Epic Fail.
Full Version: Abusing Sustaining Foci
Damnit. I R teh suk.
Epic Fail.
Epic Fail.
Im kind of lost here. The way I understand sustaining foci works is like this: u first cast a spell, suppose u design a F1 spell and spend edge on it, lets say u get a couple of hits beyond limit so the spell can actually be more than F1 according to the rules. After u cast it u need to decide who will sustain it, if its u or the Foci and if u have F1 FOCI u cannnot just sustain the spell on it cause its more than F1, simple. Its not that u cast the speel on the Foci premedited, its a sustaining Foci not a Focus on which the spell has to be cast on it.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but the sustaning foci is to "sustain" an already casted spell, and limits of force still apply as far as I see it. I cant see how someone can exploit it.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but the sustaning foci is to "sustain" an already casted spell, and limits of force still apply as far as I see it. I cant see how someone can exploit it.
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin @ Mar 12 2008, 07:26 PM) 
That's just it, people's opinions (not arguments) were valid with or without the fallacy. The argument (if you could call it that) stood even if you took out the word "weaselly." Instead, you focused on that part and debunked the whole thing because of it, considering the whole post an attack. That's wrong, in my opinion. You may disagree, but that's also your opinion. Neither of us could be any more or less correct because of that.
If that were true then people would have no problem withdrawing the fallacy and continuing to discuss their opinions on their merits.
I never attempted to debunk the whole thing, just the rhetoric.
This thread has exploded because there are now half a dozen of you defending the rhetoric.
I happen to agree that house-ruling that sustaining foci can only sustain net hits equal to their force is reasonable.
Stop defending the rhetoric and I'll be more than happy to shut up about it.
QUOTE (Nefacio @ Mar 12 2008, 08:00 PM)
Im kind of lost here. The way I understand sustaining foci works is like this: u first cast a spell, suppose u design a F1 spell and spend edge on it, lets say u get a couple of hits beyond limit so the spell can actually be more than F1 according to the rules. After u cast it u need to decide who will sustain it, if its u or the Foci and if u have F1 FOCI u cannnot just sustain the spell on it cause its more than F1, simple. Its not that u cast the speel on the Foci premedited, its a sustaining Foci not a Focus on which the spell has to be cast on it.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but the sustaning foci is to "sustain" an already casted spell, and limits of force still apply as far as I see it. I cant see how someone can exploit it.
Someone correct me if I am wrong but the sustaning foci is to "sustain" an already casted spell, and limits of force still apply as far as I see it. I cant see how someone can exploit it.
By RAW spending Edge on a spell does not increase it's Force. It does not change it's Drain or it's base DV.
The spell in your example remains Force 1 for all purposes except max permitted hits.
QUOTE (Nefacio @ Mar 12 2008, 03:00 PM)
Someone correct me if I am wrong but the sustaning foci is to "sustain" an already casted spell, and limits of force still apply as far as I see it. I cant see how someone can exploit it.
Without edge:
I cast a F1 detect Blah spell, I get 4 hits (on my 12 dice), my hits are capped to 1 due to it being a F1 spell and I hand it off to my Force 1 Detection Sustaining Focus.
The spell continues to operate at F1 with 1 hit, and I don't take sustaining penalties.
With edge:
I cast a F1 detect Blah spell, spend a point of edge for extra dice and get 7 hits (on my 18 dice), my hits are not capped because I spent edge and I hand it off to my Force 1 Detection Sustaining Focus.
The spell continues to operate at F1 with 7 hits, and I don't take sustaining penalties.
Now, with a lot of spells, this doesn't matter all that much because they have a minimum force unrelated to their hit cap or because their force figures into their functioning in some meaningful way above and beyond the hit cap. But for a subset of spells, the only thing force really changes is how easy it is to dispell the spell and the hit cap, the actual active effect of the spell is entirely dependent on hits.
Some people some to think this is weaselly, I just think it's a good reason for F1 sustaining foci to exist, as otherwise they are pretty much useless (most sustained spells need net hits above a threshold to actually DO anything, and the base threshold is 1). Edge is a limited resource, and the spells are absurdly fragile.
QUOTE (crizh @ Mar 12 2008, 01:28 PM)
I didn't 'take' it as an attack or 'see' it as an attack, it is an attack.
Here's the thing: I agree with you. Your position is valid. I've said it several times, and yet you continue to insist that I'm attacking you. Yes, insulting your position is rhetoric, but it is not aimed at undermining it as you suggest. If I agree with your position, why am I also attacking it? That would be quixotic.
If I'm the GM though, I don't care how valid the position is, *I* get to decide. I was just saying, for what it's worth, I would shut down a player who tried to do what you're suggesting, because I just plain don't like it. You can lambast me for using unfair rhetoric all you want. At the core if it, this discussion is an absolute waste of time. You already won, and crying about the words I used when letting you win is a bit ridiculous.
QUOTE (GryMor @ Mar 12 2008, 02:25 PM)
Without edge:
I cast a F1 detect Blah spell, I get 4 hits (on my 12 dice), my hits are capped to 1 due to it being a F1 spell and I hand it off to my Force 1 Detection Sustaining Focus.
The spell continues to operate at F1 with 1 hit, and I don't take sustaining penalties.
With edge:
I cast a F1 detect Blah spell, spend a point of edge for extra dice and get 7 hits (on my 18 dice), my hits are not capped because I spent edge and I hand it off to my Force 1 Detection Sustaining Focus.
The spell continues to operate at F1 with 7 hits, and I don't take sustaining penalties.
Now, with a lot of spells, this doesn't matter all that much because they have a minimum force unrelated to their hit cap or because their force figures into their functioning in some meaningful way above and beyond the hit cap. But for a subset of spells, the only thing force really changes is how easy it is to dispell the spell and the hit cap, the actual active effect of the spell is entirely dependent on hits.
Some people some to think this is weaselly, I just think it's a good reason for F1 sustaining foci to exist, as otherwise they are pretty much useless (most sustained spells need net hits above a threshold to actually DO anything, and the base threshold is 1). Edge is a limited resource, and the spells are absurdly fragile.
I cast a F1 detect Blah spell, I get 4 hits (on my 12 dice), my hits are capped to 1 due to it being a F1 spell and I hand it off to my Force 1 Detection Sustaining Focus.
The spell continues to operate at F1 with 1 hit, and I don't take sustaining penalties.
With edge:
I cast a F1 detect Blah spell, spend a point of edge for extra dice and get 7 hits (on my 18 dice), my hits are not capped because I spent edge and I hand it off to my Force 1 Detection Sustaining Focus.
The spell continues to operate at F1 with 7 hits, and I don't take sustaining penalties.
Now, with a lot of spells, this doesn't matter all that much because they have a minimum force unrelated to their hit cap or because their force figures into their functioning in some meaningful way above and beyond the hit cap. But for a subset of spells, the only thing force really changes is how easy it is to dispell the spell and the hit cap, the actual active effect of the spell is entirely dependent on hits.
Some people some to think this is weaselly, I just think it's a good reason for F1 sustaining foci to exist, as otherwise they are pretty much useless (most sustained spells need net hits above a threshold to actually DO anything, and the base threshold is 1). Edge is a limited resource, and the spells are absurdly fragile.
So following this if I were to dispel the Sustained spell:
Without Edge:
I would roll my spell pool in an opposed test vs. the Force of the Spell with a threshold of 1.
In this case, dispell pool dice vs. 1 Die 1 Threshold. Meaning if I get 2 total hits the Sustained Spell Fails.
With Edge:
I would roll my spell pool in an opposed test vs. the Force of the Spell with a threshold of 7.
In this case, dispell pool dice vs. 1 Die 7 Threshold. Meaning if I get 8 total hits the Sustained Spell Fails.
Is that correct? (still working on the threshold thing from other threads..)
QUOTE (Slymoon @ Mar 12 2008, 09:00 PM)
So following this if I were to dispel the Sustained spell:
Without Edge:
I would roll my spell pool in an opposed test vs. the Force of the Spell with a threshold of 1.
In this case, dispell pool dice vs. 1 Die 1 Threshold. Meaning if I get 2 total hits the Sustained Spell Fails.
With Edge:
I would roll my spell pool in an opposed test vs. the Force of the Spell with a threshold of 7.
In this case, dispell pool dice vs. 1 Die 7 Threshold. Meaning if I get 8 total hits the Sustained Spell Fails.
Is that correct? (still working on the threshold thing from other threads..)
Without Edge:
I would roll my spell pool in an opposed test vs. the Force of the Spell with a threshold of 1.
In this case, dispell pool dice vs. 1 Die 1 Threshold. Meaning if I get 2 total hits the Sustained Spell Fails.
With Edge:
I would roll my spell pool in an opposed test vs. the Force of the Spell with a threshold of 7.
In this case, dispell pool dice vs. 1 Die 7 Threshold. Meaning if I get 8 total hits the Sustained Spell Fails.
Is that correct? (still working on the threshold thing from other threads..)
Yup, that looks about right.
Except each net hit you score permanently reduces it's net hits by one.
If you didn't get it down the first time the second attempt would certainly dispel it. Drain won't be very scary either.
Edge doesn't raise the force of the spell, which is why you can put a force 1 edge'd spell with 5 net hits into a force 1 sustaining focus.
But dispelling doesn't go against the spell's net hits, it goes against the force. If you use edge to cast a force 1 spell into a force 1 sustaining focus, it will be a threshold 1 to dispel it no matter how many hits you got on the spellcasting test. I'm 99% sure of this, unless someone can quote me any rules that can contradict me. I'm quite sure that you can't though.
Or did I misunderstand the question? w/e
But dispelling doesn't go against the spell's net hits, it goes against the force. If you use edge to cast a force 1 spell into a force 1 sustaining focus, it will be a threshold 1 to dispel it no matter how many hits you got on the spellcasting test. I'm 99% sure of this, unless someone can quote me any rules that can contradict me. I'm quite sure that you can't though.
Or did I misunderstand the question? w/e
QUOTE ('BBB p. 176')
The dispelling magician makes a Counterspelling + Magic Opposed Test against the spell’s Force + caster’s Magic (+ Karma spent in the case of quickened spells). Each net hit scored on this test reduces the hits from the original test to cast to spell. If a spell’s hits are reduced, any effects the spell applies are also reduced accordingly. If the spell’s hits are reduced to 0, the spell immediately ends.
So, if someone with magic 5 cast a F1 spell with 7 successes, you'd make an opposed test vs magic (5) + Force (1), and every net hit would reduce the 7 successes... Also, dispelling drain would be for dispelling a F1 spell...
Yep, thanks for the quote 
It is also a force 1 spell while accidentially being forced through a barrier. And spells that loose are disrupted, noone ever asking about net hits. And recasting requires another point of edge. I don´t find it unbalanced.
That said, and for different reasons, spending a point of edge does not remove the cap on max. hits in our game.
That said, and for different reasons, spending a point of edge does not remove the cap on max. hits in our game.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.