From: | Damion Milliken <milko@***.EDU.AU> |
---|---|
Subject: | Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting |
Date: | Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:24:19 +1000 |
> > Yes they *do*. Vision in astral is no clearer or less obstructed than
> > in the mundane world. Everything exists there visually the same as it
> > does in this world. Everything has an aura, else it couldn't be
> > affected by spells...
Yes.
> That would seem to raise a number of problems - the spell would have to
> pass through other auras before grounding out into its target.
This is true, however those auras will either be those of inanimate objects
(dust particles for example) which are too small to be observed with the
naked eye, and thus do not block vision, astral or otherwise, or really
small living beings... I do not want to get into the mechanics of casting
spells through tiny bacteria (you all know why), other than to say
"obviously it can be done - look at the SR rules".
> I see some problems with allowing glare to effect the Astral.
> Everything is backlit with the glow of radiant life energy, not physical
> lightbulbs; I don't have the source but I believe the commments made
> where a sparse concrete cell lit by a bare bulb would appear Astrally
> dark (the rare situation where visual modifiers do come into play). I
> don't believe the question was ever answered, whether lasers (and,
> following, floodlights) generate Elemental Light, which I might see
> crossing over to Astral.
I agree with you here, and as for the Elemental light, I also do not know.
> Smoke is a bit problematic, since water and fire both appear in Astral.
> Treat it as individual molecules? Each 'cloud' as its own Aura? If
> they are Astrally present, they can't be seen through; Astral should be
> much harder to see through, than much easier.
Smoke and other inanimate objects such as mist, rain, snow, and so on should
give the same vision modifiers to astral sight as to normal vision. They,
like all other inanimate objects (such as walls) still appear on the astral
plane and thus block vision, but do not block astral movement. Thus if the
smoke (or whatever) were thick enough to block vision completely, then it
would stop the synchronisation of auras. However, if it were thin, then the
auras of the spell caster and target could still be synchronised (all be it
not as well), and the smoke wouldn't block the passage of the spell to the
target.
> Ahhh. This is why we want better Astral descriptions in SR3!
It isn't all that bad as it is now, but a few clarifications certainly
wouldn't hurt.
> Getting back to the issue at hand, it's the _spell_ that does the
> targeting, not the mage, and (combat) spells are assumed to hit
> unerringly (otherwise everything's reduced to a DM). The _spell_
> certainly doesn't worry about a bit of night-fog.
Hmmm, I'd not say that myself. The spell just goes where the caster targets
it. Like a gun really. You "point and shoot". In terms of a spell, the
"pointing" is the synchronising of auras between the caster and target.
Also, combat spells do not always hit unerringly, as the caster may cast the
spell and achieve zero successes - a miss.
> To me, it would become an either/or situation: either you can make out
> the aura distinctly, or there's so much detritus in the way that the
> aura is indistinguishable. But 'partly' just doesn't fit. (Or do you
> only 'partly' synchronize your aura to the targets? Oh, that opens up a
> box frogs....)
I don't think so, myself. To me a partial synchronisation is perfectly
possible. Think of synchronising like plugging 100 switchbox plugs into 100
switchbox sockets that are randomly ordered on a wall. If you have a clear
LOS to the wall, you can easily plug in all the plugs. If there is a
billowing cloud of smoke between you and the wall, then you'll only be able
to see a certain number of the sockets. Then think of a spell as a power
surge down the switchbox plug lines to affect the target (the wall). If
only half as many plugs are plugged, then the overall affect is lesser than
if they were all plugged. Thats how I view it, anyway.
> > An area effect spell is indeed cast on an area, all valid targets in that
> > area that the caster can see. The center merely tells where the sphere is
> > centered, that's all.
>
> ...Which yields two types of combat spells: the 'bolts, where the caster
> has to synch aura, and the 'balls, where synching doesn't (?) have to
> occur.
Um, not that I interpret, no. An AOE spell is just the same as a singularly
targeted spell. The caster synchronises his aura with that of the target,
then pumps astral energy into the target. The difference being that an AOE
spell is doing the same thing to every target within a certain area. If the
synchronisation cannot occur, then the spell will not affect that target
(for example, if the target is out of LOS, of sufficiently obscured that the
caster rolls no successes). Obviously, the area of effect limits the
targets that can be affected by the spell - those outside it are not
affected.
> > A tiny example on Quickening spells in Grim1 (that I think carried over
> > to Grim2) which mentions Rikki Ratboy Quickening a spell on a bar patron
> > to Quicken it to the site; a Stink spell, it was). This may be in the
> > example not because of something about area spells but rather a
> > requirement for Quickening.
>
> p. 45 of the New Grimoire. The spell is Quickened to the Armadillo Bar,
> *not* a particular patron. Stink is an Illusion; it does not need an
> aura to latch onto as a combat spell does.
The "New Grimythingy"? I've got "The Grimoire: The Manual of Practical
Thaumaturgy 15th Edition, 2053", which is the Grimythingy for 2nd Ed SR, and
mines the 1st printing. It includes, on page 45, an example of Rikki Ratboy
casting a stink spell into the Armadillo. In the example, Rikki centres the
spell on a guy in the bar who happens to have a Willpower of 6. This target
number is used to determine the success or failure of Rikki's spell. I
believe that the example is incorrect in its execution of the game
mechanics, however, in that the spell does not need to be centered, and the
resolution of the spell is made individually for each person within its AOE
(using the single dice roll the caster made).
> This has a dangerous conclusion: The mage does .not. have to synch
> auras in 'ball spells, he just points and shoots. He should, then, be
> able to 'ball people in range of the spell but not visible to him
> visually or Astrally; the equivalent of tossing a grenade. Obviously,
> he has to intuit that a person is there....
I don't think so - look at my synchronising arguments above.
> > <Snip accurate description of the astral plane mirroring the physical>
>
> On the other hand, the color traffic lights emit, the screen on computer
> monitors, and neon lighting are all munged, since information can't be
> read off of them. So (to be argumentative) they emit light into Astral
> normally, but it isn't perceived correctly?
Hmmm, interesting point. I was under the impression that light on the
astral plane is not as we know it on the physical plane. Just that the
emmisions from auras of living beings, the interactions of these emmisions
and inanimate objects, and the perception of these emmisions by those with
astral perception are analogous to light and vision in the physical plane.
I always thought that objects that emmitted light on the physical plane did
not do anything special on the astral plane, but living beings emmitted the
astral equivalent of "light". Thus traffic lights appear the same no matter
what colour they are, and computer screens are impossible to read at all.
> > I agree. I don't see why vision mods should affect combat spells, was
> > only recently informed that they did and did a double-take, tried to
> > figure out why. I think the 'why' is game balance...
>
> It does make life more interesting.
This reminds me of the shaman in my group the other day, his quote went
something like "I need twos!? We should do shadowruns in the daytime more
often!"
> Off-thread: Via Masking, you can change the perception of your Aura.
> Shouldn't this, then, add to the difficulty of someone trying to
> manabolt you? (They see an Aura, but it's not your true Aura.)
But it is intrinsically and inexorably linked to your true aura, so if they
affect the "fake" aura, it'll pass right along to you.
Bruce H. Nagel writes:
> And the fact that you must see the target *with*mundane*senses* on the
> physical plane, if the target is not astral, in order to cast a spell at
> them. Period. Seeing them by assensing, even though there's always light
> to see by in Astral, doesn't count. Your physical eyes must see the target
> to form the momentary bridge from astral to physical (completing the
> circuit, as it were).
Yes, this makes sense. Upon reading the description of astral perception,
we see that it states "When perceiving astrally, the magician's senses are
focused on the astral plane. Purely phsyical things are visible only by
their astral echo, making interaction with the physical world very
difficult." To me this indicates that an astrally peceiving magician can
only cast spells at astrally present targets. OTOH, a magician who is not
astrally peceiving may cast spells are purely physical targets, but also
must abide by the conditions on the physical plane at the time of casting.
Thus vision modifiers are applicable to spellcasting.
--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: milko@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a21 C++$ US++$>+++ P+ L>++ E- W+$>++ N+>++ o@ K- w+(--)
O-@ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP->++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b++(+++) DI(+)
D G+ e>++++ h(*) !r (!)y--(+)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------