Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 00:30:36 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> You said it yourself, Damion... the actual act of locking the spell (or
> quickening/anchoring it) is a magical activity. And you can't perform any
> other magical activity when sustaining/casting an Exclusive spell except
> for the spell itself.
>
> Therefore... you can't lock/anchor/quicken an Exclusive spell.

Locking a spell requires using a spell lock. A spell lock is a type of
focus. Using a focus does not require a magician to use a magical skill, nor
is it considered a spell. Therefore it does not conflict with the
requirments of exclusive spells. By your reasoning a magician could not cast
exclusive spells if his power focus was active. This is not so. You can
lock/anchor/quicken an exclusive spell, because none of these activites
require magical skills (ie Sorcery, Conjuring, Enchanting), nor are they in
themselves considered another spell. The sure do require magical abilities
on the part of the magician, but none of them qualify as "skills" or
"spells".

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 00:22:29 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> Locking a spell requires using a spell lock. A spell lock is a type of
> focus. Using a focus does not require a magician to use a magical skill, nor
> is it considered a spell. Therefore it does not conflict with the
> requirments of exclusive spells. By your reasoning a magician could not cast
> exclusive spells if his power focus was active. This is not so. You can
> lock/anchor/quicken an exclusive spell, because none of these activites
> require magical skills (ie Sorcery, Conjuring, Enchanting), nor are they in
> themselves considered another spell. The sure do require magical abilities
> on the part of the magician, but none of them qualify as "skills" or
> "spells".

Ah, I think I've hit the crucial difference...
Locking a spell lock, to me, is not _using_ a spell lock. It is _binding_ a
spell lock. This is a magical activity, for sure, as mundanes can't do it.

Using a spell lock is merely the process of having it active.

The definition that was quoted (I'm way too tired to go home and look it
up again) said you couldn't sustain/cast an exclusive spell and engage in
any other magical _activity_, not a magical skill.

And yes, by reasoning, I couldn't bind my power focus and sustain an
exclusive spell at the same time.

Does this clear everything up?

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.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.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 3
From: Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 12:07:27 -0400
Damion Writes:
>
> Robert Watkins writes:
>
> > You said it yourself, Damion... the actual act of locking the spell (or
> > quickening/anchoring it) is a magical activity. And you can't perform any
> > other magical activity when sustaining/casting an Exclusive spell except
> > for the spell itself.
> >
> > Therefore... you can't lock/anchor/quicken an Exclusive spell.
>
[stuff about locking exclusive spells]
> exclusive spells if his power focus was active. This is not so. You can
> lock/anchor/quicken an exclusive spell, because none of these activites
> require magical skills (ie Sorcery, Conjuring, Enchanting), nor are they in

Isn't quickening an exclusive act? Coulda sworn it was.


Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt2778a
Internet: gt2778a@*****.gatech.edu
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 01:53:17 +0930
Matt Hufstetler wrote:
> Isn't quickening an exclusive act? Coulda sworn it was.

It can't be... you need to sustain the spell you are quickening.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.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.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 5
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 15:44:37 GMT
Damion Milliken writes

> Robert Watkins writes:
>
> > You said it yourself, Damion... the actual act of locking the spell (or
> > quickening/anchoring it) is a magical activity. And you can't perform any
> > other magical activity when sustaining/casting an Exclusive spell except
> > for the spell itself.
> >
> > Therefore... you can't lock/anchor/quicken an Exclusive spell.
>
> Locking a spell requires using a spell lock. A spell lock is a type of
> focus. Using a focus does not require a magician to use a magical skill, nor
> is it considered a spell. Therefore it does not conflict with the
> requirments of exclusive spells. By your reasoning a magician could not cast
> exclusive spells if his power focus was active. This is not so. You can
> lock/anchor/quicken an exclusive spell, because none of these activites
> require magical skills (ie Sorcery, Conjuring, Enchanting), nor are they in
> themselves considered another spell. The sure do require magical abilities
> on the part of the magician, but none of them qualify as "skills" or
> "spells".
>
I would agree with your reasoning but don't agree that you can lock
exclusive spells, but for a totally different reason.
You don't get the +2 sustaining spell modifier for a locked spell on
you, hance you don't count as sustaining the thing. Therefore
something else must be, namely the Astral plane. Now assuming that
exculsive means what it says then the astral plane can no more
sustain more than 1 spell if it's exclusive than a mage can (as how
magic works for you is determined by your world view - see notes on
Harlequins lack of stats/how his magic works(lack of comments) in
Harlequins back). Therefore as you are not the only soul to have
sustained as in locked spells you cannot lock exclusive ones.

Comments?

> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
Mark
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 11:45:08 -0400
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
writes:

Mark> I would agree with your reasoning but don't agree that you can lock
Mark> exclusive spells, but for a totally different reason. You don't get
Mark> the +2 sustaining spell modifier for a locked spell on you, hance you
Mark> don't count as sustaining the thing. Therefore something else must
Mark> be, namely the Astral plane.

When you cast a spell in the physical world, you open a channel between
astral space and the physical world. When a spell is sustained by any
means, this channel remains, and can be targeted, and, based on my
interpretations of the rulebook and the DLoH's comments, attacked and
grounded through as the conduit fulfills the definition of "dual-natured"
(having a presence on both the astral and physical planes).

A spell lock or a quickening or an anchoring is merely a subset of
sustained spell. Instead of the mage actively maintaining the energy
conduit to keep the spell empowered, it's the spell lock focus, or the
quickening or anchoring that does so. Regardless, for these three
categories of sustained spells are *not* actively maintained by the casting
mage; thus he does not suffer the penalties due to actively sustaining a
spell.

Based on that line of reasoning, a spell lock, a quickening, or an
anchoring does not count against a mage for determining exclusivity.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 7
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Exclusive spells and foci
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 15:37:20 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> Ah, I think I've hit the crucial difference...
> Locking a spell lock, to me, is not _using_ a spell lock. It is _binding_ a
> spell lock. This is a magical activity, for sure, as mundanes can't do it.

Yeah, Ok, there is a difference between binding and using a lock, but it
does not matter, see below.

> The definition that was quoted (I'm way too tired to go home and look it
> up again) said you couldn't sustain/cast an exclusive spell and engage in
> any other magical _activity_, not a magical skill.

The definition I quoted said "When sustaining an exclusive spell, the
magician cannot cast any other spell or use another magical skill." page 133
SRII.

> And yes, by reasoning, I couldn't bind my power focus and sustain an
> exclusive spell at the same time.
>
> Does this clear everything up?

Yep, it means that one _can_ bind an exclsuive spell to a spell lock,
because it is neither casting a spell, nor using a magical skill.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Exclusive spells and foci, 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!