Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Aristotle antithesis@**********.com
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:27:51 -0400
Greetings -n- Salutations,

I have only recently begun to add in "advanced" rules from M&M, CC, and
MiTS. My players are fairly new still and have just recently begun to show
definite progress in learning the basic rules as presented in SR3.

One of my players has found himself especially capable of withstanding
punishment when combining the protection of his armor (4/2) with a Force 5
Armor Spell. If for some reason anything actually gets past that
protection he has his natural hardiness as a troll to back it up.

I was just wondering if the armor degradation rules worked on magical
armor as well. It would still take some real power to get by it, but it
might make unruly armor like this a little easier (and balanced) to deal
with.

Thank god the player can't afford a sustaining focus. At least I can hit
him with that +2 to cast for sustaining a spell. (although I think he is
saving up)

Just wondering,
-- Travis "Aristotle" Heldibridle
Message no. 2
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 04:00:11 -0400
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:27:51 -0400 "Aristotle" <antithesis@**********.com>
writes:
>
> I was just wondering if the armor degradation rules worked on magical
> armor as well. It would still take some real power to get by it, but it
> might make unruly armor like this a little easier (and balanced) to
deal
> with.
>
It likely would, but the rating would renew every so often. Likely
every time the character has an action or every initiative turn.

> Thank god the player can't afford a sustaining focus. At least I can
hit
> him with that +2 to cast for sustaining a spell. (although I think he
is
> saving up)
>
You might want to remind the player that the spell is always active, so
they can forget about simple stuff like bathing.

*************************************************************************
Griffin Industries
"A Shadowrunner's Corp."

http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 3
From: DV8 dv8@***.nl
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:13:06 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hunter" <griffinhq@****.com>
> You might want to remind the player that the spell is always active, so
> they can forget about simple stuff like bathing.

What? Are you serious about this? I always thought it warded off attacks and
it didn't act as a physical barrier. While I'm on this topic, is it visible
at all? I always thought that it was only visible when there was an impact,
like a visible ripple or a shimmer.

Regards,

DV8

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is,..."
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 4
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 04:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Hunter wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:27:51 -0400 "Aristotle"
<antithesis@**********.com>
> writes:
> >
> > I was just wondering if the armor degradation rules worked on magical
> > armor as well. It would still take some real power to get by it, but it
> > might make unruly armor like this a little easier (and balanced) to
> deal
> > with.
> >
> It likely would, but the rating would renew every so often. Likely
> every time the character has an action or every initiative turn.

Judging from Barrier's example, I'd say at the start of each Combat round.

> > Thank god the player can't afford a sustaining focus. At least I can
> hit
> > him with that +2 to cast for sustaining a spell. (although I think he
> is
> > saving up)
> >
> You might want to remind the player that the spell is always active, so
> they can forget about simple stuff like bathing.

Not with the errated Armor spell. It's just Armor. Air gets through, food
gets through (unless it's moving so fast you need to resist damage).

Besides, with a Sustaining focus, you can just cast it when you need it,
like a couple hours before your run. Plenty of time to recover from the
drain, if you take any.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 5
From: Aristotle antithesis@**********.com
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:12:08 -0400
>>>Damian Sharp wrote:
"Not with the errated Armor spell. It's just Armor. Air gets through, food
gets through (unless it's moving so fast you need to resist damage)."

"Besides, with a Sustaining focus, you can just cast it when you need it,
like a couple hours before your run. Plenty of time to recover from the
drain, if you take any."

Exactly! I think to many people have the idea stuck in their minds that
you cast a spell into one of these and forget about it. You only need cast
a spell into it when you need it. All it does for you, once bound, is
negate the +2 to cast spells due to sustaining a spell.

Thankya,
-- Travis "Aristotle" Heldibridle

P.S. Thank you to everyone for suggestions on how to handle the armor
degredation issue!
Message no. 6
From: Aristotle antithesis@**********.com
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:15:30 -0400
>>>DV8 wrote:
"While I'm on this topic, is it visible at all? I always thought that it
was only visible when there was an impact, like a visible ripple or a
shimmer."

I allow players to decide what visual effects, if any, a spell has. They
are made aware that this is purely for role playing purposes and will not
affect range/radius, damage, etc..

If they purchase a spell formula the appearance of the spell is written
into that formula. It will always appear that way.

Just my $0.02,
-- Travis "Aristotle" Heldibridle
Message no. 7
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 00:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Hunter" <griffinhq@****.com>
> > You might want to remind the player that the spell
is always active, so they can forget about simple
stuff like bathing.
>
> What? Are you serious about this? I always thought
it warded off attacks and it didn't act as a physical
barrier. While I'm on this topic, is it visible at
all? I always thought that it was only visible when
there was an impact, like a visible ripple or a
shimmer.
> DV8

Not kidding, just mistaken. :)

A barrier spell would work pretty much as Hunter
describes. Armour would probably let stuff like water
through if it's travelling slow enough. Then again,
you could rule it only works for physical objects
(bullets, blades etc.) which would make it difficult
to play catch, but doesn't do anything for liquids
(including Squirts). It's a really touchy one -
exactly how it works - or how you interpret it works -
can change a lot of things.

Personally, I like to think the spell is "intelligent"
enough to discern attacks. IOW, it functions like
normal (non-hardened) armour. It covers the body
completely, so it'll protect against anything that
regular, full-body armour would protect against (not
including anything for which you need special options,
like gas attacks) - that was the way it was designed,
so that's how it works. Yes, I would rule that tossing
a baseball to someone would count as an "attack" and
as the spell surrounds your body, you wouldn't be able
to catch the ball.

As for visibility - that's been made plain. I don't
think it would have been visible in SRII or prior to
that, because it seems to work more as an internal
mechanism (providing extra body dice), but in SR3 it's
stated plainly that it creates a visible energy field.
For that reason and because of the difficulties it
could cause in normal life, yes, it would be a bad
idea to quicken it. A sustaining focus, on the other
hand...well, that could cause problems.

Of course, I'd also rule that stuff like APDS works as
normal on it (you hit a piece of armour, you hit an
energy field - something that's designed to penetrate
armour is going to punch through no matter what it
hits - the principle is the same), so the bad guys
could pull that out if the mage casts an armour spell.
This would also be an ideal place to play "Big Gun,
Big Gun, Who's Got the Big Gun?" (see my post on the
"Balance Question" topic). As soon as the mage casts
an armour spell and surrounds himself with a
shimmering field of energy, he becomes a priority
target. It's for that reason and because of the loss
of stealth inherent in the spell that, while most of
the mages I've created since SR3 came out have had
this spell, and a number of them with it linked to
sustaining foci, not one of them has YET used it. It
has to be a SERIOUSLY bad combat situation to pull
something like this out.

Admittedly, I've only been playing PBeMs for a while
now, so I haven't been in THAT many combat situations,
but still...:)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
Message no. 8
From: Sean Edwards edwars2@*******.com
Subject: Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:00:49 EDT
>Armour would probably let stuff like water through if it's travelling slow
>enough.

"Attack has the sole purpose of tricking the opponent into a misstep,
setting him up for the attack sinister. The shield turns the fast blow,
admits the slow kindjal!"

hoping to avoid nick confusion,
Dr. Freak
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Armor Degradation vs Armor Spell?, 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!