Hey guys,

I can't seem to find rules on this. It came up last game.


Casting multiple sustained spells...
"Casting Multiple Spells: In some circumstances, a magician
may seek to cast multiple spells simultaneously (including multiples
of the same spell—for example, targeting two different opponents
with a mana bolt in the same action). Multiple spells may be cast with
the same Complex Action, but to do so the magician must split her
Spellcasting + Magic dice pool between each target. Additionally, the
Drain Value for each of the spells is increased by +1 per additional
spell (Drain Resistance Tests are also handled separately). Multiple
spells are resolved in whatever order the caster desires. The maximum
number of spells a character can cast in a single Complex Action is
equal to her Spellcasting skill, and each spell must be allocated at least
one die."

So...if you're sustaining 3 armor spells at once...is that still just a -2 on all rolls for sustaining?

Range on sustained spells...
I know most spells have a range when they are cast and I believe you don't necessarily need to maintain that range while sustaining.
How far away from the caster could the subject of a force 5 armor spell go? Does the caster need to maintain LOS?

You're still casting multiple spells, you're just doing it on the same action. It's got no impact on the -2 sustaining penalty.

You can sustain spells on other people as far away as you want. They don't even need to be on the same continent.

It's -2 for each spell your personally sustaining, so that would be -6.

Exactly.

Not even the same plane.

It only becomes important when you're sustaining a Physical spell. That won't transcribe to the astral.

Well that is only a problem if the recipient of the physical spell goes to the astral plane. The sustainer does not face that restriction.

The former is what I was implying.

On a similar note, is the drain handled after all the spells have been resolved, or between each? Can you cast multiple spells on the same target? Like casting 4 Lightening bolts at the same target...

Conditional, typically right after a spell has been cast, regardless if it was successful or not. See further details below.

Yes, but you must then split your dice pool to spellcasting four times, and the drain you must resist increases by +3 to each of those 4 spells. You basically make four individual casting rolls, the victim(s) make their appropriate dodge/resistance rolls (if any), then you roll each drain resistance roll.

Just to clarify: what Spellbinder wrote is all true but only applies if you want to cast more than one spell with the same complex action.

Ok thanks thats what I thought.

Power Focus adds bonus dice, so it's not split. So if you have Spellcasting 5, specialization combat, and Magic 5 you would get 5 dice 4 times. Not impressive, but considering many foes might have only 3-6 dice to dodge with in the first place, and that each Reaction test after the first imposes a cumulative -1 penalty, your changes to hit aren't that bad.

let's say cast on Force 3. Drain afterwards is 4, then 5, then 6, then 7. If you have good drain resistance pool you might not take more than 0-2 stun from that. But you can easily be knocked out cold by stun damage so.. probably not worth it.

Those that hit means the target resist between 4 and 7 Electricty damage using body+ (armor/2). Even if he does soak, he needs to make the same test again to resist the stunning effect, perhaps multiple times. 1 Failure means basically knocked out of the combat for the duration. Oh, and if the first blast hit that means -2 to all the other Reaction rolls, even IF he succeeds the threshold 3 test to avoid being stunned.

Maybe stunbolting is more efficent if used in this way. Cast at Force 5 it's still only 1, 2, 3, 4 drain to resist. You probably won't take more than 1 or two from that, and you can get away with resisting all of it.

Actually, assuming you're casting the same spell at the same force for each of your 4 spells, the drain value for each of them will be the same. The drain value for each spell cast using 1 complex action is increased by 1 for each spell cast beyond 1. Using your example of 4 F5 Stunbolts, the full process would read as follows:

1) Divide total spellcasting pool by 4 in any way you see fit. (Depending on interpretation, dice pool modifiers such as specializations or foci are either applied to the total dice pool that is divided, or added to each of the divided dice pools in turn. See the similar clusterfuck discussion regarding specializations and dual-wielding.)

2) Roll 4 DPs, note hits for each.

3) Target rolls to resist each spell, compare to spellcasting tests to determine success & net hits.

4) For each spell, target takes 5(Force) + Net Hits stun damage.

5) Mage resists 4 drain (5/2-1+3) 4 times.

Sorry for what might seem like an unnecessarily detailed description, but this is a complicated subject with too much room for error; I just wanted to make sure that my intent was clear.


Edit: Grammar and correcting some mistakes.

~R~

Target rolls once for each successfully cast spell (at least one gross hit).

Nope, the opposed test above is the only resistance the target gets. Apply 5+net hits stun damage to the target.

@FriendoftheDork: Why would you use a lightning bolt? Direct combat spells are so much better.

It was an example. But also because of the secondary effect, and because in my game direct spells uses te SR4A optional extra drain rule, and we have lowered all indirect spell drains by 1.

And your answer proves why we use those rules

Well, it is this thing of overdoing an example, untill it proves the opposite point.

Casting a force 5 lightning bold 4 times is just silly, if the -2 are not cumulative.
(Why? You will probably even fail one and you won't have a lot of net hits.)

Casting a force 6 or 7 lightning bold twice is a different thing.
Higher chance to not fail the spell, higher chance to hit.

But the most important thing is, less drain but more damage!
Simply because of how the damage resistance in SR works.
4 hits mean 4 times soaking. Making them much less likely to do a lot of damage in the end.
(Only exception here would be direct spells, since the do not get a soak roll...

Multicasting also requires that there be no enemy mages around because they will laugh at you with their counterspells.

A Lightning bolt is not a sustained spell, so there is no penalty.

If you did cast more than one sustained spell at the same time, I think none of the tests would suffer a penalty though, because at the time of the roll the magician is not yet sustaining any spells.

I believe he is referring to to the Lightning effect. They do not stack, only duration (which is per default long enough). It's still a point that said person has to resist stunning 4 times though, so it is not a complete waste.

Oh and I did not have a point - which is why I'm using extreme examples to explore the options.

Oh, and lightening is better vs counterspelling mages, because if the attack hits you can be stunned, even if Body+(half impact armor)+counterspelling soaks all the damage.

You may want to look at SR4A. They nerfed indirect combat spells. The target rolls REA+Counterspelling (if applicable)+Dodge (if on full defense) to avoid being hit. The damage is soaked with BOD+0,5*Impact Armor+Elemental Defense(Fire resistance, insulation etc.).So most likely the lightning bolt, especially if multicast, will not hit.

@Dakka Dakka
It was about multicasting. Due to the way it works, it is mostly useless to multicast more than 3 times. (And this is only usefull if you only need few net-hits and drain is low)
(And again it is only usefull if you use the "friendly" ruling. (Which kind of becomes very unfriendly as soon as you have negative modifiers to throw around. Fog, and hello to -2 to every single spell... BC 1...)

So in the end the idea of multicasting 4 times on the same target gets very useless, very fast. (Double does work, because you nearly double the damage for only +1 to drain and around -6 dice)
To go from double to tribble means +1 drain for +50% and -2 dice.
To go from tribble to quatrouble means +1 drain for +33% and -1 dice.
So you end up with +2 drain and -3 dice, meaning you could also just increase the force by up to 4 (if your magic is high enough) and you will have one additional net-hit...


Counterspelling is added to the reaction roll? Are you sure of that? This is really silly.

Fair enough. I thought I did a pretty good job remembering things at 5:30 in the morning with no books to reference. Thanks for the correction though. Consider it fixed.

Agreed.


Unfortunately yes:

Yes it is silly. About as silly as penalizing the magician for casting well.

This is epic sillyness. Indirect combat spells were the least nerfworthy of them all! I smell house rule....

Well, sort of as silly as using Reaction to dodge a fireball covering you and everything within 5 metres of you.

You do get a -2 for the area effect. If silliness is concerned I love moving grenades by dodging.

hmm its not clear to me that you can sustain a spell without continuing to see the target. I was looking for the rule on this the other day. On p.185 SR4A it says you can only move area effect sustained spells while they are within LOS. Similarly, you can only maintain counterspelling on targets you can see p.185 SR4A. So my assumption is single target spells also cant ordinarily be sustained without LOS?

On a related topic - if you break line of sight for counterspelling - say your ally goes behind a pillar for a moment, then reappears on the other side. Is the counterspelling lost until the mage reapplies it with a free action? I actually quite like this idea, as keeping your mage in sight might become very important.

Reaction -2, to be fair. Also remember the rules are for all indirect spells, including bolts. Dodging them makes sense.

Dodging area effects may sound unrealistic, but we are talking about people who can move at impossible speeds, and dodge huge explosions.

Psikerlord: I think it is quote clear you can Sustain without LOS. As for the Counterspelling, sounds like alot of unnecessary micromanaging.

The bolded argument unfortunately fails due to invisibility spells (after all, the target is invisible, you cant see it so the spell would immediately be dispelled).

By RAW it seems that spells can be sustained ad infinitum and no matter on how far away they are.

AFAIK you only need to see your target at moment of casting the spell - the rest is all about keeping up a connection. Wards would disrupt a spell and I imagine that if the mage is unconcious the spell would fizzle as well.

This is just an assumption, and a wrong one at that. Not only would it make sustaining an invisiblity spell impossible unless the caster resists his own spell, any spell would also fizzle as soon as the magician blinks.

That is absolutely correct.

It is totally amazing to me that you argue something without actually knowing how the rule actually works. Yes, Counterspelling is added to the Reaction Roll.

The way it has worked ever since SR1 was that at the time of casting, you had to meet all the requirements to cast the spell. Things like LOS/Touch, fetishes, foci, geasa, etc. Once cast, the spell could be sustained until the caster decided to not sustain it any more or the spell was dispelled / disrupted in some manner.

As I recall, this was true of physical spells even when the target went astral. The caveat there is the spell became meaningless as the astral form did not have the spell on it. So a projecting mage would still have the spell active on him, just only affecting the meat body, not the astral form. Spirits simply lose the spell altogether as when they revert to Astral only, they do not have a physical body.

The above also applies to Critter Powers. The activation requirements have to be met and then can sustained from another place/plane altogether.

It is still the same way.

But it does not actually say that anywhere... and the two examples I quoted suggest you do need LOS.

The invisibility spell is easily fixed by saying the mage can use astral sight, and therefore still see his target (or alternately, that OK you can't use invisi on anyone but yourself? Why is that a bad thing, really? Chameleon suits are available). As for seeing himself, not required, as spells require LOS or touch, and the mage is always "touching himself" haha.

So, I still think there's an argument to be made that to sustain the spell, you must have touch or LOS. Magic is very powerful in 4e. A lot could be done to reduce that power via a LOS requirement for sustaining. I forget exactly how ritual sorcery works, but perhaps that allows non-LOS magic. Which is fine as it has it's own limitations.

It would have been nice if the rulebook had spelt this out. I'll check the FAQ.

AFAIK there is no rule saying you can substitute touch for LOS on a LOS spell. So the magician touching himself would be irrelevant on all LOS spells.

No there isn't, at least not according to RAW. As a houserule you can do whatever you want. LOS is only required during the target acquisition step of spellcasting. The two other points you mentioned are pretty logical as well. Without LOS you could not designate where to move the area of the sustained spell just as you could not channel your magical energies somewhere to counter another spell if you do not see that location. Both have nothing to do with sustaining a spell.

Better not check the FAQ. You will just be frustrated by the lack of rules knowledge of the people that wrote them or get crazy ideas that have nothing to do with the actual rules.

I might just be crazy, but I would feel much better if there were actually a rule in the core about sustaining multiple spells.
They are very clear about casting multiple immediate-effect spells...but not a word on anything else.


I just hate to think that armoring or levitating a group of 3 would impose a -6 on everything I do.

The rules are pretty clear in the core book:So yes, sustaining three spells will give you -6. That's what sustaining foci are for.

Well sure, but should a caster need 3 sustaining foci to invis his group and chew gum at the same time?

Yes.

Absolutely. This is a small part of the suit of restrictions I keep referring to to support my position that magicians are not overpowered. A sustained spell can be broken at the most inconvenient of times by a mere jostle. If the mage doesn't want to risk that, he better pay for the foci, in cash and karma.

Absolutely... Why shouldn't he?

In SR1 (or the magic sourcebook for SR1) I think there was some text that talked about Touch being a substitute for LOS because your Aura was able to connect with the target's aura and thus establish the necessary magical link to cast a spell. That's why a caster is always considered to have LOS / Touch with himself.

They had a really nice explanation of how casting worked for what are now called direct & indirect spells. Made it very easy to understand. Too bad they didn't keep that verbiage in later editions.

How?

So realistically, with a willpower of 5, and a spellcasting of 4, that's a 9 DP for 2 hits? Hardly seems fragile at all.

Don't forget Murphy's Law.

I use GM's law.

Anything you design to be difficult, the party will skate through with ease.
Anything you design to be easy, the party will be stumped over for days.

As far as dice, the player most likely to sustain regularly gets 4-5 hits on 7-8 dice. I'd accuse him of cheating if I didn't see him do it regularly. I'm not gonna penalize him for being lucky, but.. jeepers.

Sure that guy isn't using loaded dice?

At a 9 DP it may be slim, but it's still possible. Just think of what could happen if you had the worst luck and rolled a critical glitch?