I generated some questions after reading the current mystic adept related thread and didn't want to derail their topic.

Is it possible for heightened concentration to sustain more than one spell?



"The adept is capable of tuning out a single distraction to her
task at hand. When using this power, the adept can ignore a single
situational negative dice pool modifier of a value up to her Magic
attribute." (digital grimoire)

I think multiple spells are more than a single distraction and 3 or 6 situational negative dicepool modifiers don't get lumped into one modifier associated with sustaining spells.

My next question came up because I was confused about the exact way that Ways reduce the pp required for adept powers.

I'm just not completely sure what "Characters with this Quality may purchase the following powers at a 25 percent discount (rounding as normal), selecting one power for every two Magic points" (Way of the Adept) means.

Does it mean that any of the following powers get a 25% discount, but that you can only select one of those powers every 2 magic points spent and you have to spend your magic points on other powers that are not in "the following powers"? Or does it mean that you have to select at least one power from the list of "following powers" every 2 magic points and for each power in the list of "following powers" you get a discount? Or does it mean that every 2 magic points your powers that are "following powers" get a discount?

I'm just not certain what that last clause means and I searched but it seems no one else was confused by the wording.

Thanks.

My interpretation of it is that each 2 point of magic allow you to pick one power in the list at 25% discount. Once that's done you can spend the rest of your powers freely at the normal rate, and can pick those normal-rate powers either on or off the list. The cap isn't on how many power from the list you can have but on how many of them benefit from the 25% discount.


Note the 'can' in the book's wording - you aren't forced to pick the whole number of discount powers. But doing that would be a bit stupid, if you can't find enough powers in the list to fill the quota, maybe you'd better pick another way.

I didn't understand your note at all, perhaps you meant may instead of can? At any rate I think it doesn't affect my understanding of the powers at all. If for each 2 magic points you get one discounted power is the correct reading, then Ways seem mediocre. The only way that seems decent under these conditions is any Way that offers improved reflexes as a discounted power. Improved reflexes at rating 3 is 4 pp so you'll be saving 1 pp which at chargen is 10 BP (the cost of raising your magic by 1 and gaining 1 pp). On the other hand if you want to be really good at adept stuff then you should take a Way for more powers.

It's really not that complicated. You just pick a power from your ways list, and discount it by 25%. Any power points you save, or fraction thereof, can be spent on other powers. And while you can only gt a discount on the powers listed by your way, you can still take any adept power you want, it's just not discounted.

I don't think that's right, because you're not taking into account the "select one power every 2 magic points" clause.

My last post was assuming that you had already picked what power(s) you wanted to discount. You can only have one power discounted per 2 points of magic that you have. So say you have 4 points of magic. 4/2=2, so you can pick two powers from your ways list to have discounted. You're free to pick any other power you want, but the only ones that can be discounted are the ones on that list.

I'll reword what I said with some examples to make it clear how I understand the effects : you apply the discount to one power per 2 points of magic, the dicsounted power muist be picked from the and cost 25% less than their normal cost. The power points (or fraction thereof) you've left after that can be spent normaly on whatever power you want, including those on the list. And of course barring those who picked at a discount since they've already been. Though in the case of augmented/boosted attribute, each separate attribute counts as a separate power.

Note that for powers that can be bought at different levels, the discount remains in effect when augmenting the power.

Example :
I create a character with 4 in magic and picks increased agility, reaction and strength powers and invest 1 PP in each. I apply the discount to agility and reaction, which means that in effect I've only spent 2.5 PP (2.5 x2 saved) and have still 1.5 to spend on whatever I want.

Later on the character climbs to a magic of 5, giving one extra PP to play with. If I spend that point to improve strength further, no change. If I spend it on agility or reaction increase, it will cost only .75, letting me free to use .25 PP on whatever I want.

Later still, magic goes to 6. I can pick another power to be discounted.
Let's say I pick a new 1 PP power eligible for the discount. It costs only .75 and I can spend .25 where I want.
If I choose to apply it to an existing power (say improve strength, which I'll suppose hasn't been improved since creation), I'll get back .25 PP which means I now have 1.25 PP to spend on whatever power I want

The way sustaining is described in SR4A makes me think it is a single penalty of -2 per spell, rather than several separate -2 penalties. Honestly, though, there's no way to be 100% sure and this is really a "check with your GM" thing.

I'm reposting from a waay back OOC in a PBP game where this came up. Also keep in mind it takes a complex action to activate and them you must take your action (you cannot save this for later). :

From my read on it it would only apply to one of the spells at most. I am assuming your quoting from the source book it is from-(It's not in War, Street Magic or SR4a--so I don't have that reference). As, per RAW each spell causes a mage to suffer a -2 dice penalty to all other tests, as the caster must concentrate on the sustained spell. I'm not sure something you need to concentrate on can be considered a distraction you can ignore (GM call on that one). Also the problem here is what do you define as a task at hand. In general terms to me that means a single test.

IMHO- that if you don't take the -2 your not concentrating on the spell, your not concentrating on the spell, therefore the spell is no longer being sustained. Another way of putting it is that it is not a distraction, but something that you must concentrate on. Even if allowed, at most though you would be able ignore one sustained spell, or other distraction after spending a complex action to do the task at hand. So in order to cast a stunbolt ignoring the the sustaining a spell modifier you'd have to use two complex actions for the task at hand. You cannot activate and save for later. It is not written clearly but unless this Adept power cost 3 magic, I can't see it overpowering a susatining foci (which costs karma or BP and Nuyen) or living focus (which costs 1 magic point)

There are very few ways to ignore sustaining spells:One is sustaining spell foci, another is bonded spirits. The living focus adept power is another way for a mage to not have to sustain a spell as well, but then the adept ends up sustaining it.

The adept is capable of tuning out a single distraction to her task at hand. When using this power, the adept can ignore a single situational negative dice pool modifier of a value up to her Magic attribute. This power requires a Complex Action to activate and may be be combined with the Adept Centering metamagic.

I'd not considered that it required a Complex Action to activate per "task at hand" rather than per "single situational negative dice pool modifier."

Honestly, there's probably a half-dozen different ways to interpret it. You should probably just ask your GM how this power works. How long does it last when activated? How specific do you have to be about the task? What counts as a single modifier?

Something you need to concentrate on is exactly what this power is for. Thats why they call it 'Heightened CONCENTRATION'.

As a GM, I count each spell sustained as a separate distraction. Allowing a mystic adept to sustain his magic rating/2 in spells without any penalty is game unbalancing, no matter how you interpret the power. Ignoring a single -2 modifier is very powerful, and the power is absolutely worth it even with this limitation.

SR never has had clear dice pool modifiers (especially penalties) stacking rules. To be fair, it rarely comes up (you can't be double blind for example). Recoil is the only case.

Would an adept with Heightened Concentration and Magic 7 suffer -1 or -2 when firing an uncompensated short and then a long burst? While the recoil of short bursts explicitly combine if you fire two in the first shot, it's a lot more vague when firing a long and then short. If they do combine, then the final recoil mod is -1 (2 from short burst + 6 from long burst - 7 from HC). If they don't, it's -2 since it only cancels out the -6 recoil mod from the long burst.

Really I can see it working either way. I think the more liberal interpetion isn't that unbalancing. It's really one of the few worthwhile and unique powers adepts get. It's better for mystic adepts true, but without completely redoing adepts from the ground up that will always be the case.

This is possibly the most ambitious misuse of semantics I've ever seen. The rules are certainly clear enough that it's unnecessary to ask 'what is a distraction', but to humour the notion: distractions demand concentration. That's the problem they cause - you want to do A but some of your concentration is already spoken for by B, thereby hampering your efforts with A. Has anyone ever asked you for your complete concentration? This is where the phrase comes from.

Firing a short then long would result in -2 then -8 respectively. The adept could ignore the -2 if he used a complex action to focus first, but he can't do this for the second simple action, so the smart move would be to go long then short which is -5 (fully ignored) then -8, assuming the long burst is more valuable to you.

If possible, the even smarter move would be to go full auto and split the rounds between your targets, since this is only one action. Ah, unless it's tests not actions, in which case there's no extra gain.

I'm propbably reading more to it than intended, but I am also considering this in regards to other sustaining spell negation methods in terms of cost. My argument there was that sustaining a specll requires you to concentrate on the spell. Heightened concentration does not mean you are concentrating on the sustained spell but rather you are able to fully concentrate on the task at hand and are ignoring one distraction. If you are ignoring the sustaining penality to me that means your not concentrating on the spell and therefore no longer sustaining it.

Draconian interpretation? Yeah probably, but just like the slow spell this is a poorly worded ability.

But what you've described there is exactly what happens without Heightened Concentration. You take your eye off the spell and you lose it along with the -2 modifier.

I would equate the interpretation you give to the following. Adept on a very narrow ledge performs a melee attack. GM imposes a negative modifier for being on a narrow ledge. Player decides to use his Heightened Concentration power to ignore the modifier. GM rules that the adept falls off the ledge through lack of concentration on said ledge.

The only point of debate I've seen about this is whether sustaining penalties stack into a single penalty that can all be ignored at once. I say no, solely because of balance. Others prefer it to be (much) more powerful. Just pick one.

There's no ambiguity there either.

'For each sustained spell the magician maintains, she suffers a -2 dice penalty on all other actions.'
SR4a p.184

So that's a modifier per spell, which should therefore be considered distinct. Otherwise the wording would be 'a negative modifier equal to twice the number of spells'.

Didn't say ambiguity. However, that's how some people *play* it.

*For the other side of the argument*

However, it is a single "Spell Sustaining" penalty that scales with the number of spellls being sustained. Thus a single negative modifier that can be Negated by an Adept with the appropriate Magic Rating and the Heightened Concentration Adept Power.

This is no different than Range Penalties that can be eliminated. Range penalties scale at -1/-3/-6, and is a SINGLE penalty. It is not a -1 AND a -3 AND a -6 resulting in a -10 for being at extreme Range. Same Principle for the Spell sustainment penalty. It is -2 per spell, but it is a single penalty.

Heightened Concentration can also potentially last far longer than 1 Complex Action.

A more accurate example might be the duality of the bonus from firing point blank and the penalty for ranged weapon in melee. One is a +3, the other is a -2. Does the penalty also negate the bonus, or do they stack? Either way, the bonus exists when you get rid of the penalty.

I would point out that SR doesn't use consistent writing style (since SR uses a 5000 authors and not style manual pooling method of writing books). Even with that, I haven't seen anything written in that style. I could see the use of "every spell sustained suffers an additional -2 modifier" being used by whoever wrote the BF section (who didn't seem to write the FA section) if he wrote the sustaining spell section.

So, here's a question: how many people think that it works like this:

You spend a Complex Action, and set your HC to, say, "Called Shot Penalty." Then you can run around making called shots all you want with no penalty until you spend a Complex Action to set it to a different task.

Versus

You spend a Complex Action, and set your HC to "Called Shot Penalty." Then your next called shot - which you had to have planned, ie, you can't do this an hour before a fight, but you can do it right before taking a sniper shot - ignores the penalty, but you then have to take another Complex Action to set it again.

Note that this is a totally separate question from whether 2 sustained spells can be negated with HC at the same time or not.

I'd vote that it works the first way. Mainly because the single situational dice pool modifier is "Called Shot Penalty" and Heightened Concentration works for an arbitrary amount of time.

Indeed...

This clears up almost everything about Ways. Thanks manunancy!

I still have a lingering question about what 25% discount rounding normally means. 0.25 pp powers get discounted to 0.1875, 0.188, 0.19, 0.2? Which decimal do we round to is what I normal ask, but there are times in SR when you round down, so I'm not sure what to think here.

I've seen it done as .1875, only (but I haven`t had a chance to play with anyone who actually used the ways or Adept geas). That said, it is kind of an unwieldy number, so I would ask your GM what he prefers.

I use the raw number, so 0.1875. Keeping track is a little more difficult, but not that difficult.

As I've always understood it, you certainly can't 'set' HC to 'Called Shots' and just keep making them. It works for one shot.

Huh. Hadn't considered that. I think my Troll Archer NPC has a new trick to use (He's mostly background information anyway.)

No it isn't. Read the text/my post.


Yes it is.

SR4a p.150
"The range modifier appears at the top of the appropriate range column."

Notice that it refers to a singular range modifier whilst the spell sustaining section refers to multiple modifiers.

For the record, it's +2 for point blank and -3 for being in melee. Net modifier is negative.

Enthusiastically seconded.

Thirded by my agent.

It refers to Multiple Spells, not Multiple Modifiers. It is a Single, incrementing modifier, dependant upon the number of spells you are sustaining.

Are we going to need a German edition to solve this?

Ich bin ein Schattenläufer.

Ah, German. The language of very angry sounding music and clear Shadowrun rules.

Heh... Too bad I can't read (or even understand, really) German. It does sound cool though.

Without cheating (honest), I'm going to take a stab at "I am a rules lawyer".

Shadowwalker. "Rules lawyer" would be "Regel(n)anwalt." Or something similar. My Germa's a tad rusty.

I'll also have to side with Yerameyahu And Aero's one action with ignored modifier for a single complex to be spent right before the action. Anything else would be silly. You're centering, then doing something. Not to mention it would be fairly to ridiculously OP.

On rounding of power costs: for ease of use, add the total cost of all discounted powers together, then discount the total. Rounding up to the nearest .25 point might look better but is unnecessary.

Here's a head scratcher. Say I'm an adept with Magic 6, HC and the Blind negative quality. The penalty for not being able to see your target is -6.

What penalties are therefore enforced on me for being blind?

Heh... Depends upon if you are a Master of Ninjutsu, have the Blind Fighting Martial Arts Maneuver, and have the Motion Sense Adept Power.

If '1 Complex Action to ignore one penalty for one action' is too weak at your table, consider making it a Simple Action to activate. Making it a passive 'always-on' power is just crazy.

That's the real issue. There's nothing terribly wrong with stacking all the spell sustaining penalties into one… *if* you're not also letting them cheat with 'it lasts forever'.

We have always treated the Activation time as a Complex Action, followed by a Duration of "Until the Situation Changes" or "Until you want to alter the Penalty affected." At that point, it last a bit of time, but rarely (I would say never, as of now) extends beyond a scene, but has the potential to do so.

In fact. The Characters in our campaign with this adept power actually alter the Coverage of Penalties fairly regularly, as the scene progresses and the situation changes. It has never been over powered or a problem in the slightest. But then again, we also do not have Adepts with Magic of 6+ using it either. This may make a big difference, depending upon the table it is used at.

Whatever happens at your (I won't even say it) table, the fact is that there's an 'interpretation' that lets people sustain 3 spells of any Force for free. Or, as above, Call every Shot. Or negate Blindness forever. These would be bad.

Permanently negating blindness forever wouldn't be so bad.
Assume the character has 6 Magic. That means he's either spent 10 BP or 30 karma to most of the time do nothing but effectively cancel out a 10 BP negative quality. Good on him.

That's true, but he can always change his mind. And back. And he's still great on astral, and with astral sight.

I wouldn't say there's necessarily anything wrong with a player spending 10 BP, receiving 10 BP and achieving a net gain. He's used up 10 of his 35 negative quality allownce and a whole power point of his adept powers in the process, so having alternatives like the astral (more expenditure for an adept) is fair enough I'd say. Besides, there are always going to be countless ways a player can get more of what he wants from one character design than from another and that's no bad thing. Think how boring it would be if it never mattered which way you build your character.

*shrug* It's hardly the biggest example of abuse, sure. There's no reason to be Blind in the first place, it's a sub-optimal NQ. The point is that it doesn't make sense for that to be a legal use of HC.

So you're saying Daredevil isn't using a variant of this sort of idea? He's a blind guy... WHO CAN SEE! Basically, the above character is never blind at the expense of colorblindness.

edit: To spell out the fun, you can challenge the character through making color patterns important. He can already "see" the matrix, so make it in person stuff.

"Did you get the info?"
"I think so."
*looks* "That's a stocks sheet for..."
"..."
"..."
"Blackmail?"
"Blackmail."

I'm pretty sure Daredevil has like sonar or something, right? Anyway, someone mentioned above: this doesn't let you see, it just removes the -6 'Blind' penalty. This penalty never really made sense anyway, because most runners have DPs in the 12-18 range. Blind means you can't see, -infinity.