Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Damion Milliken <milko@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:24:19 +1000
Matb writes:

> > 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------
Message no. 2
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 12:38:05 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-13 11:25:42 EDT, milko@***.EDU.AU (Damion Milliken)
writes:

> > 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.
>
>
Okay, this is a beeper here...on Matt's behalf...the light from a stoplight
is -NOT-, please read this, is -NOT- Elemental Light. Sure it's light, but
-NOT- elemental. It's artificial lighting. Anything made by a technological
means of lighting, regardless of the souce type, is artificial.

sorry to get nutty with the exemplifications, it is just how it is stated.
It is also part of the ruling behind the "can't read a computer screen" from
the astral."

-Keith
Message no. 3
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 12:42:34 -0700
> > 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".

Eh? FAB? :) No, there's an easy out, which I overlooked: inanimate
things can be passed through easily on Astral space (otherwise, what's
the use of projecting?).

(klip)

> > 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.

...so the powerball splatters against the back wall? No, combat spells
hit unerringly, and it says as much in one of the books; spell movement
is too fast to be sidestepped unless an Astrally aware character has a
Delayed Action and is expecting one to fly his way. (The actual term
used is .intercept. the spell, since you would then go into Astral melee
with it.)

Achieving zero successes can be interpreted a number of ways, the most
easiest of which is that he fails to synchornize auras with the target;
the spell hits but does not ground through. There are other
explanations for zero successes as well.

> > 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.

That analogy doesn't hold up: If I can only make out the "thirty
switchboxes" making up his leg, I only zap him knee-down? The Aura is
whole and complete, like holographic memory; if you have part of it, you
have all of it.

> > > 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.

To give an cry I've let out often lately, how does the caster
synchronize auras with several different people at the same time? Maybe
it's just me, but under the current explanation of Auras, it can't
really happen.

> > > 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).

Hmm. My take on it was that Rikki wanted to get a patron so he centered
it over a patron. (Centered, not targeted. Big difference.)

> > 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.

I'll cede the point, but out of disgust at the repetition than
conviction.

> > > <Snip accurate description of the astral plane mirroring the
physical>

Gotta love the subliminal stuff.

> > 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.

"Anything special" is an extremely ambiguous term, used here. Care to
elucidate?

> > 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.

Look at it this way: I have myself and a bot. I see fine, but the bot
sees black and white. I tell it to zap anything green.

A magician synchs to the perceived Aura, which is *not* the actual
Aura. The spell flies off in search of it and, since the perceived Aura
is not present, misses. Unless you assume that spells are Initiates and
able to penetrate the mask.

This makes Masking a bit too much like Shielding, so I can understand
why, for game balance, it was removed.

> 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.

Makes sense, but it's wrong. Assensing is a natural extension of normal
eyesight and thus counts for targeting purposes. ("A magician cannot
cast spells directly at invisible beings.. except by using enhanced
vision or *astral perception*...") 'Purely physical things' relates to
rocks and other inanimatter; humans do have astral presence - it's why
they emit light, the argument you used above. The physical realm is the
least important portion of casting a spell; the spell energy jumps from
caster aura to target aura and takes place completely on Astral. If the
caster can perceive the aura - which he should almost always be able to
do on Astral - he can synch with it.
Message no. 4
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 15:32:49 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-13 12:42:39 EDT, mbreton@**.netcom.com (Matb)
writes:

>
> Makes sense, but it's wrong. Assensing is a natural extension of normal
> eyesight and thus counts for targeting purposes. ("A magician cannot
> cast spells directly at invisible beings.. except by using enhanced
> vision or *astral perception*...") 'Purely physical things' relates to
> rocks and other inanimatter; humans do have astral presence - it's why
> they emit light, the argument you used above. The physical realm is the
> least important portion of casting a spell; the spell energy jumps from
> caster aura to target aura and takes place completely on Astral. If the
> caster can perceive the aura - which he should almost always be able to
> do on Astral - he can synch with it.
>
>
Actually, at this point you're off track ... not wrong ... just off target.
Assensing is "partly" visual. the problem is that as "humans", we
are
visuall oriented, and our minds translate it as such. Ghouls for example are
blind (second gen for sure), and they can assense. There are sideways
remarks in the paranormals guides about "spiritual scent" in reference to the
toxic spirits.

Quit being so Xenocentric, it's time to realize the whole picture, including
the texture of the paper, the smell of the ink when it fresh, the sound of
the breeze captured in it's memory...

-Keith
Message no. 5
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 21:28:41 +0100
|Quit being so Xenocentric, it's time to realize the whole picture, including
|the texture of the paper, the smell of the ink when it fresh, the sound of
|the breeze captured in it's memory...

That's a nice way of putting it....

Poetic, aren't we???
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 6
From: "Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:59:34 -0500
You wrote:
> 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.

One neat little side-note: if you're ever blinded by darkness, and want to
shoot someone (not cast spells at them, that isn't possible without Thermo),
assense, take the +2 for acting physically while assensing, and use Gaia's glow
to see them and shoot. :) A small trick, but occasionally very useful.

losthalo
Message no. 7
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 20:48:10 EDT
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:59:34 -0500 "Bruce H. Nagel"
<NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> writes:
<snipping>

<<One neat little side-note: if you're ever blinded by darkness, and want
to shoot someone (not cast spells at them, that isn't possible without
Thermo), assense, take the +2 for acting physically while assensing, and
use Gaia's glow to see them and shoot. :) A small trick, but
occasionally very useful.>>


Question: Game balance aside, why couldn't you do the same for spell
casting? In fact, you'd probably be able to ignore the +2, since the
action of spellcasting is not wholly physical. After all, you're still
physically active so that you can actually cast a spell at a target on
the mundane world...


--
-Canthros (not that the dual-natured need worry about it, anyway:)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 8
From: "Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 22:24:13 -0500
You wrote:
> Question: Game balance aside, why couldn't you do the same for spell
> casting? In fact, you'd probably be able to ignore the +2, since the
> action of spellcasting is not wholly physical. After all, you're still
> physically active so that you can actually cast a spell at a target on
> the mundane world...
It has nothing to do with game balance, it's the way the mechanics are
explained. You have to physically see the target to tell the spell how to
ground into it from the astral. Casting a spell on a target in the physical
world is partially a matter of synchronizing auras, and partly a matter of
physical (visual) targeting. The two are both necessary, either part left out
makes it impossible to cast.

Though if you are casting a spell while assensing, you don't suffer the +2, as
it's for non-magical activities.

losthalo, who's never figured these rules were hard to understand...
Message no. 9
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 22:41:36 -0700
> > Question: Game balance aside, why couldn't you do the same for spell
> > casting? In fact, you'd probably be able to ignore the +2, since the
> > action of spellcasting is not wholly physical. After all, you're still
> > physically active so that you can actually cast a spell at a target on
> > the mundane world...

> It has nothing to do with game balance, it's the way the mechanics are
> explained. You have to physically see the target to tell the spell how to
> ground into it from the astral. Casting a spell on a target in the physical
> world is partially a matter of synchronizing auras, and partly a matter of
> physical (visual) targeting. The two are both necessary, either part left out
> makes it impossible to cast.

Therein lies the dispute.
Message no. 10
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 18:49:59 -0700
> |To give an cry I've let out often lately, how does the caster
> |synchronize auras with several different people at the same time? Maybe
> |it's just me, but under the current explanation of Auras, it can't
> |really happen.

> How about him not just synchronising auras, but cycling through?
> That way, all the auras are targetted and affected, but at VERY small
> differences in time... Think of those Mandelbrot screensavers that cycle
> through all the colours......

Didn't someone on the list propose something like this once - I believe
the actual scenario he suggested was that a mage was halfway cycling
through opponents when he was killed, or something like that.

And no, it can't be cycling through. Otherwise you end up with the mage
deciding not to blast his buddies; area effect spells effect everyone
within the area. And the actual spell-threading behind it gets foogy -
what, the spell gets released with the first aura imprint, unleashes,
comes back to get refreshed?

What's it mean, this 'aura synching', anyway?

> |> > 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 think by "new" he means "not the first edition one".

I didn't think it'd be that hard to understand!

> |A magician synchs to the perceived Aura, which is *not* the actual
> |Aura. The spell flies off in search of it and, since the perceived Aura
> |is not present, misses. Unless you assume that spells are Initiates and
> |able to penetrate the mask.

> Nope. The spell goes out seeking the PERCEIVED aura, heads directly for it
> and grounds through it.... It then comes across another aura hidden inside,
> but ignores it because this aura will do just fine thankyouverymuch....

> BANG!

Depends on how you define the Masking routine. Is it the mage's One
True Aura, with markups? Or is it a secondary image over the first? Or
is it just playing with the perceiving mage's mind?

Given he first, I can see spelling with no difficulty.

Given the second, I can see spelling with difficulty.

Given the third, I can't see spelling.

> |This makes Masking a bit too much like Shielding, so I can understand
> |why, for game balance, it was removed.

> Easy ways to reason it out as well....

Again, depending on how you reason Masking. The spell bumps into a fake
aura (or is given false parameters by the casting mage). Well, it looks
like it's the target, so it flows through - but to where? If it's a
falso image, it is by definition .not. the aura of the target. Ergo,
difficulties.

> |Makes sense, but it's wrong. Assensing is a natural extension of normal
> |eyesight and thus counts for targeting purposes. ("A magician cannot
> |cast spells directly at invisible beings.. except by using enhanced
> |vision or *astral perception*...")

Pardon me, but I must:

<nitpick>

> Astral perception has nothing to do with eyesight whatsoever.
> A blind mage could walk around without worry most of the time, as long as he
> was continually assensing.

</nitpick>

Replace 'eyesight' with 'senses.' Incidentally, almost all SR Astral
stuff written talks about Astral in terms of 'visible', 'viewing',
'sight' or 'vision.' Occasionally, 'assensing' or 'perception' come up,
but the former are much more prevalent.

> When you assense, you detatch your astral body VERY SLIGHTLY from the
> physical one, in order to see in astral space. Therefore, your eyesight
> matters not a jot.....

Oops. The </nitpick> should be down here.

> It's all just a matter of ruling HOW MUCH the astral body is detatched
> during assensing before it becomes fully detatched and loses control of the
> physical.....

> For example. Do you allow a mage to assense in order to see past a tight
> fitting blindfold? Possibly. A bag on the head (Magemask)? No.

... A fairly arbitrary decision, except that we want security to have
some way of stopping those mean mages.
Message no. 11
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 20:59:16 -0700
> > Makes sense, but it's wrong. Assensing is a natural extension of normal
> > eyesight and thus counts for targeting purposes.

> Nope.

Read my comments to Spike, vis a vis nitpicking.

> > The physical realm is the
> > least important portion of casting a spell; the spell energy jumps from
> > caster aura to target aura and takes place completely on Astral.

> To affect a physical target, it has to ground into their body, in the physical.
> That requires physically seeing the target.

Nope. You synch to an aura, not a physical structure. The spell
targets the aura. Follow.

> "A magician cannot, however, cast spells directly at invisible beings or beings
> in astral space [except] by using enhanced vision or astral perception." Quote
it
> correctly, it makes sense. You added that 'except'.

Corrected Third Printing, Bruce. The 'except' is part of the quote.
The obvious implication is that since you *can* assense invisible
creatures, you can 'bolt them. I don't see a hideous game imbalance
stemming from that.

> "A good rule of thumb is that magicians
> must see their targets with their eyes or a natural extension of those eyes."

Ahh. The reason for the nit. Again, you're assensing (astral sight)
the target. If you want to read it that tightly, you eliminate any
possibility of Astral combat, or targeting non-manifested elementals,
among other things.

> To ground a spell into the physical, the spell needs two things: visual (with
> physical senses) confirmation of the target, and a split-second synchronization
> of auras to tell the spell where, it astral, to go. Simple? Simple.

And incorrect. True? True. A mage is most likely to decide to target
something because he's seen it, yes, but it's not a requirement;
otherwise Ye Olde Blind Mage is SOL.

Just read the section on combat spells; because the auras are synched,
the spell energy leaps between the two. It crosses the distance in
Astral space; the spell is utterly unconcerned with physical matters
until it bumps into its target.

And note, that in the 'Astral glimpse' required to synch auras, the
magician _sees_ the aura of the target.
Message no. 12
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 23:42:20 -0700
> Spell Targeting, p.130
> "... Magicians cannot directly affect what they cannot see..."

Does assensing provide visual information? Yes. Does an assensing
mage, then, see his target? Yes. Can he target an assensed-only
target? Yes, QED. (For quotes, see the Grimoire section on Astral, p.
86ff. Nearly all of it is described in terms of 'visual.')

Incidental: A mage cannot *directly* affect what he can see. An
area-effect spell indirectly targets a 'hidden' character and therefore,
seemingly, is legitimate.

> "A magician cannot, however, cast spells directly at invisible beings or beings
> in astral space by using enhanced vision or astral perception."

Quote correctly. "A mage cannot cast spells ... except by using
enhanced vision or astral perception..." From the sentence, the
conclusion can be drawn that one can indeed target an assensed creature.

> You must see the target, and astral-only sight does not count. It is clear,
> and simple. Sight and an unobstructed astral path (i.e. no barriers or
> intercepting magicians) are both required for a spell to be cast on someone.
> This is all spelled out in more detail on pp. 149-150, if you care to trake a
> look, it's fairly specific and clear, imo.

P. 149 yields this quote: "The magician, because of the working of the
astral forces that power the spell, is able to *see* the aura of the
target. This allows him to align or synchronize his aura with that of
the target, permitting the astral energy shaped by the caster to leap
between them, through astral space..." (emphasis mine).

Further down: "What happens next is that the spell grounds out into the
target through the target's aura. This is because of the previously
stated rule that things in astral space cannot directly directly affect
non-magical things in the real world, unless there is a bridge. The
bridge, in this case, is momentarily created by the spellcaster when the
auras are involved are synchronized."

At no time in this exchange is physically seeing the owner of the aura
made a necessity. The aura-synching is all that's required to target
and cast the spell.

Now, a mage may not always be checking around astrally (Invisibility
affects normal vision, so unless an invisible creature tips off the
mage, it's not likely to be noticed) and a someone hidden from view
cannot be targeted, as the interposed objects block astral perception.

There's no rules-imbalance created by this, nor does it clash with
existing SR rules.

> So, what is the dispute?

Do you realize I've been asking the same question?
Message no. 13
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:00:42 EDT
Umm...okay, I thought I'd give you guys what I've go ton the matter here,
on affecting persons out of LOS with an Area-effect spell. First, you
cannot affect someone you cannot see (ie, out of your LOS/field of
vision) with an area-effect Combat spell. You have to be able to synch
auras with your target in that case, and you have to be able to the
target (and, by extension, his/her aura) to synch auras. And we all know
that manipulations are a different matter. Because they don't really
require you to synch auras with the target/victim:), you _can_ hit
somebody you can't see, but only with an area-effect _manipulation_. And
this is supported by passages in both the BBB and the Grimmy. So there;)


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 14
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:00:41 EDT
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997 22:24:13 -0500 "Bruce H. Nagel"
<NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> writes:

<<It has nothing to do with game balance, it's the way the mechanics are
explained. You have to physically see the target to tell the spell how
to ground into it from the astral. Casting a spell on a target in the
physical world is partially a matter of synchronizing auras, and partly a
matter of physical (visual) targeting. The two are both necessary,
either part left out makes it impossible to cast.>>


Could you point out a passage where this is stated? As I recall, you're
never required to see the target, just his/her/its aura, to synch with
it. And yes, I did just check 'Spell Targetting' in the BBB. It stated
that a 'good rule of thumb' was that the magician should be able to see
the target with his eyes or 'a natural extension of those eyes', which
would appear to include binoculars (optical only, electronics don't count
because it's got to be the 'original image' of the target), cybereyes
(because the mage paid Essence for them) and (by my interpretation,
anyway) astral perception. Remote vision (like from a drone or a spell
like Clairvoyance) doesn't work. Apparently, however, vision enhanced
with a spell is fine, so long as it doesn't do things like allowing the
magician's vision to follow a curved line (like around a corner or over a
hill) (reference: see X-Ray Vision in Awakenings, pg.135)


<<Though if you are casting a spell while assensing, you don't suffer the
+2, as it's for non-magical activities.>>


My reasoning on that point, exactly.


<<losthalo, who's never figured these rules were hard to understand...>>


Are you kidding? The magic rules are probably the most ambiguous and
indistinct set of rules in the entire game, hence all the discussion on
them:)


--
-Canthros (WOW! I think this is going to be the most posts I've sent out
in a couple of days:)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 15
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:50:33 +0100
|One neat little side-note: if you're ever blinded by darkness, and want to
|shoot someone (not cast spells at them, that isn't possible without Thermo),
|assense, take the +2 for acting physically while assensing, and use Gaia's glow
|to see them and shoot. :) A small trick, but occasionally very useful.

I've used that very technique against invisible Mages before now....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 16
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:00:27 +0100
|It has nothing to do with game balance, it's the way the mechanics are
|explained. You have to physically see the target to tell the spell how to
|ground into it from the astral. Casting a spell on a target in the physical
|world is partially a matter of synchronizing auras, and partly a matter of
|physical (visual) targeting. The two are both necessary, either part left out
|makes it impossible to cast.

Not IMpossible, just more difficult.
YOu'd need a link to ground through, like a spell lock if you cast while
assensing.....

|Though if you are casting a spell while assensing, you don't suffer the +2, as
|it's for non-magical activities.

Twoo.... Vewy twoo....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 17
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:07:58 EDT
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:00:27 +0100 Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
writes:


>Not IMpossible, just more difficult.
>YOu'd need a link to ground through, like a spell lock if you cast while
>assensing.....


Why would you need a link to ground through if you're only perceiving?
You'd need one if you're projecting, but if you're perceiving you're
already on the physical plane, you don't need to do anything really major
(like grounding through an active focus) to cast a spell at a purely
physical target.


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 18
From: "Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:24:45 -0500
You wrote:
> Could you point out a passage where this is stated? As I recall, you're
> never required to see the target, just his/her/its aura, to synch with
> it.
Actually, it states that you cannot target someone by seeing a bit of their
aura around a corner, for instance.

And yes, I did just check 'Spell Targetting' in the BBB. It stated
> that a 'good rule of thumb' was that the magician should be able to see
> the target with his eyes or 'a natural extension of those eyes', which
> would appear to include binoculars (optical only, electronics don't count
> because it's got to be the 'original image' of the target), cybereyes
> (because the mage paid Essence for them) and (by my interpretation,
> anyway) astral perception.
I've been informed of a change in this in a later printing of the BBB which
does allow astral sight to target without the need for physical sight.

> My reasoning on that point, exactly.

> <<losthalo, who's never figured these rules were hard to understand...>>

> Are you kidding? The magic rules are probably the most ambiguous and
> indistinct set of rules in the entire game, hence all the discussion on
> them:)
No, I'm not kidding. Even being informed that assensing can be used to target
otherwise invisible opponents can make sense to me. What is so confusing? I
think people get confused with this system when they start bringing their own
assumptions to it, or draw conclusions out too far. Certainly a few points
(grounding, though once I read the sections and understood it, I don't have a
problem making rulings on this myself) confuse people but for the most part
it's clear.

losthalo
Message no. 19
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:48:58 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-13 16:30:11 EDT, u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK (Spike)
writes:

>
> That's a nice way of putting it....
>
> Poetic, aren't we???
> :)
> --
>
Hey, somebody's gotta try.. 9~;]
-Keith
(the curly hat of imagination smiley)
Message no. 20
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 19:50:28 EDT
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:24:45 -0500 "Bruce H. Nagel"
<NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> writes:

<snipping myself>
<<Actually, it states that you cannot target someone by seeing a bit of
their aura around a corner, for instance.>>


Well, the target must be within the caster's LOS (and partial cover
modifiers apply, lighting mods wouldn't necessarily on the Astral). So
long as you can see enough of them to hit them with a gun (skill and
lighting aside:), you can target them with a spell.


<<I've been informed of a change in this in a later printing of the BBB
which does allow astral sight to target without the need for physical
sight.>>


My copy's 11th printing, what's yours?


<<No, I'm not kidding. Even being informed that assensing can be used to
target otherwise invisible opponents can make sense to me. What is so
confusing? I think people get confused with this system when they start
bringing their own assumptions to it, or draw conclusions out too far.
Certainly a few points (grounding, though once I read the sections and
understood it, I don't have a problem making rulings on this myself)
confuse people but for the most part it's clear.>>


The problem is that if the book were laid out _that_ clearly, no-one
would have these problems:) And, as *I* read the section of book
pertinent to this discussion (Spell Targeting, p 130, SR2), Astral
Perception becomes a perfectly valid method for spell targeting, with the
restriction that the person must be able to see the target with their own
vision or an extension of that vision which does not technologically
enhance or alter the original image of the target. For that matter, I
always found that the way the Astral stuff is written up to be fairly
clear (all things have an astral reflection, this reflection behaves in
*most* respects as the object itself. Glass is transparent and can be
assensed through, mirrors reflect, both the image of the person and the
astral image of the person's aura. A magnifying lens magnifies, even on
the astral. Why? Because that's what those objects do! :) However,
conctention exists, because some parts of the descriptions involved don't
make sense (like, inanimate objects' astral reflection is due to
reflected light? Hmmm, maybe reflected *elemental* light [like sunlight
or firelight]). Things need to be clarified, explained, and organized
(Why do I need to read three different sections of one book, plus
portions of another book, just to figure out spell targetting?).
Everything that's pertinent to a particular section should be included in
that section, which it isn't right now. I'd like to see that changed,
even if it means some information gets repeated (not an entirely bad
thing, since I was told that it can take hearing something 16 times
before a person *really* commits it to memory [gross generalization, I
only take about 3 or 4, 5 or 6 at most, usually:) ]).


--
-Canthros (did I rambel enough? :)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 21
From: "Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 01:32:11 -0500
You wrote:
> <<I've been informed of a change in this in a later printing of the BBB
> which does allow astral sight to target without the need for physical
> sight.>>
> My copy's 11th printing, what's yours?
First, I presume. Bought it when 2nd Ed first hit the shelves, after having
played 1st Ed for years.


> A magnifying lens magnifies, even on
> the astral. Why? Because that's what those objects do! :) However,
> conctention exists, because some parts of the descriptions involved don't
> make sense (like, inanimate objects' astral reflection is due to
> reflected light? Hmmm, maybe reflected *elemental* light [like sunlight
> or firelight]).
Umm, why would it be 'elemental' light? Things show up on the etheric the same
as the do irl with the one exception being that living things (including Mother
Gaia) give off light as well, providing illumination when none other exists).

Things need to be clarified, explained, and organized
> (Why do I need to read three different sections of one book, plus
> portions of another book, just to figure out spell targetting?).
> Everything that's pertinent to a particular section should be included in
> that section, which it isn't right now.
I agree wholeheartedly. It would make life much easier in running games.

losthalo
Message no. 22
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:10:01 EDT
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 01:32:11 -0500 "Bruce H. Nagel"
<NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> writes:
<snippage throughout>

>> My copy's 11th printing, what's yours?
<<First, I presume. Bought it when 2nd Ed first hit the shelves, after
having played 1st Ed for years.>>


Well, that would explain it. Have you hunted up a copy of the errata?
That change might be listed in there...


<<Umm, why would it be 'elemental' light? Things show up on the etheric
the same as the do irl with the one exception being that living things
(including Mother Gaia) give off light as well, providing illumination
when none other exists).>>


Because artificial light wouldn't actually light anything up on the
etheric plane. Elemental light, OTOH, is a natural phenomenon resulting
from certain natural things (like sun or a fire, for instance). I agree
that life gives off light on the astral plane, however, normal, man-made
sources of light wouldn't. Elemental light, like elemental fire, water,
earth, or air, would appear on the astral plane and would give off the
same effects that it does on the mundane plane (but that's IMO, and I may
be a teensy bit confused here:)


--
-Canthros (hoping he's not too confused:)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
Message no. 23
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:56:50 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-14 12:30:43 EDT, NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
(Bruce H. Nagel) writes:

> > Could you point out a passage where this is stated? As I recall, you're
> > never required to see the target, just his/her/its aura, to synch with
> > it.
> Actually, it states that you cannot target someone by seeing a bit of
their
> aura around a corner, for instance.
>
>
Actually, that section you are referring to says you can in the grimoire, my
question is, which one? Grim 1 or Grim 2?
-Keith
Message no. 24
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:59:47 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-14 12:30:43 EDT, NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
(Bruce H. Nagel) writes:

>
> > Are you kidding? The magic rules are probably the most ambiguous and
> > indistinct set of rules in the entire game, hence all the discussion on
> > them:)
> No, I'm not kidding. Even being informed that assensing can be used to
> target
> otherwise invisible opponents can make sense to me. What is so confusing?

> I
> think people get confused with this system when they start bringing their
> own
> assumptions to it, or draw conclusions out too far. Certainly a few
points
> (grounding, though once I read the sections and understood it, I don't
have
> a
> problem making rulings on this myself) confuse people but for the most
part
> it's clear.
>
I have to agree with losthalo here. The magic system is fairly well written,
compared to many, NOT all, other systems (since I don't know all the systems
out there, I'm leaving room for chance here ;). The reason for the debating
I think is just people in general and the power involved.

We are dealing with an abstract ability that is very hard to define in a
"layman's terminology". It's not that many people are stupid...it's that
many people are power hungry...
-Keith
Message no. 25
From: "Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:21:36 -0500
You wrote:
> I have to agree with losthalo here. The magic system is fairly well written,
> compared to many, NOT all, other systems (since I don't know all the systems
> out there, I'm leaving room for chance here ;). The reason for the debating
> I think is just people in general and the power involved.

> We are dealing with an abstract ability that is very hard to define in a
> "layman's terminology". It's not that many people are stupid...it's that
> many people are power hungry...

And part of the problem is simply that people want official rulings rather than
a decision they make on their own. Personally, I see some small holes in SR
magic theory, but I either find ways to explain them (can you Ground a spell
through a Quickened spell? No, it's designed to only channel specific energies
and is not a part of the 'target' in the same way as a spell lock or other
foci is, no true physical component, no usable bridge - note: just for example).

GMs really need to get their feel for the sustem and use that to decide
ambiguous situations, rather than clamoring for an official FASA ruling in
black and white. Why does it matter so much that there is no official position
on Grounding? Because people are stupid enough to blather on in huge arguments
over it that go nowhere? That's not FASA's responsibility, frankly.

As for players seeking loopholes for power, if you think those loopholes should
work, let them exploit them, then inform them that since they were obvious
(let's face it, thousands of mages, _some_one else has realized the potential
of spell locks and Increase Attribute +4...). Game mechanics loopholes or
tricks should not make PCs powerful, either eliminate them or make the
available to all. :)

losthalo
Message no. 26
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:04:39 -0700
Bruce H. Nagel wrote:

<snip>

> And part of the problem is simply that people want official rulings rather than
> a decision they make on their own. Personally, I see some small holes in SR
> magic theory, but I either find ways to explain them (can you Ground a spell
> through a Quickened spell? No, it's designed to only channel specific energies
> and is not a part of the 'target' in the same way as a spell lock or other
> foci is, no true physical component, no usable bridge - note: just for example).

<snip the part about stupid people>

The main reason that alot of us want an official ruling Losthalo is
because (for example) we are going to gencon to play in a SR tournament,
and when we get there we will be using the rules as they stand in the
BBB and such. If we are unclear on th ose rules, and the GM isn't sure
how to play it, because he may play differently normally than the other
two people running games for the tourney, and voila we have a big pain
in the ass trying to figure out what to do. Now we all use house rules,
we have a ton in fact (check out Loki's web page) but what about when we
move to another game we have to adjust these. Most of the time that's
no big deal, but if the rules are all laid out then it alleviates the
need for 900 house rules and trying to figure out what the rules are in
each game you play in. As long as you always play with the same group
then you are correct in saying that it is no big deal, but alot of us
are bringing in new players that played with someone else and switching
around to different games, and especially when we go to things like
gencon, it would be pretty darn handy to know what the rules are going
to be when we got there.

Caric

You are correct

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Area of Effect Spells and Astral Targeting, 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!