Schwerpunkt wrote: ↑
21 Dec 2017, 21:25
The target of the health damage is changed, but the target of the health restore isn't -- the reflector wasn't the target of the health restore, the caster was. So reflect would have no effect on it.
The two effects are intrinsically linked as one. Absorb spells have a single Absorb effect rather than two distinct Damage Target and Restore Self effects for a reason: affecting one inherently affects the other. Resist Magic by the target also has an effect on the "restore health" part of absorb, even though what you say should mean the target only resists the damage and the caster should still receive the restore.
That isn't how reflection works. Bethesda chose "reflect" for a reason.
And I gave a reason for why "reflect" can be considered a reversal of effects (as in how a mirror reverses the left and right sides of the reflected image), rather than a bounce of directed energy. What you want to believe Bethesda intended with the term "reflect" is your opinion, but ultimately inconsequential; its the intended mechanics that matter (and as I said, I'm fine with an option for people to select which behavior they want).
It really isn't. It's literally the magical version of hitting a baseball with a bat. When you cast fireball and the person reflects it, the entire spell is reflected because the entire spell was cast at the target.
Hence the bounce analogy. But as we see that's not what happens: the effect explodes on and is calculated on the target, but the damage is given to the caster without the spell being hit back. It's important to note that you can't reflect a reflected spell -- if it's "hit back", you'd expect the effect to continually hit back and forth for as long as it rolled successes, but instead the reflect only happens at most once (i.e. the spell either works as normal, or is reversed by the target with no input from the caster's reflection). Similarly, you can't reflect AoE effects. These indicate that the target's not simply "hitting back" the spell effect with reflect, but is instead a more complicated arrangement between the caster and target.
Jemolk wrote: ↑
22 Dec 2017, 00:28
Except the end of the wire that never even approaches the reflecting target can't be reflected. Hence the wire ends up attached at both ends to the original caster, who drains his or her own health and heals by the amount drained.
That would imply on-touch spells can't be reflected, since it's done through literal physical contact.
Just for the record, though, I would be delighted if the long-term fix for reflect was to cause the projectiles to ricochet back towards the caster, and I think that if anything that would be more consistent with the sort of reflect behavior with Absorb you're advocating for, since it would effectively change the caster by changing the originator of the projectile.
It wouldn't really, as it's more consistent with what you've said (Schwerpunkt even used the mirror-bounce analogy that should result in this behavior). The spell bouncing also wouldn't change the originating caster for that reason: if a light beam bounces off a mirror, the mirror doesn't become a flashlight, it just changed the angular momentum of the projectile (if I shine a flashlight onto a mirror which bounced the light beam into my eye, it's not the mirror that blinded me, but I blinded myself with the flashlight). It also fails to account for on-touch effects where there is no projectile.