Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Penta <CHARLIE@*******.com>
Subject: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 09:11:09 -0400 (EDT)
A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a 5 in
Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My Character
is a decker....Can deckers do that?
Message no. 2
From: Marc Lipshitz <MLIPSHIT@****.CO.ZA>
Subject: Deckers as Riggers? -Reply
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:16:50 +0200
>>> Penta <CHARLIE@*******.com> 12/August/1996 03:11pm >>>
A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a 5 in
Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My
Character is a decker....Can deckers do that?

Of course, no reason why somebody cannot have both decking skills and
rigging skills, what you do with your chracter can be as unique as you
like, within the rules of the game and permission of your GM
Marc Lipshitz
Message no. 3
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:30:19 -0600 (MDT)
Penta wrote:
|
|A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a 5 in
|Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
|resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My Character
|is a decker....Can deckers do that?

Yes.

Characters can put any combination of cyber- and bioware in
them that they want (following the rules on essence and
keeping in mind that some combinations of cyber- and
bioware don't work [see the rules]). Mages are restricted
from decking. That's about it.

When building characters for SRII you don't have to fit
them into a specific "class" or stereotype. If you want a
character that can rig and deck, go for it.

-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. 4
From: Richard M Conroy <Richard_M_Conroy@***.ir.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 14:42:00 PDT
>A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a
>5 in Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved
>on to resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My
>Character is a decker....Can deckers do that?

Why Not ? And with a VCR he will get a control pool and all the rest
that goes with it. As to whether he is actually a rigger is another
point entirely... after he is through with his deck construction &
program purchases he's not going to have much left for all the usual
rigger toys. A decker with a VCR he most certainly is, but without the
usual trappings of a rigger it might be a bit pretensious to call
himself one...

Richard.
O--------------------------------------------------------------------O
\Food for thought lies in the\Richard_M_Conroy@\Roadkill on the Info \
\depth of an inedible brick. \ccm.ir.intel.com \-rmation SuperHighway\
O-------------------------------------------------------------------O
Message no. 5
From: kumquat@*****.com
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:55:02 -0500
"David" Wrote:
SH> Mages are restricted
SH>from decking. That's about it.

You prob'ly know this, but this statement is not 100% true.... My
current favorite PC is a Burned-out Mage who decided to become a decker.
With a Magic attribute of 1, he suffers +1 to all TN in the Matrix, and
takes physical drain from any spells cast (as well as the additional con
of only being able to use 1 die from magic pool for success tests).
Although this makes him not very good at much of anything, and, as a
result, he serves as the group's "investigator" type character, but he
is a hell of a lot of fun to play.

Typical Shadowrunner's response to opposition : "I blow it up/ shoot it/
run an attack prog"
Thorn's Response : "I find out what I can, then run like hell to tell
someone who can do something about it!!!!"

Thorn was created from chargen with Resources A (For Cyber/Bio to reduce
the MR, and a mediocre cyberdeck/programs) Magic B (Sorcery adept)
Skills C, Attributes D, Race E.

There is no stat/skill he possesses beyond 5 (5s being Intelligence,
Decking, and Sorcery) So in a high power game he would be lunch. But
characters with built in weird twists, in addition to a lot of kewl
background stuff are often more fun than any of my munched-out
Combat/Magic/Decker Gods....

SH>When building characters for SRII you don't have to fit
SH>them into a specific "class" or stereotype. If you want a
SH>character that can rig and deck, go for it.
Just about any combination can be fun for you, if it fits your (and your
game's) playing style... Just go nuts... sometimes a strangely created
character makes creating an intricate background easier.

Just My Two Pence.
The Kumquat.

Support Whirled Peas.

SH>-David

SH>/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
SH>"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
SH> underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
SH>~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~~~
Message no. 6
From: Penta <CHARLIE@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
At 12:55 PM 8/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>"David" Wrote:
>SH> Mages are restricted
>SH>from decking. That's about it.
>
>You prob'ly know this, but this statement is not 100% true.... My
>current favorite PC is a Burned-out Mage who decided to become a decker.
>With a Magic attribute of 1, he suffers +1 to all TN in the Matrix, and
>takes physical drain from any spells cast (as well as the additional con
>of only being able to use 1 die from magic pool for success tests).
>Although this makes him not very good at much of anything, and, as a
>result, he serves as the group's "investigator" type character, but he
>is a hell of a lot of fun to play.
>
>Typical Shadowrunner's response to opposition : "I blow it up/ shoot it/
>run an attack prog"
>Thorn's Response : "I find out what I can, then run like hell to tell
>someone who can do something about it!!!!"
>
>Thorn was created from chargen with Resources A (For Cyber/Bio to reduce
>the MR, and a mediocre cyberdeck/programs) Magic B (Sorcery adept)
>Skills C, Attributes D, Race E.
>
>There is no stat/skill he possesses beyond 5 (5s being Intelligence,
>Decking, and Sorcery) So in a high power game he would be lunch. But
>characters with built in weird twists, in addition to a lot of kewl
>background stuff are often more fun than any of my munched-out
>Combat/Magic/Decker Gods....
>
>SH>When building characters for SRII you don't have to fit
>SH>them into a specific "class" or stereotype. If you want a
>SH>character that can rig and deck, go for it.
>Just about any combination can be fun for you, if it fits your (and your
>game's) playing style... Just go nuts... sometimes a strangely created
>character makes creating an intricate background easier.
>
>Just My Two Pence.
>The Kumquat.
>
> Support Whirled Peas.
>
>SH>-David
>
>SH>/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
>SH>"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
>SH> underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
>SH>~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~~~
Ah, point.....which brings up another question....are decker/rigger combos
used in the UCAS army?
Message no. 7
From: The Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 08:05:17 +1000 (EST)
> A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a 5 in
> Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
> resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My Character
> is a decker....Can deckers do that?

Well, I don't know of anything forbidding them... but you'll be a much
better decker if you spend the essence points on headware...

Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
"There are worse things than death...
and I can do all of them." - The Plague
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: Rick Jones <rick@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:08:57 -0500 (CDT)
The Jestyr wrote:
> > Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
> > resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My Character
> > is a decker....Can deckers do that?
>
> Well, I don't know of anything forbidding them... but you'll be a much
> better decker if you spend the essence points on headware...

The biggest drawback to being a decker/rigger is that you end up being
less effective than either a straight decker or straight rigger, since you
are dividing your nuyen between your deck and your drones/rig. Our team
has a decker/rigger who will pretty much get whomped by full deckers, but
since I do most decker work "off camera" anyway, it's not a big deal.

--
Rick Jones For three years now, you've been pulling everyone's
rick@******.com strings, getting us to do all the work and you haven't
Meyrick@***.com done a damn thing but stand there and look cryptic!
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/ --Sheridan to Kosh, Babylon 5
Message no. 9
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:13:23 GMT + 2:00
@ The biggest drawback to being a decker/rigger is that you end up being
@ less effective than either a straight decker or straight rigger, since you
@ are dividing your nuyen between your deck and your drones/rig. Our team
@ has a decker/rigger who will pretty much get whomped by full deckers, but
@ since I do most decker work "off camera" anyway, it's not a big deal.

A less resource intensive combo is the Sam/decker. I know I play
one. All that he uses his deck for (full blown Rating 5 deck, VR1) is
digging through newspapers, and public data bases. It keeps the costs
down when you hire a decker and say heres all the prelim info.




Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to face the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 10
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 04:29:19 -0500 (EST)
>@ The biggest drawback to being a decker/rigger is that you end up being
>@ less effective than either a straight decker or straight rigger, since you
>@ are dividing your nuyen between your deck and your drones/rig. Our team
>@ has a decker/rigger who will pretty much get whomped by full deckers, but
>@ since I do most decker work "off camera" anyway, it's not a big deal.
>
> A less resource intensive combo is the Sam/decker. I know I play
>one. All that he uses his deck for (full blown Rating 5 deck, VR1) is
>digging through newspapers, and public data bases. It keeps the costs
>down when you hire a decker and say heres all the prelim info.
>
>
>
>I had a player put together what he called a Combat Decker Archetype.
Essentially, it was a Samurai/Decker Hybrid. He even went as far as
designing a C3 deck (crainial, cellular, cyberdeck) with an induction
datajack. It was extremely expensive, but it worked. Kam was a tough all
around fighter, but not realy great at any one thing.
Message no. 11
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:40:05 +0000
On 12 Aug 96 at 14:14, Penta wrote:
[about 50 lines SNIPPED]
> Ah, point.....which brings up another question....are decker/rigger combos
> used in the UCAS army?
Which brings up another question.... why do you quote 50 lines if you are not
reffering to 'em? Some of us have to PAY for their mail connection, you know?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 12
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:40:05 +0000
On 12 Aug 96 at 12:55, kumquat@*****.com wrote:
> "David" Wrote:
> SH> Mages are restricted
> SH>from decking. That's about it.

> You prob'ly know this, but this statement is not 100% true.... My
> current favorite PC is a Burned-out Mage who decided to become a decker.
> With a Magic attribute of 1, he suffers +1 to all TN in the Matrix,
Hm ... is that rule still around (either in the Grimoire or VR2)? I do know it
from VR1, but can't recall seeing it in the latest books.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 13
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:34:26 +0100
Penta said on 9:11/12 Aug 96...

> A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a 5 in
> Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
> resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My Character
> is a decker....Can deckers do that?

First rule of SR chargen: anyone can do everything (except become a
magician) if they have the cash and/or skill points for it.

You build a decker and buy him a VCR, that's fine by the rules. Only thing
is that you don't have a decker but a decker/rigger, but because there is
no such thing as a strictly defined "class" there's no worry about that.
Hell, you could make a full magician and give him a VCR if you want to,
creating a mage/rigger.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
As far as I'm concerned, time's the state of my jeans.
-> 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------
Message no. 14
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:34:26 +0100
Penta said on 14:14/12 Aug 96...

Kindly delete all the lines of a message you're not replying to.

> Ah, point.....which brings up another question....are decker/rigger combos
> used in the UCAS army?

I guess they would be, because one you have a rigger you can give him a
cyberdeck and some training in using it, and you have a combo. Although
my guess is these kinds of soldiers would be more common in special ops
than in regular units.

BTW, a rigger/decker combo also makes sense with the rigged security
systems from the CorpSec Handbook.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
As far as I'm concerned, time's the state of my jeans.
-> 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------
Message no. 15
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:34:26 +0100
David Buehrer said on 7:30/12 Aug 96...

> Mages are restricted from decking. That's about it.

That's not quite true. The only rules to this effect are in VR1, where
it's said that you should add either your Magic rating or your Sorcery
skill to all your TNs for decking (GM's decision about which of the two to
use), while AFAIK VR2.0 has no rules or guidelines to this effect at all.
This means a magician is not restricted from becoming a decker, it's just
a lot harder to achieve anything.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
As far as I'm concerned, time's the state of my jeans.
-> 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------
Message no. 16
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:34:27 +0100
Andre' Selmer said on 9:13/13 Aug 96...

> A less resource intensive combo is the Sam/decker. I know I play
> one. All that he uses his deck for (full blown Rating 5 deck, VR1) is
> digging through newspapers, and public data bases. It keeps the costs
> down when you hire a decker and say heres all the prelim info.

You use a cyberdeck for browsing through on-line newspapers? Maybe you
should try your telecom for the same purpose...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
As far as I'm concerned, time's the state of my jeans.
-> 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------
Message no. 17
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:16:42 GMT + 2:00
@* had a player put together what he called a Combat Decker Archetype.
@ Essentially, it was a Samurai/Decker Hybrid. He even went as far as
@ designing a C3 deck (crainial, cellular, cyberdeck) with an induction
@ datajack. It was extremely expensive, but it worked. Kam was a tough all
@ around fighter, but not realy great at any one thing.

Generally combination characters are not all in the upper
ecahlons(sp?) of strenght in specifics in a single departmet as
mentioned, but from experience I found that they more than make up
for it in sheer versitility. Certain combinations obviously are more
difficult to play, such as a mage/sam (although we have a character
who once aspired and believed himself to be a great sam, .... he was
a better mage!).

Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to face the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 18
From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:28:42 GMT + 2:00
@ Andre' Selmer said on 9:13/13 Aug 96...
@
@ > A less resource intensive combo is the Sam/decker. I know I play
@ > one. All that he uses his deck for (full blown Rating 5 deck, VR1) is
@ > digging through newspapers, and public data bases. It keeps the costs
@ > down when you hire a decker and say heres all the prelim info.
@
@ You use a cyberdeck for browsing through on-line newspapers? Maybe you
@ should try your telecom for the same purpose...

I never said that was all my character uses his deck for. He has
successfully used it several times to break the combination lock his
door when he forgot the code. It also has come in useful in the
middle of NAN when we needed to make a telcom call. Satallite dish +
deck = insta-telcom. ;). Seriously though, my character uses the
deck, a) it is quicker to use it and he can peruse a lot of
data quickly b) the occational run (okay to date 3), but one was
against an orange system c) as a way to counter act his phobia of
vampires. To this end his entire deck is setup as a graveyard, and
yes, he is Death and he ride a harley davidson (with all the sound
effects)

In the way that we play the system, my character mainly uses the
deck to bypass all those charges that we would incur using various
services as well as making sure that no-one is tracing the call, as
well as a hole mirad of small tasks. A new addition just added is the
deck monitors the traffic (from an on-line service) from anywhere in
the world, when using the tel-com it inserts the appropraite noises
into the backgound, after removing the background noise from the real
transmission. If nothing else, if some-one analyses the noise, he or
she might believe the call originates from somewhere else, providing
that the trace is unsuccessful of course.

Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to face the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.
Message no. 19
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:57:17 -0500 (EST)
>> Mages are restricted from decking. That's about it.
>
>That's not quite true. The only rules to this effect are in VR1, where
>it's said that you should add either your Magic rating or your Sorcery
>skill to all your TNs for decking (GM's decision about which of the two to
>use), while AFAIK VR2.0 has no rules or guidelines to this effect at all.
>This means a magician is not restricted from becoming a decker, it's just
>a lot harder to achieve anything.

If any of you want a real laugh about a shaman/decker/samurai character,
check out the SR Super Nintnedo game!
It's a fun little diversion, but the player starts as a muscle boy, first
learns decking, then becomes a Dog Shaman!!!
I was a teenage mutant ninja when teenage mutant ninjas weren't cool . . .
Message no. 20
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 11:03:27 -0500 (EST)
Generally combination characters are not all in the upper
>ecahlons(sp?) of strenght in specifics in a single departmet as
>mentioned, but from experience I found that they more than make up
>for it in sheer versitility. Certain combinations obviously are more
>difficult to play, such as a mage/sam (although we have a character
>who once aspired and believed himself to be a great sam, .... he was
>a better mage!).

You're right on target. Currently, the most pwerful shaman on our team
hardly ever uses his shamanic abilities.
Instead, he has concentrated on improving his stats, adding some bioware,
and beating the crap out of people with his mageblade.
BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
Spell onto his sword? Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in
their campaign?
Rseponses needed please!
I was a teenage mutant ninja when teenage mutant ninjas weren't cool . . .
Message no. 21
From: Rick Jones <rick@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:52:20 -0500 (CDT)
Steven A. Tinner wrote:
> If any of you want a real laugh about a shaman/decker/samurai character,
> check out the SR Super Nintnedo game!
> It's a fun little diversion, but the player starts as a muscle boy, first
> learns decking, then becomes a Dog Shaman!!!

How do you manage that? I played that thing for three weeks solid, and
never got magic. I did turn the "street samauri" version of the character
into a a wiz decker, since it's cheaper (in karma) to become a good decker
instead of a good samauri.

It's a fun game, btw. I wish they'd put out another one.

--
Rick Jones For three years now, you've been pulling everyone's
rick@******.com strings, getting us to do all the work and you haven't
Meyrick@***.com done a damn thing but stand there and look cryptic!
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/ --Sheridan to Kosh, Babylon 5
Message no. 22
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 11:20:39 -0500 (EST)
>How do you manage that? I played that thing for three weeks solid, and
>never got magic. I did turn the "street samauri" version of the character
>into a a wiz decker, since it's cheaper (in karma) to become a good decker
>instead of a good samauri.

You need to talk to Dog. He lives in a warehouse down on the docks. Next
collect the things dog likes. - A Ghoul Bone from the cemetary, a dog collar
from the doggie trapped in the park with the fountain, and something else
that escapes me right now.
Once you have all the items, Dog will begin to teach you spells. Then you
can earn more as you defeat more enemies.
I was a teenage mutant ninja when teenage mutant ninjas weren't cool . . .
Message no. 23
From: Rick Jones <rick@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:17:31 -0500 (CDT)
Steven A. Tinner wrote:
> You need to talk to Dog. He lives in a warehouse down on the docks. Next
> collect the things dog likes. - A Ghoul Bone from the cemetary, a dog collar

Were you on the SuperNES, perchance? I don't remember docks in the Sega
version.

--
Rick Jones For three years now, you've been pulling everyone's
rick@******.com strings, getting us to do all the work and you haven't
Meyrick@***.com done a damn thing but stand there and look cryptic!
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/ --Sheridan to Kosh, Babylon 5
Message no. 24
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:40:32 -0500 (EST)
>Were you on the SuperNES, perchance? I don't remember docks in the Sega
>version.

Yes, this was the Super NES version. Sorry if I didn't explain that. Haven't
played the Sega version, but I hear it's pretty good. Sure wish they'd make
a sequel.



>>>>I was a teenage mutant ninja when teenage mutant ninjas weren't
cool.<<<<
Message no. 25
From: rogue@*****.fr (Sebastien Andrivet)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:17:38 GMT
Steven A. Tinner :
>BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
>Spell onto his sword? Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in
>their campaign?

You might want to play a super-hero games instead.
Believe me. I do.

Sebastien Andrivet
rogue@*****.fr
France / Europe
"I'm not gonna try to hit him. I'm gonna try to hit myself. Since my skill
with a staff is so low, I have a good chance of achieving critical failure
and hitting the wrong target, and there's only me and him around. So I
attack him by trying to hit myself".
- Fred
Message no. 26
From: melchar@****.darkside.com (Melchar)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 12:41:30 PDT
> |A yesterday, while creating my character, I had given myself I think a 5 in
> |Car, including Car (B/R). That was during skills. When I had moved on to
> |resources, I had decided to get a VCR[rigger gear]for myself. My Character
> |is a decker....Can deckers do that?
>
> Yes.
> Characters can put any combination of cyber- and bioware in
> them that they want (following the rules on essence and
> keeping in mind that some combinations of cyber- and
> bioware don't work [see the rules]). Mages are restricted
> from decking. That's about it.

Why do you think mages are restricted from decking? My favorite
character is a shaman-decker. She 'turtles' the Matrix (is down a point
of essences from mods, too) - but she does all right. She's not an
absolutely killer, max'd to the limit character, but she _is_ versitile
Message no. 27
From: kumquat@*****.com
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:15:02 -0500
SH>>BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
SH>>Spell onto his sword? Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight i
SH>>their campaign?

Quickening, in this case, would not work... there is another form of
metamagic, called anchoring, I believe, that is much more difficult and
usually requiring some sort of trigger. (Losta money and karma for the
anchoring trick) Quickening cannot be used on most combat spells, since
it is a method for (semi)permanently sustaining spells which require
sustaining. As an spell with instant duration, Death touch can not be
quickened. If he wants to try the complex anchoring trick, I say let
him, and see if he thinks it is worth all the money and effort. The
Grim2 details the rules on anchoring, and just the pain in the ass
required to make this possible should dissuade the player, if that is
your intention.

Just My Two Pence.
The Kumquat.

Support Whirled Peas.
Message no. 28
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:10:03 -0500 (EST)
>Steven A. Tinner :
>>BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
>>Spell onto his sword? Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in
>>their campaign?
>
> You might want to play a super-hero games instead.
> Believe me. I do.

The thing is I have allowed these abilities, and it really hasn't helped.
Sure, he has plenty of abilities, but I in turn have goosed up the NPC's.
Our campaign is much high powered than most. I just wondered if anyone else
has tried these types of things?



>>>>I was a teenage mutant ninja when teenage mutant ninjas weren't
cool.<<<<
Message no. 29
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:55:58 -0500 (EST)
If he wants to try the complex anchoring trick, I say let
>him, and see if he thinks it is worth all the money and effort. The
>Grim2 details the rules on anchoring, and just the pain in the ass
>required to make this possible should dissuade the player, if that is
>your intention.

I did. He did. It's pretty ugly. He's now a grade three initiate, and his
mage blade is reaching the mythical level of the one hit kill. This boy has
more karma than God. Probably because he never buys spells at a level higher
than 3!!



>>>>I was a teenage mutant ninja when teenage mutant ninjas weren't
cool.<<<<
Message no. 30
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 18:23:20 +0000
On 13 Aug 96 at 11:03, Steven A. Tinner wrote:
> You're right on target. Currently, the most pwerful shaman on our team
> hardly ever uses his shamanic abilities.
> Instead, he has concentrated on improving his stats, adding some bioware,
> and beating the crap out of people with his mageblade.
Hm, what totem?

> BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
> Spell onto his sword? Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in
> their campaign?
Let him do the quicken, then grin demonically, and tell him the spell requires
touching the target, so he'd have to do an _additional_ second melee-attack to
touch his target... :-)
On flying: Sure, why not? Remember the magician has the ability of flying a
limited range: (Successes - [kilograms levitated/100]) * Magic Attribute in
meters. A quickened spell would therefore quite useless, and even a locked one
would have it problems (less, I agree).

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 31
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:38:59 +0100
Steven A. Tinner said on 11:03/13 Aug 96...

> BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
> Spell onto his sword?

I've never tangled with quickened or anchored spells, but to quicken it
seems a bit dumb to me. I think I'd let the sword cause the spell's damage
to *anyone* it touches. With anchoring the player could design some
combination of a Detect Sword's Impact spell and Death Touch that would
allow him to wield the sword without killing himself when he picks up the
sword. And because one of those spells doesn't exist yet, he'll have to
design it himself, taking lots of time...

> Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in their campaign?

Yes: Levitate Person.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wait a minute, Beavis, I think it's trying to tell us something.
-> 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------



--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I get a little bit nervous
-> 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------
Message no. 32
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
At 01:38 PM 8/20/96 +0100, Gurth wrote:
>Steven A. Tinner said on 11:03/13 Aug 96...

>> BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
>> Spell onto his sword?
>
>I've never tangled with quickened or anchored spells, but to quicken it
>seems a bit dumb to me.

You can't anchor Combat spells.


--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 33
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re[2]: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: 20 Aug 96 10:05:00 -0400
Comments: Authenticated sender is <gurth@******.nl>
Organization: Plastic Warriors
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10)
Errors-To: jdfalk@************.org

Steven A. Tinner said on 11:03/13 Aug 96...

> BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
> Spell onto his sword?

I've never tangled with quickened or anchored spells, but to quicken it
seems a bit dumb to me. I think I'd let the sword cause the spell's damage
to *anyone* it touches. With anchoring the player could design some
combination of a Detect Sword's Impact spell and Death Touch that would
allow him to wield the sword without killing himself when he picks up the
sword. And because one of those spells doesn't exist yet, he'll have to
design it himself, taking lots of time...

I might be mistaken here, but I believe that you cannot quicken spells
of duration instant. I understand that Death Touch's duration is not
exactly instant but it seems to me that it falls into a category of
"instant once you touch someone".

The idea of using a detect sword impact/death touch anchor combination
might be OK but I propose this: it seems resonable that you could have
a mage come up with a special enchanting ritual that you could use to
enchant a weapon(and say spend an amount of karma on the ritual up to
the max force of the spell to be used) that would allow the effect of
a touch spell to be carried through the weapon. Of course, if they
wanted to do it to someone ELSE's weapon they'd have to use the anchor
thingy....besides even if you could quicken Death Touch, why would you
want to spend the karma on a basically one shot spell?


<Zero length text item>
Message no. 34
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:25:08 -0500 (EST)
>Steven A. Tinner said on 11:03/13 Aug 96...
>
>> BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
>> Spell onto his sword?

Just so we're all on the same page here, yes, I did screw up in my original
message.
Johnny Anchored the spell, he did not quicken it - slight slip of the brain
there, sorry.
I have at least temporarily handled Johnny's Death Blade by taking it away
from him.
One of his arch enemies stole it when he was KO'd. Johnny is now sweating
getting the sword back before they send a large "Kill Johnny A Lot" ritual
thru it!!



The Way of the Hero

In each truly heroic struggle there is a time of commitment.
A time when human energies fail, yet more is required . . . and more is given.
Few are equal to that task.
Often that effort ends in failure, for victory is not always for the brave.
But where a man might falter, these ones do not, not while life and spirit
endure.
Not until the last measure is given.
To transcend the man, become the hero.
Message no. 35
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:13:20 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Ubiquitous wrote:

> At 01:38 PM 8/20/96 +0100, Gurth wrote:
> >Steven A. Tinner said on 11:03/13 Aug 96...
>
> >> BTW - how would you folks handle a shaman wanting to quicken a Death Touch
> >> Spell onto his sword?
> >
> >I've never tangled with quickened or anchored spells, but to quicken it
> >seems a bit dumb to me.
>
> You can't anchor Combat spells.

Actually, you can. It's just that they only work once. Not very
economical.

Marc
Message no. 36
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
At 01:13 PM 8/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Ubiquitous wrote:

>> You can't anchor Combat spells.
>
> Actually, you can. It's just that they only work once. Not very
>economical.

Dooh! I could have SWORN I read that somewhere... *shrug*

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 37
From: RDCX39A@*******.com (MR CHRIS R READLE)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:31:03, -0500
>> You can't anchor Combat spells.
>
> Actually, you can. It's just that they only work once. Not very
>economical.

Dooh! I could have SWORN I read that somewhere... *shrug*

What you were probably remembering is the fact that you cannot
QUICKEN combat spells. As it turns out you can abchor basically any
spell, not matter what category/duration it falls under.

chris
Message no. 38
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 01:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
At 12:31 AM 8/21/96 -0500, chris wrote:

>>Dooh! I could have SWORN I read that somewhere... *shrug*
>
> What you were probably remembering is the fact that you cannot
>QUICKEN combat spells. As it turns out you can anchor basically any
>spell, not matter what category/duration it falls under.

OK, would one determine the effect of an anchored spell at the time it goes off
with Force dice only, or is it "pre-rolled"?

You can only use a DM for non-instantaneous ones, right?

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 39
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 20:40:52 +1100
>> Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in their campaign?
>
>Yes: Levitate Person.

Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
of course). This is linear distance, not horizontal or vertical, so 30
meters up and 40 meters across is 50 meters travel. Drop one spell, you
lose any vertical lift that one got you. Which could be rather unpleasant.


--
Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 40
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:27:19 +1000 (EST)
Robert Watkins writes:

> Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
> spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
> go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
> of course).

Huhn? Levitate spells allow you to move a certain number of meters per
action, and are sustained. There is no limit to the distance you can move
with them. Unless that is also part of your house rules.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a20 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. 41
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 17:23:50 +0000
On 21 Aug 96 at 20:40, Robert Watkins wrote:
> >> Also has anyone allowed a spell that imparts flight in their campaign?
> >Yes: Levitate Person.
> Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
> spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
> go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
> of course). This is linear distance, not horizontal or vertical, so 30
> meters up and 40 meters across is 50 meters travel. Drop one spell, you
> lose any vertical lift that one got you. Which could be rather unpleasant.
Who but a crazed out Eagle shaman would _want_ to fly 100 metres or more up?
What for?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 42
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:15:48 -0500 (EST)
>Who but a crazed out Eagle shaman would _want_ to fly 100 metres or more up?
>What for?

A crazed Coyote Shaman - to reach things he wanted. Johnny 99 has a bit of
the kleptomaniac in him. If there's something in a penthouse apartment he
wants, he gets it.
He also uses flight as an interrogation tool. People are much more
cooperative suspended 100 meters off the tarmac!



The Way of the Hero

In each truly heroic struggle there is a time of commitment.
A time when human energies fail, yet more is required . . . and more is given.
Few are equal to that task.
Often that effort ends in failure, for victory is not always for the brave.
But where a man might falter, these ones do not, not while life and spirit
endure.
Not until the last measure is given.
To transcend the man, become the hero.
Message no. 43
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:21:00 -0400 (EDT)
At 12:27 AM 8/22/96 +1000, you wrote:
>Robert Watkins writes:

>> Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
>> spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
>> go another 100 meters up (assuming 100 meters was the max you managed,
>> of course).
>
>Huh? Levitate spells allow you to move a certain number of meters per
>action, and are sustained. There is no limit to the distance you can move
>with them. Unless that is also part of your house rules.

The description is vague enough that either interpolations can be used.

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 44
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re[2]: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: 21 Aug 96 11:15:00 -0400
Robert Watkins writes:

> Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
> spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
> go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
> of course).

Huhn? Levitate spells allow you to move a certain number of meters per
action, and are sustained. There is no limit to the distance you can move
with them. Unless that is also part of your house rules.

Actually, the levitate spells in shadowrun ARE limited in the amount
of distance that you can move UPWARDS. Other than that what you have said
is correct. One problem that I see with using a SECOND levitate spell to
boost you over the limit of the first is that in the spell description it
stats that the maximum altitude is the magicians Magic attribute in meters
above the ground. Of course, it should be possible to create a spell to
get around this but the drain will be ALOT higher, IMHO.

chris
Message no. 45
From: readle.cr@**.com
Subject: Re[2]: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: 21 Aug 96 14:16:00 -0400
A crazed Coyote Shaman - to reach things he wanted. Johnny 99 has a bit of
the kleptomaniac in him. If there's something in a penthouse apartment he
wants, he gets it.
He also uses flight as an interrogation tool. People are much more
cooperative suspended 100 meters off the tarmac!


What is this dude's magic attribute? If I'm not mistaken your magic
attribute in meters is the height limit on levitate person.

chris

<Zero length text item>
Message no. 46
From: bluewizard@*****.com (Steven A. Tinner)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:21:06 -0500 (EST)
> What is this dude's magic attribute? If I'm not mistaken your magic
> attribute in meters is the height limit on levitate person.

He's not using levitate person.
He designed his own spell called True Flight.
His Magic Attribute is approximately a 15 (6 to start, +3 initiation, +4
Mageblade, +2 powerfocus)
He has quickened the spell on him so that when he needs to he can fly. I
don't have the exact stats on the spell, but I'll try to find them.



The Way of the Hero

In each truly heroic struggle there is a time of commitment.
A time when human energies fail, yet more is required . . . and more is given.
Few are equal to that task.
Often that effort ends in failure, for victory is not always for the brave.
But where a man might falter, these ones do not, not while life and spirit
endure.
Not until the last measure is given.
To transcend the man, become the hero.
Message no. 47
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:27:10 GMT
readle writes

> Huhn? Levitate spells allow you to move a certain number of meters per
> action, and are sustained. There is no limit to the distance you can move
> with them. Unless that is also part of your house rules.
>
> Actually, the levitate spells in shadowrun ARE limited in the amount
> of distance that you can move UPWARDS.
no. as written FASA simply specify a distance per complex action.
It seems a lot of people interpret them differently but at least by
my reading of the rules you can effectively 'fly', the altitude
limits in the 10's of miles (you cannot fly into space due to drop
off in mana and the fac there's a HUGE barrier in the way [gets
complex]) horizontal limit is concentration based.
Your local GM might limit altitude and or total distance however.
Note i have seen an NPC manage 150 odd meters in a complex without a
spirt doing movement power. (no he wasn't an elf)

> Other than that what you have said
> is correct. One problem that I see with using a SECOND levitate spell to
> boost you over the limit of the first is that in the spell description it
> stats that the maximum altitude is the magicians Magic attribute in meters
> above the ground. Of course, it should be possible to create a spell to
> get around this but the drain will be ALOT higher, IMHO.
>
> chris
>

Mark
Message no. 48
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:45:57 +0100
Damion Milliken said on 0:27/22 Aug 96...

> > Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
> > spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
> > go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
> > of course).
>
> Huhn? Levitate spells allow you to move a certain number of meters per
> action, and are sustained. There is no limit to the distance you can move
> with them. Unless that is also part of your house rules.

That's the way I have always handled Levitate spells as well; Robert's
method reminds me of Earthdawn's levitation spell (can't remember the name
right now) which has a certain range, and if you want to go beyond that
you have to recast it.

Come to think of it, wasn't it TGC who'd created some sort of Fly spell
because Levitate in his campaign worked the way Robert described here?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
See the amazing tourist-eating dolphins!
-> 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------
Message no. 49
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:15:49 +1100
>> Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
>> spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
>> go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
>> of course). This is linear distance, not horizontal or vertical, so 30
>> meters up and 40 meters across is 50 meters travel. Drop one spell, you
>> lose any vertical lift that one got you. Which could be rather unpleasant.
>Who but a crazed out Eagle shaman would _want_ to fly 100 metres or more up?
>What for?

Scenario: You want to use levitate to get down a 500 meter high cliff...
in my books, that means you need enough levitate success to "move" (or in
this case, prevent moving) 500 meters up/down. Otherwise you'll fall the
difference, which means you'll, say, fall 300 meters, then levitate the
remaining 200, assuming the shock of stopping so quickly doesn't make you
drop the spell (I rule half-normal falling damage in this case).

Don't want to scale 500 meter cliffs? What about 500 meter high
sky-scrapers?
(And how did you know that it was a crazed Eagle shaman who first tried
this stunt on me?)


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 50
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:15:37 +1100
> What you were probably remembering is the fact that you cannot
>QUICKEN combat spells. As it turns out you can abchor basically any
>spell, not matter what category/duration it falls under.

Not necessarily true... the restriction is that you can only Quicken
sustained spells. Now, all Combat spells are Instant, but a Sustained
combat spell _could_ be quickened. Not much point, though... if it's any
good as a Combat spell, the target will be dead too quickly to make it
worthwhile.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 51
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:36:48 +1100
>The description is vague enough that either interpolations can be used.

Okay, I'm going to say it a third time in rapid succession (Hmm... "What
I tell you three times is true", perhaps?)

It says CLEARLY that the _maximum_ distance is Magic x Successes, and
that you can move that distance in one action phase. But that's it. It
does NOT say you can then move that distance again (except to go back to
the start point). You can't go 24 meters thataway, then another 24 meters
that same way if you've only got 24 meters of movement.


--
Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 52
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:37:10 +1100
> Actually, the levitate spells in shadowrun ARE limited in the amount
>of distance that you can move UPWARDS. Other than that what you have said
>is correct. One problem that I see with using a SECOND levitate spell to
>boost you over the limit of the first is that in the spell description it
>stats that the maximum altitude is the magicians Magic attribute in meters
>above the ground. Of course, it should be possible to create a spell to
>get around this but the drain will be ALOT higher, IMHO.

You're wrong too... it's total distance, horizontal AND vertical. And it
doesn't mention the maximum altitude at all. It clearly says it's the
distance from the START point. Under standard SR rules, you could use it
as a step-ladder effect, I guess, but I don't like that ruling. (IMHO,
you have to be able to "stand" at your start point at all times during
the duration of the spell. So you need enough levitate spells sustained
to keep your height-above-ground)


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 53
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:37:23 +1100
>> Yours might... As an example of how I work it, say you use a levitate
>> spell to go up 100 meters. You then have to use another levitate spell to
>> go another 100 meters up (assumming 100 meters was the max you managed,
>> of course).
>
>Huhn? Levitate spells allow you to move a certain number of meters per
>action, and are sustained. There is no limit to the distance you can move
>with them. Unless that is also part of your house rules.

No... Telekinetic manipulations let you move up to a _maximum_ distance
of (Magic x Num. Successes) meters. This distance can be vertical,
horizontal, looped, whatever. According to strict rules, the distance
travelled is the sum of the horizontal and vertical components (not the
actual linear distance... guess using trig does complicate things a bit).
All movement is figured from the starting point. The TN is 4 + 1 for
every 100 kilograms of inert mass, or 2 body points of living mass. And
(finally, and this is the bit that causes the confusion), "Objects can
move the full 'distance' within one Action Phase".

Nowhere, REPEAT, nowhere does it say you can do that EVERY action. The
levitate spell gives you a sphere (alright, step-pyramid) you can move
in, but you can't leave that pyramid under the influence of that levitate
spell. It quite clearly says that the range you get from (Magic x
Successes) is the maximum distance you can move.

All the sustained bit means is that you can "hold" your position. Yes, I
do play it a bit differently. I play that it's linear distance, not
distance from a starting point, and that it is cumulative. I also let the
"start" position be moved to allow stunts like the levitate down cliffs a
bit I mentioned a bit back. Oh, finally I say that you go from Pos A to
Pos B, and you have 0 velocity at each part, AND that Pos B has to be in
sight. So no bouncing people from wall to wall, it doesn't work in my
game.

--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robertdw@*******.com.au *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 54
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:39:08 +1100
>Come to think of it, wasn't it TGC who'd created some sort of Fly spell
>because Levitate in his campaign worked the way Robert described here?

Yeah... as I recall, the list argued about it for a few weeks back in
'94, and the only real result was you slapped the Fly spell into "Plastic
Warriors". (Mind you, I don't like the Fly spell, either)


--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robertdw@*******.com.au *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 55
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 10:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
At 11:36 PM 8/22/96 +1100, Robert wrote:

>>The description is vague enough that either interpolations can be used.
>
>It says CLEARLY that the _maximum_ distance is Magic x Successes, and
>that you can move that distance in one action phase.

Which can be interpretted as the speed.

>But that's it. It does NOT say you can then move that distance again
(except to
>go back to the start point). You can't go 24 meters thataway, then another 24
>meters that same way if you've only got 24 meters of movement.

It doesn't say you can move a TOTAL of 24 meters, it says 24 meters per
action phase.

--
"I dyde shyte thre grete toordes." Fables of Aesop,
Caxton translation,
V15 1484
Message no. 56
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:54:58 +0000
On 22 Aug 96 at 10:06, Ubiquitous wrote:
> At 11:36 PM 8/22/96 +1100, Robert wrote:
[distance]
> >It says CLEARLY that the _maximum_ distance is Magic x Successes, and
> >that you can move that distance in one action phase.
> Which can be interpretted as the speed.
??? No, as "maximum distance". Just that.

> >But that's it. It does NOT say you can then move that distance again
> > (except to
> >go back to the start point). You can't go 24 meters thataway, then another 24
> >meters that same way if you've only got 24 meters of movement.
> It doesn't say you can move a TOTAL of 24 meters, it says 24 meters per
> action phase.
Get your copy of SRII, turn to page 157, find the "Telekinetic Manipulations"
Header, and see 2nd and 3rd sentence, please. Then the last sentence of 1st
paragraph. Please!

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 57
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:54:58 +0000
On 22 Aug 96 at 23:15, Robert Watkins wrote:
[Flying]
> >Who but a crazed out Eagle shaman would _want_ to fly 100 metres or more up?
> >What for?

> Scenario: You want to use levitate to get down a 500 meter high cliff...
> in my books, that means you need enough levitate success to "move" (or in
> this case, prevent moving) 500 meters up/down. Otherwise you'll fall the
> difference, which means you'll, say, fall 300 meters, then levitate the
> remaining 200, assuming the shock of stopping so quickly doesn't make you
> drop the spell (I rule half-normal falling damage in this case).
Your house rule makes sense, but the numbers are shocking for me. By the Book
(SRII, p.157) "The maximum 'distance' that the target can be moved in meters
is the magician's Magic Rating times the number of successes."
When you talk about distances of 200 to 500 metres... *gulp*

> Don't want to scale 500 meter cliffs? What about 500 meter high
> sky-scrapers?
> (And how did you know that it was a crazed Eagle shaman who first tried
> this stunt on me?)
First of all, only a crazed out Eagle Shaman could even *imagine* flying that
high (Wolf Shaman covering to ground). Second, Eagle was the first "air-borne"
Totem that came to my mind.
And Third (to answer th first question) I wouldn't use Levitate (see reasons
above, _my_ character has a Magic Rating of just 7) but Shapechange into a big
bird (like an Eagle :-), then grab equipment and just fly down (or up). Better
to be _sure_ one has enough successes (one is needed) then to jump and pray!

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 58
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 18:10:32 +1100
>>But that's it. It does NOT say you can then move that distance again
>(except to
>>go back to the start point). You can't go 24 meters thataway, then another
24
>>meters that same way if you've only got 24 meters of movement.
>
>It doesn't say you can move a TOTAL of 24 meters, it says 24 meters per
>action phase.

No... It says (in paragraph one) that you can move a MAXIMUM of (Magic *
Successes) meters away from your starting point. In paragraph 3 or 4, it
says you can move to that distance in one phase.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 59
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Deckers as Riggers?
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:59:44 +0100
Robert Watkins said on 23:39/22 Aug 96...

> >Come to think of it, wasn't it TGC who'd created some sort of Fly spell
> >because Levitate in his campaign worked the way Robert described here?
>
> Yeah... as I recall, the list argued about it for a few weeks back in
> '94, and the only real result was you slapped the Fly spell into "Plastic
> Warriors". (Mind you, I don't like the Fly spell, either)

You're right... Now I have to find the book it's in. Ah yes, Project 3 has
a spell called Gravity Restriction, that does the following:

The Gravity Restriction spell restricts gravity while propelling yourself
by telekinetic control. The spell's speed is Force + number of successes
generated in meters. Even if locked or sustained by an elemental, the
spell imparts a +1 target number to the user because it requires constant
telekinetic control. The Personal version of this spell has a Drain Code of
[(F/2)+2]S.

Type: Physical Range: Self Target: 4
Duration: Sustained Drain: [(F/2)+8]D


I don't much like it either, for two reasons: 1) I see Levitate as not
having a maximum movement distance, so this spell isn't necessary IMO,
and 2) I think the Drain Code is just WAY too high.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
No drinking before marriage!
-> 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------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Deckers as Riggers?, 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!