Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Cybereyes and Spell Casting
Date: Mon Mar 12 09:55:00 2001
John Pederson writes:

> "Keith Duthie" <psycho@*********.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Not quite. You need to get optical magnification if you're a mage (0.2
> > instead of 0.1 essense IIRC), and you can't target by heat signature. Not
> > that that stops a mage from dropping an elemental manipulation spell on
> > the target, but it screws up any plans you have for a manabolt.
>
> I don't suppose you can back those up? I don't disbelieve/distrust you, I
> just don't remember either statement from the rulebooks.
>
> Admittedly, darkness shouldn't be a huge issue for a full magician, since
> they can use Astral Perception (or did the light in astral space thing
> change between editions?).

I think that you almost answered your own question. IRC, in order to cast a
spell at something, the caster needs to be _able_ to see the target's aura.
In other words, the caster needs to be able to see the target using astral
perception. Note that the caster does _not_ need to actually use astral
perception to see the target, just be able to. This was because a part of
the spellcasting operation involved synchronising the spell with the aura,
as well as the physical component, of the target.

If my above recollection is correct, then these two conclusions can be made:

1) Spell casting at target's using thermographic vision through walls is not
possible at all, as the target's aura would not be visible through the wall.

2) Using astral perception to get around darkness and other vision modifiers
in spellcasting is not possible, as the spellcasting still needs to
synchronise to the target's physical portion.

Gurth writes:

> This is a very tricky question: does vision magnification in a cybereye
> have to be optical, or can it be electronic?

I was always of the belief that if you had a natural eye, then you could
_only_ install optical vision magnification. Conversely, if you had a
cybereye, then you could _only_ install electronic vision magnification.

> And this last bit is the core of the question, if you want to twist over
> minor rules :) Vision mag in a natural eye, sure -- you paid Essence, so
> it'll work. But vision mag in a cybereye hasn't cost you any Essence, which
> means that electronic mag might just prevent you from targeting spells...

OTOH, the 0.1 Essence cost of the electronic vision magnification does take
up 0.1 of the 0.5 available in the cybereye. This is almost the same
thing. It _is_ the same thing if you have 0.5 Essence worth of other mods
within your cybereye ... who can tell which of the 7 different modifications
falls within the "free" 0.5 Essence, and which do not?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cybereyes and Spell Casting
Date: Mon Mar 12 13:45:03 2001
According to Damion Milliken, on Mon, 12 Mar 2001 the word on the street
was...

> I was always of the belief that if you had a natural eye, then you could
> _only_ install optical vision magnification. Conversely, if you had a
> cybereye, then you could _only_ install electronic vision magnification.

I never read the description in the SSC that way, but there is some sense
in that, oh great guru ;)

> > And this last bit is the core of the question, if you want to twist over
> > minor rules :) Vision mag in a natural eye, sure -- you paid Essence, so
> > it'll work. But vision mag in a cybereye hasn't cost you any Essence, which
> > means that electronic mag might just prevent you from targeting spells...
>
> OTOH, the 0.1 Essence cost of the electronic vision magnification does take
> up 0.1 of the 0.5 available in the cybereye. This is almost the same
> thing. It _is_ the same thing if you have 0.5 Essence worth of other mods
> within your cybereye ... who can tell which of the 7 different modifications
> falls within the "free" 0.5 Essence, and which do not?

That's a matter of deciding which items are built into the eye, and which
are built around it. I've always seen the free 0.5 points as accounting for
things built into spaces in the eye, at any rate.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kogels houden van mensen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Pederson)
Subject: Cybereyes and Spell Casting
Date: Mon Mar 12 13:50:01 2001
"Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au> wrote:
> I think that you almost answered your own question.

This is entirely possible. I'm still pretty stuck in the SR2 model of
magic.

> IRC, in order to cast a spell at something, the caster needs to be
> _able_ to see the target's aura. In other words, the caster needs
> to be able to see the target using astral perception. Note that
> the caster does _not_ need to actually use astral perception to see
> the target, just be able to. This was because a part of the
> spellcasting operation involved synchronising the spell with the
> aura, as well as the physical component, of the target.

Yeah, I am definitely out of synch on this one just a bit. Doesn't
that work out to a clear line of sight on the common plane between
the spell's caster and the spell's target?

> If my above recollection is correct, then these two conclusions can
> be made:
>
> 1) Spell casting at target's using thermographic vision through
> walls is not possible at all, as the target's aura would not be
> visible through the wall.

Honestly, this possibility hadn't even occurred to me. The bigger
question to me was whether or not the thermographic vision could be
used to offset darkness modifiers, so you'd be dealing with a +6
instead of a +8 in total darkness. I'm certainly not out to try
targetting spells around corners:)

> 2) Using astral perception to get around darkness and other vision
> modifiers in spellcasting is not possible, as the spellcasting
> still needs to synchronise to the target's physical portion.

This bit is new to me. Any specific page numbers that you reference
here? Or is the spellcasting section of the SR3 rulebook about as
narrow as I'm going to get on that?
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Cybereyes and Spell Casting
Date: Mon Mar 12 16:10:01 2001
>1) Spell casting at target's using thermographic vision through walls is
not
>possible at all, as the target's aura would not be visible through the
wall.

This would depend on whether the wall was transparent to IR. Very few are-
translucent materials might be, maybe some darker plastics like you see some
sheds made out off, but not any structural wall.
Most times when people tlak about seeing a heat signature through a wall,
they mean that a body on the other side of the wall is warming the wall up,
and they see a warm spot. That's not seeing through the wall, any more than
seeing my shadow is the same as seeing me.

>2) Using astral perception to get around darkness and other vision
modifiers
>in spellcasting is not possible, as the spellcasting still needs to
>synchronise to the target's physical portion.

Then how would a ghoul cast spells? They are BLIND, but have astral
perception thanks to thier dual nature. Could they only cast spells at
astral targets?

-Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cybereyes and Spell Casting, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!