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