Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Ferri Pagano" <Ferri_Pagano_at_STRM__Amsterdam1@******.com>
Subject: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 09:09:45 EST
Hi, people, I have a question [yes, another one]. Do low-light goggles and such
work to decrease visibility mods for spellcasting? I know that cybereyes work,
but what about mods from goggles??

Also, a player has suggested that if he perceives astrally, he should be able to
ignore visibility mods, is this true?

Ferri
Message no. 2
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:00:07 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>Hi, people, I have a question [yes, another one]. Do low-light goggles and
such
>work to decrease visibility mods for spellcasting? I know that cybereyes work,
>but what about mods from goggles??
>

Ummm, no, I don't believe so. The reason for this is that with the
cybereyes, he has paid the essence costs, and as such, the abilities and
bonuses the eye gives is considered natural, the same way low-light is on an
ork... With the goggles, it's not natural vision. I believe this falls
under the same reasoning you can't use a telescope to cast at longer
ranges... (Not sure where that's from, but I remember reading it... Maybe
main book or Grimoire..)




Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 3
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:15:21 GMT + 2:00
<snip question about low light goggles>

@ Ummm, no, I don't believe so. The reason for this is that with the
@ cybereyes, he has paid the essence costs, and as such, the abilities and
@ bonuses the eye gives is considered natural, the same way low-light is on an
@ ork... With the goggles, it's not natural vision. I believe this falls
@ under the same reasoning you can't use a telescope to cast at longer
@ ranges... (Not sure where that's from, but I remember reading it... Maybe
@ main book or Grimoire..)

I could be wrong, but I believe that you cannot cast through
eletronically enhanced images, opticals are fine though. You can cast
through a pair of binocs (optica) but not through image enhancement
goggles.

Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
around carrying binoculars. <grin>










Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to face the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 4
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:03:07 +0100
Ferri Pagano said on 9:09/10 Sep 96...

> Hi, people, I have a question [yes, another one]. Do low-light goggles and such
> work to decrease visibility mods for spellcasting? I know that cybereyes work,
> but what about mods from goggles??

Very simply, a magician with low-light goggles on cannot cast spells. LL
works by electronically amplifying the available light and projecting the
image on a display screen in front of your eye => an electronic image not
fit for spellcasting. FoF mentions there are optical low-light devices,
but they're the size of telescopes, and definitely *not* portable.

> Also, a player has suggested that if he perceives astrally, he should be able to
> ignore visibility mods, is this true?

Yes, but he does get the +2 for being astrally active while performing
actions in the physical world. This does not apply when casting spells, I
believe, but if he wants to shoot his gun at a ganger, he should get the
+2.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I swore I'd never ever be like him...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 20:14:35 +1100
> Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
>image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
>11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
>around carrying binoculars. <grin>

But then you can't use it, either...


--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robertdw@*******.com.au *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 6
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: 10 Sep 96 08:16:00 -0400
Hi, people, I have a question [yes, another one]. Do low-light goggles and such
work to decrease visibility mods for spellcasting? I know that cybereyes work,
but what about mods from goggles??
>>>>>>>>>
Yes.

Also, a player has suggested that if he perceives astrally, he should be able to
ignore visibility mods, is this true?
>>>>>>>>>
Yes again he will lose visibility mods but there is a +2 modifier
inherent in the fact that he is astrally perceiving.

Ferri

chris
<Zero length text item>
Message no. 7
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re[2]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: 10 Sep 96 09:04:00 -0400
> Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
>image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
>11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
>around carrying binoculars. <grin>

But then you can't use it, either...

Actually, since the mage spent essence for the cybereyes, they
become a part of his aura(although a big black part :) and he can
use them to cast spells through.

chris
<Zero length text item>
Message no. 8
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:17:28 -0600 (MDT)
readle.cr@**.com wrote:
|
|> Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
|>image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
|>11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
|>around carrying binoculars. <grin>
|
|But then you can't use it, either...
|
| Actually, since the mage spent essence for the cybereyes, they
| become a part of his aura(although a big black part :) and he can
| use them to cast spells through.

You can ground spells through cybereyes?!?! <duck>

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 9
From: "Paolo Marcucci" <paolo@*********.it>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:42:50 +0200
At 08.17 10/09/96 -0600, David wrote:

>You can ground spells through cybereyes?!?! <duck>

Ohmygawd....

<cli-clack!> (sound of an Ares Predator II loaded with enchanted thwapping
bullets)
____________________________________________________________
Paolo Marcucci paolo@*********.it
InterWare Service Provider Trieste, Italy
http://www.interware.it/ Tel. +39-40-411400
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT d-(+)>-$ s: a C++$> UH+@>++ P+++$ 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------
Message no. 10
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:36:50 -0500 (EST)
>> Also, a player has suggested that if he perceives astrally, he should be
able to
>> ignore visibility mods, is this true?
>
>Yes, but he does get the +2 for being astrally active while performing
>actions in the physical world. This does not apply when casting spells, I
>believe, but if he wants to shoot his gun at a ganger, he should get the
>+2.

I'm pretty suer he'll get the +2 mod no matter what.
Any time you astrally perceive, you get the modifier, even for casting spells.
You're not just watching the aura after all, you're synching the spell to
the aura - that should include matching he physical world if the spell has
any phys components.
The other reason for the +2 mod is that astral perception is not natural for
a mage. They still have to concentrate to seperate information from the two
planes.
Mages aren't dual natured, their an exception to the rules.


FAMOUS LAST WORDS
"Help! The toad is kicking my butt!"
Message no. 11
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re[2]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: 10 Sep 96 08:51:00 -0400
Message authorized by:
: /S=chaos@ncweb.com/OU=SMTP/O=1.UCN.GO.1/P=PROCTERGAMBLE/A=MCI/C=US/ at CCM
>Hi, people, I have a question [yes, another one]. Do low-light goggles and
such
>work to decrease visibility mods for spellcasting? I know that cybereyes work,
>but what about mods from goggles??
>

Ummm, no, I don't believe so. The reason for this is that with the
cybereyes, he has paid the essence costs, and as such, the abilities and
bonuses the eye gives is considered natural, the same way low-light is on an
ork... With the goggles, it's not natural vision. I believe this falls
under the same reasoning you can't use a telescope to cast at longer
ranges... (Not sure where that's from, but I remember reading it... Maybe
main book or Grimoire..)




Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?

Actually, you *can* cast spells through telescopes as long as it uses
lenses rather than electronic magnification.....it's the electronic part
that hoses everything up, not the magnification. This is similar to the
concept of the fiber optic goggles in the CSH(not another hinky piece of
tech from THAT cursed book!!! :).

chris
Message no. 12
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re[4]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: 10 Sep 96 15:18:00 -0400
readle.cr@**.com wrote:
|
|> Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
|>image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
|>11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
|>around carrying binoculars. <grin>
|
|But then you can't use it, either...
|
| Actually, since the mage spent essence for the cybereyes, they
| become a part of his aura(although a big black part :) and he can
| use them to cast spells through.

You can ground spells through cybereyes?!?! <duck>

-David

Cute. :)

chris
<Zero length text item>
Message no. 13
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:00:04 +1000 (EST)
> ork... With the goggles, it's not natural vision. I believe this falls
> under the same reasoning you can't use a telescope to cast at longer
> ranges... (Not sure where that's from, but I remember reading it... Maybe
> main book or Grimoire..)

Oooohhh... fair enough. I don't know if there's any rules on the subject
- if there's not, I'd tend to say that things like low-light goggles
wouldn't work, since they're artificially modifying an image, but that
telescopes would for the same reason that fiber-op works - all the
telescope does is pass the image through chunks of glass to change its
size. No real artificial modification there...

All IMHO, of course.

Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 14
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:09:52 +1000 (EST)
> Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
> image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
> 11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
> around carrying binoculars. <grin>

Too true. All you need's one little initiation, to make up for the lost
magic point, and you become a HAPPY mage. Cybereyes, Smartlink (so your
friends don't run away when they see you pick up a gun) and whatever else
you consider essential - commlink, perhaps.

I don't like the "I'm a mage and I've got more 'ware than the sammy"
approach, but subtle cyber for a mage is almost a must.

Actually, on a related note:

What do you all do about magic loss related to bioware? I know it says in
the notes that bioware causes the same magic loss as cyberware does, but
what do you think of the house rule we've been playing (almost by
accident)? We rule that one point of magic allows for two body index
worth of bioware. Ie you still lose a full point of magic, but you can
put in two points of bioware, rather than one. After all, most bioware
items have a pretty high body cost (no little 0.1 items like cyberware
has to fill in the gaps) and nuyen wise you pay a high premium for
bioware. And the stuff's meant to be a lot more mage-friendly, but the
printed rules don't reflect that...

</rant off>


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 15
From: chaos@*****.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:39:39 -0500 (EST)
>Oooohhh... fair enough. I don't know if there's any rules on the subject
>- if there's not, I'd tend to say that things like low-light goggles
>wouldn't work, since they're artificially modifying an image, but that
>telescopes would for the same reason that fiber-op works - all the
>telescope does is pass the image through chunks of glass to change its
>size. No real artificial modification there...
>
>
Ok, I stand corrected. it was a bit of a bad choice of words for me. I
meant electronical long distance vision magnification devices.... I'm just
not a techie junkie and so I call them all telescopes... Sorry for the
confusion...:)



Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?
Not a flame, but a small glow:)
Message no. 16
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 03:55:20 +0000
On 11 Sep 96 at 8:09, The Jestyr wrote:
[cyberware for magicians]
> Too true. All you need's one little initiation, to make up for the lost
> magic point, and you become a HAPPY mage. Cybereyes, Smartlink (so your
> friends don't run away when they see you pick up a gun) [snip]
Hm... my friends start fleeing when I manage to get at the car's controls...
:-) Strange - till now I _always_ managed to stop. At least with help from a
wall :-)

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 17
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:47:12 -0500 (EST)
>What do you all do about magic loss related to bioware? I know it says in
>the notes that bioware causes the same magic loss as cyberware does, but
>what do you think of the house rule we've been playing (almost by
>accident)? We rule that one point of magic allows for two body index
>worth of bioware. Ie you still lose a full point of magic, but you can
>put in two points of bioware, rather than one. After all, most bioware
>items have a pretty high body cost (no little 0.1 items like cyberware
>has to fill in the gaps) and nuyen wise you pay a high premium for
>bioware. And the stuff's meant to be a lot more mage-friendly, but the
>printed rules don't reflect that...

Wait a minute . . .
Bioware affects Magic rating?
I was under the impression that a mage only had to test for magic loss
during the surgery?
Did I miss something again?
Please post book and page # where I can find this rule.


FAMOUS LAST WORDS
"Help! The toad is kicking my butt!"
Message no. 18
From: "Galen \"Marphod\" Silversmith" <argentum@****.isca.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:18:40 -0500
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Steven A. Tinner wrote:
> Wait a minute . . .
> Bioware affects Magic rating?
> I was under the impression that a mage only had to test for magic loss
> during the surgery?

Well, you're right that you can loose essence and magic with the surgery.
But ANYONE can loose essence due to the surgery itself (ShadowTech, 6
first paragraph under Implntation and repair).

> Did I miss something again?

but, yeah, you missed something again, too.

> Please post book and page # where I can find this rule.

On the previous page (5) the last paragraph states "As physical integrety
is even more crucial for the magically active .. these characters must
spend essence and addto their Body Index when selecting bioware. ... The
essence cost for bioare is ewual to the Body Cost."

Loss of essence = lost of magic reating for a mage/magically active.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galen Silversmith "Please relax and enjoy your shoes"--DNA
galens@*********.org argentum@****.isca.uiowa.ede galen-silversmith@*****.edu
http://www.isca.uiowa.edu/users/galen-silversmith/
"May the ducks of your life quack ever harmoniously"--Andromeda Yelton
2.xx GCS/ED/M/S/U/O d++>-(--) H+ s--:+ g?>+ p? au a-->- w++ v?*+ c++(++++)
UL++++S++>H++++ P+>+++ L+(++)>+++ 3+>- E H++(+) K- !W>--- M+>-- V(-)
-op+ Y+>++
______ t+ 5+ j R++ G++ tv+ b+ D B--- e+ u* h! f?- r-- n+(--) y?
__\___ / Don't tease or feed the straight people SilenceÞath
\ // If space and time are curved, where do all the straight people
\ // come from? Bi, Pagan, And Proud!
\/ ListManager:death-and-pineapples@******.com
Message no. 19
From: Loki <loki@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:56:15 -0700
Paolo Marcucci wrote:
>
> At 08.17 10/09/96 -0600, David wrote:
>
> >You can ground spells through cybereyes?!?! <duck>
>
> Ohmygawd....
>
> <cli-clack!> (sound of an Ares Predator II loaded with enchanted thwapping
> bullets)

<Amethyst Hammerhands, dwarven combat-mage, summons the astral energies
to him and casts "Decrease Body-part" (take your pick) on the ducking
ninny>
@>-,--'--- Loki

CLARKE'S THIRD LAW:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Poisoned Elves http://www.netzone.com/~loki/
Message no. 20
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:12:31 +0100
readle.cr@**.com said on 9:04/10 Sep 96...

> Actually, since the mage spent essence for the cybereyes, they
> become a part of his aura(although a big black part :) and he can
> use them to cast spells through.

Cybereyes only distort the aura a bit, so anyone assensing the person will
see there is cyberware present, but not where, what, or how big it is.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I swore I'd never ever be like him...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 21
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:12:31 +0100
Steven A. Tinner said on 2:47/11 Sep 96...

> Wait a minute . . .
> Bioware affects Magic rating?
> I was under the impression that a mage only had to test for magic loss
> during the surgery?
> Did I miss something again?
> Please post book and page # where I can find this rule.

Shadowtech, somewhere in the first couple of pages. To be precise, ST says
that magicians suffer Essence loss equal to the body Cost of the bioware
-- so a magician taking a pain editor receives a Body Cost of .6, and also
loses .6 Essence.

Many people use a house rule that says you don't lose Essence, but figure
the Body Cost as if it *were* Essence loss, to calculate the Magic Rating.
A magician with only a pain editor would then have an Essence of 6, but a
Magic Rating of 5.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I swore I'd never ever be like him...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 22
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 21:13:43 +1100
>> Wait thats a nice gizmo for a mage to pick up. The electronic
>>image enhancers, cost isn't that bad 0.1 essence, get rating 3 cost
>>11K. Hmmm. An idea I had better not tell to my GM, let him run
>>around carrying binoculars. <grin>
>
>But then you can't use it, either...
>
> Actually, since the mage spent essence for the cybereyes, they
> become a part of his aura(although a big black part :) and he can
> use them to cast spells through.

But unless he tells his GM, he can't use them, 'cause putting them in his
character would mean telling his GM.


--
Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 23
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 21:14:05 +1100
>Any time you astrally perceive, you get the modifier, even for casting
>spells.
>You're not just watching the aura after all, you're synching the spell to
>the aura - that should include matching he physical world if the spell has
>any phys components.

Nope... the +2 mod is only for non-magical activities. Hence, there's no
additional penalty for trying to Center (which, of course, requires
Astral Perception)


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 24
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:07:12 +1000 (EST)
> Bioware affects Magic rating?

Indeed, sad to say.

> I was under the impression that a mage only had to test for magic loss
> during the surgery?

Well, only if you get enough stuff put in...

> Did I miss something again?
> Please post book and page # where I can find this rule.

Okay, somewhere at the start of Shadowtech it says that a mage has to pay
Essence *and* Body Index for bioware. (and thus by losing Essence they
lose Magic) However, since most people figure that that makes bodyware
even worse for a mage than cyberware is, and they also figure that FASA
just threw it in in a hurry to stop mages munchkinning out, most people
re-interpret it to mean that "Mages lose Magic _in the same way_ for
bioware as they do for cyberware." It's the only sane interpretation of
that rule I've seen. A mage's essense is really no different from anyone
else's; it shouldn't be attacked by bioware when no-one else's is.



Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 25
From: Joker <s1057948@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:16:34 +1000 (EST)
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Steven Ratkovich wrote:
> Ummm, no, I don't believe so. The reason for this is that with the
> cybereyes, he has paid the essence costs, and as such, the abilities and
> bonuses the eye gives is considered natural, the same way low-light is on an
> ork... With the goggles, it's not natural vision. I believe this falls
> under the same reasoning you can't use a telescope to cast at longer
> ranges... (Not sure where that's from, but I remember reading it... Maybe
> main book or Grimoire..)

Natural refers to MetaHuman Vision, Not cybereyes..>Right?

===================================================================
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go,
because, man, they're gone.
===================================================================
The Joker,
Craig Chatfield. Email : s1057948@*****.student.gu.au

===================================================================
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never
expect it.
Message no. 26
From: Loki <loki@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:16:19 -0700
Steven A. Tinner wrote:
>
> >What do you all do about magic loss related to bioware? I know it says in
> >the notes that bioware causes the same magic loss as cyberware does, but
> >what do you think of the house rule we've been playing (almost by
> >accident)? We rule that one point of magic allows for two body index
> >worth of bioware. Ie you still lose a full point of magic, but you can
> >put in two points of bioware, rather than one. After all, most bioware
> >items have a pretty high body cost (no little 0.1 items like cyberware
> >has to fill in the gaps) and nuyen wise you pay a high premium for
> >bioware. And the stuff's meant to be a lot more mage-friendly, but the
> >printed rules don't reflect that...
>
> Wait a minute . . .
> Bioware affects Magic rating?
> I was under the impression that a mage only had to test for magic loss
> during the surgery?
> Did I miss something again?
> Please post book and page # where I can find this rule.



ShadowTech, page five under "Bionetics"

"As physical integrity is even more crucial for magically active
(magicians and adepts), these characters must spend Essence and add to
their Body Index when selecting bioware...The Essence cost for bioware
is equal to the Body Cost."

@>-,--'--- Loki

CLARKE'S THIRD LAW:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Poisoned Elves http://www.netzone.com/~loki/
Message no. 27
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Visibility mods for spellcasting
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:51:12 -0600 (MDT)
Joker wrote:
|
|On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Steven Ratkovich wrote:
|> Ummm, no, I don't believe so. The reason for this is that with the
|> cybereyes, he has paid the essence costs, and as such, the abilities and
|> bonuses the eye gives is considered natural, the same way low-light is on an
|> ork... With the goggles, it's not natural vision. I believe this falls
|> under the same reasoning you can't use a telescope to cast at longer
|> ranges... (Not sure where that's from, but I remember reading it... Maybe
|> main book or Grimoire..)
|
|Natural refers to MetaHuman Vision, Not cybereyes..>Right?

Correct. A metahuman with natural low-light vision has
better perception modifiers than a person with low-light
cybereyes or goggles.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Visibility mods for spellcasting, 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!