Just saying that your point (you can't omit parts you don't like) is made just as well without sarcasm.
*shrug*

Besides that, the reality is that it sounds like there are problems in the way the rules are written (or maybe the rule itself as some folks believe) - things that just aren't clear. Whether the solution is to write a new set of rules (a popular idea), remove text that seems misleading (my thought), or something else - the fact remains that people probably shouldn't (if the rule was clearer) be so divided on how this works. I'd love to see CGL address this one.

Give me a nice clear rule + explanation, and even if it doesn't fit with my personal preference, I'm happy to go with it. I just dislike ambiguity. I'd rather see folks discussing cool approaches to the rules rather than arguing over how to interpret it.

Any spell cast on an object MUST overcome the OR per BBB 174

Relevant text

A spell cast on a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted,
as the object has no life force and thus no connection to
mana with which to oppose the casting of the spell (note that
only Physical spells will aff ect non-living objects; mana spells
have no eff ect). Highly processed and artifi cial 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

What is the range of invisibility?
The effect is descriped to be a mental effect.

How far does this effect stretch?
Force X meters or Force X 10 meters?

Does this mean that a sniper doesn't suffer interference with shooting an invisible mage, if he is shooting at long range?

RTFT before you post Marduc, that is all.

I was talking about the whole if my mage cast (imp) invisibility on himself, then the magic effect extends to sensors/observers many meters away.

IF this is the case then the magic effect should only extend a certain area, defined by force x (10) meters.

bbb p202


This implies an area effect. Thus my question how far does the area effect extend?

This implication is wrong. The light is bend around the body not the space the body occupies.

Except you must not forget that general rules ARE overridden by specific exceptions. What's even better is the bolded gem above

Levitate gives a specific metric for success that has NOTHING to do with OR. It's not the only spell that does something like that. it has a threshold for success based on the type of object... in this case the type is being defined by mass not by composition / complexity.

"Some spells" =/= "Manipulation spells"
"May" =/= "Does"
"These spells do" =/= "Those spells do not"

You are giving the wording far more definition than it has or supports. Yes, there is text in the spell descriptions & Street Magic table that imply other spells are not subject to Object Resistance. This does not make it true.

Neglecting to specify that an individual spell is subject to Object Resistance does not in any way mean it is exempt from a rule governing all spells. In fact, saying, in the individual description (which the Street Magic table is one), that a spell is subject to OR is redundant; because the rules for Object Resistance say spells are subject to it. Not 'some spells', or 'spells may be', but spells.

What you and others have consistently failed to do is supply rules text saying an individual spell or branch of spells are exempt from this rule. The reason you have failed to do so is because such text does not exist in the rules.


I am not making anything up. I am not ignoring any part of the rules. There is litterally nothing there that provides concrete support for the assumption that some spells, such as Levitate or Fashion, are not subject to Object Resistance.

I disagree with that rule. In my game, Physical Manipulation spells are not subject to Object Resistance. I have house-ruled it. As you have done. But you incorrectly insist that your ruling is RAW.

Invisibility is not an Area Effect spell. It targets the person being made invisible, & affects anyone what would otherwise be capable of seeing the subject of the spell.

You're being obtuse.

I need to know, if you actually believe it's just a massive coincidence that all of the spells that specifically alter the nature of the targets, specifically have the need for an OR test listed in their descriptions, while all of the spells that do not alter the nature of their targets and specifically have success tests listed in their description - and all of these specific examples are also listed with the exact same tests from their descriptions on the spell table from Street Magic.


And I agree with Darthmord. Specific rules override general. Not to mention that I don't agree with your exceedingly narrow interpretation of that snippet of a passage.

Care to explain how? Everything I have said is true & has clear support. Nothing my opponents have said has solid evidence. Everything they are basing their argument on is "if" & "may" with no direct link to the matter in debate, relying on implications to support their position.

I can imply anything I like. Regardless of how convincing I make it (which is not difficult), that does not make it true.

No one has been able to provide a quote saying [Spell or Spell Category] is not subject to Object Resistance.

No, I think it was how the rules where intended to work, but due to shitty writing, is not how they do work.

That is exactly the point I am making. Specific rules do override general rules. In this case, there are no specific rules overriding the Object Resistance, for any spell.

Such as Levitate, stating that it has a Success Test based on weight.

Right.

Which applies to the living creature being targeted by the spell just as much as any non-living object.

"Success Test based on weight" is not equivalent to "Not subject to Object Resistance".
It has no text whatsoever that supports this new threshold replacing the Object Resistance.

Here i go again:







At least for me, this text implies that for Non-Living targets, OR table is used in place of Resistance Test. So, by this book, you have two types of effect (all in page 161). Resisted/Opposed and Success test. And, for Resisted/Opposed spell on NonLiving targets, you use OR table. Right?





Now... the book clearly states that Mental Manipulation is the only kind of Manip. spell that is handled as Opposed test, all others are handled as Success Tests based on a threshold (that Levitate clearly states as the mass of the object).

That statement also does not exempt Levitate from Object Resistance.



Edit: This also provides an excellent example of a specific rule overriding the general. Petrify / Turn to Goo are both Physical Manipulation spells that are Opposed Tests. They specifically state as much in their description.

This continues to provide support for my position, as there is no similar example anywhere of a spell not being subject to Object Resistance.

Of course they are opposed tests, as they only work on living tissue and more importantly they alter the nature of the target, thus they can be resisted.

Specific overrides general.

The specific rules governing all manipulation spells are clearly laid out in the Manipulation spells sub-heading.

And then, the test each spell uses to determine success are clearly laid out in the description of that spell, just like your examples Petrify and Turn to Goo. They don't list tests they don't need to take, because that would be redundant, and wholly unnecessary.









So it's ok when that spell lists how it functions in it's description but not when Fling and Levitate also specifically, and quite clearly, state what kind of test they use to function?

Under your (rather twisted) interpretation of the rules, in order to Levitate a comlink (OR4) I have to cast and succeed well enough to lift 800 kilograms to lift a 2kg comlink?

Sense: This has None

Precisely what I had said.

If those spells where only capable of targeting non-living, non-magic objects, then yes (although it would still be poor writing). As-is, there is nothing whatsoever that exempts them from Object Resistance.

With how Shadowrun metaphysics work, yes it does make sense. It is stupid, but makes sense. & with how the rules are written, it is exactly how it works.

No. It doesn't.
OR comes in when you are attempting to alter the physical properties of an object, such as causing (or removing) dents/scratches/tears/damage or make its sensors pick up data that isn't really there (as little as I agree with Physical Illusions being resisted by OR, that is what it represents). Picking it up, Flinging* it around, and the like do neither of these. Your "rule" is akin to needing a forklift to move a microwave because it says "fragile" on it (be careful! You can't pick that up with your HANDS you might DROP it!).

*In theory "flinging" an object will cause damage to it, but no RPG I've seen actually causes damage to thrown objects, merely the object the thrown item hits. So go ahead, Fling teacups at each other! It doesn't harm the china!

Except nowhere does it say "alter the physical properties of". It always says "affect an object" or equivalent.


And this is entirely random with nothing regarding the discussion whatsoever. Where did it even come from?

It's a footnote*

*I can say anything I want, slightly tangential to the topic at hand in footnotes.**

**Terry Pratchett loves making footnotes 2, 3,*** 4 and even 5 levels deep

***Jasper Fforde even had the plot of one of his books carried out in footnotes.

I'm curious so I might as well ask, and I intend no harm if the answer is no; it happens.

But is this discussion about the applicability of the OR table on physical spells related to a change in the 20th anniversary edition? (or has all the text relevant to this particular aspect remained unmodified?)

Both, I think. It stemmed from the OR against physical illusions being higher, then into "but is it applicable?" into the special olympics of RAW reading about what exactly "some spells" means.

(Muspellsheimr, I'd like to point out that "some" does not mean "all" and the opposite of "some are" is "none;" the opposite of "some are not" is "all")

To follow up then, I believe this issue is also a big deal with 4.0, any reason why it hasn't been brought up before??

The levitate argument is still quite relevant, since for either OR 3 or 4, levitating a commlink would be exceedingly difficult with the very strict interpretation that is being argued for/against.

Due to the Force cap on successes, a softmaxed mage could levitate a commlink without overcasting. Now, at OR6, he cannot. The difference between an OR of 4 and 6 is pretty huge, when viewed from that standpoint.

I'm glad you now accept that the above phrasing applies to the part that you'd previously taken out of context. This is progress. However, whilst you are correct that "sometimes" does not mean "always", it doesn't therefore mean "never". Stating that a spell "may" require a resistance test or "sometimes" requires a resistance test means that by definition it may not and sometimes doesn't. You know that this is true, but you're pretending that it isn't.

So if this section doesn't tell us whether something always is or always isn't, where do we go to find the case with a specific spell? Correct - the spell descriptions and the table provided which explicitly states whether or not a spell requires a resistance test.

Your argument consists of demanding a line that says "Levitiate does not suffer OR". There's no more such a line than there is one saying "characters called Percy don't get free Nuyen." Why is that? Because unless there is a statement saying something is the case then it isn't. We don't have to explicitly state every negative for the one person who can't hold more than a single paragraph in their head at once. Yes?



Which is irrelevant when there is no such rule in the first place.



Yet, at the beginning of your post you were quoting "some spells" and "may" yourself. Only by ignoring the parts that contradict what you're saying can you make your argument. Why you go to such efforts just so you can say that the rules are "shitty" is beyond me.

It is just as much an issue in pre-Errata as it is post-Errata - i.e. it's not an issue in either. Muspellheimer just got a bit carried away in proclaiming how flawed the magic rules are and said something that isn't true due to not having read the full passage and having forgotten that there are two other places where it is stated which spells are subject to resistance tests / OR thresholds and which are not. For some reason, he is unable to accept that he is mistaken. As he continues to argue that people must only read one paragraph in the entire section and not the others, he will probably just get increasingly more unable to accept it.

If this seems harsh, it's because I don't believe that he honestly believes what he is saying.

K.

Not to play devils advocate, but I can see where he is coming from, and the SR rules are often.... mushy.... when it comes to nailing something down.

It has always occured to me that if you weren't affecting the "structure" of the matter, then OR wasn't really appropiate. I had always envisioned levitate as a unilateral force bounded by size of the object. In the games I've run, you can levitate items down as well as up, increasing their weight by number of hits.

To my mind the only spell that somewhat broke the rule was glue, to my mind as a sustained spell it was merely applying an attractive force between two objects, not affecting them. The fact the you have to reach OR was a little strange, and complicated by the technical situation of "gluing" a leaf to a commlink, as opposed to say a comlink to a leaf.

Or any of the physical illusion spells which don't affect sensors, but still need to beat OR anyway...

I am not pretending anything. That is true, & I have not once argued against it. What I am arguing is that the "proof" in the rules you keep using to support your case indicate 'some spells' without providing any support as to which spells. 'May' without anything indicating what situation they may or may not in. Nothing from the rules text does anything more than imply, often vaguely, & never with solid support, that Levitate or similar spells are exempt from an overarching, clear, & precise rule I have quoted multiple times.


I have provided this quote before, with & without the entire passage. Nowhere in the section does it contradict this.


This has come up before, months (maybe even a year-ish) ago, long before the SR4A release. It is at best an issue with poor writing of the rules, causing how they are (probably) intended to work be illegal by RAW.

Hey chummers, I've come to wonder if keeping arguing is of any use; wouldn't be wiser to just say that we all agreed that we are disagreeding with each other and end this discussion returning on the supposed topic of the thread? After all nobody can force you to play one way or the other.

I know this is the case, but as has been indicated in RAW and the interpertation, we do get an area of effect. All observers who have LOS with the target of the illusion spell get to withstand the spell AS IF they are in the area of effect of the spell.

You want to crash the Internet? It is all made out of flaming and strife.

"Some spells require OR."

List of spells:
Requires OR
Requires OR
Requires OR
Indicates Success Test
Requires OR
Requires OR
Doesn't say
Indicates Success Test
Requires OR
Doesn't say
Doesn't say

Hm. I'm guessing all of the spells that do require OR have been noted (fulfilling the requirement of "some") and the rest do not (fulfilling the requirement that "some is not all").

Lets do it like this.

Some of my friends are female, my friends are...

John
Jamie (she's a girl)
Nate
Nancy (she's a girl)
Jessica (she's a girl)
Dusty
Nargus (lives in Thailand)
Terrakian Wintermoon (no joke, that's her real name, she's a girl)

So what about the rest of my friends, are they girls too? By your reading of the rules, yes, they are.

My understanding of OR is that it only matters when the spell says it matters. Thus, Glue doesn't need to beat a drone's OR to stick a drone, because it says you have to beat the OR of the surface to stick the target, and then the target can try to break free. The same goes for levitate -- it says that people resist with STR + BOD if they're being lifted unwillingly. But because drones do not have sapeince, they can't be unwilling, and will simply float off the ground if the spell is powerful enough to lift them. Contrast to Illusion spells, where the book specifically provides the blanket rule that you must overcome OR for a physical spell to affect sensors.

I'm not married to this idea, if anyone knows what I'm missing, I'd be glad to hear it. But AFAIK, unless object resistance is specified in the spell itself, or in the rules for the whole spell category (as it is for physical illusions), then OR is not implicated.

I like that line of thinking. Being unable to levitate a 1/4 pound commlink without overcoming that ridiculous OR is just senseless. The spell would be worth less than spit at that point. Hell, you'd barely be able to lift a pack of gum.

If you have enough magic/hits to lift X kilograms or whatnot, then that's good. Yes, living people get their resistance. If the mage fails on hits to lift the drone in a KG manner, then that's bad luck, but if he makes enough hits to lift the 50kg drone, then let him.

Wait. What? STOP arguing? I mean, isn't that the whole point of a forum? For people with different points of view to stick doggedly to their ideas while maligning the opinions of others and repeatedly making the same points in new and interesting ways?

Serisouly though, I too enjoy the discussion and debate but it does seem that an impass has been reached on this one. I'm sure (quite seriously), however, that all the ideas will be valuable to the developers. This sort of thing gives a lot of insight into how players interpret the rules, play the game, and the sort of game they want to play. So it does have value.

You do have a good point there, and several of them.

For example, I do not like, say, the 5x attribute changes because they don't gel with our games. We do not play often enough for attribute increases to really become an issue. When a group plays sporadically, and earns maybe a grand total of 40 Karma in a year, then x3 attribute costs are, well, not really that bad at ALL. What usually happens is that mundanes see a couple of increases(Edge is a popular one. Perhaps combat folks get that extra 1 to Agility. Techies another 1 to logic. The rest typically go to learning new skills or specializations.) Mages end up initiating and maybe bumping magic once for bonding that big foci they wanted. Really, it works perfectly fine for us, and with 750 Karma, we like to start out a bit more professional anyway. Growth takes a long time when you don't play a lot.

At the same time, I can see where someone who tosses out 4 karma per week, every week, might like it. Now, I still don't think that 1 attribute point a month on average is a lot-in fact, not at all, but I guess other folks might have different ideas. (Though wanting to put more emphasis on skills but NOT dropping skills costs, I admit, makes little sense to me.)

If i were a developer, I'd keep things like this in mind and make sure that a few options were given-moderate or slower advancement(options for 3x, 4x, or 5x, and use whichever you like to taste.) Likewise, the magic rules...well, there are several ways in this thread of dealing with them, and IMO, they all work better than what was put in the book. Still others seem to like it, for whatever reasons they have. Debate can be a good thing, and it gives folks a chance to try to see why person A might like something, but person B doesn't, and person C kinda likes it, but kind of doesn't.

If you had included a previous statement saying "your friends are girls", as the BBB does for spells & Object Resistance, then yes, by not including an exception, you would be saying they are all women with that list.

As I have pointed out many times before, there is a rule saying spells are subject to Object Resistance, meaning if the description does not specify an exception, the spell must overcome the OR of something to affect it.

Obviously the way the way the rules are written, and by the choice you are making in the case of there not being an explicit explanation you can choose to apply OR in all cases.

So you can apply OR to all Spell Resistance tests. What happens? What are the consequences and results on the spells in this case?

Now try it the other way. Apply OR to spell resistance tests only in the cases where the category or specific spell description explicitly states it is included. How do the spells work then?

I know which I choose for my games. You haven't changed how I will choose.

You can choose which way to do it. Which way do you want to play? It's your choice, your game. It's always your choice, I'm not taking that away from you. It's your choice in all elements of the game. Just like it's going to be my choice how I play mine.

I don't think writers spend time creating spells and writing text and formatting rules in order to create spells which are effectively useless and would never be taken by anyone if OR was universally applied to all spells. I also won't take those options away from my players. And I seriously doubt my players would take that away from themselves.

The BBB says "Many spells require a threshold...in order for the spell to succeed. Other spells are resisted by their targets, and so are treated as Opposed Tests instead. Spells that affect non-living targets are not opposed, but may have a threshold for the spell to succeed (see Object Resistance)"

Emphasis on "may."

So if you want me to word my friends list in a similar matter then, I will.

Many of my friends don't drink. Other ones of my friends do like to drink. Those that light to drink may be male.

John doesn't like to drink
Jamie does like to drink
Steve likes to drink, he is male
Nargus is a friend of mine
Nancy is a friend of mine who is female
Matt is a friend of mine who is male
Jason likes to drink

So, what assumptions can you say about Jamie? How about Jason? Nargus?

I can make whatever assumptions I want. I believe you may be more interested in what conclusions I can draw, and if they are valid or not.

Right, that's all they are. Assumptions. Following what I already said, "Many of my friends don't drink. Other ones of my friends do like to drink. Those that light to drink may be male." People are assuming that everything applies all the time to everything. Based on the assumptions made about spells you'd be assuming that:

Jamie is male and is my friend, which is wrong.

QED, Levitate does not require OR. It has a success test based on weight.

"may" has no definition here. It can be taken to mean "some spells are not subject to OR", as so many are doing. Or, it can be leaving room in the rules for Object Resistance for exceptions such as Indirect spells; it does not indicate in any way which spells may or may not be subject to OR. OR clearly states that spells are subject to OR. Indirect spells are a specific exception, & what the "may" is probably talking about. Levitate was probably intended to be an exception, but there is no text making it such, and so it follows the standard rules for OR.

Yet again, you are providing no support to your argument because you are not making a single, solid statement, which I have quoted from RAW multiple times in regards to this argument.

You say "those that like to drink may be male" with no additional text.
RAW says "Spells that affect non-living targets are not opposed, but may have a threshold for the spell to succeed (see Object Resistance)", followed by (in the OR section) "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,)."

It is making a single, solid statement that spells are affected by OR. You are making no such comparable statement in your analogies, & thus they have no relevance to this debate whatsoever.

Levitate has no text exempting it from Object Resistance, by not being affected at all, or having its threshold replaced. It may imply this, but does not say it. Thus, by RAW (poorly written because it implies a falsity), you must both overcome OR and make a Threshold based on Object Weight to affect a non-living/magic target.

Just as you must succeed in an Opposed Test and make a Threshold based on Object Weight to move an unwilling target.

And if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I am arguing how the Rules as Written work. I have clearly said multiple times I have house ruled against it because I think it is retarded. That does not change the RAW.

At which point I go "I don't give a damn" and play by RAI with regards to this.