You mean the one that in some cases blatantly contradicts the rules up to and including an example that runs counter to an example in the book?

The rule is in no way poorly worded or ambiguous. Unless you aren't a native english speaker. Split pool, add modifiers.

Maybe the FAQ needs errata.

By that logic, since there are uncorrected errors in the main rulebook, the whole book should be tossed out.

You'd need to point out some of those specific errors, though, since I'm not an expert on FAQ inconsistencies.



The multiple spellcasting section doesn't bother to say how or when you should include modifiers, and the spellcasting modifiers section doesn't mention multiple spellcasting at all. Some people backfit those rules with the same rules as for multiple firearms, but it's not really RAW.

Also, based on the wording for foci and specializations, it's entirely plausible that they're not supposed to be modifiers, but rather extra pool dice.

Look, I'm not talking about you like you're an idiot, so I'd appreciate similar courtesy. You followed from Draco's mistake of confusing talking about how I actually play with how I think the rules are written. Two different things.

Because your "I'm not allowing the player to use most of the relevent modifiers when multicasting" is so RAW.

That's because, in general, when on a forum for a game, it is customary to speak about RAW, not local house rules, as everyone here plays by a different set of house rules and it is impossible to discuss the merits of those houserules (except when noted).

Therefore, this discussion must then be about how RAW works.

When you went off on your tangent interpretation about getting 30+ dice however, I offered up what I actually play with (RAI) as a counter-point.

Multicasting in RAW requires a lot of assumptions to get it to work. Even in the one example of multicasting they wrote, the don't include any foci, specialization, or anything else. Apparently their example writers came from the school of thought that you should always give the easiest example you can, and leave the rest for the reader.

You mean the one that I used as an example of what could happen if you split after modifiers? I never said that was RAW. I never even said it was RAI. I said that as an example of an interpretation to use as a point of why that interpretation is false (because the modifiers end up effecting the wrong thing).

But it does... Steps 3 and 4 of the Spellcasting Guidelines... How many times does it need to be said?



However, since it is not Stated as such, and since any modifiers not delineated as direct Skill or Attribute modifiers are to be considered Dice Pool Modifiers, well, you know...

Changes to fix these inconsistencies belong in an Eratta. A FAQ just will not cut it.

I have to agree with you on this.

Neglecting threshold modifiers (which are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand), we have only three types of modifiers left:
1. Attribute modifiers, which augment the Attribute directly.
2. Skill modifiers, which augment the Skill directly. (Specializations are not of this type; see SR4A, p. 68.)
3. Dice pool modifiers, which are everything else, both positive and negative, unless it specifically says it's not a dice pool modifier. See below.

SR4A, p. 61, callout box (A Note on Modifiers):
"Shadowrun, Fourth Edition, uses four distinct types of modifiers: Attribute modifiers, Skill modifiers, threshold modifiers, and dice pool modifiers. Attribute and Skill modifiers affect the character’s relevant stats directly, resulting in augmented Attribute Ratings and modified Skill Ratings respectively (see Attribute Ratings, p. 68, and Skill Ratings, p. 68). Threshold modifiers are situational modifiers that increase or decrease the thresholds of unopposed Success Tests and Extended Tests (see Thresholds, p. 63). Finally, dice pool modifiers are the most common type of modifiers; they represent dice pool increases and reductions from situational modifiers, the effects of augmentations, powers, spells, and from injuries, qualities, and various other sources (see Dice Pool Modifiers). These add and subtract from the dice pools but do not modify the basic Skills and Attributes in use."

SR4A, p. 61, Dice Pool Modifiers:
"The Shadowrun rules often call for a plus or minus dice modifier to a test. These modifiers can result from injuries and situational factors that affect what the character is trying to do. The modifier affects the number of dice used in the dice pool. If more than one dice modifier applies, they are added together and applied to the dice pool. Note that threshold modifiers (p. 63) do not affect the dice pool. Unless otherwise stated, any modifier mentioned is considered to be a dice pool modifier as noted above."

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, and didn't see anything promising in the search, so here I go.

How precisely does the "arcane arrester" quality work? To me, it looks like it's saying "combat spells can only do half their normal damage to you, unless the caster scores enough hits to do more than half his normal damage." So in other words no change? Gee, thanks, I'll put that down next to the raptor beak quality to gather a healthy coating of dust.

BTW, I don't actually believe that's what the book is trying to say, but that's the only way I can read it.

You treat all force based effect of spells hitting you as if the spells force was half(round down), yes the mage get to add net hits, but theres still a mountain of difference between taking 4+nethits damage and taking 9+nethits damage when your hit by a force 9 stunbolt.

if the Spell hits the AA for 1/2 Strength then also with only 1/2 of the Netto Hits
Caster Casts Spell at Force 6 with 4 Netto Hits (Drain will be rolled accordingly)
AA is hit by Force 3 with only 3 Hits (because Force limits the Hits)
and needs only 3 Hits to...Nullify (right word ?) the Spell

This is how I interpret the Quality
( it makes no Sense any other way ImO)

with 1/2 a Dance
Medicineman

A force stunbolt with Force 7 with 6 hits would need 6 hits to be resisted but only do 3+6-(hits on resistance test) Points of damage.

Yes ,I know ( I have 2 Fomori and a Gnome Char)

A Force 2 Spell can have only 2 Netto Hits
and Your Force 3 Stunbolt can have only 3 Net Hits
thats what I was Posting

HokaHey
Medicineman

Yes to resist the spell you would only need 3 hits.
But if you do not get those hits, all the other hits are added to the damage.

So Force 7(6hits) spell 2 hits to resist you suffer 7/2+6-2=7 boxes of damage.
If you had 3 hits you would have resisted the spell.

OK : A force stunbolt with Force 7 with 6 hits

The Actual Force cast by the Mage is not changed ,right, thats why He has to resist the Drain of the Force 7 Spell
But the AA is affected by a Force 3 Spell and the Force of the Spell limits the Hits
so its a Force 3 Spell with 3 Hits for 6 Points of Damage only (instead of 13 Points originally casted by the Mage))
If the AA succeeds with WIL (3) he successfully negated the Spell (instead of WIL (6) Roll )

I hope thats better understandable ?

HokaHey
Medicineman

@Medicineman

Why should it. To limit the hits it would have to change the actual force.

It is only arguable, that you are able to resist the spell with 3 hits. It could be argued, that you still need 6, because the Force of the spell is not changed.

You are still affected by a 7 Force spell, all Force based effects are only halved. In the case of direct damage spells the damage is halved.

Correct. A Force 7 spell with 6 hits is resisted by the AA as if it was a Force 3 spell with 6 hits.

However to half the damage (as you indicate), you still need to cap those hits to the Force resisted by the Target. That is what Half Means...

Example:
Force 7 Spell with 6 Net Hits = 13 Damage
Force 3 Effective Spell with 3 Effective Net Hits = 6 Damage... that is half...
Force 3 Effective with 6 Net hits is 9 Damage... NOT HALF of 13...

Do See where Medicine Man is coming fromn yet?

RC, p. 111:
"Note that the actual Force of the spell is not actually reduced. For instance, a character with Arcane Arrester targeted by a Force 5 spell would resist it as if it were a Force 2 spell, though the spellcaster could still add hits to improve the effect."

So the AA is attacked with a F7 stunbolt and the caster scores 6 hits. The Force isn't actually changed, but from the "for instance" the AA resists as if it were F3. Does the AA only need 3 hits to completely resist, since he'd resist as if it were F3 (thus capped at 3 hits), and if he fails to completely resist then takes F3 and all the remaining unresisted hits?

I guess what I'm asking is whether the following outcomes are correct for F7 stunbolt with 6 hits on the Spellcasting test:
1. AA scores 0-2 hits. Part of the spell gets through, causing 3 (base damage from the spell for the AA) + 6 (hits) - (0-2, however many hits the AA got) damage.
2a. AA scores 3-5 hits. Spell resisted completely, since he resists as if the Force were halved (3). If it were a F3 spell, Spellcasting hits would be capped at 3.
or 2b. AA scores 3-5 hits. Since the Force itself is unchanged, the caster still had 6 hits, so the damage is 3 (base) + 6 (hits) - (3-5, resistance roll).
3. AA scores 6 hits. This scenario is pretty clear...the target resists the spell, since the caster must have at least one net hit to have any effect.

We have always interpreted it that the Force of the Spell applied to the Character with Arcane Arrester was Cut in Half. Hits were then capped by the Applied Force to the Target. So, for that Force 7 Spell, it becomes Force 3 and caps at 3 hits. That is the only interpretation that makes sense to the cost of the Quality. Why? Because you would need to resist a Maximum of 3 Hits to resist the spell, not the 6 that are possibly being applied. If you go the other way, he would need to resist all 6 net hits to resist the spell, which makes absolutely no sense.

Note that Arcane Arrester also works against spells other than combat spells. Wanted to point that out, as it always devolves into how much Damage it will negaste.

Anyways.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Yeah, I meant base damage. Not the hits of course.

@Fringe
Draco18s made a valid point, so I guess it is 2b.

Mhm.
As far as the mage is concerned, it's a F7 spell, allowing up to 7 hits (of which he has 6). As far as the AA is concerned, it's a Force 3 spell. Except that it still has 6 hits behind it.
(Only force based effects are modified!)

Edit:
Remember also that force of the spell limits net hits not total hits.

This is a good point, and I can't believe no one's brought this sidebar up before. I'm still not really convinced that certain oddities in the system aren't intended to be bonus dice without being a modifier, though. Edge is sort of described in the same way as foci and specializations.

@Draco18s

Ok, thats news to me.

Nope... Force of the Spell limits HITS, not NET HITS...

Alright. looks like I was just misinterpreting a basic element of spellcasting.
This would have made much more sense if I had realized from the start that force was added to the effective power of a spell. I thought force was simply a limit on the power of a spell, and the power itself was dependent purely on hits.

There are only 4 kinds of modifiers, there's no way to get bonus dice that are not in some way a dice pool modifier due to their nature of modifying the dice pool. Yes, even Edge.



Some spells don't need more than 1 hit to get full benefit. Some spells don't need to be more than Force 1 (as their effect is neither force nor hit dependent). Some spells don't do anything based on force, but do on hits (but Force caps hits). Some get benefit from both Force and hits (mostly combat spells).

I must ask how you come to that conclusion. A dice pool is, by definition, the dice you roll for a test. Multi-casting splits the dice pool. The info in step 4 doesn't add dice to your dice pool, it explains how to assemble your dice pool, and even if it did add dice, the fact remains is that a dice pool is the dice you roll on a test, regardless of how those dice got there. If you are rolling dice on the test, those dice are part of your dice pool, which is, in this case, split.

Arcane Arrester reduces the effective Force of the spell in regards to that character - including anything derived from Force. It is largely arbitrary on if this limits spellcasting Hits applied to the arrested character.

Despite essentially being "GM's Discretion", the stance that the reduced Force is used for limiting spellcasting hits has somewhat stronger rules support. In addition, that seems to be the intended function.




Edit: Keep in mind the ruling that the full Hits apply (instead of reduced maximum from reduced Force) essentially eliminates the qualities effect on the vast majority of spells (some beneficial, most harmful). The cost of the quality is also far to high for the received benefit under that ruling.

Step 3 tells you to split your Starting Pool (Attribute + Skill, note that it does not yet discuss Modifiers).
Step 4 then Adds in Modifiers.

Easy Peasy...
Since there is precedence for Splitting Dice Pools using this method (See the Previous Chapter of the Book), and since doing it the other way creates insane situations, it is the most logical option. However, I know that not everyone agrees on this, so Your Mileage May Vary.

See prior examples.



Compare it to the Magic Resistance quality then. Equivalent BP should be +4 dice to resist spells.
Which would you rather have?

+4 to resist spells over that interpretation of Arrester. Easily.

I also consider Magic Resistance to be a subpar quality.

If only it weren't written so unclearly. As is, you have to simply house-interpret it for your table (preferable before chargen, heh). Still, I always rule to the detriment of the players, so I'm partial to the argument 'if they meant 1/2 everything, they would have just said that'.

I like big numbers and I cannot lie, but having the GM play against you rather than as your guardian angel can be a lot of fun.
Can I play?

Heh. I mean, I'd use the same ruling for NPCs. As a general rule, I pick the weaker of two interpretations.

If multi-casting worked the same as multi-shooting, why would they be worded differently? Also, step 4 says nothing about adding anything. "The Spellcaster rolls
Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers.", it mentions what modifiers exist on a Spellcasting + Magic roll, but it does not use the word add, or in addition to, or anything like that. Those modifiers always existed, even in step 3, they just were not explicitly mentioned. As mentioned before, if you are rolling a die, it is part of your dice pool. The book does not explicitly list every modifier that exists for every dice pool, it simply, in this instance, listed some of the more common modifiers to a Spellcasting + Magic dice pool. If step 4 is really adding to a dice pool, and step 3 has no modifiers, then I guess you don't get wound penalties when casting spells.

Wound modifiers are unmentioned in the "how to shoot a gun" section as well, so I guess they don't apply to that either!

Except:



There we have a general rule that is not co-opted by any specific rule in regards to this discussion.