#46
|
|||||
|
|||||
__________________
Sun - Thu: On Vacation and Behind on everything! / Fri & Sat: Rairly Available Last edited by Silk; Mar 13th, 2021 at 11:00 PM. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#48
|
|||||
|
|||||
There I go assuming again. It said it had armor and so I Assumed! that a -4 AP weapon would affect the barrier too.
![]() BTW, what does FWIW mean?
__________________
Sun - Thu: On Vacation and Behind on everything! / Fri & Sat: Rairly Available |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And I say that because I wouldn't necessarily assume the examples in the Shadowrun books are entirely accurate. |
#50
|
|||||
|
|||||
This seems to be a case where you could say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", i.e. AP might still well apply to a barrier, even if they forgot about it in the example. Though I'm not sure if the example has them using a weapon with AP at all though. If they did and it hadn't applied, I guess that is technically a nudge towards it not applying. Chuck it on the pile of logical inconsistencies.
From my point of view I would certainly let it apply to a mundane physical one because AP is exactly made for this purpose - to puncture physical objects better - even if it primarily has body-armour in mind. With a magical physical barrier the gm would have to make a ruling once and then stick with it. Again, personally I would rule that it applies there too. |
#51
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Maybe an example might help explain where my confusion comes from. It's not a ritual magic thing, it's just a normal mana barrier, cast in the field. If I've completely got the interpretation wrong, then I'd be very grateful for an example that puts me right (there doesn't seem to be one in the book). (Edit to add: none of this is exactly what i was asking about in my previous post. The current example is really just a reflection of my current confusion which is similar to my original confusion, and is now just now a bit more of an advanced case) Last edited by bothers; Mar 16th, 2021 at 05:15 PM. |
#52
|
|||||
|
|||||
I can only repeat - it makes no sense to use the intended force over the hits scored, which forms the "barrier rating". I am not aware of any other spell that works that way in all of the material available. Way easier to assume a typo in a heavily errata'd book than to assume they just gave up on their entire spellcasting system for a second (i.e. more hits means more power, more force means a higher limit).
In my opinion they either used the word force in a figurative way for a second, not in the "limit for net hits on spells" way, i.e. a barrier with a higher barrier rating is figuratively more forceful. That or it is simply a typo. Force may influence some characteristics of a spell, like AP on a fireball or the size of a physical barrier, but raw effectiveness is always subject to net hits. So it's willpower + net hits on the barrier, IMO. |
#53
|
|||||
|
|||||
And with the Force acting as the limit on the resistance test. Yeah, that would make more sense. Thanks for this, Phettberg - I promise I wasn't just ignoring your earlier post! Was just really struggling to fit all the pieces together in my head in a logical way. You've been very helpful.
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Force sets the limit on the number of hits you can use in your spellcasting test to cast the Mana Barrier. If your hits exceed your force than you can only use that number of them. This sets the Barrier ratings. So if you get three hits on force 4, it has a Barrier Rating of 3 but if you get seven hits on a Force 4 the Barrier is 4. Force is to spells what accuracy is to weapons. Force also is part of what determines whether drain is physical or stun.
In your example, the Mana Barrier is actually Rating 3 so it would be 7d6 to resist against the 4 hits of the Mana Bolt. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|