Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jeffrey Jacob Mach <mach@****.caltech.edu>
Subject: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Greetings--

So, I was looking at the Grimoire (for 2nd Ed.) a while back and came upon
something rather inconsistant. I would like to field public opinion on
this to decide which worldview we want to use in Shadowtk.

In one part it claims that by their nasty and destructive nature
"Damaging" Manipulations and Combat Spells cannot be sustained. But then
it turns right around and writes up a Damaging Manipulation that is
Sustainable (I think it is Spark, but I don't have the book with me) and
_more importantly_ in the spell formation rules it makes the rule that if
you want a Damaging Manipulation to be sustainable it must be +1 Drain
Code as well as + 1 Drain level.

This is clearly inconsistent. Either is _basically_ acceptible, but
mutually exclusive. I am sure there are those who play mages who would
love to do the old "Emperor Palpatine" zorching some poor bastard to death
with a sustained spell (note that with all target numbers at +2 and that
extra drain to worry about, you aren't going to do well about the fellow's
friend who is going to whallop you for zapping his bud). We basically
need a rule's confirmation by popular vote.

Now for an even stickier question. The rules (un)clearly provide for a
Sustained Damaging Manipulation, but they don't mention Combat Spells.
Now since a Damaging Manipulations are as powerful and as difficult to
cast (on average) as similar Combat spells, but differ in what they can
effect and how, what do people want to say about Combat Spells? Either
they get the same or worse penalties to making them sustainable as
Sustained Damaging Manipulations, which will make them rather nasty in
effect and to cast, or they can't be sustained. I personally feel that
the magic system would be inconsistant to deny sustainability to only one
class of spells, but given the raw "wattage" that is flowing through the
mage to cast them, I don't think it should be easy.

Personally, I am in favor of them both being sustainable, but with the +1
DC, +1 DP penalty to make the non-sustainable versions of the spells much
more attractive. This makes for a more consistant spell system, but may
make magic too powerful for some. Yes, being able to sustain a spell
means you can quicken it, as well as lock it with a spell lock. Doing
this against a specific target is probably less usefull, but area effect
things can be rather annoying to say the least, but then so is a sustained
Firestorm. Remember, most mages should _never_ have the karma to burn to
use spell locks or quickening at the drop of a hat, especially mages who
have to worry about bonding foci, initiating, and not to forget increasing
skills/attributes and buying new spells.

This all comes of a spell I was attempting to write. I call it tenatively
"Mana Aura" as a generic name. It basically is a Combat spell that
requires touch to do damage as a Mana combat spells, but is difficult to
cast because it can be sustained for use by mages with good unarmed combat
to simulate a PhysAd's Killing Hands. As a last ditch for my rather Mana
Starved mage, he can lock it to give him an edge in hand to hand combat,
but would do so only in extreme cases.

So, please respond here with your views. Consider this a request for
discussion. When the conversation dies, we'll see where public opinion
lies.

--Jeffrey Mach
Message no. 2
From: mneideng@****.caltech.edu (Mark Lafarga Neidengard)
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
According to Jeffrey Jacob Mach:
>In one part it claims that by their nasty and destructive nature
>"Damaging" Manipulations and Combat Spells cannot be sustained. But then
>it turns right around and writes up a Damaging Manipulation that is
>Sustainable (I think it is Spark, but I don't have the book with me) and
>_more importantly_ in the spell formation rules it makes the rule that if
>you want a Damaging Manipulation to be sustainable it must be +1 Drain
>Code as well as + 1 Drain level.

I'd definitely say that Sustained Damaging Manipulations are to be permitted
with the spell design rules provided in the mechanics section. If nothing
else, some of us have already employed them on this list, and there seems to
be no a priori reason to disallow them.

>Now for an even stickier question. The rules (un)clearly provide for a
>Sustained Damaging Manipulation, but they don't mention Combat Spells.
>Now since a Damaging Manipulations are as powerful and as difficult to
>cast (on average) as similar Combat spells, but differ in what they can
>effect and how, what do people want to say about Combat Spells? Either
>they get the same or worse penalties to making them sustainable as
>Sustained Damaging Manipulations, which will make them rather nasty in
>effect and to cast, or they can't be sustained. I personally feel that
>the magic system would be inconsistant to deny sustainability to only one
>class of spells, but given the raw "wattage" that is flowing through the
>mage to cast them, I don't think it should be easy.

I am against the notion of Sustained Combat spells. I think the effect they
produce is sizeably different from that of Damaging Manipulations, and I
believe that the damage dealt by Combat spells is effectively instantaneous.

>This all comes of a spell I was attempting to write. I call it tenatively
>"Mana Aura" as a generic name. It basically is a Combat spell that
>requires touch to do damage as a Mana combat spells, but is difficult to
>cast because it can be sustained for use by mages with good unarmed combat
>to simulate a PhysAd's Killing Hands. As a last ditch for my rather Mana
>Starved mage, he can lock it to give him an edge in hand to hand combat,
>but would do so only in extreme cases.

I can see sustaining a spell that causes a harmful physical effect (like a
persistent flame or region of vacuum). I have a much harder time with the
notion of sustained conduits of mana that do damage directly to an Aura in
the way Combat spells do. I'd also say that things like the "killing hands"
power of the PhysAds is one of the things that redeems them as a class, and I
am hesitant to diminish their usefulness by making one of their advantages
available to others.
--
/!\/!ark /!\!eidengard, CS Major, VLSI. http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mneideng
"Fairy of sleep, controller of illusions" Operator/Jack-of-all-Trades, CACR
"Control the person for my own purpose." "Don't mess with the Dark
Elves!"
-Pirotess, _Record_of_Lodoss_War_ Shadowrunner and Anime Addict
Message no. 3
From: jaimie.nicholson@********.otago.ac.nz (Jaimie Nicholson)
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:48:17 +0800
>I can see sustaining a spell that causes a harmful physical effect (like a
>persistent flame or region of vacuum). I have a much harder time with the
>notion of sustained conduits of mana that do damage directly to an Aura in
>the way Combat spells do.

I'll buy that.

>I'd also say that things like the "killing hands"
>power of the PhysAds is one of the things that redeems them as a class, and I
>am hesitant to diminish their usefulness by making one of their advantages
>available to others.

In terms of game balance, that's a reasonable argument, but not in terms of
logic. However, one could assume that the physad ability isn't sustained,
for example, they don't kill themselves by scratching their heads. Instead,
they turn it on for the strike, then it dissipates until next time.

And the idea of sustaining manipulations gives me the willies too... IMHO
it should be impossible to deign any spell for which the drain level
exceeds deadly by the DL mods in the spell design section. Okay, this
eliminates fireball and hellblast, but they could be rare exceptions
designed by geniuses (genii? geniae?).

PLAYTHING OF A CRUEL GOD
JAIMIE NICHOLSON
Message no. 4
From: Wadswat@***.com
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:30:51 -0400
Hello All--

I'm curious, Jeffrey. How would the formula for your spell read? Perhaps
that might help in making a decision. While I don't prefer to play mages, I
do GM for a "mage party" and this is exactly the kind of question they might
come up with, and exactly the kind of spell I could use against them :-)

Thanks,
Chris Mahoney ( Shockwave )
Message no. 5
From: Jeffrey Jacob Mach <mach@****.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Okay...the discussion is off and running.

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Mark Lafarga Neidengard wrote:

> According to Jeffrey Jacob Mach:
>
> >Now for an even stickier question.
--snip--
> I am against the notion of Sustained Combat spells. I think the effect they
> produce is sizeably different from that of Damaging Manipulations, and I
> believe that the damage dealt by Combat spells is effectively instantaneous.

The damage dealt by Combat spells that are written up must be effectively
instantaneous because they are all instant spells. I can see how you cant
really "sustain" a mana-bolt, because you fire it like a missile. But
what abou a mana-stream that pours into the target you are aiming at
looking like some sort of mystic lightning from you to your victim. What
about the "magic" should make the casting of a Combat spell inherently
different from a manipulation? The penalty for sustaining a "nasty"
(a.k.a. high mana wattage) spell is pretty annoying. But I don't know why
pouring a bunch of mana through you to generate a conduit of mana to
damage someone's aura should be different from pouring a bunch of mana
through you to generate a stream of fire or acid (with elemental effects
which don't exist for Combat spells, other than Hellblast which shouldn't
really exist anyway). Combat Spells have their disadvantanges too. Ever
try to mana-bolt someone in a car? It is about as effective as swearing
at the occupants due to the vehicular aura rules. Now Acid-stream the
tires, and they have problems.

> >This all comes of a spell I was attempting to write. I call it tenatively
> >"Mana Aura" as a generic name. It basically is a Combat spell that
> >requires touch to do damage as a Mana combat spells, but is difficult to
> >cast because it can be sustained for use by mages with good unarmed combat
> >to simulate a PhysAd's Killing Hands. As a last ditch for my rather Mana
> >Starved mage, he can lock it to give him an edge in hand to hand combat,
> >but would do so only in extreme cases.
>
> I can see sustaining a spell that causes a harmful physical effect (like a
> persistent flame or region of vacuum). I have a much harder time with the
> notion of sustained conduits of mana that do damage directly to an Aura in
> the way Combat spells do. I'd also say that things like the "killing
hands"
> power of the PhysAds is one of the things that redeems them as a class, and I
> am hesitant to diminish their usefulness by making one of their advantages
> available to others.
> --
> /!\/!ark /!\!eidengard

On the first point, could you explain why you have a harder time with the
notion? I can understand one, just on the game balance issue. Would
people be more at ease with the penalty for sustaining a combat spell to
be even worse than sustaining a damaging manipulation, Say +1 DrainCode +2
DrainPower to really disuade people from getting the sustainable versions
of Combat spells and reflect the nastyness of sending this much power
through you?

Conversely, mages are supposed to be conduits of mana energy. I have
always had more of a problem with a mage's ability to violate the laws of
physics--namely matter creation (the flame's fuel, ice, water, etc. have
to come from somewhere)--than having them send their mana energy flinging
at each other. If the matter is coming from mana "energy," then one is
doing an energy to matter conversion which means a massive ammount of
energy (i.e. E=mc^2 ==> m=E/c^2 or 1 gram of mass is equivalent to roughly
9x10^13 J or 90 trillion Joules. Which would you rather have aimed at
you?). Also, the "energy" to produce manipulation effects that defy
gravity, hold vacuums under normal pressure, cause things to melt and/or
burst into flame has to come from somewhere. Namely, it seems under
Shadowrun to be comming from converted mana, which involves some
mysterious energy conversion, as opposed to a Combat spell which just
flings the raw stuff at them. I understand that magic violates physics or
it wouldn't be magic.... But in this light, does sustaining Combat spell
(as nasty as sustaining a Damaging Manipulation) sound reasonable or at
least consistant to a system that allows all other magics to be
sustainable?

On the second point, you may have misunderstood what I meant by simulating
"Killing Hands." In no real way does this diminish from the Physical
Adepts because they _never_ have to take drain from using their abilities,
(with the exception of one of the powers that they can temporarily power
up their physical stats, and then must take "Drain" to reflect the strain
on their bodies). Their powers are "built in," while a mage must cast a
spell every time they want to use a magical ability, and have the distict
chance of their spells not working. This is something a PhysAd never has
to worry about. As for this spell taking something away from them, a
simple change from the spell being a combat one to it being a manipulation
makes it "by the book".

Call it, "Flame touch" a damaging manipulation, sustained, that gives the
mage damage by touch by wrapping their hands in some sort of mystic fire
that hovers at the edge of their aura, and you could write it up in a
matter of minutes. I assume some people already have. I will admit to
there being a distict difference between this and "Mana Aura" in the sence
that it would do damage as a fire manipulation, and not as a mana Combat
Spell. I want to know if this should be that much of a difference that
Mana Aura shouldn't exist?

--Catch you later

Jeff
Message no. 6
From: Jeffrey Jacob Mach <mach@****.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
In responce to your message:

On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 Wadswat@***.com wrote:

>
> I'm curious, Jeffrey. How would the formula for your spell read? Perhaps
> that might help in making a decision. While I don't prefer to play mages, I
> do GM for a "mage party" and this is exactly the kind of question they
might
> come up with, and exactly the kind of spell I could use against them :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Mahoney ( Shockwave )
>

Well, it isn't hard to come up with it if you have a Grimoire for SR][ in
front of you, which since you are GMing a "mage party" I will assume you
have or have access to one. It is a Combat Spell, mana based, touch only,
I think it was M or S damage, and sustainable (the big Questionmark here
since it isn't "by the book" I am asking for approval from the list) with
all of the spell cost bonuses and penalties therein. I figured it to be a
toned-down, but sustainable version of Death Touch that is in SR][ or
Grimoire.

Since you are GMing, it is your responsability to say whether or not
Combat Spells are sustainable in your campaign, but you will probably want
to keep track of what goes on in this discussion to evaluate whether or
not it would be a good idea. This is _not_ the sort of thing to "use
against" your players. I know I would be mad as hell at a GM tht suddenly
said, "Oh by the way, Combat spells are sustainable and guess what, that
mage who hit you with a mana spell last round is still doing dammage!"
This is something you want to discuss with your players, and inform them
that if they get access to it, so do the "bad guys." Say, for example
there is a major paper making all the rounds in the magic
circles/journals/etc. that this kind of thing is possible and how to do
it. On the other hand, taking umpteen S drain every time they hit
somebody with a mana-bolt that could be sustained but kills things on the
first hit, as well as trying to keep that power-stream on (at +2 target
number penalty) while trying to avoid getting flattened by the security
team PhysAd, may make them reconsider ever taking a sustainable Combat
spell. With good GMing of intelligent opponents and reasonable rates of
karma reward, you rarely have to worry about finding whatzits to "use
against" your players. They'll have a hard enough time as it is.
Message no. 7
From: mneideng@****.caltech.edu (Mark Lafarga Neidengard)
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
According to Jeffrey Jacob Mach:
>On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Mark Lafarga Neidengard wrote:
>>
>> I am against the notion of Sustained Combat spells. I think the effect they
>> produce is sizeably different from that of Damaging Manipulations, and I
>> believe that the damage dealt by Combat spells is effectively instantaneous.
>
>The damage dealt by Combat spells that are written up must be effectively
>instantaneous because they are all instant spells. I can see how you cant
>really "sustain" a mana-bolt, because you fire it like a missile. But
>what abou a mana-stream that pours into the target you are aiming at
>looking like some sort of mystic lightning from you to your victim. What
>about the "magic" should make the casting of a Combat spell inherently
>different from a manipulation? The penalty for sustaining a "nasty"
>(a.k.a. high mana wattage) spell is pretty annoying. But I don't know why
>pouring a bunch of mana through you to generate a conduit of mana to
>damage someone's aura should be different from pouring a bunch of mana
>through you to generate a stream of fire or acid (with elemental effects
>which don't exist for Combat spells, other than Hellblast which shouldn't
>really exist anyway). Combat Spells have their disadvantanges too. Ever
>try to mana-bolt someone in a car? It is about as effective as swearing
>at the occupants due to the vehicular aura rules. Now Acid-stream the
>tires, and they have problems.

In the case of a Combat spell, the mage must "synchronize" his Aura with that
of the target to produce the effect; in a Damaging Manipulation the caster
must synchronize not with an Aura but with an "object" in the real world. I
could well suspect that maintaining synch with an Astrally-dynamic object
like someone else's Aura should be a different order of achievement than
keeping synch with an effectively "static" region of realspace.

>> I can see sustaining a spell that causes a harmful physical effect (like a
>> persistent flame or region of vacuum). I have a much harder time with the
>> notion of sustained conduits of mana that do damage directly to an Aura in
>> the way Combat spells do. I'd also say that things like the "killing
hands"
>> power of the PhysAds is one of the things that redeems them as a class, and I
>> am hesitant to diminish their usefulness by making one of their advantages
>> available to others.
>> --
>> /!\/!ark /!\!eidengard
>
>On the first point, could you explain why you have a harder time with the
>notion? I can understand one, just on the game balance issue. Would

See above for one explanation. Another problem I have is how to assess the
"damage" from a continuous stream of mana to an Aura. Considering that
an "instantaneous" burst of mana from a Manabolt can easily be fatal to a very
wide array of entities, a "continuous" amount of mana should probably be
_invariably_ lethal even over "short" timescales of order half a second or
so.

>people be more at ease with the penalty for sustaining a combat spell to
>be even worse than sustaining a damaging manipulation, Say +1 DrainCode +2
>DrainPower to really disuade people from getting the sustainable versions
>of Combat spells and reflect the nastyness of sending this much power
>through you?

I'm a little dubious about the Drain issue too: one could argue that if an
"instantaneous" burst of mana could inspire (F/2)S drain, then a continuous
stream should do that sort of Drain continuously...alternately, one could
say that the (F/2)S is _primarily_ taken up in establishing the Astral
synchronization...on the third hand, the effort of _continuously_ connecting
to a changing (and hostile) Aura might also figure in...

>Conversely, mages are supposed to be conduits of mana energy. I have
>always had more of a problem with a mage's ability to violate the laws of
>physics--namely matter creation (the flame's fuel, ice, water, etc. have
>to come from somewhere)--than having them send their mana energy flinging
>at each other. If the matter is coming from mana "energy," then one is
>doing an energy to matter conversion which means a massive ammount of
>energy (i.e. E=mc^2 ==> m=E/c^2 or 1 gram of mass is equivalent to roughly
>9x10^13 J or 90 trillion Joules. Which would you rather have aimed at
>you?). Also, the "energy" to produce manipulation effects that defy
>gravity, hold vacuums under normal pressure, cause things to melt and/or
>burst into flame has to come from somewhere. Namely, it seems under
>Shadowrun to be comming from converted mana, which involves some
>mysterious energy conversion, as opposed to a Combat spell which just
>flings the raw stuff at them. I understand that magic violates physics or
>it wouldn't be magic.... But in this light, does sustaining Combat spell
>(as nasty as sustaining a Damaging Manipulation) sound reasonable or at
>least consistant to a system that allows all other magics to be
>sustainable?

One model for magic in Shadowrun that might be useful is a transistor, in
which a "small" amount of electricity regulates the flow of a larger amount
of electricity. Meaning that the mage is only manipulating a small amount
of mana, but which causes a much larger effect elsewhere. Presumably there
is enough "mana potential" to keep pulling off these nifty stunts for the
forseeable future...

The argument in favor of Sustained Combat spells is not completely incoherent;
however, for such reasons as given in this message, plus the Physical Adept
uniqueness appeal offered elsewhere, I am still against adding this
functionality to the canonical rules...

>On the second point, you may have misunderstood what I meant by simulating
>"Killing Hands." In no real way does this diminish from the Physical
>Adepts because they _never_ have to take drain from using their abilities,
>(with the exception of one of the powers that they can temporarily power
>up their physical stats, and then must take "Drain" to reflect the strain
>on their bodies). Their powers are "built in," while a mage must cast a
>spell every time they want to use a magical ability, and have the distict
>chance of their spells not working. This is something a PhysAd never has
>to worry about. As for this spell taking something away from them, a
>simple change from the spell being a combat one to it being a manipulation
>makes it "by the book".

This change my also greatly affect the usefulness of the spell. Many people
play that no Damaging Manipulations are effective in Astral Space, where
Killing Hands are perfectly legitimate. There also may be differences in
what such a spell does to inanimate objects. If nothing else, the mechanics
are already in place for the SDM's, whereas they are lacking for SC spells.
As for the PhysAds not having to take Drain, the system is balanced so that
they pay for their powers in other ways, though admittedly not having to take
"Drain" in the heat of combat might be a bonus. Then again, the mage with a
Manabolt is line-of-sight with it...

>Call it, "Flame touch" a damaging manipulation, sustained, that gives the
>mage damage by touch by wrapping their hands in some sort of mystic fire
>that hovers at the edge of their aura, and you could write it up in a
>matter of minutes. I assume some people already have. I will admit to
>there being a distict difference between this and "Mana Aura" in the sence
>that it would do damage as a fire manipulation, and not as a mana Combat
>Spell. I want to know if this should be that much of a difference that
>Mana Aura shouldn't exist?

I've voiced my opinion, and won't belabor the point. =)
--
/!\/!ark /!\!eidengard, CS Major, VLSI. http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mneideng
"Fairy of sleep, controller of illusions" Operator/Jack-of-all-Trades, CACR
"Control the person for my own purpose." "Don't mess with the Dark
Elves!"
-Pirotess, _Record_of_Lodoss_War_ Shadowrunner and Anime Addict
Message no. 8
From: Wadswat@***.com
Subject: Re: Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:22:51 -0400
In response to your message:

On Mon, 17 Spet 96, Mach@****.caltech.edu wrote:

>Since you are GMing, it is your responsability to say whether or not
>Combat Spells are sustainable in your campaign, but you will probably want
>to keep track of what goes on in this discussion to evaluate whether or
>not it would be a good idea. This is _not_ the sort of thing to "use
>against" your players. I know I would be mad as hell at a GM tht suddenly
>said, "Oh by the way, Combat spells are sustainable and guess what, that
>mage who hit you with a mana spell last round is still doing dammage!"
>This is something you want to discuss with your players, and inform them
>that if they get access to it, so do the "bad guys." Say, for example
>there is a major paper making all the rounds in the magic
>circles/journals/etc. that this kind of thing is possible and how to do
>it. On the other hand, taking umpteen S drain every time they hit
>somebody with a mana-bolt that could be sustained but kills things on the
>first hit, as well as trying to keep that power-stream on (at +2 target
>number penalty) while trying to avoid getting flattened by the security
>team PhysAd, may make them reconsider ever taking a sustainable Combat
>spell. With good GMing of intelligent opponents and reasonable rates of
>karma reward, you rarely have to worry about finding whatzits to "use
>against" your players. They'll have a hard enough time as it is.

When I speak of using a spell against my players, I'm talking about the
great big bogus baddies that the team might encounter and the end of an
intense run... I do not like to be a killer GM, and of course my players
would have access to sustainable mana spells, if they wished it. They might
think them frivolous however, until they get used against them. I enjoy
watching the guys I run with thinking their way out of my plots, since we
operate on a rotating GM chair system. Some of the best gaming I've had is
when my street sams never ever had to fire a shot! I'm trying to return the
favor for good GMing to them.
A sustainable mana spell sounds interesting in its effect and application.
At times, we enjoy finding 'whatzits' to pull on each other...to remind the
players that their characters will never be gods, and to strecth each others
mind in a new direction.
I only inquired about the spell because it's something I wouldn't think of,
but that they might. I apologize if I sounded immature and Monty Haul.

C Mahoney.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell Sustaining Worldview: RFD, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!