Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Randy Nickel <RANNIC@****.COM>
Subject: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:12:17 -0700
When I was on the list about three years ago I brought up this
discussion and I can not recall that it ever reached any conclusion.

The question I had asked then, and I am asking now, are Spell Barriers
(Physical and Anti-Bullet being the two that really fit into this)
considered true barriers?

I was in a game at a convention where the Physical Barrier spell was
just that...a barrier. If so that would mean that any firearms, melee
weapons, unarmed combat all fall under the barrier rules for stopping
damage.

Currently I run the barriers spells as extra armor. So someone shooting
a 9M pistol against a barrier 4, and the person being shot has a long
coat (4 ballistic) the weapons power is reduced to 1.

- Eclipse
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <milko@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:18:12 +1000
Randy Nickel writes:

> The question I had asked then, and I am asking now, are Spell Barriers
> (Physical and Anti-Bullet being the two that really fit into this)
> considered true barriers?
>
> I was in a game at a convention where the Physical Barrier spell was
> just that...a barrier. If so that would mean that any firearms, melee
> weapons, unarmed combat all fall under the barrier rules for stopping
> damage.
>
> Currently I run the barriers spells as extra armor. So someone shooting
> a 9M pistol against a barrier 4, and the person being shot has a long
> coat (4 ballistic) the weapons power is reduced to 1.

I treat them as per the barrier rules. I believe that this is backed up by
an example in the vehicle combat section regarding a bike rider hitting a
mana barrier. The example says to treat the situation as if the spell were
a real, physical barrier. Besides, to me the spell name gives it away -
it's a barrier spell, so naturally, it uses the barrier rules.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: milko@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a22 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. 3
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:02:34 +1000
> > I was in a game at a convention where the Physical Barrier spell was
> > just that...a barrier. If so that would mean that any firearms, melee
> > weapons, unarmed combat all fall under the barrier rules for stopping
> > damage.
> >
> > Currently I run the barriers spells as extra armor. So someone shooting
> > a 9M pistol against a barrier 4, and the person being shot has a long
> > coat (4 ballistic) the weapons power is reduced to 1.
>
> I treat them as per the barrier rules. I believe that this is
> backed up by
> an example in the vehicle combat section regarding a bike rider hitting a
> mana barrier. The example says to treat the situation as if the
> spell were
> a real, physical barrier. Besides, to me the spell name gives it away -
> it's a barrier spell, so naturally, it uses the barrier rules.

Barrier spells are explictly stated as using the barrier rules. OTH, you can
also use the Barrier Rating as extra armour, as per the "Shooting through
Barriers" rules.

If you want a spell to give you extra armour, try the Armour spell. :)

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it binds
the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 4
From: Damion Milliken <milko@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:48:51 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> If you want a spell to give you extra armour, try the Armour spell. :)

<grin> It's be nice if the Armour spell actually did, though :-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: milko@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a22 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. 5
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:27:22 -0500
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:48:51 +1000 Damion Milliken <milko@***.EDU.AU>
writes:
>Robert Watkins writes:
>> If you want a spell to give you extra armour, try the Armour spell. :)

><grin> It's be nice if the Armour spell actually did, though :-).
>
>--
>Damion Milliken
<SNIP Sig>

:) I actually have seen a version of the armor spell that provided *GASP*
armor ... One version gave Ballistic, I'm not positive there was an
Impact armor version ... Was it in one of Gurth's Grimmoires?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:22:31 +0100
Robert Watkins said on 14:02/23 Jun 98,...

> If you want a spell to give you extra armour, try the Armour spell. :)

Erm... that one adds to the character's Body as if it were dermal
plating, it doesn't give any actual ballistic or impact armor...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Nobody has a nicely-balanced range of obsessions
which they dabble in when they feel like it.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:59:14 +0100
At 23-Jun-98 wrote Alfredo B Alves:



>:) I actually have seen a version of the armor spell that provided *GASP*
>armor ... One version gave Ballistic, I'm not positive there was an
>Impact armor version ... Was it in one of Gurth's Grimmoires?

I have such spell actually it gives ballistic and impact :)

--

-Barbie

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: John W Thornton <whitewolfplayer@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Barrier vs Spell Barriers
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:24:39 -0500
I had a spell that gave body, Impact, and ballistic armor. It was based
off of Mike B's spell called Armor of the Beetle. His version was also
Mystic armor, but to me that seemed way over powered. Though I've decided
that the plain ole Armor Spell is quite useful enough.I think my problem
is that I kept the D&D mage image in my head and in Shadowrun there are
no such armor limitations as in D&D. God I hate relying on first
impressions.

John<aka Stormcrow>
"...what once that wrote, it now is dead, but now it's legacy is ours
instead"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Barrier vs Spell Barriers, 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!