Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Jordan, Dave" <dave_jordan@******.COM>
Subject: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:04:19 PST
Hello all...

Recently, after a short two year stint playing a Samurai, I began
playing a Street Shaman. I'm really enjoying him, even though I've
never really been all that fond of magic. The thing is, after
building up a 1000+ Karma with a Samurai, there's never anything to do
with it anymore, except save all the mages in the group from dying
(they use their Karma for building their characters). But as a
Shaman, I've found that you can never have enough Karma, because
their's always something new you HAVE to do to increase your
character's power in some way.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that I have an idea I want to run
by you all. Right now, my character, Omen, is saving funds and karma
to build/bond a weapon focus. My question is about the type of focus
I want to build.

My idea is based on a rather antiquated weapon, the 3 balled flail. I
was tired of all the damned magic swords all over the place, and
wanted to be original. My question is this: I wanted to anchor
spells onto the balls of the flail. Three separate spells on three
separate balls. Perhaps Firestrike on the first, Lightning Bolt on
the second, and Acid Stream on the third. I wanted to make it so that
with a pre-determined number of successes, 1 to 3 of the balls would
hit a given target, and each spell would go off on impact.

Maybe:
1-4 Successes = one ball
5-6 Successes = two balls
7 + Successes = all three balls/spells

What do you all think? Does this sound workable? Too powerful?

D.J.
Message no. 2
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 17:09:01 -0700
> with a pre-determined number of successes, 1 to 3 of the balls would
> hit a given target, and each spell would go off on impact.

Well - if the damage starts at M

M - one head
S - Two heads
D - Three heads

L- - one head

Nightfox thats the simplest way.
Message no. 3
From: Michael Eames <eames@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 20:30:57 -0800
I'd say you need to redo the number of successes needed to get a spell to
go off. 1 success means you hit plus the spell went off. Seems a little
to easy. Maybe at 4 or more a spell goes off. Maybe even a random one.

I'd read up on anchoring. I don't think it is a multiple time thing for
a combat spell. So one ball has on spell in it. When you use it.
You're outa luck chummer.
Message no. 4
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 16:44:31 +0100
> Maybe:
> 1-4 Successes = one ball
> 5-6 Successes = two balls
> 7 + Successes = all three balls/spells
>
> What do you all think? Does this sound workable? Too powerful?

Now please dont get me wrong, I dont mean to insult you :) But this
sounds stupid and **&*ish to me. I mean this is SR, you dont have to have
stupid restrictions like 'it goes off only when fooo barr etc.' why not
build an object that detonates every time. Now as I said my coments were
not meant to be offensive :) Ok now for the weapon itself, I dont think
that you'll be able to get very far with a fragging flail in Seatle 2054
chummer. How do you plan to conceal comething like that, not to mention
that you wont be able to use it. Its not exactly the easiest weapon to use
now is it, where are you going to find a teacher to teach you. This is all
highly improbable as I see it.
And now for the spells, I think that damaging manipulations and combat
spells canot be anchored that way. If you anchor one and detonate it, it
goes off at point blank - I aint sure about that, I'll have to look it up.

Now its an imaginative idea, I'll give you that :) But I dont think that
its feasible, or even worth the work/karma/nuyen/etc.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 5
From: Andrew <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 13:01:18 -0600
On Sun, 12 Feb 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> Now please dont get me wrong, I dont mean to insult you :) But this
> sounds stupid and **&*ish to me. I mean this is SR, you dont have to have
> stupid restrictions like 'it goes off only when fooo barr etc.' why not
> build an object that detonates every time. Now as I said my coments were
> not meant to be offensive :) Ok now for the weapon itself, I dont think
> that you'll be able to get very far with a fragging flail in Seatle 2054
> chummer. How do you plan to conceal comething like that, not to mention
> that you wont be able to use it. Its not exactly the easiest weapon to use
> now is it, where are you going to find a teacher to teach you. This is all
> highly improbable as I see it.

Sure you could get far with a flail. If the flail was a useless weapon
then it wouldn't have been used for long in times past. Do you think
that ever person in Seatle has a gun, and even so, if you are close in a
flail can be a very deadly weapon. It is a lot more concealable then a
sword. Three balls on a chain connected to a stick compared to a long
piece of metal, which do you think would be easier to hide. Finding a
teacher. With the number of middle age weapon games, I think you could
find a teacher. You could probablely get teaching in a martial arts
academy, or at least a related weapon. It isn't that improbable.

> And now for the spells, I think that damaging manipulations and combat
> spells canot be anchored that way. If you anchor one and detonate it, it
> goes off at point blank - I aint sure about that, I'll have to look it up.

The spells can be anchored. It would be easier though to design a
sustained damaging manipulations. Say flame weapon with a M damage. You
anchor that on the balls, and according to the rules, raise the damge
level by two and add half the force to the power. A flaming flail would
keep most people from bothering you. Make anybody think twice.

-Andrew
Message no. 6
From: Jeff McRae <Lucifer7X@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:37:33 -0500
I like your idea. It seems perfectly plausable to me. If you do decide to
continue with the idea, let me know how it turns out.

- Ice Pick
Message no. 7
From: "The Kumquat <smirk>" <CRF_BROWNJT@***.CUIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 17:49:57 -0600
>Sure you could get far with a flail. If it was such a useless weapon, it
>wouldn't have been used for long in times past.

Maybe I'm being too picky here, but I have to agree that a flail would be all
but useless in 2050's. The device known as a flail, which is a chain attached
to a long stick or pole was NOT originally used as a weapon. It was a tool
used in ancient China and other eastern countries for the harvest and threshing
of crops. It's no more a weapon than a sickle, or even a pitchfork, but it CAN
be used as one. When you attach a ball (or more than one) to the end of the
chain, it is technically no longer a flail, it has become a mace, which WAS
specifically designed as a weapon. If you could find ancient Chinese farmers
in 2055, then you would have a decent teacher for flailing. <smirk> But I agree
with the idea that although possible, it would be difficult to find MACE
teachers who are willing to train a scruffy 'runner.

Just My Two Pence.
The Kumquat.
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:39:48 +0930
> of crops. It's no more a weapon than a sickle, or even a pitchfork, but it CAN
> be used as one. When you attach a ball (or more than one) to the end of the
> chain, it is technically no longer a flail, it has become a mace, which WAS
> specifically designed as a weapon. If you could find ancient Chinese farmers
> in 2055, then you would have a decent teacher for flailing. <smirk> But I agree
> with the idea that although possible, it would be difficult to find MACE
> teachers who are willing to train a scruffy 'runner.
>

No, no, no...

A _mace_ is a club, usually metal, that's got a large ball on the end. The
swinging chain thingy is a flail, the swinging chain thingy with a ball on
the end with spikes is a morning star, and the swinging chain thingy (don't
you love these technical terms) is still a flail. The length of the flail
determined wether it was used as a cavalry or infantry weapon. It is
decidely western in origin, although a similar device was used in
agriculture in the east (it is not certain wether the Western one had
agricultural roots).

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.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. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:24:51 +0100
>The swinging chain thingy is a flail, the swinging chain thingy with a ball on
>the end with spikes is a morning star, and the swinging chain thingy (don't
>you love these technical terms) is still a flail. The length of the flail
>determined wether it was used as a cavalry or infantry weapon. It is
>decidely western in origin, although a similar device was used in
>agriculture in the east (it is not certain wether the Western one had
>agricultural roots).

If I recall correctly, I've seen old pictures (about pre-WW2) of farmers
using long wooden shafts with a small chain at one end, and a shorter wooden
shaft at the other end of the chain -- flails, in other words -- to thresh
grain. And as for such Eastern implements, how about the nunchaku (sp)?


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Send cash now if you want to be saved! It's the church of funk!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 10
From: John Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:43:11 +0100
> > Now please dont get me wrong, I dont mean to insult you :) But this
> > sounds stupid and **&*ish to me. I mean this is SR, you dont have to have
> > stupid restrictions like 'it goes off only when fooo barr etc.' why not
> > build an object that detonates every time. Now as I said my coments were
> > not meant to be offensive :) Ok now for the weapon itself, I dont think
> > that you'll be able to get very far with a fragging flail in Seatle 2054
> > chummer. How do you plan to conceal comething like that, not to mention
> > that you wont be able to use it. Its not exactly the easiest weapon to use
> > now is it, where are you going to find a teacher to teach you. This is all
> > highly improbable as I see it.
>
> Sure you could get far with a flail. If the flail was a useless weapon
> then it wouldn't have been used for long in times past. Do you think

I think you got me wrong, I didnt say that flails cant be devastating as
weapons, my point was that it'll be too hard to conceal and too hard to
handle (find a teacher) to present you with any advantages over a more
conventional melee weapon.

> that ever person in Seatle has a gun, and even so, if you are close in a
> flail can be a very deadly weapon.

Well taking modern day USA as an example, my answer is a great big YES.
I mean even as we speak every american (statistically) owns a gun. Now
I have this feeling :) that living in a "warzone" like Seattle would make
them gear up, dont you think ? So yes I really do beleive that your average
John Doe will be packing at least a hold out or light pistol.

> It is a lot more concealable then a
> sword. Three balls on a chain connected to a stick compared to a long
> piece of metal, which do you think would be easier to hide. Finding a

Well, what would the diameter of those *spiked* balls be, how much
would they weigh. Excuse me but I canot picture someone hiding a rattling
chain, a stick and 3 *spiked* balls under his duster :) I mean even a
diameter of 10cm would make them ridiculusly big to conceal. On the other
hand a blade is flat, you can have a concealable holster for it and on
the whole has a more concealable shape.

> teacher. With the number of middle age weapon games, I think you could
> find a teacher. You could probablely get teaching in a martial arts
> academy, or at least a related weapon. It isn't that improbable.

Well if you say so. I must admit that I dont have any experience with
martial arts or melee weapons for that matter.

> > And now for the spells, I think that damaging manipulations and combat
> > spells canot be anchored that way. If you anchor one and detonate it, it
> > goes off at point blank - I aint sure about that, I'll have to look it up.
>
> The spells can be anchored. It would be easier though to design a
> sustained damaging manipulations. Say flame weapon with a M damage. You
> anchor that on the balls, and according to the rules, raise the damge
> level by two and add half the force to the power. A flaming flail would
> keep most people from bothering you. Make anybody think twice.

Yes that would be the only way to do it. And it would mean that all the balls
"go off" every time. I checked the Grimoire again last night and I can
assure you that all damaging spells anchored (combat and manipulation spells)
will go off at ground zero. This means that they will hit the dude holding
the weapon if they are single target spells or hit the entire area if they
are area of effect spells.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 11
From: Kyrie Tarrent <MatrxMstrs@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:26:06 -0500
Pardon me for asking in this mess here. But aren't sustainable spells the
only type that can be anchored?

Kyrie, The Matrix Mistress

P.S. I am working on getting better access to the world.
Message no. 12
From: Inquisitor <ESPD92MS@****.ANGLIA-POLYTECHNIC.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:44:00 GMT
The flail/morning star that is being discussed is not the nunchaku style rice-
flail but the medieaval weapon used by men who hadn't even heard of rice, let
alone Bruce Lees flailing chuks about. The Europeans DID use a three-balled
weapon. When you add a ball onto the end of a chain it becomes a morning-star,
a mace has a solid head attatched directly onto the shaft. The idea itself
(a magic morning-star is bloody brilliant, it would be even better if a phy-
adept could use it.)
Message no. 13
From: Andrew <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:59:57 -0600
On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Kyrie Tarrent wrote:

> Pardon me for asking in this mess here. But aren't sustainable spells the
> only type that can be anchored?
>

You can anchor any spell. An interesting use for combat spells is to
make them delayed. You can make magic grenades, or heaven forbid, a
three second delayed air blast holy hand grenade. :P

-Andrew
Message no. 14
From: "Jordan, Dave" <dave_jordan@******.COM>
Subject: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:36:03 PST
Thanks everyone for your ideas and concerns...

Maybe you're right. Perhaps it would be hard to find a "flail or
morningstar" teacher in 21st century Seattle. However, I don't
believe it would be that hard to teach yourself how to use one. You
could set up a mock human target and learn on your own. Maybe it
would take a while, but it could be done.

As for concealability, sure it would be hard to conceal. But I don't
believe Lone Star would send out the SWAT team to corner someone with
an antique flail slung on his shoulder. Maybe I would get it taken
away entering established businesses, but I would be able to carry it
most anywhere without scaring too many people. As you said, about %90
to %95 of the people in Seattle have guns as it is. Not too many
people would get extremely alarmed by a wierd looking shaman toting a
stick with 3 balls on the end of it.

The damage part was the problem I had with the weapon. I thought you
could anchor combat spells and damaging manips to weapon foci and it
would raise the damage tgt.# and damage level. The effect of the
spell would be basically just that, an effect. In other words, the
spell doesn't go off, but you'd have a "flaming sword". Am I right?
I didn't want to make the weapon too powerful and upset game balance,
however, so I was mulling rules to stop that from happening. Thus,
the rules for 1-3 balls hitting. I mean, its highly unlikely that
fewer than 3 balls would hit anyway, being as they are all swinging in
the same arc with the same velocity.

Perhaps I should anchor one damaging spell on it, and anchor spells
with other effects on the remaining balls. Maybe Thunderclap and Ice
Sheet. Is that possible? Or can only damaging spells be anchored?

As for this being a stupid **&*ish idea, I disagree. If you
automatically dismiss any idea that sound's "**&*ish", then you're
missing a lot of imaginative ideas that could make your game more
interesting. This idea had nothing to do with **&*, even though I
admit it may sound like it, now that I think about it.


Any more ideas or answers to my questions? I'd be glad to hear em...


D.J.
Message no. 15
From: MR DELIVAN S HARDERS <YUBM21A@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:59:27 EST
In additional reply to Andrews comments about anchoring spells, I would
like to put this in. I think the better spell to add is damaging manipu-
lations. They bring up the lethality of your weapon really well. I
created "Flame Blade" and "Frost Brand" for my weapons. My katana
(weapon
focus 4) now does 18D when the anchor is active. If you want to make the
spell sustain itself though, the drain can become really nasty.

-Reaver
Message no. 16
From: Andrew <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:46:27 -0600
On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Jordan, Dave wrote:

> Maybe you're right. Perhaps it would be hard to find a "flail or
> morningstar" teacher in 21st century Seattle. However, I don't
> believe it would be that hard to teach yourself how to use one. You
> could set up a mock human target and learn on your own. Maybe it
> would take a while, but it could be done.

Personally, I think you could find a related oriental weapon and learn it
at a martial arts dojo. I do have experience in that field, and learning
weapon forms can be done very easily with related weapons. The stick
fighting arts can easily be applied to swords, as an example.

> The damage part was the problem I had with the weapon. I thought you
> could anchor combat spells and damaging manips to weapon foci and it
> would raise the damage tgt.# and damage level. The effect of the
> spell would be basically just that, an effect. In other words, the
> spell doesn't go off, but you'd have a "flaming sword". Am I right?
> I didn't want to make the weapon too powerful and upset game balance,
> however, so I was mulling rules to stop that from happening. Thus,
> the rules for 1-3 balls hitting. I mean, its highly unlikely that
> fewer than 3 balls would hit anyway, being as they are all swinging in
> the same arc with the same velocity.

A sustained damageing manipulation will increase the damage level and the
power. Check the Grimoire for limits and actual effects. An instant
spell just goes off, point blank. In other words, think magic grenade.

-Andrew
Message no. 17
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 14:05:14 -0700
>Kyrie, The Matrix Mistress
>
>Pardon me for asking in this mess here. But aren't sustainable spells the
>only type that can be anchored?

no - their just the only ones you can turn on and off (if they are touch only)

Nightfox
Message no. 18
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:27:11 +0100
> Thanks everyone for your ideas and concerns...

I am glad my negative attitude helped :)

> Maybe you're right. Perhaps it would be hard to find a "flail or
> morningstar" teacher in 21st century Seattle. However, I don't
> believe it would be that hard to teach yourself how to use one. You
> could set up a mock human target and learn on your own. Maybe it
> would take a while, but it could be done.

I agree, that is possible. Nevertheless your skill would not be very high
and I would deem (as a GM) that you would need more karma to learn a skill
that way (on your own - trial and error basis).

> As for concealability, sure it would be hard to conceal. But I don't
> believe Lone Star would send out the SWAT team to corner someone with
> an antique flail slung on his shoulder. Maybe I would get it taken
> away entering established businesses, but I would be able to carry it
> most anywhere without scaring too many people. As you said, about %90
> to %95 of the people in Seattle have guns as it is. Not too many
> people would get extremely alarmed by a wierd looking shaman toting a
> stick with 3 balls on the end of it.

Well it depends on the places you frequent. I mean if you normally stay to
the barrens or any other equally "nice" part of Seattle then toting that
flail would really be no problem - other than making you stick out like a
sore thumb :) But I was thinking more about downtown and the other realy
nice parts my chars tend to hang around. "someone with an antique flail
slung on his shoulder" would definitely draw the Stars attention there.
As for the people having guns and being insensitive to their presence,
well I dont agree. Yeah nearly everybody has a gun, but they try to keep
it hidden - concealed. Only runners and maniacs go around toting HACs
(and again places like the barrens are the exception).

> The damage part was the problem I had with the weapon. I thought you
> could anchor combat spells and damaging manips to weapon foci and it
> would raise the damage tgt.# and damage level. The effect of the
> spell would be basically just that, an effect. In other words, the
> spell doesn't go off, but you'd have a "flaming sword". Am I right?
> I didn't want to make the weapon too powerful and upset game balance,
> however, so I was mulling rules to stop that from happening. Thus,
> the rules for 1-3 balls hitting. I mean, its highly unlikely that
> fewer than 3 balls would hit anyway, being as they are all swinging in
> the same arc with the same velocity.

Technically you can anchor combat or damaging manipulation spell, but they
will not do you any good - unless you want to commit suicide :) But according
to the grimoire you can anchor a sustained manipulation that would
raise the power and damage level of your weapon. Yes this would make
it a kind of "flaming sword".

QUESTION: I know that this question has come up in the past, but here goes.
How does one go about aplying the drain rules to sustained manipulation
spells - and how much damage takes the target. Does the target get to
resist damage evey complex action the mage has, or is it every turn?

> Perhaps I should anchor one damaging spell on it, and anchor spells
> with other effects on the remaining balls. Maybe Thunderclap and Ice
> Sheet. Is that possible? Or can only damaging spells be anchored?

You can anchor more than one spells on an object, its harder though.

> As for this being a stupid **&*ish idea, I disagree. If you
> automatically dismiss any idea that sound's "**&*ish", then you're
> missing a lot of imaginative ideas that could make your game more
> interesting. This idea had nothing to do with **&*, even though I
> admit it may sound like it, now that I think about it.

Well I have nothing against new ideas, thats why I am debating this one
with you after all :) But I have a lot against **&* and an idea that
sounds **&*ish :) should first be thoroughly cleansed before it is of
any use :)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 19
From: MR DELIVAN S HARDERS <YUBM21A@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:59:30 EST
On 14 Feb 95, Jani Fikouras (I hope I spelled that right) wrote;

>QUESTION: How does one go about applying the drain rules to sustained
>manipulation spells - and how much damage does the target take. Does the
>target resist damage every complex action the mage has, or is it every >turn?
The target would resist damage from the weapon every time it hit, and
the weapons damage is modified as stated in the Grimoire. As to sustaining
the spell, if the mage is smart, he will make the anchor sustain itself.
It brings up the drain target, but it's well worth the effort.

-Reaver
Message no. 20
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:26:53 +0100
> >QUESTION: How does one go about applying the drain rules to sustained
> >manipulation spells - and how much damage does the target take. Does the
> >target resist damage every complex action the mage has, or is it every >turn?

> The target would resist damage from the weapon every time it hit, and
> the weapons damage is modified as stated in the Grimoire. As to sustaining
> the spell, if the mage is smart, he will make the anchor sustain itself.
> It brings up the drain target, but it's well worth the effort.

Yep, I was aware of that. My question however concerns non-anchored spells.
I know that its a typo, but in the Grimoire the "Spark" spell is listed to have
a duration of Sustained, this is the kind of thing I am interested in (you know
the kinda thing the Emperor tries on Luke in ROTJ). What would happen if a mage
wanted to continuously cast a damaging spell (it is conceivable for a spell like
Spark).

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 21
From: "Thomas W. Craig" <Craigtw1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:46:58 -0500
A sustained spell would cause the mage to resist the drain code every round
the spell is sustained.
Tom Craig
Message no. 22
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:18:55 +0100
> A sustained spell would cause the mage to resist the drain code every round
> the spell is sustained.

Yeah, that makes sence, but how about this ? What happens if a mage
gets more actions (it has been known to happen you know, sammies are
not the only ones with that priviledge :) Does he resist Drain every
complex action ? or once a round. If he resists every complex action
his opponents should also resist damage every complex action. On the other
hand this would mean that a mage with more actions can do more damage
sustaining a spell for the same duration as a mage with less actions.
But this argument has another side, if mages are refused the priviledge
to do damage every complex action then a mage that doesnt sustain the spell
but rather re-casts it every action does do more damage ???????????
Now do you see my predicament ?

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 23
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:04:50 -0700
SUSTAINED SPELLS

Sustained spells should NOT require drain resistance each round - that goes
against the whole concept of Sustained and Permanent spells (which also have to
be sustained for a while). Instead of more drain, these spells require
concentration by the mage to keep the flow going.

It is in certain ways much like a light bulb. A light bulb will most likely
burn out right when you flick it on, becasue at that point there is a beginning
wave of electricity going into it. Once it has passed the crest, the lightbulb
has a much lesser chance of blowing.

The same goes for a mage - He looks at his target and synchs his aura to the
targets. He then coalesques the energy and sends it traveling to the target
through the astral plane where it channels into the target through the link the
mage made by synching his aura. Once this is done, the mage only has to
concentrate to keep the energy flowing into the target, he does not have to take
the enegry into himself, but rather, he holds onto to the remote the remote
control and fiddles a little bit with the energy, but thats all.


SUSTAINED SPELLS AND ACTION PHASES

A mage SHOULD do damage every phase he has an action. Since he can change his
focus to another target, there by doing damage, he can therefore damage the
person again.

Think of it like this. The mage has the above remote control to the spell, when
his action comes around - he can treak it again, thereby doing more damage.
No - he should not have to roll successes again, the spell is already grounded,
though you might want to roll and see if he keeps the spell on target if it is a
damaging manipulation (which are like guns in that they travel the distace)



CONCLUSION

Sustained spells cause a +2 to all TN
Sustained spells can be modified every action Phase the mage has
(though the mage can also make small changes as the situation changes
- this is mostly for illusion spells)
Sustained Spells need only to resist drain once.


Nightfox

DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU - Daniel Waisley - DJW2@****.UCC.NAU.EDU
- Insanity is such a delightful state of mind.
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Geek code V2.1 GE d-? H++ s+:->++: g+ p? !au(-) a21! w++ v+* C++$(++++)
U(-) p? L !3 E? N K- W M+ V+ -po+(---) Y+ t+ 5+++! j-x R+(++) G' tv
b+(+++) D(+) B--- e+ u+*(++)(**) h(*) f+(*) r-->+++ !n- y+*>++
Message no. 24
From: "Thomas W. Craig" <Craigtw1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:14:43 -0500
I got into a little bit of **&* terminology...My round is equal to
action...For every actionthe spell is sustained, the mage resists the drain
of the spell.
Sorry about that,
Tom Craig
Message no. 25
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:37:31 +0100
Sustained spells should NOT require drain resistance each round - that goes
against the whole concept of Sustained and Permanent spells (which also have to
be sustained for a while). Instead of more drain, these spells require
concentration by the mage to keep the flow going.

I agree, the problem you see is that by allowing for such a spell to do
damage every complex action, you allow for a spell cast for the same duration
to do more damage when one mage casts it (the one with the more actions) and
less damage when another casts it. On the other hand it would be idiotic not
to allow multiple damage tests, as any mage that keeps recasting the spell
would do the damage anyway.


--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 26
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 03:12:25 +0930
>
> Sustained spells should NOT require drain resistance each round - that goes
> against the whole concept of Sustained and Permanent spells (which also have to
> be sustained for a while). Instead of more drain, these spells require
> concentration by the mage to keep the flow going.
>
> I agree, the problem you see is that by allowing for such a spell to do
> damage every complex action, you allow for a spell cast for the same duration
> to do more damage when one mage casts it (the one with the more actions) and
> less damage when another casts it. On the other hand it would be idiotic not
> to allow multiple damage tests, as any mage that keeps recasting the spell
> would do the damage anyway.
>

This one's fairly easy to explain... Damaging Manipulations (the only kind
which can be sustained) are focused on points, remember? So the target
might just be moving? Or maybe the faster mage moves the manipulation
around to do more damage?

Also, I'm wary of letting Sustained Damaging Manipulations around. I always
limit them in some way, like Spark is (A new ranged combat test each time),
or like one of my player's custom spells, Electric Blade (requires a
hand-to-hand each time). This is also quite within the rules for
Manipulations (don't believe me? Look it up. :) )

So, while Sustained spells don't require Drain tests each round, sustained
damaging manipulations do require some sort of test (at +2 for all tests
'cept the first, as well. :) )


--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.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. 27
From: Luc <rjwate01@********.SPD.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Weapon Focus/Anchoring
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:38:04 EST
> Now please dont get me wrong, I dont mean to insult you :) But this
> sounds stupid and **&*ish to me. I mean this is SR, you dont have to have
> stupid restrictions like 'it goes off only when fooo barr etc.' why not
> build an object that detonates every time. Now as I said my coments were

would make combat interesting especially on a botch

> not meant to be offensive :) Ok now for the weapon itself, I dont think
> that you'll be able to get very far with a fragging flail in Seatle 2054
> chummer. How do you plan to conceal comething like that, not to mention

use it as a decorative staff (some mages and shaman use fancy staves to look
important.

> that you wont be able to use it. Its not exactly the easiest weapon to use
> now is it, where are you going to find a teacher to teach you. This is all

practice with a padded one and learn usage of mace and whip since it is sort
of a combo of the two

> highly improbable as I see it.
> And now for the spells, I think that damaging manipulations and combat
> spells canot be anchored that way. If you anchor one and detonate it, it
> goes off at point blank - I aint sure about that, I'll have to look it up.
>
> Now its an imaginative idea, I'll give you that :) But I dont think that
> its feasible, or even worth the work/karma/nuyen/etc.
>


Just my opinion,


Luc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Weapon Focus/Anchoring, 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.