Forums of the Megaverse®

2 options are given:
*each melee attack you spend, make a blinding flash attack requiring a save (flash gun)
*don't spend melee attacks, but targets only need to make a save against a new attack once per melee round (flash lantern)

Should this an example of how to treat all "instant" area effect spells?

I'm also wondering, if Blinding Flash does not blind the spellcaster, is there something about Cybermagic devices where they can detect the "user" of the device and treat them as if they were the "caster" and protect them from the effects?

Would this only apply if touching it, in which case if you let go of the lantern, you would be blinded too?

What if multiple people touch the lantern, including your enemies? Should there be a specific location you must touch (for example the trigger of a flash gun, a narrow padded part of the handle) which desigates you as user and protects you from the blinding effect?

Axelmania wrote:2 options are given:
*each melee attack you spend, make a blinding flash attack requiring a save (flash gun)
*don't spend melee attacks, but targets only need to make a save against a new attack once per melee round (flash lantern)

Should this an example of how to treat all "instant" area effect spells?

No. Just how to treat that particular item.

Axelmania wrote:I'm also wondering, if Blinding Flash does not blind the spellcaster, is there something about Cybermagic devices where they can detect the "user" of the device and treat them as if they were the "caster" and protect them from the effects?

Only your Game Master can know for sure... ask them.

Axelmania wrote:Would this only apply if touching it, in which case if you let go of the lantern, you would be blinded too?

If your GM likes that idea sure. Otherwise no (since house rules that GMs don't like don't happen).

Axelmania wrote:What if multiple people touch the lantern, including your enemies? Should there be a specific location you must touch (for example the trigger of a flash gun, a narrow padded part of the handle) which desigates you as user and protects you from the blinding effect?

Again, that would depend on how the GM is running things in there game.
There is no 'official rule' so any and all rules on the subject are house ones. And as such they can't really be "legislated from the bench" by arguing a hypothetical situation that may or may not apply in any actual in game event.

We all know GM decides anything, but I believe examples of Cybermagic items would set precedents on how to treat similar spells. Basis for disagreement?

Axelmania wrote:We all know GM decides anything, but I believe examples of Cybermagic items would set precedents on how to treat similar spells. Basis for disagreement?

Because the other Cybermagic items in Shadows of Light don't work like that.
Which makes it pretty clear that each item is a unique special snowflake that needs to be discussed and ruled on individually.

I wasn't aware SoL had CM items, you referring to TTGD? Please give a specific example of an item which works differently than these 3 options.

Wouldn't that suggest additional options? Each "snowflake" would give a different approach a designer could use to exploit a spell in different fixed ways.

Both a "free chance to blind 1/melee" and "costly chance to blind as many times per melee I have actions" are both great options to have, and way to design spells into objects.

Axelmania wrote:I wasn't aware SoL had CM items, you referring to TTGD? Please give a specific example of an item which works differently than these 3 options.

My bad Nightbane Survival Guide.
-Doctor Winslow Heron, (Pg. 157) has a cybermagic implant that grants him Mystic Armor once per day (instead of repeated uses)
-Herron's Attack Mastifss (Pg. 153) have implants that augment their bite each time they bite by casting energy bolt on the victim (so this spell is cast by doing ANOTHER action, has changed its range, and has removed the save/dodge)

Axelmania wrote:Wouldn't that suggest additional options? Each "snowflake" would give a different approach a designer could use to exploit a spell in different fixed ways.

Both a "free chance to blind 1/melee" and "costly chance to blind as many times per melee I have actions" are both great options to have, and way to design spells into objects.

Since litterally every listed item in the game is a snowflake (that also happens to violate the rules as written ) it is pretty obvious that it is "all snowflakes all the time" with Cybermancy... sort of how it is all snowflakes all the time with Technowizardry.

This means there is no "precedent" set by any item. No item shows that you can always get a specific effect that you wish regardless... instead it demonstrates that each time you come up with a device how that particular device works needs to be determined from whole cloth.

Thanks for the update, had only skimmed NSG before so I didn't even know it had examples of Cybermagic.

In the case of Mystic Armor, that is protection with a duration instead of an instant attack, so I can understand it operating differently. There's certainly a difference between "a duration spell with duration extended to indefinite" and "a duration spell which can be refreshed"

Mastiff EB is very interesting too, and probably a better basis of comparison. The precedent here seems to be that if you reduce range to 0, a spell can ride along an attack's strike roll instead of having a separate one and not require a separate action to activate, (resembling "Follow-Up" in GURPS)

Axelmania wrote:Thanks for the update, had only skimmed NSG before so I didn't even know it had examples of Cybermagic.

In the case of Mystic Armor, that is protection with a duration instead of an instant attack, so I can understand it operating differently. There's certainly a difference between "a duration spell with duration extended to indefinite" and "a duration spell which can be refreshed"

Yes... but both of those are changes from the written "rules" on how Cybermagic devices work... aka it is a special snowflake
As written the armor device should cast the spell every time it is activated. Not just once a day, but EVERY TIME.
I will also note that there isn't a "magic armor" spell in the game that operates this way for us to run a side by side comparison on so we can only assume that he modified an existing armor spell.

Axelmania wrote:Mastiff EB is very interesting too, and probably a better basis of comparison. The precedent here seems to be that if you reduce range to 0, a spell can ride along an attack's strike roll instead of having a separate one and not require a separate action to activate, (resembling "Follow-Up" in GURPS)

Again, thats just a special snowflake.
It is allowing you to get 2 actions for the price of one...
...since the rules on cybermagic say that the device casts the spell. Not that you can attack AND cast a spell at the same time.
Again, a snowflake.

None of this sets any precedent. It is not an extension of the rules nor does it affect how the rules work.
Instead we simply see a couple examples of the back and forth snowflake discusssions that a PC and a GM have when building any device... in that they look at the rules, realize the rules dont allow for what they want and start to haggle.

eliakon wrote:both of those are changes from the written "rules" on how Cybermagic devices work... aka it is a special snowflake
As written the armor device should cast the spell every time it is activated. Not just once a day, but EVERY TIME.

TTGD17 didn't really have much in the way of "rules". There's:

1. the machine then functions to maintain the spell, so that the spell becomes part of the machine's function with extended or even limitless duration
2. targets of such machines are at -2 to save
3. turning the machine "on" effectively casts the spell

Not listed is how long it should take to turn the spell on or off, or how many times per day you can turn it on or off, so it sounds like the rules are flexible enough for the new SG items to fall under their scope.

eliakon wrote:I will also note that there isn't a "magic armor" spell in the game that operates this way for us to run a side by side comparison on so we can only assume that he modified an existing armor spell.

What differences does it have with the 3rd level spell found on page 131 of the main book?

Axelmania wrote:Again, thats just a special snowflake.
It is allowing you to get 2 actions for the price of one...

Seems like a fair tradeoff for losing the spell's range.

Perhaps this is only possible with cybernetics?

Axelmania wrote:...since the rules on cybermagic say that the device casts the spell. Not that you can attack AND cast a spell at the same time. Again, a snowflake.

We're never really given a minimum or maximum casting time. In a way you can view all the examples as snowflakes, but given the lack of inherent rules, you can also view them as examples for how to apply balanced cybermagic.

Axelmania wrote:None of this sets any precedent. It is not an extension of the rules nor does it affect how the rules work.

TTGD19 "intended to give players and GMs ideas about how specific spells may be put into effect"

It's the closest thing we have to precedents. There isn't much in the way of rules to extend from.

Axelmania wrote:Instead we simply see a couple examples of the back and forth snowflake discusssions that a PC and a GM have when building any device... in that they look at the rules, realize the rules dont allow for what they want and start to haggle.

I don't really see anything in the cybermagic section forbidding what you're talking about though?

A precedent is binding. An example is not.

Thus if something sets a precedent it means that other devices have right to work that way.
That is what I am saying is not in effect here.
What we see are examples of what can happen, not what must be allowed to happen.
Nothing in these examples sets up any precedent nor establishes canon.

Thus a Cymbermancer PC has no ground to argue that their device should be allowed to work in such and such a way because of X. Because if they want that rule, they have to build that particular device.

You're thinking of the narrow legal usage of precedent, term also has a broad " act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future" use.

Axelmania wrote:You're thinking of the narrow legal usage of precedent, term also has a broad " act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future" use.

No I am thinking from the standard of how game terminology is used, and especially how rules lawyers work.

And I thus stand by my statement.

There is no precedent from these items. There are simply some examples of ways that it may work, but they are all one off examples and in no way imply that other devices will operate similarly.
Which is made excruciatingly clear when we look at TW. Basically every TW device is a special snow flake as well. Which tells us pretty clearly that the Palladium precedent (proper use of the term here) is "each item is a new creation and will be judged solely on its own merits"

eliakon wrote:There is no precedent from these items. There are simply some examples of ways that it may work, but they are all one off examples and in no way imply that other devices will operate similarly.

"intended to give players and GMs ideas about how specific spells may be put into effect"

"ideas about how .. may" doesn't sound like a one-off example to me.

The whole point of giving ideas to players/GMs is for making things in addition to what is on the list.

eliakon wrote:Which is made excruciatingly clear when we look at TW. Basically every TW device is a special snow flake as well. Which tells us pretty clearly that the Palladium precedent (proper use of the term here) is "each item is a new creation and will be judged solely on its own merits"

In fairness the majority of TW stuff was published prior to the TW creation rules in RUE. Do you have examples of items which couldn't be made using those rules?