Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Malcolm Shaw malhms@*********.com.au
Subject:	Spell Defense and Foci
Date:	Fri, 09 Jul 1999 01:20:34 +1000

Message no. 1 The other night during our weekly Shadowrun game a spell/spell defence
argument arose in regards to casting an area effect spell.
In SR3 page 183, under the heading of Spell Defence, it says "A
character can protect a maximum number of subjects equal to their
Sorcery Rating." and then towards the end of the second paragraph "If
successes from the Spell Defence reduce the caster's successes to 0 or
less, the spell fails." This to me is contradictory if using the
following example -

A Mage (A) cast an area effect spell at a group of people (say 50) in a
large room. A second Mage (B) and say three companions are affected by
but not the target of the spell. If Mage A has say 6 successes and Mage
B 4 successes, then Mage B and his companions are the subject of Mage
A's spell at two successes. OK so far? - but now how about the rest of
the people in the room? Do they roll against the spell at 2 successes or
at the original 6 successes? Or if Mage B has more successes than Mage
A then as the book says does the spell fail? and if so then no one in
the room is subjected to the spell? - what if the area effect spell is
say a fireball? Do they suffer the secondary effects? - even if the
spell fails/partially fails or they are protected to some degree.

To my way of thinking the statement "A character can protect a maximum
number of subjects equal to their Sorcery Rating" is the key factor. If
this is so then Mage B can only reduce the spell effects for him and his
companions and the rest in the room take the full spell effect. If Mage
B is successful in reducing the effects of the spell to 0 or less for
him and his companions then they take no effect but the rest still do,
and if say the area effect spell has secondary effects then they are
subject to them the same as the rest of the people in the room. If on
the other hand if the "spell fails" wording is correct when the
defending mage has more successes than the attacking mage then that mage
is certainly going to protect more people than his Sorcery Rating.

A second problem arose during the evening about an anchored
spell/focus. THe party was subjected to an attack by magic eating vines
that attacked one characters quickened spell and another character had a
reusable anchoring focus that had a spell within ready but not
activated. The rule used was that the vines attacked and "ate the
magic" and the anchoring focus was treated the same as any other foci
and the vines attacked until it too was destroyed. The argument against
this was that the anchoring focus without a spell was nolonger active
and the vines should have, once they had ate the spell, ignored the
focus - this was the result of a previous session where the character,
with the focus, dispelled the spell in his anchoring focus so that he
could pass a ward/ barrier without the focus being destroyed. His
argument being that if no spell is stored ready for activation the
anchoring focus is not active and therefore can pass through the ward
without problems.

Anyone have suggestions or ideas?? I would be most grateful for any and
all.
Regards Malcolm.

From:	cmpetro@*******.com cmpetro@*******.com
Subject:	Spell Defense and Foci
Date:	Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:48:56 -0500

Message no. 2 Malcolm Writes:

<Snip spell defense Q> Something's not quite right here IIRC, but I'll leave
this one to someone with their books handy.

>A second problem arose during the evening about an anchored
>spell/focus. THe party was subjected to an attack by magic eating vines
>that attacked one characters quickened spell and another character had a
>reusable anchoring focus that had a spell within ready but not
>activated. The rule used was that the vines attacked and "ate the
>magic" and the anchoring focus was treated the same as any other foci
>and the vines attacked until it too was destroyed. The argument against
>this was that the anchoring focus without a spell was nolonger active
>and the vines should have, once they had ate the spell, ignored the
>focus - this was the result of a previous session where the character,
>with the focus, dispelled the spell in his anchoring focus so that he
>could pass a ward/ barrier without the focus being destroyed. His
>argument being that if no spell is stored ready for activation the
>anchoring focus is not active and therefore can pass through the ward
>without problems.

An anchored focus with no spell bonded to it is not magically active as per MitS
(p?? don't have it handy), and can I believe pass through a ward with no
problem. As to your "Magic eating vines"... Your creation, your call. If they
can only attack magic (ie the astral presence of an active focus or spell) then
I'd say an anchoring focus with no spell would not be a target as it has no
astral presence. An anchoring focus with a spell hopwever is dual-natured.

Hope this helps.

From:	Manx timburke@*******.com.au
Subject:	Spell Defense and Foci
Date:	Fri, 09 Jul 1999 02:08:42 +1000

Message no. 3 At 01:20 9/07/99 +1000 Malcolm Shaw wrote

>A Mage (A) cast an area effect spell at a group of people (say 50) in a
>large room. A second Mage (B) and say three companions are affected by
>but not the target of the spell. If Mage A has say 6 successes and Mage
>B 4 successes, then Mage B and his companions are the subject of Mage
>A's spell at two successes. OK so far?
- but now how about the rest of
>the people in the room? Do they roll against the spell at 2 successes or
>at the original 6 successes?

Unless a person is the specific beneficiary of spell
defence then they cannot receive its benefits. In your
example all unprotected targets would be rolling
against 6 successes.

> Or if Mage B has more successes than Mage
> A then as the book says does the spell fail?
> and if so then no one in the room is subjected to the spell?

I don't like the idea of that but SR3 seems somewhat
ambiguous. I would rule that the spell only fails to
target the protected persons. The general population
of innocent bystanders should get toasted.

> - what if the area effect spell is
>say a fireball? Do they suffer the secondary effects? - even if the
>spell fails/partially fails or they are protected to some degree.

I would say that if the spell did not cause any damage to them then
they would not have any initial secondary effect but obviously
there could be subsequent damage from the building catching
fire, exploding windows, getting trampled by survivors in the
mass exodus, etc.

>To my way of thinking the statement "A character can protect a maximum
>number of subjects equal to their Sorcery Rating" is the key factor.

Bingo.

> If this is so then Mage B can only reduce the spell effects for him and his
>companions and the rest in the room take the full spell effect. If Mage
>B is successful in reducing the effects of the spell to 0 or less for
>him and his companions then they take no effect but the rest still do,
>and if say the area effect spell has secondary effects then they are
>subject to them the same as the rest of the people in the room.

Double Bingo.

> If on the other hand if the "spell fails" wording is correct when the
>defending mage has more successes than the attacking mage then that mage
>is certainly going to protect more people than his Sorcery Rating.

Triple Bingo. The notion of being able to directly or indirectly
protect more people than your sorcery rating is contrary
to the spirit of the rules IMO.

>A second problem arose during the evening about an anchored
>spell/focus.

Whoa, this is where I bail out.....

>Anyone have suggestions or ideas?? I would be most grateful for any and
>all.
>Regards Malcolm.
>

Malcolm, you seem to have a grasp on
what is happening. My advice is to make a
decision as GM and stick to it. Consistency is
the important thing. Whatever you and your
players are happy with is what is important.

__________________________________
Manx // timburke@*******.com.au // #950
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt
and then it's just hilarious." - Faith No More
__________________________________

From:	Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject:	Spell Defense and Foci
Date:	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:14:25 -0500

Message no. 4 :The other night during our weekly Shadowrun game a spell/spell defence
:argument arose in regards to casting an area effect spell.
:In SR3 page 183, under the heading of Spell Defence, it says "A
:character can protect a maximum number of subjects equal to their
:Sorcery Rating." and then towards the end of the second paragraph "If
:successes from the Spell Defence reduce the caster's successes to 0 or
:less, the spell fails." This to me is contradictory if using the
:following example -

The way we decided to run it is that the "canceling" of casting succeses
provided by spell defense only aplies to the protected character(s). This
means the spell fails *in regards to affecting the protected character(s)
are concerned*.

<snip example>

Similar example, clearer case- mage want's to center spell ver close to
self, but doesn't want to be affected. He can defend himself, but
(obviously?) the rest of the (undefended) targets would be affected
normally.

:A second problem arose during the evening about an anchored
:spell/focus. THe party was subjected to an attack by magic eating vines
:that attacked one characters quickened spell and another character had a
:reusable anchoring focus that had a spell within ready but not
:activated. The rule used was that the vines attacked and "ate the
:magic" and the anchoring focus was treated the same as any other foci
:and the vines attacked until it too was destroyed.

Theres no way in SR3 I know of for astral combat to be intiated with a
spell. If the vines are the ones form MITS, that should not have happened.
They could be something else, but basically only wards and sorcery
(dispelling) have an effect on quickened spells. Your GM is eaither winging
it with something wierd (in which case any advice is caveat emptore) or is
doing things partly from memory of SR2 rules.
On the other hand, If the anchoring focus has a spell within it and
ready to be triggered, the focus MUST be active- that is part of how they
work in MiTS. An anchoring focus charged with the abilty to "trigger" a
spell is an ACTIVE focus. It would be fair game for astral combat (although
the procedure would not be that of melee, iirc). Once the spell was
triggered / dispelled / whatever, the focus could safely be deactivated- but
it is not mentioned that using / loosing the spell automatically
de-activates the focus. Indeed, in many cases the focus stays active to
sustain the spell, and the spell can be "turned on and off", as long as the
focus remains active.

:The argument against
:this was that the anchoring focus without a spell was nolonger active
:and the vines should have, once they had ate the spell, ignored the
:focus - this was the result of a previous session where the character,
:with the focus, dispelled the spell in his anchoring focus so that he
:could pass a ward/ barrier without the focus being destroyed. His
:argument being that if no spell is stored ready for activation the
:anchoring focus is not active and therefore can pass through the ward
:without problems.

The argument is wrong, I think. The character dispelled the spell,
preventing it form triggering when the focus was de-activated, but he'd have
had to de-activate the focusalso (easily done) to protect if from passing
through a ward.
When attacked by the vines, at least you didn't have some nasty spell
triggering as the anchoring focus was destroyed (since the spell was "eaten"
first), causing drain and other potential hardships. Count your blessings?

Mongoose

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer