NEWS

Missing Foci

  • 9 Replies
  • 1277 Views

Tarislar

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Uzi's + Fireballs .... Why I love Shadowrun!
« on: <03-30-15/1852:44> »
So I just noticed something.  Probably a bit late to the party here.
But I'm not seeing a Shielding Focus listed under Metamagic Foci in CRB.

Wasn't there one in older edition?
Has this been overlooked or intentionally left out?
Also, what about other Meta Magics from St. Grimoire?  I'm not seeing anything there to modify those either.

Are you just restricted to normal counterspelling foci & nothing for over all shielding?

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
« Last Edit: <03-30-15/1854:27> by Tarislar »

8-bit

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
« Reply #1 on: <03-30-15/2225:26> »
There aren't any listed. Whether that was intentional or not, it's not very difficult to make your own.

Quote from: Core Rule Book of SR5; page 319
Metamagic foci add their force to the magicianís initiate grade when using specific metamagics.

Just make up another focus with the name "Shielding Focus". It works the exact same as all other Metamagic Foci.
SpeechThoughtMatrix/E-mail/TextingAstralSub-vocal, Whisper

Allergies' Thread

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #2 on: <03-31-15/0138:09> »
As written, Counterspelling foci add their force to the spell defense pool regardless of opposing school. If that is correct, there's no need for a shielding focus, as a Counterspelling focus does everything it would do and more.

Of course, that may be an editing error.

Tarislar

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Uzi's + Fireballs .... Why I love Shadowrun!
« Reply #3 on: <04-01-15/1712:50> »
As written, Counterspelling foci add their force to the spell defense pool regardless of opposing school. If that is correct, there's no need for a shielding focus, as a Counterspelling focus does everything it would do and more.

Of course, that may be an editing error.
You might want to recheck Pg.319/329 of CRB.  CS Foci are Spell Foci and are by spell category, it even says so in the description.

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #4 on: <04-01-15/1805:19> »
As listed, a Counterspelling Focus does 2 things:
  • Counterspelling foci add dice equal to their Force to any Counterspelling attempt, as long as the countered spell is in the same category as the focus.
  • It also adds its Force to your spell defense pool.
The two are wholly seperate effects, and being attuned to one category does not affect the second effect. As written, that is. It might very well be an error.

Tarislar

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Uzi's + Fireballs .... Why I love Shadowrun!
« Reply #5 on: <04-01-15/1844:18> »
While I'm all thrilled at the idea of "free" extra dice for the other 4 categories.  I'm thinking your selectively ignoring the first 2 times it states by spell type for the one time it doesn't. 

Quote
1.  SPELL FOCI
Spell foci empower Sorcery skills. Each spell focus is
attuned to one of the five category of spells or rituals
(Combat, Detection, Illusion, Healing, and Manipulation)
when it is created and cannot be changed. 

2.  Counterspelling: Counterspelling foci add dice equal
to their Force to any Counterspelling attempt, as long as
the countered spell is in the same category as the focus.
It also adds its Force to your spell defense pool. 

So, we have Spell Foci telling us that each foci is only for 1 category of spells.
We also have it telling us that it adds dice to Counterspelling attempts, also if its for the same category.  Please note it says Counterspelling.  Not Dispelling.  So by that statement alone the part about Spell Defense Pool shouldn't even be in there as Counterspelling covers ALL uses of the skill, Dispelling & Defense.  Now if it had read Dispelling & was only talking about 1/2 the use of the Skill then maybe I could see your reading of it.
But all I'm seeing is that its not repeating, for what would be the 3rd time in 2 paragraphs.  That would seem excessive wouldn't it?

That they writers didn't repeat themselves 3x in a row doesn't seem, to me, that what they intended to do was break the rule for all spell foci by allow it to apply outside the basic parameters of limited to Spell Type.

jim1701

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1058
« Reply #6 on: <04-01-15/2026:14> »
That would seem excessive wouldn't it?

Perhaps but it would have been the correct way of stating the effect correctly and clearly if that was the way they wanted the rule to work.  The way it is written it can be easily interpreted as being a bonus to the general spell defense pool.  I would agree that this probably was not the intent but it's hardly the first time poor sentence structure presented an inaccurate portrayal of a rule. 

Tarislar

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Uzi's + Fireballs .... Why I love Shadowrun!
« Reply #7 on: <04-01-15/2106:58> »
I'd have just left out the last line.  It doesn't need to be there at all.  The 1st line tells you exactly what it does.

Tarislar

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Uzi's + Fireballs .... Why I love Shadowrun!
« Reply #8 on: <04-30-15/1743:01> »
Just a follow up on this.

Going by TD's reading above....... is there ever any reason to take a Combat-Counterspelling foci then?

Because AFAIK all combat spells are "Instant" so nothing to dispel.
  So if all foci are added to SD pool then better to take something useful for dispelling, most likely Health or Manipulation?

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #9 on: <04-30-15/1829:33> »
Not really no.

I don't think it's a good rule by the way. We sure don't use it that way on our home table. I'm just saying that's what the rules say. You should probably houserule it to remove the last line, like you say.