Just a small question that popped op when I was reading one of the posts...
If it isnt noted under a spell description or catagory that is a spell is resistable but in the table in the back it says it is, what do you do then?
Just a Dane
Full Version: Which is right, Description or Table?
I'd check the errata first. Then I'd think about what kind of spell it is, and whether it makes sense for it to be resisted or not.
[Edit]And if neither of those do the trick, I'd ask Dumpshock, and I'd include the information Dashifen asked for.
[/Edit]
[Edit]And if neither of those do the trick, I'd ask Dumpshock, and I'd include the information Dashifen asked for.
[/Edit]
What spell?
My Personal favorite is the detection Spells, it says the radius is your magic rating x force or something like that then the table says you can detect an astral form in another plain, but it 's out side of the radius...so what the hell is it?
Unlike the metaplanes, the astral plane corresponds directly to the physical plane. Just being on the astral plane does not automatically put you outside of the radius of a spell. An astral entity can easily be within 6 meters or 30 meters of a magician on the physical plane.
| QUOTE (PiXeL01 @ Aug 5 2004, 04:04 AM) |
| If it isnt noted under a spell description or catagory that is a spell is resistable but in the table in the back it says it is, what do you do then? |
Many spells do not include the fact that they are resisted as part of their description. In fact, all spells that try to directly affect characters are resisted, unless the target voluntarily accepts it, or it is a health spell and the target is unconscious. Many spells that indirectly affect characters are resisted as well, but the description might be somewhere else than in the spell description.
Detection spells are automatically resisted by the characters that might be detected, as described in the last paragraph of "Detection Spells", SR3.192, unless the subject expects the spell and chooses not to resist. Even unconscious characters will resist a detection spell, as they are not aware of the spell and its not a health spell. The targets of a detection spell are not aware of the detection spell. The GM can make the roll for the character if he wishes, without alerting the player that his character resisted a spell. This is commonly done with Detect Enemies spell, for example.
It was Enhanced Aim got got me confused. Why would a spell that enhances a players ability to aim be resisted. It isnt a spell you throw on a person you want to kill, but a spell that helps you ... To me it doesnt make much sense, that's all.
According to the table in the back of MITS it is resistable
According to the table in the back of MITS it is resistable
Enhanced Aim is casted usually on a vollunterery or on ones self there is no reason why an opponent being aimed at can resist.
Actually, enhanced aim is target resisted, IIRC. If you're sustaining enhanced aim, when you try to shoot someone, that target resists the spell to determine if you get an enhancement or not. The spell isn't something that affects your aim, but somehow connects you to your target and through that connection provides you an aiming enhancement. If the target shakes off that connection (i.e. resists the spell) then no enhancement. Insert other magical mumbo-jumbo to describe that connection at will.
YMMV: I've seen and played under GMs who house ruled this spell so it acted as a magical smartlink.
YMMV: I've seen and played under GMs who house ruled this spell so it acted as a magical smartlink.
Detection Spells are really screwy. It's something you just have to accept or house rule. Enhanced Aim and Night Vision are the two big "how on earth is anyone resisting those spells?" spells, especially compared to spells like Combat Sense and Catalog.
With detection spells it's pretty much the same as with indirect illusion spells:
You have a subject on which the spell is cast (in some cases that subject has to be voluntary) and you have an object (in the majority of all cases this object is involuntary) against which the spell develops it's effect.
Both subject and object are "targets" of the spell and thus can resist them, unless the spell itself states otherwise (like spells that generally require voluntary targets and thus fail automatically if one of the targets doesn't meet that requirement)
You have a subject on which the spell is cast (in some cases that subject has to be voluntary) and you have an object (in the majority of all cases this object is involuntary) against which the spell develops it's effect.
Both subject and object are "targets" of the spell and thus can resist them, unless the spell itself states otherwise (like spells that generally require voluntary targets and thus fail automatically if one of the targets doesn't meet that requirement)
MITS.140 clarifies that Detection spells can only be cast on willing subjects. The subject directs his the new sense, provided by the Detection Spell, at targets who get to resist the sense with a Spell Resistance Test, typically using Willpower. Normally designed Detection Spells require the caster to touch the Subject. Special design can produce a spell where the Caster only needs Line of Sight to the Subject.
Too bad, how fun would it be to cast something like "magnified vision" or "amplified hearing" on some unwilling target, then let loose a flash-grenade, or concussion-grenade...muhuwawa.
The difference between Subject and Target doesn't really have any bearing on spells like Night Vision or Enhanced Aim, though. These spells are (or more correctly, should be) enhancing the natural abilities of the subject. They shouldn't be detecting anyone or anything in and of itself anymore than Combat Sense does.
| QUOTE (Cochise) |
| With detection spells it's pretty much the same as with indirect illusion spells: You have a subject on which the spell is cast (in some cases that subject has to be voluntary) and you have an object (in the majority of all cases this object is involuntary) against which the spell develops it's effect. Both subject and object are "targets" of the spell and thus can resist them, unless the spell itself states otherwise (like spells that generally require voluntary targets and thus fail automatically if one of the targets doesn't meet that requirement) |
Nice explanation Cochise, it's too bad SR1-3 never explained it so clearly! I like the concepts of "subjects" and "objects" vs. "targets".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.