the way i define the laws of magic is that they make sense within the limits of the rules. if the rules defy what would normally be logical, you make up an excuse to cover for them--it's magic, the whole point of it is that we don't really understand it.
Shockwave_IIc
Feb 5 2004, 06:21 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Regardless, I can't find my copy of Brainscan at the moment but I'm pretty certain that such a restriction in no way, shape, or form existed on the power given therein.
~J |
Don't bother looking Kagetenshi, it's not there.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 01:21 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
same goes for flame aura--magic can draw fire across dimensional barriers, but it can't redirect the flame and heat so that it doesn't affect the caster? |
This is not a question of redirecting. Flames spouting 1" from you and being "redirected" away from you still won't be good for your skin -- in fact, your skin will melt away soon enough. There are some ways you can deflect the problem:
For example, you might decide that Elemental Magic fire and heat have really got nothing to do with the Real Thing. As such, magic can dictate exactly where every single joule of heat goes, and then elemental magic (or Elementals) never harm anything they do not specifically want to harm. But then the Area Attack Elemental Manips would give you a headache -- if all other elemental magic protects the caster from the spell as a part of the spell, then why don't these? All the other spells also affect every other creature in the area without discrimination, so your "area effect spells are designed to be indiscriminate" can't be the reason.
Or slight modification of the above would be that elemental magic is not a "guided weapon", as it were, but only protect the caster. Which still causes serious trouble with the Area Elemental Manip spells. Or you could decide that it's just the "Caster" Elemental Manips that protect the caster from all the effects. But why the heck don't these spells then protect the caster from all other elemental harm of that type? Because every elemental magic heat particle is different, and the spell knows where that particular bit of heat originates from? That doesn't sound logical to me. Or maybe every bit of elemental magic heat is intelligent after all... Which doesn't sound too logical either.
If elements produced by Manipulation spells are anything like the real thing, then nothing of the above works. And in that case, I'm stuck with all such Manipulations affecting the caster just the same.
QUOTE (mfb) |
the razor here is that if such spells harmed their caster as much as they harm the target, they wouldn't exist. |
There's probably a billion razors here, but that particular one is quite useless. If someone wishes for a spell with the effect of a Flame Aura but which wouldn't harm the caster, I'd have to do the math to decide what the drain would be on a spell that also gives the caster a limited immunity to heat -- up to the Force of the spell. Probably +2(S). In fact, several spells like this already exist for the medieval fantasy conversion, but I can't be bothered to check the Drains on those.
QUOTE (mfb) |
it's magic, the whole point of it is that we don't really understand it. |
If you are fine with the thought that the GM has no idea what's going on, that's okay. I like to understand things. I see the possibility of me as a GM not understanding what the heck is going on in the game as potential trouble.
[Edit]To clear that last one up: I cannot consider It's Maaa-aaagic as "understading". It has to be something that makes sense to me.[/Edit]
austere, if all the heat and flame is directed away from the caster, how is he going to get burned? like i said, if magic can pull energy across dimensional barriers, controlling that energy should be a snap. all the spell has to do is recognize the caster's aura and not go there. why doesn't that work with area-effect spells? because area-effect spells are designed specifically to affect everyone in an area. a caster could, i suppose, design an area effect that doesn't harm himself--just flip the modification for 'self only'--but it's more trouble than it's worth, most of the time.
the thing is, you're injecting descriptions into the spells that don't exist, especially in the case of single-target elemental manips. take the example of flamethrower--you say that it should burn the caster as he casts it. but what if my 'flamethrower' spell manifests as me flicking a match at someone, and lighting them on fire? why should i get burned? how is that at all logical?
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 01:50 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
why doesn't that work with area-effect spells? because area-effect spells are designed specifically to affect everyone in an area. |
Then the question is: Who is the fucking moron who didn't include the "Don't Harm The Caster" bit into Area-effect Elemental Manipulations? Because apparently this is not the slightest problem looking at magic either rules-wise or your logic-wise: Giving any spell the "Don't Harm The Caster" suggestion is extremely simple, apparently, and it doesn't change drain in any way whatsoever (as you can see from the Drain Codes of Flame Aura, etc).
QUOTE (mfb) |
if all the heat [...] is directed away from the caster |
This is what I have problems with. If it directs all the heat away from the caster, then why can the caster take damage from other sources of heat? And if it just directs the heat from the spell away from the caster, then how does the spell discern between the heat produced by mundane sources, and by all the different magical sources?
QUOTE (mfb) |
take the example of flamethrower--you say that it should burn the caster as he casts it. |
No, I did not. I said:
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
if a Dragon really wants to be "cool" and breathe that Innate Flamethrower, s/he'll have to take the neccessary precautions |
So if you want to describe the spell so that you actually breathe that flame, then you have some extra explaining to do, in my games. Of course, seeing as how there's nothing to suggest that there is an actual trail of flame from the caster to the target (the spell doesn't set flame to anything that is next to that trail), you could argue that the "breathe the flame" description of the spell Flamethrower wouldn't work anyway.
simple. the flame aura spell defines a single target--the subject--and creates flames which are directed away from that subject. a fireball defines a single subject as well--the point at which the spell is aimed. in order for a fireball to not hurt the caster, that spell would have to include two subjects: the point of impact, and the caster. that makes it more complex, ergo harder to cast, ergo it's not done.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 02:38 PM
So if you cast a Fireball on yourself, you aren't harmed? And all the energy created by any Manipulation spells is still intelligent enough not to go in any direction where the caster doesn't want it to? The problem with Flame Aura is not the flames themselves, but the heat they would radiate in every direction. If the flames were all directed outwards, there wouldn't be that much heat, but enough to cause serious burns in short order, and kill the caster if prolonged.
The breathing thing was a slight overreaction on my part. If you assume the flames of a dragon's breath to only spark when they are already out of the dragon's system, and they are blown out with enough force in a short enough blast, then the amount of heat radiated back to the dragon would not be very significant.
[Edit]You could consider the Fireball to have a point-like source regardless of what it's cast at, perhaps. But that has a bunch of problems, such as that you'd be incapable of casting it at people.
And you'd still have a far more complicated parameter for spells such as Flame Aura, because the spell would have to keep count of where all parts of the body are at all times, so that it always keeps the flames at the right distance and never directs them at other body parts. And the radiating heat bit would still cause the same trouble.[/Edit]
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 02:48 PM
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm) |
Occam's Razor as it is usually used: "any idea I dislike is too impractical and thus can't be the proper answer." |
Believe me, I'm shaving as fast as I can. Enough to make my skin bleed profusely.
Deep Blue
Feb 5 2004, 04:09 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, this thread was about adept powers, not spells.
Keeping that in mind, make it a requirement of the power 'flame aura' that you first get 'immunity to fire'.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 04:17 PM
Hijacking isn't anything new. But yeah, if an adept character wanted flaming fists (or a flaming aura) in my games, he'd need something to protect him/herself against the effects. But there's no such thing as Immunity to Fire in canon Shadowrun available for either adepts or mages AFAIK. Temperature Tolerance is the closes thing that I know of. And against your hands exploding... Maybe Limited Armor (Blast) or Mystic Armor.
Anyone got an adept power that provides effective protection against elements?
Zazen
Feb 5 2004, 05:06 PM
This Flame Aura stuff all sounds pretty absurd to me. I cannot fathom any reason for the books to include an Immolate Self spell. Besides, the spell says specifically how it works: it does damage to anyone who hits you and increases the power of your melee attacks. It doesn't say anything about doing damage to you, or setting your delicate gear on fire, or blinding you due to bright flames coming out of your face, or making you explode when you fall in the water, or any other half-baked extrapolation.
This reminds me of someone insisting that platelet factories with light stress cause SWIFT IRREVOCABLE DEATH, based on some extrapolation of the minor circulatory problems it's supposed to cause.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 06:26 PM
That's fine. You can continue thinking that Flame Aura has absolutely nothing to do with heat or flames other than that it causes burns in living organisms of sufficient size that are brought into close vicinity of the target. I cannot, because that just sounds lame to me.
Perhaps the easiest way to get rid of the problem would be for me to consider the Flame Aura spell (and everything related) to simply be a Cause Burns spell/power. With an optional Flames illusion.
QUOTE (Zazen) |
Besides, the spell says specifically how it works: it does damage to anyone who hits you and increases the power of your melee attacks. |
The books also specifically say how the shot ammunition in SR work, and those make absolutely no fucking sense at all, so I changed them. The fact that this is magic we're talking about changes things, certainly. Because it is maaaaa-aaaagic, you can justify everything that way. I don't want to do that, I would prefer for magic to make sense as well. Or at least to have some basic level of causality.
[Edit]Bugger. The spell description says "creates a rippling aura of flames around a subject's body, extending out a number of centimeters equal to the spell's successes." That's specifically how it works. Unfortunately.[/Edit]
QUOTE |
This reminds me of someone insisting that platelet factories with light stress cause SWIFT IRREVOCABLE DEATH, based on some extrapolation of the minor circulatory problems it's supposed to cause. |
The problem there is that it doesn't cause just minor circulatory problems. It causes really fricken huge circulatory problems. The kinds that, IRL, kill people dead. But I don't have problems with that, so no need to rekindle that argument.
Deep Blue
Feb 5 2004, 06:50 PM
How's this?
Immunity to (Element)
Cost: 4
Gives the adept complete immunity to a particular elemental effect (eg. fire, cold, electricity etc). Handle hot lead! Go swimming in liquid nitrogen! Hug a tesla coil and awe your fellow runners!
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 07:01 PM
That's the idea, yeah, but perhaps slightly extreme... Personally, I was thinking about:
Immunity to (Element)
Cost: 1 per level
Grants virtual Hardened Armor against (Element) at rating = level.
1 per level might be too high, 0.5 per level would be too low. 0.75 or 1.
Siege
Feb 5 2004, 08:07 PM
1 Level = 1 point of hardened armor?
Against only one type of elemental attack?
1 point is way, way too much. .5 would be more along the lines of something I might be willing to spend for a specific defense.
Now, if it worked against _all_ elemental attacks, then I'd concede the 1 point a level bit.
-Siege
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 08:14 PM
You're right, just remembered that Mystic Armor only costs 0.5 points per level. Yeah, 1 point is probably too much. 0.5 might work better. I just wanted to keep the cost high, because what I definitely do not want is adepts who can swim in liquid nitrogen or hug a tesla coil.
Herald of Verjigorm
Feb 5 2004, 08:57 PM
Even if the adept is completely immune to cold damage, that doesn't apply to the adept's gear. The temperature shock of jumping into a pool of liquid nitrogen should cause everything the adept is wearing to shatter very easily.
As a side note, you can design a Tesla cail that is harmless, but pretty. So hugging one of those is not suicidal.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 09:16 PM
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm) |
Even if the adept is completely immune to cold damage, that doesn't apply to the adept's gear. The temperature shock of jumping into a pool of liquid nitrogen should cause everything the adept is wearing to shatter very easily. |
That's true. So the way I figure things, a Flame Aura-like adept power would still be a very bad idea. The spell still works, because the spell can act as a barrier against the element.
QUOTE |
As a side note, you can design a Tesla cail that is harmless, but pretty. So hugging one of those is not suicidal. |
I'll take your word for it. I know next to nothing about physics, especially electricity-related things.
Deep Blue
Feb 5 2004, 09:29 PM
I thought 4 was good... but .5 per level might be OK, too. at .5 per level, spending 4, you could get hit by up to a power 8 (element) based attack and still be good to go.
The thing is, I can't think of too many situations where being immune to cold or heat is actually going to be useful, unlike mystic armor. There are no cold-based weapons that I know of (canon, at least), no situations where runners should be face with the opportunity to swim across liquid nitro pools, and immunity to fire isn't going to do jack against anything but fire elementals and flame throwers (OK, it'll also protect you against fire-based elemental spells). I'm pretty sure explosive damage is mostly shrapnel, so it won't protect you from that, either.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 09:36 PM
You're certainly correct that it might not be extremely useful. Not enough to warrant people to take it often, anyway. Looking at it from that perspective, 0.5 per level is a lot better, and 1 per level for immunity to all elemental effects.
Explosions without significant inherent fragmentation (an Offensive Hand Grenade, for example) might be considered Blast elemental effects, but most weapons based on explosions indeed do most of their damage with shrapnel.
The reason I don't want a high-cost absolute immunity power is that I want pools of liquid helium to be lethal regardless of any adept powers. Same goes for multi-megavolt kilo-ampere electric currents and 5-digit temperatures (Celsius, at least). Immunity to spells, tasers, flamethrowers, etc don't feel so bad.
yeesh, austere. fine: "the flame aura spell defines a single target--the subject--and creates flames and heat which are directed away from that subject." better?
and how does the point-target thing keep you from casting fireball at people? you just define your point as being "on their nose" or whatever.
Siege
Feb 5 2004, 09:44 PM
Aus has already conceded the point, but I'm going to point out that at .5/level, even if an adept spent all six points of magic on Elemental Resistance: Cold, that gives the adept 12 points of armor against cold attacks.
That's an absurdly one-trick pony and even if the adept jumped into liquid nitrogen, he won't be able to do much else.
And armor will only cut back on the power rating, not render him immune to all possible effects. He's still gotta roll some dice.
-Siege
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 09:45 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
creates flames and heat which are directed away from that subject. better? |
Yeesh, mfb. No. That would still allow the spell to know exactly what is "good" heat and what is "bad" heat, and allow the "good" heat to reach the subject and would deflect any "bad" heat away from the caster. Changing the spell so that it actually protects against any extreme heat works far better for me.
You're right in the latter part. Such problems are insignificant and are there regardless of how the area-effect Elemental Manipulations are defined.
QUOTE (Siege) |
And armor will only cut back on the power rating, not render him immune to all possible effects. He's still gotta roll some dice. |
Well, I did say Hardened Armor, so he won't have to roll dice if the Power of the attack is smaller than or equal to the rating. But I am coming to terms with how useless that power might be for most people. 1 point for Hardened Armor 1 against all elements might be more worth while, though still not particularly useful. Or you could drop the cost of the single-element version to 0.25.
I always overprice things at first, because I'm really afraid that anything new I insert to the game will break the balance.
like i said, Austere, the spell monitors its own effects.
i still don't understand how the last part is a problem at all, insignificant or not. i mean, i'm not sure what you're getting at.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 10:13 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
i still don't understand how the last part is a problem at all, insignificant or not. i mean, i'm not sure what you're getting at. |
The thought of having to target the spell at a point 1cm off someone's nose just seems a bit silly. But that doesn't have to happen anyway, because the spell will go off when it hits anything, so you can actually aim it directly at someone.
QUOTE |
like i said, Austere, the spell monitors its own effects. |
How, exactly? It would have to know which energy-waves of heat are direct results of the effects of the spell. It would have to differentiate between the heat radiated from the flames brought into existence by the spell and the heat radiated from any flames set off by the original flames, for example. I feel it would be easier just to get rid of all extreme heat, and even then it is a significant part of the functioning of the spell, affecting the Drain.
actually, it does have to happen. you can only cast where you've got LOS. i mean, yeah, your point of aim can be on your target--but you can't set your fireball off in him or behind him.
and the how is simple. spells create signatures in the astral plane; the flames and heat created by a flame aura spell are marked with this signature.
Siege
Feb 5 2004, 10:20 PM
It won't be a widely purchased power to be sure.
However, take off the "hardened" bonus and leave it at .5/level. Element must be specified at time of purchase.
I would imagine some characters will purchase it for a specialty schtick.
-Siege
Jason Farlander
Feb 5 2004, 10:25 PM
This is, quite simply the lamest discussion I've read in quite a while. You dont need to know the physics of how a powerbolt causes damage to something, or what, exactly, makes the car float up in the air when you cast levitate, or how petrify manages to transform organic material into limestone, or how toxic wave generates gallons and gallons of sufficiently concentrated acid as to melt people, armor, and equipment to sludge instantaneously, or how a vampire can regenerate any and all damage inflicted on his person in 3 (!) seconds, no matter how much overflow is generated...
But flame aura... (oh no! the most powerful spell in the game!) makes absolutely no sense to you?
I'm sorry, but magic simply does crazy/impossible things. I dont see why you're willing to accept the fact that magic bends the rules of reality in far more ridiculous ways, but not in this relatively tame way.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 10:32 PM
Okay. So the Flame Aura spell does at least the following things:
1) It creates/conjures/whatever flames like the spell description says.
2) It keeps track of all heat that is heading towards the subject behind the aura, checks the astral signature of said heat, and deflects it away from the subject if it has the astral signature of the spell.
That's sort of OK. I'll just replace 2) with "It deflects all heat heading towards the subject behind the aura away from the subject." and increase the Drain.
A self-defense elemental area-effect spell would have a Drain Code of +1(DL-2). Must-have for melee-mages! 6D elemental damage for 4M Drain! [Edit]Oops! Not quite. It would be at least +1(DL-1), and I'm not even sure if doing that is legal with the spell design rules.[/Edit]
Do Adept Powers have astral signatures?
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 10:35 PM
QUOTE (Jason Farlander) |
But flame aura... (oh no! the most powerful spell in the game!) makes absolutely no sense to you? |
If you consider the fact that I never said anything of that sort to be proof of me thinking so, then yes, you are correct.
Jason Farlander
Feb 5 2004, 10:40 PM
Ive always simply thought that elemental manipulations dont really create true elemental effects. A good example of this is that there is no acid that could do the things toxic wave is capable of doing. Furthermore, elemental manipulations still have to beat out object resistance values -- something that, say, a flamethrower or tesla coil would not have to do.
Rather, my interpretation is that elemental manipulations focus magical energy in a way that models how the caster things a high-powered version of the real energy/material should act. Acid melts things. Fire burns things and causes explosives to explode. Lightning fries electronics. These are all modeled not on the basis of the real creation of true lighting, fire, or acid, but on the basis that the spells do what the spell designer expects such things to do.
Hence, I dont have the problem with trying to figure out exactly how the spells work. They simply do. Now... this is certainly not a canon interpretation, except that it allows me to accept the canon ways in which magic functions without altering it on the basis that it doesnt make sense to me. I think it has a certain elegance to it as well.
Jason Farlander
Feb 5 2004, 10:41 PM
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
QUOTE (Jason Farlander) | But flame aura... (oh no! the most powerful spell in the game!) makes absolutely no sense to you? |
If you consider the fact that I never said anything of that sort to be proof of me thinking so, then yes, you are correct.
|
Please forgive my hyperbole. I hope you werent emotionally scarred.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 10:45 PM
QUOTE (Jason Farlander) |
I think it has a certain elegance to it as well. |
It certainly does. If/when I conclude that there's no way to make magic elemental effects to actually create true elements, I'll just go with that.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 10:46 PM
QUOTE (Jason Farlander) |
I hope you werent emotionally scarred. |
Only insofar as bad sarcasm makes my brain melt.
the spell doesn't have to track all the heat coming at the subject. it just has to track the signature of the spell itself--keep that from contacting the subject, and you're automatically keeping away the heat and flame. as for adept powers, i imagine they have an astral presence of some sort, whether or not it's a lasting signature.
and no, your bastardized self-only effect isn't legal within the rules--or, rather, it is, but most mages aren't interested in fireballs which can only affect themselves. that's why i talked about flipping the 'self only' mod, to make the spell harder to cast. i think a self-defense fireball is just fine at +2(Dmg Level +2).
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 11:09 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
the spell doesn't have to track all the heat coming at the subject. it just has to track the signature of the spell itself--keep that from contacting the subject |
I thought of that, but I figured the astral signature of the spell was already all over the subject itself. But perhaps it might just stop any "leakage" from where the flames start to the subject. And in any case, suspending one's disbelief at such a minor detail of the Science of Magic ™ isn't a problem.
QUOTE |
and no, your bastardized self-only effect isn't legal within the rules--or, rather, it is, but most mages aren't interested in fireballs which can only affect themselves. that's why i talked about flipping the 'self only' mod, to make the spell harder to cast. i think a self-defense fireball is just fine at +2(Dmg Level +2). |
I was actually thinking about actual legality here, regardless of whether someone wants that spell. Other than Detection, there are no Area spells in the game that aren't also LOS. That implies to me that it wouldn't be legal to do such a spell. If it was legal, I'm sure some melee-oriented mages would want one.
phelious fogg
Feb 5 2004, 11:27 PM
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
And in any case, suspending one's disbelief at such a minor detail of the Science of Magic ™ isn't a problem. |
Ah... AE is a Hermetic. You see, to shamans like me, we think of magic in a much more natural since. The astral space often feels your needs and responds as such, granting it has the power. The aura of flames spell you talk about feels your need for self defence and unleashes flame upon any who would attack you, similarly, it affects those you attack. The name is merely a description based on the fact that it does cause flames, but in a local region (i.e. the attacker). The illusion of being wreathed in flames is similar to a phenomenon known to many as the shamanic mask.
Now the concept of a fireball that hits everyone but oneself, that is a very complicated idea to express, the creation of energy in specific triggered cases (when someone attacks you, when you attack someone) is generally easy an has little affect on ones abilities (i.e. low drain). It is important to note that the energy summoned by aura of flames is rather small, its brother spell, fireball, creates a massive amount of energy, and to make it avoid the caster would cause additional complexity, and thus would be equaly detrimental to ones continued wellbeing.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 5 2004, 11:31 PM
Jason Farlander's approach to magical elemental effects seeming ever more attractive...
I'll try and make amends for all the pointless crap I've been spouting lately, and answer the original question that begun all this.
QUOTE (mfb) |
i'm trying to decide how you'd apply the Blast secondary effect. maybe halve barrier ratings, or something? |
You could just use the description of the Blast elemental effect, +1 Damage Level against manifested (perhaps that should be materialized?) earth elementals and gnomes. Depending on how powerful the other elemental effects are, maybe +50% (rounded down) or +100% Strength to determine Knockdown from unarmed attacks. And of course the Special Effects... Be sure to describe how the guy misses and hits a wall, causing bits of plaster or broken tiles to fly all over.
Drain Brain
Feb 6 2004, 12:13 AM
I kinda think you guys missed my point and turned what was left of it into an arguement...
Oh well...
I hope somebody got it!
Austere Emancipator
Feb 6 2004, 12:19 AM
I'm pretty sure I made up all the crap from ground up. I'm good at making up crap, worse at adapting good things to crap (although I'm quite capable of that, too).
Or in other words: I never really had any trouble with spells, adept powers or any other effects that only have the appearance of something, like flames. Personally, I think I got it. And now I got something else, too.
silly rabbit, all spells are LOS, even Detection (you're casting the spell on yourself, not on the things you're trying to detect).
Austere Emancipator
Feb 6 2004, 01:55 AM
I'm not really sure what you mean, but I was talking of LOS in the sense that it appears as a Drain Modifier on p. 56 of MitS in Spell Design/Magical Skills.
i don't have my book on me atm, but i'm fairly sure that modifier applies only to Health spells (which are, normally, Touch-range).
Jason Farlander
Feb 6 2004, 01:59 AM
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Feb 5 2004, 07:55 PM) |
I'm not really sure what you mean, but I was talking of LOS in the sense that it appears as a Drain Modifier on p. 56 of MitS in Spell Design/Magical Skills. |
The entry in MITS as a Drain modifier only applies to health spells, which, by default, are touch range.
Edit: yay simultaneous posting!
Austere Emancipator
Feb 6 2004, 02:04 AM
You are absolutely correct, which is why the Touch Drain modifier applies to all other spells but not Health. And the Caster Only modifier includes the Touch Range modifier.
Which got me thinking: Why does the Caster Only modifier give -3 Drain Levels for Health spells, if they are assumed to have the Touch range already? And why aren't there any Caster Only spells in any of the books -- is the modifier that broken?
Note: I said "in the sense that it appears blah blah". Caster Only is a modifier available for Detection, Health and Manipulation spells. Reading it through again, the Area Spell modifier does not make any mention of the spell having to be LOS Range to begin with, and Touch Range doesn't preclude Area. So, uhh, yeah, a Caster Only Area Spell would be legal. A Fireball centered on the caster would have the +1(DL-1) Drain I mentioned before.
Still, the fact that all non-Detection Area spells in any of the books are LOS(A) implies to me that Area requires a spell to be LOS Range.
Caster Only spells aren't in the books because the book spells are meant to be generalized. you can take just about any spell in there and make it caster only, just by knocking off three levels of drain.
and yeah, that's true--you could make an AE spell that's touch only. if you want to disinclude yourself from its effects, i'd make a new drain modifier:
Caster Excluded (+3 Drain Level): caster is unaffected by the effects of the spell. can be added to any Area Effect spell.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 6 2004, 02:17 AM
Why'd that be so hard for an area spell if it's easy enough to be insignificant for other spells? (And I'm not looking for an argument here, I'm probably just missing something, but I can't think of it on my own right now.)
well, my explanation is that by excluding yourself from an area-effect spell, you've doubled the complexity of that spell. with a single-target spell, like flame aura, you've got one target--the subject. the spell 'decides' who to affect based on whether they are or are not the subject of the spell--simple binary.
with a fireball, the 'subject' of the spell is the point of aim. if you want to make yourself immune to your spell, you're introducing a new subject--yourself.
Austere Emancipator
Feb 6 2004, 02:26 AM
Okay. There's something there that troubles me slightly. However, I cannot tell what it is, and any explanation on the matter that I could come up with had obvious faults, so if it comes up, I'll use something similar to your explanation, but perhaps using +2 instead of +3 DL.
Kagetenshi
Feb 6 2004, 02:29 AM
QUOTE (phelious fogg) |
You see, to shamans like me, we think of magic in a much more natural since. |
Yes, you think of it this way, and you are wrong.
~J the Hermetic