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