Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 03:01:09 -0500

Message no. 1 Okay, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I always
said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a once on, it's
on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it again.

Now I check out some guys ShadowFAQ site, and he says that Spell Locks can
be activated and deactivated without having to worry about the whole Karma Mess.

So I scoff and say to myself "What an Idiot. I remember it clearly stating
that it takes another Karma." Then I read the rules. Now I'm not sure. I
now decide that there is no idiot involved, but a lot of confusion.

If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
become much more powerful in my campaign.

Well?

The lines that seem relevant (p138 SRII) are:

(paraphrase)"The magician must cast the spell and bond the spell lock
simultaneously, paying 1 Karma."

"Once bonded, they do not need to be activated immediately. ...The lock is
dormant until activated."

"Once removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be
re-bonded to be of any future use."

"The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them
at will."

Well?

-=SwiftOne=-

(P.S. If I've been playing them wrong for all this time, I'm going to feel
pretty dumb...)

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:41:56 -0500

Message no. 2 At 03:01 AM 1/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
[SNIP]

>Well?
>
>The lines that seem relevant (p138 SRII) are:
>
>(paraphrase)"The magician must cast the spell and bond the spell lock
>simultaneously, paying 1 Karma."
>
Uh-huh

>"Once bonded, they do not need to be activated immediately. ...The lock is
>dormant until activated."
>
No probs...

>"Once removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be
>re-bonded to be of any future use."
>
So far sounds like you're right...

>"The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them
>at will."
>
I believe this is referring to breaking the lock. he doesn't have to even
roll to beat the lock.

>Well?
>
Problem is they expanded and adedd and changed some stuff in Awakenings and
teh Grimmy...

I can't quote atcha cause I don't have the books on me (Sascha?), but I
believe certain things were changed in either the Grimmy or in Awakenings,
among them was teh Spell lock rules... The wizard can (He may need to be
an Initiate though) turn them on and off now, thus saving themselves the
trouble of being constantly open to being grounded thru...

however, in Awakenings, tehre is also a rule for using Focus Addiction, adn
Spell locks fall under this category... But i can't explain that one to ya...

I may be wrong here, so if I am, call me a fool and forgive me...:):):)
But I think I have it right...:)

Bull-the-techie-trying-to-explain-magic-ork-decker

--
Bull-the-cuddley-Kojack-imitating-Star-Wars-lovin'-ork-decker

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

Less than 2 weeks till Star Wars!

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:45:41 -0500

Message no. 3 At 03:01 AM 1/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>(P.S. If I've been playing them wrong for all this time, I'm going to feel
>pretty dumb...)
>
Oh, BTW... If this is how you've been playing it, and this is how you feel
comforatable using the rule, then feel free to keep using these rules...
It's your campaign, after all...

Alternatively, you may decide to use the new rules, but don't tell your
players about it... If they find out, then they can learn to use it...
But in teh meantime start using it with your Bad Guys (TM)... But don't
explain it to them...:):):) A few surprises always keeps them on their
toes...:):):)

Bull
--
Bull-the-cuddley-Kojack-imitating-Star-Wars-lovin'-ork-decker

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

Less than 2 weeks till Star Wars!

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 03:33:03 -0500

Message no. 4 >>"The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them
>>at will."
>I believe this is referring to breaking the lock. he doesn't have to even
>roll to beat the lock.

That's what I thought too...he doesn't have to roll or be present. However,
the trick is noticing the difference in the phrasing. The three phrases are:

Dormant
Deactivated
Broken(Link)

Are these the same? I don't know. Dormant is used in two places, to mean
two different things. ("The lock is dormant until activated" and "Once
removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant")

Does deactivated mean the same thing or not?

I like to _start_ from the official FASA point, then modify as I see fit.
This change(if true)(well, change for me) wouldn't need to be bad, but it is
very significant. (Invisibility spells, barriers, Armor spells, etc...all
able to go on and off....)

>Problem is they expanded and adedd and changed some stuff in Awakenings and
>teh Grimmy...

<Snip (Section saying Awakenings says the owner can turn them on and off)>

<Snip (Section mentioning Focus addiction)>

Hmm. I remember Focus addiction. I don't remember anything about spell
locks. Time to go back to the books. Sigh.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 03:51:06 -0500

Message no. 5 >>(P.S. If I've been playing them wrong for all this time, I'm going to feel
>>pretty dumb...)

Okay....I've done my research in Awakenings....It never says straight out,
and it definitely doesn't say it changes the rules....but in two places it
leads me to believe that they CAN be turned on and off.

Under the Metamagical ability of Focus Blocking, it says it can deactivate
foci, requiring only a simple action to re-activate. This has no affect on
quicken or anchored spells, but does affect spell locks. The implication is
that spell locks can activate and deactivate harmlessly. (and Focus
Blocking is not necessary to do it, unless you are NOT the spells creator)

Under Focus Addiction, they use an example, and mention that the character
keeps his spell locks active all the time. (implying that he has a choice)

I appear to have misplaced my Grimmy (must have done it when I looked up
that picture) but when I find it, I'll look closely there too.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks.
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:16:13 -0800

Message no. 6 > Okay....I've done my research in Awakenings....It never says straight
out,
> and it definitely doesn't say it changes the rules....but in two places
it
> leads me to believe that they CAN be turned on and off.

I have found this in a number of places/books. It seems our pals at FASA
left a number of the rules with ambiguous wording.

Spell Locks is one, Summoning Spirits is another. (In Awakenings, I think,
it gives the impression a Shaman can have more than one Spirit (if all are
of different domains), but only command one at one time, and only if the
Shaman is still on that Spirit's home turf. But the main book says
otherwise.

Hey Mike! Was this intentional or what?

--

Dvixen dvixen@********.com
"And I thought First Ones were rare." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
The opinions expressed are those of the myriad voices in my head

From:	MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 03:28:24 -0500

Message no. 7 Brett Borger wrote,
>So I scoff and say to myself "What an Idiot. I remember it clearly stating
>that it takes another Karma." Then I read the rules. Now I'm not sure. I
>now decide that there is no idiot involved, but a lot of confusion.

I think that, like me, you recall a first edition ruling. Tom Dowd
corrected me on that same point. In SRII as long as the spell lock isn't
removed (dispelled, etc.) it can be reactivated by the caster with the
same effects as before. There is no rebonding needed.

>If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
>become much more powerful in my campaign.

Yes they can, and I'm adjusting for it in my game as well.

>(P.S. If I've been playing them wrong for all this time, I'm going to feel
>pretty dumb...)

Well you didn't have Tom Dowd (speaking for himself, not for the
corp) correct you on usenet. I bloodied my nose on that one. The joys of
a learning curve.

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:06:43 +0100

Message no. 8 Brett Borger said on 3:01/23 Jan 97...

> Okay, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I always
> said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a once on, it's
> on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it again.
>
> Now I check out some guys ShadowFAQ site, and he says that Spell Locks
> can be activated and deactivated without having to worry about the whole
> Karma Mess.

The way I've always played spell locks, is that the character who
originally bonded the lock can turn it on and off at will (costing a
Simple Action). If anyone _else_ switches it off (or takes it away from
the character), it's off permanently.

> If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
> become much more powerful in my campaign.

Probably, but there are ways to prevent that. One is focus addiction,
though that won't really work for high-grade initiates. Another is
grounding through the spell lock, or letting someone steal the thing
thinking it's something valuable.

> "Once removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be
> re-bonded to be of any future use."
>
> "The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them
> at will."

These two say it all, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
eMpty TV
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:06:48 +0000

Message no. 9 |
|Okay, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I always
|said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a once on, it's
|on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it again.
|
|Now I check out some guys ShadowFAQ site, and he says that Spell Locks can
|be activated and deactivated without having to worry about the whole Karma Mess.

But only by the mage who cast the spell.....

P.S.
Set your margins to about 72... you're going off the edge of the screen.

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:10:10 +0000

Message no. 10 |That's what I thought too...he doesn't have to roll or be present. However,
|the trick is noticing the difference in the phrasing. The three phrases are:
|
|Dormant
|Deactivated
|Broken(Link)
|
|Are these the same? I don't know. Dormant is used in two places, to mean
|two different things. ("The lock is dormant until activated" and "Once
|removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant")
|
|Does deactivated mean the same thing or not?

No. It means "turned off" but still bonded....
It can be reactivated (by the casting mage...)

|Hmm. I remember Focus addiction. I don't remember anything about spell
|locks. Time to go back to the books. Sigh.

Spell locks are foci....

<Ducks for cover under Gurths stairs to avoid the restart of that thread...>

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:30:52 GMT

Message no. 11 Brett Borger writes
>
> If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
> become much more powerful in my campaign.
>
Others have answered in detail but the basic answer is 'yes they
can'. And as long as the caster of the lcked spell does it they do
not need rebonded.

I play 'you turn them off they die' becasue the standard rule is very
powerful, try spell locked improved invis and levitate person, now
find that mage! at no TN penalties. Oh and i buy nice helpful things
like 'ruthymoid polymers' as well, even seen 'i'm up above where they
are likely to look and they need 30's to spot me!' and thats without
spell locking the spells, contemplate it if the GM lets you! When i
have been playing this tricks been non that silly 'do that and i kill
your character' list, i really need to find another really good SR
GM that doesn't do something i don't like. [either 'you're fragged
because i say so' which is lame or 'uses stupendously powerful bad
guys all the time syndrome']

Mark

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:50:34 -0500

Message no. 12 >|Hmm. I remember Focus addiction. I don't remember anything about spell
>|locks. Time to go back to the books. Sigh.
>
>Spell locks are foci....

Oh, no dispute there....I just didn't remember anything mentioning turning
them on and off. But when I looked, there was an example that heavily
IMPLIED you could.

/ Brett "SwiftOne" Borger
\\\' , / // bxb121@***.edu
\\\// _/ //' http://www.opp.psu.edu/~bxb24/swiftone.htm
\_-//' / //<' Webmaster, Office of Physical Plant,
\ /// <//' The Pennsylvania State University
/ >> \\\` http://www.opp.psu.edu
/,)-^>> _\`
(/ \\ / \\\
// //\\\
((`

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@******.GWEEP.NET>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:30:53 -0500

Message no. 13 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "BB" == Brett Borger <bxb121@***.edu> writes:

BB> Okay, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I
BB> always said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a
BB> once on, it's on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it
BB> again.

Nope. The magician who "locks" a spell lock can turn it on or off at
will. It takes 1 Karma to bond the lock, though, so if he wants to move
it, it costs 1 Karma to bond it to the new target.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: cp850

iQCVAwUBMueEL56VRH7BJMxHAQH5tQP+OdAoUvoebipwL5I0XQhvRqo6ISHiTrR8
JYtKcADbXpJY8dQhV7ry7nDAScwIeWQxA4mYzFBPvaEsb5VIBl/Y7yO4nLk6V7IO
6VQBBgFohMbLrWV9bBIk7ZFQmMDeDDwIjCqjji+7aWiUhSUyvBrZsk39b1ZqVppa
JHPv3JhwxlM=
=ZDH+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@******.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\

From:	Dust <rogan@*******.BERGEN.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:32:28 -0500

Message no. 14 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Brett Borger wrote:

> Okay, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I always
> said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a once on, it's
> on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it again.
>
> Now I check out some guys ShadowFAQ site, and he says that Spell Locks can
> be activated and deactivated without having to worry about the whole Karma Mess.
>
> So I scoff and say to myself "What an Idiot. I remember it clearly stating
> that it takes another Karma." Then I read the rules. Now I'm not sure. I
> now decide that there is no idiot involved, but a lot of confusion.
>
> If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
> become much more powerful in my campaign.
>
> Well?
>
> The lines that seem relevant (p138 SRII) are:
>
> (paraphrase)"The magician must cast the spell and bond the spell lock
> simultaneously, paying 1 Karma."
>
> "Once bonded, they do not need to be activated immediately. ...The lock is
> dormant until activated."
>
> "Once removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be
> re-bonded to be of any future use."
>
> "The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them
> at will."
>
> Well?
>
> -=SwiftOne=-
>
> (P.S. If I've been playing them wrong for all this time, I'm going to feel
> pretty dumb...)
>
I think you are right and that as soon as the magician removes it
then it will have to be re-bonded.
Dust

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:05:44 -0700

Message no. 15 Dust wrote:
|
| I think you are right and that as soon as the magician removes it
| then it will have to be re-bonded.

I don't think so. I thought a mage could take a lock off
and put it on his dresser at night, and then put it on the
next morning and the bond wouldn't be broken (but could
only activate/deactivate it while it was on his person).
Could be wrong though...

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:19:38 -0500

Message no. 16 At 10:32 AM 1/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
[Snip Spell lock Question]
> I think you are right and that as soon as the magician removes it
>then it will have to be re-bonded.
> Dust
>
Dust...

Please snip your posts... Only post the relevant parts... In this case,
you could have put something in the SNIP like I did...

Bull-the-trying-to-be-helpful-ork-decker
--
Bull-the-cuddley-Kojack-imitating-Star-Wars-lovin'-ork-decker

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

Less than 2 weeks till Star Wars!

From:	MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:30:14 -0500

Message no. 17 David Buehrer wrote,
>I don't think so. I thought a mage could take a lock off
>and put it on his dresser at night, and then put it on the
>next morning and the bond wouldn't be broken (but could
>only activate/deactivate it while it was on his person).
>Could be wrong though...

Removing the spell lock breaks the spell. It has to remain attached
to remain valid, whether active or not.

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Caric <caric@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:29:30 -0700

Message no. 18 > Probably, but there are ways to prevent that. One is focus addiction,
> though that won't really work for high-grade initiates. Another is
> grounding through the spell lock, or letting someone steal the thing
> thinking it's something valuable.

Hey 90k street value seems worth it to me.

~Caric

"All the world's indeed a stage, we are mearly players.
Performers and portrayers. Each anothers audience,
outside the gilded cage." -Rush
caric@*******.com

From:	Glenn Royer <cyberspunk@********.NET>
Subject:	Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:38:52 -0500

Message no. 19 SH>Ok[A, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I always
SH>said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a once on, it's
SH>on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it again.

SH>Now I check out some guys ShadowFAQ site, and he says that Spell Locks can
SH>be activated and deactivated without having to worry about the whole Karma M

SH>So I scoff and say to myself "What an Idiot. I remember it clearly stating
SH>that it takes another Karma." Then I read the rules. Now I'm not sure. I
SH>now decide that there is no idiot involved, but a lot of confusion.

SH>If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
SH>become much more powerful in my campaign.

SH>Well?

SH>The lines that seem relevant (p138 SRII) are:

SH>(paraphrase)"The magician must cast the spell and bond the spell lock
SH>simultaneously, paying 1 Karma."

SH>"Once bonded, they do not need to be activated immediately. ...The lock is
S[Bdormant until activated."

SH>[Bnce removed, the link is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be
SH>re-bonded to be of any future use."

SH>"The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them
SH>at will."

SH>Well?

SH>-=SwiftOne=-

SH>(P.S. If I've been playing them wrong for all this time, I'm going to feel
SH>pretty dumb...)

Well, swiftie, you can feel dumb right about... uhm.. ok... now.
Feel Dumb.
There are three steps to using a spell lock: creating, placement,
and activation.
Creating the spell lock involves making the physical component, casting
the spell, and bonding the spell to it.
Once created, it has to be placed before it can be activated. Placement
can be done by anyone. Placement is just placing the lock in contact
with its target. Once Placed, it becomes invisible, intangible, and
unaffectable by mundane means.
Activation is the simple action that turns the spell lock on. This Can
Be Done Over And Over And Over... by a magician of the same tradition
(as I read the rules, ANY magician of the same tradition...)
Removal of the spell lock is what warrants the necessity of a new
bonding, which is the physical removal of the lock. This can only be
done by a magician who can see the lock astrally. Once removed from the
target, it is useless untill re-bonded.
ta-da.
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:29:24 -0700

Message no. 20 Glenn Royer wrote:
|
| Activation is the simple action that turns the spell lock on. This Can
| Be Done Over And Over And Over... by a magician of the same tradition
| (as I read the rules, ANY magician of the same tradition...)
| Removal of the spell lock is what warrants the necessity of a new
| bonding, which is the physical removal of the lock. This can only be
| done by a magician who can see the lock astrally. Once removed from the
| target, it is useless untill re-bonded.

Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
lock :):):)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:44:00 MST

Message no. 21 >Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
>duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
>place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
>(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
>lock :):):)
>
>-David

Yeah, unless they figure it out, and ditch the lock.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:49:40 -0700

Message no. 22 Denzil Kruse wrote:
|
| >Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
| >duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
| >place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
| >(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
| >lock :):):)
| >
| >-David
|
| Yeah, unless they figure it out, and ditch the lock.

A mage could take the lock off, but a mundane can't :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:50:59 -0800

Message no. 23 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Denzil Kruse wrote:

> >Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
> >duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
> >place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
> >(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
> >lock :):):)
> >
> >-David
>
> Yeah, unless they figure it out, and ditch the lock.
>
> Denzil Kruse
> d.kruse@****.com
>

Yeah, but who's gonna figure it out? All his buddy's forgot that he even
existed, and he being a Mundane, can't even see, let alone touch the lock.

Nice trick! However I think duplicating the Alienation power would take a
considerable amount of work, considering it's power.

~Tim

From:	Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:00:00 MST

Message no. 24 >Yeah, but who's gonna figure it out? All his buddy's forgot that he even
>existed, and he being a Mundane, can't even see, let alone touch the lock.
>
>Nice trick! However I think duplicating the Alienation power would take a
>considerable amount of work, considering it's power.
>
>~Tim

Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become invisible,
active or not.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

From:	Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:02:00 MST

Message no. 25 Denzil Kruse wrote:
|
| >Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
| >duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
| >place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
| >(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
| >lock :):):)
| >
| >-David
|
| Yeah, unless they figure it out, and ditch the lock.

>A mage could take the lock off, but a mundane can't :)

I thought if the lock was removed from the possesion of the person it was
locked to, the lock is broken.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:16:39 +0000

Message no. 26 |Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become invisible,
|active or not.

Once a focus is activated, it becomes intangible and invisible to
mundanes.... It's in the book quite planely....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:16:47 -0700

Message no. 27 Denzil Kruse wrote:
|
| Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become invisible,
| active or not.

Cuz is says so in the rules. I'd quote the rule but I
don't have my book handy (funny, they won't let me bring
them to work :) Could someone else look it up?

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:17:48 +0000

Message no. 28 |I thought if the lock was removed from the possesion of the person it was
|locked to, the lock is broken.

It is, but only a MAGE or magically active person capable of astral
perception can remove it....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:21:08 -0800

Message no. 29 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Denzil Kruse wrote:

> >Yeah, but who's gonna figure it out? All his buddy's forgot that he even
> >existed, and he being a Mundane, can't even see, let alone touch the lock.
> >
> >Nice trick! However I think duplicating the Alienation power would take a
> >considerable amount of work, considering it's power.
> >
> >~Tim
>
> Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become invisible,
> active or not.
>
> Denzil Kruse
> d.kruse@****.com
>

Because the SRII rules say they do.
I can't quote because I'm at school, but as soon as a lock becomes active,
it effectively becomes intangible to mundanes - they don't see it, and
can't touch it

~Tim

From:	Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:22:50 -0800

Message no. 30 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Denzil Kruse wrote:

> Denzil Kruse wrote:
> |
> | >Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
> | >duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
> | >place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
> | >(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
> | >lock :):):)
> | >
> | >-David
> |
> | Yeah, unless they figure it out, and ditch the lock.
>
> >A mage could take the lock off, but a mundane can't :)
>
> I thought if the lock was removed from the possesion of the person it was
> locked to, the lock is broken.
>
> Denzil Kruse

Your right.

But that still doesn't refute HIS statement.

~Tim

From:	Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:25:37 -0800

Message no. 31 On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Spike wrote:

> |I thought if the lock was removed from the possesion of the person it was
> |locked to, the lock is broken.
>
> It is, but only a MAGE or magically active person capable of astral
> perception can remove it....
>
> --
>

So what are you saying?
That Mages aren't magically active people too?
Huh?
Is THAT what you're saying!!?!?

:)
~Tim

From:	Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:30:04 -0500

Message no. 32 Well, I happen to have my books with me at work today:

SRII page 138:

"For all intents and purposes, the spell lock vanishes once it is in place. It is
still
there, and operating, but mundanes cannot see it, touch it, or affect it. A
magician can see it if he is astrally perceiving, but that is the only way. To normal
sight, it is invisible."

Double-Domed Mike

From:	Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:38:54 -0800

Message no. 33 > >Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
> >duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
> >place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
> >(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
> >lock :):):)
> >
> >-David
>

[snip the multiple quotes of how locks are 'invisible' to mundanes]

Well, since the mundane can't remove it himself, and he effectively
doesn't exist to anyone else (which pretty much removes the chance of
another magically active good-samaritan from freeing the poor guy)...I'd
say it makes a pretty good 'disappearing act'.

:)

<listening for the faint echo of laughter from evil GM's everywhere>

~Tim (who does not envy the poor slag who gets nailed by that one)

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:42:36 +0000

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:19:56 -0500

Message no. 35 >Nice trick! However I think duplicating the Alienation power would take a
>considerable amount of work, considering it's power.

Why? Isn't it very similar to the Disregard spell in Awakenings? (Which
BTW, is really powerful, esp. if used intelligently)

/ Brett "SwiftOne" Borger
\\\' , / // bxb121@***.edu
\\\// _/ //' http://www.opp.psu.edu/~bxb24/swiftone.htm
\_-//' / //<' Webmaster, Office of Physical Plant,
\ /// <//' The Pennsylvania State University
/ >> \\\` http://www.opp.psu.edu
/,)-^>> _\`
(/ \\ / \\\
// //\\\
((`

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:06:22 -0600

Message no. 36 At 08:42 PM 1/23/97 +0000, Spike wrote:
>|> It is, but only a MAGE or magically active person capable of astral
>|> perception can remove it....
>|>
>
>|So what are you saying?
>|That Mages aren't magically active people too?
>|Huh?
>|Is THAT what you're saying!!?!?
>
>I was using OR, not XOR in that last remark.....
>:):)

See what happens when you don't properly label your gates?

"I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck."
-- Rob Pike, commenting on The X Window System

From:	Glenn Royer <cyberspunk@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:18:02 -0500

Message no. 37 SH>Hmmm.. an evil mage (GM NPC :) could create a spell which
SH>duplicates the critter power Alienation, cast it on a lock,
SH>place the lock on some poor mundane that has aggravated him
SH>(or is the target of a lucrative contract) and activate the
SH>lock :):):)

SH>-David
yes, though i think they would still be visible on the ethereal
-Cyberspunk
Cat-Who-Alienates-Alone
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 04:23:48 +0000

Message no. 38 On 23 Jan 97 at 3:01, Brett Borger wrote (and Bull asked for
reference):
> Okay, Now I've been playing this game for over 7 years now, and I always
> said, without any worries about it, that a spell lock was a once on, it's
> on, and once off, you need another Karma to do it again.
>
> Now I check out some guys ShadowFAQ site, and he says that Spell Locks can
> be activated and deactivated without having to worry about the whole Karma Mess.
Well, SRII states on page 138 (I hate it when my rule quote database
goes to bit heaven!) "The magician who creates a spell lock can
activate and deactivate them at will. All it takes is a Simple Action."

It also says "Spell locks are special foci [...].", but looking at page
137 for rules on foci activation/deactivation just orders us to look
back at p. 138 (*sigh*)

When it is _REMOVED_ from the one wearing it, the link is broken, and
to re-activate it, you have to spend 1 Point of Good Karma. Now the
critical point is wether "deactivate" and "removal" are sysnonyms
here.
My English isn't good enough to decide, but so far I've seen it
differently. As page 137 refers to dropped foci right before sending us
to special rules for spell locks, it might as well refer to dropped
locks only. P. 139 states "There is a disadvantage to having an active
focus of any kind [...]" which might imply to can deactivate them. But
as far as my knowledge on English goes, I can't say there really _is_
proof. Huh, better my players never find out...

[snip]
> If spell locks can be activated and deactivated, then they are about to
> become much more powerful in my campaign.
Especially much more useful, as you can lock invisibility...

On 23 Jan 97 at 3:33, Brett Borger wrote:
[snip]
> <Snip (Section saying Awakenings says the owner can turn them on and
> off)>
> <Snip (Section mentioning Focus addiction)>
> Hmm. I remember Focus addiction. I don't remember anything about
> spell locks. Time to go back to the books. Sigh.
I don't either. Page 31 of Awakenings states "Savvy magicians keep
their foci powered down until they need them." That's all I found on a
quick glance... more sources?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 05:30:02 +0000

Message no. 39 On 23 Jan 97 at 14:38, Glenn Royer wrote:
[snip question}
> Well, swiftie, you can feel dumb right about... uhm.. ok... now.
> Feel Dumb.
First, learn trimming your replys before telling anyone to feel dumb.
Then, before telling anyone to feel dumb, check the books.

> There are three steps to using a spell lock: creating, placement,
> and activation.
Yeah.

> Creating the spell lock involves making the physical component, casting
> the spell, and bonding the spell to it.
Nope. _Creating_ is just enchanting. Casting the spell already forces
you to pay the Karma.

> Once created, it has to be placed before it can be activated. Placement
> can be done by anyone. Placement is just placing the lock in contact
> with its target. Once Placed, it becomes invisible, intangible, and
> unaffectable by mundane means.
Nope. Just magicians of the same magical tradition as the one who cast
the spell (and payed the Karma) can place the lock.

> Activation is the simple action that turns the spell lock on. This Can
> Be Done Over And Over And Over... by a magician of the same tradition
> (as I read the rules, ANY magician of the same tradition...)
No need to turn on a lock over and over, and the rules don't mention
turning it off. So what do you say? Just that you read the rules, and
interpreted it, and failed to see other possible interpretations. Feel
dumb. Now.

> Removal of the spell lock is what warrants the necessity of a new
> bonding, which is the physical removal of the lock. This can only be
> done by a magician who can see the lock astrally. Once removed from the
> target, it is useless untill re-bonded.
Sorry - by YOUR interpretation, bonding belongs to creating. Now what?
After it has been removed, bt(f)w, _anyone_ can see and touch a spell
lock. See p. 138, Black Book, for details.

> ta-da.
You lost. Go to prison, don't pass go, do not collect 400 Dollars. Feel
dumb.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 05:30:02 +0000

Message no. 40 On 23 Jan 97 at 13:00, Denzil Kruse wrote:
[snip "Alienation-Power-in-spell-lock]
> Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become invisible,
> active or not.
SRII, p. 138: "For all intents and purposes, a spell lock vanishes once
its in place. It's still there, and operating, but mundanes can't see
it, touch it, or affect it."

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

From:	Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:18:35 -0800

Message no. 41 Okay here's my take. (I'm voicing another opinion!)

They can wear it and put it in a safe deposit box, and put it on a month
later (providing no-one finds it and uses against the person it is bound
to).
*IF* The lock was inactive when removed.

The Spell Lock is broken and will need another point of Karma
*IF* The lock was removed while active.

So, we have:

Activate Spell Lock, go on a run against Renraku.
Deactivate Spell Lock, stash it in the glovebox, go on holiday.
Put Deactivated Spell Lock on, Activate it.
Go for a run against Aztechnology.
Azzie magician removes Spell Lock, Spell Lock is broken.
Want the Spell Lock to work again, recast spell, pay Karma.

So ka?

--

Dvixen dvixen@********.com
"And I thought First Ones were rare." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
The opinions expressed are those of the myriad voices in my head

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:41:04 GMT

Message no. 42 > To: M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk
> From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.edu>
> Subject: Re: Confused: Spell Locks
? meant to be only to me
. well going list

> >beggers, and the on/off flight trick is best used with astral
> >percept, defend your locks and scan their auras at once, he he.
>
> Hmmm.....I know you can mask the foci....but does it cover the spells?
never specified, but masking the focus alone dosn't make it very
subtle. I say it does because the whole idea of masking is telling
lies on the astral plane, id they can see a locked spell with no lock
on your aura it kind of gives the game away.

> 'Sides, even he does mask all them up to prevent getting chewed through
> them, that doesn't mean he's invisible to perception.
>
No but if he looks like a normal mundane with no connections to the
astral the perciever can do little to him and nothing he couldn't if
that was the truth unless he can break the mask.

> >> I do have a question about "targeted" spells and spell locks:
When a
> >> sustained spell requires control (all the telekinetic manipulations, for
> >> example) and it is locked or quickened: Who controls it? Does anyone?
> >>
> >Caster i assume, the rules never bother to tell us.
>
> That's the problem. Anyone else?
..

Mark

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:43:27 +0100

Message no. 43 Denzil Kruse said on 13:00/23 Jan 97...

> Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become invisible,
> active or not.

According to an explanation that was not included in Awakenings
(IOW, make of it what you will), "When a spell lock is attached to a
target and activated, the lock's physical properties do not change,
instead the lock creates a magical effect that causes mundanes to ignore,
rationalize, or otherwise take no real notice of the lock's presence."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
eMpty TV
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Glenn Royer <cyberspunk@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:25:32 -0500

Message no. 44 SH>> Creating the spell lock involves making the physical component, casting
SH>> the spell, and bonding the spell to it.
SH>Nope. _Creating_ is just enchanting. Casting the spell already forces
SH>you to pay the Karma.
i threw it in that category for simplicity's sake, thank you.

SH>Nope. Just magicians of the same magical tradition as the one who cast
SH>the spell (and payed the Karma) can place the lock.

Sigh. "Anyone can, theoretically, place the lock,but only
another magician of the same tradition can activate it." pg.138. Now
look whatcha done, you made me a book quoter. :)

[[snip bit on activation and feel dumb. now]]

SH>> Removal of the spell lock is what warrants the necessity of a new
SH>> bonding, which is the physical removal of the lock. This can only be
SH>> done by a magician who can see the lock astrally. Once removed from the
SH>> target, it is useless untill re-bonded.
SH>Sorry - by YOUR interpretation, bonding belongs to creating. Now what?
SH>After it has been removed, bt(f)w, _anyone_ can see and touch a spell
B
didnt say it had to be created again, just had to be bonded again.

[snip the rest of the feel dumb.]

oh, and bt(f)w, what's with the (f)'n attitide?!
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

From:	Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:57:00 MST

Message no. 45 >Denzil Kruse wrote:
>|
>| Why can't you see a spell lock? I see no reason why they become
invisible,
>| active or not.
>
>Cuz is says so in the rules. I'd quote the rule but I
>don't have my book handy (funny, they won't let me bring
>them to work :) Could someone else look it up?
>
>-David

When I got home an looked up the rules, I realized I had forgotten the house
rule we made years ago that said you could see them.

I still see no reason why they become invisible. A kabillion people pointed
out that it was in the rules, but why? I felt making the spell locks
disappear was too powerful. None of the other foci disappear.

When it comes to magic in general, there are things that mundanes can do to
avoid it. If a mage casts spells, they can get out of his sight or seek
cover. When spirits manifest they can at least fight it in melee using
their willpower. Most spells and critter powers can be resisted to some
effect, especially if the mundane works on improving his body and willpower.

What can they do about spell locks put on them? Nothing. It gives mages
even more power. It becomes too easy to control mundanes. It is pretty
easy to stick the lock on them without their noticing. The lock also
becomes an easy way to ground through. Place it on a guard desk, parked
car, or deliver it in a package (or pizza) and you can get one into just
about anywhere. Then ground through.

Once a mage come into the scene it can be foiled pretty quick, but without a
mage on hand, the mundanes are screwed. This isn't going to allow mages to
rule the world or anything, but I think it unneccesary to have the locks be
undetectable. I realize there are risks to the mage, but still. Doesn't it
seem unfair to the mundanes? Why should they be invisible? Its not like
they can't be worn under your armor jacket.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:12:22 +0000

Message no. 46 |When I got home an looked up the rules, I realized I had forgotten the house
|rule we made years ago that said you could see them.

That would explain it.....

|I still see no reason why they become invisible. A kabillion people pointed
|out that it was in the rules, but why? I felt making the spell locks
|disappear was too powerful. None of the other foci disappear.

Why is it too powerfull?

|When it comes to magic in general, there are things that mundanes can do to
|avoid it. If a mage casts spells, they can get out of his sight or seek
|cover. When spirits manifest they can at least fight it in melee using
|their willpower. Most spells and critter powers can be resisted to some
|effect, especially if the mundane works on improving his body and willpower.

|What can they do about spell locks put on them? Nothing.

Nothing??? Why? All they have to do is take it off/smash it/destroy it
before the mage gets a chance to bond it.....

It gives mages
|even more power. It becomes too easy to control mundanes. It is pretty
|easy to stick the lock on them without their noticing. The lock also
|becomes an easy way to ground through. Place it on a guard desk, parked
|car, or deliver it in a package (or pizza) and you can get one into just
|about anywhere. Then ground through.

You can't ground through unbonded spell locks. In order for a spell-lock to
be groundable, it must be bonded and active....

|Once a mage come into the scene it can be foiled pretty quick, but without a
|mage on hand, the mundanes are screwed. This isn't going to allow mages to
|rule the world or anything, but I think it unneccesary to have the locks be
|undetectable.

They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.
A bit awkward to do to an unwilling person unless he was asleep at the
time....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:33:00 MST

Message no. 47 >|What can they do about spell locks put on them? Nothing.
>
>Nothing??? Why? All they have to do is take it off/smash it/destroy it
>before the mage gets a chance to bond it.....

Assuming they know its there. An invisible mage puts a small lock on a part
of the body that doesn't have much tactile sensitivity, like body armor...

>It gives mages
>|even more power. It becomes too easy to control mundanes. It is pretty
>|easy to stick the lock on them without their noticing. The lock also
>|becomes an easy way to ground through. Place it on a guard desk, parked
>|car, or deliver it in a package (or pizza) and you can get one into just
>|about anywhere. Then ground through.
>
>You can't ground through unbonded spell locks. In order for a spell-lock to
>be groundable, it must be bonded and active....

I know. Put it on a guard desk, cast a spell, bond it and walk away. Put
it on the car. Cast a spell. Bond it. Walk away.

>|Once a mage come into the scene it can be foiled pretty quick, but without
a
>|mage on hand, the mundanes are screwed. This isn't going to allow mages
to
>|rule the world or anything, but I think it unneccesary to have the locks
be
>|undetectable.
>
>They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
>the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.
>A bit awkward to do to an unwilling person unless he was asleep at the
>time....

Not so awkward. Not easy to do, put with a good plan, it can be done. And
its not hard at all to do to an inanimate object.

I'm not saying its cake to sneak a spell lock around, but is possible. Any
shadowrun team worth their salt (whatever that means) can come up with a
distraction or plan to place a spell lock unnoticed on someone or something.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:42:18 -0700

Message no. 48 Denzil Kruse wrote:
|
| >It gives mages
| >|even more power. It becomes too easy to control mundanes. It is pretty
| >|easy to stick the lock on them without their noticing. The lock also
| >|becomes an easy way to ground through. Place it on a guard desk, parked
| >|car, or deliver it in a package (or pizza) and you can get one into just
| >|about anywhere. Then ground through.
| >
| >You can't ground through unbonded spell locks. In order for a spell-lock to
| >be groundable, it must be bonded and active....
|
| I know. Put it on a guard desk, cast a spell, bond it and walk away. Put
| it on the car. Cast a spell. Bond it. Walk away.

I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:52:12 +0000

Message no. 49 |
|>|What can they do about spell locks put on them? Nothing.
|>
|>Nothing??? Why? All they have to do is take it off/smash it/destroy it
|>before the mage gets a chance to bond it.....
|
|Assuming they know its there. An invisible mage puts a small lock on a part
|of the body that doesn't have much tactile sensitivity, like body armor...

Yes, but still....
Casting the spell would be a bit of a givaway, wouldn't it....

You're sitting there, minding your own business, when you suddenly hear
someone mumbling jibberish next to you....

Would your reaction be to move away? Because the mage has to be touching the
spell lock to bond it, which probably means he'd either lose his grip on the
lock or rip it off the victim when he moved....

|>It gives mages
|>|even more power. It becomes too easy to control mundanes. It is pretty
|>|easy to stick the lock on them without their noticing. The lock also
|>|becomes an easy way to ground through. Place it on a guard desk, parked
|>|car, or deliver it in a package (or pizza) and you can get one into just
|>|about anywhere. Then ground through.
|>
|>You can't ground through unbonded spell locks. In order for a spell-lock to
|>be groundable, it must be bonded and active....
|
|I know. Put it on a guard desk, cast a spell, bond it and walk away. Put
|it on the car. Cast a spell. Bond it. Walk away.

I think you're getting confused with anchors and quickenings....
Remember that the spell has to be able to work on the target to be lockable.

What spell would you cast on the car and lock????

|
|>|Once a mage come into the scene it can be foiled pretty quick, but without
|a
|>|mage on hand, the mundanes are screwed. This isn't going to allow mages
|to
|>|rule the world or anything, but I think it unneccesary to have the locks
|be
|>|undetectable.
|>
|>They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
|>the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.
|>A bit awkward to do to an unwilling person unless he was asleep at the
|>time....
|
|Not so awkward. Not easy to do, put with a good plan, it can be done. And
|its not hard at all to do to an inanimate object.

But with a good plan, why prevent it? That's what shadowrun's all about...
Good planning....

|I'm not saying its cake to sneak a spell lock around, but is possible. Any
|shadowrun team worth their salt (whatever that means) can come up with a
|distraction or plan to place a spell lock unnoticed on someone or something.

But remaining unnoticed whilst the spell lock was bonded would be another
matter entirely.....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Confused: Spell Locks
Date:	Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:53:25 +0000

Message no. 50 || >You can't ground through unbonded spell locks. In order for a spell-lock to
|| >be groundable, it must be bonded and active....
||
|| I know. Put it on a guard desk, cast a spell, bond it and walk away. Put
|| it on the car. Cast a spell. Bond it. Walk away.
|
|I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...

I was thinking that as well.... But I wasn't too sure....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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. 51 Spike wrote:
|
| |Assuming they know its there. An invisible mage puts a small lock on a part
| |of the body that doesn't have much tactile sensitivity, like body armor...
|
| Yes, but still....
| Casting the spell would be a bit of a givaway, wouldn't it....
|
| You're sitting there, minding your own business, when you suddenly hear
| someone mumbling jibberish next to you....

erm.. A perception test is required to notice spell casting (I think based
on the force of spell and the Magic of the casting mage). If said
invisible mage were an initiate casting a low force spell (which he
probably would if he wants to ground through it effetively) the chances of
a mundane noticing are pretty slim.

| Would your reaction be to move away? Because the mage has to be touching the
| spell lock to bond it, which probably means he'd either lose his grip on the
| lock or rip it off the victim when he moved....

If the mage's reaction is higher than the mundane's, and the mundane is
completely suprised (highly probable considering the mage is invisible),
the mage will get a free action, or perhaps several. Just playing devil's
advocate :)

| |Not so awkward. Not easy to do, put with a good plan, it can be done. And
| |its not hard at all to do to an inanimate object.
|
| But with a good plan, why prevent it? That's what shadowrun's all about...
| Good planning....

Yup :)

| |I'm not saying its cake to sneak a spell lock around, but is possible. Any
| |shadowrun team worth their salt (whatever that means) can come up with a
| |distraction or plan to place a spell lock unnoticed on someone or something.
|
| But remaining unnoticed whilst the spell lock was bonded would be another
| matter entirely.....

See above :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

Message no. 52 >|Assuming they know its there. An invisible mage puts a small lock on a
part
>|of the body that doesn't have much tactile sensitivity, like body armor...
>
>Yes, but still....
>Casting the spell would be a bit of a givaway, wouldn't it....
>
>You're sitting there, minding your own business, when you suddenly hear
>someone mumbling jibberish next to you....
>

If you look at the rules for noticing spellcasting, you will find that
low-force spells are hard to notice. All you need is a force 1 spell to put
in the lock. Especially with your chummers providing a small distraction,
the guard probably wouldn't notice.

>Would your reaction be to move away? Because the mage has to be touching
the
>spell lock to bond it, which probably means he'd either lose his grip on
the
>lock or rip it off the victim when he moved....

Yeah, the mage could screw up, it would have to be done carefully.

>|I think you're getting confused with anchors and quickenings....
>Remember that the spell has to be able to work on the target to be
lockable.
>
>What spell would you cast on the car and lock????

How about a levitate with one success? The car would be 10% lighter. Or a
vehicle mask spell that doesn't change anything. I am sure there are
others.

>But with a good plan, why prevent it? That's what shadowrun's all about...
>Good planning....

Yeah, but that is a different issue.

>|I'm not saying its cake to sneak a spell lock around, but is possible.
Any
>|shadowrun team worth their salt (whatever that means) can come up with a
>|distraction or plan to place a spell lock unnoticed on someone or
something.
>
>But remaining unnoticed whilst the spell lock was bonded would be another
>matter entirely.....

What do you have to do to bond it? How noticable is that? I don't think
the rules say, but based off the noticing spellcasting rules, it wouldn't be
that noticable at all.

Remember, this isn't D&D, you don't have verbal, material, or somatic
components. Or at least you don't have to be noticably mumbling, fingering
your fetishes, or moving you hands about. The higher the force of spell,
the more you do these things and the easier someone will realize you are
casting a spell.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

Message no. 53 |>What spell would you cast on the car and lock????
|
|How about a levitate with one success? The car would be 10% lighter. Or a
|vehicle mask spell that doesn't change anything. I am sure there are
|others.

But, as someone just reminded me, you can only spelllock onto living
things.....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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. 54 >I still see no reason why they become invisible. A kabillion people pointed out
>that it was in the rules, but why? I felt making the spell locks disappear was too
>powerful. None of the other foci disappear.

I believe that the untouchable spell locks come from folklore, not from any sense
of game balance. If you "witch" someone with a curse tied to a charm, if it
works
only another person with the "gift" can "unwitch" you. You don't even
find the
charm until you've been "unwitched".

I believe this is mentioned in one of the "Silver John" books by Manley Wade
Melman (Welman? Hmm, that name looks wrong to me, but I can't remember what
it might be. Does anyone else know the books I'm talking about?) These are
books based on Apalachian folk tales.

Double-Domed Mike

Message no. 55 >
>I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...
>
>-David

I just read somewhere in Awakenings about somebody doing that, but don't
remember where. Theorheticaly, I can't think of why not. As long as the
spell target is a valid target for the spell.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

Message no. 56 Denzil Kruse wrote:

<Snip>

> When I got home an looked up the rules, I realized I had forgotten the house
> rule we made years ago that said you could see them.

> I still see no reason why they become invisible. A kabillion people pointed
> out that it was in the rules, but why? I felt making the spell locks
> disappear was too powerful. None of the other foci disappear.

None of the other foci become unbonded by removing them, either. It's a
tradeoff.

<Snip>

> Once a mage come into the scene it can be foiled pretty quick, but without a
> mage on hand, the mundanes are screwed. This isn't going to allow mages to
> rule the world or anything, but I think it unneccesary to have the locks be
> undetectable. I realize there are risks to the mage, but still. Doesn't it
> seem unfair to the mundanes? Why should they be invisible? Its not like
> they can't be worn under your armor jacket.

Here's a suggestion (based upon a house rule of a local group): make
the spell locks visible just like other foci, but don't have them become
unbonded if they are removed. Voila.

> Denzil Kruse
> d.kruse@****.com

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu

Message no. 57 Denzil Kruse wrote:
|
| >
| >I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...
|
| I just read somewhere in Awakenings about somebody doing that, but don't
| remember where. Theorheticaly, I can't think of why not. As long as the
| spell target is a valid target for the spell.

Now that you mention it, I seem to remember an adventure
where someone uses a book that has a spell locked to it to
ground spells through... Can't for the life of me remember
which adventure it was though.

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

Message no. 58 At 09:18 PM 1/23/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Okay here's my take. (I'm voicing another opinion!)
>
>They can wear it and put it in a safe deposit box, and put it on a month
>later (providing no-one finds it and uses against the person it is bound
>to).
>*IF* The lock was inactive when removed.
>
>The Spell Lock is broken and will need another point of Karma
>*IF* The lock was removed while active.
>
That is exactly how I play it, sure, it makes spell locks powerful, but the
vulnerablility from astral attack more than offsets that in my mind.
Besides, it is this off/on versatility that makes spell locks more useful
for some things (like invisibility) than quickening, otherwise no initiate
would ever use spell locks.

--DT

Message no. 59 Spike wrote:

<Snip>

> They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
> the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.
> A bit awkward to do to an unwilling person unless he was asleep at the
> time....

<Snip>

Incorrect. The spell is cast into the foci and bonded simultaneously.
The focus is ALWAYS bonded to the mage who casts the spell into the
lock. The spell lock is NEVER bonded to the mundane it is placed upon.
Thus, you CAN affect a mundane with a spell lock simply by placing the
lock on the mundane and turning it on. However, you can then be
attacked via ritual sorcery through the link you have with the spell
lock (caused by the bonding process).

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu

Message no. 60 David Buehrer wrote:

<Snip>

> I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...

You can't. A spell lock can ONLY be bonded to the mage who casts the
spell into the lock...it's one action...that way you CAN'T bond the lock
to anyone other than yourself if you are "charging" a spell lock.

<Snip of signature>

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu

Message no. 61 >Here's a suggestion (based upon a house rule of a local group): make
>the spell locks visible just like other foci, but don't have them become
>unbonded if they are removed. Voila.
>
>Justin :)

Our house rule was it was deactivated, but the bonding still kept. If a
mundane put it back on, it wouldn't activate again until the mage that
bonded it turned it back on. Of course, this assumes that spell locks were
always visible.

>Now that you mention it, I seem to remember an adventure
>where someone uses a book that has a spell locked to it to
>ground spells through... Can't for the life of me remember
>which adventure it was though.
>
>-David

Ping! <light coming on>. That was in the NAN sourcebook/module, but don't
remember if it was 1 or 2. A shaman with a hell hound planted a book with a
spell lock on it hoping to get the characters to take it so she could follow

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

Message no. 62 SH>>They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
SH>>the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.
SH>>A bit awkward to do to an unwilling person unless he was asleep at the
SH>>time....

SH>Not so awkward. Not easy to do, put with a good plan, it can be done. And
SH ts not hard at all to do to an inanimate object.
SH>Denzil Kruse
SH>d.kruse@****.com

You don't have to cast the spell and bond it to the foci as soon
as you place the item. I don't see any reason it can't be done hours
ahead of time. However, someone has to place it on the target and then
activate it as well.
-Cyberspunk
Cat-Who-Bonds-Alone
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 63 SH>I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...

SH>-David
SH>--
SH>/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
SH> "His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
SH> alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
SH>~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

you can. vehicle mask to the hood ornament/spell lock on your
favorite car. Invisibility on the spell lock/keychain ornament you gave
your friend as a gift... lots of neato options.;
-Cyberspunk
Cat-Who-Makes-Car-Keys-Disappear-Alone
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 64 Glenn Royer wrote:
>
> SH>I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...

<Snip>

> you can. vehicle mask to the hood ornament/spell lock on your
> favorite car. Invisibility on the spell lock/keychain ornament you gave
> your friend as a gift... lots of neato options.;
> -Cyberspunk

Maybe you can place a lock on non-living objects. I was under the false
interpretation of the rules stating that spell locks are bonded to
people, not spells. However, since they are bonded to spells, I don't
see why the can't be placed upon objects. However, the may be a ruling
in an official book somewhere. :)

<Snip>

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu

Message no. 65 SH>Now that you mention it, I seem to remember an adventure
SH>where someone uses a book that has a spell locked to it to
SH>ground spells through... Can't for the life of me remember
SH>which adventure it was though.

SH>-David
SH>--
SH>/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
SH> "His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
SH> alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
SH>~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

Well, spell-locking over the Deadly Pit With Poisoned Atomic
Spikes smooth ground would be useful (dwarven techno-magic cabal's
secret hush hush fortress! ooo!)
-Cyberspunk
Cat-Who-Likes-Atomics-Alone
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 66 SH>Ping! <light coming on>. That was in the NAN sourcebook/module, but don't
SH>remember if it was 1 or 2. A shaman with a hell hound planted a book with a
SH>spell lock on it hoping to get the characters to take it so she could follow

SH>Denzil Kruse
SH>d.kruse@****.com
wasn't number one. (though i liked number one)
-Cyberspunk
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 67 >Now that you mention it, I seem to remember an adventure
>where someone uses a book that has a spell locked to it to
>ground spells through... Can't for the life of me remember
>which adventure it was though.

One of the ones in the NAN books....a mage is just waiting is astral to
ambush the players...

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 68 >|What can they do about spell locks put on them? Nothing.
>
>Nothing??? Why? All they have to do is take it off/smash it/destroy it
>before the mage gets a chance to bond it.....

<Snip>

>They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
>the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.

ACtually, You can cast the spell at any time, and bond it....it affects the
person only when first ACTIVATED. So you could Bond it at your leisure,
then simply get on the character...Free action, and BLOOP! done deal.

Still, I disagree that it makes them too powerful...it simply means that
Mages are a power to be reckoned with, just like all other powers....you
can't ignore defenses against them without getting burned, same as you don't
go out without armor, you don't stuff all your money in a wad in your
pocket, you don't go looking for runs by standing on the corner and shouting
"anybody need a runner?" (if you did, don't tell me...) The Awakening
changes the way the world works. You have to adjust.

On another Note (I always have more notes), Questions about two things:

1) Several novels report the "bullets bouncing away from laughing villain"
effect. How? (I know novels break some rules, but this is a little
standard...) From the description, Barrier isn't used, Bullet Barrier is.
It has a target of 6. Final Barrier rating = successes. Assume a Sorcery
of 6, Centering of 6, and Force of 6. You average 1 success from Force, 1
from Magic Pool, and 1/2 from Centering. Assuming a good roll, double this
to a total of, say, 5. Firing through a Barrier reduces the Power of the
Attack by the rating of the Barrier. Pistol Attack: Skill of 4, Target: 4.
Successes: 1.
Damage is reduced to 4M, assuming nothing special.

Here we have a High force Barrier from a very competent Mage putting his all
in, and an attack by a pretty low strength attacker, with only a heavy pistol.

It gets through. No bullets bouncing away.

With a Body of 3, even with most armor, the Mage will get hurt unless he is
using Combat Pool.

To get the "bouncing" effect, say we reduce the damage by 8. THus, eight
successes. Assuming two successes for every 6 die (i.e., a good roll) we
see that we need 24 die rolled. ?!?!?!? And this is a lousy pistol attack!
Could we ever defend a guy enough to stop even a SM-3 or MA-2100 shot,
forget a Barret?

2) Hurting A manifest spirit: Immunity to Normal Weapons. Armor equal to
twice Essence. Well, they usually survive pistols, but an SMG stop's em
cold...even powered by willpower. I have to bring in Spirits above Force 6
(which I consider to very powerful in the world, and not to be brought out
lightly) to even worry my players....

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 69 | You don't have to cast the spell and bond it to the foci as soon
|as you place the item. I don't see any reason it can't be done hours
|ahead of time. However, someone has to place it on the target and then
|activate it as well.

But the spell must be cast ON someone in order for it to work.
You can't just cast a spell and bond it, because the spell has nothing to
act upon. It MUST be bonded TO someone at the time of casting.

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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. 70 |
|SH>I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...

| you can. vehicle mask to the hood ornament/spell lock on your
|favorite car. Invisibility on the spell lock/keychain ornament you gave
|your friend as a gift... lots of neato options.;

Oh, you can cast SPELLS on things, but I'm not too sure about using spell
locks to lock 'em....

FASAMike????? HEEEEEELP!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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. 71 |>They're only undetectable IF they have been bonded, and in order to do that
|>the mage must cast a spell on a character and, well, bond it.
|
|ACtually, You can cast the spell at any time, and bond it....it affects the
|person only when first ACTIVATED. So you could Bond it at your leisure,
|then simply get on the character...Free action, and BLOOP! done deal.

NO! You must cast the spell on the thing you want it to AFFECT and bond it
then and there! Otherwise, the recipient of the spell lock wouldn't gain any
benifits from the spell, and the SPELL must be cast on a subject for it to
work in the first place....

Casting Armour on thin air is just a waste of time....

(Ever get the feeling you're arguing in circles???)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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. 73 On 24 Jan 97 at 17:52, Spike wrote:
[snip locks powerful]
> Yes, but still....
> Casting the spell would be a bit of a givaway, wouldn't it....
>
> You're sitting there, minding your own business, when you suddenly hear
> someone mumbling jibberish next to you....
No need for that, sorry. You can cast the spell on the lock before you
attach it to the victim (or happy person) who will receive it. You
place it, and activate it with a simple action (see SRII, p. 13...8?).

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

Message no. 74 On 24 Jan 97 at 10:33, Denzil Kruse wrote:
[snip spell lock too powerful if "untouchable once activated"]
> I'm not saying its cake to sneak a spell lock around, but is possible. Any
> shadowrun team worth their salt (whatever that means) can come up with a
> distraction or plan to place a spell lock unnoticed on someone or something.
Yup. Right. OTOH, they might also sneak a bomb there, and woun't have
to care about astral security afterwards. Or drugs. Or anything else.
Or - in most cases even simpler - a sniper bullet into, to, or near
either the victim, or the victim's family. It's not "cake to sneak a"
whatever "around, but is possible."

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

Message no. 75 On 24 Jan 97 at 13:51, Mike Elkins wrote:
> >I still see no reason why they become invisible. A kabillion people pointed out
> >that it was in the rules, but why? I felt making the spell locks disappear was
too
> >powerful. None of the other foci disappear.
>
> I believe that the untouchable spell locks come from folklore, not from any sense
> of game balance. If you "witch" someone with a curse tied to a charm, if
it works
> only another person with the "gift" can "unwitch" you. You don't
even find the
> charm until you've been "unwitched".
Would you really pay even one Karma point for something every squatter
can tear of you (and waste your efforts and Karma) ? _I_ wouldn't, and
I think it is strictly a rule for game balance - if you pay Karma, it
should not be that easy to reverse or undo the effects.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

Message no. 76 >| You don't have to cast the spell and bond it to the foci as soon
>|as you place the item. I don't see any reason it can't be done hours
>But the spell must be cast ON someone in order for it to work.
>You can't just cast a spell and bond it, because the spell has nothing to
>act upon. It MUST be bonded TO someone at the time of casting.

Incorrect. Read SRII (pp 138-139??) about spell locks. It says something like
"The spell must be cast and bonded simultaneously, paying one Karma" (note
the BONDING refers to paying the Karma, BONDING the item to the spell lock.)
"However, it can be carried around, passed off, etc, before it's INITIAL
activation. Any magician of the correct tradition can place it and activate
it."

As to whether the controlling mage can deactivate it and remove it without
breaking the lock, there is another thread bouncing around here about that.
The way the rules read, it isn't addressed.

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 77 >NO! You must cast the spell on the thing you want it to AFFECT and bond it
>then and there! Otherwise, the recipient of the spell lock wouldn't gain any
>benifits from the spell, and the SPELL must be cast on a subject for it to
>work in the first place....
>Casting Armour on thin air is just a waste of time....

Read the SRII spell locks section. It VERY CLEARLY says the spell can be
cast AT THE SPELL LOCK, and not activated until you want. period.

Read before replying. It will avoid "arguing in circles".

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 78 >Oh, you can cast SPELLS on things, but I'm not too sure about using spell
>locks to lock 'em....
>
>FASAMike????? HEEEEEELP!

As mentioned, in one of the NAN adventures, it was done, and what does the
fact that the target is non living have to do with being able to lock it?
The lock interacts with astral space and the spell....no particular
attachement (other than a physical connection) to the target. The spell
itself does the interaction with the target.

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 79 On 25 Jan 97 at 12:42, Spike wrote:
[snip]
> But the spell must be cast ON someone in order for it to work.
> You can't just cast a spell and bond it, because the spell has nothing to
> act upon. It MUST be bonded TO someone at the time of casting.
The spell is bonded to the spell lock. So says THE BOOK.

On 25 Jan 97 at 13:17, Spike wrote:
> (Ever get the feeling you're arguing in circles???)
Naw... sorry to say so, but just 'cause you repeated the same argument
(which is wrong by p. 138) to several mails, you may get that
impression.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

Message no. 80 At 04:55 PM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>NO! You must cast the spell on the thing you want it to AFFECT and bond it
>>then and there! Otherwise, the recipient of the spell lock wouldn't gain any
>>benifits from the spell, and the SPELL must be cast on a subject for it to
>>work in the first place....
>>Casting Armour on thin air is just a waste of time....
>
>Read the SRII spell locks section. It VERY CLEARLY says the spell can be
>cast AT THE SPELL LOCK, and not activated until you want. period.
>
>Read before replying. It will avoid "arguing in circles".
>
>-=SwiftOne=-
>
Ok... You two are actually arguing slightly seperate points around each
other... And this rule might be run slightly different in you game, Swift,
as it's sometimes a point of confusion...

Ok, whoever you were responding to, Swift (Spike? maybe?) Is simply saying
that you can't cast a spell on a lock without bonding it to someone.
Without the bonding, the spell has no target, and will fizzle. However, in
defense of your statement, although the spell is bionded, it's not active
until you (the caster) wants it to be, and turns it on.

Does that make any sense??

Bull
--
Bull-the-cuddly-Star-Wars-loving-ork-decker

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

Less than 1 week till Star Wars!

Message no. 81 SH>2) Hurting A manifest spirit: Immunity to Normal Weapons. Armor equal to
SH>twice Essence. Well, they usually survive pistols, but an SMG stop's em
SH>cold...even powered by willpower. I have to bring in Spirits above Force 6
SH>(which I consider to very powerful in the world, and not to be brought out
SH>lightly) to even worry my players....

SH>-=SwiftOne=-

i agree about all the rest of the message. it is sad sometimes.
My samurai (god rest his undead tortured soul) was able to destroy a
Wild Hunt leader this way, only in melee combat. (I'm not saying it was
easy, he burned 8 karma doing it). It usually ends up with the bad guy
rolling against a target number of 2 , but sometimes something silly
like 2D with 4 points of overflow.. then you look at your dice and see
you only have eight to roll, and think, "gee, if these are all successes
I can stage it down to Deadly."
in the case of spirits, however, I've always treated their armour
as the Criter power of Armour, which means it's hardened. in other
words, force 6 spirits bounce power 12 or under. this makes it
considerably less vulnerable, and much more "Immune".
-Cyberspunk
Cat-who-tidys-up-after-company-alone
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 82 SH>| you can. vehicle mask to the hood ornament/spell lock on your
SH>|favorite car. Invisibility on the spell lock/keychain ornament you gave
SH>|your friend as a gift... lots of neato options.;

SH>Oh, you can cast SPELLS on things, but I'm not too sure about using spell
SH>locks to lock 'em....

oh yeah, well i AM@!!! :)
-cyberpsunk
cat-who-still-misspells-name
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 83 SH>NO! You must cast the spell on the thing you want it to AFFECT and bond it
SH>then and there! Otherwise, the recipient of the spell lock wouldn't gain any
SH>benifits from the spell, and the SPELL must be cast on a subject for it to
SH>work in the first place....

SH>Casting Armour on thin air is just a waste of time....

SH>(Ever get the feeling you're arguing in circles???)
SH>|Andrew Halliwell |
okay.. when bonding a spell to a spell lock, the spell is cast
INTO the spell lock, not on its intended target. To be useable, it has
to be put on an appropriate target, thats all.
-cyberpsunk
sigh
SPACE COAST Online 407-773-1042 Telnet Spacecst.net WWW - http://Spacecst.net

Message no. 84 On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:53:22 -0500 Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>1) Several novels report the "bullets bouncing away from laughing
>villain" effect. How? (I know novels break some rules, but this is a
little
>standard...) From the description, Barrier isn't used, Bullet Barrier
>is.
>It has a target of 6. Final Barrier rating = successes.

[snip example]

I thought that it was Final BR = Force.

>2) Hurting A manifest spirit: Immunity to Normal Weapons. Armor
>equal to twice Essence. Well, they usually survive pistols, but an SMG
stop's
>em cold...even powered by willpower. I have to bring in Spirits above
>Force 6 (which I consider to very powerful in the world, and not to be
brought
>out lightly) to even worry my players....

Yup, couldn't agree more..

My solution: Threat rating = Force....it helps when you get to throw a
few more dice. Or you could consider that Immunity to Norm. Weapons
Armor as 'Hardened'.... That would effectively put a damper on the
damage that they take from firearms.

>
>-=SwiftOne=-
>

~Tim (not so swift, answering YESTERDAY'S mail TODAY...) :)

Message no. 85 On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:45:18 +0000 Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
writes:
>|
>|SH>I didn't think you could bond a lock to a non-living object...
>
>| you can. vehicle mask to the hood ornament/spell lock on your
>|favorite car. Invisibility on the spell lock/keychain ornament you
>gave
>|your friend as a gift... lots of neato options.;
>
>Oh, you can cast SPELLS on things, but I'm not too sure about using
>spell
>locks to lock 'em....
>
>FASAMike????? HEEEEEELP!
>--
>

Hey, if it's sustainable and the target's legal...I see no reason why you
can't lock it.

Granted most examples of how locks work (with the removing, breaking and
deactivating mess) are with people, I don't think it ever says
specifically that a lock MUST be placed on a PERSON. The object that the
lock is fastened to seems a bit imaterial to the actual effect -as long
as it's a legal target for the locked spell that is..

~Tim & his 2 ¥

Message no. 86 [about taking spell locks from you]
>Would you really pay even one Karma point for something every squatter
>can tear of you (and waste your efforts and Karma) ? _I_ wouldn't, and
>I think it is strictly a rule for game balance - if you pay Karma, it
>should not be that easy to reverse or undo the effects.
>
> Sascha

All foci can be taken from you and you spend lot more karma bonding those.
Besides, you can always wear a lock or other focus under your clothing or
other hard to reach places:)

Having a focus or lock taken from you is just one of the risks a mage takes
and one of the only ways a mundane can protect themselves. Since mages have
the highest potiential for power in the game, they need some of these risks.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

Message no. 87 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:47:00 MST Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
writes:
<snip>
>Ping! <light coming on>. That was in the NAN sourcebook/module, but
>don't
>remember if it was 1 or 2. A shaman with a hell hound planted a book
>with a
>spell lock on it hoping to get the characters to take it so she could
>follow
>
>Denzil Kruse

Must be NAN-2 (Eye of the Eagle). We ran Peacemaker yesterday and that
never popped up (I didn't GM but the GM told us everything we missed at
the end and gave severe "hints" while GMing. But, it's his first game as
GM, so by next time I hope to have gotten across to him that if the
players miss something, they miss it. If it's so important that you can't
finish the module without it, have it pop up somehow or simply let them
fail. Failure happens. They'll live with it:)

Canthros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 88 On 25 Jan 97 at 22:36, Denzil Kruse wrote:
[snip Karma cost]
> All foci can be taken from you and you spend lot more karma bonding
> those. Besides, you can always wear a lock or other focus under your
> clothing or other hard to reach places:)
Yeah - but you can drop a weapon focus, or hand a spell focus to
another person, and the bonding will not be broken until another
magician bonds the item to himself. With a spell lock, you just have to
remove it from where it was placed, and then the poor magician has to
re-pay karma.

As for hiding the foci, some magicians out there still want to keep
some style, and don't want to hide. What is the reason to pay lots of
cash and Karma for your wonderful focus, and then HIDE it?

> Having a focus or lock taken from you is just one of the risks a
> mage takes and one of the only ways a mundane can protect themselves.
> Since mages have the highest potiential for power in the game, they
> need some of these risks.
As said before - all foci but spell locks can be removed from the owner
w/o the bonding being broken. All foci but active spell locks can be
seen, touched, and moved by mundanes.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer