I'm not sure I understand the rules regarding sustaining spells. As I read it, if a mage casts a spell with a sustained duration, he suffers a -2 dice pool modifier for all tests. I believe that this may stack with each additional sustained spell.

Here's what I don't understand. The spell Combat Sense is a sustained spell. It provides a positive dice pool modifier to reactions. However, due to it being a sustained spell, the caster would have to have three successes to give a single net success to reactions (+3 from hits during casting, -2 from sustaining the spell, providing a net +1). Is that correct?

yes, that's where the sustaining focus comes in as it allows you to negate that penalty.

That's correct. The best way around the die penalty for sustaining spells is to have a Sustaining Focus or a bound spirit take over the duties for you. Once you do that, you no longer suffer the penalty.

we houseruled the penalty does not apply to tests made which the spell is for. that accords with the technomancer threading penalty which does not apply to the threaded complex form

but that's a minor fix and hasn't even come up yet

Got it. A player can purchase a sustaining focus during character creation with a maximum force of 3 (availability 12). How exactly do they work? If a player had magic of 5 and spell casting of 6, do they need to reduce the force to 3 during the casting to use the foci? If so, would they then roll magic of 3 and spell casting of 6 to determine the net hits?

Yes, the spell would have to be cast at Force 3 to be sustained by a Force 3 Sustaining Focus. The caster still gets full Magic and Skill to cast the spell, though. In your example, he would get 5 + 6 = 11 dice, and the spell being cast at Force 3 would limit the total (not net) hits to 3.

This last limitation can be circumvented by the use of Edge. The Edge dice are not limited by the Force limit. So, in the case of an Increase Reflexes spell, one could use Edge along with a Force 3 spell and get more than 3 hits, thereby allowing an increase in reflexes that has a threshold of 4, yet still be able to sustain it with a Force 3 Sustaining Focus.

Yeah, I'd avoid giving mages the Technomancer privilege. They can already get foci, are already godly, etc.

I feel like the rating of the focus should cap the hits, but the RAW doesn't specifically do that.

It's not the Technomancer thing. I'm taking it from SR4A, page 182, under Force:
(emphasis mine)

Er, the Technomancer thing is what Makki was talking about. That's a different sentence.

The sentence responding to *you* was my own opinion, explicitly not a statement of RAW. And, to be specific, I said that *sustaining foci* shouldn't hold hits above their rating, not that Edge shouldn't let a mage *cast* with hits above the spell's Force.

In other news, why does everyone have to always note their underlines or bolds or italics? Surely we all know.

Yeah, that was another spell I was thinking of too. I'm currently creating a shaman and was trying to wrap my head around sustained spells. I should be able to buy a force 3 sustained spell foci for health spells and have it handle the sustaining requirement for Increased Reflexes. If I understand this correctly, I roll Magic 5 and Spellcasting 6. If I use the sustained foci I just limit the number of hits to 3 and I'm good to go. That would give me a max +2 initiative pass.

Ah. Got it.

Unfortunately for that view, sustaining foci are limited by Force, not hits. In practice, Force tends to equate the two by limiting hits, unless Edge is used.

I don't know about everybody, but anyone required to write academically has it hammered into them.

You limit the Force, which limits the hits.

Again, it's not an interpretation at all, it's just my opinion of 'should'. Sustaining foci *should* be Rating=hits, not Rating=Spell Force.

Personally, I use Rating = Hits or Force, whichever is less. Because I find it super-cheesy to have someone go and pick up tons of Force 1 spells and just blow edge when they lock the spell in.

Yah, the way it's worded, you COULD throw Edge with a spell into a Sustaining Focus to get extra hits, but most GMs I know houserule it so the Sustaining Focus limits hits AND Force.


-k

I see the sentiment behind what you say. It should be noted that most PCs don't have all that much Edge to throw around. I don't think this would be an SOP for most.

It's worth noting that only hits obtained with Edge dice can exceed the limit. For example, should the caster of a Force 1 spell achieve 4 hits with Magic+Spellcasting and then roll Edge for an extra 2 hits, he has a total of 3 hits not 6.

Is there any non-magic equivalent of this? It seems unreasonable to give magicians alone this bonus application of Edge.

Just like cactus / cacti, magus / magi, radius / radii, the singular is focus and the plural is foci. It is strange (unprofessional?) that the authors of Street Magic fail to correctly use the right form at times.

If the singular is goose and the multiple is geese, then shouldn't a group (herd) of moose be meese?

Odd things happen when you reach the esoteric edges of the English Language (whether American or British). Unfortunately, not everyone knows the rules at the edge.

Another way to benefit from the first two hits of for instance Combat Sense would be to cast it on someone else. If the mage can stay hidden a couple of extra defence dice for the Street Sam could be a good idea.

For the record, 'focuses' is a perfectly good plural. It's just that 'foci' can't be singular.

It is a plural that is in the dictionary, whether that's good is a different question.

One that I just answered. It is. Honestly, if the prescriptivists are going to start arguing with *dictionaries*, they'll be fighting themselves.

Regarding the use of edge to get extra hits on a spell dumped into a focus...

In my games (back when I used to have games ) I used to use wards frequently in building security. This would highly discourage throwing edge into a specific casting, because the PC is likely to have to drop the spell in order to cross the ward undetected, thus wasting his point of edge. Wouldn't this be a sufficient balance against the 'edge for extra successes in a low-force foci' loophole?

This among other reasons is why I don't think it would happen all too often. At least, not after a few runs of wasting Edge.

It really depends on the run, the GM, and the sessions, of course. Some characters have a fair bit of Edge, and a 2-hour session needs less Edge than a 6-hour one.

It's legitimately debatable issue: some people might prefer for this to be a real ('intended') optional use of Edge, while others would rather have things always fixed (to focus Rating).

What I was pointing out as being strange / unprofessional is that the authors have chosen words (focus/foci and nexus/nexi) with "edge case" plural forms. They don't keep things clear by using focuses or nexuses - it's always foci and nexi. However, when they actually come to use these words, they can't remember whether they are plural or not, repeatedly using "foci" and "nexi" as singular. Since they so clearly struggle with word usage, perhaps they should have chosen simpler words or a different profession. I agree, not everyone does know all the nuances of loan words - but authors, proof-readers and publishers ought to.

Oh I understand where you are going with this. Makes perfect sense to me. I agree with you too. Proof readers & publishers *ought* to be able to use words properly.

Then again, I'm picky about my word usage and grammar but still manage to screw things up now and again.

It's all good. I was mostly aiming to help FenrisWolf since he'd just made his first shaman. I thought if he could remember cactus / cacti it would help him know whether to use focus or foci, and protect him from any confusion the books' errors promote.