hey, just wondering about something. The positive quality Magic Resistance & the adept power Spell Resistance, do they add their ratings to both direct AND indirect spells? Also, would they stack with one another? Would they also stack with counterspelling?
I ask because I'm making a prime runner against a team that looks as though it may be a little over-reliant on magic to get the job done.
Full Version: question about spell resistance
Edit: Glyph below is right. Magic resistance cannot be taken by an adept so the two do not stack.
Another fun one to use against a magic heavy party is the Surge PQ: arcane arrester. (Which should stack with one of the other...).
Another fun one to use against a magic heavy party is the Surge PQ: arcane arrester. (Which should stack with one of the other...).
But that's a problem I have:
The rules state (clearly) that you may not have more Hits (not Net Hits) than Force when casting the spell.
Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.
Just wondering. I know MY opinion, but has this been clarified (preferably by a DEV) somewhere else?
The rules state (clearly) that you may not have more Hits (not Net Hits) than Force when casting the spell.
Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.
Just wondering. I know MY opinion, but has this been clarified (preferably by a DEV) somewhere else?
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Nov 10 2009, 01:38 AM) 
Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.
It states that the halving only applies for certain effects.
QUOTE (Page 111 @ RC)
When affected by a spell (including a critter’s Innate Spells), the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength. Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced.
For Mental Manipulations, you're still screwed - but at least you get a new chance to resist twice as often.
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 9 2009, 07:11 PM)
It states that the halving only applies for certain effects.
For Mental Manipulations, you're still screwed - but at least you get a new chance to resist twice as often.
For Mental Manipulations, you're still screwed - but at least you get a new chance to resist twice as often.
Note the next sentence however... "a character with Arcane Arrester would resist it as if it were a Force 2 Spell, thoguh the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect"
Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...
It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...
But your Mileage may vary, and you may not agree... but that is okay too...
Keep the Faith...
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 9 2009, 09:40 PM)
Note the next sentence however... "a character with Arcane Arrester would resist it as if it were a Force 2 Spell, thoguh the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect"
Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...
It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...
But your Mileage may vary, and you may not agree... but that is okay too...
Keep the Faith...
Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...
It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...
But your Mileage may vary, and you may not agree... but that is okay too...
Keep the Faith...
See, it's that second part that I keep getting hung up on, too, which is why I mentioned it. Glad I'm not the only one.
Magic resistance and the adept power of spell resistance don't stack, because only a mundane can have magic resistance (and only an adept or mystic adept can have spell resistance). Both mundanes and awakened characters can take arcane arrester, but you cannot have both magic resistance and arcane arrester.
The wording for the arcane arrester quality is too ambiguous for me to say whether it limits the net hits when it limits the effective force. Definitely something to ask your GM.
Another quality that is effective against Magic is astral hazing, although that one comes with some serious downsides, and is usually not a good idea for any awakened character.
The wording for the arcane arrester quality is too ambiguous for me to say whether it limits the net hits when it limits the effective force. Definitely something to ask your GM.
Another quality that is effective against Magic is astral hazing, although that one comes with some serious downsides, and is usually not a good idea for any awakened character.
Glyph,
Where does it say that a Fomori or a Gnome (with the Arcane Arester ability) can't have Magic Resistance? They don't have an inate MAGic score, after all.
Just wondering.
Where does it say that a Fomori or a Gnome (with the Arcane Arester ability) can't have Magic Resistance? They don't have an inate MAGic score, after all.
Just wondering.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 10 2009, 02:40 AM)
Note the next sentence however... "a character with Arcane Arrester would resist it as if it were a Force 2 Spell, thoguh the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect"
Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...
It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...
Now, to me that means that it will only be as effective as a Force 2 Spell for that person with Arcane Arrester... with a max of 2 net hits... while everyone else would resist it at Force 5 with whatever Net hits were generated (up to the Max of 5)...
It is only common sense, after all... You cannot obtain more net hits than the effective Force of the Spell, and for the Individual with Arcane Arrester, the effective force is 2...
I disagree, since that sentence is clearly an example of the previous, indicated by the use of "For instance" at the beginning. This relegates it to the level of non-rule. This distinction is necessary as it is not merely possible that books have described examples that do not follow the rules. An example may serve to highlight facets of the rules that are subtle, or to compose all the rules relevent to a particular situation to demonstrate interlocking implications, but they do not govern play in any way. Where an example conflicts with a rule, the rule must win.
Mind Manipulation is an effect, Damage is an effect, Paralysis is an effect. An Opposed Spellcasting test is not an effect.
Thanks Glyph
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 9 2009, 08:39 PM)
I disagree, since that sentence is clearly an example of the previous, indicated by the use of "For instance" at the beginning. This relegates it to the level of non-rule. This distinction is necessary as it is not merely possible that books have described examples that do not follow the rules. An example may serve to highlight facets of the rules that are subtle, or to compose all the rules relevent to a particular situation to demonstrate interlocking implications, but they do not govern play in any way. Where an example conflicts with a rule, the rule must win.
Mind Manipulation is an effect, Damage is an effect, Paralysis is an effect. An Opposed Spellcasting test is not an effect.
Mind Manipulation is an effect, Damage is an effect, Paralysis is an effect. An Opposed Spellcasting test is not an effect.
Not talking about an opposed spellcasting test... I am talking about the effect of the spell itself... the Effect is Force 2 with no more than 2 net hits... that is it... counterspelling or resisting is not a spellcasting opposed test, it is a resistance test which would work against the reduced effect of the spell in this case...
Like I said, it seems pretty cut and dried for me... the Effect is Halved, the net hits are capped at Force (which in this case has been halved), my RESISTANCE goes against the effect of the spell (not the casting itself)... If I can reduce the net hits to 0, then no effect...
Keep the Faith
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Nov 9 2009, 09:22 PM)
Where does it say that a Fomori or a Gnome (with the Arcane Arester ability) can't have Magic Resistance? They don't have an inate MAGic score, after all.
Read the description of Arcane Arrester.
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Nov 9 2009, 06:38 PM)
But that's a problem I have:
The rules state (clearly) that you may not have more Hits (not Net Hits) than Force when casting the spell.
Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.
Just wondering. I know MY opinion, but has this been clarified (preferably by a DEV) somewhere else?
The rules state (clearly) that you may not have more Hits (not Net Hits) than Force when casting the spell.
Does that mean the Arcane Arrester character also limits their Hits by halving the effective Force? For non-combat spells, if the answer is "no", that makes the quality nigh-useless because many spells (things like Mental Manipulations) only need one net hit to work at all; If you aren't reducing the number of Hits, you're not helping.
Just wondering. I know MY opinion, but has this been clarified (preferably by a DEV) somewhere else?
Yes. It was poorly written, but the augmented Force is used for determining the maximum number of Hits.
QUOTE (Synner)
My ruling on this is that it the adjusted Force should limit hits as normal, however, the ambiguity of the writeup allows gamemasters to rule the other way if they want Arcane Arrester to be less powerful.
Please note that ruling it "the other way" makes Arcane Arrester nigh-useless, and any GM that does so should be shot (allow it as intended - best option, or disallow it entirely; do not treat a 25BP quality as a [at most] 10BP ability).
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 10 2009, 03:47 AM)
Not talking about an opposed spellcasting test... I am talking about the effect of the spell itself... the Effect is Force 2 with no more than 2 net hits... that is it... counterspelling or resisting is not a spellcasting opposed test, it is a resistance test which would work against the reduced effect of the spell in this case...
Like I said, it seems pretty cut and dried for me... the Effect is Halved, the net hits are capped at Force (which in this case has been halved), my RESISTANCE goes against the effect of the spell (not the casting itself)... If I can reduce the net hits to 0, then no effect...
Like I said, it seems pretty cut and dried for me... the Effect is Halved, the net hits are capped at Force (which in this case has been halved), my RESISTANCE goes against the effect of the spell (not the casting itself)... If I can reduce the net hits to 0, then no effect...
QUOTE (Page 182 @ Anniversary BBB Reprint)
A spell’s Force limits the number of hits (not net hits) that can be achieved on the Spellcasting Test. So if you cast a Force 3 spell and get 5 hits, only 3 of those hits count. In other words, Force has a limiting effect on spells—the more oomph you put into the spell, the better you can succeed with it. This limitation does not apply to Edge dice that are used to boost a spell.
There is, at no point, any rule stating that you have a limit on the number of Net Hits that may be used to enhance damage.
QUOTE (Page 204 @ Anniversary BBB Reprint)
The base Damage Value for Combat spells is based on Force, which is chosen by the magician at the time of casting. Any net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increase the DV by 1 per net hit.
Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.
The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 10 2009, 12:46 AM)
There is, at no point, any rule stating that you have a limit on the number of Net Hits that may be used to enhance damage.
Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.
The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.
Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.
The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.
Hold on... if you limit TOTAL hits, you're limiting NET hits inherently to no more than that number, because the opposing Hits (Net Hits only comes up in opposed tests of some kind) subtract from the total... unless I have totally misunderstood the point you're actually trying to make.
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 9 2009, 10:46 PM)
There is, at no point, any rule stating that you have a limit on the number of Net Hits that may be used to enhance damage.
Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.
The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.
Since there is no rule limiting the number of Net Hits that may be used to increase the DV, a reduced Force for the purposes of effects has no bearing on the number of Net Hits you may use to enhance damage. It only affects the Base DV of the spell.
The Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell - the effects only occur should it succeed. The Arcane Arrestor Quality only halves the Force for the purposes of determining effects. Therefore, the actual Force of the spell limits the number of Hits. Cut and dried, like you said.
You are right of course, I am not sure why I said NET hits, my intention was Total Hits Allowed... Good Catch, I was getting tired... in this case however, the argument still stands in my opinion... a reduced magic rating should ONLY ever allow a maximum number of hits equal to its Force (in this case a reduced Force because of Arcane Arrester)
For Example... A force 5 Spell cast at the Character with Arcane Arrester... Spell is reduced to Force 2 for Effect, and therefore only 2 hits may be applied to the success test, at which point, If I have either counterspelling or a good resistance roll, I only need 2 hits to negate the spell... works for me...
Keep the Faith
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 11 2009, 03:40 AM)
You are right of course, I am not sure why I said NET hits, my intention was Total Hits Allowed... Good Catch, I was getting tired... in this case however, the argument still stands in my opinion... a reduced magic rating should ONLY ever allow a maximum number of hits equal to its Force (in this case a reduced Force because of Arcane Arrester)
For Example... A force 5 Spell cast at the Character with Arcane Arrester... Spell is reduced to Force 2 for Effect, and therefore only 2 hits may be applied to the success test, at which point, If I have either counterspelling or a good resistance roll, I only need 2 hits to negate the spell... works for me...
For Example... A force 5 Spell cast at the Character with Arcane Arrester... Spell is reduced to Force 2 for Effect, and therefore only 2 hits may be applied to the success test, at which point, If I have either counterspelling or a good resistance roll, I only need 2 hits to negate the spell... works for me...
Except that the Spellcasting Test is not an effect of the spell.
QUOTE (Page 111 @ RC)
When affected by a spell (including a critter’s Innate Spells), the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength.
Even better. It halves the strength of Force-based effects. That renders your entire argument null and void. It never halves Force itself at all. The total Damage from a Combat spell is halved, then, immediately prior to it being applied. You roll that test as per normal, calculate the final DamV as for a normal target, then you halve the DamV and the DamV alone.
This is another example of a badly written rule. I agree with Tymeaus' interpretation.
Actually, at least for me, the rules for Arcane Arrester are pretty clear. It's all spelled out in the very first sentence: Any effect of the spell that is based purely on its Force is halved for the changeling. The caster is in no way affected by this metagenic quality. Any rolls he makes are handled and resolved as if he cast at it the desired Force. However, any rolls the changeling makes are treated as if the Force was lower, which has no bearing on the number of hits the caster had on his tests. The quality affects everything on the changeling's side, not the caster's. Net hits and the success of the actual spell are completely unaffected, only the actual effect of the spell's Force is diminished.
So if the caster scored five hits with his Force 5 spells, the changeling would be resisting a Force 2 spell boosted by five hits. Those hits aren't affecting the Force (which is what the metagenic quality affects), only the 'accuracy' of the spellcasting. Likewise, if the changeling had a Body of 4, normally he'd be paralyzed by a Force 5 Petrify spell. But if he had this quality, he wouldn't since it would only be a Force 2 spell for him regardless of the hits scored by the caster. etc.
So if the caster scored five hits with his Force 5 spells, the changeling would be resisting a Force 2 spell boosted by five hits. Those hits aren't affecting the Force (which is what the metagenic quality affects), only the 'accuracy' of the spellcasting. Likewise, if the changeling had a Body of 4, normally he'd be paralyzed by a Force 5 Petrify spell. But if he had this quality, he wouldn't since it would only be a Force 2 spell for him regardless of the hits scored by the caster. etc.
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 10 2009, 11:41 PM)
Even better. It halves the strength of Force-based effects. That renders your entire argument null and void. It never halves Force itself at all. The total Damage from a Combat spell is halved, then, immediately prior to it being applied. You roll that test as per normal, calculate the final DamV as for a normal target, then you halve the DamV and the DamV alone.
Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.
Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 11 2009, 12:46 PM)
Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.
Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.
Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.
OK, this is interesting. The quote you provide is not at all what's written in the rules. Maybe we'll see a decent re-write in Runners Companion, Revised. What's stated there is just a simple halving of total calculated DAMAGE.
I can see how that simplifies things, but it's essentially useless outside of Combat spells and I don't believe it's worth the BP cost at all. It has precisely NO effect on non-damaging spells, and it's listed as being a resistance to spells generally, not a resistance to magical damage.
Now, if you reduce Hits as discussed above, it makes it dramatically easier to resist a spell ENTIRELY on the opposed test. A F6 spell becomes F3, and the caster can't bring more than 3 Hits to the table, which is much more doable than trying to resist 6 Hits with WILlpower alone.
The maximum Spellcasting Hit allotment, being equal to the spells Force, is an effect of the spells Force.
It is just as easy, if not easier, to argue this over the alternative. So yes, I can easily justify Synners ruling as Rules as Written.
As I said before, the quality is incredibly shitty writing, & has been clarified by developer input. To run 'the other way' is at best retarded without a significant reduction to the qualities cost.
Yes, it is a powerful quality, but it does have drawbacks; while granting you protection from hostile spells, it also grants 'protection' from friendly spells, & costs a significant amount of resources to acquire.
It is just as easy, if not easier, to argue this over the alternative. So yes, I can easily justify Synners ruling as Rules as Written.
As I said before, the quality is incredibly shitty writing, & has been clarified by developer input. To run 'the other way' is at best retarded without a significant reduction to the qualities cost.
Yes, it is a powerful quality, but it does have drawbacks; while granting you protection from hostile spells, it also grants 'protection' from friendly spells, & costs a significant amount of resources to acquire.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 11 2009, 11:46 AM)
Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.
You assume I care one iota what a developer has to say, as if it has any special weight compared to anyone else. They talk out of their ass constantly and are wrong just as much as anyone else. Until it hits errata or an actual book, it's just their opinion like anyone else's. Especially in a case where the wording of the quality isn't completely unclear.
Muspellheimr,
I think maybe I'm confused now, because you're saying the way I am reading it should be LESS expensive than the restricted version you quoted?
Can you restate it in a single coherent post so I understand what you are saying the clarification actually IS?
I think maybe I'm confused now, because you're saying the way I am reading it should be LESS expensive than the restricted version you quoted?
Can you restate it in a single coherent post so I understand what you are saying the clarification actually IS?
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Nov 11 2009, 10:05 AM)
It has precisely NO effect on non-damaging spells, and it's listed as being a resistance to spells generally, not a resistance to magical damage.
Actually, as Dr. Funkenstein's example of the petrify spell shows, it does affect some non-combat spells. I agree that it wouldn't affect, say, mental manipulations, which is why I lean slightly towards the "limits spellcasting hits" interpretation. Not because it is necessarily the correct interpretation, but because it is the interpretation that lets the quality uniformly reduce the effectiveness of all spells.
I don't put any particular weight on Synner's post, though - he didn't say he was clarifying the rule. He only said it was his ruling, and he then added that the ambiguity of the rules lets gamemasters interpret it either way.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 11 2009, 03:15 PM)
Actually, as Dr. Funkenstein's example of the petrify spell shows, it does affect some non-combat spells. I agree that it wouldn't affect, say, mental manipulations, which is why I lean slightly towards the "limits spellcasting hits" interpretation. Not because it is necessarily the correct interpretation, but because it is the interpretation that lets the quality uniformly reduce the effectiveness of all spells.
I don't put any particular weight on Synner's post, though - he didn't say he was clarifying the rule. He only said it was his ruling, and he then added that the ambiguity of the rules lets gamemasters interpret it either way.
I don't put any particular weight on Synner's post, though - he didn't say he was clarifying the rule. He only said it was his ruling, and he then added that the ambiguity of the rules lets gamemasters interpret it either way.
Thanks Glyph. I may not always agree with you, but I always find something useful in your posts because they are consistently well reasoned and clearly stated. In this case, your read precisely matches mine, so that's how I think I will be going. It was my first inclination, due to the "cost" or the power, but I'm relieved I'm not the only person who feels that way.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 11 2009, 05:46 PM)
Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.
Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.
Run it how you want, but it is not going to be correct if you do so as described. Also note that if you run it as described, you should be reducing the cost down to 5 BP.
What they wrote does not interface with anything in the description of the Quality. It is perfectly meaningful as it stands. It may be overly expensive, but who gives a shit. It states the rule quite clearly.
This is not about whatever the developers houserule in their own game. I care not one jot for what rules Jennifer Harding follows (the game she is involved in houserules things, and those houserules should not be considered source for RAW). I read the rules they have written on the page, the rules they sold.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
The maximum Spellcasting Hit allotment, being equal to the spells Force, is an effect of the spells Force.
Nope.
QUOTE (Page 181 @ Anniversary BBB Reprint)
While spell effects can take on a variety of forms, there are a few effects that have become so common as to be considered standard spells. These spells are listed in the Street Grimoire section, p. 203.
Therefore, only the elements mentioned in the Street Grimoire entries are considered the effects of a spell.
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Nov 11 2009, 01:02 PM)
Muspellheimr,
I think maybe I'm confused now, because you're saying the way I am reading it should be LESS expensive than the restricted version you quoted?
Can you restate it in a single coherent post so I understand what you are saying the clarification actually IS?
I think maybe I'm confused now, because you're saying the way I am reading it should be LESS expensive than the restricted version you quoted?
Can you restate it in a single coherent post so I understand what you are saying the clarification actually IS?
Very simple. As written, the quality is extremely unclear.
Ruling 1: Maximum Hit Allotment is a spell effect, & thus limited by the adjusted Force. Quality is fine.
Ruling 2: Maximum Hit Allotment is not a spell effect, & thus not limited by the adjusted Force. Quality is crap best removed from the game. If you for some reason insist on continuing to allow it, the Build Point cost should be reduced to 10 maximum, suggested 5. Even then I would never take it for a character.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 11 2009, 01:15 PM)
Not because it is necessarily the correct interpretation, but because it is the interpretation that lets the quality uniformly reduce the effectiveness of all spells.
Which is precisely the way it should work, and appears to be intended to work. Again, the balancing factors include significant resource costs, and reduction to all spells, not hostile spells.
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 11 2009, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (Page 181 @ Anniversary BBB Reprint)
While spell effects can take on a variety of forms, there are a few effects that have become so common as to be considered standard spells. These spells are listed in the Street Grimoire section, p. 203.
Therefore, only the elements mentioned in the Street Grimoire entries are considered the effects of a spell.
Yes, and 1 + 1 = 8.
there are a few effects that have become so common as to be considered standard spells
This is not in any way used to define what constitutes a spell effect, and has a built-in exception. There are a few spells...
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 12 2009, 11:10 AM)
Very simple. As written, the quality is extremely unclear.
Perhaps to you, but it's pretty cut-and-dry to me. And quite a few other people judging by this thread.
QUOTE
Ruling 1: Maximum Hit Allotment is a spell effect, & thus limited by the adjusted Force. Quality is fine.
That's not a ruling so much as a blatant misunderstanding of the rules and the English language. Metagame mechanics are not spell effects. The maximum allotment of hits is a game-balancing rule that isn't even limited solely to spellcasting. If it were a spell effect, it would be completely different for each spell. Which it isn't. What is a spell effect is how they use those hits. Some use them to stage up damage, others use them to extend durations, and others use them to bolster the benefits. None of that has anything to do with the metagaming limit. That limit is in the same vein as how many dice you're allowed to use on a roll, which attributes and skills you use, and what conditional modifiers you apply. By your faulty -- and it is faulty -- misunderstanding of what is and isn't a spell effect, all of those things should be affected by this quality, too. Which is total hogwash. Those are base rules of the game, not the spell.
If you really want to get pedantic on the matter, there's two lines of note.
SR4A p. 183, Determine Effect: "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force."
RC, p. 111, Arcane Arrester: "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced."
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength." So if that overcast Force 12 Stunbolt spell hits the changeling despite the number of hits the original caster had, it's only going to be doing half of its damage. That's huge and way different and potentially more beneficial than what Magic Resistance or similar effects do. Especially when combined with things like Counterspelling, Spell Resistance and even Astral Hazing.
QUOTE
Ruling 2: Maximum Hit Allotment is not a spell effect, & thus not limited by the adjusted Force. Quality is crap best removed from the game. If you for some reason insist on continuing to allow it, the Build Point cost should be reduced to 10 maximum, suggested 5. Even then I would never take it for a character.
Translation: "I don't like the rule as written, so obviously my house rule is the way it's meant to be and anyone who says otherwise is a big doodiehead. Obey my house rule or continue to be stupid! You big stupidheads! Nyeh!"
It's one thing to not like a rule and advocate a house rule in its stead. It's another thing entirely to delude yourself into thinking it's anything but a house rule.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 12:33 PM)
That's not a ruling so much as a blatant misunderstanding of the rules and the English language.
QUOTE (Effect Definition)
2. power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 12:33 PM)
If it were a spell effect, it would be completely different for each spell.
A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not [always] a square.
An effect may be a variable, but a variable is not [always] an effect.
In other words, bullshit.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 12:33 PM)
SR4A p. 183, Determine Effect: "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell's Force."
< >
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
< >
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
Thanks for pulling the quotes for me.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 12:33 PM)
It's one thing to not like a rule and advocate a house rule in its stead. It's another thing entirely to delude yourself into thinking it's anything but a house rule.
It's one thing to disagree with an interpretation of a vaguely written rule. It's another thing entirely to delude yourself into thinking it's the only interpretation.
Again, the quality is extremely poorly written, & thus open to interpretation. Due to the tone of the writing, & developer rulings on the subject, it seems quite clear that the intended effects of the quality are as I have been claiming - especially considering the near-uselessness of the quality in comparison to cost with the other ruling.
QUOTE
QUOTE
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
Thanks for pulling the quotes for me.
Emphasis fixed.
If you were right -- and you're not, on any level whatsoever -- all they would have had to say was "...the spell is reduced to half Force." Period. There wouldn't be any need to go beyond that. If any clarification were needed for the effect to work the way you desperately wish it did, it would instead be "...the spell is reduced to half Force, including the number of hits on the Spellcasting Test."
You're wrong. Deal with it.
QUOTE
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
Emphasis fixed.
You're wrong. Deal with it.
Edit:
Here, I'll even help you with the concept.
QUOTE (Etcetera Definition)
a number of other things or persons unspecified.
...
Good lord.
Good lord.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 02:33 PM)
Metagame mechanics are not spell effects.
This is the single most useful thing that has been said in days in this "You're full of shit!", "No, you're full of shit!" mudslinging contest.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 12:33 PM)
If you really want to get pedantic on the matter, there's two lines of note.
SR4A p. 183, Determine Effect: "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force."
RC, p. 111, Arcane Arrester: "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced."
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength." So if that overcast Force 12 Stunbolt spell hits the changeling despite the number of hits the original caster had, it's only going to be doing half of its damage. That's huge and way different and potentially more beneficial than what Magic Resistance or similar effects do. Especially when combined with things like Counterspelling, Spell Resistance and even Astral Hazing.
SR4A p. 183, Determine Effect: "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force."
RC, p. 111, Arcane Arrester: "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced."
It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. Especially when the sentence right before that one even tells you exactly what type of effects are affected: "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength." So if that overcast Force 12 Stunbolt spell hits the changeling despite the number of hits the original caster had, it's only going to be doing half of its damage. That's huge and way different and potentially more beneficial than what Magic Resistance or similar effects do. Especially when combined with things like Counterspelling, Spell Resistance and even Astral Hazing.
I will put it a different way for you... Refer to your Quote from SR4A, Page 183... DETERMINING EFFECT... Read it well, as it is pretty cut and dried... here, let me help... "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force"
You are right, the Force of the spell Does Not Change for the Caster... Very Correct, and for any one else that does not have Arcane Arrester, it is still a FUll Force Spell, complete with all that goes with it... HOWEVER, for the Character with Arcane Arrester, the Force is Halved ... FOR HIM ONLY... in this case, the number of hits that can be applied... FOR EFFECT ON HIM is no greater than the Force of the Spell FOR HIM...
Ergo... Force 5 reduced to Froce 2 for the character with Arcane Arrester may only have 2 hits applied to the Effect FOR HIM...
Pretty Cut and Dried in My Opinion...
Keep the Faith
<sigh>
And read the quote from Arcane Arrester again. "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced." Not to mention "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
It's as straight forward as it can possibly get. Arcane Arrester isn't Magic Resistance or Spell Resistance. It doesn't help you resist the spell, it undermines the end effect of the spell. The success of casting the spell remains exactly the same, in every conceivable way. The difference is that a Stunbolt cast at Force 12 doesn't do a base of 12 boxes of damage does a base of 6 boxes of damage. That's what Arcane Arrester does. And it's absolutely huge. Especially when combined with the benefits of Counterspelling, Spell Resistance, or Astral Hazing. Hell, if it worked the way you people wish it did, you may as well not even bother casing a spell on such a character because there's no way you would have a chance in Hell of affecting them with any of those combined options. Heck, with your faulty interpretation of the rules and Astral Hazing alone, no spell with a Force less than 9 could affect the changeling. Ever. Without a single die hitting the table.
No. The caster's hits are completely and utterly unrelated to the target. The limitation on hits is not a spell effect. Damage, paralysis, etc. (hey, guess where we saw that before!), however, are.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 12 2009, 08:05 PM)
I will put it a different way for you... Refer to your Quote from SR4A, Page 183... DETERMINING EFFECT... Read it well, as it is pretty cut and dried... here, let me help... "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force"
And read the quote from Arcane Arrester again. "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced." Not to mention "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
It's as straight forward as it can possibly get. Arcane Arrester isn't Magic Resistance or Spell Resistance. It doesn't help you resist the spell, it undermines the end effect of the spell. The success of casting the spell remains exactly the same, in every conceivable way. The difference is that a Stunbolt cast at Force 12 doesn't do a base of 12 boxes of damage does a base of 6 boxes of damage. That's what Arcane Arrester does. And it's absolutely huge. Especially when combined with the benefits of Counterspelling, Spell Resistance, or Astral Hazing. Hell, if it worked the way you people wish it did, you may as well not even bother casing a spell on such a character because there's no way you would have a chance in Hell of affecting them with any of those combined options. Heck, with your faulty interpretation of the rules and Astral Hazing alone, no spell with a Force less than 9 could affect the changeling. Ever. Without a single die hitting the table.
QUOTE
You are right, the Force of the spell Does Not Change for the Caster... Very Correct, and for any one else that does not have Arcane Arrester, it is still a FUll Force Spell, complete with all that goes with it... HOWEVER, for the Character with Arcane Arrester, the Force is Halved ... FOR HIM ONLY... in this case, the number of hits that can be applied... FOR EFFECT ON HIM is no greater than the Force of the Spell FOR HIM...
No. The caster's hits are completely and utterly unrelated to the target. The limitation on hits is not a spell effect. Damage, paralysis, etc. (hey, guess where we saw that before!), however, are.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 07:30 PM)
<sigh>
And read the quote from Arcane Arrester again. "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced." Not to mention "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
It's as straight forward as it can possibly get. Arcane Arrester isn't Magic Resistance or Spell Resistance. It doesn't help you resist the spell, it undermines the end effect of the spell. The success of casting the spell remains exactly the same, in every conceivable way. The difference is that a Stunbolt cast at Force 12 doesn't do a base of 12 boxes of damage does a base of 6 boxes of damage. That's what Arcane Arrester does. And it's absolutely huge. Especially when combined with the benefits of Counterspelling, Spell Resistance, or Astral Hazing. Hell, if it worked the way you people wish it did, you may as well not even bother casing a spell on such a character because there's no way you would have a chance in Hell of affecting them with any of those combined options. Heck, with your faulty interpretation of the rules and Astral Hazing alone, no spell with a Force less than 9 could affect the changeling. Ever. Without a single die hitting the table.
No. The caster's hits are completely and utterly unrelated to the target. The limitation on hits is not a spell effect. Damage, paralysis, etc. (hey, guess where we saw that before!), however, are.
And read the quote from Arcane Arrester again. "Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced." Not to mention "...the character—and she alone—treats Force-based effects (damage, paralysis, etc.) at half (round down) actual strength."
It's as straight forward as it can possibly get. Arcane Arrester isn't Magic Resistance or Spell Resistance. It doesn't help you resist the spell, it undermines the end effect of the spell. The success of casting the spell remains exactly the same, in every conceivable way. The difference is that a Stunbolt cast at Force 12 doesn't do a base of 12 boxes of damage does a base of 6 boxes of damage. That's what Arcane Arrester does. And it's absolutely huge. Especially when combined with the benefits of Counterspelling, Spell Resistance, or Astral Hazing. Hell, if it worked the way you people wish it did, you may as well not even bother casing a spell on such a character because there's no way you would have a chance in Hell of affecting them with any of those combined options. Heck, with your faulty interpretation of the rules and Astral Hazing alone, no spell with a Force less than 9 could affect the changeling. Ever. Without a single die hitting the table.
No. The caster's hits are completely and utterly unrelated to the target. The limitation on hits is not a spell effect. Damage, paralysis, etc. (hey, guess where we saw that before!), however, are.
*sigh*
You did not read the quote above did you? I acknowledge that the Force is Uncahanged for anyone without the Arcane Arrester quality, but for the affected character IT IS, it is REDUCED BY HALF... YES, THE CHARACTER ALONE SUFfers under the reduced effect... No Question about it...
Read it again... In the Stage for Determining EFFECT, HITS MATTER... so if your arcane arrested character is under the effect of a reduced Force then SO are the Applicable Hits applied... Can't get any easier...
Here it is again, from your own post even... SR4A p. 183, Determine Effect: "The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force."
The effect is any number of results based upon the spell, IN COMBINATION WITH the amount of hits achieved on castting... The HITS MUST be factored ito the effect, or you have NO EFFECT at all (See your quoted rule)... it REQUIRES at least ONE NET HIT to affect a target, so therefore, the hits matter in the effect...
As for your assumption that Astral Hazing in combination with Arcane Arrester is problematic... YES, IT IS... but if you allow someone into the game with that combination of qualities, whose fault is it really? NOT allowing them to fuinction in the manner addressed is a disservice to the Qualities themselves... You may not like it, but there it is...
Keep the Faith
QUOTE
You did not read the quote above did you? I acknowledge that the Force is Uncahanged for anyone without the Arcane Arrester quality, but for the affected character IT IS, it is REDUCED BY HALF... YES, THE CHARACTER ALONE SUFfers under the reduced effect... No Question about it...
I did. But what you guys seem to be missing is that the limited number of hits is a metagame function and limitation on the caster's part. It has absolutely nothing to do with the target whatsoever. Nor is it, in any way, shape, or form, an actual spell effect any more vision modifiers are. "The spell's Force is unchanged." That line exists for a reason. Because the spell's Force is unchanged. Whereas the spell effects based on Force are not in regards to the target's resistance. And, again, the limit on the number of hits is not a function of the target's resistance. Never ever ever. Zero function. Null and void. 100% the caster's problem.
QUOTE
As for your assumption that Astral Hazing in combination with Arcane Arrester is problematic... YES, IT IS... but if you allow someone into the game with that combination of qualities, whose fault is it really? NOT allowing them to fuinction in the manner addressed is a disservice to the Qualities themselves... You may not like it, but there it is...
Are you really trying to argue your misinterpretation of the rules by pointing out how your misinterpretation makes another completely different set of rules overpowered, too? Is that what you're really trying to do? Because that is what you're doing.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 08:00 PM)
I did. But what you guys seem to be missing is that the limited number of hits is a metagame function and limitation on the caster's part. It has absolutely nothing to do with the target whatsoever. Nor is it, in any way, shape, or form, an actual spell effect any more vision modifiers are. "The spell's Force is unchanged." That line exists for a reason. Because the spell's Force is unchanged. Whereas the spell effects based on Force are not in regards to the target's resistance. And, again, the limit on the number of hits is not a function of the target's resistance. Never ever ever. Zero function. Null and void. 100% the caster's problem.
Are you really trying to argue your misinterpretation of the rules by pointing out how your misinterpretation makes another completely different set of rules overpowered, too? Is that what you're really trying to do? Because that is what you're doing.
Are you really trying to argue your misinterpretation of the rules by pointing out how your misinterpretation makes another completely different set of rules overpowered, too? Is that what you're really trying to do? Because that is what you're doing.
HITS do have something to do with the target, they are an indicator of how effective the spell is... if there are no hits (for whatever reason) then the effect is null... Hits are REQUIRED as part of the EFFECT, and as such are held to the same standard against Arcane Arrester as the Force Reduction...
And it is NOT what I am doing... I am pointing out that if you allow both Arcane Arrester and Astral Hazing to be applied to a single character, and then complain that it is so effective that it completely negates most, if not all, of a mages abilities, then that is YOUR fault, not the systems. SO you have an accomplished anti-magic character... nothng makes him immune to Bullets... just a different solution to the problem, that is all... You are making it more complicated than it has to be...
Obviously, though, we will not come to an agreement here, so that is okay...
Keep the Faith
QUOTE
HITS do have something to do with the target, they are an indicator of how effective the spell is... if there are no hits (for whatever reason) then the effect is null... Hits are REQUIRED as part of the EFFECT, and as such are held to the same standard against Arcane Arrester as the Force Reduction...
So do vision modifiers, range modifiers, condition modifiers, the number of dice the caster is throwing, what foci or fetishes are being used, and everything else that's part of casting a spell. It's all the same. They're all rules that directly affect the caster, not the target. Let me change a few words in your goofy argument to drive the point home.
"If there are no [Magic + Spellcasting dice being used to cast the spell] then the effect is null. [Magic + Spellcasting dice] are REQUIRED as part of the EFFECT..." So, ergo, Arcane Arrester superawesomely affects the caster's Magic and Spellcasting dice, too!
QUOTE
And it is NOT what I am doing... I am pointing out that if you allow both Arcane Arrester and Astral Hazing to be applied to a single character, and then complain that it is so effective that it completely negates most, if not all, of a mages abilities, then that is YOUR fault, not the systems.
Sorry, but no. That is what you're doing because by the actual rules, the combination isn't fatally broken. Your misinterpretation is. What's next? Allowing Counterspelling to work with it is broken, too, and anyone who allows it is a big stupid doodiehead? Sorry, but no.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 08:12 PM)
So do vision modifiers, range modifiers, condition modifiers, the number of dice the caster is throwing, what foci or fetishes are being used, and everything else that's part of casting a spell. It's all the same. They're all rules that directly affect the caster, not the target. Let me change a few words in your goofy argument to drive the point home.
"If there are no [Magic + Spellcasting dice being used to cast the spell] then the effect is null. [Magic + Spellcasting dice] are REQUIRED as part of the EFFECT..." So, ergo, Arcane Arrester superawesomely affects the caster's Magic and Spellcasting dice, too!
Sorry, but no. That is what you're doing because by the actual rules, the combination isn't fatally broken. Your misinterpretation is. What's next? Allowing Counterspelling to work with it is broken, too, and anyone who allows it is a big stupid doodiehead? Sorry, but no.
"If there are no [Magic + Spellcasting dice being used to cast the spell] then the effect is null. [Magic + Spellcasting dice] are REQUIRED as part of the EFFECT..." So, ergo, Arcane Arrester superawesomely affects the caster's Magic and Spellcasting dice, too!
Sorry, but no. That is what you're doing because by the actual rules, the combination isn't fatally broken. Your misinterpretation is. What's next? Allowing Counterspelling to work with it is broken, too, and anyone who allows it is a big stupid doodiehead? Sorry, but no.
WOW... Just WOW...
You continue to argue the point that everything affects Spellcasting Dice, and that may be true... but Hits directly Affect the SPELLS EFFECT, which ARCANE ARRESTER Directly Modifies, therefore, by your own quoted Posts, you would cap the applicable hits by the Modified Force... AS NORMAL... and by the way, Modifiers actually affect the Spellcasting Test Dice Pool, and only have an Indirect effect on the number of hits... Hits are a result of the Test...
I have NEVER said that the combination was broken... I actually think it is an interesting (though probably a bad idea) way of obtaining fairly potent resistance to magical effects... only the most powerful of mages will be able to actually affect the character with magic... Ever...
But that is neither here nor there... back to the point, assuming that you actually have dice to cast your spell (all things considered, Arcane Arrester DOES NOT LIMIT DICE IN ANY WAY, after all), the EFFECT of the Spell is determined by Base Descriptive Effect PLUS HITS (whether it is a manipulation or illusion or damaging spell), and for an effect you must apply HITS... You cannot get around that logic in any way, and that is why it is described as such in the rules that you quoted above... Hits ARE part of the EFFECT......
Keep the Faith
Actually... I think I have to side neutrally here. The question is a question of precedence, and which is the superior clause and neither is noticably so. Also the quality specifically states 'force-based effects' such as the damage from a direct spell. Hits generally aren't considered a force based effect, but a side-effect of force. This is a grey area in the rules and is not nearly as clean cut as some are making it out to be.
I also heavily disagree w/ Musp's portrayal of arcane arrestor, the quality is if anything overpowered and underpriced, especially under the first reading. Especially after every twink and his brother pairs it w/ the NEGATIVE quality which gives them a background count. Even barring that, if an actual background count is present, that goes even farther in the characters favor.
In regards direct combat spells. This is doubly so... if the caster applies no hits to damage (to avoid drain w/ the new optional rule)... all the damage comes from force... now all damage from these spells is halved round down.
I also heavily disagree w/ Musp's portrayal of arcane arrestor, the quality is if anything overpowered and underpriced, especially under the first reading. Especially after every twink and his brother pairs it w/ the NEGATIVE quality which gives them a background count. Even barring that, if an actual background count is present, that goes even farther in the characters favor.
In regards direct combat spells. This is doubly so... if the caster applies no hits to damage (to avoid drain w/ the new optional rule)... all the damage comes from force... now all damage from these spells is halved round down.
QUOTE (Falconer @ Nov 12 2009, 08:33 PM)
Actually... I think I have to side neutrally here. The question is a question of precedence, and which is the superior clause and neither is noticably so. Also the quality specifically states 'force-based effects' such as the damage from a direct spell. Hits generally aren't considered a force based effect, but a side-effect of force. This is a grey area in the rules and is not nearly as clean cut as some are making it out to be.
I also heavily disagree w/ Musp's portrayal of arcane arrestor, the quality is if anything overpowered and underpriced, especially under the first reading. Especially after every twink and his brother pairs it w/ the NEGATIVE quality which gives them a background count. Even barring that, if an actual background count is present, that goes even farther in the characters favor.
In regards direct combat spells. This is doubly so... if the caster applies no hits to damage (to avoid drain w/ the new optional rule)... all the damage comes from force... now all damage from these spells is halved round down.
I also heavily disagree w/ Musp's portrayal of arcane arrestor, the quality is if anything overpowered and underpriced, especially under the first reading. Especially after every twink and his brother pairs it w/ the NEGATIVE quality which gives them a background count. Even barring that, if an actual background count is present, that goes even farther in the characters favor.
In regards direct combat spells. This is doubly so... if the caster applies no hits to damage (to avoid drain w/ the new optional rule)... all the damage comes from force... now all damage from these spells is halved round down.
I agree that it is a gray area, and we will probably never come to a reconciliation on the matter... It is an interesting quality, but one that does not see any real play time in our games, the same is said of the NEGATIVE quality of Astral Hazing... it is a negative quality for a reason, and will quickly end in bad things in our campaign, if not from the player characters, then from the NPCs around us...
As for Direct Damage Combat Spells you would always have to apply at least One HIt (Correct?) To succeed in damaging the target. So with that optional rule in place, you are still upping the default drain by at least +1 every time you actually do damage, or is that a misunderstanding on my part... I hate that rule anyway... we tried it and no longer use it... it prompted to many people to overcast their effects for less effective drain... made no sense...
Keep the Faith
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 12 2009, 08:12 PM)
So do vision modifiers, range modifiers, condition modifiers, the number of dice the caster is throwing, what foci or fetishes are being used, and everything else that's part of casting a spell.
None of which are a variable based on the Force of the spell, or listed under the Determine Effects section of spellcasting for that matter.
Now, I have given significant support for my position, based on logic, rules references, developer input, etc. I have also clearly stated that it is an interpretation of a poorly written section of text; I have never stated that my ruling is Rules as Written, I have merely stated that it is just as easily arguably accurate as the other ruling, and for a variety of reasons, appears to be the Rules as Intended.
You, on the other hand, have consistently insisted that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong, and through warped logic have failingly attempted to prove so.
In other words, you are at best trolling. I suggest you shut up.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 13 2009, 12:05 AM)
You, on the other hand, have consistently insisted that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong, and through warped logic have failingly attempted to prove so.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr)
Poorly written quality that is clarified by a developer quote I provided above. You are incorrect.
Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing.
Regardless, it's no fault of mine you're wrong about Arcane Arrester or that you refused to acknowledge that it wasn't the rules as written (up until now anyway, but only so you could feel good about calling me a troll -- bravo). Good job resorting to name-calling and unfounded accusations when you finally admit that you are very much wrong, by the way, simply because I'm adamant about my position and can actually prove why by simply understanding the English language as written.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 12 2009, 10:40 PM)
As for Direct Damage Combat Spells you would always have to apply at least One HIt (Correct?) To succeed in damaging the target. So with that optional rule in place, you are still upping the default drain by at least +1 every time you actually do damage, or is that a misunderstanding on my part... I hate that rule anyway... we tried it and no longer use it... it prompted to many people to overcast their effects for less effective drain... made no sense...
Incorrect... I could cast the spell at force 5... roll 7 hits.. only be able to use 5 of them. End up with 2 net hits after resistance, and then apply NONE of them to damage. It's purely the casters option whether he wants to add hits to damage and drain or not. If he has any net hits the spell works, it's only to enhance the effect.
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Nov 12 2009, 05:10 PM)
there are a few effects that have become so common as to be considered standard spells
This is not in any way used to define what constitutes a spell effect, and has a built-in exception. There are a few spells...
This is not in any way used to define what constitutes a spell effect, and has a built-in exception. There are a few spells...
It refers to the spell entries as spell effects (albeit through a single layer of indirection). Nothing else is ever defined to be a spell effect. Therefore, we can only be sure that the elements that comprise the profiles in Street Grimoire are spell effects. About anything else we are less than certain. If we assume inclusion in a set on account of any connection whatsoever, then there are other things that should in the set of spell effects that do not belong there.
Put another way: is the Perception Threshold to spot Spellcasting a Spell Effect? Why so? If yes, what effect does Arcane Arrester even have on it?
Furthermore,
QUOTE (Page 203 @ Anniversary BBB Reprint)
Each spell has the following characteristics: Category, Type, Range, Threshold, Duration, Drain Value, and Effect.
QUOTE (Heath Robinson @ Nov 13 2009, 12:28 AM)
Nothing else is ever defined to be a spell effect.
QUOTE (SR4A p.183)
STEP 5: DETERMINE EFFECT
Some spells simply require a Success Test, with hits determining the level
of success (as noted in the spell description). The Spellcasting + Magic
test must generate at least one net hit to succeed and may need more if
the effect has a threshold for success. The spellcaster can always choose
to use less than the total number of hits rolled in a Spellcasting Test.
Spells cast on living or magic targets are often resisted, and an
Opposed Test is required. For area spells, the magician rolls only once,
and each target resists the spell separately. The target resists physical
spells with Body and mana spells with Willpower. If the target is also
protected by Counterspelling (p. 185), she may add Counterspelling
dice to this resistance test. This Opposing dice pool is further modified
by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see
Defender/Target has Partial Cover or Good Cover, p. 160). If the target
of a spell is on the other side of a mana barrier (p. 194), dice equal to
the Force of that barrier are added to the target’s resistance test. The
caster must generate at least 1 net hit on the Opposed Test for the
spell to succeed.
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 affect
non-living objects; mana spells have no effect). Highly processed and
artificial 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 (see the Object Resistance Table).
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or
just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage
(Barriers, p. 166).
Spells cast on astral objects like mana barriers or active foci are
resisted with Force.
The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s
Force (see Force, p. 177).
Failed spells have no effect. Regardless of whether the spell
worked, the magician must resist the Drain.
Note that a magician can generally tell if her spell was successful
or not by its results. In some cases, however, the gamemaster may
determine that the magician has no way to confirm the success of her
spellcasting. In this case, the gamemaster can make a secret Spellcasting
+ Intuition Test for the character against an appropriate threshold to
see how well the character can gauge the spell’s success.
Some spells simply require a Success Test, with hits determining the level
of success (as noted in the spell description). The Spellcasting + Magic
test must generate at least one net hit to succeed and may need more if
the effect has a threshold for success. The spellcaster can always choose
to use less than the total number of hits rolled in a Spellcasting Test.
Spells cast on living or magic targets are often resisted, and an
Opposed Test is required. For area spells, the magician rolls only once,
and each target resists the spell separately. The target resists physical
spells with Body and mana spells with Willpower. If the target is also
protected by Counterspelling (p. 185), she may add Counterspelling
dice to this resistance test. This Opposing dice pool is further modified
by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see
Defender/Target has Partial Cover or Good Cover, p. 160). If the target
of a spell is on the other side of a mana barrier (p. 194), dice equal to
the Force of that barrier are added to the target’s resistance test. The
caster must generate at least 1 net hit on the Opposed Test for the
spell to succeed.
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 affect
non-living objects; mana spells have no effect). Highly processed and
artificial 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 (see the Object Resistance Table).
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or
just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage
(Barriers, p. 166).
Spells cast on astral objects like mana barriers or active foci are
resisted with Force.
The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s
Force (see Force, p. 177).
Failed spells have no effect. Regardless of whether the spell
worked, the magician must resist the Drain.
Note that a magician can generally tell if her spell was successful
or not by its results. In some cases, however, the gamemaster may
determine that the magician has no way to confirm the success of her
spellcasting. In this case, the gamemaster can make a secret Spellcasting
+ Intuition Test for the character against an appropriate threshold to
see how well the character can gauge the spell’s success.
It is interesting though that the section covering spell effects apparently doesn't really address them. Still, it is the closest thing in the book, & does clearly include the maximum hit allotment based on a spells Force.
QUOTE (SR4A @ Determine Effect)
The Spellcasting + Magic test must generate at least one net hit to succeed and may need more if the effect has a threshold for success. The spellcaster can always choose to use less than the total number of hits rolled in a Spellcasting Test.
[...]
The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force (see Force, p. 177).
[...]
The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force (see Force, p. 177).
How curious. I had no idea the target made a Spellcasting Test when resisting a spell or suffering its effects. Or, as Falconer pointed out above, that the changeling's power is so super awesome that it can actually affect the caster's Drain, too.
That aside, let's have a look at one more line and its relation to Arcane Arrester a few more times.
QUOTE (Runner's Companion @ Arcane Arrester)
The spell's Force is unchanged.
QUOTE (SR4A @ Determine Effect)
The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell’s Force (see Force, p. 177).
QUOTE (Runner's Companion @ Arcane Arrester)
The spell's Force is unchanged.
Yessir. Definitely a quandry. Both logically and as the rules clearly state.
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Nov 13 2009, 06:08 PM)
QUOTE (Runner's Companion @ Arcane Arrester)
The spell's Force is unchanged.
Oh yes, so Arcane Arrester does absolutely nothing then, amiright?
Because the only thing it does is reduce a spell's Force for the character, which it clearly states it does not do.
Yessir. Definitely a quandry. Both logically and as the rules clearly state.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.