Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 17:49:05 -0700
Okay, here's what I came up with the the spell that will add to Ballistic
and Impact armors. Now we'll have something concrete to debate over.

Essentially, I took the drain code for the basic barrier spell, staged it
down one for personal effect, then staged it back up for those
"intangibles", and to keep it better for Game Balance. So the drain code is:

F/2+2/S

The actual affect of the spell is that for every TWO successes versus a
target number of 6, you gain one point of both Ballistic and Impact
armors. And you cannot get more points of armor than you have as the
Force of the Spell (so chumps who learn the spell at only force 1 can't
throw a gagillion dice into it and get 10 points of armor, or something
equally ridiculous). This also puts a clear limit on the spell, keeping
it from getting out of hand. Hell, even with 24 dice to roll, chances
are you will only be getting, on average, four 6's (I think).

So all in all, the spell will clearly help out, but I honestly don't
believe that it will unbalance the game at all.

Questions?
Comments?

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
Message no. 2
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:54:58 EST
Whistler writes:

> "intangibles", and to keep it better for Game Balance. So the drain
code is:
>
> F/2+2/S
>
> The actual affect of the spell is that for every TWO successes
versus a
> target number of 6, you gain one point of both Ballistic and Impact
> armors. And you cannot get more points of armor than you have as
>
Are you using this to augment actual armors, or in place of armors? If
you are planning to augment armors, I would place the TN higher, as
you are affecting highly processed and technological products. If you
are planning to use this in place of armor, then it is fine. I assume
this is sustained? Locks and quickens would be worth it, and this is a
prime example of the type of spell that, even quickened or sustained,
a mage could ground through. Evens things up a bit. Good job.

-Shadowdancer-
Message no. 3
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 16:47:35 -0700
Yes, I do plan on augmenting the armor already there. That was why I set
the target number at 6, but you also needed two successes to get any
effect at all, something that is slightly difficult. All in all, I think
I like the spell as written. :-)

BTW, sorry Mr. Craig for my first rsponse as to what Leonization is. It
just struck me at the time I read it that you had no idea of what it said
in Shadowtech. Not mention the fact that I had to wait 45 minutes just
to get a computer in this damn lab...

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler, a.k.a. the Lag Monster...:-(
Message no. 4
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 09:29:14 +1100
Erik S Jameson writes:

> The actual affect of the spell is that for every TWO successes versus a
> target number of 6, you gain one point of both Ballistic and Impact
> armors. And you cannot get more points of armor than you have as the
> Force of the Spell

> Questions?
> Comments?

This sounds good to me. I see no problems.

luke
Message no. 5
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 21:07:21 EST
The Whistler writes:

> Yes, I do plan on augmenting the armor already there. That was
why I set
> the target number at 6, but you also needed two successes to get
any
> effect at all, something that is slightly difficult. All in all, I think
> I like the spell as written. :-)
>
I still like the spell. But if I were to allow it, I would put the TN at 8.
Just my little addition for my runners.


> in Shadowtech. Not mention the fact that I had to wait 45 minutes
just
> to get a computer in this damn lab...
Fraggen' A, I heard that.




Many people fear Death, saying it is the bitter end.
I say Death is just lonely, crying out for a friend.

-Shadowdancer- <briddle@*****.vinu.edu>
Message no. 6
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 19:20:58 -0700
On Sun, 4 Dec 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:

> I still like the spell. But if I were to allow it, I would put the TN at 8.
> Just my little addition for my runners.
>
That might not be that bad of an idea. Makes it less effective, but even
still...the possibility that I can now add a few points to my
dikoted/hardened heavy security armor...MUUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

And for game balance, a TN of 8 might just actually be in order, to keep
people like myself in line...;-)

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
Message no. 7
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 21:35:08 EST
The Whistler writes:

> add a few points to my
> dikoted/hardened heavy security
armor...MUUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
>
> And for game balance, a TN of 8 might just actually be in order, to
keep
> people like myself in line...;-)

I said TN 8 because that is the TN for any spell cast against vehicles.
I was thinking(A dangerous thing, I know) that the TN could be taken
from the chart on different TN for inanimate objects. But this gets
complicated, so stick to the 8.

By-the-by, very nasty idea, ANCHOR this spell to the armor. Spell
locks are too costly for some armor, and this is just plain easier. :-)




Many people fear Death, saying it is the bitter end.
I say Death is just lonely, crying out for a friend.

-Shadowdancer- <briddle@*****.vinu.edu>
Message no. 8
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 14:40:49 +1100
When I said:

> This sounds good to me. I see no problems.

It was before I realised you meant that it _added_ to existing
armour. That's far too dramatic an effect, in my opinion.

Existing rules don't let you do this even with physical armour
(e.g. a lined coat over an armour jacket), and that's purely a
game balance ruling,as far as I can see.

At the _least_, you should treat the two types of armour as
separate resistance check. (But since we're still using SR I
armour and weapon rules, I can't remember the mechanics well
enough to suggest some rules.)

luke
Message no. 9
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:56:08 +0100
> It was before I realised you meant that it _added_ to existing
> armour. That's far too dramatic an effect, in my opinion.
> Existing rules don't let you do this even with physical armour
> (e.g. a lined coat over an armour jacket), and that's purely a
> game balance ruling,as far as I can see.

Sure they do, check out the Neo Anarchists Guide to Real Life
there is a rule there that allows you to do exactly that. You
dont get the full effect of both armors, but what the heck
7/4 is better than 5/3 aint it? The way the NAGTRL does it goes
like this, you take the highest rating and add half of the second
highest to it. So Armor jacket and Lined Coat is 5/3 + (4/2)/2=
7/4. This goes only for 2 pieces of armor.
Anyway about the spell, I found it ok if not a bit toooo hard
to be of any use. Definitely no need to worry about the fragging
Holy Game Balance (TM).

--
"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. 10
From: wadycki andrew m <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 11:56:51 -0600
On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> When I said:
>
> > This sounds good to me. I see no problems.
>
> It was before I realised you meant that it _added_ to existing
> armour. That's far too dramatic an effect, in my opinion.
>
> Existing rules don't let you do this even with physical armour
> (e.g. a lined coat over an armour jacket), and that's purely a
> game balance ruling,as far as I can see.
>

Actually the rules do allow it. There are layering armor rules in
Neo-Anarchists Guide to Real Life. It allows for adding half (rounding
down) of the lower armor.

-Andrew
Message no. 11
From: The GREAT Cornholio <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Armor Increase Spell
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 12:40:17 -0700
On Sat, 3 Dec 1994, Erik S Jameson wrote:

[barrier impact spell]

It's always been my impression that a personal barrier spell (or barrier
spell for that matter) depends upon the force. I.E. a force 6 blade
barrier gives you 6 points of impact protection. Of course, if you
needed a blade, nobody would be able to give it to you. :-) Extra
successes are just diddly squat.

In order to balance this out, start using more "unfriendly" shamen.
Instead of just having them run out of an alley, use them astrally to
dispell the barriers or what not. Then have the sams open up with
machine guns.

Just my $.02.

Mike TGC

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Armor Increase 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!