'll do some more research tomorrow, and see if I can find where I got this interpretation from.

SR3 is fine.

The FAQ deals with SR4 rules.

The FAQ is based on SR4 rules. Some things stated in the FAQ are iffy, some plain wrong. As even the marketing data is substantially outdated now, one day someone will hit delete.

So just play sustaining for permanent effect like it was done since SR2, maybe SR1.

Could you elaborate on, or point to, the FAQ that are just "plan wrong"?
(Naturally, marketing data does not count. I am looking for game clarifications that you feel are in error).

PS: cute saying, 'just use older versions if method of play for this spell (etc) if you don't like the new rules.' I think it would be much more fair to simply play the older editions if you do not like the new one, instead of arbitrarily injecting and ignoring rules to cater to munchkinism. --But that's just me.

And broad sweeping statements without any real basis for them are usually true... --But that's just me...

How is my response to:



broad and without basis? Truly, I am confused.

We are talking about SR4; and to just inject older system rules arbitrarily (because you don't like the new) is no different then ignoring the rules altogether.

And, really, if you are going to do that, why waste your money on the books? You might as well just make your own game up and 'crunch and fluff' it how you want.

So what you're saying is that if you don't like a single rule in a game and you'd want to change it, you chuck the whole thing and make it up yourself...
I think you need to learn a sense of perspective...

Anyway, just because you prefer how things were done in a previous version in one instance doesn't mean you prefer all the previous rules, you made a broad and sweeping statement implying it does mean that...
You also said that changing the rules is catering to munchkinism, which is without basis because a lot of house rules (which are arbitrary - as in by your own judgement, not as in without reason or logic) exist to remove munchkin combos...

Touché.


But I think there is a communication break here. Let me clarify:

I personally think people who insist on the 'drive by heal', (which, I can see how the 'rules as written' can be confusing- but the FAQ clears up completely), and those who go so far as to say, 'use SR1 or 2 rules to allow it'... are munchinizing.

1.) SR4 is clearly the superior edition for me. This should not matter for the arguments I make, but there. Said it before, said it recently, will likely do so again.

2.) The FAQ does in this case create a new interpretation of a rule that is in SR4, worded like it was in SR2.

Edit: The Jopp likely didn´t mean me with his answer (same time), but not going there might still be better.

Levitating a 200kg dumpster into a helicopters rotor blades

I think we're good now...

Places where the FAQ is completely wrong:

FAQ, "Can you regain a skill group if each of the component skills are raised to the same level? What if one of the skills has a specialization?

Yes, if a skill group's individual skills are raised to the same rating, those skills can be treated as a skill group from that point on--any specializations, however, are lost (specializations and skill groups are simply incompatible; you can have one or the other, but not both). "

SR4, 264, "Skill Groups: If a character improves any skill in a skill
group individually instead of improving the group, the remaining
skills are treated as individual skills with individual
levels from that point—in other words, the skill group no longer
exists."

FAQ, "Do you need to maintain line of sight (or touch, with Touch range spells) to sustain a spell? What about Permanent spells?

No, once a spell is cast, you do not need to maintain touch or line of sight. You must maintain touch or line of sight when casting a Permanent spell, however, until the spell's effects become permanent. "

We've already gone back and forth with why this is unsupported in the books.

FAQ, "Can vehicles/drones perform jamming with their Electronic Warfare autosoft alone or do they need some kind of hardware?

No, you need a jammer. "

Unwired, 104, Jamming on the Fly, "Jamming on the fly is a Complex Action and requires some
device with a Signal rating (such as a commlink, radio, or drone)
to act as an impromptu jammer. Make an Opposed Test between
the rigger’s Electronic Warfare skill + Signal rating and the target’s
Electronic Warfare + Signal rating"

FAQ, "Do drones (and rigged vehicles) come with any sort of sensors (e.g., cameras, microphones)? If they do, what are they?

Yes, as you'll see on p. 342, SR4, each of them has a Sensor attribute. If you want to determine what specific sensors a drone has, see the Sensor packages table on p. 325, SR4. You can use the capacity for the vehicle's sensor package to determine what kind of sensor gear it has. "

Arsenal, 105, "All vehicles (including drones) come readily equipped with
a sensor package, whose size depends on the size of the vehicle
(see the Sensor Packages table, p. 325, SR4). Each sensor package
has a Capacity that determines the amount of sensors that can fi t
into the system.
In general, a standard vehicle sensor package (Capacity 12),
will contain the following sensors:
• Atmosphere Sensor (taking up 1 Capacity)
• 2 Cameras (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• 2 Laser Range Finders (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• 2 Motion Sensors (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• Radar (taking up 5 Capacity)"

You're making a pretty big assumption that any given person here is putting money into getting the 'books' - some of us just make do with .pdf and those can be pretty inexpensive.

Ummmm.... ok....

...

While I am glad many opt cheaper methods of obtaining their books; clearly you missed the point there HappyDaze.

Please, read my post at 4:14. It may clear things up.

***
Also, thanks for the list Tarantula. It seems with the advent of newer books, some of the old FAQ has become 're-written' (though, not in all the cases you posted have been).

I guess a good rule of thumb then would be: unless it is clarified in a newer book- the FAQ stands.

Hence, you still do not get 'drive by heals'. (Sorry).

And if the drive-by heals are the intention, it NEEDs to be errataed in the book, as right now, if you were not to check the FAQ, there is nothing in the books that even remotely hints that it is the way things go. Either the books need errata to match the FAQ, or the FAQ needs to be corrected to match the books.

The FAQs are meaningless. They're little more than someone's opinion on the rules and are in no way, shape, or form official rules for the game.

That said, nothing in the actual game supports that particular FAQ. Nothing. In fact, there are examples where they expressely describe things the way you see it as working, but they do so because the rules for permanent spells do not work that way normally. Empathic Healing (Street Magic p. 176) is a good example of this. If it worked like a permanent spell, they would have simply referenced those rules rather than creating an entire new set of rules just for one power.

In addition, if your interpretation (and the FAQ writer's) were accurate, spells like Intoxication would be all but useless since not only would it take forever for the effect to set in, but you'd have to stand around touching the guy for multiple Combat Turns while you wait for the spell to take hold. Which is pretty fucking stupid for what's basically a combat spell for healing-aspected magicians. Ditto for spells like Mana Static, Fashion, Sterilize, and Makeover... especially when using them on the fly during a run.

(Sorry.)

You guess, hence you arive at your answer. Now if I look at my rules, I find "sustaining" as the only requirement, and am therefore free to suck the -2 and do something else, while my comrade tries to stop bleeding.

I am shocked at how many things need to be s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t for some people.

Question: Can you conduct 'drive by first aid'?

NO

In cases of healing, (mundane and magical) you are tending someone wounds. Period.

It is completely ridiculous to think you can run by cast a healing spell and then conduct other actions while 'sustaining the spell' per the 'Sustain duration' rules. (And as for 'Empathic heal', that should just be another example that you need to stay put for healing magic...).

Some spells are not to be used 'on the fly', some spells take time for the effect to become permanent- you have to spend your time making the spell permanent.

But really... whatever. This discussion is going nowhere. If you want to insist that the 'official FAQ'- put out by the ones who made the game- is somehow wrong... no bit of logic or sense is going to make you change your mind.

Yes, you do have to spend your time and concentration making a spell permanent. That's what the sustaining modifier is for and why permanent spells rock; because you only have to sustain them for a short while before they no longer need to be sustained. I mean, why would they even need to reference the word "sustained" with it if you had to maintain all your concentration while fondling the sick guy you're trying to heal. It's not like you can do anything else, so why have a -2 penalty? Oh, right. We ignore stuff that don't fit your reality. My bad.

Sorry, but both you AND the FAQ writer are wrong on this account.

As a side note, love how you completely ignored the bit about Intoxication, Mana Static and Sterilize. All of which become nearly useless if the spells worked anything like you think they work. Or are you going to point me to the grappling rules and how they relate to Touch spells that would be required for Intoxication in particular? That's what I thought.

But really... whatever. No bit of logic or sense is going to make your change your mind.

Nope. I just didn't care about your other point. The rules are cheap - sometimes practically free - and once you have them why not modify them until they work best for your group and game?

Again, apply some logic.

This entire debate is over the interpretation of the word 'sustained' when used in the Permanent description. If they had chosen to use a world like 'continued' the FAQ would not have even been needed.

But it was, and the issue should have been cleared up by the FAQ; but apparently many of you will ignore because it deviates from your preconceived illogical notions that you can 'drive by heal'.

I imagine several of you who hold this opinion also ignore the rules, and allow first aid to be used after a heal spell, or allow multiple 'drive by heals' on the same target for the same set of wounds... but, certainly even if that was true, no one would admit it.

Clearly, you should have taken the time to read then...

Only the bad ones. And in SR4, there are quite a few of those...

How is this relevant to a discussion about the rules?

Seriously, read.

Anything or anyone that tries to tell me that I should stick to RAW, FAQ-tastic crap, or anything else that I've found to be inferior to my own interpretations for my own game and group isn't worth reading. I'd suggest that you worry about what's best for your own table and just play it - don't be so damned worried about what others are doing.

...

"Sustained" has a very specific meaning in the magic rules. It's not just some random word.


No, those rules have their own conditions and requirements. They're not spells. They're not magic.

Translation: "You don't agree with me, and thus you are an idiot." Seriously, man, could you accept the possibility that this issue, or any issue at all, is vague and subject to opinion? This thread, like many others, got completely derailed because people on two sides of a minor argument made it into a big freaking deal. Your side of the argument is not obviously correct. Simply because you choose to ignore the FAQ does not mean others do or should do the same. Instead of being so damn condescending, just make your point and move on.

"Sustaining a spell" is well understood. You claim the use of "sustained" is wrong, I say it is right, and has been used for at least three editions in that place, maybe all four. But since you are calling "reading the rules" "preconceived illogical notions", arguing that point is a bit fruitless. Do what you want.

Psst. I was aping the exact thing Kurious said in his post just before that one.

Translation: Fuck off.

Damn my HMO! If only Dr. Funkenstein were on my list of providers then I could get some quality care...

Again, logic.

I really don't think the word sustained in the description of Permanent spells is meant as another duration type. And the FAQ written by the makers of the game clarify that. But somehow... that clarification is crap?

May the developers publish 'official errata' to put some of these ridiculous interpretations to bed... sooner then later.




Although I think you attitude is bullshit, and had you took the time to read my post you would not be acting like a dick; you have a good point.

Trying to convince those whose minds are already made up is a exercise in futility. I respectfully bow out of this thread.

I got news for you bud, you're not that moving of a read so I doubt that anything you've done is really going to change anything about my personality. Kudos for the effort though.

Never know unless you try,

Ok everyone, just put your internet penis's away and maybe try and leave it up for the devs to decide which is right and which is wrong. Not worth getting all riled up over the internet swinging around those large internet penis's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sl9Ep_Zfvc <--- for reference

Sure.

Why start that now? I'm more than capable of doing that on my own, and most people here probably are too - if they let themselves.

I meant more like let everyone sit in their own trench until the matter is settled in a more official manner, as the internet will change no ones opinion.

Listen, Funk, all you do here is call people stupid for disagreeing with you, call developers stupid for writing things in a way you don't like. You accuse people of being pig-headed when they don't roll over to your way of thinking. Pretty much you're just a smug cock. I'm tired of it, and I know I'm not alone. So I apologize for treading on what you imagine is your turf. And if you actually are the 14 year-old kid you sound like, then I am actually sorry for calling you out. I was a cocky jackass at 14 too.

I'm pretty much going to have to stick with my last translation.

My, that was personal...


I happen to like Dr. Funkenstein - even when we disagree - but then I really beleive in agreeing to disagree when our views differ. Oh well, I look forward to his next set of rounds.

Why is it so ridiculous Kurious? Its magic, why should you have to sit there and muck about with their gaping chest wound when you are using magic to heal them?

Empathetic heal is a very good example of a DIFFERENT way of it working. Why? Because it brings its own rules for how it works, which means it isn't the same as how the other heals work.

Which spells are not meant to be done on the fly? Any permanent spell? Just the ones you decide? What made you come up with the idea that they aren't meant to be used on the fly?

I've asked you repeatedly, please quote from the book something that supports your position as well as the FAQ that you must spend all your time actively touching the injured person to heal them. I've quoted what I think supports my position, and you've brought no quotes of any rules to the discussion at all, merely your opinion. Which, while nice, isn't the rules, and you aren't even quoting rules you're interpreting, just making a blanket statement.

If you want me to take your opinion seriously, quote some rules, explain why you think those rules should be interpreted your way, and how that leads to the conclusion that you can't do anything else whilst sustaining a permanent spell.

Internet penis hoooooooooooooooo! Quick you take the left with your squad of internet penis's and I'll move up the center with mine. Meanwhile we should expect some heavy barraging of internet penis's from the south of our location. Lets move, Move, MOVE!

Now I have the odd vision of the Thundercats only reimaged with a genetailia and sex-toy theme instead of felines.

And you don't even want to imagine what part Snarf is playing...

As much as I would like to go point by point, I am done with this inane debate.

All I will say is: you yourself quoted the FAQ where it says that you have to maintain contact, and proceeded to say it was wrong. There is nothing I can present or provide that will change your mind...

And really, why should I?
Play by the rules you feel are most fun and make sense you and your group, and I will do the same).


***
LOL@masterofm&HappyDaze!

That's some funny shit!!

Kurious, I believe that the FAQ contradicts the books. I have quoted and explained why I believe so. I'm asking for you to show some quotes from the books as to why you think the FAQ does not contradict them.

Tarantula, you also claim that since 'blind fire' is in the ranged combat section only, you /by the rules/ cannot attack an invisible person with a sword...

(Even though, logically that makes no sense, AND there is an entry in the Arsenal book, martial arts section, that clears it nicely).

There is nothing shy of the FAQ that I am aware of that 'spells it out in black and white', so if the FAQ isn't good enough, I cannot convince you otherwise; your mind is made up.

So just go with what you know and be done with it.

Thats all I was looking for. Thanks.

Stay on topic and back off the personal attacks and BS posts. Warnings will be handed out as needed. Personal Attacks are against the Terms of Service.

I think this is a very important point that has been overlooked or ignored so far.

Is everyone in agreement that according to the FAQ, you would need to remain in contact with the target while casting a spell such as Sterilize?

This sure makes the quick getaway rather awkward, to say the least...