Full Version: sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?
| QUOTE (Dissonance) |
| Couldn't this have just been solved by a simple 'In my game' or 'Not in my game' answer? It's insane. |
The 'in my game' appeasement was tried a few times, to no avail.
Rory argues that he doesn't care what canon states, that canon is wrong and/or broken, that the designers were too lazy, didn't consider it a factor, took it for granted, didn't think about it, etc, but then tries to convince us that his view of things is canon anyway.
I actually envy Rory his game, since apprently the very worst of the munchin abuses he has to worry about involve sustained Levitate spells.
Okay, I'm breaking my self-imposed 'do not feed the Rory monster' to say this. Sorry, everyone.
| QUOTE |
| One being levitate does not work in a spell lock. And two, if it doe it gets the +2 TN for sustaining the spell, because nothing has changed by placing it in a lock except the need to resist drain each future use of it's abilities. |
Rory . . . what the HELL are you talking about? Okay, in your games sustaining foci do not work, we get that, your houserules are wacky and near and dear to your heart, we get that too. But this is just divorced from reality. Look, this bit is canon: you do not suffer drain every time you use an ability granted by a sustained spell. You suffer drain when you cast the spell, that's it, and the sustaining focus removes the +2 for sustaining. How could you read the rules differently at all? What madman has taken your SR3 and replaced it with this badly written knock-off?
| QUOTE |
| Not if one of the tasks is levitating an object that you can't break eye contact with, absolutely not. |
Nothing says you have to maintain LOS with an object to move it with levitate, only that you can only move it to somewhere within LOS. I know you're going to argue your head off at this, but, please, if you do give me a quote to back it up.
As to 6 mazes, sure. I just set the pointer path on each at a glance, and run my eyes back over it to set new destination sites. If the mazes only take 3 seconds, I should be done quickly enough. Heck, if I didn't mind having the mazes take slightly longer than 3 seconds, I could probably do something else in the meantime, like yawn or drink something or take a bite of my sandwich, or shoot somebody, depending on the situation.
| QUOTE |
| There is no reason to treat it like the Holy Bible. And on the errata page they even admit to making mistakes. |
Yeah, but they're changing their own rules. That's CANON, buddy, the holy bible of the SR universe. Anything else is just houserule.
| QUOTE |
| I doubt he would have the time to look into it for one. But the simpler interpretation to me is not to allow anything but passive spells in a spell lock, ones that require zero thought to sustain AND manipulate, if there is even a difference. |
Yay, you houseruled against something, leave it at that.
Edit: Oh, and if a spell requires no effort (or in your words 'zero thought') to sustain AND manipulate, why the hell would you need a sustaining focus for it? I mean, this hypothetical spell needs no effort, it's automatically sustained with no modifier. Throwing a spell like this into a sustaining focus is redundant and silly, since then you have to worry about things like how many foci you can have active at once, or focus addiction. Just sustain the spell yourself, since it requires no effort. This spell would also be non-canon, and therefore part and parced of your mad house-rule kingdom.
| QUOTE |
| It is not a straw man to point out possible abuses to a questionable interpretation of the rules. It is nothing more than showing that one interpretationa allows the outrageous abuses and the other does not. Call it a straw man if you want, but at the heart it is solid steel logic. |
Your argument was a strawman. It was a weak exaggeration designed to be easy to knock down. That's not solid steel logic (We've been beating you with solid steel logic, you've been ignoring it). Here's something for ya, autofire rules are basically for holding down the trigger and spraying lead all over the place. A normal mundane with no cyber'll be shooting 10 rounds in 3 seconds, yet a wired-to the max street Sam can do upwards of 40 in the same amount of time with the exact same gun. How is this possible? Well, it's in the rules, that's how. Some people think this is munchkinism and houserule that it can't happen (that would be your position in this discussion). Others shrug, take the rule and use it (the rest of us). This is not a perfect analogy, but I'm trying (oh god why am I trying?) to show you where the respective sides are here, so you can better understand your own position.
| QUOTE |
| And I either destroyed each one as it was posted, or you are reading too much into what has been posted. |
No, Rory, no you didn't. You failed to destroy them, or even scratch them. What you did was divest your position even furthar from the canon rules.
| QUOTE |
| Tarantula, don't flatter yourself. This question is so easy to splatter all over the thread it is not worth answering. Levitate is not a passive spell. Try levitating without thinking...at all. Unless you are prepared to say the foci levitates you intuitvely then levitate is not a passive spell. My 8 year old understands this. You have to at least have the milli second brain fart you think it requires to move the target to form the idea in the first place right? Meanwhile I am asleep with my word barrier up safe from ill thought out straw arguments. Splat.... |
Rory, just because you can't defeat another person's point is no reason to get annoyed at them. Bow to superior logic, don't snarl at it like an animal scratching at the bars of its cage (mixed metaphors, both accurate). You can throw a levitate spell into a sustaining foci (on, say, yourself), and then go to sleep. Will you move in your sleep? NO! Why would you think anything else? Is it that crazy replacement book again? It would, however, be there ready and waiting to be used once you woke up. Levitate is a 'passive' spell in this description, just like Increase Strength is a 'passive' spell.
That word barrier spell though... that would go a long way towards explaining how you can keep missing the point.
My favorite part of this thread is how Rory keeps calling everything anyone else says a "straw man" or a "straw argument." He's got a new phrase, and he just can't keep himself from using it (incorrectly), despite us posting about two pages, solid, of definitions of Straw Men. Heh. I dig that. It's like a little kid that just learned a dirty word.
Now that Critas mentions it,
1. Rory: In your own words. Define "Straw-man argument."
2. Rory: Do you define "munchkin" as warping rules to become overpowered? If so, what is munchkin about spending several thousand
and some karma to be able to levitate one object (such as the caster himself) freely? Please don't start up with the 6 man ballet. Let's start small and work our way up. Is a mage who spent and karma to float instead of walk a munchkin? I'm not asking about the rules right now--you've made your position (somewhat) clear, but you threw out the word munchkin, and I want to know why you feel that way.
1. Rory: In your own words. Define "Straw-man argument."
2. Rory: Do you define "munchkin" as warping rules to become overpowered? If so, what is munchkin about spending several thousand
and some karma to be able to levitate one object (such as the caster himself) freely? Please don't start up with the 6 man ballet. Let's start small and work our way up. Is a mage who spent and karma to float instead of walk a munchkin? I'm not asking about the rules right now--you've made your position (somewhat) clear, but you threw out the word munchkin, and I want to know why you feel that way.
After listening to both sides of this argument, I'm codifying my own house rulings on it like this (as usual, YMMV):
1) There is nothing in canon to suggest that using a sustaining focus to maintain a spell removes control of that spell's use from the caster. Although it is not explicitly stated that it does not do so, IMO it makes more mechanical sense that control remains with the caster.
2) The +2 target number for sustaining a spell is just that. It has no bearing on how complex the spell is to use or whether it requires any further input. Since both Armour and Levitate require a +2 TN mod to sustain, I cannot in any fashion justify additional TN mods for using Levitate once in a sustaining focus.
3) However, I agree that controlling multiple usages of the same spell must become increasingly difficult. Since I disagree that focus-sustained spells impose TN mods, I need another means of reflecting this. Therefore instead of TN mods, I will be reflecting this by actions.
- One flyer: not a problem. He runs, he walks, he flies; the mind says "go" and the body follows. Controlling someone else I might make a Free Action (those are still limited in number in SR3, right?).
- Multiple flyers following the same course and speed: Simple Action. Like drawing multiple lines with a handful of pencils. It's awkward, but not exactly hard. Feel free to shoot someone at the same time, but it's using too much of your attention to cast another spell.
- Multiple flyers following varying courses and speeds: Complex Action. Visualising that kind of movement would take most of your concentration.
To me, that satisfies both sides of the argument. As I said, YMMV.
1) There is nothing in canon to suggest that using a sustaining focus to maintain a spell removes control of that spell's use from the caster. Although it is not explicitly stated that it does not do so, IMO it makes more mechanical sense that control remains with the caster.
2) The +2 target number for sustaining a spell is just that. It has no bearing on how complex the spell is to use or whether it requires any further input. Since both Armour and Levitate require a +2 TN mod to sustain, I cannot in any fashion justify additional TN mods for using Levitate once in a sustaining focus.
3) However, I agree that controlling multiple usages of the same spell must become increasingly difficult. Since I disagree that focus-sustained spells impose TN mods, I need another means of reflecting this. Therefore instead of TN mods, I will be reflecting this by actions.
- One flyer: not a problem. He runs, he walks, he flies; the mind says "go" and the body follows. Controlling someone else I might make a Free Action (those are still limited in number in SR3, right?).
- Multiple flyers following the same course and speed: Simple Action. Like drawing multiple lines with a handful of pencils. It's awkward, but not exactly hard. Feel free to shoot someone at the same time, but it's using too much of your attention to cast another spell.
- Multiple flyers following varying courses and speeds: Complex Action. Visualising that kind of movement would take most of your concentration.
To me, that satisfies both sides of the argument. As I said, YMMV.
Dr Jest, your summary looks quite solid and makes perfect sense to me.
I'm tempted to start ignoring Rory's attempts to use logic, but I'm sure the instant I do that he's going to start dancing about how he's won. Maybe I should have reported the "Hitler" attacks he made on Sharaloth and I.
Anyway: Rory, get over it. Levitate and Increased Strength are the same. Under one, someone can use telekinesis. Under the other, someone's got something that's boosting their strength all the time. There's no such thing as a passive spell. There's a spell or a sustained spell. Get over that too.
You've said you're all over disallowing sustaining foci entirely. You seem to have an incredible bias against spellcasters. Have you gotten over your head with magical PCs?
You're going nuts Rory. The spell itself doesn't change -- I think everyone here has hit you over the head with something saying that. You're saying that the spell effect doesn't even change. The spell effect, which isn't even part of the spell! If I use a spell to conjure a ball of flame that splatters on impact, I'm not changing the spell when I throw it at someone. I'm not changing the spell when the ball splatters open and lights the person on fire. I'm just using the spell. If a spell gives me the ability to do something, then the spell isn't changing when I do it. The spell just gives me the ability to.
So, the spell can be locked. Why? Because the spell is constant the entire time. Your car analogy is so broken it's not funny. The onus of proof is on YOU to prove that levitate 'up' is a fundamentally different spell then levitate 'forward'. And, quite frankly, I don't think you're competant enough as a GM to be able to justify that. You have got no arguments based on anything but your own personal opinion, which you're passing off as 'common sense' although it appears to be nothing more than an attempt to convince yourself that you really do have something valid to say.
And you haven't proved anything about the increase strength spell. There are no passive spells. There are only spells that change something and spells that give an ability (either to the caster as stated, or to the target). Levitate gives an ability. Increased Strength gives an ability. If nothing can be changed about how levitate can be used in a sustaining focus, then nothing can be changed about increased strength in a sustaining focus. So, if the focus gives +5 strength, you've got someone who can't do anything delicate, because everything he does has +5 strength, no matter how little of his own he's using. And that's being incredibly generous. Strictly speaking, the person wouldn't be able to move at all, because the spell works on the muscles and the focus removes all thought and control over the spell.. so the muscles can no longer be controlled, because controlling them is controlling the spell..
Hmm... sustaining foci for increase strength kill. The heart can't beat anymore. Neat.
I'm tempted to start ignoring Rory's attempts to use logic, but I'm sure the instant I do that he's going to start dancing about how he's won. Maybe I should have reported the "Hitler" attacks he made on Sharaloth and I.
Anyway: Rory, get over it. Levitate and Increased Strength are the same. Under one, someone can use telekinesis. Under the other, someone's got something that's boosting their strength all the time. There's no such thing as a passive spell. There's a spell or a sustained spell. Get over that too.
You've said you're all over disallowing sustaining foci entirely. You seem to have an incredible bias against spellcasters. Have you gotten over your head with magical PCs?
You're going nuts Rory. The spell itself doesn't change -- I think everyone here has hit you over the head with something saying that. You're saying that the spell effect doesn't even change. The spell effect, which isn't even part of the spell! If I use a spell to conjure a ball of flame that splatters on impact, I'm not changing the spell when I throw it at someone. I'm not changing the spell when the ball splatters open and lights the person on fire. I'm just using the spell. If a spell gives me the ability to do something, then the spell isn't changing when I do it. The spell just gives me the ability to.
So, the spell can be locked. Why? Because the spell is constant the entire time. Your car analogy is so broken it's not funny. The onus of proof is on YOU to prove that levitate 'up' is a fundamentally different spell then levitate 'forward'. And, quite frankly, I don't think you're competant enough as a GM to be able to justify that. You have got no arguments based on anything but your own personal opinion, which you're passing off as 'common sense' although it appears to be nothing more than an attempt to convince yourself that you really do have something valid to say.
And you haven't proved anything about the increase strength spell. There are no passive spells. There are only spells that change something and spells that give an ability (either to the caster as stated, or to the target). Levitate gives an ability. Increased Strength gives an ability. If nothing can be changed about how levitate can be used in a sustaining focus, then nothing can be changed about increased strength in a sustaining focus. So, if the focus gives +5 strength, you've got someone who can't do anything delicate, because everything he does has +5 strength, no matter how little of his own he's using. And that's being incredibly generous. Strictly speaking, the person wouldn't be able to move at all, because the spell works on the muscles and the focus removes all thought and control over the spell.. so the muscles can no longer be controlled, because controlling them is controlling the spell..
Hmm... sustaining foci for increase strength kill. The heart can't beat anymore. Neat.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) | ||
Tarantula, don't flatter yourself. This question is so easy to splatter all over the thread it is not worth answering. Levitate is not a passive spell. Try levitating without thinking...at all. Unless you are prepared to say the foci levitates you intuitvely then levitate is not a passive spell. My 8 year old understands this. You have to at least have the milli second brain fart you think it requires to move the target to form the idea in the first place right? Meanwhile I am asleep with my word barrier up safe from ill thought out straw arguments. Splat.... |
Rory, once more. You are argueing that because the spell is "lock"ed in the focus when you cast it, you can't change anything about it, right?
Now, I cast armor into a focus, on myself. Its locked at force 6, cause thats what I cast it at, and its on me. Thats all. It adds to my armor ratings, and makes me glow a bit, thats the ability granted.
If I get shot, is that changing the spell? I mean, its reducing my damage I'm taking, thats using the effects, is there a penalty for that?
If no, now we look at the levitate spell.
I cast levitate into a focus, on myself. Its locked at force 6, cause thats what I cast it at, I'm locked as the target, and I'm also locked as the caster, thats all. I (the caster) am now able to move myself (the target) with my mind, thats the ability granted.
I don't have to move myself, I'm not force to, I can, if I feel like it, or I can choose not to, if I don't feel like it. Regardless, I have the ability to do so. You have the ability to see light. So do I. As long as the levitate spell is sustained, I can now levitate myself (still using the example) around, the same as I can see light.
Just because I decide to float forward instead of up, doesn't matter, its all 'levitation' of myself. It gives me the ability to levitate myself, which includes all the directions, and speed up to what the spell description says. Nothing that was 'lock'ed is being changed, I'm using the spell effects the same as being shot with an armor spell is using spell effects.
Please, argue against me in your point by point fasion. I even broke it up into nice little segments for you to digest one at a time.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.