Okay, lets put this into perspective.... I expect better than you than to keep parroting back... one sentence cautioning GM's that the ability *MIGHT* be abused. Might is not WILL.

Even if they do spend 10BP... what do they get... they get a gimped mage if they don't split their powers. If they do go 5/0 split... there are a lot of ways to make them pay for this. Unless they pick some kind of dual natured or a completely munchkin pick like a pixie... they need to spend a full point of magic for astral perception. (yes, runners companion cheese is a bigger problem than mystic adept). Without astral perception... they can't clean up their signatures after them. Which gives you yet another tool to use against them as a GM. That's a big 2x4 to wield right there.

If you don't allow them to initiate and gain PP at the cheap initiation karma rates... they're going to have to pay full freight for assensing... which is a 10BP quality PLUS a 10BP rank in the magic... that's 20BP right there... just for a gimped mage which can't project. So much for a 'cheap' buy like you keep parroting back....

What do they gain... they gain the option of access to adept metamagics for one... they don't necessarily need to spend PP on adept powers... they can spend it on adept metamagics instead. That also counts as exploring both sides!


That's why I'm saying you're parroting BS Midas... the numbers don't pan out... unless YOU as GM are playing powder puff league and not playing out the consequences of a mage ignoring the astral. (lack of access to the astral is one thing... being completely unable to interact with it is quite another major drawback).

It can be abused if the GM allows the character to do things that a mage can do and a mystic adept cannot without paying for the requisite points or through a RAW pathway that allows him to do so. A mystic adept does not have astral perception and projection. Unless the character can get those abilities another way, then the character has to live with the consequences of doing without. If he does not, then the quality is being abused.

Good catch Falconer, I had completely forgotten about cleansing astral signatures. That's a biggie for sure, but like you say *provided the character doesn't take a dual natured race* for the munchkin win. And I suppose taking adept metamagics upon initiation *could* be considered exploring the adept side of their nature, but I certainly wouldn't let it a /0 split run at my table.

Midas:
Again, I don't see merely taking the mystic adept quality and a 5/0 split as proof of abuse of the system. I think it reaches that point when you get anything which gives you astral perception for 'free'.


For example... you could make a gun adept/mystical investigator who specialized on crime scene investigation spells... but relied on adept centering and item attunement:pistols in combat.

Such a character would actually get much more powerful if he did start buying adept powers (like say agility boost, reaction boost, improved ability, etc.). In this case the character is by far sub-optimal and not an abuse of the system.


I disagree with this hard and fast it always is... it's like the court once said about pornography... I know abuse when I see abuse. Like half the posts telling the one newbie to take mystic adept instead of magician then abuse combat drugs to pull a fast one on his GM and use cheap power points to get assensing and other adept powers for less than it's going to take the mage to initiate and buy another point of magic. (30karma Mag 5->6 mage. 28 karma initiation/PP/&metamagic without discounts for an adept using the optional rules, 48karma Mag7/init1/megamatic mage... that's another 2 intiiations and pp for the adept as well as a metamagic.)

Just a quick check...I though mysads (SR4A) used their power point allocation to cast spells / summon, but treated their drain tests as their full magic rating?!? Ok, the OP was talking about lots of cyber too so this may be obvious...just away from my books at the moment

Aria... the rules in SR4a are very explicit... the full magic rating is used to develop at what force spells switch from stun to physical drain. As well as the determination of the maximum ranks you can have in a single adept power like say combat sense (full magic 5... you can spend 2.5PP for 5 ranks max).

The drain stats themselves are still the same... (so hermetic example drain is still rolling willpower + Logic). Magic only determines your maximum 'safe' force levels.

The portion of magic actually devoted to sorcery is your dice though... (so lets say 2 points out of 5 devoted to sorcery... then you roll 2 + spellcasting, not 5 + spellcasting).

That's what RAW explicitly says... the FAQ contradicts this but explicitly doesn't act as errata... so that is one major fail in the FAQ (3 points where FAQ contradicts RAW.. that's it... every other one can fit within a grey area of the rules).

I think we are reading a bit too deep in the rules here.

The spell Levitate explicitly says "The caster must achive a treshold on the spellcasting test test equal to 1 per 200kg of the subjects mass".

Nowhere does it says "in addition to treshold modifier for object resistance".

This is basically how the spell worked in SR3 and should work in SR4. A simple spell where the treshold is the weight of the object, not the object resistance modifier - it is replaced by the weight. So ONE SUCCESS to levitate someone weighting up to 200 kilograms and 1 success for that smartgun on the floor.

How many spells do? I'm AFB, but I thought it was an overarching rule that didn't need to be re-stated each time it applies.

Fair enough, my GMing style is to stick with hard and fast rules as much as I can, and then perhaps bend them if a player were to bring me a really cool concept that fell outside these rules. Hasn't happened yet, but then again our group is pretty small and the players have been running the same characters for a few years now.

I still stand by my interpretation of your RAW quote (post 46 and 47), although I will give you that the phrasing is loose enough to also allow your take on it. To me, the strength of Mys Ads is in access to both magic (spells and spirits) and adept powers, and the 1PP of adept powers the character would gain by sacrificing all of 1 die on their spellcasting/summoning DP largely make this point moot outside of theory - I mean, your mystical investigator above would certainly gain from taking Astral Perception as well as perception boosting powers on top of the examples you gave.

Thanks! I thought that was the case, I've got another mysad floating around in my brain and I wanted to make sure I hadn't grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick

I don't know how to take your reference to me.

In other news: like others have stated, the inability to use Astral Projection/Perception and remove their astral trail pretty much insure that the quality is not abused. What would you think of a MysAd using a 1/X split and using that one PP for Astral Sight? Is that still "abusing" your concept of a MysAd, since he's only "using a work around" for his inability to access the astral? What if the MysAd starts off with a 1/0 split because he only has 1 Magic and the character intends to raise Magic and split in the future? What if the same thing happens with a 5/0 split or 6/0 split? There is such a thing as Initiation, you know. How about temporary Magic increases, like Essence Drain (I know, *hiss*) or Magic Pacts? What if a 5/0 Split MysAd takes a Magic Pact to periodically pump his Magic up and uses all the temporary points to buff his 0 split?

In short, the "abuse" of a MysAd is purely up to GM Fiat to determine, and as such there cannot possibly be a "right" or "wrong" answer to this.

Also, in the course of my writing, a 1 Magic would be a really good fit with a Magic Pact.

My reference to you was to your post 40, about wasting BP on things you were never going to use. That and your self-proclaimed RAW-fu powergaming tendencies. No offence intended, so I hope none taken.

I would be fine with a Mys Ad who used a /1 split with his PP used on Astral Perception; as Falconer pointed out in post 51, at 10BP for the quality and 10BP for the point of Magic it is hardly an exploit (although that point of magic will count towards max force for spells and spirits, so it is not quite as gimped as Falconer suggested).

The one and only time I would allow a /0 split was if the character had just started with a Magic 1, although I am more than aware that other GMs will interpret the RAW differently to me and allow /0 splits with higher Magic ratings. YMMV.

Temporary Magic gains are rare and largely superfluous to this discussion, although I can see where you are going with this, and I might make a Rule of Cool exception for a Joe-the-mild-mannered-wimpy-submage who becomes an adept-tastic superman when his Magic temporarily increases, as it is certainly an interesting RP concept.

Well there are several, Improved Invisibility, Ignite, Analyze Device and all Direct Combat spells for example.
The Spellcasting walkthrough is written in such a way as to say that all spells cast onto nonliving objects must beat the OR, but this would have a lot of silly consequences:
- Since the rules nowhere state that thresholds may be added up, you could levitate the moon with a threshold of 1 instead of a ridiculously high threshold.

- It is easier to levitate a 400kg rock than a commlink

- Nothing prevents the magician to put the commlink into a jute bag to reduce the threshold.

Just re-read the rules and now don't know where I stand in terms of RAW.


If you're only going to use one of the two thresholds I agree it would be silly to pick the general one over the spell-specific one.


The way I see the spell I don't consider this silly. Unlike Magic Fingers, Levitate does not create a suite of forces with which to push/pull the target. Instead it imbues (for want of a better word) the target with the ability to move freely in three-dimensional space at the whim of the caster. In this way it makes perfect sense for a commlink to be harder to levitate because as a sophisticated technological item it is harder to 'imbue'.


Fine by me. Not everything has to be a tradeoff and if this leads a magician to carry around a bag-of-levitating-small-things so be it. A practical solution to a practical problem.

Not really limited to the requirement to beat the OR, but think about typing a hemp rope around a truck and "only" levitating the rope. The rope is imbued with the ability to move in three dimesions at a certain speed. Being tied to a much more massive object does not change that.

Don't you think that's a rather unnecessarily blinkered view? One wouldn't apply such logic to non-magic issues. The rules say you can throw grenades up to a certain distance without the caveat that it mustn't be tied to anything, but nobody would allow that to move a tethered truck. There seems to be a tendency for people to allow for extra considerations in all aspects except magic which is instead expected to account for all eventualities.

Exactly, Because we have expectations how mundane things are supposed to work but we do not have nay clue how magic is suppoed to work. That is why the description of Magic has to account for all eventualities.

I disagree wholeheartedly. They can't and never ever will. I also think it incorrect to say we don't know how magic is supposed to work - Levitating a rope is definately not meant to be able to lift a truck and if I may be so bold I think the fact that you used it as an extreme example indicates that you know this too. Maintaining that the absence of a ruling equates to anything goes will destroy most roleplaying systems and SR would be one of the first to fall.

I'm not saying that the absence of a rule allows everything, I'm just saying that due to the absence of a rule, any judgment you make is a houserule and as such largely arbitrary.

Since you are pretty sure how Levitate "is supposed to work", a couple of questions for you:
- what happens to the target's speed if the caster is moving?
- what happens if the target is moving?
- does the fact any object on earth is always moving at high speed to to the earth's rotation around its own axis and the sun have any bearing o the resulting speed of a levitated object?

However you answer, the rules generated by those answers have interesting consequences.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a houserule but granted common sense will vary GM to GM.

1. Nothing. Why would it be affected? The spell doesn't physically connect the two masses.
2. If the target has an aerial propulsion system then it still moves accordingly but the Levitate velocity (NB not speed) is added to it. E.g. A bird flying at 10m per turn is Levitated in the opposite direction at 6m per turn ends up moving in the original direction at 4m per turn.
3. No. Any alternative would be madness and definitely not how magic is "supposed to work".

What interesting consequences do these answers create?

If common sense varies from GM to GM it can't be that common
So the velocity in relation to the caster can be a lot higher than what the spell grants
Again this is not what the spell states. The bird could resist but it will move at the velocity of Force*net hits if the caster wins.

I agree on that one. But since the spell does not indicate a frame of reference either decision is equally valid.

If the target's velocity is measured in reference to the caster, Drive-By levitating is an interesting way to seriously injure people even without high amouts of net hits.

If the velocity is in relation to the earth's surface, starting to levitate persons or objects inside fast moving vehicles will become an interesting way to use the ramming rules.

Nothing in the spell's description indicate that velocities are supposed to be added. If you could do that you could use levitate as a "poor man's movement power". Levitate a Heimdall in the right direction for a speed boost.

Also you cannot decide case by case because magic is not intelligent.

That all sounds dangerously like science instead of a game.

Where is there even the slightest implication that the movement created has anything to do with the caster's own velocity?
As I remember it (AFB) the resistance test is to resist the spell not the motion - do I have that wrong?


No, it is not valid for a Levitated item to rocket into space as soon as the spell is cast on grounds that it is relative to the universe and no longer the Earth. That would go against the very notion of levitation in a magical setting and the inclusion of the spell in the rules as a useful tool. You might want to rocket something into space but such a spell would never be referred to as Levitation, not by players, developers or characters.


Again, there is literally no reason to assume this.


This I accept.


It doesn't say they are added, but where does it say that one replaces the other? Surely without explicit reference or overwhelming reasoning to the contrary it makes more than enough sense that magical effects supplement the environment rather than supplant it? If a Levitated bird cannot fly, why is it allowed to move it's wings at all? Or feet, beak or neck? Are all living targets frozen by this spell?
"Poor man's movement power"? Why not? It already increases movement rates from 0 to x, so why would it not work in conjunction with existing movement? That makes perfect sense, whereas being able to stop a missile dead because the speed of the target has no bearing on the Force required does not.

The *practical* effects are probably some combination of 'assume the most logical local reference frame' (i.e., being inside a moving vehicle counts) and 'add vectors' (meaning, it's not a 'stop' spell). Whether the RAW says/implies/supports either of these is irrelevant, of course, but we can certainly argue about it for fun.

Nowhere, but since no reference system is given, this one is as valid as any other.

The spell not the motion is resisted, but as per the description of the spell, if the spell succeeds, the caster moves the target at a maximum velocity of Force* Net Hits m/turn, not that the target's motion is changed by up to that velocity.


You are absolutely right. I'm just pointing out that without a reference system, using an inertial frame of reference with an origin somewhere in the universe is not any less valid than any other reference system.

As above choosing this reference system is no less valid than any other one

The target or possibly the center of gravity of the target moves at a maximum speed of Force*Net Hits m/turn. You could use the previous velocity of the target as reference or you could use any other one. They are all equally valid. Whether a target is completely paralyzed or not is up to the individual GM.

Of course it makes sense, but it does not make more sense than stopping a missile dead, because physics has nothing to do with it. You know it's magic. BTW why do you agree with me on that in the case of a passenger in a car but not on the case of a missile? It is basically the same thing. It can be only one because magic is not intelligent.

You know what also does not work like real world physics: levitating a troll or other living creature weighing more than 200kg. If the target wants to be levitated the magician has to beat a threshold of 2, if not it is an opposed roll. An average troll (WIL 3) would only generate one hit to oppose the caster's on average.

That is in fact the definition of a House-Rule. When any rule is altered by the GM for a table a House-Rule has been created; House-Rules can be created simply by differing interpretations of ambiguous RAW.

Have you managed to miss the physics threads in regards to buckytubes and the feasability of monowhips?

Shadowrun IS science dammit.

Actually this spell is rather awesome at Force one.

You basically nullify a spirits invulnerability as it strikes out his Hardened armor and it also becomes 1/2 armor due to the elemental effect.

Ha, The Jopp, not at all. It's technobabble at best.

Why are you meleeing a spirit? Run, stupid!

Because with a Strength of 4, a sword, and one hit on this spell you're doing six physical (assuming a good element) damage base that ignores their Immunity? That threatens spirits significantly.

EDIT: And that character is obviously not built for melee. It's worse with a character built for melee, like my team's fomori with 11 strength and a mace - base DV 9P, and a dicepool to actually get things done with it.

Ah, but you forgot that melee always sucks for everything, period. Just have the team's *real* mage Stunbolt the spirit and be done with it.

Besides, a Smart Spirit (and what spirit is not smart) will just use his Confusion or Fear powers rather than Melee the armed idiot with the Elemental Aura on him. Saying otherwise is just stupidity. Spirits are not stupid.

I'm still not sure whether [Element] Aura should negate ItNW. You do not attack with a spell or a critter power, but change the attacker's (mundane) attacks to elemental not magical damage. The attack would of course get the -half AP.

If you want mundane attacks that ignore ItNW, just have your dog attack the spirit

It seems pretty clear (to me) that [Element] Aura should negate itnw. This is a spell with sustained magical effects. Normal fire, I would say doesn't negate itnw. Fire produced on a torch from the Ignite spell, for example, would be "normal" fire and also wouldn't negate itnw. A sustained spell that gives a fire "aura" to a person, that doesn't harm the person but only those attacked by the person? Seems pretty magical.

I guess this would've been solved if there were an actual category for magical damage...

When I suggested [Element] Aura, I was only suggesting it for the -half AP which is quite nice.

-D

How would you rule on someone aiming with the Hawkeye spell? This is a sustained magical effect as well. Neither of the two produce magical damage.

Hawkeye does not affect the Target of the ranged attack. It affects the individual USING the ranged attack. In this case, the Hawkeye ability does not apply magical damage to the target (it provides an aiming boost to the user). In Elemental Aura's case, however, there is a sustained MAGICAL effect on a person that extends to the wapon wielded. Anyone attacking the individual in Melee combat comes in contact with the Aura (that is magical) and anyone the individual attacks in Melee combat comes into contact with the Aura (that is magical). ITNW is negatred by Magical Damage. Elemental Aura deals augmented Damage by nature of the sustained magic. Therefore, Elemental Aura is a Magical Effect that bypasses ITNW. Pretty simnple really.

The issue is that most spirits ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE PHYSICAL ATTACKS against someone with an Elemental Aura Spell sustained upon them, unles they have absolutely no choice whatsoever. There are other options for spirits, and those options cannot be counterspelled away. *Shrug*

Hmm . . If i were to cast Elemental Aura on a Troll wielding a Mono-Whip, what, exactly, would happen?
Aside from the GM whacking me fo trying that?

These all sound like the exact intended use of Element Aura, to me. There aren't that many (legitimate) ways to hurt stronger spirits, and this is one that actually passes the smell test. Even though we're sort of specifically looking for 'tricks' in this thread, I don't imagine there's tons of abuse potential: it's limited to Knack users and low magic casters, which are both pretty rare and have their own balance factors.

Both spells affect the attacker, not the spirit. Both grant a higher damage potential to the attacker. Neither deals magical damage, one deals elemental damage.
They are not treated as magical Cold, Electricity, Fire etc.

The weapon the attacker uses is neither a weapon focus, a spell, an adept power nor a critter power. It is a mundane weapon that deals elemental damage, just like a taser or a flame thrower.


@Stahlseele: The question is does the whip deal (8+Spellcasting hits)P AP -half or (8+Spellcasting hits)P AP -half -4? Otherwise I see no problem with it. Also being a troll only helps for reach, as the monowhip's damage is not based on STR. A pixie with such an attack....

How then about hitting the spirit with an Indirect Combat spell? It has the exact same effect as the Elemental Aura spell.

No, that is something completely different. You hit the spirit with a spell that does elemental damage. Damage from spells is explicitly excluded from the immunity. Damage from a mundane (possibly elemental) attack that is enhanced by a spell is not. If it were, Hawkeye, Increase STR or Increase AGI would also circumvent ItNW.

No they would not... That is just silly.
Elemental Aura is a Spell that creates a Magical Elemental Damaging Effect, just like the Indirect Fireball spell does. You cannot allow one without allowing the other...

Note your statement: Damage from Spells is excluded from ITNW.
Elemental Aura Creates a Damaging Magical Effect, and amazingly enough, it is a spell.

Dakka Dakka, what's your best-case here? Even if you were right, you're just creating a problem: suddenly, magic fire on your hands *isn't* magic? That's not the situation that anyone would want. On the other hand, the expected and desired behavior is easily available by considering the magic damage from a spell/power (Aura) to act as magic damage. This is aside from the pretty wild mental leap required to equate Hawkeye and Aura.

Yah, i was thinking Reach.
Under SR3, Reach was the shiznit.
Not this weaksauce it is under SR4.

No The Aura spell creates an elemental effect by magic. Whether the damage form the Fireball is magical fire is irrelveant. It bypasses ItNW because it is a spell.

How about Shape Fire/Lightning/Acid etc.? Would a fire moved over the spirit by the shaping spell bypass ItNW?

But the spell does not affect the spirit. The spell's effect (elemental damage) affects the spirit. That is the difference between [Element] Aura and Fireball

I never said that the fire on the hands is not magic. I merely say that the magic of the aura spell does not affect the spirit, it affects the attacker. The spirit is only affected by the attacker's elemental damage.

There is no magic damage in SR and ItNW has a specific set of exclusions (weapon foci, spells, adept or critter powers). An elemental attack granted by a spell is not one of them. You do not attack with the spell but your damage is increased by the spell.

The defensive bonus on the other hand is the spell directly affecting the attacking spirit. This should bypass ItNW.

*Shakes Head*...

Did you even READ what you wrote above Dakka Dakka?
Simply amazing...

Apparently I fail to see how this is not the result of a spell and thus bypasses ItNW.

You are not attacking with the spell (as with a fireball) but you are attacking with an elemental effect that happens to be caused by a spell. The aura spell does not generate magical damage, it generates elemental damage. The spirit is not targeted by the spell he is targeted by a melee attack that does elemental damage. At least to me that is not the same thing.

And yet you claim that the defensive Applications of the spell are Magical in Nature and should bypass ITNW. Magic is not intelligent, Dakka Dakka. It cannot make determinations of whether it has been used offensively or defensively. If the defensive appplication works, then so does the offensive application. Cannot be both ways. You can not get around it, there is a Sustained Magical Effect in place. That magical effect creates damage, therefore it is capable of bypassing ITNW.